[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE OFFICE FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS
FIRST RESPONDER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
of the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
before the
SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 28, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-46
__________
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Homeland Security
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
21-023 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�0900012005
SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Christopher Cox, California, Chairman
Jennifer Dunn, Washington Jim Turner, Texas, Ranking Member
C.W. Bill Young, Florida Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Don Young, Alaska Loretta Sanchez, California
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Wisconsin Norman D. Dicks, Washington
David Dreier, California Barney Frank, Massachusetts
Duncan Hunter, California Jane Harman, California
Harold Rogers, Kentucky Benjamin L. Cardin, Maryland
Sherwood Boehlert, New York Louise McIntosh Slaughter, New
Lamar S. Smith, Texas York
Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Christopher Shays, Connecticut Nita M. Lowey, New York
Porter J. Goss, Florida Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Dave Camp, Michigan Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Florida Columbia
Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Zoe Lofgren, California
Ernest J. Istook, Jr., Oklahoma Karen McCarthy, Missouri
Peter T. King, New York Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas
John Linder, Georgia Bill Pascrell, Jr., North Carolina
John B. Shadegg, Arizona Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Islands
Mac Thornberry, Texas Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Ken Lucas, Kentucky
Kay Granger, Texas James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
Pete Sessions, Texas Kendrick B. Meek, Florida
John E. Sweeney, New York Ben Chandler, Kentucky
John Gannon, Chief of Staff
Stephen DeVine, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
Thomas Dilenge, Chief Counsel and Policy Director
David H. Schanzer, Democrat Staff Director
Mark T. Magee, Democrat Deputy Staff Director
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
______
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness and Response
John Shadegg, Arizona, Chairman
Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania, Vice Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Chairman Jane Harman, California
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Benjamin L. Cardin, Maryland
Christopher Shays, Connecticut Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Dave Camp, Michigan Nita M. Lowey, New York
Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Florida Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Peter King, New York Columbia
Mark Souder, Indiana Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
Mac Thornberry, Texas Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Islands
Kay Granger, Texas Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
Pete Sessions, Texas Ken Lucas, Kentucky
Christopher Cox, California, Ex Jim Turner, Texas, Ex Officio
Officio
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable John Shadegg, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness and Response...................................... 1
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Emergency Preparedness and Response......................... 3
The Honorable Christopher Cox, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California, and Chairman, Select Committee on
Homeland Security.............................................. 4
The Honorable Jim Turner, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Texas, Ranking Member, Select Committee on Homeland
Security....................................................... 6
The Honorable Donna M. Christensen, a Delegate in Congress From
the U.S. Virgin Islands........................................ 30
The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Oregon............................................ 24
The Honorable Jennifer Dunn, a Representative in Congress From
the State Washington........................................... 31
The Honorable Bob Etheridge, a Representative in Congress From
the State of North Carolina.................................... 34
The Honorable Peter T. King, a Representative in Congress From
the State of New York.......................................... 28
The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr., a Representative in Congress
From the State of New Jersey................................... 38
The Honorable Curt Weldon, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Pennsylvania.......................................... 36
WITNESSES
The Honorable C. Suzanne Mencer, Director Preparednsess,
Department of Homeland Security
Oral Statement................................................. 8
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
Mr. Dennis R. Schrader, Director, Governor's Office of Homeland
Scurity, State of Maryland
Oral Statement................................................. 17
Prepared Statement............................................. 19
APPENDIX
Questions for the Record
The Honorable C. Suzanne Mencer Responses:
Questions From the Honorable Christopher Cox................... 50
Questions From the Honorable John Shadegg...................... 43
Questions From the Honorable Bennie G. Thompson................ 56
Questions From the Honorable Curt Weldon....................... 44
HEARING ON THE OFFICE FOR DOMESTIC
PREPAREDNESS FIRST RESPONDER
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
----------
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness
and Response,
Select Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in
Room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shadegg
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Shadegg, Weldon, Camp, Diaz-
Balart, King, Dunn, Cox, Thompson, DeFazio, Norton, Pascrell,
Christensen, Etheridge, Lucas, Turner, and Souder.
Mr. Shadegg. [Presiding.] Good morning. The committee will
come to order. And I will begin by asking unanimous consent
that the opening statements be limited to those of the chairman
and ranking members of the subcommittee and of the full
committee.
Without objection, so ordered.
Today's hearing continues our ongoing effort at first
responder funding. That issue is extremely important to the
American people.
And I would begin by noting that yesterday we released this
report. And I want to begin by thanking my own personal staff,
as well as the committee staff, for its thorough examination of
this issue, which is of primary concern to the American people
with regard to the work of the Department of Homeland Security
and our efforts to support first homeland responders all over
the country.
As a result of the tragic events of September 11, 2001,
Congress responded by appropriating over $6 billion in funding
for first responders through the State Homeland Security Grant
Program and the Urban Areas Security Initiative. By comparison,
the 2001 funding for these kinds of activities was roughly $121
million.
That is the equivalent of moving from a drip out of a
faucet to a blast from a fire hose. In spending terms, it is an
increase of over 2,000 percent.
Right or wrong, this funding has become the most tangible
measuring stick for Congress when discussing progress on
homeland security. That being the case, we need to figure out
how and where this money is being used and to make sure that it
is indeed the appropriate evaluation of whether our homeland is
secure because we may commit an additional $2.5 billion this
year in this current budget cycle without knowing what the
previous money has gotten us--in essence, to figure out where
we have been, so that we know where to go.
Toward that end, the Select Committee staff, under the
direction of Chairman Cox, and this subcommittee has examined
where those funds have gone and produced the report that I just
showed you. What we learned is that while much of the homeland
security grant money and urban area grant money has been
allocated--meaning that they have been directed to the
counties, cities and towns--very little money has actually been
drawn down or spent.
Let us take, for example, fiscal year 2003. In fiscal year
2003, Congress had a regular and supplemental appropriation for
homeland security totaling over $2.6 billion.
As of last week, only $246 million of that money had been
spent or roughly 15 percent. That is a pretty amazing number.
To the extent, however, that cities are taking their time
to figure out what to purchase and how to spend this money and
to ensure that it enhances the protection of critical assets
and the public at large, that is not a bad thing. It means they
are doing their jobs thoughtfully and carefully.
And we have heard that that is one of the reasons for the
delay in spending the money; that is, that is that they are
going slowly at the actual spending level. But to the extent
that this delay is because of bureaucracy within the city
councils or county boards or at the state level or is a result
of bureaucracy within the Department of Homeland Security, not
only am I concerned, but we should all be concerned.
I also continue to be concerned about misappropriation of
homeland security funding. Anecdotes from public officials in
our report--again, the report I just showed you--like the one
from the State of Washington noting that ``specialized
equipment will go to waste, sitting on a shelf collecting dust,
because we are not in a high-threat area,'' are very
disturbing.
And they point out the important work of this subcommittee
and the full committee in moving toward a risk-based allocation
of funds. There is plenty of blame to go around. But I hope we
are not in the blame business.
I hope we are in the business of looking forward to improve
upon the system to better protect the people of America.
Congress is responsible for coming up with a grant formula that
does not take into account risk, nor does it provide guidance
to the states as to what the appropriate level of preparedness
is.
We are fixing that through the legislation we have passed
through this subcommittee, the Faster and Smarter Funding for
First Responders Act. In addition, ODP can do a better job.
It is new to the scene, in terms of being responsible for
our nation's preparedness for terrorism. And one could argue
that FEMA has vastly more experience in emergency management,
which now seems to be devoted solely to natural disasters.
Nevertheless, decisonmaking can be improved. And
communication and guidance can be more crisp.
I will not go into the computer glitches which we have
experienced. But I believe that problem has been corrected.
States and counties all need to do a better job in terms of
planning and coordinating and ensuring that these essential
funds are spent appropriately and quickly to best enhance the
security of our nation. I have been astounded by the confusion
and misinformation as to how the homeland security grant
process works and why the money has not been spent.
My hope is that, through our committee report and through
the testimony we will receive today from our witnesses, we can
clear the air and focus on the actual problems facing us as we
go forward.
I appreciate the presence of our witnesses. And I would now
like to call on the ranking member of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Mercer,
welcome and thank you for appearing before the subcommittee
today to provide details on your budget request for fiscal year
2005.
As you are aware, the full Select Committee recently passed
legislation that would significantly reform the Terrorism
Preparedness Grant Program administered by your office. We
passed this legislation because we believe that our current
system for funding first responders does not work.
We spend an arbitrary amount of money each year. These
funds are not distributed where they are needed the most. And
they have no idea whether we are building an effective
nationwide capability to respond to acts of terror.
And unfortunately, your budget proposal for 2005 simply
continues the broken practices of the past. Once again, your
budget is not based on any true assessment of the preparedness
needs of our states, cities and rural communities.
Once again, your budget seeks to limit the use of fire
grant funds to programs related to terrorism preparedness. And
once again, you ignore the most critical need of our emergency
management community by severely limiting the amount of
emergency management performance grant funds that can be used
for personnel.
Most disturbing, however, is the fact that your budget cuts
first responder grant programs by almost $700 million. If DHS
has no way of measuring the nation's progress toward closing
the security gaps, either as a whole or by a state by state
basis, then what is your basis for the proposed reduction?
We cannot fight and win the war on terrorism if our first
responders lack the equipment, training and planning that they
need to ensure the safety of their communities. Let me
highlight some examples from the President's budget that
demonstrate the misguided approach of this administration.
First, the budget reduces the Emergency Management
Performance Grant Program by $10 million from the fiscal year
2004 level. In addition, the administration proposes that only
25 percent of these grant funds will be available to support
state and local emergency management personnel salaries.
This program is the principal source of funding for state
and local emergency management agencies, your partners in all
hazardous preparedness. A March 2002 survey by the National
Emergency Management Association found that an additional 5,212
local emergency management positions are needed, with 3,960 of
those positions being full-time directors needed to manage the
program.
How do you propose to respond to and recover from major
disasters or even conduct additional training and exercise when
your budget will eliminate many of your state and local
partners?
I have a number of other questions that I will go, but I
want you to listen to a couple of the others I have for you.
How does the administration expect the fire community to
prepare for and respond to terrorism when it is abundantly
clear that many fire departments lack the training and
equipment to respond to even the most basic emergency
situation?
How does the administration expect our communities to
prepare for and respond to acts of terrorism when they cannot
even afford to pay for a full-time emergency manager?
And I want you to think about rural areas as you deal with
the answers. Some of us represent significant rural areas. And
there is a real concern being voiced by our constituents that
they are being left out.
So I look forward to your testimony. Thank you.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank the gentleman.
The chair would now recognize the chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Cox, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome our
witnesses today and thank you very much for the hard work that
you are doing on the important mission of preparing us for what
might happen in our future that has already happened to us in
our past.
I want to thank Chairman Shadegg and all the members of
this subcommittee for the leadership that each of you has shown
in helping this vital community of first responders build new
capabilities.
Our objective, on behalf of the American people, is to
bring about a fundamental change in the way that we allocate
first responder monies to fight the war on terrorism. The
commitment by President Bush and the
Congress to our first responders is unshakably strong and
will remain so.
We have increased funding to assist first responder
terrorism preparedness by an astounding 2,000 percent since
2001. The federal government-wide commitment has totaled over
$28 billion since 2001.
That includes the President's Fiscal Year 2005 budget. And
the Department of Homeland Security and its predecessor
agencies have committed almost $14.6 billion since 2001.
Our concerns--and I believe the department's as well--are
that federal dollars appropriated by Congress and granted by
DHS are nonetheless not reaching our local first responders
quickly enough. In fact, of $6.3 billion granted since 2001,
roughly $5.2 billion in DHS grant money remains in the
administrative pipeline, waiting to be used by first
responders.
A separate distinct problem is that federal dollars are not
necessarily going to those first responders who need it the
most and not nearly often enough are the allocations based upon
risk. Over the past several months, as the chairman and ranking
member have mentioned, committee staff obtained and examined
grant allocation expenditure data from ODP and from all 50
states for the largest ODP first responder terrorism grant
programs in 2003.
State formula grants in 2003 were a little over $2 billion.
The high-threat, urban area grants were $596 million.
What we found is that ODP has done a good job of obligating
the grant funds quickly. In 2003, ODP announced awards to
states within 15 days of enactment of its appropriations. And
it sent out obligation letters within 3 months.
Our concerns at the federal level, therefore, are
essentially the basis for allocating these monies; that the
basis is not, with some exceptions, risk or need. Rather, these
dollars are being allocated in accordance with a
congressionally mandated, arbitrary political formula that,
among other things, gave every political jurisdiction in
America with two senators a minimum of $17.5 million in fiscal
year 2003.
To your credit, you, Secretary Ridge and President Bush
have requested this formula be changed. In both the fiscal year
2005 budget request and through your testimony here today, you
have asked that the secretary be provided increased
flexibility. And it has been the Homeland Security Department's
longstanding position that the Patriot Act formula, of which I
have just complained, be changed.
H.R. 3266, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First
Responders Act, which passed this committee unanimously last
month, gives the secretary a clear mandate to prioritize risk
in the grant distribution process and to make sure that there
are clear and measurable federal preparedness goals.
It will ensure that we have minimum essential capabilities
established to guide communities, as Mr. Thompson has
explained, so that as we use our funds, we know what we are
building. H.R. 3266 continues a theme that has been the focus
of this committee since its inception: we must strengthen DHS'
information analysis and risk assessment efforts. And we must
use this information to allocate our resources more
effectively.
We also must do a better job of sharing this threat and
vulnerability information with state and local officials so
that they too can do a better job in allocating these
resources. Our staff analysis found that almost one-third of
the states simply followed the flawed federal model when
distributing fiscal year 2003 ODP grant funds to their
localities, resulting in more than $600 million being
distributed, regardless of risk or need, in that one year
alone.
And most of the States that considered some elements of
risk or need did not do so in any standard or significant way.
By improving the flow of threat and risk-based information to
our first responders, we will materially improve their ability
to prevent, prepare for and respond to a terrorist attack.
By setting clear federal preparedness goals, we will begin
to build measurable and sustainable capabilities. Our
investment in the first responder community must be strategic.
And our priorities must be guided by a comprehensive threat
assessment.
The time is now to develop and implement a clear national
strategy for homeland security that will allow us to stop
wasteful and unfocused spending and to permit the measurement
of progress toward concrete goals that truly make this country
safer. H.R. 3266 will help get us there.
And I hope that this bill will be brought to the floor of
the House for a vote soon. We expect that will be in either
June or July because there are time-limited referrals to other
committees that expire on June 7.
I also hope that, under Ms. Mencer's inspired leadership,
ODP will not wait for such legislation, but will move to adopt
administratively, to the fullest extent legally possible, the
reforms that this committee has been calling for.
I look forward to hearing from our state partners and from
the department on their ongoing efforts to effectively manage
the grant funding process. The committee and the American
people are grateful for the work that each of you does to
support the men and women on the front lines of our war on
terrorism.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman.
The chair would now recognize the ranking member of the
full committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Turner, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Mencer and Mr. Schrader, thank you for being here
with us today. As you can tell, we have numerous concerns about
the operation of the grant programs, and how they relate to our
states and local governments.
As the chairman mentioned, we have legislation that we
believe will improve that process. But frankly, we also believe
that the department could do much on its own to move these
suggestions forward.
We know our current system of funding first responders does
not work. One reason that we describe in our legislation is
that we do not have any determination as to what the essential
capabilities for terrorism preparedness should be.
We have no basis for determining these capabilities because
we do not have a clear national assessment of threat and
vulnerability to know what level of preparedness, what kind of
training, what kind of equipment should really be purchased.
So we are very concerned that we need to move forward much
quicker than we have been in trying to build an effective
nationwide capability. We have proposed, in our legislation,
that these changes be made. And as I said, I think it is
important for the department to heed those suggestions in
advance of the passage of the bill.
It is frustrating to many of us to see that we are spending
millions of dollars and yet we are not sure whether those
dollars are being spent building the right capabilities and
infrastructure. In testimony earlier this year, Secretary Ridge
made a comment that the department was having difficulty moving
funds through the pipeline, and that this fact justified
cutting back on funding for our first responders.
And as Ranking Member Thompson suggested, that is a concern
that many of us have, that you have cut back on the funding in
the budget request that you have submitted. We do not believe
it is justified.
We believe the needs out there are great. But we do believe
that the money needs to be spent much more wisely and much
smarter.
I would also like to express some concern in the
President's budget request on some other issues. There is
obviously a continuing problem out there in achieving
communications interoperability.
The department's statement of requirements, which was
announced Monday, is a critical first step. But clearly, it is
only a beginning, and not the end of the process.
It comes 8 years after the final report of the Public
Safety Wireless Advisory Committee and 2 years after the
initiation of Project SAFECOM. I look forward to hearing how
ODP is incorporating the guidance from Project SAFECOM into its
grant programs, as well as receiving explanation as to why the
administration has requested no funds for interoperability
grants in fiscal year 2005, either within DHS or in any other
federal agency.
Additionally, the administration's budget request is
unclear on how other programs, some of which are new to ODP,
will be administered. The budget includes $46 million for port
security grants, which is about $500 million short of what the
Coast Guard says they need for initial security improvements at
our ports.
Our country's commercial transportation systems, such as
commuter rail, clearly are vulnerable, which was underscored, I
think, by the recent attack in Madrid. And despite those
vulnerabilities, the department has provided only $115 million
in grants from the Urban Area Security Initiative Program since
September 11 to secure transit systems, the majority of which
have gone to five metropolitan areas.
There is no specific funding in your budget this year to
improve security for rail and other public transportation
systems. That is somewhat surprising, in light of the fact that
the American Public Transportation Association estimates that
there are $6 billion in unmet security needs nationwide for
public transportation.
So we are interested in hearing any details that you may
have about your plans to improve the security of commercial
transportation systems. And finally, as Ranking Member Thompson
mentioned, there are cuts in funding for the fire grant program
and the emergency management performance grants.
Both requests also contain language that would limit the
ability of the states to use these funds to meet a full range
of preparedness needs. In the case of the emergency management
performance grant, the proposed budget would, by one estimate,
lead to a 60 percent cut of state and local emergency
personnel, exactly at a time when we are asking our state and
local governments to take a more active role in emergency
planning and response activities.
These are just a few of our concerns. We look forward to
hearing comments from both of you about these issues and any
others that you may choose to bring before us.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman. As members of the
committee are aware, we are in essence a homeless committee. We
have to borrow committee rooms.
We were just advised yesterday that the Armed Services
Committee, whose room we are borrowing today, needs this room
this afternoon. So we will be required to vacate no later than
roughly 12:30 so that they can occupy it. So we will need to
move crisply through our questioning.
With that, let me move forward to introduce our first
witness, the Honorable Suzanne Mencer, the executive director
of the newly formed Office of State and Local Government
Coordination and Response. Ms. Mencer is formerly the executive
director of public safety for the State of Colorado.
Amongst many of her qualifications, she is a member of the
National Task Force on Interoperability and a member of the
Society of Former Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
Ms. Mencer, please if you would, we have your full
statement before us and it is in the record. We would
appreciate it if you could summarize the salient points for the
committee.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE C. SUZANNE MENCER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE
FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Ms. Mencer. Thank you very much, Chairman Shadegg,
Congressman Thompson.
Mr. Shadegg. You may want to pull that microphone a little
bit closer.
Ms. Mencer. My name is Sue Mencer. And I serve as the
director of the Department of Homeland Security's Office for
Domestic Preparedness.
On behalf of Secretary Ridge, it is my pleasure to appear
before you today to discuss the current status of the status of
the Office for Domestic Preparedness and other issues of
critical importance.
ODP is the federal government's principal agency
responsible for preparing our nation against terrorism by
assisting states, local jurisdictions, regional authorities and
tribal governments in building their capacity to prepare for,
prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. Since its creation,
ODP has provided assistance to all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S.
territories.
ODP has trained 325,000 emergency responders from more than
5,000 jurisdictions and conducted more than 300 exercises. By
the end of fiscal year 2004, ODP will have provided more than
$8.1 billion in assistance and support.
As of today, 46 of the 56 states and territories have
received their fiscal year 2004 funding under the Homeland
Security Grant Program. This includes funds to support
statewide preparedness efforts under the State Homeland
Security Grant Program, the Law Enforcement Terrorism
Prevention Program and Citizen Corps. These awards represent
over $1.9 billion in direct assistance. In total, $2.2 billion
will be provided under these initiatives.
Further, of the 50 urban areas designated under the fiscal
year 2004 Urban Areas Security Initiative--or UASI program--33
urban areas have been funded so far. This represents $467
million in support to high-density population centers with
identifiable threats and critical infrastructure.
In total over $670 million will be provided to these areas.
In addition, the department has identified 30 of the nation's
most used urban transit systems and will provide $49 million to
enhance the overall security of these systems. To date, 21 of
these transit systems have received their fiscal year 2004
funds.
Much of how the states and territories will distribute and
utilize Homeland Security Grant Program funds will be
influenced by the results of the state homeland security
assessments and strategies. As you know, these strategies and
assessments were submitted to ODP on January 31, 2004.
These assessments and strategies are important to both the
states and to the federal government. They provide information
regarding vulnerabilities, capabilities and future requirements
and each state's preparedness goals and objectives.
They provide the states a road map to how current and
future funding, exercise, training and other preparedness
resources should be directed and targeted. And they provide the
federal government with a better understanding of needs and
capabilities.
All assessments and strategies have been received, have
been reviewed or currently are under review by an intra-DHS
review board. Fifty-one have been approved by the department.
Recently, the department's inspector general released a
report titled ``An Audit of Distributing and Spending First
Responder Grant Funds.'' That report examines how ODP processed
and awarded first responder grant funds during fiscal years
2002 and 2003.
It also examined how several of the states, once awards
have been received, obligate and distribute those funds. We at
ODP welcomed the inspector general's scrutiny and see this
report as an opportunity to validate those things we are doing
well and to identify and act upon those things we need to do
better.
With permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a
copy of the report for inclusion in the record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Visit the OIG web sit at www.dhs.gov., for copies of Department
of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, ``An Audit of
Distributing and Spending ``First Responder'' Grant Funds'' Office of
Audits OIG-04-15 March 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shadegg. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Mencer. The inspector general concluded that ODP has
been successful in the development and management of its grant
programs and that ODP has assessed, processed and awarded its
grants in a timely and effective manner. The inspector general
also concluded that there are ways in which ODP and states and
local jurisdictions could better distribute, dedicate, monitor
and track homeland security funds.
Most important, inspector general concluded--and we at ODP
agree--that it is more desirable for states to distribute funds
wisely and prudently than to distribute funds in haste. The
inspector general's report concluded that although ODP has been
able to distribute funds to states in a timely manner, there
were some impediments that slowed the distribution of funds
from states to local jurisdiction.
These impediments did not exist in every state, nor in
every jurisdiction. And, as the inspector general noted, some
impediments are unavoidable, some can be corrected.
As the former director of public safety for Colorado and
the homeland security adviser to Governor Owens, I can tell you
without hesitation that the job of distributing these funds is
a challenge and not without difficulties.
On March 15, 2004, Secretary Ridge announced the creation
of the Homeland Security Funding Task Force. This task force is
comprised of several governors, mayors, county executives and a
representative of tribal governments and is examining DHS'
funding process for state and local assistance to ensure that
DHS funds to the nation's first responders move quickly and
efficiently.
It will also identify best practices in an effort to offer
solutions to both the department and state and local
jurisdictions. The information provided by this task force will
assist DHS and states and localities to do a better job. This
task force, Mr. Chairman, will provide a report to the
secretary by the end of June, which we will share with
Congress.
ODP initiated many improvements prior to the release of the
inspector general's report. For fiscal year 2004, ODP is
implementing new reporting and monitoring guidelines. These new
procedures will enable ODP to better track each state's
progress in allocating funds and meeting the objectives
outlined in their 2003 state strategies and assessments. For
fiscal year 2005, ODP will establish a dedicated audit team in
order to more closely audit grant expenditures and better
ensure compliance with program requirements.
ODP has also greatly improved its communications with state
and local officials to assist them to better understand
requirements and better plan for the use and allocation of
program funds.
We have made many efforts to improve and to better
communicate with our states and our territories. These efforts
are in addition to ODP's existing efforts to provide customer
service, including an ODP help line and technical assistance
and monitoring visits by ODP staff to state and local
jurisdictions. We have, in this last year, made over 300 site
visits to states and localities.
I am speeding this up for you.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you.
Ms. Mencer. You are welcome. As you know, as Chairman Cox
indicated earlier, the secretary has stated that he would like
to see a change in the homeland security grant funding formula.
It does not mean, however, that we are not recommending that
these funds be eliminated, a baseline funding to all states.
Secretary Ridge has consistently stated that a minimum
amount of funds must be provided to all states and territories.
And for the nation to be secure, all states and territories
must have the resources to address their particular and unique
security needs. I would like to speak a little about the
consolidation of ODP and state and local government. As you
know, that was proposed. And we have the 60-day review period
by Congress is over. So we are looking at doing that
consolidation. And that should be announced by the secretary
any day now. We believe that is the best and most efficient use
and way for the federal government to address the needs of the
states, by having a one-stop shop for the states to go to. And
I can tell you, as a former homeland security director, that
would be very helpful to have one place to go for grants
concerning preparedness issues. This is also supported by the
inspector general's report, which I mentioned earlier. As to
the issue--and my last point--the issue of how to measure
capabilities and performance and the states capabilities, HSPD-
8, the Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8, is a
preparedness decision directive. This is one we have been
tasked at ODP for this implementation. And it will, with our
state and local partners and our federal government partners as
well, establish preparedness goals for the states so they can
measure their capability to deal with all disasters concerning
man-made incidents, terrorism disasters and also natural
disasters as well. So we are in the process now of implementing
that. We had our first steering committee meeting last week. So
with that, I think in the interest of time and at your
direction, I will conclude my statement and be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
[The statement of Ms. Mencer follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable C. Suzanne Mencer
Chairman Shadegg, Congressman Thompson, and Members of the
subcommittee, my name is Sue Mencer, and I serve as Director of the
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Office for Domestic
Preparedness (ODP). On behalf of Secretary Ridge, it is my pleasure to
appear before you today to discuss the current status of ODP and other
issues of critical importance.
On behalf of all of us at DHS, I want to thank you Mr. Chairman,
and all the members of the Committee, for your ongoing support for the
Department and for ODP. You and your colleagues have entrusted us with
a great responsibility, and we are meeting that responsibility with the
utmost diligence.
As you are all aware, ODP is responsible for preparing our Nation
against terrorism by assisting States, local jurisdictions, regional
authorities, and tribal governments with building their capacity to
prepare for, prevent, and respond to acts of terrorism. Through its
programs and activities, ODP equips, trains, exercises, and supports
State and local homeland security personnel--our nation's first
responders--who may be called upon to prevent and respond to terrorist
attacks.
Mr. Chairman, ODP has established an outstanding track record of
capacity building at the State, local, territorial, and tribal levels,
by combining subject matter expertise, grant-making know-how, and
establishing strong and long-standing ties to the nation's public
safety community. Since its creation in 1998, ODP has provided
assistance to all 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories. Through its programs and
initiatives ODP has trained 325,000 emergency responders from more than
5,000 jurisdictions and conducted more than 300 exercises. And, by the
end of Fiscal Year 2004, ODP will have provided States and localities
with more than $8.1 billion in assistance and direct support.
Throughout its history ODP has strived to improve how it serves its
State and local constituents. For example, in Fiscal Year 2003,
application materials for the Department's State Homeland Security
Grant Program--under both the Fiscal Year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations
Bill, and the Fiscal Year 2003 Supplemental Appropriations Bill--were
made available to the States within two weeks of those bills becoming
law. Further, over 90 percent of the grants made under that program
were awarded within 14 days of ODP receiving the grant applications.
During Fiscal Year 2004, ODP's record of service to the nation's
first responders continues. As of today, 46 of the 56 States and
territories have received their Fiscal Year 2004 funding under the
Homeland Security Grant Program. This includes funds to support State-
wide preparedness efforts under the State Homeland Security Grant
Program, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and the
Citizen Corps Program. These awards represent over $1.9 Billion in
direct assistance. In total, $2.2 Billion will be provided under this
initiative.
Further, 33 of the 50 urban areas designated under the Fiscal Year
2004 Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI program) have been awarded
funding so far; the remaining are still under review. This represents
$467 Million in support to high-density population centers with
identifiable threats and critical infrastructure. In total over $670
Million will be provided to these areas. In addition, the Department
has identified 30 of the nation's most used urban transit systems and
will provide $49 Million to enhance the overall security of these
systems. To date, 21 of these transit systems have received their
Fiscal Year 2004 funds.
Much of how the States and territories will distribute and utilize
Homeland Security Grant Program funds will be influenced by the results
of the State Homeland Security Assessments and Strategies. As you know,
each State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
and the territories were required to submit their assessments and
strategies by January 31, 2004.
These assessments and strategies, Mr. Chairman, are critically
important to both the States and the Federal Government. They provide a
wealth of information regarding each State's vulnerabilities,
capabilities, and future requirements, as well as each State's
preparedness goals and objectives. They provide each State with a
roadmap as to how current and future funding, exercise, training, and
other preparedness resources should be directed and targeted, and they
provide the Federal Government with a better understanding of needs and
capabilities. I am happy to report that all assessments and strategies
have been received and reviewed or currently are under review by an
intra-DHS review board comprised of representatives from major
Department components. Of those 56 strategies, 51 have been approved by
the Department. The remaining five should be approved shortly.
During Fiscal Year 2005, ODP will continue to provide States and
localities with the resources they require to ensure the safety of the
American public. The funds requested by the President for Fiscal Year
2005 will allow ODP to continue to provide the training, equipment,
exercises, technical assistance, and other support necessary to better
prepare our communities.
DHS's mission is critical, its responsibilities are great, and its
programs and activities impact communities across the nation. We will
strive to fulfill our mission and meet our responsibilities in an
effective and efficient manner. And we will, to the best of our
abilities, continue to identify where and how we can improve. Part of
our responsibility, part of the Department's responsibility, Mr.
Chairman, is the recognition that we can always improve what we do and
how we do it. And we can never be too safe or too secure.
To that end, the Department's Inspector General recently released a
report titled ``An Audit of Distributing and Spending `First Responder'
Grant Funds.'' That report examined how ODP processed and awarded first
responder grant funds during Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003. It also
examined how several of the States, once awards have been received,
obligate and distribute those funds. We at ODP welcomed the Inspector
General's scrutiny, and now that the report is complete, we see this as
an opportunity to validate those things we are doing well, and to
identify and act upon those things we need to do better. With your
permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a copy of the report
for inclusion in the record.
Overall Mr. Chairman, the Inspector General concluded that ODP has
been successful in the development and management of its grant
programs, and that ODP has assessed, processed, and awarded its grants
in a timely and effective manner. At the same time the Inspector
General concluded that there are several ways in which ODP could better
assist States and local communities in distributing and dedicating
homeland security funds, as well as monitoring and tracking these funds
once they have been awarded. The Inspector General concluded that
various impediments to the timely distribution of funds at the State
and local level should be addressed, and while some of these
impediments may be unavoidable, others could be reduced. Most important
the Inspector General concluded, and we at ODP agree, that it is more
desirable for States to distribute funds wisely and prudently, than to
distribute funds in haste.
Among the report's recommendations were:
For ODP to institute more meaningful reporting by the
States so that ODP can track progress more accurately, both in
their distribution of funds and in building their preparedness
capabilities, and to better assist States when necessary.
For ODP to improve its communications with State and
local jurisdictions in order to keep them better informed as to
program requirements and opportunities for assistance.
For ODP to accelerate the development of federal
guidelines for first responder preparedness, including
capability levels, equipment, training, and exercises, in order
to enhance the ability of States and local jurisdictions to
develop preparedness strategies and target resources.
For ODP to work with State and local jurisdictions to
better identify impediments at the State and local levels to
the timely distribution of funds, identify ``best practices,''
and make recommendations to overcome these impediments.
I am happy to report, Mr. Chairman, that ODP, in consultation with
the Secretary and other Department components, is already addressing
many of these recommendations. For instance, for Fiscal Year 2004, ODP
is implementing new reporting and monitoring guidelines. These new
procedures will enable ODP to better track each State's progress in
allocating funds and meeting the objectives outlined in their 2003
State Strategies and Assessments. Further, prior to the start of Fiscal
Year 2005, ODP will establish a Dedicated Audit Team in order to more
closely audit grant expenditures and better ensure compliance with
program requirements.
Also during the past year, ODP has greatly improved its
communications with State and local officials to assist them to better
understand program requirements and better plan for the use and
allocation of program funds. As an example, ODP, along with other
Department components, participates in bi-weekly conference calls with
the various State homeland security directors. These conference calls
provide direct access among Federal and State representatives and
facilitate the quick flow of information. Similarly, ODP, as part of
its administration of the Fiscal Year 2003 UASI, instituted conference
calls among ODP staff and mayors and other State and local officials
representing the various urban areas comprising the UASI sites. Again
the use of conference calls expedited and facilitated the exchange of
information and ideas among the parties.
Further Mr. Chairman, this past February, Secretary Ridge provided
each State's governor with a report on homeland security funds awarded,
obligated, and spent within the State. These reports are being updated
on a regular basis. Keeping the governors informed in this manner has
enhanced their ability to maintain oversight over these monies. These
efforts are in addition to ODP's continuing efforts to provide customer
service, including the ODP Helpline, and technical assistance and
monitoring visits by ODP staff to State and local jurisdictions. Within
the past six months, staff from ODP's State and Local Management
Division, the ODP component responsible for the administration of the
homeland security grant funds, have made 22 monitoring trips and, in
the last 12 months, have made 300 technical assistance trips to State
and local jurisdictions.
ODP is also continuing its efforts to develop preparedness
standards and to establish clear methods for assessing State and local
preparedness levels and progress. As you will recall Mr. Chairman, on
December 17, 2003, the President issued ``Homeland Security
Presidential Directive (HSPD)-8.'' Through HSPD-8, the President tasked
Secretary Ridge, in coordination with other Federal departments and
State and local jurisdictions, to develop national preparedness goals,
improve delivery of federal preparedness assistance to State and local
jurisdictions, and strengthen the preparedness capabilities of Federal,
State, territorial, tribal, and local governments. HSPD-8 is consistent
with the broader goals and objectives established in the President's
National Strategy for Homeland Security issued in July, 2002, which
discussed the creation of a fully-integrated national emergency
response capability. Inherent to the successful implementation of HSPD-
8 is the development of clear and measurable standards for State and
local preparedness capabilities.
The standards that will result from HSPD-8 implementation build on
an existing body of standards and guidelines developed by ODP and other
Federal agencies to guide and inform State and local preparedness
efforts. Since its inception ODP has worked with Federal agencies and
State and local jurisdictions to develop and disseminate information to
State and local agencies to assist them in making more informed
preparedness decisions, including capability assessments, preparedness
planning and strategies, and choices relating to training, equipment,
and exercises. Again, with your permission Mr. Chairman, I would like
to submit for inclusion in the record, a summary of standards and
guidelines issued by ODP over the last several years.
Earlier this year, the Secretary delegated to ODP the
responsibility for the implementation of HSPD-8. And ODP, together with
Secretary Ridge, other Department components, Federal agencies, and
State and local governments, firmly believe that the successful
implementation of HSPD-8 is essential and critical to our Nation's
ability to prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism. In
March, the Secretary approved these key items: first, a strategy for a
better prepared America based on the requirements of HSPD-8; second, an
integrated, intra- and inter- governmental structure to implement HSPD-
8; and third, an aggressive timeline for achieving HSPD-8's goals and
objectives. Implementation of HSPD-8 involves the participation of
Federal, State, and local agencies, and, among other things, will
result in the development and dissemination of clear, precise, and
measurable preparedness standards and goals addressing State, local,
and Federal prevention and response capabilities.
Further, I would like to reemphasize the importance of ODP's State
Homeland Security Assessments and Strategies that were submitted to ODP
by the States and territories this past January. And, it is important
to note that this is not the first time States have been tasked with
providing assessments. The information contained in these reports
provides critical data describing State and local capabilities and
requirements for use by both the States and the Federal Government,.
This data provides a critical benchmark from which ODP can assess both
past and future progress in their development of preparedness
capabilities. The current assessments and strategies are being compared
to the first group of assessments and strategies submitted in Fiscal
Year 2001. Then, the current group of assessments and strategies will
provide a mark from which ODP can compare future assessments and
strategies. In addition, the current assessments and strategies will
help guide ODP's decisions regarding State and local training,
equipment, planning, and exercise requirements.
Also critical to the implementation of HSPD-8 is the improved
delivery of homeland security assistance, including homeland security
funding to State and local governments. This too was examined by the
DHS Inspector General's report, which concluded that although ODP has
been able to distribute funds to States in a timely manner, there were
some impediments that slowed the further distribution of funds from
States to local jurisdiction. These impediments did not exist in every
State or in every jurisdiction, and, as the Inspector General noted,
some impediments are unavoidable, and some can be corrected. For
example, some delays in the distribution of homeland security funds can
be linked to State and local procurement laws and requirements. Other
delays resulted from the local planning process and the need to form
consensus across multiple jurisdictions. Some delays were the result of
deliberate decisions by State and local leaders who chose to spend more
time planning rather than to spend funds quickly. Yet, despite these
difficulties, ODP and the Department are committed to finding ways to
further improve the distribution of homeland security funds.
To that end Mr. Chairman, on March 15, 2004, Secretary Ridge
announced the creation of the Homeland Security Funding Task Force.
This task force--chaired by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and co-
chaired by Akron Mayor Donald Plusquellic, and comprised of several
governors, mayors, county executives, and a representative of tribal
governments--will examine DHS' funding process for State and local
assistance to ensure that DHS funds to the Nation's first responders
move quickly and efficiently. It will also identify ``best practices''
in an effort to offer solutions to both the Department and State and
local jurisdictions. By directly involving the States, territories,
local communities, and tribal governments, this task force will provide
an ongoing source of information to assist DHS and States and
localities to do a better job. And, the formation of this task force
underscores the Secretary's commitment to a partnership between the
Federal Government and its State and local counterparts, and his
approach to homeland security as ``One Mission, One Team.'' This task
force, Mr. Chairman, will provide a report to the Secretary by mid-May,
which we will share with the Congress.
An additional and important step toward improving how homeland
security assistance is provided to States and local jurisdictions is
contained in the President's Fiscal Year 2005 budget request. As part
of the effort to improve the distribution of homeland security funds,
the Administration has requested that the Secretary be provided
increased flexibility under the distribution formula for ODP's Homeland
Security Grant Program as contained in Section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT
Act. This request is consistent with the Department's long-standing
position that the PATRIOT Act formula be changed.
Our request to change the formula is designed to ensure that we can
target Federal dollars in a manner consistent with protecting the
nation in the most efficient and effective manner. It is designed to
enable the Secretary to consider critical factors such as threats and
vulnerabilities--factors this Committee has recognized as important.
This Increased flexibility will allow the Secretary to move Federal
resources to respond to changes in vulnerabilities and threats.
This more nuanced approach does not mean, however, that minimum or
base funding levels for the States and territories will be eliminated.
As you are aware, Secretary Ridge has consistently stated that a
minimum amount of funds should be provided to all States and
territories, and that for the nation to be secure, all States and
territories must have the resources to address their particular and
unique security needs.
Secretary Ridge is also taking steps to ensure that its staff and
program offices can more efficiently support States and localities. On
January 26, 2004, the Secretary informed the Congress of his intention
to consolidate ODP with the Office of State and Local Government
Coordination to form a new office--the Office for State and Local
Government Coordination and Preparedness.
This consolidation is in direct response to requests from the
nation's first responders to provide the emergency response community
with a ``one-stop-shop'' that is a central focal point for grants,
assistance, and other interactions with the Department. Further, this
consolidation places 25 varied State and local assistance programs and
initiatives within one office to ensure simplified and coordinated
administration of these programs. Finally, this consolidation also will
eliminate the duplication across program lines and heighten the
complementary and synergistic aspects of these programs, and, by
linking these programs to the State strategies and assessments,
maximize their ultimate impact on States and localities.
At the same time, grouping these programs under one consolidated
office ensures that the grants administration staffs and a limited
number of program subject matter experts who guide these programs will
work together, share their expertise, and achieve the Department's goal
of a better prepared America. The consolidation will enable the
Department to evaluate programs more accurately, exercise greater
Federal oversight, and ensure the government-provided resources are
dispersed quickly and used to maximum efficiency. This decision will
benefit States and localities by providing them with a unified and
coordinated means of assistance and support. It also provides a
platform to ease coordination with other departments and agencies, as
required in HSPD-8.
In closing Mr. Chairman, let me re-state Secretary Ridge's
commitment to support the Nation's State and local emergency response
community, and to ensure that America's first responders receive the
resources and support they require to do their jobs. This concludes my
statement. I am happy to respond to any questions that you and the
members of the Committee may have. Thank you.
ODP
Office for Domestic Preparedness
ODP Training and Standards Materials
Prepared April 28, 2005
ODP Reference Materials On
Training, Equipment, Exercises & Program Guidance
2003 Prevention & Deterrence Guidelines
Executive Summary, ODP Training Strategy
2004 Standardized Equipment List
2004 ODP Training Approval Process
Initial Strategy Implementation Plan (ISIP) Guidelines w/ CD
ROM
ODP Training Catalog
ODP Emergency Responder Guidelines
State Handbook--ODP Strategy & Assessment Guide
2003 Prevention & Deterrence Guidelines--A set of
general activities, objectives, and elements that organizations
as well as those in command positions within the organizations,
should consider in the development of prevention plans. The
Guidelines are divided into five (5) functional categories:
Collaboration, Information Sharing, Threat Recognition, Risk
Management, and Intervention
(Ties back to the National Strategy for Homeland Security and
strategic objectives: ``Prevent terrorist attacks within the U.S.;
Reduce America's Vulnerability to terrorism. and; Minimize the damage
and recover from attacks that may occur, where prevention is comprised
of . . .deter all potential terrorists from attacking America. . .,
detect terrorists before they strike, . . .prevent them and their
instruments of terror from entering our country, . . . take decisive
action to eliminate the threat they pose.''
Executive Summary, ODP Training Strategy--Addresses key questions
Who should be trained, What tasks should they be trained to perform,
which training/instruction methods and training sites need to be paired
with which tasks to maximize success in training, what methods are the
most capable of evaluating competency and performance upon completion
of training, what gaps need to be remedied in existing training? The
training strategy provides a strategic approach to training and a
national training architecture for development and delivery of ODP
programs and services.
(The ODP training program develops and delivers specialized
training to state and local jurisdictions to enhance their preparedness
and capacity to respond to terrorist incidents involving chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear or explosive (CBRNE) materials, as
well to identify emerging and unmet training requirements. The Training
& Technical Assistance Division works closely with institutions of
higher education and professional public safety organizations to
establish a framework for distributive training efforts, as well as a
Congressionally mandated distance learning program.)
2004 Standardized Equipment List (SEL)--The list provides the
foundation for the Authorized Equipment List (AEL) that we provide
under our grants for state and local procurement. The SEL was developed
by the Interagency Board (IAB) for Equipment Standardization and
Interoperability. Officials from U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
U.S. Department of Justice, the Public. Health Service, the U.S.
Department of Energy, and state and local emergency response experts
assisted in the development of the authorized equipment lists. The
latest AEL comports with the SEL, but has additional categories and
equipment. ODP does not define equipment standards, but rather assists
with the implementation of accepted standards through the AEL. For
instance, to realize improved interoperability of communications
equipment, beginning with FY 2003 SHSGP Part II all radios purchased
with ODP grant funds should be compliant with the FCC-approved APCO 25
standard. In the category of personal protective equipment (PPE), all
self-contained breathing apparatuses (SCBAs) purchased must meet the
standards established by the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH).
2004 ODP Training Approval Process--Provides the states and locals
procedures for requesting Non-ODP Awareness and Performance level
courses through their State Administrative Agency (SAA), then through
their ODP Preparedness Officer, who forwards the request to the ODP
Training Division. Conditional approval will be given pending further
review by DHS-ODP Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP). The requestor
will then perform a comparison between the objectives of the course in
question and the ODP Training Doctrine (ODP Training Strategy,
Emergency Responder Guidelines, Prevention Guidelines), using a
template along with course materials for CDP review. CDP has 45 days to
conduct a review for Awareness level courses, and 90 days for
performance level courses and provides a recommendation for approval or
denial to ODP.
Initial Strategy Implementation Plan SIP Guidelines w/CD ROM--The
ISIP is a new requirement under the FY2004 Homeland Security Grant
Program (HSGP). The goal of the Initial Strategy Implementation Plan
(ISIP) is to capture in one, standardized format the most current
information available for planned projects, and estimates of the grant
funding to be applied to these projects, for all FY 2004 HSGP and Urban
Areas Security Initiative (UASI) Grant Program funding received. The
ISIP will uniformly report exactly how the FY 2004 grant funding is
being obligated through the retention of funds by the state, as well as
through awards made to subgrantees to local units of government or
other state entities. The projects to be funded must be linked back to
the State's or Urban Area's strategic goals and objectives from the
State or Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy.
ODP Training Catalog--A compendium of training that draws on a
large number of resources to develop and deliver these training
programs; includes the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium,
active emergency responders, national associations, contract support
and other agencies from the local, state and Federal levels. The
catalog lists training courses by training level (awareness,
performance, management & planning) for the emergency responder
community, including fire, law enforcement, EMS, HAZMAT, public works,
governmental administration, and emergency management. To ensure
compliance with nationally accepted standards, these courses have been
developed and reviewed in coordination with other Federal agencies,
including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the
Department of Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Emergency Management
Institute (EMI), as well as with professional organizations such as the
International Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire
Chiefs, and the National Sheriffs Association. Courses listed in the
DHS Compendium of Federal Terrorism Training For State and Local
Audiences may also be easily approved by ODP when applicable.
ODP Emergency Responder Guidelines--A tool for first responders
seeking to improve their training and master their craft:, reflecting a
step-by-step progression from Awareness through Performance to Planning
and Management training level by discipline (i.e. fire, EMS, police,
etc.). Moving from one step to the next requires more experience,
specialized training, and depth of understanding. These Guidelines
provide an integrated compilation of responder skills, knowledge, and
capabilities.
(These are not official regulations, but informed advice of subject
matter experts from both the private and public sectors, and have been
developed in concert with existing codes and standards of agencies,
such as National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA), and Federal
regulatory agencies, such as Occupational Safety and Health Admin.
(OSHA), but offered for considered by the response community)
State Handbook_ODP Strategy & Assessment Guide--This handbook was
designed to be used by the State Administrative Agency point of contact
for their state to update their State Homeland Security Strategy (SHSS)
and allocate homeland security resources. It served as a guide for
completing a risk, capabilities, and needs assessments for their state.
Each step in the assessment and strategy development process is
addressed in the Guide, along with detailed instructions for entering
and submitting the required data using the ODP Online Data Collection
Tool. This guide provided a standardized format for all states to
complete their assessment and develop their strategies, which made it
easier to analyze and formulate recommendations. There was also a
Jurisdictional Handbook that provided specific procedures for local
level completion of the assessment data.
(In an effort to be consistent with the National Strategy, ODP
coordinated the revision, development, and implementation of the State
Homeland Security Assessment and Strategy (SHSAS) Program with Federal
agencies, state and local representatives. The coordination has ensured
that the assessment and strategy process is aligned with and focuses on
the six critical mission areas as defined in the National Strategy.)
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you very much.
I now welcome our second witness, Mr. Dennis Schrader,
director of Maryland Homeland Security. Again, your full
statement is in the record. I would appreciate it if you could
summarize the salient points.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS R. SCHRADER, DIRECTOR, GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF
HOMELAND SECURITY, STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Schrader. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Thompson. It is a privilege to be here on behalf of Governor
Ehrlich, your former colleague.
I also wanted to acknowledge that Congressman Cardin is a
member from our state, is a member of this committee. And we
have routine communications with the congressman.
I will summarize very quickly the major points in my
testimony. Governor Ehrlich takes his responsibilities very
seriously. And we are in an unprecedented mobilization of the
states, sharing power with the federal government in the last
36 months.
We have not fought a war on our soil since 1865. And
therefore, the culture of the states is not organized around
this kind of effort. And it is moving very quickly under the
tutelage of the Department of Homeland Security.
It has been very clear over the last year that Secretary
Ridge and his folks have had a clear sense of urgency and
momentum and are working very diligently to keep us organized
at the state level.
Just a few major observations I would like to make and then
I will discuss it in questions further, three points that--I
draw these from my conclusions--are: that the Department of
Homeland Security and the Department of Justice we see are very
important partners in the war on terror at home; that we have
to tie these grants to risks that have threat-based
requirements and are coordinated with ongoing intelligence in
each state. I will talk about that in a minute.
We need to build program management accountability and
execution into the process. States do not have the kinds of
program management capability that the Department of Defense
has had and has been developing since 1947.
And finally, we view the UASI program as an excellent tool
for the states to organize regions and have the carrot and
stick required to encourage local jurisdictions to work
collaboratively under the states' leadership.
Let me just summarize again the first point. We have
decided, as part of our state strategy, to align the federal
strategy and the President's state template initiative as the
framework for our strategy in the state.
And we have reached out to the Anti-Terrorism Advisory
Committee, which has done a splendid job in helping us organize
around intelligence. That is where we are looking to develop
our threat analysis.
One resource that we need more than anything else are
analysts. They are very hard to come by. And at the state
level, being able to have analysts that can work with us to
develop actionable plans are critical.
The other thing we have done with our resources, the
governor has established the Maryland Coordination and Analysis
Center, which is a collaborative partnership out of the Anti-
Terrorism Advisory Council, working with the Maryland Joint
Terrorism Task Force. And that effort is going very nicely.
We have also added the captain of our port so that our area
maritime security program is embedded within the Anti-Terrorism
Advisory Council. And therefore, we are driving towards
developing a strategy.
One thought about vulnerability analysis is that we find
that there is far too much focus and too many vulnerability
analyses going on. And that is driving the perceived cost up
and inflating it, rather than having it focused on threats
embedded with the vulnerability analysis, as pointed out in the
GAO Report 02-208T, which was an excellent report.
On the program management front, a couple of key points I
wanted to make are that we really urge you not to reduce the
money for the EMPG. Our local emergency directors are really
the front lines of the folks.
And we need to be putting more money into them and
developing them because they need to be developed. And their
roles have expanded dramatically in the last 36 months.
They have to be knowledgeable in grants management, how to
coordinate with law enforcement. It is a fairly significant
task. We need to make sure that we continue to provide them the
personnel resources they need.
Lastly, the reimbursement process, we need to change the
language. The language implies that a Brinks truck shows up at
the state's bank and cash is deposited.
That is not the way this process works. It is a
reimbursement process. And the local jurisdictions are
reimbursed. The states do not receive the money. We oversee the
process.
We reimburse the local jurisdictions and then we are
reimbursed by the federal government. There is a lot of
misperception.
There are things that can be done to facilitate this
process. But the local jurisdictions need training. And we are
working with those local emergency directors to teach them how
to work this process.
Lastly, the research, development test and evaluation, the
one thing that the federal government provides which is
absolutely critical, things like the U.S.-Visit Program, the
Radiation Portal monitors that are being provided, the Homeland
Security Information Network--on and on. These programs are
invaluable.
The state and local governments do not have the kind of
RDT&E resources to be able to develop that. So I will be glad
to answer your questions.
Thank you, sir.
[The statement of Mr. Schrader follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dennis Schrader
Introduction
Good morning Chairman Shadegg, Ranking Member Thompson and members
of the Subcommittee. I want to thank you on behalf of Governor Bob
Ehrlich (your former colleague in the House of Representatives) for
allowing us the opportunity to share with you the State of Maryland's
perspective and insights on first responder assistance programs and our
overall approach to homeland security.
My name is Dennis Schrader and I am the Director of the Governor's
Office of Homeland Security for the State of Maryland. My role is to
direct and coordinate all aspects of Governor Ehrlich's Homeland
Security program across the state of Maryland.
The attacks of September 11, 2001 have created the need to better
prepare and equip our nation to conduct the Global War on Terror and
better coordinate the functions and responsibilities of various
departments and agencies across all levels of government--local, state,
and federal and the private sector. The lessons learned from September
11th propelled us to think, plan, and act in an integrated fashion to
address common concerns, challenges, and mutually supportive
capabilities. The states have a pivotal role in linking the Federal
government efforts to our local communities throughout the nation.
Governor Ehrlich acknowledges his role as a state partner on the home
front of this war.
Let me start by saying that I have been very pleased by the
extraordinary effort this past year by the newly formed Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). It is evident that Secretary Ridge is building
a culture of responsiveness. As I interact with the various agencies
throughout DHS, there is a clear sense of urgency and momentum that is
felt at the state level. I have a number of observations that I hope
will be helpful in moving forward to another level of capability.
Risk Based Funding & Management
The goal first and foremost is prevention. The key to prevention is
intelligence.
The first priority of the first responder grant assistance programs
should be to ensure that the funding is directed to where the
intelligence and assessments indicate that it is most needed. The
report by the GAO (GAO-02-208T) discusses a risk management approach to
homeland security. In Maryland we want to pursue a threat-based
resource allocation philosophy. Maryland has invested time, energy, and
money by participating in and supporting the Anti-Terrorism Advisory
Council (ATAC) led by our U.S. Attorney's office in Baltimore. Our most
pressing need is for analysts who can provide timely, targeted, and
actionable advice based on intelligence analysis. Our ATAC has
established a Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center (MCAC). This
Center is commanded by a local Police Capt and has resources from
Federal, State, and local public safety and law enforcement standing
watch and performing analysis. The ATAC and MCAC are coordinated with
the Maryland JTTF that is led by the FBI.
Vulnerability Analysis--Vulnerability analysis is a critical tool,
but must be coupled with threat analysis. Currently there are multiple
levels of vulnerability analysis conducted by components of federal,
state, and local governments. These ongoing efforts lack integration in
both their conduct and in their recommendations, resulting in confusion
of priorities, resource allocations, and gridlock in determining
appropriate courses of action. In addition, if vulnerability
assessments are used as the basis for resources without factoring in
threat analysis, the cost of preparedness will be significantly
inflated.
Program Management Capabilities / Accountability--States and local
government must rapidly develop program management capabilities as well
as state and local points of accountability. Several agencies are now
asked to program, plan, and execute efforts that are more complicated
than they were prior to 9/11--yet we have not built-up the skills,
knowledge, and experiences to do so. (DoD, PPBS Program Management and
acquisition professional communities provide a high-end example--States
and DHS are managing $8.0 Billion or more in programs, must follow
suit).
Emergency Mgt & Public Safety Officials Roles & Grant Expertise--
The key strategy for emergency management is an All Hazards approach to
readiness. Local emergency managers and public safety officials are key
partners in the success of DHS and State Homeland Security. They are
responsible for plan coordination and development, approval, execution,
and oversight. Efforts need to be made to provide substantive training
and development of grants mgt; increase EM Mgt/Public Safety visibility
with local government of their roles in the grants process; and
increase and strengthen their participation in development and
execution of state and federal HLS processes, policy, and strategies.
Our major recommendation in this area is to maintain the current EMPG
formula for state and local jurisdictions at 50% eligibility for
personnel costs and consider increasing the focus of FEMA on the
increasingly difficult job of the local emergency manager.
Reimbursement Process--The process is not understood and is not
part of a clear communication strategy. ODP grants and UASI are
reimbursable programs. The perception is that the states have been sent
cash and are sitting on it. The reality is that the state has a
fiduciary role to ensure that the grant allocations are supported by
appropriate spending plans and that the reimbursement of state and
local expenditures is backed up by receipts.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E)--The Federal
government is in a unique position to provide RDT&E and acquisition
support to the states that will attack major issues. Programs such as
US--Visit, Radiation Portal monitors, and Homeland Security Information
Network (HSIN) are key capabilities and tools that state and local
governments could not do themselves. These are very important and
timely investments. In addition, tools like Infrared (IF) Sensors and
intelligent object recognition software for surveillance of Key
infrastructures like rail and seaports could be important but hard
programs to implement.
Sustainability--Homeland Security investments must be sustainable.
Operational and maintenance costs and contracts must be considered;
life cycle considerations have not been funded and are not reimbursable
under the grants (limited service contracts/replacement parts at the
time of the agreement. Much of these costs have not been considered or
included in future resource planning.
Regional Capabilities--The UASI grants are pivotal in coordination
and integration of government, academic, not-for-profit, and private
sector capabilities. Through its multi-jurisdictional nature,
structural requirements, and funding incentives UASI grants provide the
forum and incentives for dialogue and coordination. Active state and
local government commitment and participation is critical. Principle
executives from each UASI region should sign a collective document
appointing their direct representatives to Urban Area Work Group (UAWG)
and acknowledging responsibility for directing UASI process. States
must provide an active/empowered facilitator to each UAWG with both
authority and ability to promote, communicate, and integrate across
levels of governments and regions.
Role of a Citizen Oversight Committees--Maryland has begun using its
Citizen Emergency Advisory committee to review and critique goals,
principles, strategies, management plans, and grant allocations to
ensure local public scrutiny of Maryland's efforts.
Conclusion/Recommendations:
In conclusion, I recommend the following:
1. DHS and DOJ are very important partners in the War on Terror
at home. Clearly tie grants to risks that have threat based
requirements and are coordinated with the ongoing intelligence
efforts in each state.
2. Build program management accountability and execution into
the process.
3. Continue to foster regional programs like UASI as a tool the
states can use for building regional networks of readiness.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you very much for your statement.
Let me begin with the first set of questions. And I want to
start with kind of a fundamental one.
The Morning Update which we receive has a headline at the
bottom of the page which says, ``Eighty Percent of Homeland
Security Funds Have Failed to Reach Local Agencies.''
As I indicated in my opening statement, our reports suggest
that that headline is, in fact, misleading. Our report would
suggest that it is true that only 15 percent of the money has
been spent, but not that the money has not been received by the
agencies; rather that the money has, to a larger degree, been
received by the agencies and it simply has not been spent.
And in my opening statement, I made the point that there
may be good reasons for that or bad reasons for that. I guess
my first question is: do you both agree that this headline is
in fact misleading and that the actual state of affairs is that
monies are there; they are in the process of being spent, but
have not been spent.
Ms. Mencer. Thank you. Yes, I think you are right.
That is misleading. I think there are a lot of reasons. And
certainly, the funding task force is looking into these exact
reasons.
I think what they have already discovered, in my attendance
at some of their meetings, is that there is not a one-size-
fits-all answer to this pipeline issue. And certainly, as many
states as we have and territories, that is as many different
configurations of how this process works with procurement
issues and drawdown issues.
So they are looking at that. There are some fixes that are
available to states that are having problems. And I am sure
that their funding report will be able to address some of those
best practices to share with states that need some additional
help.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Schrader?
Mr. Schrader. Yeah, I would agree. Our money has been
obligated 100 percent in fiscal year 2003. And we are just
about to start the fiscal year 2004 obligation process. That
clock started ticking in mid-March.
We have found that once the budget allocation is given to
the local jurisdictions, they need time to figure out how they
are going to spend it. they have to go through appropriations
processes with their local councils. They have procurement
regulations they have to deal with. And they are also building
consensus.
I will give you an example. In Central Maryland, where we
had the Urban Areas Security Initiative, they have formed an
urban area work group. They have five projects they are working
on.
They are talking about unprecedented projects that would
not have been possible before this effort; for example, back-up
911 centers, where one jurisdiction will back another one up
and getting additional generation capacity. That process has
taken several months for them to agree to that and also
figuring out who is going to pay for it so that they can then
apply for the reimbursement.
So I would agree that it is misleading. But it is an
understandable process.
I know in the federal government, execution rates of money
are a critical indicator of progress. And it is a good one.
But I think the front end process of program management
needs to be dealt with in addition to that because otherwise it
is misleading.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Schrader, from your explanation, it seems
to me this is a new process and we are going through it for the
first time. And I guess it would be your belief that now that
we get the cycle going, we will be able to get these fund spent
for the right assets on a more rapid basis in the future.
Is that essentially what you are saying?
Mr. Schrader. Exactly. And we are working very closely with
our regions.
I will give you another example. Someone mentioned
interoperability. In Western Maryland, we have very mountainous
terrain. We have three jurisdictions who are working together.
One jurisdiction has the opportunity to get 800 megahertz. The
other jurisdiction cannot use 800 megahertz, or at least they
do not believe they can, because it will cost a lot more money
to put up the number of towers they need.
We are facilitating that process with Western Maryland. We
are spending some of our grant money to do a statewide
engineering analysis so we have a master plan to build a
statewide backbone. And we are working with those local
jurisdictions.
That kind of engineering and planning takes a lot of time.
It would be very easy for them to just run out and buy another
1,000 masks. That does not help with the real fundamental
questions on the table.
Mr. Shadegg. I need to set a good example and not run over
in my time. And I am getting short. Let me ask you each a
question and ask you to respond fairly quickly.
Mr. Schrader, I would appreciate it if you would give us
any suggestions you think we can do to remedy the problem,
looking at it from a state perspective, at the DHS. And then
Ms. Mencer, the opposite for you. And if you would keep your
answers brief, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Schrader. Well, I will just take what I have right out
of the report. I would really encourage DHS and DOJ to work
collaboratively and make the anti-terrorism advisory councils
work effectively.
I would focus on borrowing the best practices from DOD on
program management because you are pushing a lot of money
through a very small pipe and building the capacity of the
state and local governments to be able to do program management
to effectively execute these funds. And finally, RDT&E, I
cannot emphasize how important that is.
Mr. Shadegg. Ms. Mencer?
Ms. Mencer. Yes, I would agree. And I am happy to report we
are partnering with the DOJ on some of their best practices for
grant management, as we have always done. We used to part of
DOJ, so we are very familiar with that.
And they have been doing grants for a very long time too.
So we are looking at better ways to partner with them and make
sure that the states partner at their level too because the
states have Department of Justice grants that they have always
processed as well.
But it is the first time that we have seen this much money
come this quickly, with the expectation that it be spent so
rapidly. And that is a great burden on the states. And I
commend all the state homeland security advisers and their
administrative people that are dealing with this and then
having to suffer the headlines in the paper that they are not
spending fast enough.
It is a very difficult process.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you.
The chair would now call on the ranking member for his
questions.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Mencer, on two different occasions, the inspector
general has indicated that DHS does not have the performance
standards necessary to measure what they are doing with the
states. Have we established those standards at this point?
Ms. Mencer. Sir, we have had standards for awhile, going
aback to the first weapons of mass destruction grant in 2000
and, prior to that, with the Nunn-Lugar grants that were done
in 1997 and 1998.
Mr. Thompson. Let me be a little more specific for you. The
inspector general said on December 31, 2003 that you do not
have them. In April 2004, they followed up the report and said
that what you have created does not fully address the federal
funding for preparedness and response capabilities. Are you
aware of that?
Ms. Mencer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Okay.
Ms. Mencer. And if I may respond to that? You are
absolutely correct.
There needs to be a better system for measuring
preparedness, which is I think the kind of standards you are
referring to. How do we measure if the state is able to a
handle a nuclear attack or a chemical attack?
And that is indeed what HSPD-8 does direct us to do. And so
we have begun to have a cooperative effort among all agencies--
Department of Defense as well--to partner with us and to look,
with states and locals too, to look at: how do we measure
preparedness?
We have had standards in place in terms of equipment
standards. And those have been in place for a long time and
validated by agencies that look at equipment standards. So that
has been there.
Preparedness measures are something that we are working on
now to determine how prepared are we? And at what level do we
need to be prepared?
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
So you would say to the committee this morning that that is
a work in progress, more or less?
Ms. Mencer. There are parts of it that are in a work in
progress, yes. There are parts of it that states have been
doing for quite awhile. And we also required that in our state
strategies this year for 2004, saying that they had to have
goals and objectives tied to their state strategy.
And now the funding requests, as they come in, they must
link their request for their purchase to a goal and objective
that they themselves had set for their state.
Mr. Thompson. Okay. Well then explain to me why we have a
$697 million reduction in the amount of money requested to do
just that.
Ms. Mencer. Well, you know, we would have to go
specifically point by point through those reductions. But we
believe that the 2005 budget meets the needs, as outlined in
the budget, for our first responder community.
Actually the budget request of 2005 is over by a few
million the request in 2004. So are very consistently asking
for the resources necessary.
Mr. Thompson. But you are asking for less money.
Ms. Mencer. No, sir. We are actually asking for a few
million more than we did for our 2004 budget.
Mr. DeFazio. They had a supplemental last year.
Mr. Thompson. Well, I do not want to get into semantics.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, that is what she is doing.
Mr. Thompson. Yeah, I mean, the original budget, not the
supplemental.
Ms. Mencer. No, sir. The requested budget that we requested
in 2004 is less than what we requested in 2005. We were funded
at a higher level for 2004.
Mr. Thompson. Okay. Well, it is still semantics.
Thank you.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman.
The chair would now call on the chair of the full
committee, Mr. Cox, for questions.
Mr. Cox. Thank you very much. I appreciate very much both
of your testimonies. And I want to congratulate you on: first,
of course, the things you are already doing so well; second, on
helping us identify where the problems are--in your testimony,
you both did that; and third, jumping on it right away.
Because some of this is a work in progress. And it will be
for several years, if not decades. And I think we are all
shirking our responsibility if we do not own up to that. I
think in your testimony you have done a very good job of that.
And so I do not want to dwell on those things that would
have been my questions had you not laid them out that way, such
as the areas where the inspector general's report, which you
included with your testimony, says we need to do better. You
are working on that.
I am pleased to hear that we are all focused on these
issues together and we are going to fix them. But I want to ask
about something else that is part and parcel of this; and that
is, the way that we allocate the money and the degree to which
the department has discretion to allocate to the states and
localities within the states based on risk.
DHS follows a formula set by Congress, as I mentioned, that
I strongly disagree with--and so do you, I think--that
guarantees every state a specific amount simply because it is a
state. It has nothing to do with the nation's security or
terrorism.
It is just a number. It is a completely arbitrary number.
But that completely arbitrary number consumes almost 40 percent
of the pot. And that leaves a little more than 60 percent
thereafter.
Why, Ms. Mencer, did ODP choose to allocate that remaining
60 percent entirely based on population? Doesn't that compound
the problem of a formulaic allocation of the funds?
Ms. Mencer. I think what we attempted to do in the budget
request is to balance both issues. By putting more money in the
2005 request for Urban Areas Security Initiative, we have
addressed the risk vulnerability, critical assets and high
density population areas, which we believe are deserved of
increased funding because of those things that they do have
there, but at the same time, maintain a minimum amount of
funding for each state.
Because I think what we saw in Oklahoma City and what we
saw in the Midwest with the pipe bomber who went around and put
pipe bombs in mailboxes, we never really quite know where the
next attack will be. So I think this provides some measure of
fiscal contribution to all the states, as well as the urban
areas, which by necessity need the majority of the funding.
Mr. Cox. Well, I want to put the question again perhaps
more directly. The state formula grants comprise a component
that includes the state minimum and the entirety of the 60
percent or so that remains after that was awarded by ODP based
on population alone with no other consideration taken into
account.
I want to know why that is not just as formulaic as the
small state minimum and why we are not doing it on the basis of
risk. And I need to understand whether you think that you
cannot do it and you need legal help because it cannot be done
administratively.
Ms. Mencer. Well, I think the budget allows the secretary
the flexibility to put funds where he feels the needs are the
greatest. And I hear your concerns. I think those are good
ones.
I think certainly we need to take risk into consideration
in a lot of things. I think there are some rural areas out
there who would say that they are at risk as well because of
their power plants.
Mr. Cox. Precisely. And that is why I find it inadequate to
suggest that, in the other program, in the $596 million that
represents high-threat urban area grants, that that is the
entirety of our claim to be allocating monies on the basis of
risk, as if there is a synonymous relationship between being
urban and being at risk.
That is not necessarily the case at all. We have this whole
IAIP directorate. We have TTIC. We have the FBI. We have the
CIA. We have all these defense intelligence programs.
What is it all worth if in the end we allocate the monies
on the basis of population and then we have a smaller pot and
we give it to cities and we say that is the risk part. We might
as well get rid of this multibillion investment in
intelligence.
Ms. Mencer. As you know, we have increased--doubled--the
amount going to the urban areas under risk and threat
vulnerability assessments.
Mr. Cox. And that is part of my complaint because I do not
think it is right to say that it is just a tautology, that
urban and risk is the same thing. It just cannot be.
And I jump on this at the very point in your response where
you were telling me a point I agree with, which is that rural
areas face threats too. And areas with no population whatsoever
might contain some of the nation's most vital infrastructure.
Certainly, agricultural areas need to keep track of the
risk to the food supply and on and on--water and other
resources. So it just cannot be that we should check the box
that says ``urban'' and then say we have taken care of risk.
Neither should it be the case that all urban areas are the
same. And the mere fact that there is a big city does not mean
that that is precisely where we should be targeting our funds.
We have to be a lot smarter, the way we do this.
So the question then dissolves into: do you believe you
have sufficient administrative authority to do this right away?
And are there plans to do so?
Ms. Mencer. I do believe that the secretary has that
flexibility. And I know he has expressed an interest, as you
had stated earlier, to look at this funding formula and to work
with Congress in determining what that should be.
Mr. Shadegg. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The chair would now call upon the ranking member, Mr.
Turner, for his questions.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the things that
caught my attention in the statement that you submitted, Mr.
Schrader, which I think is critical, is that is you have a
comment on vulnerability analysis is a critical tool, but that
must be coupled with threat analysis.
Mr. Schrader. Yes, sir.
Mr. Turner. And I am going to have a little different angle
on it than you do because what you were asking for is greater
assistance to carry out threat analysis. And it seems like what
we lack here, in addition to the items that Chairman Cox was
referencing, is that we have not yet decided who is supposed to
carry out these analyses.
I mean, obviously, you have the perception that for
Maryland, you are supposed to do it. And your request, in your
statement here is that, you need the threat analysis capability
to be able to wisely expend the funds that you receive.
And yet, we have another group here at the Department of
Homeland Security, IAIP, that is supposed to carry out that
task for the country. Somehow, we are going to have to come
down to the point where we decide who is making these
decisions.
Our legislation calls for the creation of essential
capabilities for preparedness. And perhaps we can agree,
through a process that we suggest in our bill, as to what the
essentials are. But we have to be able to have some capability
to make decisions for the country regarding threat.
I am not convinced that we are going down the right path
having you in Maryland trying to decide how you are going to
build the capability in Maryland to do your threat and
vulnerability assessments, when we claim to have another group
in Washington that is supposed to be doing the same thing.
So I think we may have a real need to sort those
responsibilities out.
Mr. Schrader. May I clarify the question?
Mr. Turner. Yes.
Mr. Schrader. We may have a misunderstanding. What we are
doing in Maryland is a partnership with the federal government.
In fact, the folks that are actually doing the work are the FBI
with the Joint Terrorism Task Force.
And in the information sharing process, we have developed a
collaboration between federal, state and local law enforcement
because the theory is that information sharing between the
three levels of government will allow us to protect ourselves.
And therefore, we have reached out. And Attorney General
Ashcroft, in his wisdom, established these advisory councils
after 9/11.
Our assistant U.S. attorney in Baltimore has done a
marvelous job in pulling that together. But that is a
collaborative effort with the federal government.
We do not intend to build our own capability. What we are
doing is learning how to reach out to the federal government
and work collaboratively with the federal resources.
Mr. Turner. I understand. I think that is wholly
appropriate. But you point out another problem, and that is at
the local level and the state level, you are working with the
FBI to do these threat and vulnerability assessments.
We have a Department of Homeland Security that has that
responsibility nationwide. So we are going down two separate
paths, I guess, with two separate federal agencies.
Because I suppose the FBI has a longer tenure with working
with local governments, they are down there working with them
and these task forces and groups that are created to try to
deal with this. And yet, we have given, through the Homeland
Security Act, the responsibility to the Department of Homeland
Security, the IAIP Directorate.
So we have some things that obviously need to be sorted
out.
Another thing that I have noticed, Director Mencer, when I
tried to get a hold of three of four copies of State plans. My
impression when I was reviewing them is that they vary widely
in terms of their quality.
For some of them, I think you could hire a graduate student
at a good university and tell him or her that you need a State
plan in the next 6 months, and you would probably get about
what you get in some of these plans. I think there is a real
need here--again--to try to sort out who is making the
decisions.
You expect to get a state plan from State governments that
contains a threat and vulnerability assessment. You are now
requiring that they link what they want to receive in
assistance to a goal they have, which presumably is based upon
a threat analysis.
And yet, most of our states have very little capability to
produce a real threat and vulnerability analysis. So I think
the frustration that many of us are feeling is that we are
spending millions of dollars in a very unfocused, misdirected
way.
Nobody really has settled out as to who is in charge,
whether it is the IAIP or whether it is the FBI and the local
task forces at the state level. We have not made those
decisions yet.
I think those of you who are closest to the issue should be
able to see it even more clearly than we do, and should have
some suggestions for us as to how we ought to sort that out and
where those responsibilities should be placed. And I might ask
Director Mencer to comment on that.
Ms. Mencer. Sure, I would be happy to.
We have allowed, in our allowable funds for the state's
portion of the money going out, for administrative costs and to
hire, if they need to, personnel to assemble plans and do
whatever they need to do administratively in the state to
manage that. In addition to that, we do have a validation
project that is underway. We called in some states to look at a
validation tool.
So they have the next six-month period to validate their
strategies and to make whatever changes they need to perhaps
enhance them and make them a better product. We have also
worked very closely with our technical assistance folks in ODP
to help the states shore up or increase or better the document
that they produced in the process, but after the fact as well,
during this validation period.
So we are making efforts to address your concerns. And I
cannot speak for General Labutti obviously, for IAIP. But I can
assure you that IAIP works very closely with the FBI at the
national level, as well as at the state level with the joint
terrorism task forces.
So it is working. There is a cooperative effort at the
national level too, without going too far into IAIP because
that is not my area.
Mr. Schrader. May I comment on that, sir? Because I think
it is important, you have raised an important issue that I
think, from the state's perspective, caught my attention.
The state and private sector in the states own these
assets. So we do not perceive IAIP as telling us exactly what
we ought to be doing. We see them as partners in facilitating
our thinking and helping us.
We know--it is fairly self-evident--where the airport is
and where the bridges are and where the tunnels are. And we are
monitoring those things.
So we would be distressed if there was a federal initiative
to come down and tell us how to do it.
Mr. Shadegg. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The chair would call upon the gentleman from New York, Mr.
King, for questioning.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Mencer, I am still trying to work my way through
the funding issue. And I have read the chairman's report and I
was listening to his questions carefully this morning.
And I say this with a bit of bias, coming from New York.
Last year, we did begin the terminology of the high-threat
urban areas. And the focus of that, the purpose of that, was to
get the money where it was needed most.
But I just question whether now that we have, I think, 30
cities included in that, are we minimizing the impact, as the
chairman said, by putting so many cities in? If you have 30
cities that are high threats, how many of them really are?
Are we spreading it out too thin? And when I look at the
numbers from the chairman's report, I see, other than New York,
of the other 29 cities of those 30, they have only drawn down
five percent of the monies available to them.
And I do not mean this in an argumentative way. But if they
are at such high risk, why are they only drawing down five
percent of the money?
I can understand other areas of the country who may not
feel that direct risk, why they would be a little slower in
coming up with plans. But if you have 29 cities only drawing
down five percent--I understand New York City has drawn down
almost everything that it could possibly be getting--isn't that
an indication of where the real threats are?
And again, I am not trying to make just a case here for New
York City. I am really making the case as to whether or not we
are just focusing on urban areas or we are focusing on high
population areas.
And you can have an area where there is no population that
can be under tremendous threat. You can have other cities, such
as New York, which are always going to be under the gun.
And I am just wondering: do you feel that you have the
flexibility now, even before we pass our legislation, to
address that? Because, you know, all of us are involved in
politics. We all know what pork barrel legislation is about.
We can make a mistake on a highway bill and send the money
to the wrong place or a public works bill and somehow it will
work itself out over the course of time. If we keep sending
homeland security money to the wrong places now, it could be
life or death.
We really do not have that luxury of playing the pork
barrel game or sending money just because more people happen to
live there or they have two senators there.
So I guess I am, in a roundabout way, asking you: do you
feel that we can come up with a more targeted way of getting
the money to the areas that need it, whether or not they are
urban, whether or not they have high population, and a greater
way of determining who needs the money the most, who is under
threat?
I know, like when it comes to the F-16s, we have a way of
determining who is going to have F-16s flying over their area,
as far as threats. Can we somehow incorporate the same logic
into getting monies to the high-threat areas in the country?
And that is a roundabout way of asking a very convoluted
question. So I will let you answer any way you wish.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Mencer. No. Without belaboring the point on the
drawdown issue, which we have discussed before, there are a lot
of reasons why the urban areas have not drawn down the funds
that they have obligated already.
An obligation means that they have designated uses for this
money. And because they have not drawn down yet, there is a lot
of different reasons, some of which are equipment backlogs at
the companies, because as you can imagine, these vendors that
sell these products are overwhelmed with requests from the
state for this equipment.
There are also procurement issues. There are legislative
issues. Some states require that all federal grants go through
their legislative bodies. Their funding streams require that.
So there are all kinds of issues. So I will not go any
further with that. But that is an issue.
Mr. King. Can I just ask you on that, though? I can accept
all that to an extent. But as proud as I am to be from New
York, are we that much more advanced than the other 29 cities?
Ms. Mencer. Absolutely, sir.
[Laughter.]
Mr. King. Oh, okay.
Ms. Mencer. Was that the right answer?
Mr. King. Give her whatever she wants.
I mean, seriously the point I am making is I am just
wondering if the whole thing could not be expedited more for
the others.
Okay, I interrupted you.
Ms. Mencer. No, I think you are right. I think we do look,
when we expanded the urban areas, we looked at not just high
density population. But it was a very complicated matrix, which
included the threat information from the FBI and the
intelligence community.
So these other areas do have a risk associated with them,
which is why they were included in the urban areas. So it is an
all-inclusive process when we look at how to determine what is
an urban area to be included in the grant process.
Mr. King. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman for his questioning.
The chair would now call upon the gentlelady from the U.S.
Virgin Islands, Ms. Christensen, for her questioning.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome,
Directors Mencer and Schrader.
Director Mencer, as I read your testimony, it seems as
though I am seeing some of what we have been calling for
through many of our hearings and what is included in H.R. 3266.
Can I assume from that that the department supports our first
responder bill?
Ms. Mencer. I think I had a meeting with Chairman Cox the
other day. And we talked about many issues in the bill. And I
think there are some very good initiatives in there.
And we are working closely with you all on that.
Mrs. Christensen. That is not a real endorsement of our
bill. But we will keep working on it.
This question is to both of you. I think the reminder of
the process that you gave, Director Schrader, that it is
reimbursement, that the Brinks truck does not just stop and
drop off the money, was helpful to have us really focus in on
what may be happening with the money. And the money that is not
being spent, where is the problem?
Because we hear from, as we have traveled around the
country, that the first responder agencies have sometimes spent
the money and they are not being reimbursed. Is that where the
problem is, that the fire, police, all of the first responders
see the need? They are attempting to address the needs of their
community with regard to homeland security and the
reimbursement is not coming?
And if that is the case, where is the problem? And what is
being done to fix it? And that is a question for both of you.
Mr. Schrader. Let me just start by saying it is almost, you
have to take it on a case-by-case basis. What I have found,
going around our state, is I hear similar things. But the
reality is that we have allocated those decisions to the local
jurisdictions to make.
So for example, if a local jurisdiction decides they are
going to focus their resources on a particular area, but a
municipality in that jurisdiction is left out, then that
municipality would say, ``We have not seen any of the money.''
Mrs. Christensen. How fast do you reimburse?
Mr. Schrader. We are in about a 60-day cycle.
Mrs. Christensen. And your cycle with the department?
Mr. Schrader. About the same. So once the invoice comes and
we pay, it is a pretty rapid turnaround.
I think a lot of the issue is in the decision process and
the local processes of appropriating. Like, for example, you
have a local council. A lot of the local councils, if their
emergency director comes and says, ``We have been allocated
$100,000 worth of authority. We want to spend this money,''
well, then they have to appropriate that through the local
jurisdiction.
A lot of them will be concerned about how that money gets
spent. For example, they do not want to add additional cost
that cannot be sustained.
And so they are very careful about how that money is being
spent. And then the procurement regulations, there is
oftentimes an issue.
Mrs. Christensen. I am going to come back to that.
Mr. Schrader. Sure.
Mrs. Christensen. But where is the problem? Is it that80
percent of the money is still unspent? Is that--?
Ms. Mencer. You know, I think it is less than that. But I
think that is what the funding task force is looking at trying
to resolve--not resolve so much as find out where these
problems are and how to address them.
So they are looking, in this funding task force, not only
at identifying where the problems are, but where are the best
practices, so that we can share this information with other
states. There are some states that have done a great job of
kind of getting around some of these procurement issues and
kind of even passing legislation within their state to
facilitate this process.
And in some cases, that is what it might take, some
legislative changes. Again, because we have never moved money
this quickly, there are some procedures that are too slow to
process.
Mrs. Christensen. I do have a lot more questions, but I see
my time is almost up. Let me just ask about the Urban Areas
Security Initiative. I assume that is based on assessment of
unique vulnerabilities of urban, high-density areas.
Is that the case? Has that assessment been done? And has a
similar assessment been done of rural areas and territories
which have some unique vulnerabilities? And what can we look
for, for initiatives for them?
Ms. Mencer. In the first part, yes, those things are all
looked at. It is the matrix I described earlier, where there is
input from the intelligence community as to threats and
vulnerabilities, as well as high population, critical
infrastructure. All those things are included.
And yes, we have been working with the territories as well.
And certainly their strategies should have defined--and I am
certain they did--particular risks, such as cruise ships and
things of that nature, that you all deal with.
So we do look at that in the state strategies as well and
make sure that their requests match what they have defined as
their goals and objectives.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up.
Mr. Shadegg. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
The chair would recognize the gentlelady from Washington,
the vice chair of the full committee, Ms. Dunn, for
questioning.
Ms. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to ask you, Ms. Mencer, if the administration
supports allowing regions to apply for grants?
Ms. Mencer. I think certainly under the Urban Areas
Security Initiative, we have allocated money to regions. I
think in Chairman Cox's bill, he discusses--.
Ms. Dunn. That specifically.
Ms. Mencer. Yes. I think that is a very good idea of a way
to combine resources. And I commend that initiative. I think as
long as--and we discussed this the other day--the states
maintain the primary responsibility for the application process
and the disbursement of these funds, particularly so we can
coordinate these requests with the state strategies so we do
have a unified effort in the state and the state does not lose
control--or sight really, not control--but the management
oversight over how these funds are being spent, so we do not
duplicate effort. We do not duplicate the funds going out.
Ms. Dunn. So that would be your caveat? As long as the
state stays in control of the dollars, you support regional
grants?
Ms. Mencer. Well, certainly for me it would seem logical,
that that would be a good thing. I think anytime, particularly
when you look at what a weapon of mass destruction is, by
definition it overcomes the capability of any one community to
deal with it.
So by necessity, I think all the states have gone to
regional approaches within their state so that they can combine
their resources at the state, local and federal level within
the state to address an incident.
Ms. Dunn. And so how would it work with Mr. Schrader's
request for more analysts? Are the states capable of handling
this kind of thing right now? Or would you share in information
provided by the Department of Homeland Security?
Or how would that work?
Mr. Schrader. Well, a lot of the threats are local. So for
example, if you are in the State of Maryland, we know there is
a couple of hundred key assets. We have our seaport and the
airport. Working with the FBI, what we need are analysts that
can work with the local information to say,``Here are the three
things that we need to be focused on in the next 30 days. And
here are the targets.''
So it is the targeting. So we are getting general threat
information at the federal level. And of course, there is
generalized information that is more specific information at
the local JTTF.
But if we had more analysts working with us in these joint
centers, we could do more targeting. And that would be helpful.
Ms. Dunn. In our legislation, we do away with the
reimbursement policy, which in your report and in the report
that we released yesterday, is a problem and results in the
lack of spending that we have seen in our report. You mentioned
that reimbursement policy.
In our legislation, we would require the priorities of the
region in how they would spend the money and so forth. How is
this reimbursement policy causing you trouble in getting
dollars down to the local levels, down to, for example, the
small community that does not have any money to spend in the
first place and has to wait around and wonders if it is ever
going to be reimbursed by the government?
How is that really working in a practical sense?
Mr. Schrader. Well, we could make it work if we had to, so
I do not want to suggest that it is an impediment. But what it
does do is it makes it more complex for the local jurisdictions
in that they have to legislate the money. They have to put it
upfront. And then they have to apply through the process to get
the money.
I was in the Urban Area Work Group 3 weeks ago in
Baltimore. And we were talking about their joint process to put
a backup 911 center in.
Well, then the discussion came around to, ``Well, you know
this is reimbursable.'' And the folks in the room said, ``Oh,
yeah, that is right. We had not thought about that.''
So then we said, ``Well, which jurisdiction is going to put
the money up first?'' So if we had the cash flow to be able to
move on some of these initiatives, it would move faster. It
would put a lot more responsibility on the state, which we
would deal with.
I think the problem is that the reimbursement process is
not well understood. We are beginning to understand it at the
state level. And we are pushing that word out.
But down at the local level, grantsmanship is not something
that they have a skill set in.
Ms. Dunn. That is true. Final question to Ms. Mencer: you
said in your testimony to us that it would be much easier to do
one-stop shopping. Can you explain how this would be easier?
How you would like to see that work? What needs to be done
to make sure that it can work?
Ms. Mencer. Yes, ma'am. I think the states, for practical
purposes, I think already believe that our Office of State and
Local Coordination and ODP are one office because we are
together all the time on the conference calls. So that part of
the consolidation, I think, is very understandable to the
states and accepted.
I think the part that is of interest to most people are
moving some of these grants into ODP as well, as part of this
consolidation effort. From a state homeland security director
perspective--and I will defer to my deskmate here for any
confirmation or not of that--I think it really helps to have
one point to go to for all grants concerning preparedness.
We have been able in ODP to consolidate some of the grant
applications in this process. We now have consolidated our
state homeland security grant, the Citizen Corps grant and the
law enforcement terrorism prevention grant into one
application. So that is a big help to the states as they
looking at putting the pencil to paper kind of application
process.
But it is all computerized now. But you know, I think that
has been a big help to the states. So that is what we mean by
the one-stop shop, having one place for them to go for these
grants.
Hopefully, it will be a good thing. And I will defer.
Mr. Schrader. Well, I think the more we can do that, the
better. Actually, DHS sent us out, as part of their most recent
initiative for program management, to give us their summary
analysis of all the money they thought was out there.
Fortunately, when Governor Ehrlich appointed me back in
August, I had started doing the same thing, because we get
money from CDC, HRSA. We got money in 2002 from DOJ because
that is where the money was previously.
FEMA puts money out for interoperability grants. So being
able to consolidate and focus, I think in the long run will be
a good thing.
Mr. Shadegg. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
The chair would now call upon the gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr. Etheridge, for questioning.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for
bouncing in and out, but I have another hearing going on at the
very same time this morning.
Ms. Mencer, if I may for you, please? North Carolina is one
of those states that has extensive experience, unfortunately,
in floods and hurricanes and ice storms. And the list is long--
tornadoes.
So we have had a lot of experience in it. And we sort of
take an all-hazards approach to our preparedness.
And with the consolidation of most emergency response
grants into the Office of Domestic Preparedness in the
Department of Homeland Security has become one of the sole
sources of federal preparedness funding for most states and for
ours as well. The administration's budget reduces state
flexibility. And restrictions are put on much of the funding.
And it is targeted really toward terrorist activities.
If you are a local unit of government and have a flood or a
tornado or a hurricane or whatever and you have lost
everything, it does not make a difference who does it.
Whether it be intentional or by natural disaster, you have
a disaster. And you have some of the same problems associated
with it.
And I recognize that anti-terrorism must be the highest
priority of the department. I do not think any of us disagree
with that.
But is it the administration's intention that states and
municipalities bear the entire cost of natural disaster
planning, training and the response? And if not, how does ODP
believe states should balance their responsibilities?
Ms. Mencer. Yes, sir. I think on a couple of points here
you are correct. I think in a lot of cases, when it is not a
tornado or a flood or a hurricane and you do not know the cause
yet, then certainly the response is the same.
If there is an explosion and you do not know if it is a
man-made explosion or a gas leak or something of that nature,
so the response is the same. I think you are absolutely correct
in stating as well that the number one priority of the nation
right now is terrorism and to detect, deter and respond to a
disaster such as that.
I think anything we do for terrorism helps with the natural
responses as well. Because in most cases, communication is the
key. And I think that the dollars that are being spent in
terrorism preparedness and response capabilities will enhance
natural disaster responses as well.
But indeed, the states do have to assume some financial
responsibility for preparing themselves for the everyday
occurrences that they have always done.
Mr. Etheridge. All right. That being given, under the
current funding, the President's proposal will have significant
impact, I think, on emergency preparedness on the state level
because currently they can have pretty flexible dollars.
Under the current proposal, only 25 percent of the grant
funds will be available at the state level to support state and
local emergency management personnel salaries that are
critical, having personnel on the ground to respond, whether it
be terrorism or otherwise. As I have said currently, in March
of 2003, a survey by the National Emergency Management
Association found an additional 5,212 local emergency
management positions were needed nationwide, with 3,960--or 76
percent--of those positions being full-time directors needed
for a host of issues.
Under Secretary Brown and others have informed this
committee that the limitations on the use of EMPG grant funds
for personnel costs will result in increased state and local
training funds and exercise money. My question is: without
effective people on the ground, even though we have training
money, how will they be able to participate in training and
exercise if we do not have people to participate in training
and exercise?
Ms. Mencer. Yes, sir. And I hear you. And I have heard the
concerns--.
Mr. Etheridge. Well, I understand you hear me. But what we
really need are some answers.
Ms. Mencer. Right.
Mr. Etheridge. And I hope you will take that back to some
folks to understand that it is fine to say we are getting more
money. But if we are taking the money from another pot that is
absolutely imperative that we use, at the end of the day, we
are not any better off. And we may be worse off because we do
not have people on the ground to do the job.
Ms. Mencer. And I commit to you that I will take that back.
Mr. Etheridge. Will you follow that up and get back to me
with a written answer, please?
Ms. Mencer. I will, indeed.
Mr. Etheridge. I thank you.
Ms. Mencer. You are welcome.
Mr. Etheridge. Mr. Schrader, for you, in your testimony,
you also commented on the need for the EMPG to maintain
flexible funding for personnel costs.
Mr. Schrader. Exactly.
Mr. Etheridge. I hope you will comment, because you have
some experience at it, as how this 25 percent restriction is
going to affect your state. I know how it affects mind.
I think people need to understand what this does and where
we wind up.
Mr. Schrader. Well, our state strategy revolves around an
all-hazards approach.
Mr. Etheridge. Right.
Mr. Schrader. We need those people on the ground because
they are the infrastructure that we rely on. We do not have a
homeland security workforce and an emergency management
workforce.
We are double tasking those folks. So therefore, we need to
actually expand their capabilities and give them more money and
more training.
But at a minimum, we have to maintain what we have. If we
start to reduce that workforce, we are going to lose our
ability in the local jurisdictions to execute these programs.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
And I just want that on the record. And I hope others in the
committee--I think it is important to understand that the
department has a charge.
But the important thing is to understand that there are a
lot of other things that these local jurisdictions have to do.
And they cannot have two different groups.
And we have to understand that as we are reaching down, as
we put out administrative rules and policies, because otherwise
it will impede and put us in a position of not getting the job
done we really want to get done because of the other things we
have to do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cox. [Presiding.] I thank the gentleman. The
gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Weldon, is recognized.
Dr. Weldon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both for
testifying.
Mr. Chairman, as I read through this testimony, Ms. Mencer,
one item catches my attention and will be the focus of my
discussion. Because ODP is urged by the inspector general to
accelerate the development of federal guidelines for first
responder preparedness, including capability levels, equipment,
training and exercises.
You know what really amazes me? The first responders in
this country have been here longer than the country has been a
country.
There are 32,000 organizations in America that are
organized. Many of them do not belong to any government. They
are private non-profits.
They have been responding to every disaster this country
has had longer than the country has been a country. And they
have not had to have federal guidelines on how to do their job.
I was the fire chief in a town of less than 5,000 people in
1974. We had the largest incident in America. Two ships
collided.
Twenty-nine people were killed. It burned out of control
for 3 days. And 80 other departments responded.
We did not have to have ODP come in and tell us how to do
our job. That could have been a terrorist attack.
And I resent the idea that somehow the federal government
is going to come in and tell these people, because for all
these years they have not known how to do their job. And that
is the attitude that the emergency responders in this country
receive, that somehow Washington is now going to come in, even
though they have handled blevies on rail lines, even though
they have handled hazmat incidents, even though they had fires
in chemical plants that have been as toxic as any chemical
weapon that mankind could create.
Even though they have handled all of that, all of a sudden
now, the federal government knows how you better do your job.
And you better pay attention.
And so in the end, I have to ask the question, as I travel
around the country--and I have been on almost every disaster we
have had since I have been here in Congress. I ask the first
responders: how are we doing? And they look at me and they
laugh.
They said, ``Are you kidding me?'' The first 30 minutes to
an hour in any incident are the most critical. You are not
going to have an ODP person on the ground that first hour.
You are not going to have a FEMA bureaucrat. You are not
going to have an inspector general.
When the sarin gas attack occurred in Japan, the first hour
determined how many people were overcome by sarin gas. When
Chief Marrs arrived in Oklahoma City at the Murrah Building, it
was the first hour that determined how successful he would be.
And you know what, Mr. Chairman? We still do not have the
basic answers available to them.
Let me just give you some examples. I was in your state,
Landers/Big Bear Northridge earthquake. And I am walking the
freeway that had sandwiched on top of itself with the fire
chiefs of Oakland and San Francisco.
Was that 12 years ago? And I said to the chiefs, ``Why
aren't you using thermal imagers, using dogs to try to find
people that are trapped in these vehicles?'' And the two chiefs
said, ``What are thermal imagers?''
I said, ``Well, the Navy developed them 10 years ago to
find people on ships that might still be alive.'' The federal
government had not even told of the technology available to
first responders.
So I came back from that incident and I introduced
legislation to create a computerized inventory of assets that a
first responding chief could have in his hand, so when he
arrived--whether it was Chief Marrs in Oklahoma City or the San
Francisco or Oakland chief in that incident--if they needed a
structural engineer, if they needed a sensor, to plug it in and
know where to get it.
Do we today have computerized inventories available for
first responders? Is it available?
Ms. Mencer. Yes, I believe it is, sir.
Dr. Weldon. No, it is not.
Ms. Mencer. Computerized, no. We have lists though of--.
Dr. Weldon. Twelve years ago, I introduced legislation to
create a national computerized inventory so when a chief
officer arrives on the scene, whether it is a terrorist
incident or a man-made disaster, where do I go to get
structural engineers? Which federal agency can give me thermal
imagers?
Who can I get to get a specialized testing capability in
here? We still do not have it. And we play these games with,
``Well, we have this protocol. We have that study underway.''
Let's answer the most basic question from the bottom up.
That is where the answer.
They know what to do. They know how to respond. They need
the training resources. They need the dollars to buy the
equipment. They need us to get out of their way.
I think of communication, when Tom Ridge was in office, the
first week he was in, I met with him because he is a friend of
mine. I said, ``Tom, you have to do two things. We have no
integrated domestic emergency communication system for our
first responders.''
And here we are, 3 years later. We still do not have an
integrated domestic communication system for a number of
reasons: lack of frequency spectrum allocation and lack of
funding to implement a broad, integrated communication system.
It was Chief Marrs' biggest problem in Oklahoma City.
So I guess I get down to a fundamental question: why don't
we cut through all the--excuse my French--bullshit and listen
to the first responders who have been telling us, for the last
20 years, what they need? And for the state bureaucracies that
take the money and build big bureaucracies and not give the
money down to the locals is outrageous.
Now does that mean we should allow them to buy anything
they want? To have a fire company buy a $500,000 truck they do
not need? No. And that is why planning is so important.
But I can tell you, in the years that I have seen,
especially since 9/11, our attempt at responding to the first
responder has been outrageous. And I can only say to you both--
and I think the gentleman from Maryland knows the power of his
fire service very well and the emergency response community
because it is very strong in your state and does an excellent
job.
Do you know we have no ODP funding for fire training
centers in the country? The primary training center for these
first responders in every state are the state fire training
centers. You have a great one in Maryland.
Do you know we cannot use ODP funding for that? So why
don't we cut through the BS. That is what the firefighter grant
program did. Would you agree that is one of the most successful
programs we have ever created?
Mr. Schrader. Very successful, very popular in our state,
yes.
Dr. Weldon. Very popular, because the money goes directly
to those people who have their necks on the line to respond,
whether it is a small town or a big city.
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry for expressing my sense of
frustration. But it is very real to me because I would not be
in this job were it not for these people. And it frustrates me
to see us spinning wheels about how to get money.
And I know you are trying to do a good job with your
legislation, which I fully support. We have to find a way to
have the local emergency response leaders, who are going to be
the first people on the scene in every incident, have the
tools, the equipment, the training and the resources they need.
And I do not think the federal government should be able to
tell them how to do that. Thank you.
Mr. Cox. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
has done more work on first responders than anybody in Congress
that I can think of, except possibly Mr. Pascrell, who is
recognized.
Mr. Pascrell. Well, I want to say to Mr. Weldon, comma, not
period. I want to continue, if I may, if you will allow me that
opportunity.
This to me is a sham. And I am sorry we have to go vote
now. But the budget's program assessment rating tool--get this,
Curt--declared that ``the fire grant program is unfocused and
has not demonstrated its impact on public safety.''
This is a fraud. And the fact is that this program has
positively impacted--ask the firefighters, please--public
safety by providing $2 billion for such things as-unfocused!--
infrared cameras, hazmat detection devices, improved breathing
apparatus, advanced training and fitness programs, fire engines
and interoperable communications system.
Now I want to give you an example. I want to give you an
example. I think it is a good one. And I do not care if I miss
the vote. I am sorry, comma.
The leading cause of firefighter death in America, do you
know what it is, Ms. Mencer? Do you know what the leading cause
of death is to firefighters?
Ms. Mencer. Heart attacks?
Mr. Pascrell. I am sorry?
Ms. Mencer. Heart attacks.
Mr. Pascrell. That is correct. Thank you. It occurs either
at or returning from a fire. In my district of Bloomfield, New
Jersey, firefighter Dan McGrath can tell you a thing or two
about the need for cardiac fitness.
When McGrath went to his physical, mandated--and you are
taking this out of the Fire Act. Oh yeah, you care about fire
responders. You really do.
A physical mandated program, funded by the 2002 Fire Act,
the fire grant, it was discovered that he needed immediate
heart surgery. No one had any idea he was in danger prior to
that physical. He did not certainly.
He had successful bypass surgery and valve replacement
surgery and is on the job today.
With all this in mind, why would the President's budget
request, which you are here to defend, eliminate funding for
programs to enhance the level of cardiac fitness among
firefighters? And I am waiting for a good answer.
Ms. Mencer. I believe that the focus for the Fire Act
grants are on the items that we consider to be priorities in
view of the terrorist acts in the Homeland Security Department,
which is training and safety equipment for firefighters.
Mr. Pascrell. Do you know that you have eliminated nine of
the 14 categories? And that is one of them? Do you know that?
Ms. Mencer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pascrell. Well then, how can you simply say that you
are taking that into account? You have eliminated it in the
President's budget. You have eliminated nine of the 14
categories that were funded directly to local communities.
No bureaucrat, no state bureaucrat can skim off the top. It
is the most successful program, like the COPS program.
You are cutting this program by $250 million. You are
cutting the COPS program, which has nothing to do with you, by
$660 million. This is an absurdity.
Do you know Exhibit A, B, C and D? Exhibit A, fire
departments across the country have only enough radios.
I know you guys want to end it now, but let me finish
because this is important to me. I was a mayor and I was on the
line when these guys and gals gave up their lives. So you are
not going to put this into a political situation.
There is not enough radios to equip half the firefighters
on a shift. And breathing apparatuses for only one-third of all
the firefighters in this country.
Police departments in cities nationwide do not have the
protective gear to safely secure a site following an attack
with weapons of mass destruction. Most cities do not have the
necessary equipment to determine what kind of hazardous
materials emergency responders may be facing.
All terrorist incidents are local. That is what Curt Weldon
was saying. They are local. At least we can start at that
particular point.
How can you, in good conscience, cut the Fire Act? How can
you, in good conscience, say it is unfocused?
How can you simply try to communicate to the American
people when you know quite well that not too long ago, former
Senator Warren Rudman said, ``The United States remains
dangerously ill prepared to handle a catastrophic attack on
American soil?'' And in three instances, that has been
supported. And let me tell you where the incidences are.
The report of an independent task force sponsored by the
Council on Foreign Relations: ``emergency responders
drastically underfunded,'' et cetera. That came out in June of
2003.
The fourth annual report to the President and the Congress
of the advisory panel to assess domestic response capabilities,
that came out December 16, 2002. And the General Accounting
Office, their own report: ``grant system continues to be highly
fragmented,'' April 2003.
We have this. It is documented. We do not even have a
national assessment of where we are most vulnerable.
And darn it, I have a right to be angry today because I am
talking to someone who is very bright and knows--you are the
messenger. I know that.
But we are not going to take it anymore. We are not going
to take throwing across the screen that we are safer now than
we were before when we do not even have a coordinated effort.
We zeroed in into interoperable communication. Zero amount of
dollars.
When you heard Mr. Weldon say it is the most critical
problem facing us today, how do you explain this to the
American people? You tell me.
Mr. Shadegg. [Presiding.] The chair appreciates the
gentleman's passion. His time is expired.
Mr. Pascrell. It is not just passion. It is facts. Passion
without facts is meaningless
Mr. Shadegg. The chair appreciates the gentleman's passion
and would like Ms. Mencer to be able to answer the question.
Ms. Mencer. Yes. For the first regard, as far as the
funding being reduced, I just want to point out that it is
equal to the funding request of the 2004 budget, showing the
secretary and the President's commitment to the firefighting
community.
It was funded for more than that in 2004. But our request
remains the same.
And as to your other comments, sir, I understand your
concern. And I think it has long been the responsibility of
each of us to make sure our health insurance is current and
that we have sufficient for our safety and our public health
concerns.
And I think that remains the focus of the Fire Act monies.
By their own request of the fire agencies that we consult with
for the Fire Act, they have stressed the terrorism aspect of
these funds for this year. And indeed, that reflects it in the
budget.
Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Shadegg. The chair would like to--.
Mr. Pascrell. If I may? One final comment.
Mr. Shadegg. A brief comment, as opposed to a question,
certainly.
Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Chairman, the melding of programs is one
of the biggest gimmicks tried by both political parties over
the last 30 years. When you meld it, you lose it. It is the
easiest way to do it, so you do not ever have to have a
proposition to do away with the Fire Act.
Put the Fire Act and move it, a successful program. You cut
it by $250 million when you need we should be going to $1
billion from the $750 million that we have.
You meld it into terrorism. The Fire Act occurred before 9/
11. These are basic needs that fire departments--small and
large--need.
And if we are not going to respond to the basic needs, Mr.
Chairman, we are not going to prepare America. Thank you.
Mr. Shadegg. Certainly.
As the gentleman well knows, the ultimate responsibility
for the budget remains with the Congress. And again, I
appreciate his passion and his concern. And Ms. Mencer is the
messenger. I think she heard the message.
I want to thank both of our witnesses for their appearance
here today. I think this has been a healthy and productive
dialogue.
Ms. Mencer, I recognize that you were just confirmed in
September of last year. You are new to this job. And indeed, it
is a very challenging task.
The gentleman, Mr. Pascrell, mentioned that the melding of
departments, he went on to say, is a way to get rid of them. I
thought he was going to say it is one of the toughest things
you do in government, because that is what is happened here in
the Department of Homeland Security.
We have melded 20 parts of--or all of--22 government
agencies. And I frequently say in this town that the second
toughest job in the entire town is that of your boss, the
director of the Department of Homeland Security.
I think this is a massive undertaking. I will tell you, I
at times have been critical and would like to have seen the
department do better. And I would like to see it continue to
improve, as would the American people.
But I want to commend you. I know you bring great
experience here.
Mr. Schrader, I was very impressed with your testimony. I
was a colleague, when I came in as a freshman, of your boss,
the governor, Bob Ehrlich. I think he has done a superb job in
selecting you for the task. And I commend you on your hard work
and appreciate both of you doing your jobs.
It is a difficult task. The sorting of these priorities is
a challenge for the Congress. And we will do our best, with
your input.
And we certainly appreciate your testimony and your efforts
on behalf of the people of America. We are in new times. And
these are challenging and different.
We have never faced this kind of threat to our nation
before. And you have been tasked with the front line job of
doing it and of sorting out all of those issues.
And as you saw the passion of two of my colleagues, one on
each side, people get wrapped up about these issues. People who
carry a single interest in the United States Congress and who
believe it is their job, for example, to work for one
particular interest can become extremely passionate about that
interest.
And I think we have seen a little bit of that here today.
And it is true that all great things, I think, are accomplished
by people who act with passion on a single-minded focus.
Both of the gentleman who have just spoken are passionate
about that issue. They are experts in that field. They care
deeply about it. And I think we appreciate their testimony.
That does not mean that you do not have a tough task and
that you are not doing your best under extremely difficult
circumstances. I want to thank you both.
I think it was tremendous to have both the department's
perspective, kind of looking down on this process, and the
perspective of a state director, looking up. I think that has
provided us with great perspective on a tough issue.
I am very pleased and hope that the press reports
accurately that headlines like this that say, ``Eighty Percent
of Homeland Security Funds Have Failed to Reach Local
Agencies,'' I hope that from this hearing, Americans will
understand that is not true, that in point of fact, it is a
much finer point; and that is, 80 percent perhaps have not been
spent and that there may be, as you pointed out in your
testimony, both good and bad reasons for that.
I think the American people want these funds spent
properly. And Mr. Schrader, as I think you pointed out, this is
a whole new process. It is like trying to set up something that
has never existed before and address a brand new issue.
The notion that it could be done overnight and done
properly, I think, is silly.
Ms. Mencer, in your testimony, I think you made that very
point. The department has concluded it is better to roll this
money out a little slower than we had hoped, but to spend it
wisely. And I think the American people would agree with you on
that.
So I appreciate your being here and your testimony.
Members of the committee will have additional questions for
the witnesses which they may submit to you in writing and which
we would ask you to respond to. And the hearing record will be
open for 10 days.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions and Responses for Director C. Suzanne Mencer, Submitted for
the Record
Questions from the Honorable John Shadegg
Question: 1. What is the current status of the assessment that focuses
on barriers and obstacles that independent or non-government EMS units
are facing in receiving DHS first responder grant funds that was
mandated in the FY 2004 Homeland Security appropriations bill?
Response: The Department's Office for Domestic Preparedness (now
the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness
, OSLGCP) was tasked with drafting this report. This report was
delivered to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on June 15,
2004.
Question: 2. Concern has been raised that OSLGCP regulations are
written without taking into account the unique geographical differences
of the Western US. One example is that the current UASI definition of a
core city and its contiguous counties. In the West, very few cities
overlap counties, but a county may have a dozen cities. What is being
done to correct these sorts of anomalies for the future?
Response: OSLGCP has incorporated flexibility into the
implementation of its guidelines by ensuring State and local
participation in the final definition of urban areas. OSLGCP selects
the core city based upon a risk analysis and nominates a corresponding
core county in order to help build viable regional prevention,
response, and recovery systems. The core county is defined as the
county that the core city resides within either geographically or
politically. The State, core city, and core county then further define
the urban area to ensure it incorporates all appropriate jurisdictions
and mutual aide partners. The respective State, core city, and core
county make the final determination on defining each urban area.
Question: 3. What is OSLGCP doing to communicate and coordinate with
EP&R on the assets that cities, counties, and states are purchasing
with SHSGP and UASI monies? Are you working on a comprehensive,
nationwide, state-by-state inventory of first responder assets? If a
terrorist attack were to occur in Phoenix tomorrow, would you know what
response assets exist in the City, contiguous cities, Maricopa County,
or the State of Arizona? Would FEMA/EP&R know?
Response: Most OSLGCP efforts and programs are focused on capacity
building at the State and local level. We gather information on
capabilities, and the impact our programs have on those capabilities,
through the Homeland Security Assessments and the resulting State and
Urban Area Homeland Security Strategies. These multi-year strategies
and assessments were updated in the fall of 2003 and steer all of the
funding provided by OSLGCPP to States and urban areas with an emphasis
on identifying and enhancing prevention, response, and recovery
capabilities at the State, local, and regional levels. This assessment
and strategy development process was a comprehensive effort that took
approximately nine months to complete and required the participation of
all States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and their
respective local jurisdictions. The reported data illustrates how
States and urban areas allocate grant funds and define benchmarks for
monitoring their impact, and this information is provided to OSLGCP
regularly. FEMA actively participated in the design of the assessment
and strategy development process. Additionally, they were an integral
part of the intra-DHS review board that reviewed and adjudicated all
State and Urban Area Homeland Security Strategies. As such, FEMA has
access to all OSLGCP data of current State and Local capabilities and
shortfalls.
As the automated data demonstrating the impact of the FY 2004 funds
becomes available, OSLGCP can share it with FEMA to enhance their
situational awareness.
The Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate is completing
the Federal Response Capability Inventory. State and local
jurisdictions have inventories of existing capabilities and resources.
They will be expected to update and compare those inventories to the
Baseline Capabilities Lists for the appropriate Tier, in order to
develop their Required Capabilities Lists in Fiscal Year 2005. The
Baseline Capabilities Lists are being created as part of the National
Preparedness Goal required by Homeland Security Presidential Directive
(HSPD)-8.
Additionally, DHS, through FEMA and the National Incident
Management System (NIMS) Integration Center, is conducting a resource
``typing'' project to standardize descriptions and characteristics of
common response teams and equipment. Resource typing ensures accuracy
when incident a managers are requesting or providing resources through
mutual aid. For example, a ``fire department strike team'' will be the
same, whether it comes from an adjoining city or several states away.
To date, resource typing is complete for 120 of the most commonly
exchanged resources, including personnel, teams, and equipment.
Resource typing provides the foundation for a comprehensive inventory
of federal, state, and local response assets. A resource ordering,
tracking, and status system is an essential part of the NIMS. States
and local jurisdictions may use their FY 2005 SHSGP and UASI funds to
develop or update resource inventories in accordance with FEMA's
resource typing. At the federal level, DHS, through FEMA, is developing
a federal inventory of response resources, based on the resource typing
definitions.
OSLGCP will provide national guidance to the States and those urban
areas presently participating in the Urban Area Security Initiative,
including the Baseline Capabilities Lists, organized by Tier, and
metrics, after the President reviews and approves the National
Preparedness Goal.
Questions from the Honorable Curt Weldon
1. ODP is now funding State training courses and its own
specialized courses for first responders. Currently, almost all
volunteer and career firefighters are trained at state and county fire
training facilities. These facilities are the principle sources for
testing and evaluating equipment, experimenting with new response
techniques and they were the first to provide WMD training. However,
these existing resources are not receiving any funding from ODP or the
States.
Will the ODP take a good look at the fire training facilities at
the state and local levels to perform WMD and other terrorist
preparedness training? The Department should utilize these experienced
and trusted assets to prevent redundant and inadequate alternatives.
Response: OSLGCP concurs that states and UASI areas should
integrate existing public safety academies into the state training
implementation plans. Since Fiscal Year (FY) 2003, the use of the fire
training academies has been addressed in grant application guidance
from OSLGCP. State and local training efforts should reinforce the use
of state and metropolitan fire training academies along with other
state and local academies, junior colleges, community colleges, and
technical colleges. . However, to avoid dictating the training process
to the states, OSLGCP provides funding directly to the state, not the
state fire training academies. Thus, the state manages who conducts the
training.
2. Both the Inspector General and Select Committee on Homeland
Security Committee reports on first responder funding identify
Reimbursement systems as a principle source of delay to get new
equipment and training. Under the current system, to what extent are
states able to use federal homeland security grant funds in order to
front the purchases for local governments?
Response: Through FY04, OSLGCP grant guidance required grant funds to
be expended on a reimbursement basis, but this policy was modified for
FY05.
Fiscal Year 2004 grant guidance requires states to obligate 80% of
funding to local units of government within 60 days. This funding is
provided in the form of a sub grant award, which allows local units of
government to make equipment purchases, accomplish planning, or make
training or exercise decisions. If a locality makes a request to the
state for them to hold monies on their behalf, the local unit of
government may enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
state, whereby the state centrally purchases equipment or other
services (such as training and exercises) on the locality's behalf.
This MOU must be initiated by the local unit of government, and must
specify how much money is being held by the state and the purpose of
the MOU. This will allow states to alleviate some of the financial
strain on local units of government.
The FY 2005 DHS Appropriations Act exempted several state and local
grant programs from the Cash Management Improvement Act, though a
similar change could also be made administratively. In keeping with
this exemption, SLGCP grant guidance for the FY 2005 Homeland Security
Grant Program allows grantees and subgrantees to drawdown funds 120
prior to expenditure as opposed to the previous 3-5 days prior to
expenditure.
3. Both the Inspector General and Select Committee on Homeland
Security Committee reports on first responder funding identify a lack
of communication from the federal government on intelligence and risk-
based priorities as a source of confusion with what must be purchased
and where it should be located. What is the Department doing to correct
this problem? To what extent will the proposed national preparedness
plan take into account the individual risks, hazards, characteristics
and other qualities that are only known by the local responders?
Response: Part I:
As a requirement to receive their Fiscal Year 2004 Homeland
Security Grant Program funds, and additional funds in FY 2005, states
conducted threats and vulnerabilities assessments and, based on that
information, developed homeland security strategies. The states were
required to provide completed homeland security strategies to the
OSLGCP on January 31, 2004. OSLGCP provided comprehensive guidelines,
and conducted regional workshops, to assist that States in
understanding the State Homeland Security Assessment and Strategy
Process (SHSAS) and conducting the assessments and developing their
strategies.
These strategies are critical resources to the states in their
efforts to distribute funds in the most effective manner to address the
homeland security needs. The SHSAS process also provided States and
localities the ability to determine their homeland security needs and
assess their gaps in preparedness. Based on these assessments, States
and localities could make informed decisions on the types of equipment
that they could purchase with their OSLGCP funds to meet their
identified needs and vulnerabilities.
These strategies are also extremely important because they allow
the Department to match the preparedness needs as outlined in the state
homeland security strategies with resources available from the federal
government. The information provided in these strategies will allow the
Department to make informed decisions on how funds will be distributed
and what factors the Department will use to make this determination.
Per HSPD-8, to the extent permitted by law, adoption of approved
Statewide strategies will be a requirement for receiving Federal
preparedness assistance at all levels of government by September 30,
2005.
Part II:
One of the objectives of the national preparedness plan as required
under Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 (HSPD-8), is the
review and approval of ``all hazards'' state strategies. Building on
the present OSLGCP model for comprehensive strategies based on CBRNE
threats, the Department has established HSPD-8 ``Integrated Concept
Teams'' (ICTs) to develop and implement a process for the submission,
review and approval of all hazards based state strategies. These
strategies would require local jurisdictions to provide information on
threats, vulnerabilities, needs and capabilities as matched against the
readiness metrics and national preparedness goal established by HSPD-8.
The local jurisdictional assessment, using the data that is best
identified by the local responders, would be sent to the states for
their review and analysis. Using this ``bottoms up'' approach, states
could then craft a comprehensive strategy that outlines the type of
equipment, training, planning and exercises required within that state.
Part III
Under the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
Directorate, the Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP) is
responsible for the protection of critical infrastructure and key
resources (CI/KR). The Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP) is
intended to extend the zone of protection--the buffer zone--around
specific critical infrastructure and key assets from the site perimeter
into the surrounding community. Working with State Homeland Security
Advisors, IP is providing material and technical assistance to state
and local law enforcement and first responders responsible for the
protection of CI/KR within their jurisdiction. IP provides templates,
training, and on-site assistance when necessary to help state and local
law enforcement and first responders develop and implement BZPPs. This
focused program identifies specific assets and assists local entities
in developing detailed mitigation strategies, thus providing
comprehensive information intended to improve the protection of CI/KR.
4. The Inspector General report recommends a consolidation of all
first responder grant programs as a means of simplifying the planning
process performed at the state level. Does this include terrorism and
non-terrorism related grant programs for first responders? If so, does
the Department prefer the non-terrorism programs to be based upon a
risk-based assessment with a terrorism focus?
Response: The Secretary has provided for the consolidation of
several first responder grant programs through the consolidation of the
Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) and the Office of State and
Local Government Coordination (OSLGC) into the Office of State and
Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (OSLGCP) in March of
2004. This consolidation provides a ``one stop shop'' for preparedness
grants within the Department of Homeland Security and streamlines the
process for state and local jurisdictions to apply for these grants.
Within the OSLGCP, there are grants that cover terrorism, such as
the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) and the Urban Areas Security
Initiative (UASI). There are other grants that address terrorism as
part of their ``all hazards'' approach, such as the Citizen Corps
Program (CCP) and the Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG).
OSLGCP incorporated both terrorism and all hazards grants within a
single grant application for FY 2004 and FY 2005.
5. The Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program awards fire
prevention and fire safety grants to nonprofit organizations to fund
great programs such as burn research, education in schools, smoke alarm
distribution, and many other things. Congress never intended for this
program to require a funding match because these non profits such as
the Burn Foundation are not affiliated with the state or local
governments and operate on a shoe-string budget. This past month, your
office began announcing this year's awards and changed the rules--with
no notice--to require a hard match. Due to this abrupt change in
policy, I am hearing that critical programs will be rejecting grants
because they are unable to come up with 30% of the funding.
Why did your office decide to make this rule change with no notice
and no consultation with the fire service organizations? Do you intend
to continue to make rule changes to fire fighter grants with their
consultation?
Response: The grants to which you refer are actually associated
with the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 appropriation. The decision to require
the cash match was a decision emanating from the FEMA's General Counsel
Office, before DHS was created, which reads the authorizing statute as
requiring this cash match. Indeed, they believe that it should have
been required from inception. The requirement however, was not
established at the time of the awards, but was included in the program
requirements listed of the Program Guidance (October 14, 2003) and
Federal Register notice (68 FR 59947-59948, October 20, 2003), both
published last autumn. OSLGCP will continue its coordination and
collaboration with the fire service, the USFA and FEMA in its
implementation of the FY 2004 prevention and safety grants. We will do
everything we can within the law to maximize applicant opportunity and
be competitive for grant awards. The Administration is aware that
existing cash match requirements have posed an obstacle for some
recipients of these grants.
6. Q01716: There is a concern that the Department of Homeland
Security is not paying enough attention to existing technologies that
have a proven track-record of deployment and field operation. While it
is imperative that the Department have a robust research and
development program (R&D), present day solutions are available for many
of the Country's security needs. There are a number of examples of
readily available and deployable technologies exist on the commercial
market that can and should be used today that address this very issue
of data collection and real time dissemination for use in emergency
response. Please describe the Department of Homeland Security's policy
for fielding off-the-shelf technologies despite the fact that they may
not provide a 100 percent solution.
Response: OSLGCP is keenly aware of the need to deploy available
technology to meet the immediate threat to the Nation posed by
terrorist groups. While often less than ideal, these technologies offer
an immediate enhancement over current capabilities. As such, OSLGCP
facilitates the deployment of present-day solutions through a variety
of means. States and key urban areas may procure existing, off-the-
shelf technologies, including interoperable communications and
information-sharing systems, through both the Homeland Security Grant
Program (HSGP) and the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI).
To supplement these grant programs, OSLGCP offers a wide variety of
technical assistance, to states and UASI sites in the identification of
interoperability needs, design of an enhanced, interoperable
communications architecture that takes advantage of existing
technologies such as patching systems, implementation of the enhanced
architecture, and transition support such as training and exercises.
OSLGCP is also supporting the Department's RapidCom 9/30 initiative.
RapidCom 9/30 is intended to provide ten high-risk urban areas with an
immediate capability for communications interoperability at the
emergency response level by September 30, 2004. The focus of the focus
of RapidCom 9/30 is on the deployment of existing technologies to
provide an immediate, interim solution.
OSLGCP also administers the SAVER (System Assessment & Validation
for Emergency Responders) Program to select, assess, and validate
specific commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) emergency response equipment.
This program serves the emergency responder community by providing
rapid, relevant, dependable, and cost-effective assessment and
validation of critical equipment to enable decision-makers and
responders to better select, procure, use, and maintain their emergency
equipment.
The SAVER program, run through the Texas A&M University, provides
rapid, timely, and cost-effective assessment and validation of selected
emergency response equipment items such as personal protective
equipment, explosive device mitigation and remediation equipment, CBRNE
search and rescue equipment, physical security enhancement equipment,
decontamination equipment, and the interoperability of emergency system
components. Through SAVER, OSLGCP and Texas A&M can also provide
technical support on the use of equipment to the emergency responder
community.
7. Q01717: On January of 1991, I introduced H.R. 237 calling for
the creation of a comprehensive inventory of resources that are
available for use or deployment in disaster relief that is easily
accessible for response to a major disaster or emergency. Are there any
such inventories of resources available for federal, state, regional
and local emergency planners? Does the Department of Homeland Security
intend to create such an inventory or a listing of mutual aid
agreements with federal, state, local and private entities in the
future?
Response: OSLGCP has established and maintains the Pre-Positioned
Equipment Program (PEP). PEP consists of eleven geographically
dispersed ``pods'' containing a suite of response equipment designed to
supplement, replace and/or replenish specialized equipment that might
be consumed in the response to a terrorist attack by local and state
emergency personnel. The PEP ``pods'' contain personal protective
equipment (PPE), detection, decontamination and communications
equipment. The PEP sites are activated and deployed by DHS using air or
ground-based means at the request of a state or territorial governor
or, in the case of the District of Columbia, the mayor of that city.
OSLGCP is currently in the process of transitioning the PEP program as
a response asset to the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate
(EP&R), which already maintains a sizable inventory of emergency
response equipment.
The Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate is also
completing the Federal Response Capability Inventory. State and local
jurisdictions have inventories of existing capabilities and resources.
They will be expected to update and compare those inventories to the
Baseline Capabilities Lists for the appropriate Tier, in order to
develop their Required Capabilities Lists in Fiscal Year 2005. The
Baseline Capabilities Lists are being created as part of the National
Preparedness Goal required by Homeland Security Presidential Directive
(HSPD)-8. Additionally, DHS, through FEMA and the NIMS Integration
Center (NIC), is conducting a resource typing project to standardize
descriptions and characteristics of common response teams and
equipment. Resource typing ensures accuracy when incident managers are
requesting or providing resources through mutual aid. For example, a
``fire department strike team'' will be the same, whether it comes from
an adjoining city or several states away. To date, resource typing is
complete for 120 of the most commonly exchanged resources, including
personnel, teams, and equipment. Resource typing provides the
foundation for a comprehensive inventory of federal, state, and local
response assets. A resource ordering, tracking, and status system is an
essential part of the NIMS. States and local jurisdictions may use
their FY 2005 SHSGP and UASI funds to develop or update resource
inventories in accordance with FEMA's resource typing. At the federal
level, DHS, through FEMA, is developing a federal inventory of response
resources, based on the resource typing definitions.
OSLGCP will provide national guidance to the States and Urban Area
Security Initiative Cities including the Baseline Capabilities Lists,
organized by Tier, and metrics, after the President reviews and
approves the National Preparedness Goal.
8. Q01718: I was disappointed that the President's FY05 Budget
Request unilaterally, and without any consultation with the fire
service organizations, limited Assistance to Firefighter Grant Awards
to only terrorism preparedness, vehicles, equipment and communications
and Training. This budget leaves out 10 of the 14 permissible uses such
as EMS, educational programs, recruitment and retention programs,
certifications, facility improvements and others. In years past, annual
meetings have been held with all fire service groups to establish
priorities for grant awards and they generally have agreed with the
priorities set forth in the President's budget request, however, it
seems that this process has been bypassed. Will the Office for Domestic
Preparedness continue to place an emphasis on annual consultations with
the fire service groups to set priorities for grant awards? Does the
Department intend to continue the peer review process utilizing peer
reviewers recommended by the various fire service organizations? In
addition, is it the intent of your office for terrorism preparedness to
be the number one priority for Assistance to Firefighters Grants?
Response: OSLGCP will continue exactly the same cycle of action for
the implementation of the FY 2005 Assistance to Firefighters Grant
Program as followed in past years. OSLGCP will encourage the
participation of the fire service in the program, and values their
input on funding priorities and the criteria developed to evaluate the
applications. Consistent with the President's commitment to enhancing
first responders? terrorism preparedness, the request does reflect an
emphasis on permissible uses supporting terrorism preparedness. It
should be noted that the AFG program has previously restricted the
permissible uses in order to focus limited funds on national
priorities. OSLGCP recognizes the effectiveness and importance of the
fire grants as a foundation (especially with respect to equipment and
training) for the higher-level terrorism preparedness.
Grant Funds for Rail and Port Security and Interoperable Communications
In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, ODP carved out a portion of the
Urban Area grants funds to make specific discretionary grants to ports
and transportation systems. Your FY 2005 budget materials do not
include enough information for us to understand how, or if, ODP will be
issuing grants for rail security, and how you will administer the port
security grant program.
And, although interoperable communications systems remain a
critical need for the first responder community, the President's Budget
requests no funds for grants to enhance interoperability, either in DHS
or in the Department of Justice COPS program. This budget does not
support the promises of Secretary Ridge, who has stated that
implementing interoperable communications systems is a DHS priority,
and that, ``we all must work together to give them the tools to do
their jobs--in a way that replaces outdated, outmoded relics with an
interoperable, innovative and integrated system.''
1. Do you have plans to carve out any UASI funds for port and/or
rail and transit security? If so, how much money will you set aside?
Response: .The President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 budget request
includes $46 million under the Urban Areas Security Initiative program
to support homeland security exercises at selected ports. Additionally,
under the UASI program, the President's request sets-aside $200 million
for targeted infrastructure protection. With these funds, OSLGCP will
continue to work with the Department of Homeland Security's Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate (IAIP) to identify
critical elements of the Nation's infrastructure and then fund the
protection of these elements. Port facilities and transit systems could
potentially receive support under the targeted infrastructure
protection program. Otherwise, the Department has no plans to carve out
additional UASI set-aside for port or transit security. There is
insufficient information about the impact of previous grants to warrant
a stand-alone program. States and local jurisdictions retain the
ability to allocate a portion of their State Homeland Security Grants
or UASI funds to port and transit authorities, consistent with the
relative priorities of each jurisdiction.
2. If you do plan to carve out some of the Urban Area funds, why
wasn't this part of the budget request to Congress? Don't you believe
that Congress should have some say in how much money should be spent
for these purposes, and how is should be administered?
Response: The Department fully recognizes the role of Congress, and
the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 request reflects the
Administration's priorities for more than $3.5 billion to support
OSLGCP programs and activities. The request includes funds to continue
the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP), which includes the State
Homeland Security Program at $1.4 billion; the Law Enforcement
Terrorism Prevention Program at $500 million; and the Citizen Corps
Program at $50 million. Funds are also provided for the continuation of
the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) at $1.4 billion.
Under both the HSGP program and UASI program, States, localities,
and urban areas are eligible to use their HSGP and UASI funds to
purchase physical security enhancement equipment (otherwise known as
``target hardening'' equipment). Among the allowable expenses under
this category, which is outlined in the program guidance for both HSGP
and UASI, are: motion detector systems, barriers, impact resistant
doors and gates, video and radar systems, and chemical agent and
explosives detection equipment. All of these types of equipment can be
used to secure a number of different critical infrastructures,
including rail systems.
The Department allows States and localities, under the HSGP
program, and urban areas, under the UASI program, to make their own
determinations of how they will distribute their homeland security
funds. Through the State Homeland Security Assessment and Strategy
Process, which both States and urban areas must conduct to receive
their HSGP and UASI funds, respectively, States and urban areas are
given the necessary tools to determine needs and vulnerabilities and,
in turn, make informed decisions on the most effective means to use
their homeland security funds. If they chose, States and urban areas
can use their funds to target harden rail and transit systems. This is
a decision, however, that States and urban areas must determine with
the assistance of OSLGCP and DHS.
3. What was the process for selecting the recipients of mass
transit security grant funds under the FY 2004 UASI program? Did DHS
perform any threat or risk assessments to determine the allocation of
these funds? Do you have an estimate on total needs for securing rail
and mass transit systems?
Response: The recipients for FY 2004 were limited to heavy rail
(subway) and commuter rail systems. Systems with the highest numbers of
riders and track miles were identified for funding. Security
assessments of rail and transit systems operating in high-density urban
areas were performed by FTA and reviewed by TSA. DHS required that
information from these assessments be used to determine the eligible
uses of these grants. The Department has not developed an overall
estimate for public transit security.
4. Finally, have you considered setting aside a portion of either
the State Homeland Security Grant Funds or the Urban Area funds to
address the critical interoperable communications needs of our public
safety community?
Response: The Department of Homeland Security, through OSLGCP,
administers two programs that provide significant funding levels for
states and localities to undertake a wide-range of activities,
including the purchase of communications equipment to improve the
interoperability of emergency responders. As communications equipment
is one of the most frequent uses of these funds, the Department does
not support a new `set-aside' for interoperability at this time. As
state and local needs vary widely, trying to fix a certain percentage
or dollar value may distort state and local priorities. Since 2002, ODP
has provided $1.2 billion in grant assistance to States and local
jurisdictions to improve interoperability through the purchase of
communications equipment.
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2004, OSLGCP is administering the Homeland
Security Grant Program (HSGP) and the Urban Areas Security Initiative
(UASI). Under HSGP, OSLGCP will provide more than $2.2 billion to the
states for equipment acquisition, training, exercise support, and
planning. Additionally, under UASI, OSLGCP will provide $725 million
for 50 high-threat, high density urban areas, and 25 transit systems,
for equipment acquisition, training, exercise support and planning.
Under HSGP and UASI, states and urban areas can use their funds to
purchase communications interoperability equipment, and such
investments for FY04 exceed $800 million. States and urban areas base
their funding decisions on homeland security strategies that
incorporate threat, vulnerability, and risk assessments. The
President's FY 2005 budget request includes more than $1.4 billion for
continuation of OSLGCP's state formula grants programs, as well as more
than $1.4 billion for continuation of the UASI program.
In FY 2003, OSLGCP administered the State Homeland Security Grant
Program (SHSGP), Part I and II. Under both of these programs states,
territories, and the District of Columbia (DC) are allowed to use their
allocated funds to purchase equipment that supports communications
interoperability. OSLGCP provided significant funds under SHSGP, Part I
and II. Under Part I, OSLGCP provided $500 million for states,
territories and DC, to purchase equipment, and support training,
exercise, and planning activities. Under Part II, OSLGCP provided $1.3
billion for the same purpose areas. Interoperable communications
equipment is an allowable use of states' SHSGP funds.
Additionally, in FY 2003, OSLGCP administered UASI Part I and Part
II. Under these two programs, OSLGCP provided $800 million for an
initial 30 high threat, high density urban areas. States and urban
areas determined how to distribute their funds on comprehensive needs,
vulnerabilities, threats, and capabilities assessment, and the
development of a homeland domestic preparedness strategy.
In an effort to foster improved communications interoperability,
OSLGCP program guidance for HSGP, UASI, and SHSGP grant recipients
requires that all radios purchased with OSLGCP funds should be
compliant with a set a standards called ANSI/IIA/EIA-102 Phase I
(Project 25). These standards, developed by the Association of Public-
Safety Communications Officials, allow for backward compatibility with
existing digital and analog systems and provide for interoperability in
future systems.
Since its creation in 1998, ODP has provided assistance to all 50
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and
the U.S. territories. Through its programs and initiatives, ODP has
trained over 575,000 emergency responders from more than 5,000
jurisdictions and conducted nearly 500 exercises. Since its creation,
Homeland Security has provided states and localities with over $8.2
billion in State Homeland Security Grants for the purchase of
specialized equipment to enhance the capability of state and local
agencies to prevent and respond to incidents of terrorism involving the
use of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive
(CBRNE) weapons; for the protection of critical infrastructure and
prevention of terrorist incidents; for the development, conduct and
evaluation of state CBRNE exercises and training programs; and for
costs associated with updating and implementing each states' Homeland
Security Strategy. Since 2002, ODP has specifically provided $1.2
billion in grant assistance to States and local jurisdictions to
improve interoperability through the purchase of communications
equipment.
Questions from the Honorable Christopher Cox
1. DHS follows a formula set by Congress, which guarantees each
State 0.75% of the total amount appropriated to DHS for state and
terrorism preparedness grants. The rest is allocated based on
population.
Question: Why did ODP decide to allocate the remaining 60% based
solely on population, and not based on other risk/threat/vulnerability
factors?
Response: In the FY 2004 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP),
OSLGCP used both the USA Patriot Act formula and population numbers
from the census to establish funding formulas for the 56 states and
territories. The Administration concurs that a risk/threat/
vulnerability matrix would be ideal. However, as of early FY2004 the
state-level data was insufficient to rationally allocate over $2
billion in grant funds. As a result, DHS continued to use population as
a `proxy' for risk in allocating HSGP funds. In contrast, DHS did have
adequate data on risks, threats, and vulnerabilities of major urban
areas, which informed allocation of the Urban Area Security Initiative.
The President's Budget for FY 2005 proposes allocating these funds
based on population concentrations, critical infrastructure, and other
risk factors.
Question: Are there plans to incorporate factors other than
population into the formula for the distribution of the non-UASI
grants?
Response: OSLGCP is presently working with interagency teams on the
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8) effort. One of the
directives within this HSPD states that ``In making allocations of
Federal preparedness assistance to the States, the Secretary, the
Attorney General,. . . .and the heads of other Federal departments and
agencies that provide assistance for first responder preparedness will
base those allocations on assessments of population concentrations,
critical infrastructures, and other significant risk factors,
particularly terrorism threats. . .'' In addition, the President's
Budget for FY 2005 proposes allocating these funds based on population
concentrations, critical infrastructure, and other risk factors.
Question: Why does ODP first allocate funds based on the formula
and then give additional funds based on population? This gives $2
million more to the smallest States, above and beyond the percentage
specified in the Patriot Act.
Response: In the FY 2004 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP),
OSLGCP used both the USA Patriot Act formula and population numbers
from the census to establish funding formulas for the 56 states and
territories. The Administration concurs that a risk/threat/
vulnerability matrix would be ideal. However, as of early FY2004 the
state-level data was insufficient to rationally allocate over $2
billion in grant funds. As a result, DHS continued to use population as
a `proxy' for risk in allocating HSGP funds. In contrast, DHS did have
adequate data on risks, threats, and vulnerabilities of major urban
areas, which informed allocation of the Urban Area Security Initiative.
DHS has been working to improve its state-level data on risks and
vulnerabilities so that these factors can be incorporated into the FY
2005 allocation criteria. .
2. The necessity of establishing preparedness standards was
identified by the Committee staff report and highlighted both by HSPD-8
and H.R. 3266. You provided the Committee with milestones to accomplish
this goal, among others.
Question: You state that by July 31, 2004, the Secretary shall
establish a ``Universal List of Mission-Essential Tasks for the
Homeland Security Community.'' How specific will these be? Will it
address the Committee's concern that each community know the level of
preparedness it should attain?
Response: The Universal Task List (UTL) will define the tasks that
are essential to the ability to perform homeland security missions, the
organizations that need to perform them, the condition(s) under which
they need to be performed (which vary by scenario), and the performance
standard(s) for the task. As part of its training strategy, DHS/OSLGCP
developed Emergency Responder Guidelines that identify the essential
tasks that response agencies must perform to effectively prevent,
respond to, and recover from a threat or act of terrorism, including
those involving the use of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear,
or explosive (CBRNE) weapons. Performance measures for the essential
tasks are being developed for use in evaluating performance through
exercises. This approach is readily adaptable to the range of standard
scenarios provided by the Homeland Security Council.
The Universal Task List will then be used to establish Baseline
Capabilities Lists, which will be tailored by ``tier'' to account for
differences among jurisdictions based upon population density, critical
infrastructures, and other significant risk factors. Baseline
Capabilities Lists, created as part of the National Preparedness Goal
required by Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-8, will
provide information to communities on the level of preparedness they
should attain. Baseline Capabilities Lists will not dictate specific
resource requirements (i.e., how many pieces of equipment to purchase).
Rather, they will provide a capability standard that enables a
jurisdiction to consider resource options available internally and
through mutual aid to meet that requirement. The jurisdiction
determines how many resources of what type and kind it needs in order
to meet the standard. This promotes flexibility and will enable DHS to
compare approaches and identify best practices. Both the Universal Task
List and the Baseline Capabilities list are integral to the development
of the National Preparedness Goal, also required by Homeland Security
Presidential Directive-8.
You state that by December 31, 2004, the Secretary shall establish,
``A Complete Federal Response Capabilities Inventory.'' Can you give us
an update on the progress of this effort? Will DHS also establish an
inventory at the State and local level?
Response: DHS, through FEMA and the NIC, is conducting a resource
typing project to standardize descriptions and characteristics of
common response teams and equipment. Resource typing ensures accuracy
when incident managers are requesting or providing resources through
mutual aid. For example, a ``fire department strike team'' will be the
same, whether it comes from an adjoining city or several states away.
To date, resource typing is complete for 120 of the most commonly
exchanged resources, including personnel, teams, and equipment.
Resource typing provides the foundation for a comprehensive inventory
of federal, state, and local response assets. States and local
jurisdictions may use their FY 2005 SHSGP and UASI funds to develop or
update resource inventories in accordance with FEMA's resource typing.
At the federal level, DHS, through FEMA, is developing a federal
inventory of response resources, based on the resource typing
definitions. A comprehensive resource ordering, tracking, and status
system is an essential part of the NIMS. The Department must identify
or develop a resource management system to store the inventory data
once its collected. In the future, federal, state, and local resource
inventories may be linked through a common resource management system
to facilitate mutual aid and the exchange of resources.
State and local jurisdictions have inventories of existing
capabilities and resources. They will be expected to update and compare
those inventories to the Baseline Capabilities Lists for the
appropriate Tier, in order to develop their Required Capabilities Lists
in Fiscal Year 2005. OSLGCP will provide national guidance to the
States and Urban Area Security Initiative Cities including the Baseline
Capabilities Lists, organized by Tier, and metrics, after the President
reviews and approves the National Preparedness Goal. The Baseline
Capabilities Lists are being created as part of the National
Preparedness Goal required by Homeland Security Presidential Directive
(HSPD)-8.
Question: You state that by September 15, 2004, the Secretary will,
``Submit National Preparedness Goal to the President, including
National All-Hazards Preparedness Strategy.'' What type of information
will be provided by this document? Will the unique needs of terrorism
preparedness be recognized, in addition to all-hazards preparedness?
Response: On September 14, 2004, the Secretary approved a National
Preparedness Goal (or ``Goal''). The Goal was submitted to the
President through the Homeland Security Council (HSC) for review and
approval. Based on feedback from the HSC staff, the Department is
working on revisions to the Goal. Once the revisions are approved, we
will resubmit the Goal to the President through the HSC.
The purpose of the Goal is to establish a consistent ``national''--
not Federal--approach to strengthen national preparedness. The Goal
will define measurable readiness priorities, targets, and metrics for
the Nation to achieve. Federal, State, local, and tribal entities will
continue to develop their own readiness priorities, targets, and
metrics for their respective efforts to support the overarching
national Goal. Measurable readiness priorities, targets, and metrics
will help officials at all levels of government to improve strategic
planning and planning, programming, and budgeting efforts for national
preparedness.
The unique needs of terrorism preparedness have been prioritized in
the context of all-hazards preparedness. For example, prevention and
deterrence is identified as a national priority, in accordance with the
National Strategy for Homeland Security, the Homeland Security Act of
2002, and other strategic documents.
Question: How has ODP directed resources and planning towards the
actual implementation of these milestones?
Response: HSPD-8 identifies 16 major requirements for OSLGCP, other
DHS components, and other Federal departments and agencies. OSLGCP
coordinates and monitors progress for the DHS-wide effort as part of
the Department's Strategic Goals, Objectives, and Milestones process,
managed by the Deputy Secretary. OSLGCP has established a project
management team and directed OSLGCP managers, subject matter experts,
and vendor teams to support the effort. With guidance and support from
the Secretary and the Homeland Security Council, OSLGCP has established
a Senior Steering Committee and three Integrated Concept Teams with
representatives from DHS components, other Federal departments and
agencies, and State and local governments, in order to collaborate on
the development of a common stakeholder vision for a national
preparedness strategy, a process to balance the Federal portfolio of
preparedness investments, a national training and exercise system, and
a national preparedness assessment and reporting system. Once
completed, the National Preparedness strategy and plans produced by the
Integrated Concept Teams will provide further detail on how OSLGCP
resources will build towards the implementation of HSPD-8 milestones.
3. The National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (NDPC) develops
and provides the bulk of ODP training to first responders, but ODP is
in the process of developing a new competitive training grant program,
which will allow different entities to develop and provide training.
Question: How will ODP coordinate the responsibility for training
among the NDPC, the new competitive training grant program, and
training that is developed and administered by state and local
governments?
Response: Over the last two years there has been a surge of
interest in terrorism preparedness training. In recognition of this
trend, DHS will meet emerging training needs and fill voids in the
current training curriculum offered by OSLGCP through the NDPC and
training partners.. The Competitive Training Grants are coordinated to
complement the OSLGCP Training Strategy. These training needs were
explicitly addressed in the grant application notification. .
The selection process of Competitive Grant recipients will be based
on emerging training needs in the national training program. The state
and local training courses supported by Homeland Security Grant Program
funds are processed through the OSLGCP Course Approval Process. This
process has been developed to ensure all courses follow the OSLGCP
Training Strategy and meet the basic competencies for each level of
training defined therein. The demand for training nationally requires
the inclusion of quality and ``to standard'' training within the states
and UASI areas.
Question: Which entity will be responsible for which type of
training?
Response: The NDPC will continue to define the standard for the
training offered by OSLGCP and will focus on the upper levels of
training, Performance-offensive, and Planning/Management. The
Competitive Grant Recipients will be held to this same standard for the
areas of their demonstrated expertise for the courses they submit. The
states and UASI training is currently focused on the lower two levels
of competency training, Awareness and Performance-defensive.
Question: Have you found that States are using an appropriate
amount of funding for training purposes?
Response: At this time there is no definitive data on this.
Currently there is a mix with some states actively involved in training
and others not so. Although OSLGCP is further addressing the issue,
OSLGCP believes that states should be devoting a greater proportion of
their funds to support training. .
Question: What is the current status of the development of the
competitive training grant program?
OSLGCP announced the Fiscal Year 2004 Competitive Training Program
in the spring of 2004. The application period for proposals began on
April 30, 2004 and closed on June 1, 2004. Two-hundred and nineteen
competitive applications have been submitted, and the evaluation and
review of the application is currently underway. Awards under the
program are expected to be announced in late August, 2004.
4. Section 430 of the Homeland Security Act provides ODP with the
primary responsibility to coordinate training programs at the Federal
level and to work with state and local governments to prepare for acts
of terrorism. Moreover, the National Strategy for Homeland Security
clearly stresses the importance of effective training for first
responders. Specifically, the Strategy directs the Federal government
to build a national training and evaluation system.
Question: Describe for us the progress ODP has made in coordinating
terrorism preparedness training programs with other Federal departments
and agencies? If progress has not been made, why? What do you think can
be done to correct the problem(s)?
Response: ODP is working to coordinate terrorism preparedness
training programs through various methods. First, as the executive
agent for the implementation of Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 8 (HSPD-8) on national preparedness, ODP has developed an
initial version of a Universal Task List (UTL) for Homeland Security
based on the 15 illustrative planning scenarios developed by the
Homeland Security Council. The UTL is intended to capture what
essential tasks must be performed along the continuum of prevention
through response and recovery, not how they must be executed. This
approach will provide the flexibility Federal, regional, State, and
local organizations require to effectively execute their homeland
security missions. Most importantly, the UTL will form the basis, along
with the National Incident Management System (NIMS), National Response
Plan (NRP), and National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) for a
common language with respect to preparedness training that has not
previously existed.
ODP is currently completing the development of a tiered Target
Capabilities List (TCL) required to perform the mission essential tasks
listed in the UTL. The TCL will help decisionmakers at all levels
direct their efforts and resources towards building required
capabilities and will also provide agencies at all levels a common
reference for analyzing their ability to perform essential tasks and
determine needs. A Program Implementation Plan and Requirements (PIPR)
was developed for the Training, Exercises, and Lessons Learned system
under HSPD-8 by ODP in conjunction with other Federal departments and
agencies as well as local stakeholders. This plan identified the need
to map currently existing and developmental training to UTL tasks in
order to most effectively determine gaps and overlaps in training. The
PIPR is not currently being executed due to lack of committed
resources. As an interim measure, ODP is working through the Federal
Training Resources and Data Exchange group in order to update the
Compendium of Federal Terrorism Training and provide linkage to UTL
items. Truly effective coordination requires that a comprehensive
solution, such as is outlined in the PIPR, be implemented. Based on
this solution, when a valid performance need is identified through
training, exercises or lessons learned, the need will be matched to an
existing training solution or highlight the requirement for new
training development.
The NIC is developing a NIMS National Standard Training Curriculum,
incorporating DHS and all federal training providers, to ensure that
there is a comprehensive curriculum to support the NIMS. The NIMS
National Standard Curriculum is essential to the successful
implementation of the NIMS at all levels of government, and ensures
that training support is embraced across the federal government, and
not only within DHS. The NIC will be meeting with all federal training
providers in February, including ODP/OSLGCP, to discuss the development
of a National Standard Curriculum and determine what training programs
are already available to support the NIMS. OSLGCP grant funding could
then be used to support the NIMS National Standard Curriculum at the
State and local levels.
Question: What role does ODP play in coordinating intra-
Departmental training? Other Directorates, such as the EP&R
Directorate, conduct training programs. Please describe the
coordination between ODP and EP&R.
Response: ODP's role in the coordination of intra-Departmental
training is largely informal at present. It is important to note that
unlike most of the other entities within the Department, ODP's training
audience is external to the Department itself. ODP coordination occurs
through the DHS Training Leaders Council and its subgroups facilitated
by the Chief Human Capital Office as well as through a Federal group
called Training Resources and Data Exchange (TRADE). Established in
early 2001, the TRADE group is a forum for Federal departments and
agencies to coordinate information on existing and developmental
training related to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. TRADE
members include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
Combating Terrorism Technology Support Office Technical Support Working
Group, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Federal Emergency Management Agency (Emergency
Management Institute and National Fire Academy), Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center, Health and Human Services Office of Public
Health Emergency Preparedness, Health Resources and Services
Administration, Information Analysis/Infrastructure Protection,
Transportation Security Administration, and USDA Animal Plant Health
Inspection Service. Since its inception, the Emergency Management
Institute and National Fire Academy have participated in this group and
currently more than 30 courses developed by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency are eligible for the use of ODP formula grant funds
as reflected in the recently release Fiscal Year 2005 grant guidance.
Additionally, ODP is working cooperatively with the Emergency
Management Institute on a web-based revision of an existing exercise
design and development course. ODP is also working with the Information
Analysis / Infrastructure Protection directorate to provide a web-based
pilot capability of its Workforce Antiterrorism Awareness/Prevention
course. Additionally, ODP is represented on the advisory committee for
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) National Center for
State and Local Law Enforcement Training. Through ODP's sister
organization, the Office of State and Local Government Coordination,
there are also staff members assigned for liaison and coordination with
each directorate not only for training, but for cross-cutting issues.
Finally, through the implementation process associated with HSPD-8, ODP
engages in regular coordination with other intra-departmental
organizations such as the NIMS Integration Center and the Headquarters
Operational Integration Staff.
The NIMS Integration Center (NIC) is developing a NIMS National
Standard Training Curriculum, incorporating DHS and all federal
training providers, to ensure that there is a comprehensive curriculum
to support the NIMS. The NIMS National Standard Curriculum is essential
to the successful implementation of the NIMS at all levels of
government, and ensures that training support is embraced across the
federal government, and not only within DHS. The NIC will be meeting
with all federal training providers in February, including ODP/OSLGCP,
to discuss the development of a National Standard Curriculum and
determine what training programs are already available to support the
NIMS. OSLGCP grant funding could then be used to support the NIMS
National Standard Curriculum at the State and local levels.
Question: Describe for us the progress ODP has made in working with
state and local governments in implementing terrorism preparedness
training programs.
Response: The Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) in the Office
of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP)
encourages States, territories, and Urban Areas to use funds to enhance
the capabilities of State and local emergency preparedness and response
personnel through development of a State homeland security training
program. Allowable training-related costs under SLGCP grant programs
include: 1) establishment of chemical, biological, radiological,
nuclear, and explosives (CBRNE) terrorism and cyber security training
programs through existing training academies, universities or junior
colleges; and 2) overtime and backfill costs associated with attendance
at SLGCP-sponsored and -approved CBRNE and cyber security training
courses.
Homeland Security strategies recently submitted to the Department
of Homeland Security's (DHS) Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP)
indicate that approximately 3.5 million emergency responders require
chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive (WMD) weapons
awareness training. In an effort to meet this identified need while
supporting state and local efforts to institutionalize WMD awareness
training, ODP developed a standardized WMD awareness training program
and began implementation in Fall 2004. The goal of this program is to
provide states and urban areas with a mechanism for delivery and
sustainment of WMD awareness training for the ten emergency response
disciplines included in their strategies: emergency management,
emergency medical service, fire service, government administrative,
hazardous materials, health care, law enforcement, public
communications, public health, and public works. The standardized
awareness curriculum covers basic awareness level training; prevention
and deterrence of terrorism; chemical and biological weapons agents;
radiological and nuclear materials and explosive devices; and response
actions. The program relies on a Train-the-Trainer approach to maximize
the program's reach and facilitate ongoing efforts to incorporate
Standardized WMD Awareness Authorized Trainers (SAAT) into state and
local training programs. Each State and Urban Area will receive these
sessions for the cadre of trainers they designate, including a minimum
of three trainers per discipline. Since the program's implementation in
the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2005, 563 trainers in 14 Urban Areas
and 11 States have received training.
As of December 23, 2004, over 739,000 responders had received ODP
training through the more than 40 courses in the ODP catalog.
Recognizing the scope of the training needs at the State and local
level, ODP is committed to the institutionalization of awareness and
lower level performance training at those levels. Therefore, ODP is
focusing its efforts on train-the-trainer programs in these categories.
Additionally, in Fiscal Year 2005, States and Urban Areas are no longer
required to request approval for personnel to attend other Federal
courses related to CBRNE terrorism or non-SLGCP courses that fall
within the SLGCP mission scope of preparing State and local personnel
to prevent, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism involving
CBRNE weapons. States and Urban Areas are instead required to submit
information via the training section of the ODP website on this
training which they are supporting with SLGCP funds. This information
consists of such information as course title, level of the training,
the training provider, the date of the course, the number of
individuals to be trained, and the sponsoring jurisdiction. Keeping in
mind that Federal funds must be used to supplement--not supplant--
existing funds that have been appropriated for the same purpose, States
or Urban Areas intending to use SLGCP funds to support attendance at
non-SLGCP courses must ensure that these courses:
Fall within the SLGCP mission scope to prepare State
and local personnel to prevent, respond to, and recover from
acts of terrorism involving CBRNE weapons;
Build additional capabilities that 1) meet a specific
need identified through the homeland security assessment
process, and 2) comport with the State or Urban Area Homeland
Security Strategy;
Address the specific tasks articulated in the ODP
Emergency Responder Guidelines and the ODP Homeland Security
Guidelines for Prevention and Deterrence;
Address the specific tasks and capabilities
articulated in the Universal Task List and Target Capabilities
List, as they become available;
Comport with all applicable Federal, State, and local
certification and regulatory requirements.
Lastly, in Fiscal Year 2004, ODP conducted the Competitive Training
Grant Program solicitation in 6 issue areas derived from needs
identified in State Homeland Security Strategies. The 14 awards that
were made under this program are under development and ODP is currently
conducting data analysis of State and Urban Area strategies and
implementation plans to define criteria for the Fiscal Year 2005
Competitive Training Grant Program solicitation.
5. Section 430 of the Homeland Security Act provides ODP with the
primary responsibility to coordinate exercise programs at the Federal
level and to work with state and local governments to prepare for acts
of terrorism.
Question: Describe for us the progress ODP has made in coordinating
terrorism preparedness exercise programs with other Federal departments
and agencies. Have there been specific instances where terrorism
preparedness exercises have not been coordinated with ODP or with
DHS?Response: ODP has made significant strides towards coordinating
terrorism preparedness exercise programs with other Federal departments
and agencies. Specifically, the Top Officials (TOPOFF) Exercise Series
has brought together multiple agencies including the FBI, TSA, FEMA,
and the DOD. This has resulted in the direct improvement of
communication, deployment of response personnel, and incident command
management. Also, ODP sponsored the first ever New England Homeland
Security Exercise Conference in which FEMA and the TSA discussed
strategic exercise coordination for the entire northeast region.
In order to better ensure collaboration between federal agencies
that exercise on a regular basis, ODP has established the National
Exercise Schedule (NEXS). The impetus of the NEXS was directed in
Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-8, which said, ``All
Federal departments and agencies that conduct national homeland
security preparedness-related exercises shall participate in a
collaborative, interagency process to designate such exercises on a
consensus basis and create a master exercise calendar''. This calendar
currently resides with ODP and has all federal level exercises, as well
as state and local exercises placed in it.
Frequently, terrorism preparedness exercises occur without the
coordination of ODP or DHS. However, the level of standardization
fluctuates among agencies. As a result, goals are often not met, after
action reports are inaccurate, and improvement plans fail to offer
realistic solutions to real world challenges. This is one of the
reasons why ODP has designed the Homeland Security Exercise and
Evaluation Program (HSEEP). Ultimately, the goal is to eliminate the
inconsistencies among agency exercises, and set one national standard
which mandates participants to raise the bar when it comes to
conducting exercises.
Question: Describe for us the progress ODP has made in working with
state and local governments in implementing terrorism preparedness
exercise programs. If progress has not been made, why? What do you
think can be done to correct the problem(s)?
Response: ODP has made significant progress towards working with
state and local governments in implementing terrorism preparedness
exercise programs. Specifically, the HSEEP has nationally standardized
exercise requirements and expectations. Additionally, the Exercise
division has assigned individual exercise manages to specific states
which has improved accountability and communication. Recently, ODP
sponsored the first ever New England Homeland Security Exercise
Conference. All of the New England States presented their exercise
plans and discussed strategic exercise coordination for the entire
northeast region.
In accordance with (HSPD)-8, ODP has worked with the states to
write exercise plans which will encompass all of their exercise
activity over a three year period so they may conduct homeland security
preparedness-related exercises that reinforce identified training
standards, provide for evaluation of readiness, and support the
national preparedness goal. These plans cover the types of exercises
which will be conducted and synchronize other ODP programs (equipment
purchases, training) so as to have a maximum effect when conducted. The
plans assist states to combine exercises from other federal programs
which the state may be required to conduct. To date, ODP exercises have
been conducted in maximum collaboration with State and local
governments and appropriate private sector entities, as prescribed by
HSPD-8.
ODP is developing a robust blended learning training program on
exercise design as well as how to manage an exercise program, based on
the HSEEP doctrine. This course will be available to all state and
local governments so they can implement their own exercise program,
utilizing ODP grant funding. Delivery of this training will be
conducted in early in calendar year 2005.
Within calendar year 2005, ODP directly delivered over 170
exercises to states and locals, as well as collaborating with Canada on
a series of exercises. These exercises involved some Federal
departments and agencies, but the primary focus was on State and local
governments and the private sector, so as to encourage active citizen
participation and involvement in preparedness efforts, so as to keep in
line with the direction put forth in HSPD-8.
Questions from the Honorable Bennie G. Thompson
Performance Measures
To the Committee's knowledge, there are no studies or metrics that
determine how much states and localities have improved their
preparedness for acts of terrorism or what needs remain. A December 31,
2003, report from the DHS Inspector General (IG) found that, ``DHS
program managers have yet to develop meaningful performance measures
necessary to determine whether the grant programs have actually
enhanced state and local capabilities to respond to terrorist attacks
and natural disasters.'' An April 2004 report from the IG stated that
the performance measures that ODP has created, ``. . .do not fully
address how federal funding has increased preparedness and response
capabilities.''
1. If DHS cannot measure the Nation's progress towards closing
the security gaps-either as a whole or on a state-by-state
basis-then what is the basis for the proposed $697 million
reduction in grant funds to be distributed by the Office of
Domestic Preparedness in FY 2005? No Response has been
Recieved.
2. Can you provide details on your progress to date in building
the terrorism preparedness capabilities of states and
localities, how are you measuring this progress, and what is
your timeline for building a ``baseline'' level of preparedness
capabilities nationwide? No Response has been Recieved.
Guidelines for Equipment. Training. and Exercises
The April IG report also noted that first responders do not have
clear federal guidelines for equipment, training, and exercises, making
it difficult to determine their highest priority needs and to decide
how best to spend grant funds. State officials and first responders
believed that the development of federal guidelines for first
responders should be accelerated.
1. What is ODP doing to accelerate the development of
guidelines or standards for equipment, training and exercises?
No Response has been Recieved. Who in DHS has the lead on
developing such guidelines? No Response has been Recieved. When
can we expect such guidelines to be completed and made
available to state and local entities? No Response has been
Recieved.
2. As you are aware, this Committee has passed legislation that
would require DHS to develop equipment and training standards
for your grant program within a relatively short period of
time. Do you support this legislation, and if not, what
alternative do you propose to address this shortcoming in the
grant program? No Response has been Recieved.
FIRE Grants
The FIRE Grant program was created by Congress in order to meet
basic, critical needs of the fire fighting community--including fire
engines, portable radios, protective clothing, and breathing
apparatus--which a December 2002 study by the U.S. Fire Administration
and the National Fire Protection Association found to be significant.
The Administration proposing to reduce funding for this program from
$750 million to $500 million, and is also proposing to shift the focus
of this program to terrorism preparedness.
In addition, the Administration's proposal for the fire grant
program limits the use of grant funds to only four (4) of the fourteen
authorized uses. This proposal would have a serious impact on
prevention programs benefiting both at-risk populations and programs
designed to improve the health and safety of our firefighters. Further,
in a report on the FIRE Grant program, the DHS Inspector General
indicated that a greater emphasis should be placed on funding fire
prevention activities.
1. Why did the Administration unilaterally decide to request a
limit on the use of FIRE grant funds through legislative
language, rather than selecting specific grant categories for
FY 2005 after consultation with national fire organizations, as
has normally been the case? No Response has been Recieved. Even
if most past FIRE grants were awarded in these four categories,
why are you seeking to limit the flexibility of local fire
departments? No Response has been Recieved.
2. How does DHS intend to address the shortcomings in fire
prevention activities identified by the Inspector General, if
funds are not authorized for this purpose? No Response has been
Recieved.
Urban Area Security Initiative
Although the President's request increases the amount of
discretionary grant funds to be distributed based on threats and
vulnerabilities under the Urban Area Security Initiative, you have yet
to provide Congressional appropriators and authorizers with a detailed
explanation of the intelligence information that you are using to
determine which cities receive these grants, despite the fact that we
have requested this information. In addition, it still is not at all
clear how the Department intends to measure progress in building our
preparedness capabilities nationwide, especially when you are reducing
funds for the State Homeland Security Grant program by almost $1
billion.
1. When can we expect the Department to provide this Committee
with detailed information that supports your selection of
specific cities to receive funds under the Urban Area Security
Initiative (UASI)? No Response has been Recieved.
2. If your proposal is approved, how many cities do you expect
to receive UASI funds in FY 2005? No Response has been
Recieved.
3. In years past, ODP has carved out a portion of UASI funds
for specific discretionary grant funds to ports and
transportation systems. Do you have plans to carve out any UASI
funds for these purposes, and if so, how much money will you
set aside? No Response has been Recieved. Why wasn't this part
of the budget request to Congress? No Response has been
Recieved.
4. Given the recent events in Spain, what was the process for
selecting the recipients of mass transit security grant funds
under the FY 2004 UASI program? No Response has been Recieved.
Did DHS perform any threat or risk assessments to determine the
allocation of these funds? No Response has been Recieved. Do
you have an estimate on total needs for securing rail and mass
transit systems? No Response has been Recieved.
Pipeline Issues
Secretary Ridge has claimed that since September 11, 2001, billions
of dollars that have been allocated by the federal government have not
yet reached the intended grantees at the local level. On March 15,2004,
Secretary Ridge created a task force, chaired by Massachusetts Governor
Mitt Romney, to recommend ways to improve the efficiency and
accountability of the ``pipeline'' between DHS and state and local
grant recipients. Most DHS grants for first responders include
timelines that require States to pass through a set percentage (often
80%) of funds to the local level in a specified period (often 60 days).
1. Secretary Ridge and several other senior Department
officials have stated that there are billions of dollars stuck
in the pipeline, neither in DHS accounts or received at the
local level. Why doesn't ODP have the tools in place to know
exactly where every dime is? No Response has been Recieved.
Will those tools be in place to track the FY 2005 grants? No
Response has been Recieved.
2. States have to submit a state plan and an application, both
of which are subject to DHS review, before receiving DHS grant
funds. I assume that the plan and application say something
about how the grant funds will be used. If this is the case,
why do DHS grants work by reimbursement, rather than allocating
funds? No Response has been Recieved. Doesn't this slow the
process down? No Response has been Recieved.
Emergency Management Performance Grant Program
The President's budget proposal significantly impacts the Emergency
Management Performance Grant program; only 25% of grant funds will be
available to support State and local emergency management personnel
salaries. At present, up to 100% of these grant funds can be used for
personnel salaries, if required. A March 2002 survey by the National
Emergency Management Association found that an additional 5,212 local
emergency management positions are needed with 3,960 (or 76 percent) of
those positions being fulltime directors needed to manage the programs.
1. Under Secretary Brown and others have informed this
Committee that the limitation on the use of EMPG grant funds
for personnel costs will result in increased state and local
training and exercises. However, without sufficient,
experienced emergency management personnel, how will states and
localities be able to participate in additional training and
exercise activities? No Response has been Recieved.
2. The organizations representing state and local emergency
managers have told us that in light of current budget troubles
in most states, the proposed 25% cap would lead to a drastic
reduction in the numbers of emergency managers. Given the vital
role these managers play, why does the Department want to put
them out of work? No Response has been Recieved.
Interoperable Communications
Although interoperable communications systems remain a critical
need for the first responder community, the President's Budget requests
no funds for grants to enhance interoperability, either in DHS or in
the Department of Justice COPS program. This budget does not support
the promises of Secretary Ridge, who has stated that implementing
interoperable communications systems is a DHS priority, and that, ``we
all must work together to give them the tools to do their jobs--in a
way that replaces outdated, outmoded relics with an interoperable,
innovative and integrated system.''
1. Why hasn't DHS created a separate grant program to meet this
critical need? No Response has been Recieved.
2. What percentage of ODP First Responder grant funds are being
used for interoperable communications, and what guidance are
you providing to grant recipients regarding what systems to
purchase? No Response has been Recieved. Do you allow funds to
be used for patching and connect or technologies that make use
of existing communications infrastructures? No Response has
been Recieved.
3. There appears to be some duplication as to what
organizations in DHS are responsible for developing,
publishing, and updating standards and guidance for
interoperable communications systems. How are such standards
integrated into your grant programs? No Response has been
Recieved. If ODP is responsible for these standards, what is
the role of the Science and Technology Directorate and Project
SAFECOM? No Response has been Recieved.
National Preparedness Goal. HSPD-8
A December 2003 Presidential Directive (HSPD-8) requires the
Secretary of DHS to develop a national domestic all-hazards
preparedness goal that will be included in the Secretary's FY 2006
budget request to the Office of Managent and Budget.
1. How do you intend to develop this goal, and what committees
or task forces have you created to begin work on this important
project? No Response has been Recieved. What organization
within DHS is taking the lead on developing this goal? No
Response has been Recieved. What other Federal agencies are
involved in this process? No Response has been Recieved.
2. How will state and local governments be involved in the
development of this goal? No Response has been Recieved. Unlike
the process for developing the National Response Plan, I hope
DHS has included state and local representatives in initial
discussions and meetings, and that the process is open to other
interested parties, such as national standards development
organizations.
3. How will this goal be integrated into both your current
grant programs and your future budget requests? No Response has
been Recieved.
4. When do you expect to be completed with this goal, and will
you share your findings with this Committee? No Response has
been Recieved.
State and Local Training
For FY 2005, the Administration proposes $91.9 million for the
State and local training program, a $103 million reduction from FY 2004
levels. Traditionally, National Domestic Preparedness Consortium member
institutions--who conduct most of ODP's training programs--have paid
the travel costs of state and local personnel attending training at
their respective facilities. For FY 2005, the Administration intends to
require state and local governments to pay these travel costs out of
State Homeland Security grant funds, and therefore has reduced NDPC
funding.
1. Doesn't the Administration's proposal create a disincentive
for increased participation in training, as state and local
governments would be forced to utilize limited State Homeland
Security grant funds for travel costs, rather than using the
funds for planning, equipment, or exercises? No Response has
been Recieved.
2. Doesn't this budget request propose cuts to the training
program to shift funding for travel to the State Homeland
Security Grant Program, and at the same time, cut that State
grant program? No Response has been Recieved.