[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMBATING TERRORISM: PROPOSED TRANSFER OF THE DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS
PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,
VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 26, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-27
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
59-450 CC WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
Carolina ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
LEE TERRY, Nebraska THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California ------
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California (Independent)
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
Carla J. Martin, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International
Relations
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, Chairman
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida TOM LANTOS, California
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
LEE TERRY, Nebraska (Independent)
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Lawrence J. Halloran, Staff Director and Counsel
Michele Lang, Professional Staff Member
Jonathan Wharton, Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 26, 1999..................................... 1
Statement of:
Cragin, Charles L., Acting Assistant Secretary for Reserve
Affairs, Department of Defense............................. 6
Light, Catherine, Director, Office of National Security
Affairs, Federal Emergency Management Agency, accompanied
by Bruce Baughman, Director of Operations and Plans,
Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency. 45
Martinez, Barbara Y., Deputy Director, National Domestic
Preparedness Office, Department of Justice................. 37
Mitchell, Andy, Deputy Director, Office for State and Local
Domestic Preparedness Support, Office of Justice Programs,
Department of Justice...................................... 19
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Cragin, Charles L., Acting Assistant Secretary for Reserve
Affairs, Department of Defense, prepared statement of...... 10
Light, Catherine, Director, Office of National Security
Affairs, Federal Emergency Management Agency, prepared
statement of............................................... 47
Martinez, Barbara Y., Deputy Director, National Domestic
Preparedness Office, Department of Justice, prepared
statement of............................................... 40
Mitchell, Andy, Deputy Director, Office for State and Local
Domestic Preparedness Support, Office of Justice Programs,
Department of Justice, prepared statement of............... 22
Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Connecticut, prepared statement of............ 4
COMBATING TERRORISM: PROPOSED TRANSFER OF THE DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS
PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans
Affairs, and International Relations,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher
Shays (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Shays, Mica and Tierney.
Staff present: Lawrence J. Halloran, staff director and
counsel; Michele Lang, professional staff member; Jonathan
Wharton, clerk; David Rapallo, minority counsel; and Jean Gosa,
minority staff assistant.
Mr. Shays. I would like to call this hearing to order.
Preparing to meet the threat of a terrorist attack here at
home, local, public safety and health care officials today face
a confusing array of Federal programs and agencies offering
expertise, training and equipment. In 1995, the President
designated the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], as
the lead Federal agency for consequence management, the
measures needed to protect life, restore essential services and
provide emergency relief after a terrorism event involving
conventional, biological or chemical weapons of mass
destruction. At the same time, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation [FBI], part of the Department of Justice [DOJ],
was directed to lead crisis management, the measures needed to
prevent or punish acts of terrorism.
In 1996, Congress directed the Department of Defense [DOD],
to provide consequence management training and equipment to
cities through what is now known as the Domestic Preparedness
Program while also authorizing FEMA and DOJ to enhance the
response capabilities of local police and fire departments. So
the proposed transfer of the Domestic Preparedness Program from
the Department of Defense to the Department of Justice offers
the promise of one-stop shopping for State and local first
responders, but raises key questions that should be addressed
before an act of terrorism puts that promise to the test.
The central question, does the consolidation of domestic
preparedness programs in DOJ ignore the clear, necessary
distinction between crisis management and consequence
management reflected in the President's original lead agency
designations? Will FEMA be able to assert a primary role in
consequence management once the bulk of Federal training and
equipment funds are coming from Justice? How will DOJ resolve
inevitable conflicts between the law enforcement imperative to
maintain the integrity of a crime scene and the equally
compelling need to mitigate consequences by evacuating and
decontaminating the same area when they are responsible for
both?
These are not abstract policy questions. When, not if,
terrorists strike within our borders again, Federal support
will be indispensable to an effective local response. Unless
that Federal effort is properly structured and targeted, local
planning may be inadequate, local preparations may be hazard,
and critical assets may be misallocated. More than 40 national
departments and agencies have responsibilities in the fight
against domestic terrorism. Unless their roles are thoughtfully
sorted out now, uncoordinated Federal assistance could, like
the Keystone Cops of silent films, only serve to confuse and
confound local response operations.
Our witnesses today represent the key departments and
agencies involved in the proposed consolidation and transfer of
domestic preparedness activities, DOJ, DOD, and FEMA. We
appreciate their testimony today and look forward to their
continued cooperation in the subcommittee's oversight of
Federal anti- and counterterrorism programs.
When we talk about the number of departments within the
Department of Justice, you have the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S.
Marshals Service, Drug Enforcement Agency, Office of Justice
Programs.
Then you have the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Then you have the Department of Defense: Joint Chiefs of
Staff; U.S. Army; U.S. Navy; U.S. Marine Corps, particularly
their chemical-biological incident response forces; U.S. Air
Force; U.S. Special Operations Command; U.S. Central Command,
Defense Intelligence Agency; Advanced Research Projects Agency;
Defense Information Systems Agency; Defense Special Weapons
Agency; Director of Military Support.
Department of State: U.S. Information Agency under State
starting October 1999.
Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health
Service; Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
Department of Energy: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Environmental Protection Agency.
Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation
Administration; U.S. Coast Guard.
Department of Treasury: U.S. Customs Service; Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; U.S. Secret Service.
Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency,
National Security Council.
Department of Commerce.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
U.S. Postal Service, White House Communications Agency,
U.S. Capitol Police, Office of the Vice President, U.S. Supreme
Court Marshals Office, State and local entities with terrorism-
related programs and activities, Governors' offices, National
Guard, State police, State fire, State Departments of
Environmental Protection, State Department of Emergency
Management, State public health departments, city-county fire
departments, emergency medical services, hazardous materials
teams, urban search and rescue, city and county police
departments, sheriffs' offices, hospitals, emergency room
physicians. It is a long list.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.002
Mr. Shays. At this time I would call our witnesses, the
Honorable Charles L. Cragin, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Reserve Affairs, Department of Defense; Mr. Andy Mitchell,
Deputy Director, Office for State and Local Domestic
Preparedness Support, Office of Justice Programs, Department of
Justice; Mrs. Barbara Y. Martinez, Deputy Director, National
Domestic Preparedness Office, Federal Emergency Management
Agency; Ms. Catherine Light, Director, Office of National
Security Affairs, Federal Emergency Management Agency. In place
of Mr. Lacy Smith, we have Bruce P. Baughman, who is the
Director of Operations and Plans, Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
What I'm going to do, as you know we swear in all of our
witnesses. If there is anyone that is going to accompany you,
Mr. Cragin, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Martinez, or Ms. Light, if you
think you would call on to actually say something, I would ask
them to stand, and we will swear them in as well in case they
would be called upon to speak.
If you would rise, and if there is anyone that you would
suggest that might, if you would raise your right hands,
please.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Shays. Note for the record all five have responded in
the affirmative, and it's very nice to have all of you here.
Mr. Cragin, it's nice to have you here, and I would ask you to
open up this hearing. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. CRAGIN, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
RESERVE AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Cragin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the opportunity to speak with you today about this very, very
important issue.
Let me briefly summarize the history and status of the DOD
Domestic Preparedness Program as well as our plans for
transitioning leadership responsibility for the program to the
Department of Justice.
The Domestic Preparedness Program, as you observed, was
established to implement the provisions of the Defense Against
Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996. DOD was designated as
the interagency lead to carry out a program to provide civilian
personnel in Federal, State and local agencies with the
training and expert advice regarding responses to a use or
threatened use of a weapon of mass destruction.
In 1997, DOD began providing training and expert assistance
for the Nation's 120 largest cities. A listing of those cities
and the status of their training is included as an attachment
to my statement for the record. To date 58 cities have
participated in the training, and more than 15,700 first
responder trainers have been trained.
My Federal interagency counterparts participated in the
initial development of the training approach for this program,
and they continue to participate in the program's execution
today. The training approach for this program involves initial
visits to selected cities to plan and customize the training; a
week of ``train the trainer'' training for local first
responder, HAZMAT, firefighter and law enforcement and
emergency medical service personnel; tabletop and functional
hands-on exercises using chemical and biological scenarios to
further reinforce this training; and a training equipment
package which is loaned to each city for their subsequent
training use.
Although I have oversight responsibility for this program,
the U.S. Army's Soldier and Biological Chemical Command and the
Director of Military Support serve as DOD's principal agents
for executing this training program. The program is
accomplished largely through contracts with certified
professional instructors and subject matter experts in the
areas of nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological
medicine; public health; law enforcement; and emergency
response.
The enabling legislation for this program requires DOD to
plan and coordinate an annual Federal, State and local exercise
to improve the integration of Federal, State and local response
assets during a WMD response. The fiscal year 1999 exercise
will be held in New York City in September and involves a
biological scenario.
Other components of the Domestic Preparedness Program
provide direct support and assistance to the first responder
community. These include the Improved Response Program and the
Expert Assistance Program.
The law requires that the Department annually use the
lessons learned from program execution to revise or update the
program to ensure the training is effective, that it is
technically up-to-date and is responsive to user requirements.
While the Improved Response Program helps to prevent technical
obsolescence, responder feedback from the execution of training
and exercises associated with this program has profoundly
influenced the training focus.
Without exception, the No. 1 request of first responders
has been to identify a single Federal agency to lead the
training and equipping of first responders. As you observed in
your opening statement and in their words, they seek the ease,
convenience and predictability of one-stop shopping at the
Federal level.
Last summer, in an effort to respond to President Clinton's
direction to work more collaboratively and aggressively to
combat terrorism, Deputy Secretary of Defense Hamre, Attorney
General Reno, FEMA Director Witt, FBI Deputy Director Bryant
and Director Clarke from the NSC met to discuss the feasibility
of accomplishing that objective. The result was an agreement in
principal that the Department of Justice would assume lead
Federal agency responsibility for the WMD Domestic Preparedness
Program.
Since that time the Department of Defense and Department of
Justice have been formulating and negotiating the terms of an
interagency agreement to transfer lead responsibility for the
WMD Domestic Preparedness Program from DOD to DOJ beginning in
October of the year 2000. Although our negotiations are not yet
concluded, we are moving toward finalizing that agreement. DOD
will retain responsibility for the city training and equipping
program until the end of fiscal year 2000, at which time DOJ
will honor the commitment to train the remainder of the
originally designated 120 cities. Beginning in fiscal year
2000, DOJ will coordinate with DOD during city training
planning visits and will provide training equipment grants to
cities trained by DOD in fiscal year 2000.
The transition will occur in stages to accommodating
existing budgets and program plans. Checks and balances are
built into the staged approach to the transition. DOJ will
coordinate with DOD throughout fiscal year 2000 and will
participate in joint planning as articulated in the finalized
Memorandum of Understanding which we hope to complete in early
summer.
DOD's focus beginning in fiscal year 2001 will be to
continue to enhance the readiness of its WMD response units as
well as installation responders. DOJ will focus on the domestic
preparedness of State and local responders. As a result both
Departments will contribute funding to benefit from the lessons
learned from the Improved Response Program beginning in fiscal
year 2001. Joint planning will be conducted through a
multiagency task force to coordinate improvements needed not
only for State and local response, but also for DOD's military
WMD response elements.
Beginning in fiscal year 2001, the Department of Justice
will assume full responsibility for managing and funding the
first responder hotline, the helpline, and the Internet Web
site. DOD will continue to fund and maintain the data base of
WMD-related chemical-biological information and the equipment
testing program as these program elements are integral to
satisfying the DOD mission. DOJ will coordinate with DOD in
joint planning efforts so that the State and local responder
communities will continue to benefit from these Expert
Assistance Programs.
DOD will also continue to maintain at least one domestic
terrorism rapid response team capable of aiding Federal, State,
and local officials in the detection, neutralization,
containment, dismantlement and disposal of WMD chem-bio
materials as was required by the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici law. In
fiscal year 1999 a chemical-biological rapid response team as
well as 10 rapid assessment and initial detection teams were
established to meet that requirement. In fiscal year 2000, DOD
has requested the funding to support the establishment of an
additional five RAID teams.
The Department of Defense will continue to support the
Department of Justice both during the transition and following
its completion. The continued partnership for WMD preparation
among local, State and Federal authorities is mandatory for our
success. The recently enacted fiscal year 1999 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriation Act has made that point very clear.
Title III of the act acknowledges the new leadership role of
the Department of Justice in combating terrorism and the need
to actively engage the 54 States and territories in the
development of a national WMD preparedness strategy.
The act requires that a fully coordinated final NDPO, that
is the National Domestic Preparedness Office, blueprint
outlining the specific roles and involvement of all Federal,
State and local NDPO participants be submitted to Congress
within the next few weeks. The NDPO must develop a plan for
consulting with the States and developing and implementing a
national strategy for domestic preparedness that builds on the
existing all-hazard emergency management capabilities.
Among other things, Mr. Chairman, the act requires the
Attorney General to request that each State Governor designate
a lead State agency or other entity to develop a comprehensive
State-level domestic preparedness plan. Each State plan is to
be based on a State-level needs assessment that identifies
local and State first responder needs and provides an
assessment of the resources currently available at the local,
State and Federal level. My colleague Mr. Mitchell will discuss
in more detail the needs assessment process.
Since President Clinton issued PDD-62 a year ago to enhance
our Nation's capability to combat domestic terrorism, there has
been a concerted interagency cooperative effort to coordinate
and streamline our programs in a way that is fairly consistent
with this most recent round of congressional direction.
We know what we need to do. We have made a good beginning,
but we have a very long way to go. The NDPO is getting started,
and the Attorney General has the full support of the Department
of Defense in her leadership role. We are faced with a
multiyear effort, which requires cooperation, patience and a
long-term commitment. I thank you, sir, for your continued
support and interest in this vitally important area.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Cragin.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cragin follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.011
Mr. Shays. I want to correct the record. Mr. Mitchell, you
are next. Mrs. Martinez, you are not from FEMA, you are from
the Department of Justice.
Mrs. Martinez. Yes, I am.
Mr. Shays. Thank you for your restraint.
Mrs. Martinez. We have a great partnership.
Mr. Shays. Anyway, great to have you from the Department of
Justice. I was wondering who would represent the Department of
Justice here. OK. You are on, Mr. Mitchell.
STATEMENT OF ANDY MITCHELL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE FOR STATE
AND LOCAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS SUPPORT, OFFICE OF JUSTICE
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Congressman Tierney. On behalf of Attorney General Janet Reno,
Assistant Attorney General Laurie Robinson, I am pleased to be
here today to discuss OJP's programs to enhance the
capabilities of State and local first responders to deal with
domestic terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Mitchell, let me just have you suspend for 1
second to recognize that Mr. Tierney is here. I apologize. I
would ask unanimous consent that all members of the
subcommittee be permitted to place any opening statement in the
record and that the record remain open for 3 days for that
purpose. Without objection, so ordered. I ask further unanimous
consent that all Members be permitted to include their written
statement, too, in the record, and without objection, so
ordered. Thank you. I am sorry, Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. Mitchell. No problem. Thank you. In 1998, the Attorney
General delegated authority for key facets of DOJ's Domestic
Preparedness Program to the Assistant Attorney General for the
Office of Justice Programs, who in turn proposed the creation
of the Office for State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support
to develop and administer critically needed financial and
technical support to the Nation's first responders.
Building on experience developed through 30 years of
providing public safety and law enforcement support for
training and technical assistance to State and local
governments, OJP is focusing on five interrelated areas. First,
we are conducting a national needs assessment to better help
allocate resources and direct our design of training and
exercise programs to meet the needs of the first responders as
they define those needs.
Second, our office is providing financial assistance to
enable State and local jurisdictions to buy much needed
equipment. This fiscal year OJP will award $85.5 million to
over 200 cities and the 50 States. We just finalized our
agreements with appropriation staff yesterday, and we will have
information for the committee on how those funds will be
distributed early next week.
Third, OJP offers a broad spectrum of training to ensure
that State and local emergency response personnel, fire, law
enforcement, HAZMAT, EMS, and public officials have the
knowledge, skills and abilities to respond safely and
effectively to a terrorist incident.
Fourth, OJP will support local-level tabletop and
functional exercises for State and local agencies to help
identify strengths and weaknesses within their current response
plans.
And fifth, we offer a wide range of technical assistance to
help transfer knowledge and assist State and local agencies to
make critical decisions the domestic preparedness issue
requires.
In delivering training and equipment to emergency
personnel, OJP will closely coordinate and cooperate with the
Department of Justice's National and Domestic Preparedness
Office [NDPO], as Mr. Cragin has already discussed, which was
proposed to coordinate Federal domestic preparedness
initiatives and to serve as a single point of contact for first
responders for information on Federal preparedness programs. In
working with the NDPO, OJP participates in an intergovernmental
coordination process that helps all Federal agencies to better
focus and coordinate program policy across the Federal
Government.
In formulating our plans, OJP in concert with NDPO has made
every effort to coordinate existing and planned domestic
preparedness programs with those sponsored by other Federal
agencies. This coordinated approach helps ensure that our
programs are integrated with those efforts and that program
funding is maximized to deliver the best training in the most
effective manner.
In particular, the intergovernmental coordination has been
very significant and effective as the Departments of Defense
and Justice are planning to transfer the Nunn-Lugar Domestic
Preparedness Program. The Department of Justice is committed to
completing the training in the 120 jurisdictions originally
identified by DOD. Our two departments are working extremely
well with excellent coordination between the agencies,
particularly from the staff of the Reserve Affairs Office
headed by Mr. Cragin.
I am confident that the program transition will result in a
much more robust and comprehensive Federal training program for
the Nation's first responders, enabling OJP to integrate our
existing training and other domestic preparedness assets with
the Domestic Preparedness Program implementation.
The integration will also address legitimate concerns
regarding the two programs having different target groups with
different mechanisms. As Charlie said, the memorandum of
agreement is undergoing final review, and we should hope to
have that finalized by this summer.
The training equipment component of Nunn-Lugar is a
critical element. OJP will provide grants for this purpose for
the 20 cities beginning the training in fiscal year 2000 under
DOD's leadership and in subsequent years. This will eliminate
confusion and the difficulties inherent with the current
equipment loan program. This is another area where OJP's
grantmaking authorities and capabilities can enhance the
program implementation.
A major element of our program in OJP is the National
Domestic Preparedness Consortium. Funding for all five members
was provided for the first time in fiscal year 1999 to develop
and implement specialized training for first responders. Each
of the consortium members, Louisiana State University, Texas
A&M University, the New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology, the Department of Energy's Nevada test site and
OJP's Center for Domestic Preparedness at Fort McClellan, AL,
has unique capabilities and expertise that will contribute to
more diverse, well-rounded training opportunities for the
Nation's first response community and will add significantly to
the training opportunities for these responders.
Throughout the development of OJP's programs and under the
umbrella of the NDPO and our Federal partners, we have made
every effort to keep in close touch with those that we are here
to serve, the Nation's first responders. We will work closely
with, for example, the National Emergency Management
Association, the National Association of Fire Chiefs, and the
National Sheriffs Association and other key stakeholder groups.
With their help and constant feedback, we will continue to
develop and improve our programs so that we can enhance the
Nation's ability to deal with events that we all hope will
never occur. Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.026
Mr. Shays. We will hear from Mrs. Martinez now.
STATEMENT OF BARBARA Y. MARTINEZ, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mrs. Martinez. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for this opportunity to speak before distinguished Members of
Congress and my colleagues regarding the proposed role of the
National Domestic Preparedness Office in combating terrorism
within the United States. My intent is to highlight the
importance of achieving coordination across the Federal
Government of the various individual agency efforts that
currently provide valuable assistance to State and local
communities in preparing them to face the challenge that
terrorism presents.
As you have noted, over 40 Federal agencies would have a
role in the response to a true terrorist attack involving
weapons of mass destruction. So, too, are many of these
agencies in a logical position to provide various forms of
expert assistance to prepare their State and local counterparts
whose job it is to save lives and protect the security of our
communities if such an event occurs.
The mission of the National Domestic Preparedness Office,
as recommended to the Attorney General by State and local
authorities, will be to serve as the central coordinating body
for Federal programs that can help emergency responders prepare
for such events.
As you know, in the past few years Congress and the
President have taken significant steps to increase our national
security and to promote interagency cooperation. Most recently,
cooperative efforts against terrorism have been expanded to
include State and local agencies as well as professional and
private sector associations. For example, in the preparation of
the administration's 5-year interagency counterterrorism and
technology crime plan, the Attorney General sought the input of
over 200 local and State representatives of response
disciplines that would be most likely involved in the response
to a terrorist event. Collectively, fire services and HAZMAT
personnel, law enforcement and public safety personnel,
emergency medical and public health professionals, emergency
management, local and State government officials as well as
various professional associations and organizations recommended
to the Attorney General and others on ways to improve Federal
assistance for State and local communities. These
recommendations have been incorporated into the
administration's 5-year plan.
The most critical issue identified by stakeholders was the
need for a central Federal point of coordination. Due to the
size and complexity of both the problem of terrorism and the
Federal Government itself, it was no surprise that the many
different avenues through which aid may be required by State
and local officials and the resulting inconsistency in those
programs was simply deemed to be overwhelming. In essence, the
Federal Government, though well intended, was not operating in
an optimal manner, nor was it effectively serving its
constituents with regard to domestic preparedness programs and
issues.
State and local response officials made a strong
recommendation in the presence of the Attorney General and the
presence of the Director of FEMA and the Secretary of Defense
for the coordination and integration of all the Federal
programs that rate State and local agencies for terrorism
preparedness. In heeding that recommendation, the Attorney
General further conferred with the National Security Council,
FEMA, HHS, DOD and others, and with their support proposed the
National Domestic Preparedness Office. If approved, the office
will provide a productive forum for the coordination of the
vital efforts of the Office of Justice Program's Office for
State and Local Preparedness Support, FEMA, Department of
Defense, National Guard, EPA, the environmental agency, the
Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human
Services, FBI, and the many other Federal agencies with related
assistance programs.
Stakeholders also cited the need for formal representation
of State and local authorities along with the Federal agencies
in the form of an advisory board to guide the development and
delivery of more effective Federal programs. Federal agencies
agreed that State and local participation is critical to the
whole process of domestic preparedness. Therefore, in addition
to the advisory board, it is anticipated that when fully
staffed, the NDPO will be staffed approximately one-third by
State and local experts from various disciplines. These
positions will be filled through establishment of interagency
reimbursable agreements or contract hires.
Overall the NDPO will serve as a clearinghouse to provide
information to local and State officials who must determine the
preparedness strategy for their community. The stakeholders
easily identified six broad issue areas in need of coordination
assistance: planning, training, exercise, equipment research
and development, information sharing, and public health and
medical services. If I could, I would like to highlight just a
few of these, the efforts the NDPO could engage in.
In the area of training, the NDPO would establish a
mechanism to ensure that Federal training programs comply with
minimal national standards, such as those of the National Fire
Protection Association, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. The NDPO could also develop a national strategy
to make sustained training opportunities and assistance
available to all communities and States nationwide. The NDPO
would maintain an after-action tracking data base for the
repository and review of all lessons learned during exercises
and actual events that might assist other communities.
In connection with information sharing, the NDPO can
implement a mechanism to facilitate access by personnel outside
law enforcement to information that would be critical for
preparedness and consequence management.
In the area of equipment research and development, the
NDPO, with direct input by emergency responders, has already
established a standardized equipment list which has been
incorporated into the grant application kits used by the Office
of Justice Programs. The NDPO again would serve as a
clearinghouse for product information provided by private
vendors and testing data provided by approved testing
facilities, including those of Department of Defense, to
promote a synergy and avoid costly duplication in the area of
Federal research and development.
Finally, in the area of health and medical services, the
NDPO, under the guidance of the Public Health Service of the
Department of Health and Human Services, would coordinate the
efforts to support the metropolitan medical response systems,
pharmaceutical stockpiling systems, the establishment of a
nationwide surveillance system, and over other efforts to
improve the identification of infectious diseases and the
overall integration of the public health and mental health care
community into the WMD response plans.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to
you today and in the future as the NDPO continues to mature
into the one-stop shopping for domestic preparedness as
proposed by the Attorney General of the United States. She has
recently said that the actions of the first people on the scene
can really make a difference between life and death, and the
key is to work together in a partnership among Federal, State,
and local communities to prepare a coordinated response that
saves lives and provides for the safety of all involved. I will
answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much, Mrs. Martinez.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Martinez follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.031
Mr. Shays. Ms. Light.
STATEMENT OF CATHERINE LIGHT, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NATIONAL
SECURITY AFFAIRS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY,
ACCOMPANIED BY BRUCE BAUGHMAN, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS AND
PLANS, RESPONSE AND RECOVERY, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AGENCY
Ms. Light. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and good morning,
Mr. Tierney. On behalf of Director James Lee Witt, thank you
for the opportunity to discuss the status of terrorism-related
Domestic Preparedness Program activities. I have provided a
written statement and will now summarize key points from that
statement. First I will give a brief overview of FEMA's roles
and responsibilities with respect to domestic terrorism and
then discuss our position on the proposed transfer of the Nunn-
Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness Program from the
Department of Defense to the Department of Justice.
FEMA is the Federal Government's lead agency for
consequence management preparedness and response to domestic
incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. FEMA uses the
Federal Response Plan [FRP], as the vehicle to coordinate the
Federal consequence management activities. Over the years, the
FRP has been used in numerous Presidentially declared disasters
and emergencies. The plan brings together 27 departments and
agencies to organize Federal disaster response and recovery
efforts in support of State and local requirements. Most
importantly, the FRP provides a known and flexible framework
under which local, State and Federal officials can orchestrate
their response and make the most effective use of available
resources.
In implementing its domestic preparedness activities, FEMA
strives to ensure four key points: First, that State and local
first responders and emergency management personal are the
focus of the Federal programs; second, that the needs of the
balance of the Nation, not just the largest cities and the
metropolitan areas, are addressed; third, that initial training
is reinforced and sustained with refresher information and
updated instruction; and finally, that existing plans, systems
and capabilities are used as the foundation for addressing the
unique requirements of responding to terrorist incidents
involving weapons of mass destruction.
FEMA Director Witt has been working closely with the
Attorney General to better coordinate interagency efforts for
domestic preparedness including support for the National
Domestic Preparedness Office. In addition to supporting the
NDPO, FEMA will continue its lead agency responsibilities for
consequence management.
With respect to planning, FEMA applies experience gained in
responding to natural disasters to the development of plans and
procedures for terrorism response. In 1997, we published the
Terrorism Incident Annex to the Federal Response Plan, and we
continue to work with the interagency community to refine our
response. In addition, FEMA grant assistance is being used to
enhance State and local planning resources and capabilities.
In the area of training, FEMA has developed and delivered a
number of terrorism-related courses utilizing existing networks
and facilities. In particular, we rely on the National
Emergency Training Center, which includes the Emergency
Management Institute and the National Fire Academy as well as
State fire and emergency management training systems to deliver
terrorism-related training to States and local responders.
Additionally, the Emergency Management Institute developed a
Senior Officials Workshop for DOD's Nunn-Lugar-Domenici
program, and the National Fire Academy worked very closely with
the Department of Justice to provide a curriculum for DOJ's
metropolitan fire and emergency services training.
Regarding exercises, we are working very closely with the
NDPO, FBI, other departments and agencies in the States to
ensure the development of a comprehensive exercise program that
meets State and local needs.
As for equipment, we assisted in the development of the
standardized equipment list that has been referenced earlier
today.
With respect to the proposed transfer of the Nunn-Lugar-
Domenici Domestic Preparedness Program, FEMA strongly supports
the transfer from DOD to DOJ. FEMA has worked very closely with
DOD and the interagency community to help institutionalize the
process, and we will continue to work very closely with the
Department of Justice as the program is transferred to them.
FEMA is committed to work with the Federal interagency
community in coordinating our activities and programs as part
of the overall Federal effort, and we are committed to doing
everything that we can to better prepare the States and local
jurisdictions for dealing with this immense challenge.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to address this
subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Light follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.036
Mr. Shays. Thank you all very much. First, let me say this
will be the first of a number of hearings. The advantage that
this committee has is that we are an investigative committee.
We are not a committee that promulgates legislation. We
advocate legislation and then encourage other committees to do
it, but we really look at how programs are working.
The advantage that this committee has is that we aren't
limited by one department or agency. We have total jurisdiction
in the Government Reform Committee of terrorism and anything
related to it, whether it be in the Department of Defense,
Department of Justice, FEMA or anywhere else. We think that we
need to take advantage of that.
Second, this is really our first hearing, so I am going to
go through questions that have been written out because we
really want them on the record. I am interested in asking some
other questions as well, but I am going to go through to put
these on the record. Some of them are in your statement, but I
want them in response to the questions that I ask.
The other thing that I want to say is that we really are
putting you all in the same table. I am not trying to pit one
against the other, but I am going to ask questions that will
hopefully force us to just come to grips with why decisions are
made and so on.
So, one, I appreciate the fact that you all wanted to be at
the same table, but I think what you all are doing is one of
the most important things. It is one reason why I chose to
chair this committee. One of my greatest concerns is not an
errant missile that comes to the United States. It is a
suitcase or a bomb in a truck left in Times Square, the
absolute rejoicing that some nations would have if this great
country were wounded in some way.
I also say that while your faces may not be public, I
believe they will during the course of the next years because I
do think there will be a terrorist attack; hopefully not one of
great magnitude, but I think there will be. The odds are there
will be, in my judgment. There are three weapons of choice,
whether they be chemical, biological or, in fact, even nuclear.
So you all are on a very important mission.
These questions are going to be first addressed to all of
you. I think, Mr. Cragin, this came from your statement. You
said,
The Attorney General announced last October a plan to
transfer the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness Program
from the Department of Defense to the Department of Justice.
DOJ and DOD are finalizing the Memorandum of Understanding on
the transfer of the Domestic Preparedness Program. This MOU
will set forth how the transfer will be implemented.
I would like to just know a little bit more about that
ultimately, but first I would like to ask, Mr. Cragin, why was
the decision made to transfer the Domestic Preparedness
Program? What was the motivation to do that?
Mr. Cragin. Initially, Mr. Chairman, the Nunn-Lugar-
Domenici legislation itself authorized the President, beginning
on October 1, 1999, or thereafter, to designate an agency other
than the Department of Defense as the lead agency for
conducting the Domestic Preparedness Program. So we have the
existence of the legislation.
Second, we had been involved, and have been historically,
as a supporting agency in the Federal inventory supporting FEMA
and supporting the Department of Justice. As I mentioned in my
opening remarks, there was a great deal of confusion, as Mrs.
Martinez mentioned in hers, within the first responder
community. They were coming to the Department of Defense for
certain aspects; they were coming to the Department of Justice
for others. We also had as part of this constellation of events
that was occurring--in fact, just a year ago, May 22 of last
year, President Clinton issued Presidential Directive 62, which
really directed the Federal agencies to have a much more
programmatic and collaborative approach to coordination of WMD
responses. So you had all of this happening.
Dr. Hamre looked at the mission of the Department of
Defense as a mission to provide support, but recognized that we
really didn't on a daily basis have direct contact with the
first responder community, and that the Department of Justice
did have that sort of daily contact through all of the FBI
agents in, I think, the 56 field offices out there.
Frankly, it was a very collaborative discussion, as I
mentioned in my statement, between Dr. Hamre and Ms. Reno and
Director Witt and Mr. Richard Clarke, who, as you know, is
designated as the national Director for the critical
infrastructure and domestic terrorism at the NSC, and Mr.
Bryant from the FBI. A conclusion was reached following those
discussions that it was in the best interests of America and in
the best interests of providing the support to first responders
that we transfer this program to the Department of Justice.
Mr. Shays. Would anyone else like to add to that response?
Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Chairman, I think at the time, as Charlie
indicated, there were a number of Federal programs, DOD and the
one in DOJ predominantly, that had similar targets, but
different lists of groups that were eligible in different
cities. One of the things that I think the transfer will
accomplish is to eliminate any redundancy or confusion as to
who is eligible for what and provide a much more comprehensive
Federal training program to make a wider range of training and
equipment and other assistance available in a much more
integrated fashion. So I think that the transfer in addition to
the legal and policy aspects of it, just organizationally, it
seemed to make sense, and I believe that the first responder
community has responded well to the proposal. We have not heard
any concerns or anxieties from our end that they are concerned
about that.
Mr. Shays. Would anyone else want to make a comment? The
second question is the decision that you did respond to, why
DOJ and not FEMA? I would tell you that in some ways it seems
that FEMA has more contact with local communities in terms of I
would think that they would be more likely to want to be the
one that would provide the training and the preparedness for
the consequence management. So it was surprising to me that DOJ
grabbed it instead of FEMA. So my question is why DOJ and not
FEMA?
Mr. Cragin. I think one of the reasons, Mr. Chairman, was
because we had two programs that were going down tandem tracks.
We had the Equipment Grant Program that was being administered
by the Department of Justice and, in fact, has been
significantly plussed up in the last year or so. And we had the
Domestic Preparedness Training Program that was over at the
Department of Defense. So there was almost----
Mr. Shays. I know why it left DOD. I do know that, but I
don't know why you chose to go DOJ instead.
Mr. Cragin. Because they were doing the equipment grants.
Say, for example, FEMA ended up doing the training. You still
have Justice doing the equipping, so you don't have a one-stop
shop.
Mr. Shays. I understand.
Why would not the equipment go to FEMA? It seems to me that
that would have been the logical place to put it.
Mr. Cragin. That was the wisdom of Congress, Mr. Shays,
that the equipment grants programs were in the Department of
Justice.
Mr. Shays. But it is also the wisdom of Congress that the
other part was at DOD.
Mr. Cragin. But it was the wisdom of Congress that after
October 1, 1999, that portion could, in fact, be transferred to
the other agency.
Mr. Shays. Right, but the question is why didn't we
transfer both to FEMA? That is what I am trying to get at. It
seems to me that DOJ is basically going to be focused on really
the issue of crisis management to prevent a crime and then to
punish the criminal. FEMA seems logically to me to be the one
that works with local communities, tries to prepare them for
the consequence management, and it would seem to me that they
should be the ones dealing with the equipment and management
and training, et cetera. That is what I am trying to sort out.
There may not be a perfect answer, but I would at least like to
know.
Mr. Mitchell. In the instance of the agency administering
the training and equipment and other support programs, it is
the Office of Justice Programs which is the principal
grantmaking agency. It is an operational agency, as the FBI
would be, in the crisis management responsibilities. So the
mission of OJP is solely to provide a wide variety of training
and technical and financial support to State and local
governments on a wide range of public safety issues. This is
one of many public safety areas in which OJP has an aggressive
and very comprehensive relationship with Governors, mayors,
elected officials, public safety officials throughout the
United States.
Mr. Shays. Feel free to jump in.
Mr. Tierney. Excuse us going back and forth. We have some
of the same curiosity. Doesn't FEMA have the same kind of
relationships? FEMA might know that.
Mr. Shays. Ms. Light, if you would move the microphone down
a little lower.
Ms. Light. Is that better?
Yes, FEMA is responsible for consequence management, and
FEMA does have an excellent relationship with the emergency
management and the fire community because we deal with them
very regularly. Just as we deal with those communities,
however, the Department of Justice deals very regularly with
the law enforcement community, which is also a very essential
component, as does the Department of Health and Human Services
deal with the health officials that are part of the response
also.
Regardless of the department or agency who has lead
responsibility, the program is one in which all of the
departments and agencies need to continue to work very closely
together to make sure that we are meeting the needs of the
first responders across the spectrum; emergency management,
fire, law enforcement, health and medical personnel. We have
been very much a part of that program both at the national
level and in delivering it out in the communities, and we will
continue to be very much a part of that program as the program
is transferred to the Department of Justice. It will do nothing
really to diminish our role with respect to consequence
management in the aftermath of a disaster. We will still have
that lead responsibility, and we will still utilize the Federal
response framework for responding to disasters.
Mr. Shays. But what makes the question for me, though, is
the contact you would have by the equipment and the training is
now going to be handled by someone else. You won't have that
kind of contact. It seems to me that it would have been logical
to develop that relationship because the training for the
consequence management is going to be done by someone else, but
you are the one that is ultimately going to have to deal with
the consequences.
Ms. Light. We will deal with the consequences, but we are
very much involved in the delivery of that training. We
assisted in the development of that training. In fact, we
developed a particular course that met the needs of the local
responders, and we will continue to be a part of the delivery
of that training even as the program is transferred to the
Department of Justice. Every city visit, every training
program, every exercise that is associated with that we are a
part of and will continue to be a part of.
Mr. Shays. That is helpful.
Mr. Tierney. What is DOJ going to do?
Ms. Light. Pardon me?
Mr. Tierney. What is the Department of Justice going to do
with respect to training?
Ms. Light. The training program, Department of Justice,
Department of Defense, the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
EPA, HHS, and Department of Energy are all integral parts of
that training program. When we go out to the cities and deliver
that program, all of us are there as a united entity.
Mr. Tierney. Under the direction of DOJ?
Ms. Light. Yes, that would be the case. Now, under the
direction of DOD, but then under the direction of DOD, yes.
Mr. Shays. If the transfer is going to move to DOJ, which
it is, why not place everything in the Office of Justice
Programs, which already has established State and local
relations for administering law enforcement grants and
programs?
Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Chairman, the vast majority, the
assistance-related programs of the Domestic Preparedness
Program, the city visit training, the equipment component,
training equipment component, the Improved Response Program
that deals with enhancing the training for State and local
first response benefits will be transferred to the Office of
Justice Programs.
Mr. Shays. OK. When is this transfer going to begin to take
place, and when will it be completed?
Mr. Mitchell. The initial transition planning and
integration will begin this summer as we go out, our staff, the
companies, the DOD program personnel, to the initial regional
kickoffs for the jurisdictions that will begin the training
process, the 20 cities that will begin the process in fiscal
year 2000, and then we will increasingly participate. The
program is complex, and there is a fairly long time line
associated from the first initial contact with the city through
the completion of the field exercise and the bio tabletop at
the end of this process. So our MOU is quite specific as to the
DOJ-DOD coordination on those jurisdictions where there will be
a residual activity remaining after the transfer occurs on
October 1, 2000.
Mr. Shays. What will happen to the existing DOD contracts?
Mr. Cragin. The existing DOD contracts will either reach
their conclusion as far as the fiscal year applicability is
concerned, or they will be transferred to the Department of
Justice. That is an issue that we look at on a regular basis
because of the fiscal year program. We are going to be
budgeting some last-quarter dollars in the preceding fiscal
year to get over to the first quarter of the transition year so
that there is absolutely no hiatus in the program evolution.
From the city's perspective, Mr. Chairman, this will be
completely transparent to them.
Mr. Shays. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Cragin, I think this is also from your statement. You
said the Domestic Preparedness Program currently consists of
five program elements: One, the city, training the trainer
programs. The second one was the annual Federal, State and
local--FSL--exercise. I think the third one is the Improved
Response Program [IRP]; four, expert assistance; and five,
chemical and biological response. What parts of the program
will DOD retain, and what parts of the program will DOJ receive
of these?
Mr. Cragin. As I indicated in my opening statement, we are
essentially going to retain the chemical and biological rapid
response team. As you know, the legislation required that the
Department of Defense establish at least one of those teams. We
have established that in fiscal year 1999.
Mr. Shays. That is within the marine----
Mr. Cragin. That is an amalgam of expertise within the
Department of Defense. That includes and can utilize, for
example, the tech escort units, Chemical and Biological
Incident Response Task Force from the Marine Corps. But we have
also established, and not up and running yet, and I believe
this committee is going to have a hearing to discuss the topic
on June 23, what we call rapid assessment and initial detection
teams, which will be fielded through the United States to
assist State and local authorities in assessing an event in
determining exactly what they are dealing with and providing
support. So we are going to retain those things. We are also
going to retain part of the expert assistance aspects because
we have mission requirements for those activities within the
Department of Defense.
Mr. Shays. As it relates to the trainer program, what part
will DOJ assume, and what part will DOD continue?
Mr. Cragin. DOJ will assume the entire aspect of that
program. That is essentially the guts, so to speak, of the
Domestic Preparedness Program where they go out, as we have to
date, with 58 cities and about 15,700 first responders, and we
train them as trainers so that you get the leveraged capacity
of them going forward to train additional personnel.
Mr. Shays. When will the FSL Exercise Improvement Response
Program be transferred to Justice?
Mr. Cragin. That will not be transferred, Mr. Chairman,
because by the law the Department of Defense is only required
to conduct that for a 5-year period. So 2001 will be the last
year of that program, and we have agreed to maintain that as a
Department of Defense-led activity. But I echo Ms. Light's
comments to you. This is an interagency process. Everybody is
collaborative in working this process, and they all participate
in the exercise planning as well.
Mr. Shays. I think that is clear. I think it is important
for us to begin to appreciate all of the parts to it, which
leads me to ask after 2001, won't the program continue? Won't
Congress authorize it up to 2001?
Mr. Cragin. I am going to let Mr. Mitchell respond to the
question of the program, but I want to emphasize the Federal,
State and local annual exercise aspect expires at the end of 5
years. The rest of the program continues.
Mr. Shays. Let me just say, you are going to be having an
exercise this year in New York City?
Mr. Cragin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. That will involve how much; over what period of
time will that exercise take place? I am sure that you are
planning for it now, but is that a 1-day event? Is it a 5-day
event?
Mr. Cragin. I am not sure about the specific days. It will
be more than a day, I can tell you that.
Mr. Shays. Actually, I can get into that issue later, that
is a little off subject. I will try to make a point to be there
if I can.
Mr. Cragin. We would be happy to provide your staff with
all of the necessary information.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Chairman, we fully intend to take the
program as exists and through the interagency process that we
are engaging in now to determine what would be the next phase
of the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness Training
Program, recognizing that 120 municipalities, while a large
part population-wise of the country, there are areas of the
country, 12 States, where there has been no program activity at
all.
So we are going to look at the requirements and also look
at some of the ways that we can improve the delivery of that,
hopefully over the next few years, to have a more objective
means of targeting not only the Domestic Preparedness Program
training, but equipment and others on something other than
population, which gets to the needs assessment and the other
activities that are under way now, which hopefully will give us
a broader range of criteria and something more substantive to
base targeting of training equipment on other than population,
certainly to address the support in those 12 States where there
has been no Nunn-Lugar-Domenici or OJP involvement.
Mr. Shays. When you do this training exercise, you invite
community leaders from other areas to witness and participate?
There has got to be an answer yes, because I see a nodding of
the head in the audience.
Mr. Cragin. I don't want to say that I anticipated the
question, but I happen to be reading an after-action report on
a domestic preparedness training session that was done out in
Oakland, CA. It was 1 of the 120 cities. This is the student
demographics that they report. Students were selected by the
local jurisdiction and represented several key responder
disciplines, major disciplines, firefighters, law enforcement,
emergency medical service and hospital care providers. Other
students included representatives from the Federal Aviation
Agency; Federal Bureau of Investigation; U.S. Air Force; U.S.
Army Reserve; and the U.S. Department of Energy; California
Army National Guard; California Office of Emergency Services
and the California EMS Authority; Alameda County Fire; Contra
Costa County Health; OES and sheriff, cities of Alameda,
Berkeley, Hayward, Livermore, Pleasanton, Newark, Presidio of
Monterrey, Richmond, Salinas, San Francisco, San Leandro, San
Rafael and Emeryville; city of Oakland Public Works and Office
of Emergency Services; American Medical Response; Bay Area
Rapid Transit; Lawrence Livermore National Lab; Oakland
Coliseum; Port of Oakland; and Stanford University.
Mr. Shays. So the answer is yes?
Mr. Cragin. The answer is yes.
Mr. Shays. DOD has said, Mr. Cragin, that it will retain
control of the chemical-biological rapid response team. But my
question is to Mrs. Martinez. Does FBI have or plan to have any
WMD rapid response teams of its own?
Mrs. Martinez. In the way of rapid response teams, I would
say we are offering training to the technician level HAZMAT in
each of our offices--excuse me, in 10 of our offices.
Operations level has been met in the remaining 41. I would
offer that this largely has to do with the event of collecting
evidence in a contaminated crime scene as opposed to moving in
to do that job that would otherwise be done by State and local
HAZMAT professionals. We feel there will be a teaming and
concerted training effort for sustainment of certification
between the local offices and the local fire and HAZMAT teams,
not to replace, though, the other teams.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much.
Let me just ask a question here of counsel.
Thank you.
Mr. Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Mr. Mitchell, the testimony indicated that under the
current program there are 120 cities designated to receive
training and equipment loans. Prior to the announcement of the
proposed transfer, GAO criticized the Department of Defense for
delivering the Domestic Preparedness Program to cities rather
than larger metropolitan areas that GAO said would have greatly
increased the coverage. Does the DOJ plan to change that
geographic methodology for determining which places receive
training and equipment?
Mr. Mitchell. Congressman, we certainly concur that there
is limited utility in focusing on a single hub city where under
existing mutual aid agreements and other protocols there is
going to be a joint response. I will--in DOD's defense, they
have, as based on Mr. Cragin's reason--they have made
incremental changes over time as required by law to broaden
that net. We certainly intend to maintain that broad base so
that--working with the local jurisdiction to identify and
involve in training all relevant first response units within
the surrounding jurisdictions.
Mr. Tierney. Yes?
Mr. Mitchell. Yes.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
How many of the original 120 cities under the Domestic
Preparedness Program will not be trained prior to the date of
transfer?
Mr. Cragin. Well, we have done 58. I think that we are
looking at 69 that will be fairly well along in the transfer.
As Mr. Mitchell said, Congressman Tierney, this is a lengthy
process that goes on over a year by the time you get to the
local exercise aspects of it. We have a very precise transition
plan with three stages that is articulated in our Memorandum of
Understanding, which, as we indicated, we expect will be
finalized in summer.
Mr. Tierney. You anticipate that all of those that aren't,
at the time of transfer it can be guaranteed that they
eventually will be trained?
Mr. Cragin. That is correct.
Mr. Mitchell. Under the current MOU, there are really two
phases. Phase one is all of the preliminary meetings up through
and including the delivery of the training and the fielding of
the chemical tabletop. And then there is a subsequent period of
time where they conduct their training and the other exercise
is planned, which is phase two. Under the current agreement,
DOD by the end of fiscal year 2000 would have provided complete
training, complete phase one and phase two to 68 jurisdictions,
and they will have completed a phase one training to an
additional 37, which will bring a total of 105 jurisdictions
that have actually received the training. The remaining 37 will
be exercised--the phase two exercise will be part of the
transition for responsibilities to OJP. But there will only be
15 of 120 cities as of the date of the transfer that have not
begun the process.
Mr. Tierney. They will still get it?
Mr. Mitchell. That is true. They will be the first group of
cities that will be targeted to receive the program in fiscal
year 2001.
Mr. Tierney. One significant change of the program appears
to be that the Department of Justice will offer equipment
grants to cities that it trains after the transfer; is that
right?
Mr. Mitchell. That is right.
Mr. Tierney. What about those cities that got loans prior
to the transfer? Are they going to do anything with that,
change the nature of that relationship?
Mr. Cragin. I think this is another perfect example of why
we needed this all in one shop, Congressman Tierney. Under the
legislation that we were administering at the Department of
Defense, there really was no equipment grant program
authorized. So essentially what the Department did is it
provided a modest amount of equipment that could be utilized
for training purposes, and it was, to use the term of art, on
loan. I would suggest it was on loan in perpetuity, and I think
that the GAO made some comment about that in their evaluation.
But we are talking about equipment grants for an inventory
of equipment that the first responders can utilize
operationally rather than just having a training set. I think
the Department of Justice moved forward with this. They are
going to be looking at each of these entities having the
ability to compete and submit requests for equipment grants
regardless of whether they receive the equipment loan for
training purposes from the Department of Defense.
Mr. Tierney. So the loans really were just a startup kit,
so to speak.
Mr. Cragin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Nobody is going to call that note? Nobody is
anticipating calling it, but if they then think they have to
upgrade, they can apply for grants along with everybody else.
Is there any pecking order as to who is going to be--liable to
be first in line for those new grants?
Mr. Cragin. Let me just say that I don't anticipate that
anybody is going to call the note. I expect that this equipment
will over the passage of time be degraded, and they will be
looking for additional equipment grants from my colleague Mr.
Mitchell.
Mr. Tierney. But there is no priority list?
Mr. Mitchell. For fiscal year 1999 that we just recently
completed this agreement, there will be grants made to the 157
this year, fiscal year 1999, to the 157 largest cities and
counties. That is consistent with the language in the
conference report that accompanied our fiscal year 1999
appropriations bill. Plus we will make additional grants to the
balance of the Nunn-Lugar cities, which, if my memory serves,
is 55 cities in addition this year, total of 212. So they will
all receive operational equipment grants this year.
The training equipment--really if they are doing training,
the training is ripped. It gets used. It is OK to train in a
level A suit that is ripped if it is for training. It is not OK
to use operational equipment to train, because if you take it
off the HAZMAT truck, or you remove it from service to train
in, then when that response unit is called, their equipment is
not going to be there, nor can they use equipment that has been
damaged through training.
There are two distinct purposes for the equipment that we
will be providing them currently. DOD's equipment is for
training support. We think that is appropriate. Additionally
there will be operational equipment grants also to build both
their training capabilities and their operational response
capabilities.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
I think that you have already indicated this, but let me
put it in the record anyway. How will the implementation of the
five elements of the Domestic Preparedness Program that Mr.
Cragin discussed be divided between OJP and NDPO exactly?
Mr. Mitchell. I will start with what we are doing in OJP.
OJP will be responsible for all the facets of the city visit
program, the training program, which is the city training
itself, the development and conduct of the exercises that
support that, and all of the contractual activities and support
that allow us to provide that training.
The Improved Response Program, which is the testing and the
validation of programs and activities and equipment that allows
us to upgrade the training and inform the first responder
community of information that we glean from this to help them
be better prepared, we will--OJP and DOD--will jointly support
that because they have their own requirements that they need to
do that. We will augment and participate in that for the
benefit of State and local first responders. The Expert
Assistance Program, the technicians, the people that will
answer the phone, under the current process that will be a
responsibility that will be transferred to the NDPO.
Mrs. Martinez. Technically that will be the helpline, a
hotline, and a Web site. As we are the information
clearinghouse, if you will, they will take on the execution of
the city visit and training program along with the equipment
aspects, and we will maintain the helpline, hotline and
Internet Web site.
Mr. Tierney. Helpline, hotline, Internet site. They are all
basically the same, three different ways to contact?
Mrs. Martinez. No, sir. The helpline is basically manned 9
a.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern Standard Time with voice mail after that
and on weekends and holidays. It is intended for nonemergency
calls, general calls about preparedness and help. The hotline
is an emergency call line. That is staffed 24 by 7 by the
national response----
Mr. Tierney. And the Web site is informational bells and
whistles?
Mrs. Martinez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. If I am a local fire department and I want to
call for any of these, is there one number that I call, or do I
have to call individually down the line to the appropriate
aspect here in order to get my questions answered?
Mrs. Martinez. Well, the vision here is that you will have
one telephone number for nonemergency activities.
Mr. Tierney. That is somewhere down the line?
Mrs. Martinez. We hope soon, yes. As the NDPO would be
approved, we think that would be the very first step.
Mr. Tierney. And in emergency situations?
Mrs. Martinez. They would use existing protocols as well as
the hotline, which is the National Response Center that most of
them already use in addition to 911.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Also, to set the record straight, this is really the first
hearing. We had Mr. Clarke in earlier and with respect to this
committee before I chaired it, it had a number of hearings
before.
Mr. Cragin. I was here.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Cragin, exactly. I need to make sure that
the record reflected that you were here when Speaker Hastert
who was not then the Speaker, chaired this committee.
I would like to now ask Ms. Light as well as Mr. Baughman,
if I could, to respond to this question. Would you describe the
types of relationships that FEMA has established with State and
local officials and the structure from which you carry out
these relationships? I am trying to think of the operational
process that takes place. So I want to know the relations that
FEMA has established with State and local officials and the
structure from which you carry out these relationships.
Ms. Light. FEMA on a regular basis has a relationship with
the State emergency management basically through the State
directors. We deal with them on a very regular basis for
preparedness types of initiatives. In a natural disaster
situation, just as there is a Federal coordinating officer that
would be designated for a Federal disaster declaration or
emergency, there is a State coordinating officer, and our
relationship through the State would be the Federal
coordinating officer with the State coordinating officer to
make sure that the requirements by the State are, in fact,
coordinated and responded to at the Federal level.
Mr. Shays. Could I have a little more detail? In other
words, you also work directly with the local governments as
well, don't you? You have the fire chiefs, you have the
Governor's office. I would like a little more detail to this
answer.
Ms. Light. We do work with those, but we work principally
through the States. In fact, we have 10 regional offices, as
you probably know, and we have regional representatives who are
specifically designated to work with State directors in each of
the States to ensure State coverage. They work directly through
the States with the locals. So the States work more directly
with the local personnel than we do. And in a disaster, in a
response kind of situation where there is actually a disaster,
the requirements for the locality come up through the State,
and then they are coordinated at the Federal level.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Baughman, I would really like your
contribution. Why don't we get another chair up there, I am
sorry.
Mr. Baughman. When local fire departments respond, they set
up an incident command post. If, in fact, they need additional
resources, the request goes to the local emergency operations
center. If they need outside resources, they either go through
mutual aid or back up to the State emergency operations center.
In such States as California, they have a statewide mutual aid
agreement, and they can bring in resources throughout the
State. If, in fact, Federal resources are needed, we plug in
with the State emergency operations center. By that time they
have already identified what kinds of resources are needed down
at the local level, such as in Oklahoma City. When we send a
team down, we plug in with the local incident commander down at
the incident scene, and we use our resources just like other
mutual aid assess on the scene.
Mr. Shays. Wouldn't it be wise to develop relationships now
with some of our local governments and county governments?
Mr. Baughman. Actually we do this. We have two
organizations that we deal with, primarily the National
Emergency Management Association, which is State level, and at
the local level it is now the International Emergency
Management Association, and we deal with county and local
officials in addition to dealing with NACO and all of the other
traditional organizations at IAFC and IAFF.
Mr. Shays. I have three more questions that I would like to
focus in on, and then basically I will just ask you all, if Mr.
Tierney has some more, to just make any last comment that you
want to make.
I would like to know what authority will the National
Domestic Preparedness Office have to restrict other agencies
from initiating and implementing their own training and
equipment program?
Mrs. Martinez. That is certainly not the intent, nor would
it satisfy us in any way. There will be no authority, nor will
we seek such authority as to limit other agencies from
developing programs. Our interests, rather, would be that those
programs would be developed in association or accordance--
compliance with, if you will--minimum standards that we would
all agree to ahead of time.
Mr. Shays. My question was not advocating that you have
that authority, but it was to get that response. Thank you.
I would also like to ask the Department of Justice how they
are going to reconcile, which I alluded to in my statement, the
obvious conflicts with crisis management including the followup
on criminal investigations and consequence management. I really
think of the DOJ as being the organization that prevents crimes
and then wants to establish who committed them, but I think of
FEMA as just coming right in there, and we have people who need
help, and we are going to help them right now and the
investigation be damned kind of thing. How do you reconcile
since you all now will be making that decision?
Mrs. Martinez. Largely this is a partnership. As a few of
us at the table did respond to Oklahoma City, we recognize
right away the priority of saving lives. Consequence management
sometimes does require a front seat to what later may put
someone in jail, which is our collective ultimate
responsibility at Justice. We are working very closely with
FEMA, and you will see the interagency plans that we have put
together, the Concept of Operations Plan and the Federal
Response Terrorism Incident Annex--will show that there has
been a collaboration of partnership in recognition of the need
to simultaneously address crisis and consequence management, in
many cases consequence management comes first.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
My last question. Give me the mechanism that is going to be
established between the NDPO and OJP and other agencies. What
kind of mechanism are you actually establishing, a formal
mechanism? In other words, I know that you want to agree with
each other, and you are going to cooperate. I don't mean that
facetiously, that is fairly clear. It is essential to have that
happen. But is there any formal mechanism that will facilitate
that?
Mrs. Martinez. At the present time we have a detailee from
the Office of Justice Programs, Office for State and Local
Domestic Preparedness Support that is co-located at the NDPO
and would have access to all of the programs and issues that
they would be interested in weighing in on. In addition to
that, we have individual program area meetings. For instance,
there are committees formed on the interagency on the issue of,
for instance, the development of a national strategy for
training, the development of national standards for training,
the issue of equipment, R&D and so forth, as I mentioned
earlier in my statement.
Mr. Shays. I actually thought of one question that I did
want to ask.
Did you want to respond, Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Mitchell. Just to followup on Barbara's. We do have
staff actually physically located in NDPO, but we also have
other program staff that are a program specific to participate
in the actual working groups on training and exercises and
equipment. Plus I personally sit and represent our office on
the Federal Leadership Advisory Group, which is kind of the
umbrella Federal agency group. So we have multiple
opportunities and multiple avenues where our programs can be
integrated and reviewed. Everyone has a better perspective
across the Federal agency of just what everybody is doing so
that we can maximize the effect at the local level with the
limited resources that we do have.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell, for responding to that.
The last question I wanted to ask is what is the involvement
that you all have with the national coordinator for terrorism
and infrastructure security? Mr. Clarke in the White House, how
does he interface with all of this?
Mr. Cragin. I think that we all have quite a bit of
involvement with the National Security Council Director, Mr.
Chairman, in that under the PDD-62 directive, a management
structure within the interagency was formed which is chaired by
Mr. Clarke. And then there are subgroups dealing, for example,
with assistance to State and local authorities. I happen to
represent the Department of Defense at the NSC subgroup on
assistance to State and local authorities. Many of my
colleagues at the table are there at those meetings as well.
In response, as an adjunct to one of your earlier
questions, it is that group of interagency officials that work
the issues of duplication and coordination of programs rather
than the NDPO. The NDPO is really the conduit between the
Federal Government and all of the programs that it brings to
bear in this arena and the local and State officials.
Mr. Shays. Thank you all very much. I would make a request
that you consider allowing our staff periodically to just
observe some of these meetings. I would also like to attend a
few as an observer, not as a participant.
I don't know, Mr. Tierney, if you have anything you want to
say?
Mr. Tierney. I just want to thank the witnesses for
testifying.
Finally, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for putting
this together and your staff for doing an excellent job.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much. There may have been a
question that we should have asked. I am happy to have you ask
that question and answer it for yourself if you would like to.
Is there any comment that any of you would like to make?
Mr. Baughman, I always have the sense that the person who
listens the most has the best contribution. Do you have any
closing comment that you would like to make?
Mr. Baughman. No, I don't.
Mr. Shays. Will you tell me later?
Mr. Cragin, any other comment?
Mr. Cragin. Mr. Chairman, I was a trial lawyer for 20
years. I always tried that gambit, is there any other question
that I should have asked you that I have not? I was never able
to win that one.
Mr. Shays. Actually, it was a friendly question though.
Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. Mitchell. No, Mr. Chairman. We do thank you for the
opportunity to present to you what we think is the beginning
steps, and I think this is really the beginning steps, in what
is hopefully going to be a coordinated Federal effort that
focuses principally and foremost on meeting the needs of State
and local first responders. Thank you very much for the
opportunity to be here.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Mrs. Martinez.
Mrs. Martinez. I would just like to thank you and welcome
the interface of your staff with NDPO, in the future.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. We would like that very much.
Mr. Baughman.
Mr. Baughman. I don't have anything.
Ms. Light. No questions. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much. I appreciate you being
here, and I appreciate your patience.
[Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.038