[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FASTER AND SMARTER FUNDING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS ACT OF 2004
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 3266
__________
MAYY 11, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-102
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
93-974 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
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�090001
------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
RALPH M. HALL, Texas Ranking Member
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CHRISTOPHER COX, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BART GORDON, Tennessee
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ANNA G. ESHOO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona GENE GREEN, Texas
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
Mississippi, Vice Chairman TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
VITO FOSSELLA, New York DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
STEVE BUYER, Indiana LOIS CAPPS, California
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania TOM ALLEN, Maine
MARY BONO, California JIM DAVIS, Florida
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska HILDA L. SOLIS, California
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
DARRELL E. ISSA, California
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
Bud Albright, Staff Director
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Health
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
FRED UPTON, Michigan Ranking Member
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ANNA G. ESHOO, California
Vice Chairman BART STUPAK, Michigan
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois GENE GREEN, Texas
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, LOIS CAPPS, California
Mississippi CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
STEVE BUYER, Indiana BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey (Ex Officio)
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
JOE BARTON, Texas,
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Cox, Hon. Christopher, Chairman, House Select Committee on
Homeland Security.......................................... 4
Mitchell, Andrew T., Deputy Director, Office of Domestic
Preparedness, U.S. Department of Homeland Security......... 13
Raub, William F., Acting Assistant Secretary, Planning and
Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services... 22
Additional material submitted for the record:
Cox, Hon. Christopher, Chairman, House Select Committee on
Homeland Security, response for the record................. 37
Pickering, Hon. Charles ``Chip'', a Representative in
Congress from the State of Mississippi, response for the
record from DHS and HHS witness............................ 38
(iii)
THE FASTER AND SMARTER FUNDING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS ACT OF 2004
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2004
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Health,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael
Bilirakis (chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Bilirakis, Norwood, and
Shimkus.
Staff present: Nandan Kenkeremath, majority counsel; Jeremy
Allen, health policy coordinator; Eugenia Edwards, legislative
clerk; Chuck Clapton, majority counsel; John Ford, minority
counsel; and Jeff Donofrio, minority staff assistant.
Mr. Bilirakis. This hearing will come to order. Today's
hearing will focus on an important piece of legislation that is
currently before this committee, and it is important in spite
of the fact that we don't have much of an audience out there
and certainly none at all up here. But it is a Tuesday
afternoon, and I think we all know that many Members of
Congress are still traveling.
I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us this
afternoon. I can think of very few topics as timely or
important as ensuring that we are prepared to respond to any
future terrorist attacks. I am sure you all agree with me.
I would like to begin by recognizing our friend and
colleague, Mr. Cox, for appearing before the subcommittee. I
know he has worked diligently on homeland security issues since
assuming the chairmanship of the Select Committee on Homeland
Security, and we certainly look forward to his insight as we
discuss H.R. 3266.
The Faster and Smarter Funding For First Responders Act of
2003 was favorable reported by the Select Committee on Homeland
Security earlier this year. The bill would reform the manner in
which the Department of Homeland Security issues grants to
State and local governments to enhance the ability of first
responders to prevent, prepare for and respond to acts of
terrorism. The primary revision to the current law would be to
change the criteria used to distribute funding for two existing
first responder grant programs: The State Homeland Security and
the Urban Area Security Initiative Grant Programs.
As the Energy and Commerce Committee prepares to consider
this legislation, I think it is important that members
understand how this bill interacts--very significant--how this
bill interacts with existing programs under this committee's
jurisdiction. For example, one of this committee's most
important achievements over the past several years was the
Public Health, Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and
Response Act of 2002. This bipartisan legislation significantly
enhanced our Nation's ability to respond to an attack using
biological or chemical weapons.
Included in this act are new grant programs designed to
improve state, local, and hospital preparedness for
bioterrorism and other public health emergencies. Such grants
can include funding for emergency medical service providers and
other first responders, similar to what is included in H.R.
3266. I am therefore interested in exploring further how we can
maximize the effectiveness of both of these grant programs.
I am also interested in hearing more about Homeland
Security Presidential Directive 8, which President Bush signed
December 17, 2003. 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. The interaction between executive
branch actions and acts of Congress is important and one I
intend to explore further this afternoon.
In addition to Mr. Cox, we have two additional witnesses
that will be able to provide the subcommittee with important
perspective on this issue. The second panel will consist of
Andrew T. Mitchell, Deputy Director of the Office of Domestic
Preparedness at the Department of Homeland Security, and
William Raub, Acting Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Thank you both for joining us today.
I am interested in being updated on the progress being made
to implement provisions of the Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act with respect to
first responders, the rationale behind HSPD-8 and any potential
changes in allocations of responsibility and expertise between
HHS and DHS under either H.R. 3266 or HSPD-8.
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman, Committee on Energy
and Commerce
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
I commend you for holding this hearing on H.R. 3266, the Faster and
Smarter Funding for First Responders Act. I also commend Chairman Cox
and Ranking Member Turner for their leadership and bipartisan work in
the Select Committee on Homeland Security. Today we will further review
the vitally important work being done to upgrade our Homeland Security,
preparedness, and response capabilities.
We want to ensure that state and local governments have the
essential capabilities to allow them to respond to terrorist attacks
and other potential public emergencies. We also want to ensure that
Federal grants are used to acquire the right equipment, training, and
interoperable communications systems for first responders.
Both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department
of Homeland Security have important roles and expertise in these areas.
Last Congress the President signed the Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. That Act set out a
broad role for the Department of Health and Human Services in
coordinating preparedness and responses to bioterrorism and other
public health emergencies.
This law also envisioned the need for coordination between states,
local governments, hospitals, emergency service personnel and other
first responders. Section 108 of the Act set out a specific interagency
workgroups to address guidance on many of the issues related to first
responders.
In the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress basically preserved
this role for the Department of Health and Human Services but provided
the new Department of Homeland Security with an overall management and
coordination role for Federal responses to terrorist attacks and other
emergencies. Several existing Department of Homeland Security grant
programs provide for improving the capabilities of State and local
governments, including for provisions for first responders.
It is important that any new legislation be drafted carefully to
maximize the expertise of each agency, to rationally utilize existing
programs and working groups, and to minimize inconsistencies and
unnecessary overlaps.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses on the operation
of current law and programs for first responders and the relation of
these current laws and programs to H.R. 3266.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sherrod Brown, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Ohio
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing.
Welcome Chairman Shays. I hope our two committees will continue to
work together to address the safety of the country.
And welcome Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Raub. Thank you for sharing your
expertise this afternoon.
In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, this Congress reexamined how
to better support our first responders--our first line of defense
against bioterrorist attacks.
This committee worked tirelessly to address the needs of our first
responders--and the larger public health system--through development
and passage of the bioterrorism bill.
And following that, Congress created the Department of Homeland
Security, another important step towards protecting the country against
terrorism.
The principal goal of the bill we're considering today, H.R. 3266,
is to improve the way funding flows to states and localities, giving
priority to those localities with the greatest level of threat.
While the bill will not alter grants distributed through HHS, this
hearing offers our committee the opportunity to learn more about the
progress made under the bioterrorism bill, the relationship between HHS
and the Department of Homeland Security, and where, if at all, there
are duplicative efforts.
I look forward to the hearing the views of our expert panel and
hope the committee will take these opinions into consideration and make
any necessary changes to the bill before it is brought to the House
floor for a vote.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bart Stupak, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing, and
Representative Cox, Mr. Mitchell, and Mr. Raub, thank you for joining
us today to discuss Homeland Security and HR 3266, the Faster and
Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2004.
I am generally supportive of provisions in this bill that would
help states, local governments, and first responders better prepare for
acts of terrorism by evaluating and prioritizing those communities that
are most threatened. And I am hopeful that this hearing will provide
insight on how changes to HR 3266 may better enable the Department of
Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services first
responder authorities to work together as efficiently as possible.
What still concerns me, however, is that Homeland Security funding
is not trickling down to the locals on the ground where they need it
most. Since September 11, 2001, many in this nation and this Congress
have come to recognize the importance of the sacrifices made by our
first responders. Every day these men and women put their lives on the
line in order to protect and serve our communities.
Unfortunately, when I am back in my District in Northern Michigan,
what I'm hearing from our first responders is that they are just not
seeing the amount of funding necessary to obtain the resources they
need to protect their communities and themselves.
This was corroborated by the Conference of Mayors on January 22nd
of this year when it released a homeland security evaluation which
reported that an astonishing 76 percent of cities have still not
received any funding from the largest homeland security program
designated to assist first responders.
Changes are obviously needed in the capital outlay process so
Homeland Security money can get out to our first responders in a more
efficient and timely manner. The state must have the ability to
directly release funds to the locals instead of reimbursing them only
after they have already spent their own money. As the Representative of
Michigan's most rural congressional district, it just doesn't make
sense to me that small communities are required to shell out tens of
thousands of dollars up front to procure their homeland security needs
and update their emergency services when Congress has already
appropriated these funds. It is also essential that our first
responders are educated about this process so they can receive this
crucial funding.
Not only do we need to get this money directly out to our first
responders as soon as possible, but we need to start fully funding
these programs. The State Homeland Security Grant program was funded at
$1.7 billion in FY 04, but President Bush's budget request for 2005
slashes the program to $700 million. Overall, the President's budget
would reduce first-responder assistance by 14.5 percent from the $4.18
billion that Congress appropriated for FY 04 to $3.75 billion in FY 05.
This kind of budget cut is shocking to me considering the Bush
Administration claims Homeland Security funding is a top priority.
We also need to provide assistance to help regional law enforcement
and first responders communicate with each other in times of emergency.
My bill, HR 3370, The Public Safety Interoperability Act, would provide
grants to local law enforcement agencies to modernize their
communication systems and become interoperable, allowing different
public safety agencies in different jurisdictions to communicate in
times of crisis.
The tragic events of September 11th illustrated why it is
imperative that our law enforcement officers are fully interoperable.
Police, Fire, and Emergency Medical Services personnel from multiple
jurisdictions were called to respond to the World Trade Center attacks
in New York City. First responders found themselves unable to
communicate with other emergency personnel because of the different
communications systems and radio frequencies.
343 firefighters and 72 law enforcement officers lost their lives
in the World Trade Center on September 11th. 121 of those firefighters
who died lost their lives because they were unable to receive radio
warnings that the second tower looked ready to fall. When our first
responders are confronted with an emergency situation, it is absolutely
necessary that they are able to communicate with one another so they
can fully assess the situation and how best to handle it.
We must provide our first responders with adequate resources and
the proper funding they need to protect their communities and
themselves from daily crime and threats of terrorism.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to discuss the
improvements that must be made so our first responders can do their
jobs in the best and most efficient way possible.
Mr. Bilirakis. We now have before us, the gentleman from
California. We look forward to your testimony today. Please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER COX, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE SELECT
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Cox. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much
appreciate the opportunity to testify today. This bill, as you
know, passed the Select Committee on Homeland Security with the
unanimous support on a roll call vote of all the Republicans
and Democrats on the committee. And, as you know, while I am
here in my capacity as chairman of that Select Committee, I am
also a proud member of this committee, and I recall how very
recently the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Select
Committee on Homeland Security worked in close cooperation to
produce the legislation that gave us Project Bioshield. I look
forward to doing the same on this first responder bill and
moving to the House floor as expeditiously as possible.
It is especially fitting that we are focusing on the needs
of first responders today because this is National Police Week.
This is a time when we honor the sacrifices made by those who
protect our communities. It is also a day when television has
been showing us and telling us of the grisly beheading of an
American civilian who was trying to build telecommunications
infrastructure for the people of Iraq. The execution, the
beheading was performed by al Qaida serving as yet another
reminder, if one were needed, that today's hearing is not a
theoretical exercise. These people are out to kill Americans.
We are asking law enforcement personnel to adapt,
therefore, to a new anti-terrorism mission, and we have got to
give these people the support that they need to carry out their
crucial role in defending our country. The bill we are
discussing today, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First
Responders Act, will do that.
By way of background, since September 11, 2001, the
Congress, Mr. Chairman, has appropriated more than $23 billion
to help States, localities and first responders be prepared for
acts of terrorism or other public emergencies. This money has
been awarded through multiple grant programs administered by
several Federal agencies, including not only the Department of
Homeland Security but also the Department of Justice, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency now subsumed in DHS, the
Department of Health and Human Services, and so on.
Some of this money goes to support traditional, non-
terrorism-related pre-September 11 priorities. Other monies go
to activities that our first responders have only undertaken in
a serious way since September 11. The latter pot of money
accounts for the largest single grant awards over the past 2
years. DHS, and before it the Department of Justice, has
awarded roughly $6.3 billion to States for the specific purpose
of terrorism preparedness since September 11. The President's
budget for 2005 requests an additional $2.6 billion. That is an
increase over 2001 levels of over 2000 percent.
Despite this enormous increase in funding, our first
responders continue to report that they aren't seeing the
money. They haven't received most of the money, mostly due to
what we have discovered are administrative bottlenecks at
various levels of government. We have been able to ascertain
that Congress really did appropriate it, DHS really did make
the grants, the Governors really did obligate the funds, and
yet the first responders aren't receiving it.
An even bigger problem, in my view, is that our terrorism
preparedness funding is being allocated at the Federal level in
a manner that does not direct the money to where we need it the
most. This is a pattern often repeated at the State level where
grants are not made according to risk. In the immediate
aftermath of September 11, Congress passed the Patriot Act,
which contains some vitally needed provisions, such as the
elimination of the wall between law enforcement and
intelligence that kept those two fields separate, even in
terrorism-related investigations.
But the Patriot Act also put in place a very arbitrary
political formula for the distribution of anti-terrorism grants
to the States. It guaranteed that every State, no matter how
big or how small, would receive the same fixed percentage of
funding, 0.75 percent of the total each year, which
collectively accounts for 40 percent of all the grants.
At the same time, the Patriot Act has applied this formula,
which was $1 million at September 11 to a much larger pot of
money--$15 million last year. Now, I mentioned that 40 percent
is automatically sent to the States according to this fixed
formula, 0.75 percent no matter what. The remaining 60 percent
of the grant funds are distributed to the States based solely
on population, ensuring that even the smallest State receives
an additional amount of money, for a total of more than $17
million last year. We can't afford to keep dispensing money
according to these political formulas without regard to the
actual risks of terrorism.
So the Homeland Security Committee has worked now for over
a year on this problem of how to get the money to where it is
intended and how to make that the money is granted on the basis
of actual vulnerabilities, actual threat risk to population and
consequences of a terrorist attack, actual intelligence about
terrorist capabilities and terrorist intentions. We need to
look at all of those factors and prepare accordingly.
The legislation's name is faster and smarter. It is faster
now because by requiring and incentivizing States to pass
through their awarded funds to localities within tight
timeframes and by penalizing States that fail to do so and by
allowing regions to apply directly for funds and by
substituting actual cash for the potential of reimbursement, we
are going to get the money to its intended destination right
away.
It is smarter because we are allocating grant awards to
States and regions based on an assessment of terrorist threat,
vulnerability and consequences; in other words, the actual
risks that they face. Terrorists are not arbitrary in their
selection of targets, and we shouldn't be arbitrary in how we
prepare to deal with them.
H.R. 3266 also ensures that terrorism grant funding is used
to achieve clear and measurable preparedness goals, which the
legislation describes as essential capabilities. We want to be
sure that are building toward an objective--an objective
standard for being prepared against these known risks. Right
now many States and localities simply aren't sure how to
utilize the money most effectively, which is yet another reason
for the delay in actual spending at the local level. We know
that not all communities are the same or face the same types of
risks. Accordingly, we need to help communities identify their
unique terrorism preparedness needs. The bill before you today
will do this.
Let me emphasize just two points, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Norwood, for your consideration. First, the bill you are
considering covers only those terrorism-specific preparedness
grants administered by the Department of Homeland Security. As
I mentioned, there are many other departments and agencies of
the government that also have other programs, most of which
anti-date September 11. They are not covered by this
legislation. All aspects of the bill, including risk-based
allocation of grants, which I have just mentioned, including
the State strategies, the creation of essential capabilities,
training and equipment standards and certain administrative
procedures, all of these things apply only in the context of
those DHS grants. The bill expressly excludes all grant
programs administered by HHS and other Federal agencies. It is
an amendment to the Homeland Security Act, and it is tailored
to a very specific purpose.
Second thing is that the definition of first responders in
the legislation is exactly the same as the definition of
emergency response providers that is already in the Homeland
Security Act. What that means for this committee is that in
addition to fire fighters and police officers, we also include
emergency medical personnel and related agencies. That is
consistent with the long-standing practice of ODP even when it
was in the Department of Justice. This broad definition ensures
that the emergency medical community is included as a key
element in anti-terrorism planning, training and equipment
purchases. In this respect, the bill in no way alters current
practices or policy.
Finally, let me say that with the creation of the
Department of Homeland Security came not only the opportunity
to consolidate what the Federal Government is doing but also
new opportunities for overlap and duplication. I am happy to
say that both the Department of Homeland Security and HHS have
worked diligently to avoid any duplication in public health
preparedness grants. They have largely focused on different end
users and on different priorities.
President Bush recently issued a Presidential Directive
that you referred to in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman,
that is the basis for the ongoing construction of a fully
coordinated and streamlined Federal grant process for terrorism
and other emergencies. That fully coordinated interagency
process will be completed by the middle of next year, and it
should eliminate any concerns about potential overlap in DHS
and HHS programs.
So this bill is a nice complement to what already is going
on. It is a nice complement to what HHS is separately doing.
There is, for example, a First Responder Essential Capabilities
Task Force that this bill creates that is a complement to, and
in no way an overlap with, the Federal Working Group
established under the authority of the HHS Secretary. That HHS
Working Group was established several years ago to review
matters relating to bioterrorism and public health emergencies.
The HHS Bioterrorism Working Group is focused on public
health emergencies, with particular concern for research on and
prioritization of pathogens and biomedical countermeasures. Its
participants are Federal agencies, and its goal is to make sure
that there is coordination among Federal partners in the fight
against bioterrorism. By contrast, the task force that is set
up in this legislation, the Essential Capabilities Task Force,
is made up not of Federal agencies but of first responders,
State and local officials. Its focus is on creating clearly
defined and measurable goals for preparedness, and its aim is
to tailor these to the needs of different communities for all
forms of terrorism.
This first responder task force is critical because of the
importance of hearing from those on the front lines and in our
local communities. We need to hear from them directly about
what their needs are and what their priorities should be. And,
as I mentioned earlier, the essential capabilities created
under this bill would not have any impact beyond the DHS grant
programs covered by the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify
before you. I urge this committee to report the bill quickly so
that we can help our Nation meet the urgent challenge of
terrorism in our cities and home towns. I want to thank you for
your consideration, and tell you that I look forward to working
as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee on the
consideration of the bill, and I would be glad to answer any
questions that you have. subject.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Cox follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Christopher Cox, Chairman, House Select
Committee on Homeland Security
Thank you Chairman Bilirakis and Ranking Member Brown for the
opportunity to testify today on H.R. 3266, the ``Faster and Smarter
Funding for First Responders Act of 2004''--a bill that recently passed
the Select Committee on Homeland Security unanimously. As you know, I
am the Chairman of the Select Committee, but I am also honored to be a
long-time Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I look forward
to working with you and all the Members of this Committee to move this
first responder bill to the House floor as expeditiously as possible.
It is especially fitting that we are focusing on the needs of first
responders today, during National Police Week--a time when we honor the
sacrifices made by those who protect our communities and our freedom.
Effective law enforcement is critical to upholding our national
traditions and maintaining our quality of life.
As law enforcement officers adapt to their new anti-terrorism
missions, we must give them the support necessary to carry out their
crucial role in defending our homeland. The bill we are discussing
today, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act, would
do just that.
By way of background, since the tragic events of September 11,
2001, the Congress has appropriated more than $23 billion to help our
States, localities, and first responders improve preparedness for
future acts of terrorism or other public emergencies. This money has
been awarded through multiple grant programs administered by several
Federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), and--since March 2003--the new Department of Homeland
Security (DHS).
Some of this money goes to support traditional, non-terrorism-
related missions of our first responders, such as the COPS program and
the FIRE Act program. Some of this money goes to support activities
that help our first responders prepare for public emergencies, whether
terrorist-inflicted or naturally-occurring, such as the HHS public
health preparedness grants awarded to State and local public health
departments and emergency medical centers. And some of this money--most
notably, from the DHS Office for Domestic Preparedness, or ODP--goes
specifically to help first responders prevent, prepare for, and respond
to acts of terrorism, particularly those involving weapons of mass
destruction.
This latter pot of money accounts for the largest single grant
awards over the past two years. DHS--and, before it, DOJ--has awarded
roughly $6.3 billion to States for this specific purpose since
September 11th. The President's Fiscal Year 2005 budget requests an
additional $2.6 billion--an increase of more than 2,000 percent over
2001 levels. Despite this enormous increase in funding, our first
responders continue to report that they have not yet received most of
this money, due to administrative bottlenecks at various levels of
government. A recent analysis by the Homeland Security Committee found
that roughly $5.2 billion of the $6.3 billion awarded since 2001
remains stuck in the pipeline, unused.
An even bigger problem, in my opinion, is that this terrorism
preparedness funding is being allocated at the Federal level in a
manner that does not direct the money to where we are most threatened
by terrorism--a pattern often repeated at the State level. In the
immediate aftermath of September 11th, Congress passed the PATRIOT Act,
a vital piece of legislation that removed the ``wall'' that had kept
law enforcement and intelligence information separate even in
terrorism-related investigations.
But the PATRIOT Act also put into statute arbitrary, political
formulas for the distribution of anti-terrorism grants to States. It
guaranteed that every State--no matter how small its population or
actual risk--received .75 percent of the total grant funding each year,
resulting in roughly 40 percent of the grant funds being distributed
without regard to risk or need. At the time the PATRIOT Act passed,
this guaranteed minimum totaled less than $1 million per State. Last
year, due to the enormous increase in overall funding, the guaranteed
minimum was more than $15 million per State. The remaining 60 percent
of these grant funds was distributed to States based solely on
population, ensuring that even the smallest State received an
additional $2 million last year--for a total of more than $17 million.
Frankly, we can't afford to keep spending such sums without regard to
actual risk.
I introduced H.R. 3266 to address both of these problems--to make
this funding both faster and smarter. Faster, by requiring and
incentivizing States to pass through their awarded funds to localities
within tight timeframes, by penalizing States that fail to do so, and
by allowing regions to apply directly for funds in certain
circumstances.
Smarter, by allocating grant awards to States and regions based on
an assessment of terrorist threat, vulnerability and consequences--in
other words, the actual risks they face. Terrorists are not arbitrary
in their selection of targets. We cannot afford to be arbitrary in how
we prepare to deal with them.
H.R. 3266 also ensures that this terrorism grant funding is used to
achieve clear and measurable preparedness goals, which we call
``essential capabilities.'' Right now, many States and localities
simply are not sure how to utilize this money most effectively, which
is yet another reason for the delay in actual spending at the local
level. We know that not all communities are the same, or face the same
types of risks. Accordingly, we need to help communities identify their
unique terrorism preparedness needs. The bill before you today will do
this, speeding actual use of grant funds and ensuring that the money is
wisely spent.
Let me emphasize several points for your consideration. First: The
bill you are considering covers only those terrorism-specific
preparedness grants administered by the Department of Homeland
Security. All aspects of the bill--including risk-based allocation of
grants; State strategies; creation of essential capabilities; training
and equipment standards; and various administrative requirements--apply
only in the context of those DHS grants. The bill expressly excludes
all grant programs administered by HHS and other Federal agencies. It
is an amendment to the Homeland Security Act, tailored to a very
specific purpose.
Second: The definition of ``first responders'' in this legislation
is exactly the same as the definition of ``emergency response
providers'' that is already in the Homeland Security Act. In addition
to firefighters and police officers, this definition includes emergency
medical personnel and related agencies. That's consistent with the
long-standing practice of ODP even when it was in the Justice
Department. This broad definition ensures that the emergency medical
community--which works hand-in-hand with the more traditional first
responders--is included as a key element in anti-terrorism planning,
training, and equipment purchases. In this respect, our bill in no way
alters current practice or policy.
With the creation of DHS came the potential for overlap with other
pre-existing departments and agencies, including HHS. Both DHS and HHS
have worked diligently to avoid any duplication in public health
preparedness grants. They have largely focused on different end users,
and on different priorities. President Bush recently issued a
Presidential Directive that is the basis for the ongoing construction
of a fully coordinated and streamlined Federal grant process for
terrorism and other emergencies. That fully coordinated inter-agency
process, which will be completely in place by the middle of next year,
should eliminate any concerns about potential overlap in DHS and HHS
programs.
Finally, the First Responder Essential Capabilities Task Force
created by H.R. 3266 should not be confused with the Federal working
group established under the authority of the HHS Secretary several
years ago to review matters relating to bioterrorism and other public
health emergencies. First, the HHS bioterrorism working group is
focused on public health emergencies, with particular concern for
research on and prioritization of pathogens and biomedical
countermeasures. Its participants are Federal agencies, and its aim is
to ensure coordination among Federal partners in the fight against
bioterrorism. By contrast, the Essential Capabilities Task Force in
H.R. 3266 is made up of first responders and Federal, state and local
officials. Its focus is on creating clearly defined and measurable
goals for preparedness, tailored to different types of communities, for
all forms of terrorism. This first responder task force is critical
because of the importance of hearing from those on the front lines and
in our local communities directly about what their needs are and what
their priorities should be. And, as noted earlier, the essential
capabilities created under H.R. 3266 would not have any impact beyond
the DHS grant programs covered by the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify on
H.R. 3266, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of
2004. I urge this Committee to report the bill as quickly as possible
to help our Nation meet the urgent challenge of terrorism in our cities
and home towns. Thank you for your consideration, and I would be glad
to answer any questions Members of this Committee might have on this
subject.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Cox, and thank you for your
great work on this issue. I am not sure whether we have had
past history, similar history where we have started a committee
under the circumstances under which Homeland Security was
founded just a couple of years ago.
Let me ask you very quickly, even though it is more of a
tradition than anything else that we do not ask questions of
fellow Members of Congress when they appear before us. Do you
feel that the bill contains--the combination of the bill along
with what already exists contains adequate accountability? We
know that grants and funds have gone to States, local
governments and what not but never did reach the first
responders. It seems like there is a lack of accountability
there somewhere along the line. Do we know where those funds
are, in the first place?
Mr. Cox. We do, and we are increasingly aware of the
anomalies that created this problem. The first responders
obviously want the money, they want to spend it. The Governors
are trying to get it to them. Congress wants them to have the
money, and so how can it be? And what we found is that there
are a handful of reasons this money is stuck in the pipeline.
First, many of the grant applicants aren't prepared to
spend the money. Once the grant is made, they then begin the
task of figuring out on what precisely what they should spend
it. The grant process does not automatically approve the
spending as it should, and so we can change that with this
legislation. Second, we have many localities unable to come up
with the money on the front end, so they can't take advantage
of a reimbursement program. They are trying to put together the
monies to go spend it so that then they can apply for
reimbursement, but they may not have the money in the first
place. Third is that there are patchwork of sometimes bizarre
local requirements for additional approvals for spending the
money locally even after you get the Federal and State
approvals. So, for example, in New Hampshire, there has to be
an approval at a town meeting, which takes place in March, and
if you miss the March meeting, then you wait until next year.
There are a number of things like this that should be very
short work to fix, and I think we have got a pretty good handle
on it. Everybody wants to fix the problem. This legislation can
do that.
Last, Mr. Chairman, with respect to accountability, it is
very hard to hold people accountable when you haven't set any
standards. We need to make sure that we focus on spending this
money on the basis of risk rather than just doling it out sort
of arithmetically and seeing what happens. So the greatest leap
forward in terms of accountability will be linking the billions
of dollars that we are investing in intelligence and learning
about what the terrorists are up to and what they might do to
us and the additional tens and even hundreds of millions that
we are spending on learning our own vulnerabilities and then
mapping the threats against the vulnerabilities and spending
the money accordingly.
Mr. Bilirakis. Well, thank you for that. It is amazing, the
New Hampshire example is a good one in some of the things that
we are really faced with in these types of cases.
Let us say there is a county sheriff's department in
whatever State, not New Hampshire but any other State, and it
qualifies as a first responder and it needs radios in order to
be able to do their job adequately as a first responder. How
many grants might be available, different types of grants might
be available for that sheriff to go to in order to be able to
get the money that is needed?
Mr. Cox. I don't know, Mr. Chairman, and that is a very----
Mr. Bilirakis. There might be more than one, in other
words.
Mr. Cox. Of course. That is a very real-life example, and I
would dare say that you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Norwood and I have
gotten that question or something very much like it from our
constituents and our case workers and people in our office here
in Washington are all busy trying to figure out how this all
works. It is quite a maze for people to try and understand.
What we are trying to do in this legislation, at least with
respect to one cabinet department, the Department of Homeland
Security, is create a single grant program for terrorism
preparedness that will accommodate all of these potential uses,
so there is no question about where you go for the money.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. I would say so. Is it your intent to
move legislation that the grant programs authorized by this
legislation restrict themselves to first responder issues or
can these grants be used for other homeland security purposes
beyond those of assisting first responders in their efforts?
Mr. Cox. I will say, first, that the purpose of the
legislation is to make first responder grants, and it is meant
to focus on the post-September 11 counterterrorism, terrorism
preparedness priority. That are what these grants will be for.
But that, second, on the grantee side, we have an all hazards
approach, and we don't have a separate police department or a
separate fire department for terrorists, and so once they get
the money this is going to complement their overarching mission
and that is fine. But what the bill does establish is a strict
line of demarkation on the donor side so that we are not
robbing Peter to pay Paul, we are not stretching the pre-
September 11 programs on a Procrustean bed and making them do
double duty and pretending to be--giving, for example, the Fire
Act or COPS or some other pre-September 11 purpose and at the
same time giving for the post-September 11 counterterrorism
priorities and mixing it all up and nobody can quite tell how
much is going to which priority.
So I think it is possible for us in the Federal Government
to say this is for fighting terror, and we are going to focus
you in these areas and we want to use the money in these areas,
and we are going to favor applications for grants in these
areas. But we recognize that back home you are also preparing
for forest fires, buildings burning down, chemical spills,
rape, murder, robbery, all of the things that go on, and if
this complements that in any way, there is certainly nothing
wrong with that.
Mr. Bilirakis. I think that answers that question for the
moment. All right. Thank you, Mr. Cox. Dr. Norwood, any
questions?
Mr. Norwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cox, just a sort
of simple question, really. The funds that are being funneled
now you have said it numerous times, it appeared to me, that
they are not actually getting to the first responder, whether
that be a policeman, a fireman or a health care person, and you
are saying to me that this bill will help that. This bill will
focus those funds into the first line of defense.
The grants that you envision here is there monies in here--
I am concerned about the lack of training and standardization
that is going on. The radios that the chairman was talking
about in one town surely ought to function and be connected to
or able to connect to the radios in a town 20 miles away in
case a disaster occurs there. And just a little bit of my
observation out there that I don't know how standardized we
have gotten, and I don't know if HHS has actually concerned
itself with training, because a lot of times they get this
money--what I am hearing them say, they get these dollars but
they are not sure exactly how they need to spend these dollars
or, ``Who do I call up to call up to come in and frame my
entire fire department?'' Now, tell me how this bill can help
with that?
Mr. Cox. The grant monies under this legislation can be
used for training. They can also be used for equipment
purchases. They can also be used to build in interoperable
communications network. The Department of Homeland Security has
already established baseline standards for interoperable
communications for first responders, and I will say on that
point that there is legislation that our committee members have
been very, very keen to look at and mark up on the first
responder interoperability question. We have deferred to the
jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee on that point
because, among other things, it involves spectrum. So there is
work that we can do, and I say we as a member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, to advance that solution in a way that I
can't do it on the Homeland Security Committee.
Mr. Norwood. Well, I am going to ask our next guest a
little bit about this in terms of what actually is going on in
the country about training people. Do we actually have a group
of people who we believe knows what to do in many situations
that a first responder is called for? And if that is the case,
are they then training other people to be trainers? But I will
get to the next panel with that, and I thank you for your
leadership in this area.
Mr. Cox. Well, it is an excellent area of emphasis.
Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Shimkus to inquire.
Mr. Shimkus. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chris----
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bilirakis. [continuing] for taking time to be here and,
again, thanks for your great work.
The next panel consists of Mr. Andrew T. Mitchell, Deputy
Director of the Office of Domestic Preparedness with the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, and Mr. William Raub, the
Acting Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation with the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
I have already welcomed you, gentlemen, and I do so again.
Your written statement is a part of the record. We would hope
that in your statement here today you will complement it,
supplement it, whatever the case might be. Mr. Mitchell, why
don't we start with you?
STATEMENTS OF ANDREW T. MITCHELL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; AND WILLIAM F. RAUB, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
PLANNING AND EVALUATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Bilirakis
and members of the subcommittee, my name is Andy Mitchell, and
I am currently the Deputy Director of the Office for Domestic
Preparedness in the Department of Homeland Security. And on
behalf of Secretary Ridge and ODP Director Sue Mencer, it is my
pleasure to be here today to appear before you and to discuss
things that are going on in the Department, Office for Domestic
Preparedness and our efforts to enhance the capabilities of
State and local governments to address the challenge of
terrorism domestically.
ODP is the primary Federal Government agency responsible
for preparing the Nation against terrorism by assisting States,
local jurisdictions, regional and tribal governments in
building their capacities to prevent, prepare for and respond
to acts of terrorism domestically. Since its creation, ODP has
provided assistance to all the States, 50 States, the District
of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the United States
territories. We have trained more than 325,000 emergency
responders and more than 5,000 jurisdictions and conducted more
than 300 exercises across this country. By the end of the
fiscal year 2004, ODP will have provided more than $8.1 billion
in financial assistance and support to State and local
governments.
As of this week, 52 of the 56 States and territories have
received their 2004 fiscal year funding under the Homeland
Security Grant Program. This program includes funds to support
statewide preparedness efforts under the State Homeland
Security Program, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention
Program and the Citizens Corps Program. These awards total over
$1.9 billion and a total of $2.2 billion will be provided under
this initiative when we complete the award of the 56 grants.
Further are the 50 urban areas designated under the fiscal
year 2004 Urban Area Security Initiative, or the UASI Program.
Forty-eight of those 50 jurisdictions have received their
funding to date, and that represents $644 million of a total of
$670 million available for the Urban Area Security Program this
year. We have provided funds to 30 of the Nation's most used
urban transit systems in 2004. All $49 million for that program
to those 30 systems has already been awarded. And during this
fiscal year at ODP, in cooperation with United States Fire
Administration, we will make nearly $750 million in direct
assistance to fire departments across the Nation under the
Assistant to Fire Fighters Grant Program.
As we have heard today from Chairman Cox's presentation,
much of how the States and territories distribute and utilize
the Homeland Security Grant Program funds are influenced by the
results of the State assessments and the statewide strategies
that they have provided to our office. They were due in our
office January 31 of this year. These strategies are important
to both the States and local governments as well as to our
office and to the Federal Government. They provide information
regarding vulnerabilities, capabilities, future requirements
and define each preparedness goals and objectives. In essence,
it provides the States a road map on how current and future
funding can and should be applied in the areas of equipment,
exercises training and other preparedness resources. And they
provide the Federal Government with a better understanding of
the first responders' needs and requirements. All 56 States'
strategies have been received and reviewed, only 4 remain to be
approved, and they should be approved very shortly.
DHS' mission is critical, its responsibilities great, and
we have only been at this a year, so I have had to assume a lot
in the last 12 months. But we do know that we can do better,
and we want to continue to identify ways that we can do better
and improve.
Since the creation of DHS, the Department has worked very
closely with the Congress on how to better fulfill our common
goal of a more secure America and from OD's unique position to
assist our State and local partners. And one such congressional
effort is H.R. 3266, the focus of this hearing today, the
Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act.
As Chairman Cox discussed, this is a major attempt to
improve how the Department provides assistance, and since the
bill's introduction, the Department has worked with the staff
of the Select Committee and more recently has provided the
Select Committee a White Paper containing the Department's
observations and comments on the various provisions of that
bill. And with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
share those views with this subcommittee and provide a copy of
that White Paper for inclusion in the record.
Mr. Bilirakis. Without objection, that will be the case.
[The following was received for the record:]
Department of Homeland Security Recommendations Concerning H.R. 3266,
``Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2003''
The Administration supports much of this legislation and, in
particular, supports the Committee's intent, expressed in H.R. 3266, to
further facilitate funding for our first responders. The Administration
also acknowledges the extensive work on the part of the Committee to
address some of the Administration's concerns with particular elements
of this legislation. The Administration further looks forward to
discussing the following issues with the Committee.
1. Regional Applications for Grant Funding:
The Department recognizes that particular localities encompass more
than one state jurisdiction, and as a result has incorporated a
regional feature in the Urban Area Security Initiative. Regional
funding may conflict with state assessments strategies, which states
and localities have worked to complete recently. To the degree regions
do factor in a state's overall response, these are factored in state
plans. Direct funding to tens of thousands of municipalities would,
however, bypass such essential planning, while at the same time require
an exponential increase in the time and cost to review such proposals
and track funding.
2. Modification of the Homeland Security Alert System (HSAS):
The Department applauds the efforts of the Committee to examine the
operation of the HSAS as a means to more efficiently and precisely
alert the nation. The Department is strongly concerned that the current
language is too prescriptive as it would mandate implementation of a
warning scheme without consideration of sufficient supporting
intelligence. Since intelligence and information requirements shift, it
is our experience that the Secretary should be able to maintain as much
flexibility as possible in providing critical information to states and
localities. Furthermore, the Department believes that the provision
requiring the Secretary to report annually to Congress on the bases for
geographic or economic sector specific HSAS warnings is unnecessary due
to the current active information sharing structure with State and
Local entities regarding threat warnings. While DHS continues to
improve this structure, this appears to be the most appropriate means
to assure adequate information sharing and we would be pleased to
discuss this structure further with the Committee.
3. Task Force and Essential Capabilities:
The Department appreciates the Committee's efforts to enhance the
security of the homeland which underlie the proposed new task force.
However, it is unclear how such duplication of the current advisory
mechanism, provided for under Section 871 of the Homeland Security Act
of 2002, would enhance the Department's mission. The Department
believes a more efficient approach could be attained through the
combination of these task force/essential capabilities provisions into
the existing advisory structure, an approach that could be accomplished
either by legislative or administrative means. The Department looks
forward to working with the Committee to explore these alternate
avenues and, in addition, to determine if the Committee sees specific
needs not already met by these advisory groups.
4. Imposition of Penalties for Delayed Pass-Through to Localities:
In principle, the Department agrees with the Committee that
imposition of penalties may be appropriate as part of a larger goal to
move these funds rapidly to the localities. The Department looks
forward to discussing several practical implications, such as statutory
time frames for disbursement of funds, scope of penalties, effect on
flexibility of the funding, and effective deadlines.
5. Prohibition on Use of Grant Funds for Construction:
The Department appreciates and shares the concerns of the Committee
in ensuring that the grant funds will be put to their intended use. The
Department is concerned, however, that the prohibition on using any
grants to construct or modify facilities might unduly prevent the
improvement of State and local command and control at emergency
operation center facilities, as well as construction activities for
critical infrastructure protection projects. The Department would
therefore appreciate the opportunity to work with the Committee to
establish a balance between blanket prohibitions and the unrestricted
use of grant funds--perhaps the creation of certain specific limited
exceptions to general prohibition.
6. ``Risk-Based'' grant standards:
The Department is encouraged that the Committee bill is largely
consistent with the Administration's focus on terrorism preparedness.
Should this focus of H. R. 3266 be maintained, the legislation should
ensure that guidelines for allocation of homeland security-related
federal assistance are fully consistent with the guidelines set forth
in Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 8. HSPD 8
establishes that preparedness assistance is intended to build capacity
to address major events, especially terrorism, and not primarily to
support existing capacity to address normal local first responder
operations. The assistance will have a particular focus on terrorism
risks while also basing allocations on population concentrations,
critical infrastructure, and other significant risk factors,
particularly terrorism threats. The Department believes the focus of
this bill on terrorism preparedness will ensure that funds are
allocated in a manner that best supports our efforts to prevent,
mitigate, and respond to threatened terrorist attacks.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you. Generally, Mr. Chairman, the
Department supports much of what is contained in H.R.--proposed
in H.R. 3266 and in particular supports the bill's intent to
further facilitate funding for our first responders. And the
Department also acknowledges the Select Committee's work to
address many of the Department's concerns prior to the actual
reporting of the bill on April 2.
For example, the Department appreciates that, as reported,
H.R. 3266 now requires that applications for regional funding,
which is a key element of the bill under Section 1804, requires
that States also receive those applications for review so that
we can ensure that the proposals for those regional plans are
consistent with the State's overall homeland security plan.
Close coordination between the States, localities and regions
is critical, and it also builds on the existing processes that
ODP has established through the development of both the State
Homeland Security Grant Program and the Urban Area Security
Initiative.
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, the Department believes
that many of the H.R. 3266 concerns have already been addressed
under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 or through departmental
initiatives, either undertaken or already underway at this
time. An example is we believe that the H.R. 3266, Section 1803
task force requirements duplicate efforts and responsibilities
already existing under the Homeland Security Act, Section 871,
Advisory Committee Provisions. Under this section, Secretary
Ridge created the Homeland Security Advisory Council in 2003 as
a means of providing the Department with a continuing source of
advice and comment. The Department believes that an
additional--it would be more appropriate and efficient to
incorporate any additional roles and responsibilities, as
outlined in the proposed legislation, task force provisions, to
be integrated in the current system of this Council rather than
create new advisory councils.
Similarly, the Department has taken other acts to address
many of the other issues raised. Recently, the Department's
Inspector General, DHS Inspector General, released a report
titled, ``An Audit of Distributing and Spending First Responder
Grant Funds.'' The report examined how ODP processed and
awarded funds. It also examined how a number of the States,
once they received the awards, how they processed awards,
obligated and distributed those funds.
The Inspector General concluded that ODP has been
successful in developing a management program and that ODP
reviewed and processed and awarded its grants in a timely and
effective manner, and that was, again, in concert with
deadlines and requirements, as prescribed by the Congress. The
Inspector General also concluded that there are ways in which
we, ODP, the States and locals can do better and do a better
job of monitoring and tracking homeland security funds.
Chairman Cox mentioned some of the confounding issues that are
unique when we have 56 States and territories, and there are
any number of combinations of things that affect how those
funds are actually obligated or disbursed at the local level.
Most importantly, the Inspector General concluded, and we
agree, that it is desirable for States to distribute funds
wisely and prudently via the strategic plans than to distribute
the funds quickly.
Mr. Chairman, the Secretary believes that this whole
funding process is important, and on March 15 of this year,
Secretary Ridge announced the creation of the Homeland Security
Funding Task Force. This task force comprised of Governors,
mayors, county executives and representatives of tribal
governments and is working--is looking and examining the DHS
funding process for the State and local assistance programs to
identify areas where there may be problems or areas where
things are working. Obviously, there are some States and
localities where the funds move in a very expeditious and
efficient manner, so one of the outcomes of this assessment
will be to identify best practices that we can then share with
other State and local governments to help pass along innovative
approaches to streamlining the grant process. The task force,
Mr. Chairman, will provide a report to the Secretary by the end
of June, and we will be glad to share that report with this
committee and other Members of Congress.
We have also initiated a number of other improvements prior
to the release of the Inspector General's report. We greatly
increased our communications to State and local officials.
There is lots of information out there. Some of it--I think all
well intentioned, but some of it is not always as accurate as
we would like it. So we have expanded our outreach and
engagement with State and local officials to ensure a better
understanding of the requirements and activities that are their
responsibilities under the grant program. Examples of that are
our office along with the other Department components
participates in biweekly conference calls with the State
homeland security advisors. We have specific times when we
present changes and challenges and have an opportunity to
interact with those key State officials to answer questions
that in many cases that is all it takes is a good question and
a good answer. So that is one thing. We have done the same
thing with the elected officials in the Urban Area Security
Initiative. We have conference calls between our staff, the
mayors, other State and local officials within those Urban Area
Security Initiative to ensure that the program requirements and
activities are well understood, and if there is any assistance
necessary, our office is prepared to provide that.
Now, this past February, Secretary Ridge provided a
comprehensive report on homeland security funds awarded,
obligated and spent to the Governors of the States and the
territories and the mayor of the District of Columbia, and we
update these reports on a regular basis to keep the chief
elected officials informed. Helps them better understand the
unique challenges and processes underway in their States.
Mr. Bilirakis. Can you summarize, please?
Mr. Mitchell. Yes, sir. One of the challenges we have that
was mentioned today was the proliferation of programs, and the
Secretary has established and notified the Congress the
intention to consolidate grant programs within the Department
of Homeland Security into the one-stop shop so the offices of
ODP and the Office of State and Local Government Coordination
will be consolidated, and we think that will also greatly
improve our ability to link these programs and enable the
Department to evaluate programs more accurately and exercise
greater oversight.
And then, finally, HSPD-8 that you mentioned, Mr. Chairman,
Secretary Ridge has been tasked by the President to develop
national preparedness goals, improve delivery of Federal
preparedness assistance to State and local governments and
strengthen the preparedness capabilities of Federal, State and
local governments. Inherent to the successful implementation of
HSPD-8 is the development of clear, measurable standards, and
this ongoing effort will address that and exceeds the Section
1802 essential capabilities provision from H.R. 3266 with a
target of July 31 of this year for completion of a mission-
essential task list for Homeland Security responsibilities.
Appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and I believe
that concludes my statements, and I will be more than happy to
answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Andrew T. Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andrew T. Mitchell, Deputy Director, Office for
Domestic Preparedness, Department of Homeland Security
Chairman Bilirakis, Congressman Brown, and Members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Andrew Mitchell, and I serve as the Deputy
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 this week, 52 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 $ 2.1 Billion in
direct assistance. In total, $2.2 Billion will be provided under this
initiative.
Further, 48 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
$631 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, all 30 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, 52 have been approved by
the Department. The remaining four 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.
This critical mission was recognized by the Congress with the
passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and the creation of the
Department of Homeland Security. And since the Department's creation,
we have worked continuously with the Congress to determine how better
to fulfill our common goal of a more secure America. One such
Congressional effort is H.R. 3266, the ``Faster and Smarter Funding for
First Responders Act of 2003.''
Introduced by Congressman Cox, H.R. 3266 is a major attempt to
improve how the Department provides assistance to State and local
emergency responders. Since the bill's introduction, the Department has
worked with staff of the Select Committee on Homeland Security and,
more recently, has provided the Select Committee a ``white paper''
containing observations and comments on the bill's provisions. With
your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to share those views with
this Subcommittee by offering a copy of that ``white paper'' for
inclusion in the record.
Generally, Mr. Chairman, the Department supports much of H.R. 3266,
and in particular supports the bill's intent to further facilitate
funding for our first responders. The Department also acknowledges the
Select Committee's work to address many of the Department's concerns
prior to reporting the bill on April 2, 2004. For example, the
Department appreciates that, as reported, H.R. 3266 now requires that
applications for regional funding under the Section 1804 provisions be
submitted to the state for review, and be consistent with the state's
overall homeland security plan. Such close coordination between States,
localities, and regions, is critical to an effective and rational
distribution of homeland security resources, and is consistent with
currently existing ODP funding initiatives, such as the Urban Areas
Security Initiative or UASI Program.
At the same time Mr. Chairman, the Department believes that many of
H.R. 3266's concerns have already been addressed under the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, or through Departmental initiatives already
underway. For example we believe that H.R. 3266's Section 1803 task
force requirements duplicate efforts and responsibilities already
existing under the Homeland Security Acts Section 871 advisory
committee provisions. For example, under Section 871, Secretary Ridge
created the Homeland Security Advisory Council in 2003 as a means of
providing the Department with a continuing source of advice and
comment. The Department believes that it would be more effective and
efficient to incorporate additional roles and responsibilities as
identified under H.R. 3266's task force provisions, into the
Department's current system of task forces and advisory councils,
rather than create new advisory mechanisms.
Similarly, the department has taken other action to address other
issues raised and addressed by H.R. 3266. Recently the Department's
Inspector General 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 to
facilitate the quick flow of information. Similarly, ODP, as part of
its administration of the Fiscal Year 2003 UASI Program, 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. This designation by
the Secretary is consistent with ODP's mission, as provided under the
provisions of the Homeland Security Act, to be the primary federal
agency responsible for the preparedness of the United States for acts
of terrorism. 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 the end
of June, 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 are 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.
[The OIG Audit, OIG-04-15, is available at the OIG web site,
www.dhs.gov.]
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, sir, and there will be questions.
Mr. Raub, you are on, sir.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. RAUB
Mr. Raub. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to share the
Department's views on H.R. 3266, the proposed legislation for
faster and smarter funding for first responders. I will present
a summary statement now, and with your permission, Mr.
Chairman, will submit my full statement for the record.
H.R. 3266 seeks to foster strong, seamless coordination
among agencies of the Federal Government and between the
Federal Government and our State and local partners. HHS shares
this goal. We place a high priority on strong, sustained
collaboration with our colleagues in DHS and other agencies and
will continue to do so.
At the same time, we are concerned that H.R. 3266 neither
inadvertently alter the authorities of the Department of Health
and Human Services nor impede its ability to perform its
responsibilities under law. H.R. 3266 contains several
provisions that overlap with mandates of the Public Health
Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of
2002, which authorized most of the bioterrorism, preparedness
and response programs within HHS, particularly those that
address State and local readiness. In particular, I will
address new Sections 1802, 1803 and 1806 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, as they would be added by H.R. 3266.
New Section 1802 directs the Secretary of Homeland Security
to establish clearly defined, essential capabilities for State
and local government preparedness for terrorism. New Section
1803 specifies the means to this end: The DHS Task Force on
Essential Capabilities for First Responders. Further, H.R. 3266
defines first responders as emergency response providers, and
the latter are defined in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to
include emergency medical personnel and hospital emergency
personnel as well as State, Federal, local emergency public
safety, law enforcement, emergency response and related
personnel agencies and authorities.
These provisions cause concern as they are stated, because
the Public Health Security Act created the Working Group on
Bioterrorism and other Public Health Emergencies and among
other things charged it to provide an, ``assessment of the
priorities for an enhancement of the preparedness of public
health institutions, providers of medical care and other
emergency service personnel, including fire fighters to detect,
to diagnose and respond, including mental health response for a
biological threat or attack.''
Thus, without further clarification or delineation of
functions, H.R. 3266 may engender activities that duplicate
statutorily mandated initiatives of HHS. As a potential remedy,
HHS recommends that the proposed legislation be revised to
include language that would identify the Secretary of Health
and Human Services explicitly among those with whom the
Secretary of Homeland Security must consult when establishing
essential capabilities.
New Section 1806 directs the Secretary of Homeland Security
to support the development of, promulgate and update a series
of national voluntary consensus standards for first responder
equipment that is to be supported by the Homeland Security
grants envisioned in the bill. Under the Public Health Security
Act and other relevant statutes, HHS provides funds to States
and other eligible entities for public health preparedness and
hospital readiness, including the acquisition of certain
equipment. Some of this equipment appears to fall within H.R.
3266's definition of first responder equipment--for example,
equipment for biological detection and analysis, chemical
detection and analysis, decontamination and sterilization,
personal protective equipment, respiratory protection,
interoperable communications and data networks. Further, the
HHS Working Group created by the Public Health Security Act is
tasked with development of shared standards for equipment to
detect and protect against biological agents and toxins.
HHS suggests two candidate remedies. First, for the
required categories of equipment that the Secretary of Homeland
Security is directed to consider for the development of
national voluntary consensus standards, we recommend modifying
the language to circumscribe the type of equipment as first
responder equipment intended for use in the field. This would
eliminate coverage of equipment used in hospitals and other
facilities, such as biological safety cabinets in clinical
laboratories and mass spectrometers in chemical laboratories.
Second, to increase the likelihood that DHS and HHS will
develop a set of mutually consistent standards for essentially
the same equipment, we recommend that H.R. 3266 be revised to
state that the two departments shall develop standards jointly
for equipment that will be used by both DHS-funded first
responders and HHS-supported State and local health
departments, hospitals and supporting health care entities.
New Section 1806 also calls upon the Secretary of Homeland
Security to support the development of, promulgation of, and
regularly update national voluntary consensus standards for
first responder training. Under its existing authorities and
appropriations, HHS provides substantial funding for training
and education efforts at the State and local levels. Without
exception, every jurisdiction funded by HHS for bioterrorism
preparedness and response is planning and implementing
education and training activities, some of which are carried
out jointly with traditional first responders.
Further, the statutorily mandated HHS Working Group also
was tasked with the development and enhancement of the quality
of joint planning and training programs that address the public
health and medical consequences of a biological threat or
attack on the civilian population between, No. 1--local fire
fighters, ambulance personnel, police and public security
officers or other emergency response personnel, including
private response contractors, and, No. 2--hospitals, primary
care facilities and public health agencies.
Preparedness for terrorism or other emergencies demands
that DHS and HHS provide guidance to our respective awardees
that is consistent and mutually reinforcing. To that end, we
recommend the insertion of language in H.R. 3266 requiring the
Secretary of Homeland Security to consult with the Secretary of
HHS in requiring the Task Force on Essential Capabilities to
coordinate with the Working Group on Bioterrorism, to ensure
that, to the extent possible, the development of national
voluntary consensus standards for both equipment and training
is a collaborative and coordinated process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be pleased to respond as
best I can to your comments and questions.
[The prepared statement of William F. Raub follows:]
Prepared Statement of William F. Raub, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Health
Emergency Preparedness, Department of Health and Human Services
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee.
I am William F. Raub, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Public Health Emergency Preparedness, at the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS). I welcome this opportunity to share the
Department's views on H.R. 3266, the proposed legislation for ``Faster
and Smarter Funding for First Responders,'' introduced by Congressman
Christopher Cox, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Homeland
Security, as reported by that Committee.
Before I provide the Department's comments on the contents of the
bill, I want to take this opportunity to underscore the many
collaborative and coordinated activities that HHS has undertaken with
the Department of Homeland Security over the last year. Whether the
issues deal with state and local emergency preparedness, the planning
for and deployment of the Strategic National Stockpile, the development
of medical countermeasures under Project BioShield, or the development
of the National Response Plan and the National Incident Management
System, our two Departments have worked diligently to keep each other
apprised and involved. The relevant personnel in the two Departments
(myself included) have strived on an ongoing basis to coordinate our
respective activities at both the policy and planning level as well as
at the implementation and deployment level. This approach lays the
foundation not only for enhancing interagency coordination but also for
creating a more robust and harmonized response capacity at the state
and local levels.
H.R. 3266 contains several provisions that overlap with mandates of
the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response
Act of 2002 (referred to hereafter as the Public Health Security Act),
the legislation that authorizes most of the bioterrorism preparedness
and response programs within HHS, particularly those that address state
and local readiness. In particular, I will address new sections 1802,
1803 and 1806 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as would be added
by H.R. 3266.
In new section 1802, the Secretary of Homeland Security is directed
to ``establish clearly defined essential capabilities for State and
local government preparedness for terrorism.'' The bill language
defines ``essential capabilities'' as ``the levels, availability, and
competence of emergency personnel, planning, training, and equipment
across a variety of disciplines needed to effectively and efficiently
prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism consistent with
established practices.''
Further, HR 3266 defines ``first responders'' as ``emergency
response providers'' and the latter are defined, in the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, to include emergency medical personnel and
hospital emergency personnel as well as Federal, State, and local
emergency public safety, law enforcement, emergency response and
related personnel, agencies, and authorities. Thus the cross-over of
the definition of ``first responders'' to include what are traditional
health care workers may create a situation whereby the DHS Task Force
on Essential Capabilities for First Responders (to be established under
Section 1803) will be undertaking an activity, i.e., establishing
``essential capabilities,'' for a community of health providers that
generally look to HHS to establish standards and priorities for public
health emergency preparedness.
Furthermore, there is currently a Working Group on Bioterrorism and
Other Public Health Emergencies (referred to hereafter as the Working
Group), authorized by the Public Health Security Act, that is to
provide an ``assessment of the priorities for and enhancement of the
preparedness of public health institutions, providers of medical care,
and other emergency service personnel (including firefighters) to
detect, diagnose, and respond (including mental health response) to a
biological threat or attack'' (see section 319F(a)(1)(F), as added by
section108 of the Public Health Security Act). It is clear that,
without further clarification and delineation of functions in H.R.
3266, the bill may engender activities that duplicate statutorily
mandated initiatives of HHS.
To advise the Secretary of Homeland Security on establishing
essential capabilities for terrorism preparedness at the state and
local level, the Task Force on Essential Capabilities is expected to
produce a draft report of recommendations ``for the essential
capabilities all State and local first responders should possess, or to
which they should have access, to enhance terrorism preparedness.''
Although the proposed legislation does not identify public health
professionals and health care providers as first responders, the bill
does identify such individuals as members of the Task Force. We assume
that, as members of the Task Force, these public health and medical
professionals would contribute to the identification of ``essential
capabilities for state and local preparedness for terrorism.'' We
further assume that their contributions would most likely be in their
areas of expertise and experience.
At a time in which states and local jurisdictions are looking to
the Federal Government to provide clear and explicit guidance in all
areas of terrorism preparedness and response, I cannot overemphasize
the importance of providing clear and consistent federal
recommendations and guidelines. We recommend, therefore, that the
proposed legislation be revised to include language that would
explicitly identify the Secretary of Health and Human Services among
those with whom the Secretary of Homeland Security must consult when
establishing ``essential capabilities.''
New section 1806 as added by of H.R. 3266 directs the Secretary of
Homeland Security to ``support the development of, promulgate and
update'' a series of ``national voluntary consensus standards'' for
first responder equipment that is to be supported by the homeland
security grants envisioned in the bill.
Currently, funds awarded to the states by HHS for public health
preparedness and hospital readiness may be applied to the purchase and
acquisition of certain equipment. Some of this equipment appears to
fall within H.R. 3266's definition of first responder equipment; for
example, equipment for biological detection and analysis, chemical
detection and analysis, decontamination and sterilization, personal
protective equipment, respiratory protection, interoperable
communications, and data networks. Furthermore, the HHS Working Group
is currently tasked with ``development of shared standards for
equipment to detect and to protect against biological agents and
toxins.''
For the ``required categories'' of equipment that the Secretary of
Homeland Security is directed to consider for the development of
national voluntary consensus standards, we recommend modifying the
language to circumscribe the type of equipment as ``first responder
equipment intended for use in the field.'' This would eliminate
coverage of equipment used in hospitals and other facilities, e.g.,
biological safety cabinets in clinical laboratories and mass
spectrometers in chemical laboratories.
H.R. 3266 does not include a definition for ``national voluntary
consensus standards.'' Consequently, it is not clear what is meant or
covered by this phrase. Moreover, will these standards be truly
voluntary, that is to say, are they to be adopted at the discretion of
the states or local jurisdictions? If so, this may create a number of
technical as well as compliance problems for the user communities.
To maximize the likelihood that DHS and HHS will develop a set of
mutually consistent standards for essentially the same equipment, we
recommend that this provision of the bill be revised to state that the
two Departments shall collaborate in jointly developing standards for
equipment that will be used by both DHS funded first responders and
HHS-supported state and local health departments, hospitals and
supporting health care entities.
New section 1806 also calls upon the Secretary of Homeland Security
to support the development of, promulgate and regularly update national
voluntary consensus standards for first responder training. Within its
own programs, HHS continues to work towards ensuring the most effective
application of funding to training and education efforts at the state
and local levels. Without exception, every jurisdiction funded by HHS
for bioterrorism preparedness and response is planning and implementing
education and training activities, some of which are carried out
jointly with traditional first responders.
In this arena, the HHS Working Group is also tasked with the
``development and enhancement of the quality of joint planning and
training programs that address the public health and medical
consequences of a biological threat or attack on the civilian
population between (i) local firefighters, ambulance personnel, police
and public security officers, or other emergency response personnel
(including private response contractors); and (ii) hospitals, primary
care facilities, and public health agencies.'' This area of overlap
between DHS and HHS provides a clear opportunity for coordination and
collaboration between the two Departments. Since a response to any kind
of terrorist attack will require a seamless response among all
emergency responders, joint training and exercises involving public
safety and law enforcement personnel as well as public health and
health care workers in a variety of scenarios are both appropriate and
feasible.
To ensure the effectiveness of such joint efforts, it is essential
that the national voluntary consensus standards reflect the appropriate
roles of all response personnel. To this end, the development of these
standards should involve not only DHS and HHS but also relevant
professional organizations (both those identified in new section 1806
and the American Hospital Association, the Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, and the American College of
Emergency Physicians), government agencies such as the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, and others.
It is critical that, in supporting the enhancement of state and
local emergency response capabilities and capacities, DHS and HHS
provide guidance to their respective awardees that is mutually
consistent and reinforcing. To that end, we recommend the insertion of
language in HR3266 requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to
consult with the Secretary of HHS and requiring the Task Force on
Essential Capabilities to coordinate with the Working Group on
Bioterrorism to ensure that, to the extent possible, the development of
``national voluntary consensus standards'' for both equipment and
training is a collaborative and coordinated process. This would
minimize, if not eliminate, any duplication of effort and inconsistency
in recommendations.
Given the mission of the Department of Homeland Security and the
goals of the HHS bioterrorism preparedness and response programs, there
are naturally a variety of opportunities for collaboration. We have
taken advantage of many of these. At the same time we are mindful of
the mandates of our own authorizing legislation, the Public Health
Security Act, which directs HHS to carry out a broad array of tasks
intended to prepare the nation to respond more effectively to
bioterrorism, other outbreaks of infectious diseases and other public
health threats and emergencies. Thus language in H.R. 3266 should not
alter, or impede the ability to carry out, the authorities of the
Department of Health and Human Services to perform its responsibilities
under law.
Thank you. I will be glad to respond to any questions that the
Subcommittee may have.
Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Raub--well, first, let me ask both of
you, I mean it is obvious that close contact, close
coordination, a close relationship, if you will, among DHS and
HHS is critical. Would you both agree?
Mr. Raub. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bilirakis. Has that been--can we say that that has
taken place, that you all have gotten along well, you have
coordinated? Any problems there?
Mr. Mitchell. No, sir.
Mr. Bilirakis. None whatsoever.
Mr. Mitchell. It has been very positive.
Mr. Raub. And we work hard at it, sir.
Mr. Bilirakis. And you work hard at it. That is good to
hear. Mr. Mitchell, your participation in the Section 108
Working Group, has that been extensive?
Mr. Mitchell. Well, our office is not involved in that, but
it is my understanding that representatives from FEMA are the
primary DHS representatives. There are DHS participants in that
process, sir.
Mr. Bilirakis. Well, I just want to be sure that--and
forgive me, I don't mean to slight either one of your groups,
but one of the problems with Capitol Hill, and I have been here
for 22 years, is everybody seems to be concerned about their
turf, you know, the damn turf battles that takes place here in
Congress, in God knows, so very much, and the stakes are
awfully high when it comes to homeland security, and I would
hope that that is not a problem between you two.
Mr. Raub, have you had an opportunity or what kind of an
opportunity has HHS had as far as input into the preparation of
this legislation is concerned?
Mr. Raub. This was our first opportunity, sir, with
respect----
Mr. Bilirakis. Your first opportunity?
Mr. Raub. This was the first I had seen it, and we are
appreciative of the committee for giving us that opportunity.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. You have made many recommendations. I
don't know whether that can be interpreted as finding many
faults with the legislation, but you have made plenty of
recommendations.
Mr. Raub. We didn't believe we were finding fault as such,
sir. What we tried to recognize is where, on its face, there
seemed to be an overlap.
Mr. Bilirakis. I think, generally speaking, overlap is bad
in any area, but is it bad in this area? I mean there are areas
of overlap.
Mr. Raub. It is not bad so long as we are each aware of the
other's activities and we can ensure that each is making the
appropriate contribution to the other. We flagged the overlap
to the extent that if one or the other of us were to proceed in
ignorance of the other's authorities, we could very well be
doing the same thing twice or worse address the same issue and
produce slightly different responses. Both might be valid, but
they would be confusing, at best, especially to our partners
and State and local communities. So we flag those things, not
in any sense in opposition to the legislation, but rather, to
get the kind of clarification to ensure that we each know what
our respective responsibilities are.
Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Mitchell, anything you want to add to
that?
Mr. Mitchell. Well, I think there are--like I said, there
are ongoing activities, particularly the HSPD-8 implementation
where a number of these issues are going to be resolved at the
Secretary level, at the Assistant Secretary level as well as
the operational level. We have a very aggressive schedule and
plan for the implementation of HSPD-8, and I can assure you,
sir, that HHS and all the other key Federal partners will be
involved in that probably more than they would choose to be,
but it is--I think it is indicative of the type of relationship
we have. It is a massive challenge we have on both sides, and
we look forward to continuing that active partnership.
Mr. Bilirakis. I sort of wish Mr. Cox had sort of hung
around here where he could maybe go into some of these areas
with you, and he hasn't done that up to now, apparently. How
about the staffs? How much time have staffs worked together on
this legislation?
Mr. Mitchell. We have spent a fair amount, and we have
had----
Mr. Bilirakis. Fair amount?
Mr. Mitchell. Yes, sir, that is with staff.
Mr. Bilirakis. How about with HHS, do you know?
Mr. Mitchell. No, sir, not on this particular bill, no.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Are we doing something here, the old
doctor's thing, do no harm? Are we doing something here that
might be harmful rather than helpful or might we be doing
something here that might be harmful?
Mr. Mitchell. I think the intent of this legislation--I
think we agree that there are things we can do better. I think
just the pace of activities that as the proposed legislation
has evolved and reached the point where it is a lot of things
have been occurring simultaneously that, as we said earlier, a
lot of the problems identified and some of the solutions there
are already a number of activities underway in DHS that we
think probably adequately address some of the concerns raised.
But we certainly don't--we have no argument or concern about
the purpose of the bill, which is to make it more efficient. We
must support that, the threat base, changing the funding
approach.
The Secretary has been on record for quite a long time
saying we need to revisit how we're going to allocate these
funds. Currently, we have two grant programs, the Homeland
Security Grant Program, which is distributed under the Patriot
Act formula, as Chairman Cox described, but we also have the
Urban Area Security Initiative, which is the Secretary has the
discretion as Congress has been kind enough to provide that
where we look at threat presence of critical infrastructure,
population density to determine metropolitan areas that are
going to receive funding specifically based on those three
criteria.
So we think we have kind of the right balance in current
programs that address that. This is addressing that maybe in a
more consolidated way, and for our office I will certainly
commit to working with the Congress as we go through and refine
these. I think there are some things in here that we would
support, and I think the Department generally supports--like I
said, supports the overall thrust.
Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Raub, honestly, I take all your
recommendations in a positive vein, so please don't think to
the contrary. But do you have a very brief response to my
question about are we doing harm or might we be doing harm?
Mr. Raub. I don't believe there is anything inherent in the
bill that would result in harm. The concern we raised is that
to the extent we were duplicating activity unnecessarily, we
are not getting as much bang for the buck as we should. To the
extent we address essentially the same problem independent of
each other without being aware of what the other is doing, we
could produce something that is inefficient or confusing to our
State and local partners. And that is harmful, but easily
avoided with the types of recommendations we have specified.
Mr. Bilirakis. Well, I am going to yield to Dr. Norwood
now, but let me just say to you that we are planning to go
forward with this legislation because we have a piece in the
overall picture here. So any help that you can be, well, from
both of you, obviously, but HHS in particular since we have the
direct jurisdiction over HHS. So I can't tell you when markup
might take place. We have to complete our work by June 7 on
this, so markup would be sometime downstream here. But if there
are areas here that bother you from a constructive vein, we
would welcome any comments from you and what not. You have
already made plenty but anyhow just inputs would be very
helpful.
Mr. Raub. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will be pleased
to assist the subcommittee in any way we can.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thanks, Mr. Raub. Dr. Norwood.
Mr. Norwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by
saying, Mr. Raub, my tendency is to totally agree with most of
what you have said. I think there can be great harm here if we
aren't very, very careful. There are three parts, Mr. Mitchell,
you said to this, and one is obviously to prevent a terrorist
act, that is part of your job, be prepared and, last, to
respond. And I think probably our committee is most interested
in the respond part, because that is where patients are, that
is where the health part of this comes in. And, frankly, I just
don't--I can't imagine the mess it would make if you, as
Homeland Security, gets into this respond part, this health
part too very deeply without being on the same page with HHS.
If each of you come out with different sets of standards and
guidelines and equipment selection, it is going to be a worse
disaster out there than it already is in our effort as a Nation
to try to get ready for this.
Let me ask either one of you, we have something like 40,000
health care providers in my State, in Georgia. Where would I
send them for training to respond to a nuclear attack or a
biochemical attack? Where would they go today to get training
so that--this reminds me a little bit--I want to come back, I
still want an answer to that question, but it reminds me a
little bit of what happens during a disaster, whether it be a
damn breaking, whether it be Chernobyl, whether it be a MASH
unit in the middle of the war. Everybody has to do a lot of
things. Nobody gets to just do their little specialty area
because there are so many casualties.
My point is we may have the greatest pediatricians in the
world in Georgia, but they probably haven't done trauma
medicine lately. They probably haven't had to deal with a
burned patient from radiation. Now, my question is where I
would say to them today to go, where could we get them up to
speed should we have a disaster?
Mr. Raub. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to provide you for
the record, a list of institutions that are funded by our
Health Resources and Services Administration for two aspects of
training of health care providers in these areas. One is a set
of institutions providing training programs, the other is a set
developing curricula with a view to----
Mr. Norwood. Well, just tell me one or two of them.
Mr. Raub. I don't have the list memorized, sir, but there
are a number of major academic health centers.
Mr. Norwood. I am pretty well aware of it, because the
Medical College of Georgia is one of them, and that is why I am
sort of interested in this training aspect. So is Eisenhower
Army Hospital involved in this. I am back to, though, there
isn't really anywhere right now. You can get pieces and parts
and it is not standardized in any way. A doctor in South
Carolina may go to a different institution than a doctor in
Georgia, yet the disaster may be right on the line. The
equipment is not necessarily standardized in either way,
particularly equipment used to treat patients, which to me that
sort of falls in your bailiwick working with Homeland Security
so you guys don't run us off in two different directions.
Mr. Raub. Mr. Congressman, you are correct. The array of
training programs offered are not yet comprehensive in the way
they should be.
Mr. Norwood. No. They are not accredited either.
Mr. Raub. And we have not addressed the standards issue
primarily because a year ago when this funding effort started,
we didn't feel we had a sufficient knowledge base or a
sufficient set of materials upon which we could put a standard
label. And that was one of the reasons for directing a
substantial fraction of the funds to curricula development.
One of the most important elements that is developed is--as
we look to the training for health care professionals--it is
necessary that we provide them the relevant information about,
let us say, anthrax or smallpox or plague, the characteristics
of the disease, but we have also realized we need to provide
them training about incident management, their relationships
with the fire department, with the police department.
And, increasingly, the guidance we are sending out for the
training says go beyond the medical subject matter into the
procedural and operational response material. Now, for many of
our health departments and for many of our hospitals, that is
totally new. It is new terrain, we did not have off-the-shelf
materials we could simply plug in. Some of this curriculum
development activity is designed to develop those in the
direction that you are urging us to go.
Mr. Norwood. And I want you to understand I am not finding
fault. I can see why in this short length of time we might not
be prepared. Part of the training needs to be for the policemen
or the firemen to treat a patient too. I mean they can learn
emergency things to keep people alive or to triage a unit.
There is so much, so many people out there who we all are
calling first responders that in a real disaster they are all
going to be trying to keep people alive. All I want to do is
encourage you that training has got to be put on the fast
track. So you know how I envision this thing. You can, as you
pointed out, have university system and others who can train
5,000 people a year who can go back home, wherever home was,
and they can train their police department, they can train
their--that is the only way we are going to get this spread out
across the country so these people we refer to as first
responders can actually--a fireman is going to have to do a lot
more than put a fire out, it is as simple as that, and I
encourage you guys to get together, one, and make sure that you
are all saying the same thing. The worst thing you can do is
tell a university or a fire department that here are two
different ways to go, ``Which way do we do, what kind of
equipment do we buy, you said one, you said another.'' That is
disastrous. And, second, put this thing on a fast track.
Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Congressman, we have an ongoing
relationship with HHS, CDC and others. We have a pretty
comprehensive set of training courses. We have about 43 courses
that we currently provide.
Mr. Norwood. Pardon me for interrupting, but didn't you
tell me you just saw this bill? Mr. Raub?
Mr. Raub. Yes, sir.
Mr. Norwood. That isn't exactly working with them, pal.
Mr. Mitchell. Concerning this bill?
Mr. Norwood. Yes. This bill is going to very much affect
the outcome of how these two departments do things. I mean it
looks like to me you guys would sit down and say, ``Maybe we
had better check in with HHS, health is their bailiwick, and
talk to them a little bit before we start suggesting standards
for emergency rooms and hospitals and types of equipment.''
Mr. Bilirakis. Let us ask the question, if you will yield a
moment, Doctor, have you had that opportunity? I asked the
question earlier on, Mr. Raub, have you both had the
opportunity to sit down and to discuss what this bill is
intended to do or to fill in gaps, areas--I mean we are talking
about a new concept here, homeland security. Brand new, it is
far from perfect, maybe it will never get to be perfect,
nothing ever is, I suppose. So we are learning as we go along.
We are learning as we go along here, and there are things we
probably can fix that you have experienced that may not even be
in this legislation because you haven't gotten, I think--one of
the reasons, one of the biggest reasons would be because you
haven't gotten your heads together. And I don't know whether
fault lies with you in that regard, but please proceed, Doctor.
Mr. Norwood. Well, if you need statutory authority, which
somebody feels you do, and I suspect as you, in order to get
this thing working this right, I am just saying you guys have
got to work together and you can't--I don't see how you walk in
with a bill and say, ``Boy, we have worked this thing over
really well and we have solved all the problems,'' without the
Secretary of HHS ever having had some input into this bill. And
I know he would like to, because I heard you give out a number
of recommendations that you were suggesting for this bill, of
which many, first blush, please understand, I mean we are all
learning here as we go, but first blush some of the things, Mr.
Raub, you said made sense to me.
And I just would like--at the end of the day, guys, not to
speak of the unbelievable loss of taxpayer dollars, but there
will be a great deal of confusion. This would not be the first
time a Member of Congress was complained to from constituents
at home saying, ``Two different agencies are telling me to do
two different things, and I don't know what to do.'' And all I
am asking you--I know how fast all this is hitting you, and I
am not complaining, I am just saying at the end of the day get
together.
Mr. Mitchell. Well, I would like to leave you with the
thought that we collaborate on a regular basis, not just on one
piece of proposed legislation. I mean our offices, our agencies
work very closely.
Mr. Norwood. Well, I presume this isn't very important.
That is why you didn't call them, and you don't necessarily
need statutory authority to do what you want to do anyway?
Mr. Mitchell. Well, we have--like I said, we have provided
our perspectives on this legislation. I think there are some
elements of this, as I said, that the Department of Homeland
Security, from our perspective, and the majority of the
components of this are addressing the programs in DHS. They are
not addressing other Federal agencies' grants. So we have had
significant discussions with the committee staff on this
particular piece of legislation.
Mr. Norwood. But Dr. Raub has a big budget too and a lot of
tax dollars, and he understands the need for training and
standardization out there. Let us don't have two agencies--even
if you did the exact same thing to have it done by two
agencies. Get together.
Mr. Mitchell. Well, I don't want to give you the, I don't
want to say false impression, but the impression that the HSPD-
8 is going to address a lot of these. But one of the components
of HSPD-8 is to look at the existing standards that are out
there. We are not talking about creating a whole new different
suite of things. We are talking about taking a look at what
currently exists and reaching consensus on which ones are the
rights ones and moving out. We are not starting with a clean
slate. There is an enormous amount of information that----
Mr. Bilirakis. Are you saying that there are areas that
need to be fixed as a result of your experiences and you feel
that HSPD-8 is going to take care of that. And for that reason
it is not necessary to get them into this legislation?
Mr. Mitchell. I think that there are a number of things
that are already underway. As I discussed, the task force that
is proposed, I agree with Dr. Raub, I think that duplicates
existing structures. We already have resources that are
currently existing in the Department of Homeland Security that
could play that role. The development of the preparedness
measures that are called for under the current plan for HSPD-8
we will have those developed by July 31 of this year. We don't
really need a task force to take a year to develop those. We
are aggressively moving, as we speak, to address a number of
the requirements that are specified in this bill.
Mr. Bilirakis. So it is wrong to have a task force
requirement in this legislation.
Mr. Mitchell. We think so; yes, sir.
Mr. Bilirakis. Well, I want to go to Mr. Shimkus now, but I
think before we finish up here maybe we ought to sort of button
up a couple of things that are still up in the air. Mr.
Shimkus, please proceed.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this is an
important hearing, and I think we want to be very efficient
with not only the dollars but with a clear plan for people who
are applying. And I think my colleague, Dr. Norwood, is
expressing some of the frustrations that I think many of us
here out on the hastings from folks who have this confusion and
then they hear that there are dollars available and then it
takes a long time for money to roll out, and they fear that the
big bureaucracy consumes it all and it doesn't get where it is
most needed. And I think that is just part of the, again,
frustration, especially with the duplication that a lot of us
are looking at with respect to the bioterrorism bill that we
passed in 2002. And that is kind of where I am addressing some
of my remarks to.
In one of my first--I am a fairly, not junior, but I guess
mid-level member. I don't get on very many conferences, so when
I get on one it is a big deal for me, and that was the case
with the bioterrorism bill. And it seems to me that many of
these first responders under H.R. 3266 are also covered under
the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and
Response Act of 2002. HHS must have preparedness goals for
State and local governments that are similar to the, quote,
unquote, ``essential capabilities,'' that H.R. 3266 is
referring to. This seems to be the thrust of what Mr. Raub's
been mentioning in his testimony, I am assuming. Has HHS shared
these goals and experiences with your, Mr. Mitchell, and the
Department of Homeland Security for the administration of your
grant programs?
Mr. Mitchell. Well, I am not convinced that there is
overlap in the two grant programs. I am quite confident we have
complementary but different organizational focus. ODP's focus
historically has been that first responders, police, fire,
HazMat, EMS, that we don't train--our focus stops at the
emergency room door, and we have collaborated with HHS, well,
since our office has been in existence since 1998 on jointly
reviewing training. Like I said, we have a group of
representatives from CDC as well as HHS that when we are
considering courses to be adopted, that the technical reviews
on things that have a medical responsibility or medical focus
are done by--it is better through those agencies.
It is not that the Department of Homeland Security or
previously in the Department of Justice we did not develop
medical training to train medical providers. It was a
collaborative process, but they did not overlap, and that was
intentional, because the expertise in the health care system
with acute care physicians and emergency room technicians and
doctors and nurses is in HHS, and I think we would continue to
maintain that balance. Even under this proposal, under this
bill we would focus predominantly on the grants of DHS.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes. It seems like we are going to have a lot
of--I saw Dr. Norwood go for the microphone and Mr. Raub, but
let me just, before you all jump in, in H.R. 3266, in the
definition, you do mention emergency medical including hospital
emergency facilities. So it is just not stopping right at the
door, it is actually going inside by your own definition, at
least that is what we are reading. Is that true? And that is
the confusion.
Mr. Mitchell. Operationally, from ODP, that is true. This
is not DHS' bill. This is a bill that we are commenting on just
like anyone else. So we did not define the----
Mr. Shimkus. But you worked with our colleague, Congressman
Cox----
Mr. Mitchell. Sure.
Mr. Shimkus. [continuing] on drafting legislation. So you,
in essence----
Mr. Mitchell. We worked with him on providing our comments.
No, we did not work to draft it. We reviewed it after it was--
--
Mr. Shimkus. So do you support the bill or don't you
support the bill?
Mr. Mitchell. We support certain elements of the bill, as I
said in my testimony and as we introduced--I mean there are
components in there that we don't support or we don't support
in the way it is developed in the legislation. And, certainly,
we would not support anything that would create duplication
between what HHS and DHS does collectively with grants to help
State and local governments. But, historically, we have not
provided resources, training, equipment for hospital providers.
That has been handled under the Bio Preparedness Program and
the HRSA Program.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague, Dr.
Norwood, would like some time, and I would like to yield some
time to him.
Mr. Norwood. If you would yield just a second. Let me
follow right into that subject right there. Under Section 1806
of the bill, volunteer equipment standards and training
standards would, DHS, end up doing standards on hospital
emergency facility equipment for emergency medical personnel
training. Would you do that under this bill?
Mr. Mitchell. Under HSPD-8, those are the types of things--
we have the lead on that and DHS know that would not be--the
lead on that would be----
Mr. Norwood. So you will not do that, because you said you
will stop at the emergency room door.
Mr. Mitchell. No, I didn't say--if we are looking at
preparedness of the Nation under HSPD-8, we are looking across
the Federal Government, so, yes, those may be issues that are
addressed, but they would be addressed as directed by HHS. It
would not be our office or someone in DHS arbitrarily
developing standards for those types of equipment.
Mr. Norwood. Well, what if there is not an emergency room?
What is it is blown up? What if we are talking about equipment
out in the field, which is likely to be a situation for a
serious disaster?
Mr. Mitchell. Like a field hospital or some other triage
capability?
Mr. Norwood. Actually, under a tree. I mean it can get just
that way in a real disaster. Mr. Chairman, I will conclude with
this. All I am telling you is, yes, you didn't write the bill
because you can't, but you collaborated on it, and I am
concerned that the two agencies--now, I am talking about not
all of it, I am talking about just the response, the two
agencies should be talking and you should dare not come out
with two sets of who is in charge and two sets of standards.
That is all I am saying.
Mr. Bilirakis. They did not both collaborate in it, though.
HHS did not collaborate in any way, apparently, from what I
understand, and I am not sure to what degree DHS collaborated
because you say there are some things in here that you like and
some things that you don't like.
Mr. Mitchell. Well, just like any number of bills we are
asked to comment on, we were asked to comment on this one, and
I can assure you there are a lot of them we are asked to
comment on.
Mr. Bilirakis. Were you asked to comment on it before
today, before this hearing?
Mr. Mitchell. Yes, sir. Actually, we have testified on this
bill prior to today.
Mr. Bilirakis. How about HHS?
Mr. Raub. To the best of my knowledge, sir, this is the
first and only opportunity we have had to testify on this bill.
Mr. Bilirakis. So you see where we are here.
Mr. Norwood. Yes, sir. That has got to be fixed.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. I think so, and that is why I say I
wish Mr. Cox were here. Well, you have given us your testimony,
we have asked questions. I think we kind of went into this
assuming it was going to be sort of a relatively routine
hearing, but I think it has turned out not to be. Maybe it is a
good thing that there aren't more Members of Congress here.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Raub was going to comment on the
discussion we had on just the medical aspect, and if you still
would like to, sir, I want to make sure you get a chance to.
Mr. Bilirakis. By all means, please do so.
Mr. Raub. And, actually, I have accumulated a few more now,
if I may.
Mr. Bilirakis. A few million more?
Mr. Raub. The comment I was going to make earlier is that
our staffs have had considerable interaction about our
respective award programs to the State and locals, particularly
with the movement of ODP to, the new Department of Homeland
Security. We had some staff interaction so we could each
understand better what the other was attempting to achieve, and
I reinforce Mr. Mitchell's statement that we think we have a
strong complementarity of the way we award funds to public
health departments and to hospitals and the way DHS awards
funds to what I will call the traditional first responders.
We have some areas that we indeed must continue to work at,
with or without legislation. Emergency medical services is one
example of that. Many EMS units are based in fire departments
and therefore would be included under the awards coming from
DHS. Other EMS units are free-standing and may not be picked up
automatically. In any event, our program for hospital
preparedness has an EMS outreach component to it trying to
address, in part, the question that Mr. Norwood was raising of
how do the people in emergency rooms engage with the field
forces that are dealing with hazardous materials, activities,
or other types of trauma, burn, emergency medical situations.
None of us believe we have all the answers to that, but absent
legislation I can--or with legislation we can assure you that
the two agencies and others will continue to address that very
strongly.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman, if I may just add to that. One
of the grant programs that I have been very, very pleased with
that has not been part of this debate but when you talked about
fire services and EMS inside fire services is the Fire Act
grant that actually comes through FEMA. But here is another
example of another grant program that really can impact and
impinge on homeland security and the ability to respond. It is
easy, it is clear and there doesn't seem to be a lot of
bureaucratic hurdles. And when the folks that I have worked
with have made application and they have not been successful,
they have had an easy way of looking at their application to
find out why it hasn't been successful.
On the positive side, I am very, very pleased with it. I
would like to see it maybe expanded to EMS. But that is a FEMA
agency--I mean that is a grant program through FEMA, not
through HHS or not through Homeland Security, so now we have
got three.
Mr. Mitchell. Well, actually, Mr. Congressman, that program
is currently administered by ODP. It was transferred to ODP in
fiscal year 2004.
Mr. Shimkus. Oh, that is right, it changed. Right.
Mr. Bilirakis. How about my sheriff who needs some money
for his radios, first responder?
Mr. Mitchell. They are eligible to receive equipment
funding under the Homeland Security Grant Program.
Mr. Bilirakis. Could they also go to FEMA?
Mr. Mitchell. FEMA had some funding I think in 2003 for
interoperable communications. It was kind of a demonstration
program. I am not aware that they have funding in 2004, but
that is one of the principal funding categories in the Homeland
Security Grant Program and in the Law Enforcement Prevention
Program as well. The communications upgrades are addressing the
communications needs of law enforcement who are eligible.
Mr. Bilirakis. Well, we have got to finish this up some
time. Go ahead, Doctor.
Mr. Norwood. Just final words.
Mr. Bilirakis. Final words coming from Dr. Norwood.
Mr. Norwood. The fun part, of course, is buying the
equipment. Everybody likes to do that. Everybody likes to have
all the good, shiny, new stuff. What I am afraid, though, and I
am not positive but just a little bit of work we have done on
this, we are behind the eight ball a little bit with training
and most particularly standardized training. And I am talking
about the type of training that lets the EMS, the State patrol,
the fire chief, everybody take care of responding after the
disaster has occurred. And I know you guys are doing some of
that, but we are not there, and maybe time hasn't been
available to us, but I urge you to get very serious about that,
because it doesn't do any good too have all that new equipment
if people don't know what orderly to do in a fire fight,
because that is what it is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bilirakis. Well, my gratitude to you and to Mr. Shimkus
for taking the time to be here. You have contributed so very
much. And, gentlemen, you have worked so very hard. We owe you
an awful lot. But we want to do the right thing here, and we
are--I think we have all expressed a little disappointment that
you haven't had more of an input in this legislation, because
it involves you. And, granted, it is DHS but at the same time
it includes an awful lot--well, there should have been better
coordination.
So we give you the opportunity now. We are going to have a
markup on this, I suppose, somewhere downstream, and we are
giving you the opportunity for inputs. If you want to make a
case that it may do more harm than good, please feel free to
make that case. If you, as you have already done, made
recommendations on some changes should be made to what is in
there, just maybe expand on that. If you want to come to the
conclusion that the legislation is going to go forward anyhow,
it may be your opportunity as a vehicle to correct some areas
that you see need to be corrected legislatively in terms of
this issue.
So as usual we have a series of questions which we will
furnish you with, and we would hope you respond in a timely
fashion, but, again, keep in mind June 7. So I don't know
whether this thing has been scheduled for markup? No, it has
not been scheduled for markup. Again, on the premise it is
going to go into markup within the next few days, that is only
a premise, I have no idea. I have a meeting in a half hour. I
may find out a little more about that. Please furnish us
whatever inputs you may have. You have an opportunity to do it
here now. Thanks for all your help. Appreciate it.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Raub. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bilirakis. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
U.S. House of Representatives
June 28, 2004
The Honorable Michael Bilirakis
Chairman, Subcommittee on Health
Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Bilirakis: Enclosed please find the response to the
question for the record you submitted on behalf of Representative
Pickering relating to my testimony at the May 11, 2004 hearing of the
Subcommittee on Health on ``H.R. 3266, the Faster and Smarter Funding
for First Responders Act of 2004.''
I appreciate the opportunity you provided to testify before the
Subcommittee in support of this important legislation to enhance the
capabilities of America's first responders to prevent, prepare for, and
respond to acts of terrorism.
Sincerely,
Christopher Cox
Chairman
Enclosure
question by the honorable charles w. ``chip'' pickering
Question: H.R. 3266, as reported by the Select Committee on
Homeland Security on March 17 adopts the definition of ``emergency
response providers'' from the Homeland Security Act as the definition
of ``first responder'' in the bill. In explaining its intent, the
committee included report language addressing ``related personnel'' as
part of that definition, which includes non-governmental organizations
with assigned responsibilities under domestic preparedness and response
incident management plans.Is it your understanding that such non-
governmental organizations like the American Red Cross, who have
mandated responsibilities under the current Federal Response Plan,
would qualify for that definition?
Answer: Yes. The Homeland Security Act's definition of ``emergency
response providers'' is not limited to Federal, State, and local
government personnel and entities. The Select Committee's Report on
H.R. 3266 (H. Rep. 108-460) notes that the Select Committee believes,
and for purposes of H.R. 3266 intends, that the ``related personnel''
element of that definition should be understood to include non-
governmental organizations that have mandated responsibilities under
the Federal Response Plan. The Select Committee understands that the
American Red Cross is such an organization.
______
Responses for the Record to Questions of Hon. Charles W. ``Chip''
Pickering
QUESTION FOR DHS AND HHS WITNESS:
QUESTION: Public health preparedness and response is a critical
component of ensuring our nation's homeland security.
What steps are your agencies taking to protect the blood supply
from a bioterror attack or cybersecurity breach and have you engaged
the Red Cross for their expertise?
RESPONSE: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is
currently working with the entire blood community on blood supply
protections, including the American Red Cross (ARC) which collects and
supports approximately 45 per cent of the nation's blood supply. The
blood supply critical infrastructure protection (CIP) is being
addressed locally at blood centers. HHS is also addressing blood supply
safety through its work with the American Association of Blood Banks'
Interorganizational Task Force on Domestic Disasters and Acts of
Terrorism (Task Force). The Task Force presented a blood safety plan in
January, 2004, that incorporates recommendations by the Advisory
Committee on Blood Safety and Availability. The goal of the plan is to
store 10,000 units of blood, at key strategic locations throughout the
U.S., for delivery within 4-6 hours. The first locations would be at
two military facilities so that the CIP could be sufficiently
evaluated. Under the plan, once the first two military sites are
operational, HHS would identify eight other sites throughout the U.S.
The CIP model developed in the first phase, with the military, would be
used to evaluate and shore up the civilian sites. The figure of 10,000
units was determined through HHS's experience with the ``Top-Off''
bioterrorism exercise, as an amount needed to sustain two cities for
three days.
With regard to cybersecurity, HHS notes that ARC has struggled with
its computer system for well over ten years and this matter has been
cited in its Consent Decree. Nevertheless, the issue of cybersecurity
will be evaluated as HHS identifies the ten locations and data sharing
to support the plan for a blood Reserve.