[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TARGET WASHINGTON: COORDINATING FEDERAL HOMELAND SECURITY EFFORTS WITH
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 24, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-190
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
95-626 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 GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan Maryland
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Columbia
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio ------
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 24, 2004.................................... 1
Statement of:
Griffin, Anthony H., county executive, Fairfax County; Mary
Beth Michos, fire chief, Prince William County; James
Schwartz, director of emergency management, Arlington
County; and Jacqueline F. Brown, chief administrative
officer, Prince George's County............................ 85
Lockwood, Thomas, Director, Office of National Capital Region
Coordination, Department of Homeland Security; William
Jenkins, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues,
General Accounting Office; George Foresman, assistant to
the Governor for commonwealth preparedness, Commonwealth of
Virginia; Dennis Schrader, director, Office of Homeland
Security, State of Maryland; and Barbara Childs-Pair,
director, D.C. Emergency Management Agency................. 25
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Brown, Jacqueline F., chief administrative officer, Prince
George's County, prepared statement of..................... 109
Childs-Pair, Barbara, director, D.C. Emergency Management
Agency, prepared statement of.............................. 65
Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri, prepared statement of................... 123
Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia, prepared statement of................... 4
Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, prepared statement of................... 125
Foresman, George, assistant to the Governor for commonwealth
preparedness, Commonwealth of Virginia, prepared statement
of......................................................... 50
Griffin, Anthony H., county executive, Fairfax County,
prepared statement of...................................... 88
Jenkins, William, Director, Homeland Security and Justice
Issues, General Accounting Office, prepared statement of... 34
Lockwood, Thomas, Director, Office of National Capital Region
Coordination, Department of Homeland Security, prepared
statement of............................................... 27
Michos, Mary Beth, fire chief, Prince William County,
prepared statement of...................................... 93
Moran, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia, prepared statement of................... 21
Ruppersberger, Hon. C.A. Dutch, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Maryland, prepared statement of.......... 14
Schrock, Hon. Edward L., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, prepared statement of............... 18
Schwartz, James, director of emergency management, Arlington
County, prepared statement of.............................. 100
Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 7
TARGET WASHINGTON: COORDINATING FEDERAL HOMELAND SECURITY EFFORTS WITH
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 2004
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis of
Virginia (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Tom Davis of Virginia, Mica, Ose,
Schrock, Waxman, Maloney, Cummings, Tierney, Clay, Watson, Van
Hollen, Ruppersberger, and Norton.
Also present: Representative Moran of Virginia.
Staff present: David Marin, deputy staff director and
communications director; Ellen Brown, legislative director and
senior policy counsel; Robert Borden, counsel and
parliamentarian; Rob White, press secretary; Drew Crockett,
deputy director of communications; Brian Stout, professional
staff member; Teresa Austin, chief clerk; Brien Beattie, deputy
clerk; Robin Butler, financial administrator; Allyson
Blandford, office manager; Rosalind Parker, minority counsel;
David McMillen, minority professional staff member; Earley
Green, minority chief clerk; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant
clerk.
Chairman Tom Davis. Good morning.
The committee will come to order. A quorum appears to be
present.
I want to welcome everyone to today's hearing entitled,
``Target Washington: Coordinating Federal Homeland Security
Efforts with Local Jurisdictions in the National Capital
Region.'' We have a good regional group here today.
This hearing is the committee's third in our series on
emergency preparedness in the NCR. Following last year's
hearings, the committee asked the General Accounting Office to
examine the budget and spending plans for the National Capital
Region in hope that it would help Congress identify whether
this region is sufficiently funded and whether the funds were
being used effectively and efficiently. We are here today to
examine the findings and to bring the key components of our
regional homeland security efforts together to identify what
has been done and what work remains.
The tragic events of September 11, 2001 unfortunately
confirm the recognition of the National Capital Region as a top
terrorist target. The primary obligation of any government is
the safety and security of its citizens and we have been acting
on many fronts to fulfill this obligation.
The Federal Government and local Washington area
jurisdictions have taken a number of actions to strengthen our
ability to prevent and respond to emergencies and in the
National Capital Region, this requires the highest level of
coordination. The National Capital Region has to be the most
prepared in the Nation. It is the home to 12 local
jurisdiction, two States, the District of Columbia, the Federal
Government, including the White House, the Congress and the
Supreme Court. This is not an easy task for a region that has
multiple police forces and emergency plans.
Recognizing the unique nature of the region and the need
for a high level of coordination, Congress created the Office
for National Capital Region Coordination within the Department
of Homeland Security. This office was created to coordinate
activities between the various entities in the region, to
ensure the preparedness programs and activities are developed
and evaluated under appropriate standards and to ensure that
resources are allocated so as to improve and sustain regional
preparedness.
The ONCRC has an important role in setting goals and
priorities and assisting States and local jurisdictions to
think, plan and prepare regionally. In fiscal years 2002 and
2003, the Federal Government appropriated approximately $340
million for homeland security efforts in the region. It is our
understanding that all of the fiscal year 2004 urban area
funding totaling $23.9 million, as well as portions of prior
year funding have yet to be obligated. The time has come to ask
difficult questions so that we can determine what is the road
ahead. Congress has dramatically increased funding for these
efforts over the last few years but have we increased our
capabilities and preparedness as a region? What have we done
with the Federal funding to date? How are the funding decisions
for the region made? How do we enhance preparedness? What is
the remaining gap and how do we intend to close it?
Some Members of Congress as well as some State and local
officials have contended that funds provided for first
responders have been insufficient. This has been an incomplete
discussion, however, because in order to determine funding
needs, we have to have a full and accurate assessment of where
we are and where we need to be. It is readily apparent that we
need to move away from the generalities when speaking of
emergency preparedness and coordination and talk specifics.
General strategies are a beginning but they must transfer
into specific road maps for local, State, Federal and private
sector actions. Yesterday, the infamous Tractor Man who
effectively held this region hostage for 2 days in March 2003
was sentenced to 6 years in prison. Justice was served. We are
here again today asking if we are better prepared for prime
time. We are here today wondering whether or how preparedness
has improved in the past 14 months. It is my hope that this
hearing will further this discussion and in doing so, will help
Congress, the Department of Homeland Security and the
localities within the NCR to set a mutually agreed upon
baseline capability, identify the gaps, set priorities and
measure progress.
The bottom line is that the funding needs of the region and
the Nation are nearly infinite and therefore, it is of the
utmost importance to structure the manner in which we go about
fulfilling needs. In its testimony today, the General
Accounting Office lays out the general challenges that the
region faces in coordinating and managing emergency
preparedness in our region. GAO's conclusions are troubling but
not terribly surprising given the complexity of the task at
hand. An earlier draft of the GAO report noted the vacancy at
the top of the Office of National Capital Region Coordination
is a contributing factor to the challenges we are facing. I am
glad to see that the position has now been filled and that Mr.
Lockwood is here today to share his vision for improving
planning and coordination.
We have two impressive panels of witnesses before us to
help us understand the issues surrounding this important topic.
I would like to thank all of our witnesses for appearing before
the committee and I look forward to their testimony.
I now yield to my ranking member, Mr. Waxman, for his
opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.002
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased the committee is holding today's hearing on
the Emergency Readiness in the National Capital Region.
Ensuring preparedness in this region is particularly
challenging given the severity of threats facing the area and
the range of Federal, State and local entities involved in
responding to the threats across jurisdictional lines. This
committee should do everything it can to promote optimal
coordination of these efforts.
Just 2 weeks ago, we saw how quickly communications can
break down in an emergency. The appearance of an unidentified
airplane in restricted air space resulted in panic in the
Capitol and confusion among responders. It is my understanding
that the Mayor was not notified until after the threat was
resolved.
The challenges of coordinating the activities of the
multiple and overlapping jurisdictions in the National Capital
Region are severe. So too are the consequences if we fail to
meet those challenges. Today, the General Accounting Office
will tell us that we don't have a good measure of the
collective capacity of these jurisdictions to respond to an
emergency. Nor do we have a good sense of what should be their
capacity. Without these essential benchmarks, where are we and
where do we need to be, it is impossible to devise a plan to
get from one to the other. I am hopeful that this hearing will
lead to a better understanding of these benchmarks.
I want to note that Congresswoman Norton of our committee
has been tireless in her work to advance National Capital
Region emergency preparedness. Her keen understanding of the
deficiencies in planning and coordination of effort led her to
write the original amendment that laid the foundation for the
Office of National Capital Region Coordination, now directed by
Mr. Lockwood, one of our witnesses today.
I want to welcome the distinguished witnesses who I know
have devoted a lot of time and energy to regional preparedness.
Your work may help prevent serious harm to many citizens of
this area. Indeed, it may have already done so. I know I speak
for many others in telling you how much I appreciate your
commitment to this effort.
Finally, I want to commend Chairman Davis for having this
hearing and for his strong interest in homeland security
issues.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.005
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Are there any statements on our side? Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate this hearing and I think you called it at a
time when it is fair to look at the regional office. We did not
call this hearing when it just had been created, we are now
more than 2 years, probably going on 3 years.
I also want to say my concerns come against a background
that has taught me not to do Monday morning quarterbacking,
about why didn't we do this. I think the homeland security
business is a startup business for the country. My own work on
the Homeland Security Committee and on the Aviation
Subcommittee certainly taught me that. For example, we were
very critical on the Homeland Security Committee of spending
but when we probed it, we learned that much of that was because
the States had difficulties in their own procedures about how
to gear up for the money that came out of this Congress in one
huge tranche after September 11.
I certainly have not expected anything like perfection from
this office. I have to tell you that when it comes to
coordination, I have had a tougher standard because we did
foresee the coordination problem in this committee. As the
ranking member indicated, my own amendment for a coordinator
was strongly supported on both sides of this committee and the
administration itself not wanting to add to the expenses had
compunctions but ultimately the administration accepted the
notion that for the National Capital Region area where there
are 600,000 people in this city, 2 million in the region and
where the entire Federal presence is located, there needs to be
special attention. We have the most at stake in the entire
country and we are all aware of this.
So, in this region alone, the Federal Government pays for a
regional coordinator. I was sufficiently impressed by at least
some of what I have been hearing from that office that I have
since sponsored an amendment that is included again in a
bipartisan bill coming out of the Homeland Security Committee
for regional coordinators paid for however by the States in
order to essentially model on what we have done here and today,
we look and see what that model has done.
A very large amount of money in my district alone was
tracked. I know that OMB, for example, called the District
often about whether or not it was spending on a quarterly
basis. Sometimes they got it wrong. I called the District and
would have to call back, you were wrong, we have spent.
When it comes to the region, the concern is not are you
spending the money we have, but are you duplicating what one
another is doing, are you buying the same things across
regions, are you saving money, are you coordinating? Is
somebody looking at the big picture, because the obligation of
the Government of the District of Columbia, of Maryland and of
Virginia is to be parochial. They are supposed to look and see
whether or not they are doing their job. The whole point here
was for somebody to help them understand the dependence of the
entire region, one on another. We don't have a WMATA board when
it comes to homeland security, the whole thing is together.
That is essentially what this new post was supposed to do.
As I see it, this is a headquarters issue. This is an
administration issue. First of all, the vacancy that was there
for so long, a 5-month vacancy was absolutely inexcusable and
scary, frankly. I don't think there was any shortage of people
to fill. We have already filled it now with somebody from the
region. There were all kinds of people in headquarters who
could have filled it. I have a problem with that. It became
such a problem for the region that the region sent a letter
saying, please fill this vacancy. I would note that Mr. Ridge
is prescribing remedies for regions across the country now,
indicating that this is a headquarters problem, remedies like
purchasing together on a multi-jurisdictional basis and having
agreement to do so.
Initially after September 11, anyone can understand the do
something mentality, spend some money, do something, show
something but we were supposed to avoid that with coordination.
The GAO report raises some considerable difficulties about that
coordination. We have to get to the bottom of that,
particularly since the Secretary himself in testifying before
the Homeland Security Committee when I asked him about
coordination in the regions that do not have a coordinator has
been quick to say that we are pleased with what we see in the
National Capital Region and we want to model that over the
country. So for me, the question will be, is there a model here
to send to the rest of the country.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me thank you for holding another in a series of
hearings on the very important issue of security in the
National Capital area. I have pleased we have Mr. Schrader,
director of Maryland's Homeland Security Office here. I am also
especially pleased that the administration has now filled the
position of the Director for the National Capital Region
Coordination Office. Welcome, Mr. Lockwood, and welcome from
the State of Maryland where you were also very involved and
thank you for your leadership there. I do think we lost
valuable time in the 5-month interlude between Mr. Michael
Byrne's resignation and your taking over in this position. I
hope we can catch up for time lost.
I think as a Nation when you do approach this issue with
two things in mind, one, we need to focus our resources on
those areas in this country that are most at risk. Of course
the National Capital area is among the top targets in that
regard. Second, within those areas, we need to make sure that
our resources are spent wisely and that they are well
coordinated. The GAO report that we are going to be hearing
more about today raises some very serious questions about
whether or not we have done an adequate job of that in the many
months since the creation of the office of the coordinator and
focusing on these issues. I look forward to that report and
thank them for looking into this because I think if we want to
maintain the confidence of people in this region and around the
country in our efforts, we have to show that these funds, first
of all, are going to areas of greatest need and second, within
those areas, the funds are being well spent.
I thank all of you for being here and, Mr. Chairman, thank
you again for holding the hearing.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Any other opening statements? We will just go straight
down, Ms. Watson and Mr. Ruppersberger.
Ms. Watson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing.
I have just a comment and then a few references to the GAO
report.
My comment is this, that we are embarking in a direction
that is absolutely new to us as a result of September 11, the
Homeland Security Department was formulated in a rush and I do
understand what it takes to put together a program that really
secures us, that will create a filling of security among
Americans and be a model. It is going to be difficult to do in
a hurry, so I just want to say, we shouldn't rush through it,
we should think through it.
When the GAO reported that the Department did not give
enough feedback on preparedness plans and the jurisdictions
have little idea what they should be doing better, I think is a
very cogent point. We need to give direction and we need to
think through that direction. When they reported there were no
central source tracking, antiterrorism grants of the amount in
this capital region and that there was a lack of supporting
documentation that indicates a lack of financial controls.
Absolutely.
So I am hoping that our panelists will suggest ways in
which we can direct activities to help the region to develop a
model. When there is an absence of clear Federal guidelines,
local and State leaders use some of the funds to plug up their
budget gaps. This is not new. When the money is out there, we
are going to use it for the priorities that we have had
traditionally.
I am hoping that those of you can help give the guidance
and direction that is needed as this area goes about
formulating their preparedness plans.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Mr. Chairman, thank you and the ranking
member for returning to this very important topic.
Certainly all Members of Congress have a personal stake in
keeping our Nation's Capital Region safe for those who live,
work and visit. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize
that this city and even Capital Hill are prime targets for
terrorists but like you, Mr. Chairman, I am a former county
executive and come from one of the States represented in this
region, so this remains a vital topic to me and my
constituents.
I have not read the GAO report being released today but I
can only go by what I have read in the papers this morning and
what I have read disturbs me. It states that intergovernmental
coordination is critical to any successful plan and we can all
appreciate the complexities involved. Those complexities are
three levels of government, various funding streams, funding
shortages, jurisdictional issues, private sector involvement,
outreach to citizens and those who work in the city, planning,
training, information sharing and implementation, complex
problems being worked on by some very dedicated individuals but
still almost 3 years after the attacks of September 11, GAO
finds that this critical coordination is lacking and that is
disturbing.
An effort such as the National Capital Region Domestic
Preparedness Plan needs more than State and local government
coordination, it requires leadership from the top down and I
believe the Department of Homeland Security must play a
consistent role here. I am pleased to see Tom Lockwood with us
today and congratulate him on his new role at DHS. I know how
hard Tom worked with Dennis Schrader in the Maryland Office of
Homeland Security. I know he brings a wealth of capability to
DHS. Good luck. I urge Secretary Ridge and the other leaders at
DHS to support Tom Lockwood in his efforts so that he can
provide the much needed direction to move this coordination
forward.
Of course keeping our homeland safe comes with a hefty
price tag. As this region sets its priorities for protection
including the necessary personnel, training, equipment and so
on to tackle the many problems that remain as interoperability,
I would hope that DHS and the Federal Government will provide
the necessary resources to make the NCR plan successful. Local
leaders are crying out for funding. The States are doing the
best they can with competing priorities. I think we need to
find a way to get this money directly to those who need it the
most. There is much we can do in Congress to make efforts like
this all across the country more successful. We can finally
pass legislation to create national standards for homeland
security so we know what we mean by being prepared and make
sure we spend our money wisely. We can also look at viable
risks and set priorities based on credible threats and we can
continue to provide this critical oversight.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.008
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Schrock.
Mr. Schrock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me first begin by thanking the witnesses for being here
today and giving us our testimony, and for their efforts in
addressing an issue which impacts all of us greatly here in the
Nation's Capital and beyond.
In the aftermath of the tragedies of September 11, many
lessons were learned and many vulnerabilities were realized.
Given that the National Capital Region was clearly a desired
target of our enemies, it was the recipient of well over $300
million through a number of grants. These funds were to be
utilized by all of our areas first responders, whether Federal,
State or local in a coordinated effort of planning,
preparation, training and execution of appropriate responses to
whatever the circumstances dictate in terms of an attack or an
incident in the D.C. area. Additionally, similar grants have
also been issued nationwide to heavily populated regions for
the same purpose as applies to their respective areas.
We, in Congress are the keepers of the funds and we are
responsible to the taxpayer to ensure they are spent wisely and
in the interest of homeland security and the American taxpayer.
Further, the NCR is at the helm of this issue and the example
we set locally should provide value to the other areas
throughout America. Our lives, our security and very
realistically our futures depend on it.
I look forward to hearing the testimony today and learning
of the progress those changes have had in implementing these
efforts that have been made.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for arranging this very important
hearing. I look forward to a healthy exchange of questions and
answers following this testimony.
I don't live in the District but I live in the Hampton
Roads area where we have one of the largest ports in America
and the largest concentration of military anywhere in the
world. So what is said here today, I am going to listen to
carefully because the impact here is going to have the same
impact in our area. Every time I go home, which are the
happiest days when I go home, every time I pass through the
Hampton Roads bridge tunnel underneath that tunnel, I think,
``who is under there and what are they getting ready to do.'' I
worry about that every single time. Hopefully we can learn
something here today that maybe will prevent something like
that.
I thank you all, especially those in uniform. I wore the
uniform in the Navy for 24 years, so I naturally hone in on
anybody wearing a uniform. I thank you for what you do and for
what you are trying to do to help solve this problem and
eradicate terror from the face of the Earth. Thank you and I
look forward to your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Edward L. Schrock follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.009
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran of Virginia. Thank you, Chairman Davis.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thanks for joining us today.
Mr. Moran of Virginia. I wanted to participate in this
important hearing on the emergency preparedness of our region
because it directly affects the lives of our constituents, our
districts and the Nation's Capital.
The response to the terrorist attack on the Pentagon on
September 11 demonstrated the heroism and the professionalism
of the emergency responders in Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax
County, surrounding localities and our Federal emergency
responders. I am particularly proud of the Arlington County
fire departments' emergency response to the Pentagon. The
Federal Commission that investigated the terrorist attacks
issued a report which characterized Arlington's response as a
success, overcoming all the inherent complications that arise
when so many Federal, State and local jurisdictions are
involved. Our Fire Chief sees that I am wearing Arlington's
official tie to underscore that.
Unfortunately, the largest lessons of September 11 made
clear that this region was not adequately prepared to respond
to that disaster and regional coordination was virtually
nonexistent. It was a good thing that an office of the National
Capital Region was established within the Department of
Homeland Security to address the unique challenges to emergency
response that our Nation's Capital is bound to face. Yet, the
General Accounting Office will attest today that nearly 3 years
after the terrorist attacks of September 11 and after receiving
a huge influx of money to secure the region and make it better
prepared, the Washington area still lacks a coordinated plan to
deal with emergencies and is unable to explain where critical
security gaps remain and why most of the money that has been
made available so far has in fact yet to be spent.
Not only am I concerned with the lack of coordination among
the various localities, I have been discouraged by the lack of
transparency and information sharing of the decisions being
made by the Office of the National Capital Region with the
members who represent it. On September 11, 2003, the 2-year
anniversary of the attack, I suspect a number of my colleagues
may have written similar letters, I wrote a letter to Secretary
Ridge. The letter said, ``I continue, however, to hear concerns
raised by first responders, health department officials and law
enforcement officers as they prepare for possible
contingencies. I think a checklist with benchmarks might be a
very useful approach to measure and determine this region's
reliable functioning capabilities, those this region has and
those it lacks. The area congressional delegation will do all
that it can to provide the necessary resources.'' At least as
of today, we have yet to receive any response to this letter or
to that proposal. That was more than a year ago. That, I think,
gets to the heart of today's hearing.
Mr. Lockwood, I don't mean for you to be the one in the hot
seat. I understand you came very highly recommended and not
just by Congressman Ruppersberger and by Governor Erlich and I
know you were just newly appointed to your position, but it
took 5 months to have the vacancy left by Michael Byrne, your
predecessor, to be filled after he went off to Microsoft.
Mr. Chairman, I do commend you for holding this hearing and
I know you are determined to lead the effort to improve and
enhance coordination among the region's jurisdictions and I
appreciate that apparently, at least in the case of the
Nation's Capital, financial resources are not as much of a
problem as is the management of those resources. Again, I
appreciate your leadership in having this hearing, Mr.
Chairman. You are right on top of it in a timely manner given
the front page article in the Washington Post. Again, this is
going to be a very productive hearing and I appreciate the
opportunity to participate.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. James P. Moran follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.014
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you, Jim.
Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.
I want to thank you for holding this hearing.
In the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress created the
Office for National Capital Region Coordination within the
Department of Homeland Security in order to ensure that
activities between the regional governments and the Federal
Government were coordinated. By providing millions of dollars
in grant funding, the Federal Government is attempting to
assist regional jurisdictions in preparation for combating
terrorism and responding to emergencies. All of the 50 States
and the U.S. territories are eligible for this funding.
As a result of this committee's two previous hearings, the
U.S. General Accounting Office has requested to examine the
budget and spending plans for the National Capital Region in
order to ensure that it is sufficiently funded and that the
fund distributed are used appropriately to address emergency
preparedness. The GAO report entitled, ``U.S. General
Accounting Office, Homeland Security Management of First
Responders,'' has identified three challenges in coordinating
the homeland security funds provided to the jurisdictions in
the National Capital Region. First, there are no current
standards for determining existing first responder capacity.
Second, there is no existing plan for establishing these
standards. Third, ONCRC has not obtained complete information
on the amount of DHS grant funds available to each jurisdiction
within the NCR. These deficiencies make it difficult to develop
adequate plans for addressing outstanding needs within the
region and to determine if DHS funding is being spent
effectively and efficiently.
More than ever with our Nation's increasing budget deficit
and the constant threat of organized terrorist activity, it is
important that we ascertain that the Federal dollars spend to
make the NCR safe are used effectively and efficiently. I have
often said, Mr. Chairman, that one thing it seems that
Democrats and Republicans agree upon is that the taxpayers'
money must be, must be, must be used effectively and
efficiently and there are processes put in place that ensure a
well prepared region in the event of an emergency.
So I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses and
hope this hearing will help us to better assess our progress in
preparing the National Capital Region to deal with potential
threats to determine what our needs are for better coordination
and planning and evaluate emergency preparedness funding for
our Nation's Capital.
I am very pleased to see with us, Maryland's Director of
Homeland Security, Dennis Schrader. I am very pleased to have
you with us and all of our witnesses, we thank you.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
We will now move to our first panel of witnesses consisting
of Thomas Lockwood, the new Director of the Office of National
Capital Region Coordination, Department of Homeland Security;
William Jenkins, Director, Homeland Security and Justice
Issues, General Accounting Office; the Honorable George
Foresman, assistant to the Governor for commonwealth
preparedness, Commonwealth of Virginia; Dennis Schrader,
director, Office of Homeland Security, State of Maryland, who
will not provide testimony but is available for questions; and
finally, Ms. Barbara Childs-Pair, director, D.C. Emergency
Management Agency, accompanied by Mr. Robert Bobb, city
administrator, interim Deputy Mayor for public safety and
justice; Mr. Steven Crowell, acting administrator, State
Homeland Security; and Ms. LeAnn Turner, director, Homeland
Security Grants Administration.
Let me thank all of you for taking time from your very busy
schedules to be with us today, share your testimony and answer
some questions. Our committee swears all witnesses before
testifying.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
We have some lights here on the front table. They will turn
green when I recognize you, they will stay green for 4 minutes
and turn orange for 1 minute and when that red button comes on,
we would like you to move to sum up. Your entire written
testimony is in the record and questions will be based on the
entire testimony but the 5-minutes gives you time to emphasize
it.
Mr. Lockwood, we will start with you and move down. Again,
welcome. You are no stranger to this. We are happy to see you
on board and thank you for being here.
STATEMENTS OF THOMAS LOCKWOOD, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NATIONAL
CAPITAL REGION COORDINATION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;
WILLIAM JENKINS, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE
ISSUES, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; GEORGE FORESMAN, ASSISTANT
TO THE GOVERNOR FOR COMMONWEALTH PREPAREDNESS, COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA; DENNIS SCHRADER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, STATE OF MARYLAND; AND BARBARA CHILDS-PAIR, DIRECTOR,
D.C. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Mr. Lockwood. Thank you. I am honored to be here.
I would like to summarize my statement and ask the full
statement be included in the record.
I am Tom Lockwood, the new Director for the National
Capital Region Office of Coordination. I am honored to be here
today.
I want to thank Congress for having the wisdom of having an
office like the National Capital Region which focuses on a
critical region in the United States. Some of the key roles of
this office, which have been summarized by both sides, is the
coordination of activities within the Department of Homeland
Security relating to the National Capital Region, be an
advocate for the region, to provide information to the region,
to start working with State, local, not for profit and regional
organizations for an integrated, cohesive plan for emergency
preparedness. This is a very complex region. There are multiple
jurisdictions, there are multiple levels of government and
divisions within government. It is a challenge but it is
doable.
In the spirit of cooperation, this office is actively
working with the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland,
and the Commonwealth of Virginia and through the senior
leadership we have formed a group, the Senior Policy Group,
which have been working at unprecedented levels of cooperation.
This office has been actively coordinating across Federal
agencies. A key mechanism has been the Joint Federal Committee
whose members are drawn from multiple Federal agencies across
the Federal Government. Specific examples of the efforts being
worked on right now are issues such as protective measures
across the National Capital Region; standard protective
measures across the National Capital Region, standard
protective measures; credentialling, working through protocols
and sharing information; and again, not only is the Federal
Government working between itself but these will be integrated
with local and State government authorities.
One of the key roles we have to improve, is we need to
integrate and synchronize some of the investments we have
talked about thus far. Working through the Senior Leadership
Group, the Senior Policy Group [SPG], working with the county
administrative officers, working with the Emergency
Preparedness Council, it has been quite an opportunity to bring
in different views at different levels, many voices, same
message of participation.
It is critical that we have an integrated strategy, that it
is a strategy that is based with local government and State
government working together within the region with an office
like this office coordinating between the levels and with
Federal Government. This coordination provides the foundation
for the emergency preparedness for the region, the process has
been much more formalized in the last several months where
there is active commitment from local government within the
prioritization of the resource allocation. That has been
accepted by the region and we have been actively working
through that process.
The region will be coordinating over the next several
months to build an integrated plan, Federal, State and local
and we are actively committed to that. The region is taking
great strides to develop our plans and our protocols; we have
been working quite actively with the emergency response
community.
In closing, the NCR provides a unique challenge to protect
our citizens, our guests, our institutions. We have worked and
developed a solid foundation that is built with a relationship
between Federal, State and local governments, the nonprofits,
the regional authorities, and the general public. We are
committed to continue that relationship on this integrated
approach.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lockwood follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.019
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Jenkins, thank you for your work on this.
Mr. Jenkins. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today
to discuss our report for this committee on ``Federal First
Responders Grants and Capacity Building in the National Capital
Region.'' Our report discusses issues within the NCR associated
with managing first responder grants, assessing gaps in first
responder capacities and preparedness and the evolving role of
the Office for National Capital Region Coordination and the
very difficult task of coordinating and assessing efforts to
enhance first responder capacity across the NCR.
When DHS was created in 2002, Congress created the NCR
Coordination Office within the Department of Homeland Security
to coordinate Federal programs for and relationships with
Federal, State, local, regional and private sector agencies and
entities in the region, to ensure adequate planning,
information sharing, training and the execution of domestic
preparedness activities among these agencies and entities.
The office's responsibilities include preparing an annual
report to Congress that one, identifies required resources;
two, assesses progress in implementing homeland security
efforts in the region; and three, includes recommendations to
Congress on any needed additional resources to fully implement
homeland security efforts.
In our work, we focused on 16 Federal grants that provided
us $340 million to NCR jurisdictions for emergency response and
planning for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Of this total, the NCR
Coordination Office targeted all of the $60.5 million 2003
urban area security initiative funds for projects designed to
benefit the region as a whole. Spending for the remaining
$279.5 million for 15 grants was determined primarily by local
jurisdictions to whom in some instances the grants were
directly rewarded. The largest of these grants, the $230
million, 2002 Department of Defense Emergency Supplemental, was
distributed before the NCR Coordination Office came into
existence and it was targeted primarily for equipment.
Effectively managing first responder grants funds requires
identifying threats and managing risks, aligning resources to
address them and measuring progress in preparing for those
threats and risks. The NCR Coordination Office and NCR
jurisdictions face at least three interrelated challenges in
managing Federal funds to maximize results, minimize efficiency
and unintended and unnecessary duplication of effort. They need
preparedness standards for first responders in the region and
benchmarks such as best practices, a coordinated regionwide
plan for establishing first responder performance goals, needs
and priorities and assessing the benefits of expenditures and
last, a readily available, reliable source of data on the
Federal grant funds available to NCR first responders and the
budget plans and criteria used to determine spending priorities
and track expenditures compared to those priorities.
Without the standards, a regionwide plan and needed data,
it is extremely difficult to determine whether the NCR has the
ability to respond to threats and emergencies with well
planned, well coordinated and effective efforts that involve a
variety of first responder disciplines from NCR jurisdictions.
Regarding data collection, the recent report of the DHS
Homeland Security Advisory Council has recommended that DHS, in
coordination with State, local and tribal governments, develop
an automated grant tracking system that would allow for real
time tracking of the distribution and use of homeland security
funds. We recognize that the NCR Coordination Office came into
existence about 15 months ago and some startup time has been
required to organize itself and establish processes and
procedures for fulfilling its statutory responsibilities.
To date, the NCR Coordination Office has focused on
developing a regionwide plan for use of the urban area security
grant moneys. We recognize that the office had limited
opportunity to coordinate spending from the remaining 15
grants. However, the NCR Coordination Office needs data on how
moneys from these remaining 15 grants were spent and with what
effect to develop a baseline of current first responder
capacities in the region that can be used to compare what is to
what should be and coordinate and monitor efforts to transition
to what should be.
We have recommended that the NCR Coordination Office work
with NCR jurisdictions to develop a coordinated strategic plan
for building and maintaining first responder capacity and
monitor progress in implementing that plan. In their comments
on our report, DHS noted that a government structure has now
been established that should provide essential coordination in
the region.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or members of the committee
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jenkins follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.032
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Foresman, thank you for being with us.
Mr. Foresman. Thank you and thank you to the committee for
having us.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today to talk about
the important issues surrounding preparedness in the National
Capital Region.
Let me begin by acknowledging that the region is indeed
better prepared today than it was on September 11, 2001. I
point to the exceptional levels of cooperation among all levels
of government with the private sector and communications with
our citizens during the past 30 days with the dedication of the
World War II Memorial as well as the State funeral for former
President Reagan.
I also want to personally thank the staff from the U.S.
General Accounting Office who just recently completed their
review. They were diligent in their efforts to obtain a level
of understanding of funding practices in a region that all of
us agree is very complex in part because of the large presence
of critical national government functions. Their task was made
more challenging by the rapidly evolving nature of homeland
security as well as related funding activities.
There are those who say that developing our homeland
security capabilities locally at the State level and nationally
is like trying to build a plane that is taking off. I expect
for the GAO the same is true in terms of their ability to
evaluate practices, processes and goals when the one constant
is change.
Since the tragic attacks of September 11, 2001, the NCR has
been allocated nearly $400 million in Federal funding. The
funding has come in a variety of ways, direct earmarks through
Federal grant programs and collaterally where we were the
direct beneficiaries of Federal agency preparedness
initiatives.
The benefit has come in the context of the whole. The sum
capabilities of the local, District, State and private sector
readiness has improved across the entirety of the NCR. Having
talked about those benefits, it does not imply that every fire
or law enforcement, emergency management, public health or a
host of other local, State, District and private sector
activities with critical responsibilities has been a direct
beneficiary.
The simple fact is that there will never be sufficient
financial resources to address the full range of potential
needs of each community, discipline or organization.
Consequently, much of our effort and the collaborative effort
between local government, State government, regional partners
and the private sector during the past 2\1/2\ years has been
dedicated to addressing the higher priority needs and
establishing prevention and preparedness focus that is right
size against a full range of other legitimate competing
priorities.
It represents a very disciplined approach on the part of
the National Capital Region. This focus has required that we
collectively undertake three key activities in the context of
the National Capital Region. The goal from the beginning of
local, State and Federal personnel has been to better
coordinate and facilitate the integration of effort and not to
create duplicative and competing organizational structures. The
Office of National Capital Region Coordination was in fact
established by the Congress in 2002 but the Department of
Homeland Security and the Office of National Capital Region
Coordination were not effectively stood up until early 2003. I
would offer that local, State and Federal officials in the
intervening time from September 11 and prior to that were
effectively working together on a host of issues. We should not
imply that there was no coordination prior to September 11 and
it has dramatically increased in the intervening timeframe,
especially even in advance of the creation of the Office of
National Capital Region Coordination.
While we have been working during the past 2\1/2\ years
with the stakeholder groups to gain a better understanding of
efforts underway to identify needs to manage risk and to craft
a solid approach of governance that improves our ability to
manage the effort over the longer term, we have been doing this
while concurrently moving forward on a host of critical
preparedness and prevention initiatives identified by the
Congress, State government, local government, the private
sector and our citizens immediately after September 11. In
short, we have been working hard to address many critical
issues while at the same time putting in place the solid
planning requirements needed to ensure sustainable, practical
expenditure of funds over the longer term.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we remain steadfast
in the commitment to find the right balance between speed and
diligence in terms of moving forward with our efforts in the
National Capital Region. We are very quickly putting into place
the synchronized efforts that must survey beyond short term
accomplishment. We are in various stages of addressing many of
the readily identifiable issues, improve preparedness across
the entire NCR. Public and private sector will require more
than addressing these readily identifiable issues. It is a
longer term effort. It does require the sustained planning
activities currently ongoing and have produced a number of
notable accomplishments including the fact that the Senior
Policy Group and our chief administrative officials are meeting
literally monthly to discuss these issues in the National
Capital Region.
The one thing I would offer, Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Jenkins
made reference to the task force report that was produced for
the Homeland Security Advisory Council. There are a number of
solid recommendations in that report that mirror some of the
issues we have in the National Capital Region. The one thing I
would offer is I don't think anyone recognized on the front end
what a monumental task this was going to be. Having said that,
the one thing I do encourage this committee to do and you all
as Members to do is to give careful consideration to suspension
of the Cash Management Act guidelines for the 2005 grant cycle.
That will allow us to get badly needed cash into local
communities so that they can expedite many of the preparedness
functions that are caught in the conundrum between the
unavailability of cash and the need to go through procurement
processes.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you all for
the opportunity to appear today. Thank you for what you all are
doing for the National Capital Region, the oversight and
attention helps all of us do better.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Foresman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.072
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Ms. Childs-Pair.
Ms. Childs-Pair. Good morning.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today.
On behalf of Mayor Anthony Williams, I am here today to
provide information to the committee on emergency preparedness
in the National Capital Region.
At this time, I would like to introduce Mr. Robert Bobb,
city administrator for the District of Columbia and the interim
Deputy Mayor for public safety and justice. The
responsibilities of the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and
Justice include supporting Mayor Williams in the continued
guidance and development of homeland security strategy for the
District of Columbia; working in partnership with senior
Federal, State and local officials within the National Capital
Region to guide regional planning and implement regional
policy, oversight of spending related to special appropriations
and Federal grants, supporting homeland security and the
direction of emergency preparedness activities for the District
of Columbia.
In order to provide more effective and cohesive oversight,
the Federal Department of Homeland Security now requires that
homeland security grants being awarded to States be funneled
through a single State administrative agent. The Mayor of the
District of Columbia has appointed the Deputy Mayor as the
homeland security point of contact through which all grant
moneys must be administered. Over the past 3 years, the Deputy
Mayor's office has developed an innovative administrative
structure and grant management process that strengthens and
supports security preparedness in the Nation's Capital.
The following strategic priorities guided the Deputy
Mayor's administration of the grant funds that came to the
city, approved the District and region administration of grant
funding for disaster response and recovery ability by
developing and maintaining an understanding of integrated
operational capability, developed in coordination with our
Federal partners, volunteer organizations, universities and the
private sector, assist all levels of the District and regional
government first responders, volunteer groups, universities and
the public in meeting the responsibility of public emergency
and challenges through program management and coordination
activities.
This will allow for a methodology for strategic planning
and a justification for resource allotment, provide critical
information to Congress, the public, the media and the
emergency management community by maintaining strict spending
and activity records and by building partnerships with and
among Federal and regional entities, District agencies, other
responder organizations and the private sector.
Shortly after September 11, Congress appropriated funds for
emergency preparedness and homeland security, including
$155,900,000 to various agencies of the District of Columbia
for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. A special appropriations also
was delineated among 12 Federal payment categories across 13
agencies, including the District's Emergency Management Agency,
Fire and Emergency Medical Service Department and the
Metropolitan Police Department.
Our goals and priorities included the following: ensure the
District of Columbia is prepared to respond to and recover from
emergencies and incidents of all kinds, including natural
disasters, manmade disasters and terrorist attacks; ensure that
law enforcement organizations are working together to prevent
terrorist attacks to the greatest extent possible; maintain an
appropriate balance between security considerations and
openness; empower citizens to be prepared for any emergency or
disaster; and engage non-governmental, private sector and
community organizations as full partners in the District's
homeland security emergency preparedness programs.
Our priorities included: outfitting and training our first
responders with the proper equipment and tools they need to
fulfill their responsibilities effectively and safely; train
key personnel in our District response plans for all hazards;
conduct and participate in tabletop and field exercises; meet
or exceed emergency management accreditation program standards
for emergency, disaster management, and business continuity
planning; become the first city in the Nation to be accredited;
and to develop interoperability among the key Federal, State
and District agencies in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan
Region for large scale incidents. Additionally, as approved by
Congress, in Public Law 107-206, 2002 Supplemental
Appropriations Act for further recovery from and response to
terrorist attacks on the United States, 1 percent of the funds
were separated into a fund for administrative costs.
In summary, I would like to add the following. While we
have our tracking tools, we are spending the money as available
and expediting as we can but since September 11, the District
has not faced many challenges in obtaining Federal funding for
emergency preparedness based on the allocation of the $156
million in appropriations. Even though the District has not
faced challenges in obtaining funding, we are concerned with
maintaining the levels of readiness in the future if the grant
levels are decreased. The upkeep and renewal of equipment,
revision of plans based on new threats and policies and
training of personnel within the regions have a significant
financial impact if to the localities without future grant
funding.
Challenges associated with receiving funds include
personnel to support new equipment, maintenance
responsibilities and associated training. An additional
challenge is the Federal funds require many agencies to use
approved training courses. Training must be done through
federally approved programs but the training courses that we
offer do not fulfill the District's training needs regarding
preparedness and response. The Washington, DC, metropolitan
area is subject to many potential hazards, both natural and
manmade as well as major special events which are specific to
the National Capital Region. Protests against the war in Iraq,
the World War II Memorial dedication and the funeral of Ronald
Reagan are recent examples of events that affected the city.
The District's support for all of these events has been
improved because of the planning, communications, training
exercises made possible with the Federal funds and the support
from the Office of the National Capital Region Coordination and
NCRC has created a forum for all entities to engage and
communicate effectively through meetings and conference calls
that have allowed these events to occur in a safe and
responsible manner.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify here today and
for your continued support.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Childs-Pair follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.046
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you all very much. I will start
the questioning.
Mr. Lockwood, Department of Homeland Security left this
position open for several months. Much of what we have talked
about today is the setting of priorities, placing available
resources against those priorities. No one can be successful in
this job if they don't have enough visibility and resources
within DHS to fulfill that mission. The fact that they left
this open so long and so on, do you think you have needed clout
there or do you think we need to write some law? What do you
think? For you to be successful, you have to be able to have
clout within the agency. The fact they left this open for so
long, I think leaves a lot of us in doubt in terms of what is
the commitment of the administration.
Mr. Lockwood. I would like to think they left it open so
long that they could pick the good person for this job. Let me
just say, Secretary Ridge is very much interested in the
National Capital Region. He works here, he is here, his senior
staff is here. This is something very important to DHS. I have
talked to Secretary Ridge on several occasions as well as the
senior staff. This is something everyone is very clear on what
this position is.
Coming back to where Michael Byrne was, I am standing on
the shoulders of the giants that come before me. Mike set an
atmosphere of cooperation and of coordination. This is a job
that you can't be successful at unless you work through and
with other people, through local government, through State
government, through the Federal Government.
Do I have the visibility in the organization? Absolutely.
Do I have the support? Right now with great team mates like we
have at the table here and behind us, absolutely.
Chairman Tom Davis. We want to hear from you if you don't
think you are getting it because I think this is critical for
the safety of the government and for the millions of residents
who live here, which leads me to my second question.
We had a disaster in March 2003 with the Tractor Man who
got sentenced to 6 years yesterday, which is I think a fitting
ending to the chaos that he caused in the region. This was
before Mr. Byrne appeared on the scene to coordinate this. This
is just my opinion. This was one of the most badly coordinated
efforts I have ever seen, one person driving a tractor holding
up the regional traffic for three separate rush hours. You talk
about peoples' safety, ambulances couldn't get through for
heart attack victims, if somebody was injured, police couldn't
get through. It was complete gridlock and that was all because
they were concerned about one guy driving a tractor and not
wanting to injure this person. It was a disaster.
If something like that occurs again, are you willing to
step in and weigh all the different considerations for the
safety of the public but also the traffic flow and the fact the
Government needs to continue operating, that one person
shouldn't be able to shut down the Federal Government for a day
and a half? That is a prejudiced question but I feel strongly
about that. So do a lot of my constituents.
Mr. Lockwood. Today is day 30 on the job. In day 30, we
have gone through the World War II planning event, we have gone
through the Reagan funeral, we have gone through a senior
leadership seminar. Will incidents occur in this city? They
occur every day. We have a great team behind us within local
government, within State government to manage those. We have
been actively working the protocols and the procedures to
better integrate, better form incident management and unified
command.
Is there work to be done? Absolutely, and that is part of
the plan working with local and State partners.
Chairman Tom Davis. And everything went well, I think, in a
general sense through the opening of the World War II Memorial
and the funeral but we have had numerous incidents since I have
been involved in politics where one person is on a bridge and
having a bad day and stops East Coast traffic for hours, where
we really haven't had a good response that looks at the good of
the overall region. It focuses on that person. We need a global
focus on this to understand what makes this city work,
understand there are tens of thousands if not hundreds of
thousands of people affected by one person.
As you take this job, we want you to keep that in mind.
Holding up the traffic for 6 hours and talking somebody off a
bridge is not necessarily successful, in my opinion. That is my
own opinion. It may be the minority opinion up here, I don't
know, but they finally shot the guy down with a beanbag, I
think in one incident and didn't charge him.
If we allow one person to do that, it just empowers the
next person. Nothing is going to happen to me, nothing is going
to happen to me. This is the seat of government, we have a
responsibility to keep it going and keep traffic moving. I just
think for the average person, that is what they are concerned
about. That is where they need to see coordination. Obviously
we all fear a major disaster and how we would respond to that
and that is important as well, but I think you are more likely
to have these traffic terrorists or something, having a bad day
and want to take it out on the region. I think they need to be
dealt with quickly and effectively. My question is, I guess,
are you prepared to do that?
Mr. Lockwood. Yes, sir, I am prepared. When we worked
together for the Reagan event, we had a series of
teleconferences, Federal, State and local, to make sure we were
well coordinated.
Chairman Tom Davis. I will just tell you if it doesn't work
out, just be thinking every minute that you are going to be up
here before the committee explaining why you are doing
everything. Monday morning is always a little different than
Sunday afternoon on the field.
Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am trying to figure out in a real sense how you figure
into unexpected disasters because that is the whole reason for
our preparedness. I want to take as an example another traffic
example. The chairman took the example that exasperated the
region. I want to take one that scared the you know what in
everybody and the Congress--thank you, sir--bejesus, I am told.
I am talking about the day we were all chased out of the
Capitol. I know we were chased out of the Rayburn and I have
come to think when you hear these bells go off, well, you know,
I will go because I am supposed to go but once again, they are
testing. It was when they began to talk on the loud speaker
that I said, well, I guess I am going and then we all start--
and they told us to run, not walk and we did what they said and
it turned out to be nothing. Let me tell you what we know and I
want to figure out where you fit into this because this is
really what we are interested in. We know you weren't the
controller, we are trying to figure out what role you play in
light of the unexpected.
First of all, it wasn't Kentucky's fault. It turns out to
have been the fault at our end because Kentucky apparently
alerted the FAA. Apparently within the time period he took off
at 3:45 p.m., and they didn't realize their error until 4:34
p.m. and that was, according to this report, 3 minutes after
the Capitol evacuation was ordered and that the aircraft was 11
miles or 3 minutes away.
Who should have been coordinating apparently was the
National Capital Regional Coordination Center, whatever that
is. The FAA air coordinator apparently did not notify this
center. I am on the Aviation Subcommittee and they are looking
at it. I am on Homeland Security and we are looking at it, so I
know kind of where those folks fit in and maybe you shouldn't
fit in but my question is, when something like that happens,
are you even in the loop? If so, what is your role and what do
you do, and what did you do on that day when that happened?
Mr. Lockwood. On that day after that happened, that evening
we went through the initial lessons learned to understand what
the events were.
Ms. Norton. You misunderstand my question. First, are you
in the loop? Did you know about it? Did you have any role to
play or is there no role? I am prepared to accept the notion
that if it is an airplane or something, maybe you have some
role or maybe no role but my question is, does the coordinator
for this region have any role when the highly unexpected
happens and no one knows--by the way, that was one of the days
of the Reagan funeral, I might add, when you were all supposed
to be on very special alert. My question is, what was your
role, when were you notified, and what did you do at that time,
not what was your debriefing role, what did you do at that
time?
Mr. Lockwood. During the events of the Reagan funeral,
there were various operations centers around the region that
were up and operating. One of the roles I had that day was
walking through each of the operations center to have an
understanding of how they work and how they interact with each
other. I was there through the discussion of what occurred.
Am I a part of the discussion? Yes, I was present as this
was unfolding. Yes, I was present at the debriefing and yes, I
have been present within the lessons learned and the
integration processes to not only understand the root cause of
the problem but to correct that root cause and other related
issues. I understand TSA is the lead for that effort right now.
Mr. Foresman. Ms. Norton, would you allow me to offer a
perspective as well?
Ms. Norton. Yes.
Mr. Foresman. First, I wouldn't note that the evacuation of
the Capitol was in fact a failure. The fact that the
notification process worked, that there was an unidentified
aircraft taken into account, that there were some problems on
the front end in terms of it.
Ms. Norton. The cops up here did what they were supposed to
do. We are quite aware of that.
Mr. Foresman. Absolutely, but I would point out, I think
what is important to understand for all of us is to recognize
there are existing structures and processes and the Office of
National Capital Region Coordination is designed to be a
facilitator of programmatic coordination activities on a day to
day basis but when operational events occur, those crisis
operational structures are there and are in place, they have
been there prior to the establishment of this office and it is
really about not creating new structures but making sure the
other ones work.
Tom serves a critical role in making sure that all of the
apparatus that are in that decisionmaking, operational
structure, if there is a problem to help deconflict it,
particularly on the Federal side and has been extremely
valuable both he and his predecessor and when Ken Maul was the
acting director.
The one thing I would offer is this is bigger than one
person in one office. Part of what we are doing is making sure
we work with our local officials, our State agencies and our
Federal agencies not to create new structures that people need
to learn about but to go through the existing structure.
I would just offer from a Virginia perspective, we don't
see Tom as being the belly button for an operational activity,
but if there is a problem, he is my first call.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up but that is
an important intervention and we fully understand he is not
operational. That is why my question was, is he in the loop and
let me tell you why that is my question. Precisely because he
has a view, or should have, a view of this region that nobody
else has precisely because of his coordination role, not that
he has an operational role, it is that among the people who
should be ``in the loop,'' he ought to be one of them because
he may know something. What in the world does the FAA know
about us in particular, what do they know about
interoperability, for example, here in particular? So if the
Coordinator has knowledge that others don't have, at least if
they need to know that, he should be in the loop so that he is
available to tell them what they don't know.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Schrock [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Norton.
Thank you all for being here. Your testimony is interesting
and I am really listening carefully to this. I guess I never
realized the Commonwealth of Virginia thought Mr. Lockwood was
a bellybutton but that is a new one for the books.
The chairman commented on ``Tractor Man'' here a year ago
March and the havoc he created and I just wonder at what point
do we put a stop to that stuff and 1 hour after Tractor Man II
comes along, we go in there and take him out. My military mind
tells me we have to do that because if you have 10 tractor mans
all around this area, you could literally paralyze this area
for days and days. My solution to that would have been to send
five members of a special operations force in there and you get
rid of the guy, get him out of there. We cannot allow this to
happen but the problem is, if they do that and the police shoot
him, it is police brutality. I am really getting kind of tired
of that. I think that is what we have police and law
enforcement officials for, to do that, and the media be damned
when it comes to that kind of stuff. We have to take stronger
action.
Of all the things that were said, Ms. Childs-Pair, one of
the last things you said was will funding continue to be there.
I worry about that too because as far as I am concerned, the
first responders not only in the Capital Region but around
America are doing a magnificent job working together. They are
in the Hampton Roads area I represent and when bad things don't
happen, Americans think, OK, we are safe again. We are real
impatient. We think 5 minutes after something is supposedly
corrected, we go on to the next issue and do we start cutting
funding.
I will use two examples. When everybody thought the world
was at peace, defense spending was cut. Nothing could have been
further from the truth. We had a lively debate on the floor
yesterday about intelligence spending. Everybody thought after
the cold war was over, we didn't need to put money into
intelligence and we cut it. Are we going to do the same thing
here? I don't think we can afford to do that and frankly, the
people who sit on this side of the room have to make sure that
never happens again. That was a very good question and I think
that is something we need to address.
I hate to say it but in the Hampton Roads area, gridlock is
starting to get real nasty down there as well, so I am watching
what happens up here to see what is going to hit us in about 5
years. We are all too familiar with gridlock on the roads even
in the best times during twice daily rush hours. In the event
of an attack, in which case we can add chaos and panic to the
evacuation equation, would any of you state we are any better
off today than we were on September 11 and if so, please
support that answer and if not, why not and what then do we
have to show for the money we have spent and how soon if we are
not getting results, can we expect results?
Mr. Foresman. I would like to start because I was here on
September 11. Actually, I was in Montana but got back here on
September 12. Yes, we are much better, we are phenomenally
better. I want to point to September 11. The men and women,
local, State, Federal, who responded to the Pentagon from all
across this region did their jobs with exceptional coordination
and diligence. In fact, it was a very effective response. The
perception we have across this region that it was an
ineffective response was because we did have gridlock and that
is a reality. We had well intentioned decisions made within the
Federal family for release of the Federal work force that were
not appropriately coordinated with State and local authorities.
Just 30 days ago, when we talked about the whole issue of
the Reagan funeral, when we talked abut the World War II
dedication and all those Federal decisionmakers were on the
phone with the State decisionmakers, and the local chief
administrative official saying do we open or close State
government, do we open or close the Federal Government, what
are we going to do with local government? So from that
standpoint if it were to happen today, I think we are
phenomenally better prepared.
Second, I would like to point out you talked about
``Tractor Man'' and I think that is a phenomenally great
example. There are two types of decisions. There are tactical
decisions and there are strategic decisions. In our public
safety community, we have great experience with making tactical
decisions. We have done it for years, you understand it with
your military background, but we have engaged in an error where
chief administrative officials, chief elected officials at the
local and State level have to make strategic decisions on top
of tactical decisions and balance the economic and societal
consequences of decisions about whether you do or don't go in
and subdue a suspect, and balance those against all of that.
Mr. Lockwood mentioned the fact that we did a senior
leaders exercise and the effort is designed to make sure that
at the tactical level, fire, EMS, law enforcement, and
emergency management can make those tactical decisions but at a
strategic level, those governance issues that the chief
appointed or chief elected officials at the various levels of
government are engaged in that process. I think we are doing a
phenomenally better job around the region.
The discussion we had last week was not about where do we
place the command post, it was about what is the societal
implication of closing or not closing government in the
aftermath of attack.
Mr. Schrock. George, the problem is the poor law
enforcement people are damned if they do and they can't win. If
they had gone in and taken out ``Tractor Man'' and 1 day, oh,
that is a horrible thing but look what he did. He was perfectly
harmless, we understand that, but at some point we have to say
enough is enough, we won't do that anymore and let the chips
fall where they may. I think the bulk of the American public
would respect that. The media can harp on the thing as much as
they want but at some point, we have to put a stop to this kind
of stuff because as I said, a dozen tractor mans in this area,
Virginia, Maryland and D.C. and we would be shut down
completely.
Mr. Foresman. Congressman, if I might briefly follow on to
that, I think that is a prime example where if a tactical
decision is made not to do something or to do something, then
we need to make sure at the strategic level, at chief executive
levels, that they concur or don't concur with it because it is
not only an operational decision, it is a political decision
when you are talking about national security.
Mr. Schrock. Thank you.
Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank all of you for your testimony.
I was just reviewing some of the testimony from the
previous hearing we had on this issue of defending the capital
region and I understand there has been a great spirit of team
work and desire and intention to collaborate. I think the
question the GAO report raises is a gap between good intentions
and implementation and follow through.
In that regard, Mr. Jenkins, I understand from your report
that you looked at the moneys that have been channeled toward
the Capital Region over the last 2 years. As I read your
conclusions, you say the Coordination Office, the Department of
Homeland Security has spent most of their efforts in
determining how to use the $60.5 million for the urban area
security initiative funds, is that right?
Mr. Jenkins. That is correct.
Mr. Van Hollen. I saw your breakdown of how those have been
spent. Have you had any opportunity to analyze the
effectiveness of the allocation of those moneys? Do you think
those moneys are being well spent for the purposes?
Mr. Jenkins. We didn't really have an opportunity. We got
some basic summary of what those moneys were for and why in the
form of a table. One of the things we wanted to get that we
didn't get that would have been helpful to us was the feedback
they gave to local jurisdictions about their plans because the
$65 million, decisions on that was based on analysis of the
plans that local governments sent to the Office of Domestic
Preparedness but we never saw what those assessments were, so
that made it very difficult for us to determine how this
process worked.
It certainly is true, and I think it is laudable that what
they tried to do was look at it on a regionwide basis and tried
to look at both private sector, public and State but we didn't
have the information to really assess whether this was a good
plan or a so-so plan.
Mr. Schrock. Did you ask for that information?
Mr. Jenkins. We did ask for that information.
Mr. Schrock. We can followup on that.
Mr. Van Hollen. Have you had any opportunity to analyze the
effectiveness of the allocation of those moneys? Do you think
those moneys are being well spent for the purposes?
Mr. Jenkins. We didn't really have an opportunity. We got
some basic summary of what those moneys were for and why they
were for in the form of a table. One of the things we wanted to
get that we didn't get that would have been helpful to us was
the feedback they gave to local jurisdictions about their plans
because the $65 million decision was based on an analysis of
the plans that local governments had sent to the Office of
Domestic Preparedness but we never saw what those assessments
were so that made it very difficult for us to determine how
this process worked.
It certainly is true and I think what they tried to do is
laudable in looking at it for a regionwide basis and tried to
look at both private sector, public and State but we didn't
have the information to really assess whether this was a good
plan or a so-so plan.
Mr. Van Hollen. Did you ask for that information?
Mr. Jenkins. We did ask for that information.
Mr. Van Hollen. We can followup on that later.
That $60.5 million, who has control of that money?
Mr. Jenkins. The District is actually the administrative
officer for that money, the District of Columbia, but actually
is money that has been appropriated to the region and it is the
senior policy group that has been determining how to do that.
They made a decision, Mike Byrne and the Senior Policy Group,
made a specific decision to use that money solely for purposes
that had regionwide benefit, not specific local jurisdiction
benefit.
Mr. Van Hollen. So for example, now Mr. Lockwood would have
direct influence over where those moneys were spent?
Mr. Jenkins. Right.
Mr. Van Hollen. Can they be released without your approval,
Mr. Lockwood?
Mr. Lockwood. Part of the structure that we have changed is
it is not just a State only process anymore. This is in
collaboration with the county administrative officers, with the
city administrative officer working through the CAOs. The CAOs
fundamentally define those things that need to be done. My role
is to make sure that we solicit, facilitate, coordinate between
the region for the resources. What we decided was it was more
efficient to commit all these resources to the region than to
break it up and divide it three ways. That doesn't enhance the
safety.
What we then said was, instead of breaking up the
management of this, the District of Columbia stood up and said
we are willing to take on this additional responsibility, not
necessarily for additional resources or additional glory
because they definitely take the burden of trying to do the
administrative execution of this money.
We are actively walking through the execution of these
dollars at this point. Roughly 37 percent of those dollars are
going for personal protective equipment. Those purchase
requests are now moving at this point.
Mr. Van Hollen. Can that money be released without your OK?
Mr. Lockwood. I believe it can be released without my OK. I
believe this is coordinated through the State administrative
agent.
Mr. Foresman. The way Congress designed the program, it
flows through the State administrative agent, in this case, the
District of Columbia, but it is really dependent on the
representatives, the Mayor and the two Governors and the chief
administrative officials to determine it but we seek to achieve
unanimous consensus on these decisions. We will not always
achieve unanimous consensus on these decisions. We will not
always achieve unanimous consensus but Tom is not the
bellybutton for turning the dollars on or off.
Mr. Van Hollen. All right. Let me get to the other part of
the question.
We talked about the $60.5 million, that leaves about $280
million according to the GAO report that has been allocated in
the last couple years. Your first recommendation is to work
with NCR jurisdictions to develop a coordinated strategic plan
to establish goals and priorities for enhancing first responder
capacities that can be used to guide the use of Federal
emergency preparedness funds which is what I thought was being
done.
I see my time is running out but if you could tell me, have
you seen a document that shows of those $280 million, where
they are being spent, where they are in the pipeline with
respect to all the jurisdictions because that would be very
helpful just to get at least a rough handle on where these
moneys are going and whether they are being coordinated. Have
you seen such a document and if you haven't, do you know
whether one is being prepared?
Mr. Jenkins. Let me put it this way, we never were able to
identify one. We put humpty dumpty together from a variety of
sources and it wasn't easy to get that information.
Mr. Van Hollen. At least going forward, it seems to me that
should be the job of Mr. Lockwood's office. GAO shouldn't be
having to pull this all together, it should be there. Would you
agree?
Mr. Lockwood. That is one of the initiatives of DHS in
general and will be executed in the region.
Mr. Hollen. We look forward to getting something like that.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Schrock. Ambassador Watson.
Ms. Watson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to dovetail on those questions that were
addressed to you previously. Is there an evaluation component?
Do you see a trial run of the coordination of emergency
services so that you could report back as to how effective they
were or what is needed? Is there anything like that being
developed?
Mr. Jenkins. Are you asking me?
Ms. Watson. Yes.
Mr. Jenkins. That is one of the principal purposes of the
exercises, to be able to test what you think you can do, what
your capabilities are, so in that sense they are useful. We
haven't seen any analysis of exercises.
Ms. Watson. Is that something you will require? How do we
know if what we have developed is really going to work if there
isn't some feedback to the coordinated effort. We can't require
anything.
Mr. Jenkins. Ask Mr. Foresman or Mr. Lockwood. We can
require nothing.
Mr. Foresman. Congresswoman, one of the things we are
required to do as a requirement of those grants is to conduct
exercises. One of the base things you do when you conduct the
exercise is evaluate the exercise. We have a regional exercise
scheduled that goes out I believe 12 or 18 months at this
point.
Ms. Watson. That is my question.
Mr. Foresman. We will be testing and exercising ourselves
on a regular basis. I would be happy to say that come the fall,
it would probably be good to come back here and tell you how
the exercises are going and we will have a spreadsheet for you
that shows you where all the dollars are in the pipeline.
Ms. Watson. That is what I am asking, that we do get some
feedback so we can monitor and can see where we need to make
recommendations for adequate funding so the system does work.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would hold another
hearing in the fall so that we could gather this information
and be on top of how effective and if we are supplying you with
enough resources.
Chairman Tom Davis [presiding]. I hope it is under those
circumstances and not other circumstances.
Ms. Watson. I do also.
Thank you.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran of Virginia. First of all, some basic questions I
want to ask Mr. Lockwood. It is my understanding that the
Office of the National Capital Region has yet to spend its
fiscal year 2003 grant money, has yet to obligate its fiscal
2004 money and has not even begun planning for how it intends
to allocate funds for fiscal year 2005 even though the House
has determined the amount of money that will be available for
2005, so basically 3 years in arrears in terms of expenditure
planning.
I would like to get a fuller explanation of why the hold up
and if we can get a timetable for the expenditure of that
money?
Mr. Lockwood. As we started this program of urban area
security initiative which the majority of the report focused
on, to develop a collaborative process, to get the region as a
whole to start defining what their priorities were for the
spending of that money did take some time. After we have come
to agreement with those, those task orders right now, those
contract orders are being placed through the District of
Columbia. So the money for fiscal year 2003 is being allocated
as we speak. That is being allocated to the plan that was
agreed to, prioritized by the region.
In the opening weeks of July, the county administrative
officer, the city administrative officer, and the SPG will be
getting together to talk about their fiscal year 2004 planning
efforts and overall strategic planning and priorities for the
area. Part of the feedback that I intend to provide that group
is some of the real life exercise experience that we have had
through the last two events as well as the senior leadership
seminar that we had last week so that they might better
prioritize investments for fiscal year 2004 and the
recommendations for fiscal year 2005.
Mr. Moran of Virginia. I don't think if you were up here
you would find that response satisfactory but I am not going to
take issue with you. It just seems to me that this is not a
perfunctory kind of process. We are talking about the
likelihood, according to Secretary Ridge, of a terrorist attack
occurring. The resources are there and it seems to me that we
ought to be putting things in place as fast as possible. There
needs to be a sense of urgency.
In your answer, and I am sure it is not intended, but
particularly in the results of what has happened over the last
3 years, there really doesn't seem to be a sense of urgency on
the part of DHS with regard to the National Capital Region
which we know is going to be target No. 1 in any attack. That
is my concern. I am not going to ask you to take another crack
in answering it but I think it is still a legitimate concern.
I would like to ask, what are the top five priorities for
the Office of the National Capital Region Coordination?
Mr. Lockwood. Some of the key priorities right now are
public awareness.
Mr. Moran of Virginia. So education and information?
Mr. Lockwood. Public education, public awareness campaign.
We are actively working to develop a campaign that we can
leverage the Federal resources, the content that is already
available. Communications, and one of the priorities we have
talked about is interoperability and interoperability within
the National Capital Region and integration of capabilities and
intelligence and information sharing. We have been actively
working with the JTTS and through the JTTS and the
antiterrorism task forces. So those are some near term
priorities we are working on.
Another key priority is to get the money out. Going back to
your concern with regard to putting a priority on moving the
money, one of the pieces we have been very concerned about is
getting this money released into the procurement to buy what we
need so we can field that. Additionally, we have exercises.
Those exercises are to confirm how we are going to use this
equipment when it is received, to make sure people can
adequately use this as well as provide feedback to future
investment priorities and recommendations.
Mr. Moran of Virginia. Let me ask one last question, if I
could. We have a potential situation that is a real threat to
our security in the National Capital Area and that is the rail
line that runs right through the capital, right by the
congressional office buildings and then across the river and
through very dense residential areas. We know that rail line
often carries very dangerous materials, large volumes of
chlorine gas, molten sulfur, hydrogen chloride and it runs
adjacent or within less than a mile of some of the most
critical installations and facilities. We had the NFL promotion
event on the Mall and yet the rail cars continued to run.
We haven't gotten a recommendation, nor do I see that there
has really been much thought given to rerouting it out of the
most critical, dangerous areas or having some limitation on
what those railcars can carry. I had a bill that I thought
might at least alert us to the potential threat. We sell these
.50 caliber sniper rifles legally, you can buy them over the
Internet and one of the things they advertise is that they will
penetrate the fuselage of a commercial jet aircraft or the side
of a rail car. I trust the advertising is accurate but it
wouldn't take much to perch along the banks of that rail line
and shoot through the hull of one of these freight cars
carrying chlorine gas or sulfur or whatever and hundreds of
thousands of people would be immediately affected, most of them
in a lethal manner. Have we given any thought to this? It seems
relevant to the homeland security priorities.
Mr. Lockwood. Yes, sir. With regard to passenger first and
then freight, we have been actively working on a prototype at
the New Carrollton Station with the Metro and there has been
active coordination with WMATA, both WMATA, Marc and VRE.
Mr. Moran of Virginia. It is not the passengers inside the
rail cars I am worried about, it is a terrorist outside
shooting through, puncturing the walls of a freight train that
might carry lethal materials.
Mr. Lockwood. Yes, sir. Moving from the passenger side to
the heavy rail side, to the hazardous materials side, there are
actions and activities within the Department of Homeland
Security. I know some of that has been briefed and the local
level back over to D.C. Council members with regard to
legislation they have had, I know there is a prototype in place
with regard to monitoring the rail corridor, a sensing network
that has been discussed for the rail corridor to provide
additional protective measures but I am not prepared to talk in
details at this time.
Ms. Childs-Pair. Mr. Moran, I can add to that. The D.C.
City Council in concert with the Mayor has been looking at that
and actually came up with legislation to try to reroute the
train system when they have the chlorine or to stop it
altogether, realizing that it is within the densely populated
areas. One of the things they made clear to us, and probably
what we need your help on, is that they could federally pre-
empt any law that we would put into legislation so that they
would make it null and void. That is one of the areas we have
been working on.
Mr. Moran of Virginia. I am glad the D.C. Council is
looking at it. It runs right under the Capitol, as you know,
the Capitol grounds. I don't want to give any ideas to
terrorists but when you think about some of the things that
could happen and we look back and think, my God, why didn't we
think of that. That seems to be one of those possibilities, one
of those threats.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I want to get to the issue of grants. We
are talking about giving resources and we have talked about a
lot of different issues today but bottom line, our local
governments need the money to be able to move forward.
I want to refer you to a situation that really happened in
the State of Maryland, the central part of Maryland and the
Eastern Shore where you have two jurisdictions attempting to
work regionally on an interoperability type program. I think
Mr. Schrader you are aware of that situation where the good
news was the grants were received, they were OK'ed, the
Department of Justice but then you have two different
requirements of instructions once the grants are given. One had
to do with the Cops Program and the other had to do with I
believe FEMA. So one program said that you had to do one thing
and one said you had to do another, so all of a sudden we are
promoting regionalism, we are trying to do the best we can to
pull it together and when we put forth a system or a plan, then
our Federal instructions, our grants have mixed messages. This
happened to be within the Department of Justice or whether it
could be within Homeland Security or together.
I would like you to comment, first, maybe Mr. Schrader and
then maybe Mr. Lockwood or anyone else on the panel, about what
you think we need to do because as Congress there are certain
things we can do, we can pass laws, at least we can try, and I
would think we have to fix the grant process so that it goes
directly.
As a former local elected official, I believe the money
needs to go directly to the locals. I am sure Mr. Schrader,
representing the State, you may disagree, but I have seen many
times where grants would come and if it came through the
Federal/State process have the money is gone before it even
gets to where it needs to be versus the Cops Program that goes
directly as long as you can justify it.
Could you please comment on what you would recommend we
need to do to fix this grant situation to get the resources and
the money, especially when you are dealing with regional
jurisdictions that don't have a lot of money to begin with.
Mr. Schrader. Yes, Congressman. It is a pleasure to be here
with you.
In this particular case, the State has been working
actively to coordinate these grants regionally in
collaboration. We met as recently as yesterday morning with the
city of Baltimore in working on this particular problem with
the Cops grant. This CMARC project is what it is called for
central Maryland. It does have the Cops Grant Program.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Why don't you explain what that is.
Mr. Schrader. There are two major grants that were issued
last year for about $5 million plus each, one on the Eastern
Shore of Maryland and the other in the Central Maryland region
focused on Baltimore and the surrounding counties. Both
projects are focused on using what are called, and I apologize
for the acronym, NIPSPACS channels. There are five channels
that can be used for communicating emergency messages. Those
two pilot projects are being developed.
The good news is that we have been coordinating both these
regions at the State level and recently through the Urban Area
Work Group, which is a group that has each of the executives
and central Maryland has appointed two people and working
through that group, they have been coordinating this particular
grant.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Let me get to the bottom line which is
because of the fact there were mixed messages and instructions
on the grants, we were not able to get the matching funds from
the different jurisdictions, correct?
Mr. Schrader. We are actually meeting with DOJ on July 7th.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I know our Baltimore delegation sent a
letter to Secretary Ridge to try to deal with it.
I want to ask this question and anybody can answer because
I don't have a lot of time. Based on the issue of the mixed
message with grants, different instructions, the problem we
have is we get the grant and then we don't know how to fulfill
it. What can the Federal Government and Congress do to help
States and regional groups so this flexibility is built in
through legislation?
Mr. Foresman. Three quick answers, Congressman. First, we
need to manage the expectations. The vast majority of Federal
grants are reimbursement programs. There is no such thing as
the money being missing when it gets down to them because it is
based on local or State government submitting to Federal
agencies requests for reimbursement. So we have to manage the
expectations and make sure all of us understand the vast
majority of Federal grants are reimbursement grants.
Second, we have to be careful to not look at 1 year's worth
of grant activity and go in and make major changes. My brother
is a fire chief in a small rural department in western
Virginia. I love him to death but his ability to adjust to
multiple grant programs is minimal sometimes and if we change
it every year, it causes him even more angst. The issue is we
have to stay the course in terms of the mechanics for the
grants processes but clearly the one thing this Congress could
do is to work to make sure the Federal agencies come up with a
standardized grants management process.
Mr. Ruppersberger. That is the answer I would hope I would
hear, to standardize. It seems to me you need to recommend to
us what those standards need to be. We have a lot of bills in
the hopper right now about standards but from your perspective,
from local moving up to Federal, we need to know that.
Mr. Foresman. Congressman, I would just echo that it is
going to require a disciplined approach on the part of Congress
that as people change they don't like changes. It is going to
require us to go through two or three grant cycles to see
whatever a disciplined approach is, whatever a standardized
approach is, whether it is going to work over the longer term.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Let me thank this panel. This has been very illuminating
for the Members. I will dismiss you with our deep thanks and we
will take a 2-minute recess before we call our next panel.
[Recess.]
Chairman Tom Davis. We have a great panel. We have Anthony
Griffin, county executive, Fairfax County, who I have had the
pleasure to work with for many, many years, about 20 years; we
have Mary Beth Michos, the fire chief for Prince William County
and the last year's Fire Chief Magazine career chief of the
year; James Schwartz, director of emergency management,
Arlington County and the new Fire Chief for the county
effective this coming Monday. Congratulations, I am a veteran
of the Cherrydale Fire House where I did my Cub scout meetings
as a kid. We have also have Dr. Jacqueline F. Brown, chief
administrative officer, Prince George's County. I want to thank
her for being here as well.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. We swear everyone here because we are
the major investigative committee in the Congress. That is just
what we do. Once we had the opportunity to have Wes Unseld, the
general manager of the Washington Bullets, now the Wizards, in
front of me and I got to ask him under oath if the Bullets
would have a winning season. He said, I can just promise you
exciting basketball. I think they won 13 games the next year.
We almost hauled him up here on perjury but we figured he was
giving his best effort.
Tony, we will start with you. Thank you very much for your
leadership in the region and for being with us today. I would
note for Mr. Schrock that Mr. Griffin when he leaves has to go
down to a regional meeting in Virginia Beach in your district,
so you don't want to keep him too long.
Mr. Schrock. If he has room, I will go with you.
STATEMENTS OF ANTHONY H. GRIFFIN, COUNTY EXECUTIVE, FAIRFAX
COUNTY; MARY BETH MICHOS, FIRE CHIEF, PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY;
JAMES SCHWARTZ, DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, ARLINGTON
COUNTY; AND JACQUELINE F. BROWN, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY
Mr. Griffin. Thank you, Chairman Davis, for the opportunity
to testify before the Committee on Government Reform on the
subject of grant management and coordination for emergency
management from the perspective of Fairfax County.
I am Anthony H. Griffin, county executive for Fairfax
County, an appointed position.
Grants for homeland security have been allocated to Fairfax
County in three ways: direct allocation by the Federal
Government; allocation through the State of Virginia; and
indirect allocation through funding to the National Capital
Region for enhancing the region's response to potential
terrorism.
The county has used the money to supplement its emergency
preparedness efforts to include strengthening emergency
planning programs, conducting training and exercises and
purchasing equipment directly related to emergency management
and response. The Fairfax County Office of Emergency
Management, a newly created agency, is the agency responsible
for managing homeland security grants. An interagency committee
assists OEM in identifying unmet needs and matching them to
grant funding opportunities.
The following is illustrative but not limited to in how
grants funds have been used. Equipment has been purchased for
an alternate emergency operations center located in the
county's government center to be operational by the beginning
of August of this year. A new fire department mobile command
post has been purchased, screening devices and security cameras
have been purchased, protective gear for first responders has
been or is in the process of being acquired. A fully
operational Citizens Corps program is being established with
several hundred citizens having completed community emergency
response team training. A data base has been established to
track and notify these volunteers.
A Medical Reserve Corps has been developed with 5,200
volunteers. In October of last year, the MRC participated in a
full scale dispensing site exercise at a local high school. A
new terrorism annex has been written for the county's emergency
operations plan. The annex is more detailed and outlines roles
and responsibilities for county agencies in the event of a
nuclear, chemical or biological event. In 2003, the county
conducted a tabletop exercise with a dirty bomb scenario with
more than 100 participants from a cross section of agencies and
volunteer groups.
The list of accomplishments is a beginning in the county's
efforts to be responsive in case there is a significant
terrorism event. Training and a shift in readiness is underway
but emergency preparedness will require sustained attention
over the next several years. The grant funding must continue if
these efforts of preparedness are to succeed. The Federal
Government should review the criteria for the expenditure of
grant funds because in some instances, the preparedness needs
of a community are not supported by current regulations. For
example, the county's largest expenditure by far is for a new
emergency operations center to include an emergency
communications center. The prohibition against bricks and
mortar makes this facility a major funding challenge for the
county.
Finally, while this is not a grant issue, one area of
emergency preparedness that needs continuous focus in the NCR
is the coordination and communication of Federal agencies with
State and local governments. Federal agencies need to be
continually encouraged to work with State and local governments
on the timely sharing of information and the integration of
Federal agency planning with State and local plans. The
implementation of the new National Response Plan and the
National Incident Management System is a good beginning but it
is only that.
In closing, significant progress has been made but
significant work on readiness remains and a partnership between
the three levels of government is necessary to enhance our
success. In particular, I want to thank the chairman for his
support of the county and its efforts to enhance security and
emergency response.
If I may, listening to the earlier testimony, wearing my
hat as chairman of the Chief Administrative Officers for the
Washington Metropolitan Area, I did want to note for the record
that of the $60 million that has been allocated in fiscal year
2003, those funds have been distributed and are in the pipeline
for the acquisition of appropriate training and equipment and
approximately 80 percent of the $29 million available, the 2004
money, has similarly been allocated. On July 7, the CAOs,
working with the senior policy group, will continue the
discussion about the remaining allocation of the 2004 money and
will begin discussion about our priorities in anticipation of
appropriations of 2005 money.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Griffin follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.048
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Tony, thank you very much.
Chief, thanks for being with us.
Ms. Michos. Thank you for this opportunity to testify
before your committee today. My name is Mary Beth Michos and I
am the chief of fire and rescue and also an assistant emergency
services coordinator in Prince William County, VA. I am here
today to provide testimony on Prince William County's
experience with emergency preparedness coordination, being part
of the National Capital Region with the emphasis on our grants
management and coordination.
We are a rapidly growing community and we are challenged on
a daily basis from this growth to provide our basic services of
police, fire and emergency medical services, but in addition to
this, now we are also being challenged by the emerging issue of
keeping our community safe in the event of terrorism. As you
know, this is very costly and we are very grateful that the
Congress has allocated homeland security funds for States and
local jurisdictions. We are also very grateful that you have
recognized our vulnerability here in the National Capital
Region and have provided us with the Office of National Capital
Regional Coordination.
Over the past 2\1/2\ years, Prince William County has been
fortunate in that we have received $5.3 million in Federal
funds for emergency preparedness. Right now we have staff
sequestered and they are working on finalizing a grant request
for another $905,000 which has to be submitted tomorrow.
The first $4.3 million for the county was a direct earmark
in a supplemental appropriation bill passed shortly after the
September 11 terrorist acts. These funds have been expended on
equipment and needed training to strengthen our ability to be
first responder in the event of weapons of mass destruction
incidents. Additional resources are being allocated to Prince
William County through the Urban Security Initiative
administered by the Department of Homeland Security.
Our Chief Administrative Officers have been very involved
in working with this and this has allowed for range of
emergency service functions within the region to collaborate to
identify regional solutions that are beyond the scope of what
we could do on an individual basis as a local jurisdiction.
We do appreciate all the resources that Congress has
provided to local governments and first responders. However, it
is important that you know that performing the processes to
assess our capabilities, identify our vulnerabilities, develop
plans and needs assessments for our homeland security
preparedness is both highly staff and time intensive. The
efforts to conduct this work in my department have taken over a
year and despite the intense work and high quality of the
strategies that resulted, we still find that when we get
information on grants that we have to complete, there is still
additional information that is wanted and often times the
timeframes are inadequate.
It may appear that the timetables the Federal and State
governments place on grant deadlines are sufficient for local
governments. However, by the time these grant processes go
through the Federal Government, come down through the State, we
generally only have a few weeks to do our work to submit the
grants. During these few weeks, we have a lot of coordination
with other agencies throughout our county government, agencies
funded both by State and local governments. In our case, we
have four incorporated towns we have to coordinate with,
volunteer agencies such as our volunteer fire and rescue
companies and then we have to assess our local ability to
manage the ongoing and operational and replacement costs of
what we are requesting in these grants because that money is
not available from the State or the Federal Government. Last,
we have to obtain authorization from our Board of County
Supervisors. While we have developed a priority list of needs
to guide us in developing our requests, the workload associated
with these requests has increased as our staff is required to
attend numerous planning and coordination meetings, locally,
regionally and within our State. To give you an example, in the
last 18 months my meeting schedule alone has more than doubled
and I am just one member of our department who attends these
meetings. I am just one agency head within the county
government attending these meetings.
Recognizing the increased workload and short turn around
times, in Prince William we have hired an emergency services
coordinator and some assistants to coordinate all these
processes. We are fortunate that Prince William County has the
resources to staff these positions because that funding isn't
available from other sources.
As far as gaps in emergency preparedness in the National
Capital Area, we feel that the State and Federal Governments
don't have the same degree of coordination and cooperation that
we are seeing on the local level. This sometimes hinders our
local and regional efforts. A serious obstruction does exist to
effective mutual aid assistance between Virginia, Maryland and
the District of Columbia. Congress must act to address the
liability and indemnification issues which arise when emergency
aid is provided across boundaries. The need for legislation for
homeland security has been specifically addressed by the
Governors of Maryland, Virginia and the Mayor in their eight
commitments to action with the Department of Homeland Security.
We are very appreciative of the efforts made by ONCRC of
the Department of Homeland Security, there is still a lot of
work to do. We can't lose sight that, while we are doing this
work we still have our normal daily incidents to respond to and
normal daily workloads to handle. Whatever the Federal
Government has local jurisdictions do with regard to
vulnerability assessments, grant applications, reimbursement
requests or other bureaucratic processes, it ought to be done
to fill a clear need and with our input to make sure that what
is being done is going to be of help to us. We don't mind doing
the work at the local level if we know it is going to improve
the situation.
Prince William County participated in the required
vulnerability assessment that took away 10 staff members for a
2-week period last year. This effort has given back very little
to our community and although we know that our fiscal year 2004
and 2005 security grants will be evaluated against this, we are
able to articulate our vulnerabilities with a higher degree of
confidence than this document is giving us.
In summary, Prince William County is in a much stronger
position to respond to any manmade event, whether chemical or
biological than we were before September 11. There is also
better coordination and cooperation at the local and regional
levels. Our predominant focus has been to keep pace with the
requirements of the grants as well as to make sure that we are
doing the right things to be as prepared as we possibly can.
Our senior officers and administrative staff have
justifiably been inundated with homeland security duties. I
believe it is essential for all levels of government to find
new and better ways to work with each other so that we can
optimize the limited time and staff that we have to get the
results you want. I will be satisfied when we reach a point
where all of our firefighters, our police officers, and our
EMTs express their confidence that they feel they are capable
to respond effectively to any WMD contingency.
In closing, I want to thank you again for giving me this
opportunity and I will be glad to answer any questions later.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Michos follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.052
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Chief Schwartz, welcome.
Mr. Schwartz. My name is Jim Schwartz. I am the director of
emergency management for Arlington County and as the Chair so
graciously acknowledged at the beginning, I will assume the
position of fire chief for Arlington County next week. I also
served as the incident commander for the September 11 response
to the Pentagon.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on the
issue of homeland security in our National Capital Region
today, and I am grateful, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in
trying to ensure as effective and efficient a process as
possible to provide resources to the level of government with
the greatest responsibility to respond to an act of terrorism,
not just to protect that Government's citizens and resources,
but in this region, to also protect Federal employees and
Federal resources. Our county is not only home to the Pentagon,
but also provides approximately 60 percent of its commercial
office space to Federal agencies. Our county bears significant
responsibilities for protection and response to critical parts
of the Nation's national defense and anti-terrorism capacity.
The successful response of Arlington and its regional
partners in the wake of the attack on the Pentagon on September
11 underscores the fact that the National Capital Region has a
strong foundation upon which to build. While the incident at
the Pentagon paled in comparison to the attacks in New York, it
was, nonetheless, an indication of the years of work of
regional leaders. We knew we had the capacity to coordinate
responses, and, indeed, based upon those experiences, we think
we have made significant improvements since then.
It is clear that continued progress is needed, and,
therefore, we regard this hearing as a positive opportunity.
This morning I would like to focus my testimony on the priority
setting process, the undermining uncertainty of the Federal
funding process, the lack of coordination of the plethora of
Federal funding streams, the inadequacy of current assistance,
the significant administrative burden imposed on local
government recipients, and mutual aid indemnification.
Former Utah Governor and current EPA Administrator Michael
Leavitt made the point after his State hosted the Winter
Olympics that we really need a new paradigm in our
intergovernmental anti-terrorism process. As he said, it can no
longer be a top-down process; rather it must be some
combination of bottom-up, horizontal, and top-down. It must
more closely resemble emerging global corporate trends of
governance.
Ironically, it was our National Capital Region that brought
the issue of interregional coordination with Federal support to
the Federal Government's attention after the 1995 incident in
the Tokyo subway system.
Our efforts led to the first locally staffed terrorism
response team in the Nation. That team, the Metropolitan
Medical Strike Team, was the predecessor of the Metropolitan
Medical Response System [MMRS], which remains the only
federally funded program to require a systematic and integrated
regional approach to planning and response to acts of
terrorism. It is a model that should be expanded, not scrapped.
The Federal Government should ensure a meaningful role for
the level of government most affected by terrorist threats and
should shift to a threat-based formula that more appropriately
recognizes greater responsibilities for those local governments
that will be first to arrive, render aid to casualties, and
manage the incident. Local governments should not be junior
partners.
We appreciate that there have been adjustments made in the
NCR to ensure a more meaningful process for local input for the
establishment of homeland security priorities in the National
Capital Region. We encourage the direction of the change and a
longer term commitment to our regional governments' critical
role in the provision of homeland security.
As said by other witnesses, there is a significant
uncertainty in the Federal funding process. Federal funding
shifts from year-to-year, even after grant programs are
decided; decisions are made to retroactively cut funds and
transfer them to other uses. It is difficult to discern whether
the war on terrorism is a year-to-year effort, or a long-term
commitment.
The Federal process makes it difficult to develop a longer
term plan and meaningful first responder infrastructure. We
would respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, consideration of
consolidating the many and varied Federal grant streams in the
NCR into a 5-year block grant program. Such a change would
significantly increase our regional capacity to put together
the infrastructure necessary to make real and sustainable
changes.
There remain too many funding streams, often not
coordinated at the Federal and State levels. They reflect
competing purposes at the Federal level, but immense
administrative demands at the local and regional level. It
means we devote too much time to trying to determine what
Federal or State officials want, instead of focusing on the
most critical needs in the region.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 created the Office for
National Capital Region Coordination within the Department of
Homeland Security in recognition of the vulnerability of the
region, its high risk of terrorism, and the unique and dominant
Federal presence. Despite that recognition, the region receives
less in Federal per capita assistance than Wyoming.
We appreciate that there are serious debates in the House
about modifying the formula, but we think any discussion of how
terrorism funds are allocated should reflect the unique
characteristics of this region. We believe it would be
constructive to ask DHS to establish baselines--basic
requirements for local governments based upon tiers of risk
assessment--so that Federal grant funds meet fundamental needs
and build capacity from there.
Because of the many different grants and funding streams,
Arlington devotes enormous administrative and management
resources to emergency preparation and prevention which are
ineligible for reimbursement. This diverts resources from
priority needs, again, so that we are forced to devote
resources to a plethora of grants and grant management
requirements that detract from the job at hand.
As the House and Senate work to reauthorize a 6-year
surface transportation program, we believe the concept has
merit for emergency preparedness. To the extent that Federal
funding beyond next September 30th, on an annual basis, remains
uncertain, it directly affects local budget decisions about
whether to make longer term investments in human and capital
infrastructure to prepare and respond, or whether to make
short-term purchases. This uncertainty is increased by
reprogramming requests made by the Department of Homeland
Security in the last 2 months of funds already appropriated by
Congress. Can you imagine the construction of the mixing bowl
project or the new Wilson Bridge in such circumstances?
I am going to leave the rest of my testimony for the
record. I am obviously over my time but I appreciate the
opportunity and would look forward to answering any questions
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schwartz follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.058
Chairman Tom Davis. Chief, thank you very much.
Dr. Brown, thanks for being with us.
Ms. Brown. Good morning, Chairman Davis and committee
members. I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you
today to testify on emergency preparedness in the National
Capital Region with an emphasis on first responder grant
management. This subject is very critical to Prince George's
County where over 835,000 residents live and over 100 different
languages and dialects are spoken.
During fiscal years 2002 and 2003, Prince George's County
received approximately $10.4 million dollars in grant funding
for items such as: Hazardous materials truck, decontamination
supplies, decontamination vehicle, breathing air units,
incident command training, incident command vehicles, radios,
radiological detection unit, tanker unit, keycard control
system, salaries, personal protective equipment (level
A,B,C,D), CAD upgrades, emergency management salaries, disease
surveillance system, epidemiologic response plan, high speed
Internet connection, critical information network, training of
key public health officials and citizen volunteer training.
There are several challenges in obtaining Federal funding
for emergency preparedness. Timeliness is a major one. There
are delays in receiving money from the State. Once the Federal
Government decides how much each State is to receive, the State
must then determine the recipient amount to be awarded. The
assessment phase should be a clearly defined process. For
instance, in 2003, a State assessment input session was held at
Dulles Airport. There were problems and it could not be
completed at that time. There were limited resources available
to assist the county in preparing for the completion of this
process. However, that assessment has been and continues to be
the qualifying factor for funding over the last 2 years without
any opportunity for adjustments.
There is also a need for the clarification of processes in
areas where there is State and regional funding sources. At
times there appear to be overlaps in the accomplishments of the
two funding sources, and that has been referred to before.
Advance notice of grants is going to be very important for
us. We recently learned that at least $2 million had been
allocated to our county via a reimbursable grant. Funds for
this amount were unavailable; therefore, we were forced to go
into unfunded and unplanned forward funding. So the timeliness
of things makes a lot or sense. Additionally a lack of
consistent awards causes a deficiency in the algorithm of the
budget process. Understanding the reimbursement basis of grant
funding especially as it relates to jurisdictions within the
State and the county would be a tremendous benefit.
The National Incident Management System is the most recent
criteria that must be adhered to regarding upcoming funding. We
are looking forward to the training coming up on the 28th. We
really need to make sure everybody understands this.
We also have challenges in terms of organizing and
implementing efficient and effective regional preparedness
programs. While most events in this area would become a
regional issue, there is no regional emergency operations
center, or no regional emergency coordination center from which
to command activities presents a problem. We are fortunate to
have a regional emergency coordination plan and this area could
be better served with a regional emergency operations center
with regional emergency response teams. with so many
jurisdictions in the NCR, collaboration is a real challenge.
There are several gaps which remain in the emergency
preparedness of the NCR Interoperability issues still exist and
are at the top of the list. This issue is extremely expensive
and we are still experiencing inter and intra communication
deficiencies within this county. There is an inability for us
to speak with each other except through patching. There is also
an inability to speak with our neighbors, our regional partners
via 800 MHz.
There should be regional coordination of emergency plans.
All plans in the region should be shared among the various
jurisdictions. Discussions are needed concerning mass
evacuations that would include naming evacuation
destinationsites throughout various counties. There is also a
need for clear and concise intelligence information. The Office
of the National Capital Region Coordination has been effective
in setting priorities but standards have not been set in many
areas including standards for an Emergency Operations Centers.
The type of guidance that we would like to see from the
Department of Homeland Security may take time to accomplish.
There should be a regional emergency operations center to
include the development of a regional response team. Would like
more formal training regarding the National Incident Management
System. It appears that the only training that is being offered
is paid training conferences and seminars--other than Incident
Command System. Formal training for the National Incident
Management System so that the jurisdictions will be prepared to
comply. The development of standards for distribution,
management and oversight of the grants; a clearer direction on
the States role as we are a member of a State and a regional
partner; the provision of increased assistance in the
development of planning concerning cybersecurity and; the
enhancement of grant training and technical assistance will all
improve the guidance needed in the National Capital Region.
There really should be a regional coordination of emergency
plans. All plans in the region should be shared among the
various jurisdictions and I think we are moving toward that in
a manner that is worthwhile applauding.
In the end, I think what I would like to say is that there
are three questions that guide our work locally in Prince
George's County. Those questions are, what is it that we wish
to achieve regionally and locally in terms of emergency
preparedness and by when. That is the standards and the
priorities issue. How will we achieve this, task time, talent,
costs, both fiscal and human? That is the multiyear strategy
piece. The final question is how will we know when we have done
it well? What are your performance measures? What are your
performance measures processwise, productwise, perceptionally
and politically because that is the reality that we live in.
We will continue to work with our regional partners to
develop a management framework that truly reflects continued
improvement and accountability for our citizens. We would hope
that these three questions that guide us locally will in fact
begin to guide us in our framework as we move forward. We also
need to address the fact that we do not have regional standards
yet for emergency preparedness. That is critical.
Thank you, so much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.061
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you all very much. I will start
the questioning with Mr. Schrock.
Mr. Schrock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you all very
much for being here.
I want to note for the record that Tom Lockwood from the
first panel is here and I think that is a very good thing
because he cares enough to hear what these folks have to say.
These folks are at the tip of the spear as we say in the
military and when the balloon goes up, they are going to be the
first ones on the scene as they were at the Pentagon that day
because I saw them.
Chief Schwartz, you said the death toll was not as great at
the Pentagon as it was in New York and you are right, but had
that wedge at the Pentagon been fully occupied as it was about
to be because of the reconstruction, I believe the death toll
there would have been far worse than it was in New York City.
It is just a blessing that they weren't.
You are absolutely right, junior partners no. You have to
be full partners in this effort because you are the ones we are
going to expect to be on the scene from the very first moment
and we need to make sure we here do everything we can to help
you.
Dr. Brown, you talked about reimbursable grant. That is
kind of a contradiction in terms, isn't it? I thought a grant
was something you gave to people.
Ms. Brown. What happens is you get the awards and then we
forward fund it and pay for it and then we can get reimbursed.
That is the nature of some of the awards that are coming.
Mr. Schrock. I see. I don't know how many of you really
listened carefully to what my friend, Mr. Moran, was saying
during the last round. He was talking about the rail and
concerns he has. I have the same concerns and the same concern
I expressed to you all when I go through the Hampton Roads
Bridge Tunnel every week, as you will today, Mr. Griffin, I
have with the trains because the trains run right under my
office. I am not going to mention the name of the building to
give anybody any ideas but that is a real concern. I think if
we are not careful, something is going to happen and I am
genuinely concerned about that.
Mr. Lockwood in the last panel advised that they are
working with the Joint Terrorism Training Task Force and I am
wondering how the Federal Government is managing to share
intelligence with uncleared, non-Federal employees such as the
local responders as you and your staff and are procedures
working adequately to get non-Federal employees cleared to
receive this information? Do we in Congress need to address
this specifically to make sure you do get the information you
need so that somebody doesn't sit on it which could be the
piece of the puzzle to help solve the problem?
Ms. Brown. The intelligence piece becomes very important,
if I am understanding your question correctly and the clearance
of the people to receive it. That was an issue in our written
testimony that the triggers for intelligence that tend to be
general and kind of nebulous still trigger things locally for
us to do. As Chief Michos was saying, it does bring a labor and
a personnel and resource intensity to our budgets and to our
jurisdictions. The clearance would be good.
Overall, what we need is if this is a Federal piece, what
are some of the standards? Those are the standards that perhaps
the States can adhere to. If the States are the ones that are
going to set the standards for emergency preparedness including
security levels needed for personnel to receive certain
intelligence, that is the kind of guidance we need. This is an
important piece but I believe that kind of guidance really must
come from either the Federal Government and/or the States in
conjunction with the Federal Government. This is not something
localities are set up to do in terms of high level security
clearance for national things. They are geared to do it for
police departments, to do it for certain first responders but
if you are in a jurisdiction like mine where we have tried to
mirror the Federal structure and set up an Office of Homeland
Security with a separate director and merged some first
responder offices, then those security clearances that we need,
we are making our best guess about what you need and hiring
accordingly but we certainly need that kind of guidance. It
would be most welcome.
Mr. Schrock. Chief.
Ms. Michos. At the local level, traditionally the fire
service has been kept out of the intelligence loop.
Mr. Schrock. Kept out of?
Ms. Michos. Traditionally that is what has happened.
Several years ago, the FBI did appoint a liaison in this region
to the fire service and it has been invaluable and I think Jim
found this to be an important asset for him at the Pentagon.
The liaisons have been very active in coming to our meetings
and planning with us and providing us with a regular line of
information that we could share with our folks so that we have
increased awareness of things that are going on when the
intelligence is available.
Mr. Schrock. So they are starting to include you?
Ms. Michos. Oh, yes, and that has been very valuable to us
over the last few years.
Mr. Schwartz. The local jurisdictions that do pony up
representatives to the Joint Terrorism Task Force do that
without reimbursement. We do that at local cost, so the fact we
are getting intelligence information and relationships that do
exist are still on the backs of the locals to finance.
I can tell you at a street level some of the difficulties
we have even though we get good intelligence from the
relationships that exist. Last year, the Federal Government
decided to make available to local jurisdictions the bioassays
that are used to test for biological agents, something the
military has, a very good system for developing and they rely
on those extremely well. It was decided that those bioassays
would be available for local jurisdictions so hazmat
technicians could use them in the street to assess the
proverbial white powder calls and that sort of thing. What they
would not give us, however, are what amount to the evaluation
instruments so that once you use the assay and get an
indication on it, you cannot read it, you have no way to
evaluate what the ticket says because they kept that
information classified. That is not shared with us. You can
actually get it outside this country but you cannot get it
inside this country.
I use that as an example to say really our system of
intelligence sharing is based on a cold war mentality. It is
based on the nuclear threat of 50 years ago and somehow we have
to come up with a system of what we commonly refer to as
trusted agents, something that will recognize that there is
another level of information sharing that can assist locals in
those kinds of instances.
Mr. Schrock. Kind of like buying a car without wheels?
Mr. Griffin. If I may, after September 11, Fairfax County
established an intelligence unit in our police department. We
had disbanded it for budget reasons in the 1990's but that unit
was so successful, the FBI asked to join it. Again, I would
underscore Chief Schwartz's point that is on our nickel. We
have since, as a county, taken the lead in terms of forming an
intelligence unit on a regional basis in northern Virginia.
Again, that is on our nickel.
One of the hats I wear is as director of emergency
management but the only access I have to intelligence is
through my police chief who has top secret clearance but that
individual needs to be very circumspect in terms of what they
tell me. I think that kind of sharing of information can be
improved. I don't necessarily have any answers but it can be
better.
Mr. Schrock. So the chief of police who reports to you has
a top secret clearance and you don't?
Mr. Griffin. That is correct. The initiative to get the
police chief's top secret clearance only occurred after
September 11 and it took almost 2 years to happen.
Mr. Schrock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. The 911 Commission cited a lack of
communication between Federal, State and local agencies as one
of the biggest failures of the Government on September 11. If a
catastrophic event were to occur in the capital region today,
is there any standard protocol for different agencies
communicating together? Also, is there a way that local law
enforcement can communicate with the military?
Mr. Griffin. I will start that if I may. One of the chief
failures, as you noted, after September 11 particularly in the
Washington region as related to communication is we did not
have good regional communication. I believe in terms of the
incident itself there was good communication because most of
the agencies transitioned to the 800 MHz radio system that
allowed interoperability between organizations.
I was Chair of the Chief Administrative Officers at that
time and I did convene a conference call of all the chief
administrative officers but it occurred approximately 8 hours
after the initiation of the events on September 11. To address
that, we have created what we call the RICCS system, the
Regional Incident Communication and Coordination System which
takes advantage of the current technology. That system is in
place and is practiced on a regular basis. It now enables
myself or others depending on where the event occurs to convene
a conference call in less than 30 minutes. The RICCS system is
set up such that it is not just for the chief administrative
officers, there are groups of individuals by discipline that
have been created who also have access to that system, be it
fire chiefs, police chiefs, transportation officials, health
directors. We are even getting the hospital system integrated
to that system.
Not all events that occur in the region need to be elevated
to the chief administrative officers but we are encouraging the
various disciplines to use the system because it really does
enhance the communication.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Any other comments?
Mr. Schwartz. I would like to add that when we talk about
the communications problem as it relates to interoperability,
there are different layers. Mr. Griffin identifies a layer that
the chief administrative officers would use. Communications on
the incident at September 11 at the Pentagon were largely good
for the response. We are never going to solve the problem of
getting everybody on a common frequency. In fact, obviously for
the Pentagon response, we had representatives from DOD that
were a part of the unified command.
Mr. Ruppersberger. You had representatives from Maryland,
from Virginia and from Washington all together, correct, at the
Pentagon?
Mr. Schwartz. No, sir, we do it by discipline. We do it so
that we have fire and EMS representatives, we have law
enforcement representatives. There were Federal representatives
because they have the lead agency responsibilities for acts of
terrorism, namely the FBI, and we had DOD because it was their
property and they brought a significant amount of resources to
the incident.
My point is that it is a unified command under a recognized
incident management system that will do more for the
communications interoperability problem than getting everybody
on the same frequency and push to talk.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Is that opinion shared throughout your
industry?
Mr. Schwartz. I believe it is. That is not to suggest that
we don't need to continue to make advances across this country
so that the kinds of situations that we have in the National
Capital Region which is that almost all of the jurisdictions
operate on common frequencies but if you start trying to put
the FBI on our frequencies, the Department of Defense on our
frequencies and every other Federal agency that would come in
support of a local jurisdiction, we are going to have too many
people operating on frequencies and they will be completely
unusable. The incident management system has to be utilized to
effect good communications.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Let me ask you this broad question. If
we could give you one thing here today to help you as relates
to the whole communications, what would you want us to do?
Mr. Schwartz. I would like Dr. Brown to answer that
question because I think part of her remarks add another layer
of communication which is the coordination among the Government
entities that are overseeing a response.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Dr. Brown.
Ms. Brown. I am really grateful for this opportunity. One
of the things that happens is when September 11 came in, people
were growing. If you could see the localities, we were growing
at our own rates. We had a regional awareness there but
September 11 really brought it together in terms of looking at
it regionally. Therefore, the issues of comparability and
standardization of levels of ability and capability to respond
all of a sudden became glaringly clear that we hadn't done it.
Some of us don't have 800 MHZ, some of us are working out of an
EOC that is an abandoned school building as a way to handle a
jurisdiction with 835,000 people in the home of Air Force 1 and
over 300 vulnerable places within the jurisdiction. So the
larger picture for us in the Maryland region and in the region
of the National Capital Region is if our people from the
different areas had to go to different peoples' EOCs, could
they even work the equipment, would they even be there, even if
they were jointly trained and part of that equipment is
communication. It is also communication at a level of being
able to receive intelligence, be able to see the strategic big
picture regionally and to deal with it.
Until we bring everybody up to a minimum competency
standard to receive the information, then we have a big hole of
vulnerability and we need to address that. I understand that
the removal of being able to do things with brick and mortar is
kind of going against what it is we need to do but we need to
look across the region.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Who should determine what that standard
should be?
Ms. Brown. I think the National Capital Region. We would
look for them along with input from, building input from the
CAOs, from the Federal Government, from the military players,
from all of the other ones that have the capability and the
expertise.
Mr. Ruppersberger. But who should that be, in your opinion,
based on what you know?
Ms. Brown. Who should be the one to set the standards?
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes.
Ms. Brown. I would expect that it should come from the
National Capital Region.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Who do you think?
Mr. Schwartz. I should say Congressman that there is a
proposal in to the National Capital Region Office under the
URASI grants to look at the issues of EOC interoperability so
that we figure out exactly what those standards are and then
how to apply future grant funds to each of the local EOCs so
that they are interconnected, so that they can interoperate.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Let me ask just a couple questions.
As the Office of the National Capital Region Coordination
communicated to you the areas you are lacking in terms of being
able to fulfill your duties and be able to respond to regional
emergencies? They did, as I understand, an assessment last
year. Have they communicated with any of you the shortcomings?
Tony.
Mr. Griffin. Initially, I think through the assessment
there was an effort to identify what the deficiencies were in
each jurisdiction and the Capital Region participated in that.
Some of the difficulty and some of the friction early on
occurred because having participated in that assessment, we
didn't see the results of it and the Senior Policy Group made
the initial allocations for the $60 million allocated to the
National Capital Region based on that assessment. Not having
seen it and not being sure what it was about and concern about
the local jurisdictions being the local responders, the first
responders, there was some friction there.
I think that friction has been mitigated to a large extent
because there was a recognition that the Senior Policy Group
and the CAOs and the other players really needed to come
together and participate together. I think by December we had
reached that common ground and we have been working together I
think pretty well over the last 6 months at better identifying
what our gaps are and getting better participation from all the
players in identifying what those gaps are. I think the Chiefs
may have a perspective on that.
Chairman Tom Davis. Yes, let me ask you. Ms. Brown.
Ms. Brown. Taking off on what he said about the assessment,
we have gotten some feedback and I guess our feelings on a
local level are that it really wasn't truly reflective and we
questioned at the time, the value of the tool that was being
used but we did it like everyone else. So right now we are in a
period where they are allowing us to look at the results of the
assessment to do some tweaking since the future grant
allocations will be based on the results of that but that was
one thing I said, we put so much time and effort into it,
didn't have any input when the tool was being designed or what
were the things that should be looked at, so we are trying to
make best with what we can right now based on the time and
energy we have put into that.
Chairman Tom Davis. Chief Schwartz.
Mr. Schwartz. Just a couple of things. As has been said,
the instrument was rather poor. One of the poorest parts of it
was the threat assessment component, how we developed
information on the threats that were germane to our area was
extremely difficult. The other thing I would add is that since
we are supposed to be operating as a region, it would have been
beneficial if we had completed the instrument together as a
region. Instead, we were stovepiped by jurisdiction, so we
couldn't even learn from each other how we were inputting the
data, what kind of elements, so that we could sort of shortcut
the whole process and get to a point that we could all agree on
what was going into the instrument. Largely it was an inventory
of our capabilities.
Ms. Brown. Right now we are very personality dependent. We
have a group of people regionally and locally who want to work
together who are determined to move forward with this from a
regional standpoint to do the things that Tony is saying in
terms of working together with the Senior Policy Group and all
of this. I am very nervous about the fact that if any of us
leave and a different headset comes in, where are the standards
that say I don't care who you are, what are the standards of
baseline competency necessary, not only in terms of personnel,
things like communications, things like intelligence methods,
things like equipment that is needed regardless of who you are
and who sits in these seats, whether you have goodwill or not,
these are the rules of play as it relates to emergency
preparedness in the National Capital Region. Again, I believe
those standards should come from the National Capital Region.
We don't even have a National Capital Region EOC.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am glad and appreciative that Mr. Lockwood stayed.
I was reading the legislation that the Congress passed
describing the responsibilities of the Office of National
Capital Regional Coordination that was in the Homeland Security
Act. They are to assess and advocate for the resources needed
by State, local and regional governments. It is to provide
State, local and regional authorities in the National Capital
Region with timely information and technical support. It is to
develop a process for receiving meaningful input from State,
local and regional authorities in the development of homeland
security plans and activities. It is for coordinating Federal,
State, local and regional agencies and to ensure adequate
planning information, sharing, training and execution and to
serve as a liaison between the Federal Government and State,
local and regional authorities to facilitate access to Federal
grants and other programs. That is the function. That is why it
exists and yet I have talked to each of the jurisdictions in my
congressional district, Arlington, Alexandria and Fairfax
County and all of them say that the lack of planning,
preparation, orderly expectations of resources and what the
requirements of those resources are going to be, the lack of
that at the Federal level is seriously hamstringing if not
crippling the ability of local governments to do their own
planning and resource allocation. In other words, you can't
plan and allocate your resources unless you know what resources
are coming into the locality so you can match them, so that you
can pull the personnel, the equipment, the facilities together
so that you can fulfill your responsibilities.
I suppose I should say when because that is what we are
told by Secretary Ridge but I will say if we have a terrorist
attack, we are going to turn to the local responders and look
for what went wrong because nothing is going to go perfectly
and the first thing we are going to be told is that even though
Congress provided the resources, they weren't made available
and we weren't even told when they were going to be made
available for what purposes. So this is the problem. This is
the reason for the hearing. This is the reason why Chairman
Davis got on top of this, to say, look, I don't know what more
we in the Congress can do but to provide the money and provide
the legislative authority and the mandate but while the money
is provided, the mandate is there, it is not being implemented.
My question is a pretty basic one that I am going to ask
each of you who are responsible for your jurisdictions, how has
this backlog in distributing resources that were made available
in 2003 and 2004 by the Congress to the Department of Homeland
Security, you haven't received them and you haven't been given
a plan for when you are going to receive them and what you are
supposed to do with them, so I think you need to put on the
record what impact this has had, what you have not been able to
do because that money has not gotten to where it was intended
to go. Let me start with Jim Schwartz.
Mr. Schwartz. Well, Congressman, as we said in the earlier
testimony, there were a lot of difficulties in the front end of
this because the locals were not as involved as they could have
been, as they should have been with the process. It came from
the top down. The Senior Policy Group took information from our
homeland security assessment and developed a strategy and then
developed a funding scheme, carved up that original $60 million
and it was only late in the process that I think we had enough
representation come to the table to give the local perspective.
I would defer to Mr. Griffin or Dr. Brown on this because they
both operated as chief administrative officials.
The process has improved now, I believe, but I would say
that I think we are asking an enormous amount of time for
people at their level, of their stature to be in long meetings
deciding how we are going to be spending some of this money.
The structure, the foundation for this out of the National
Capital Region Office to support the decisionmaking process
doesn't seem to be there. Again, I think it is calling on the
locals to commit an awful lot of senior time to make what
seemed to me to be lower level decisions.
Mr. Moran of Virginia. I want to turn to Tony next but what
role has COG had because we do subsidize the Council of
Governments and they do have a committee that pulls together
police chiefs, the public safety people, fire and so on. Has
COG been a part of this regional coordination effort?
Mr. Griffin. Yes, if I may, Congressman. COG has played a
significant role as convenor and as a support agency for the
convening of the regional jurisdictions. It has been handled
essentially on two levels. One, it has been handled at the
level of the board of directors and their authorization of the
original task force which created the regional template for
emergency response and their subsequent creation of the
Emergency Preparedness Council.
The other committee structure of COG has been doing the
grunt work if you will in terms of regional preparedness under
the direction of the Chief Administrative Officers. The Fire
Chiefs Committee, the Police Chiefs Committee, the Health
Directors Committee, the Emergency Managers Committee, we have
even created a Public Information Officer Committee,
recognizing that there are many players involved in this and
they are all convening on a regular basis, at least monthly. In
many instances the CAOs have either had all day meetings or
have scheduled extra meetings where the subject matter has only
been homeland security. In fact, to some extent, we have been
setting aside other critical regional issues to address the
homeland security.
One of the challenges for us and I think we are getting
better at it but partly the friction that occurred between the
levels of government and the locals feeling because we are
first responders and because we have had some practical
experience, that we ought to have more of a role, those roles
have been substantially worked out and the Senior Policy Group
which includes Mr. Lockwood and included Michael Byrne, his
predecessor, and Ken Wahl, the interim as well as the State
representatives have been meeting on a regular basis to get a
handle on what our issues and our priorities are.
From a county perspective, I have to tell you the way I
have approached it has not been one which is dependent on the
Federal funding or to some extent, even, the State funding that
comes because of the Federal funding. We have worked hard in
the county to try to identify what we thought our priorities
were and what the gaps were in our capability to respond and
then have identified how we are going to address that.
In my testimony I made reference to our emergency
operations center. Our situation is similar to that of Prince
George's in that our current emergency operations center is in
a 50 year old elementary school with two elementary school
classrooms designated for purposes of emergency management.
That works fine when we were dealing with a hurricane once
every 30 years. It does not work in this environment.
Likewise, our emergency communications center is in that
same facility. We have outgrown it. The technology cannot be
supported by the facility and therefore, we are building a new
facility which we expect to open in the fall of 2007. The price
tag for that facility is $98 million. It takes a lot of effort
on our part to figure out how to do that. That is going to be
county funded. We are looking to the Federal Government in the
context that they can give us some assistance in terms of the
equipment but we have made the decisions on the basis of our
local capacity to fund these programs and we prioritize them on
the basis of what is most critical and we will fund those
whether we get any Federal money or not. If we get Federal
money or if we get State money, then we start applying that to
those other priorities that we consider critical but are less
critical than what we can move ourselves through our own
financial processes.
Mr. Moran of Virginia. I guess that is about as good an
answer as we could get but I think we have sent the message to
Mr. Lockwood pretty loud and clear.
Chairman Tom Davis. I think he heard that.
Mr. Moran of Virginia. The red light has been on for some
time, so thanks for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, and thanks
for the hearing.
Chairman Tom Davis. Jim, thank you very much.
Mr. Schrock, you have a couple of followups?
Mr. Schrock. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I share the
exact same frustrations as Mr. Moran does and obviously you all
do too.
It seems there are so many layers of communications in
there. When the balloon goes up, who in God's name knows who to
report to whom. It seems to me that the folks in Arlington
County may not be using the same sort of symbology or equipment
as the folks in Prince William County. In the military now, we
are talking about interoperability where the Army can talk to
the Air Force and Air Force can talk to the Marine Corps and
the Marine Corps can talk to everybody. When one symbol pops
up, they all know what it means. The same thing might work with
you all if you have the same kind of equipment so everybody is
talking off the same sheet of music should we have these
problems again.
I agree with what I have heard that maybe the Federal
Government needs a set of standards but whenever I hear the
Federal Government getting involved in anything I just cringe
because the localities know it is probably going to mean
unfunded mandates for them. We might need to pass legislation
to give a framework to the localities and let the localities
build it based on their territory and the way they see things
if something should happen and if we are doing mandates, then
we need to fund them. For you all to have to pay $98 million,
obviously that is just for the building, not for the insides,
not the equipment, there is something really wrong there.
Let me ask would it be possible for the Federal Government
to consider assigning what we could call staff
counterintelligence officers to prioritize States' own homeland
security programs? They could act as a designated liaison
between the State DHS and the intelligence community, in other
words an NCIS agent could be assigned to Annapolis to work with
Dennis Schrader, one could be assigned to Richmond to work with
George Foresman on two or three rotational tours as an
intelligence link between the Federal Government and the
States? Is something like that possible or is that just adding
another layer of bureaucracy that I can't stand, frankly,
putting in another layer of bureaucracy that you don't need.
Would that be something that would give you the link to the
intelligence community here that you need or is that just
overreaching, you want us to stay out of your hair?
Mr. Schwartz. I would have to say I would rather see
funding come to support our JTTF representation and if I could
make the observation that in and of itself coming from a fire
chief is a pretty good indication of the extent of our
collaborative efforts here in the region.
I think if you funded the JTTF positions, we would get the
same thing. The homeland security contacts in the State already
get the intelligence information from the Federal Government
through DHS, so I think they are pretty well satisfied. You
will end up with a situation that Mr. Griffin described earlier
in that his police chief has to be rather circumspect in giving
him any information of value. I think we would have another
layer that would be relatively useless.
Mr. Schrock. I was just thinking out loud. The last thing
we need, the last thing people who sit on this level need to do
is continue creating more layers of burden for you all. We need
to make it as simple as possible and let you all work together
to make sure you can talk from the same sheet of music. I share
your frustration and I certainly share Mr. Moran's frustration
as well.
Again, thank you all for what you do. It is not easy. It is
tough.
Mr. Griffin. If I could add a quick point on the
intelligence part and that is just like being first responders
in terms of intelligence, our people know our communities
better than the Federal Government knows our communities. I
think if they can give us additional assistance, I don't
normally fund that sort of thing but I recognize the importance
to the region and there is an obligation as the largest
jurisdiction in the metropolitan area to take a lead on
something like that, so we have done that. We have stepped up
to the plate but I think as Chief Schwartz indicated, if we
could get some assistance in that area, that would be very
helpful.
Mr. Schrock. Thank you all very much.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very, very much. It has been
a very helpful hearing for us and the record.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[The prepared statements of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay and Hon.
Danny K. Davis follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5626.066