[Senate Hearing 108-83]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-83
INVESTING IN HOMELAND SECURITY: CHALLENGES FACING STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 15, 2003
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs
88-248 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio CARL LEVIN, Michigan
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Michael D. Bopp, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Tim Raducha-Grace, Professional Staff Member
Joyce Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Michael L. Alexander, Minority Professional Staff Member
Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Collins.............................................. 1
Senator Lieberman............................................ 4
Senator Levin................................................ 11
Senator Coleman.............................................. 29
Senator Carper............................................... 36
Prepared statement:
Senator Voinovich............................................ 43
WITNESSES
Hon. Carolyn C. Kilpatrick, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.............................................. 7
Hon. Mitt Romney, Governor, State of Massachusetts; on behalf of
the National Governors' Association............................ 8
Hon. Kwame M. Kilpatrick, Mayor, City of Detroit, Michigan....... 13
Arthur W. Cleaves, Director, Maine Emergency Management Agency... 16
Mark J. Stenglein, Commissioner, Board of Commissioners, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.............................................. 19
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Cleaves, Arthur W.:
Testimony.................................................... 16
Prepared Statement........................................... 60
Kilpatrick, Hon. Carolyn C.:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Kilpatrick, Hon. Kwame M.:
Testimony.................................................... 13
Prepared Statement........................................... 55
Romney, Hon. Mitt:
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared Statement........................................... 45
Stenglein, Mark J.:
Testimony.................................................... 19
Prepared Statement........................................... 63
Appendix
Questions and Responses for the Record from:
Hon. Romney.................................................. 70
Hon. Kilpatrick.............................................. 72
Mr. Cleaves.................................................. 76
Mr. Stenglein................................................ 79
City of Detroit Action Plan for Homeland Security, Background
Paper, April 4, 2002, submitted by Senator Levin............... 90
Mayor Dick Murphy, City of San Diego, California, prepared
statement...................................................... 103
Larry Naake, Executive Director, National Association of
Counties, prepared statement................................... 106
County of Arlington, Virginia, prepared statement................ 115
INVESTING IN HOMELAND SECURITY:
CHALLENGES FACING STATE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m., in
room S-128, The U.S. Capitol Building, Hon. Susan M. Collins,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Collins, Coleman, Lieberman, Carper, and
Levin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS
Chairman Collins. The Committee will come to order. Somehow
pounding the gavel very loudly when you are right across from
me seems redundant this morning.
I want to welcome everybody to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs as we continue our efforts to strengthen
homeland security grant programs for States, communities and
first responders. This is third in a series of hearings that
the Committee has held as we seek to craft legislation to make
sure that we have the right process and procedures in place to
help our States, communities and first responders respond to
the challenges of homeland security.
This hearing originally was scheduled to be held in the
Dirksen Building in our Committee Room, but late last night, in
a stroke of bad luck for us, the Senate scheduled 12 back-to-
back votes, so the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee was
kind enough to let us use this magnificent room. As Governor
Romney has pointed out, this is a room where money decisions
are made, so perhaps it is appropriate that we meet here today.
Much of the burden for homeland security has fallen on the
shoulders of State and local officials across America,
especially our first responders, the firefighters, police
officers, and ambulance crews on the front lines. They are
meeting this challenge and responding with innovative
strategies. Instead of facilitating these new ideas, however,
the fragmented Federal Homeland Security grant programs and
their confusing regulations are a maze in which innovation
often gets stifled.
Hearing the experiences of State, local and county leaders
here today will help the Committee better understand the size
and complexity of this maze. Listening to their ideas will help
in our efforts to straighten it out and make a reasonable path.
Earlier this year I met with officials of Maine's Emergency
Management Agency, including Director Art Cleaves, who joins us
here today. Time and time again I heard from Mr. Cleaves, as
well as from others, that the rigid structure of many homeland
security grant programs frustrates their efforts to help first
responders secure communities across our States. I believe that
all States should have more flexibility in how they spend
Homeland Security dollars to make sure they are designated for
where they are most needed.
To allow flexibility in Homeland Security funds that have
already been appropriated but remain unspent, Senator Lieberman
and I, along with other Members of the Committee, have
introduced legislation that authorizes the Department of
Homeland Security to grant waivers, allowing States to use
funds from one category, such as equipment, for training or
other purposes. I am pleased to be joined in this effort not
only by the distinguished Ranking Member of this Committee, but
by several other of my colleagues.
The current lack of flexibility is not the only confusing
path that State and local officials are forced to navigate; for
lack of coordination among the various Federal grant programs
is another. At our last hearing with Secretary Ridge, I
announced a series of principles for legislation that I will
introduce to provide a map that will better connect our front
line protectors with the funding they need.
Today, Senator Russ Feingold and I are introducing another
key piece of our effort to streamline the process. Our
legislation will create an inter-agency committee that will be
charged with eliminating duplication in planning requirements,
simplifying the application process, and helping States and
localities promote inter-operability of their equipment.
Federal programs both within and outside of the new
Department of Homeland Security provide much-needed support.
Unfortunately, these programs often have overlapping goals,
requirements, and regulations. Our legislation will promote
better coordination among these programs and eliminate these
redundant requirements.
I do have a lengthy statement this morning that in the
interest of time and given the unusual circumstances we find
ourselves in, I am going to submit for the record, so that we
can hear from our important witnesses today.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Collins follows:]
OPENING PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS
Today, the Governmental Affairs Committee continues its efforts to
strengthen homeland security grant programs for States, communities,
and first responders. I welcome our distinguished panel of State, local
and county officials who will discuss the challenges they face as they
work to protect our communities.
Much of the burden for homeland security has fallen on the
shoulders of State and local officials across America, especially our
first responders--the firefighters, police officers and ambulance crews
on the front lines. They are meeting this challenge and are developing
scores of innovative strategies. Instead of facilitating these new
ideas, however, the fragmented Federal homeland security grant programs
and their confusing regulations are a maze in which innovation often
gets lost.
Hearing the experiences of the State, local and county leaders here
today will help the Committee better understand the size and complexity
of this maze. Listening to their ideas will help in our efforts to
straighten it out.
When I met with officials of Maine's Emergency Management Agency,
including Director Art Cleaves who joins us here today, they told me
that the rigid structure of many homeland security grant programs
frustrates their efforts to help first responders secure communities
across our State. I believe all States should have more flexibility to
spend homeland security dollars where they are most needed.
To allow flexibility in homeland security funds that have already
been appropriated but remain unspent, I have introduced legislation
that authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to grant waivers
allowing States to use funds from one category, such as training, for
another purpose, such as purchasing equipment. I am pleased to be
joined in this effort by Senator Carper, Senator Lieberman, Senator
Voinovich, Senator Coleman, and many others who serve on this
Committee.
But the current lack of flexibility is only one confusing path that
State and local officials are forced to navigate--the lack of
coordination among the various Federal grant programs is another. At
our last hearing with Secretary Ridge, I announced a series of
principles for legislation that I will introduce to provide a map that
will better connect our front-line protectors with the funding they
need.
Today, I am introducing another key piece of that legislation. It
will create an interagency committee that will be charged with
eliminating duplication in planning requirements, simplifying the
application process, and helping States and localities promote
interoperability of their equipment.
Federal programs, both within and outside the Department of
Homeland Security, provide much-needed support to ensure a basic level
of equipment and training among first responders. Despite having
overlapping goals, these Federal programs lack the very coordination
that we ask of our States and communities.
For example, communities can access funding for interoperable
equipment--from computers to fire hoses--through five different Federal
programs, including the FIRE Act, COPS, the bio-terrorism program,
FEMA's Emergency Management Performance Account, and ODP's State
homeland security grant program. Despite the unified goals of these
grants--to purchase interoperable eqipment--Federal agencies are under
no requirement to coordinate the grant process. As best as I can tell,
for the most part, they have not.
My legislation will make sure that Federal agencies help, not
hinder, State and local efforts to promote interoperability by
collecting information regarding State and local initiatives and
developing coordinated plans to provide needed technical assistance.
Compounding the problem, within the maze of Federal programs there
is a mountain of paperwork. State and local officials are forced to
complete separate emergency plans for different Federal agencies and
redundant application forms for the fragmented grant programs. Many
States have been forced to complete more than five separate homeland
security plans. While the information requested by each homeland
security plan is similar, States and communities are often forced to
reinvest the wheel from one emergency plan to the next.
Maine, for example, at the request of the Department of Justice and
the Centers for Disease Control, undertook a coordinated emergency
preparedness assessment in 2000. In 2002, Maine updated its assessment
of both its emergency management structure and its bioterrorism
preparedness.
Despite this comprehensive assessment, I am told that Maine will
not be able to use this information to satisfy requirements of the
upcoming Homeland Security Plan requested by the Office of Domestic
Preparedness. They will be forced to complete yet another assessment
answering many of the same questions phrased in slightly different
ways.
Answering the same question five different ways does nothing to
protect against weapons of mass destruction. Filling out paperwork five
different times takes resources that could be used to hire more first
responders. More paperwork may make Washington feel safer, but it does
nothing to protect Maine's cargo ports, its borders or its people.
My legislation will promote the same kind of coordination among
Federal agencies that we often require of our States and localities. It
will require Federal agencies to build a clear, well-marked path that
will lead our first responders to the funding that enables them to do
what they do best: Prepare for and respond to emergencies.
Today's hearing will provide the Committee with information to
better assess whether the current structure of grant programs is
getting the job done. The witnesses will describe the obstacles in our
grant programs that my legislation seeks to remove.
I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses here today, so
we can build a stronger and better homeland security partnership in the
months and years ahead.
Chairman Collins. I now will turn to the distinguished
Ranking Member of the Committee for any comments he might wish
to make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Collins, Madam
Chairman. Thank you for holding these very valuable hearings on
how we can reform and re-engineer the Federal Homeland Security
programs to meet the needs of States, localities and the first
responders and preventers, who protect us.
Madam Chairman, I appreciate what I would describe as your
characteristic leadership and nonpartisanship in focusing the
Committee on how we can improve programs that really are vital
to the security of the American people.
I also want to thank our distinguished witnesses, and thank
you for calling Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick of Detroit as one of the
witnesses. As the presence of Congresswoman Kilpatrick attests
to, Mayor Kilpatrick, one might say, comes to public service
genetically, and with a proud family tradition. He has done a
great job in the early chapters of his service as Mayor of
Detroit, and is really a rising star among America's mayors, so
I want to welcome both the Congresswoman and the Mayor.
Earlier this week, our Nation was reminded that despite the
success of the war in Iraq, the war against terrorism has not
been won. All Americans, of course, pray for the families of
those killed and injured by this latest act of cowardice and
evil in Saudi Arabia. These terrorists will never relent in
their hatred for America, and so we must never falter in our
fight to defeat terrorism overseas, and to protect our people
from it here at home. The attacks underscore the fact that the
Federal Government's first responsibility under the
Constitution is to provide for the common defense.
Today in the face of this terrorist threat, that means more
than building a mighty, well-equipped and well-trained Army,
Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. It means
strengthening the shared security of our 50 States and their
counties, cities, and towns, as well as our territories. Today
the readiness of our firefighters, police officers, and public
health professionals is every bit as important to the national
security as the readiness of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
Homeland security cannot be done on the cheap. It takes serious
money to employ, train, and equip top-flight first responders,
to buy new biometric security systems, install information-
sharing networks, develop biological and chemical testing, and
treatment capabilities, to improve security around water plants
and airports, to revamp aging seaports and protect chemical and
nuclear plants. These tough jobs and countless others cannot be
accomplished with wishful thinking or a magic wand. They cannot
be accomplished by placing an unfair share of the burden on
State and local governments who are already facing the worst
fiscal crisis in decades without helping our State and local
leaders.
And, Madam Chairman, I know you agree with me that we, in
the Federal Government, have to do more to fulfill our
responsibility, and that challenge we face is clearly to
improve the way we distribute funds to the State and local
governments. We need to make them flow faster. We need to cut
unnecessary red tape and provide greater flexibility and make
sure that the programs are adequately coordinated. That is why
I am proud to be a cosponsor with you of the legislation to
provide State and local officials with some of the ability to
move Federal funds between accounts when it is necessary.
I want to talk very briefly about the money that flows to
the State because I do believe we are inadequately responding
to State and local needs now. I am going to put my full
statement in the record, but I have submitted a proposed budget
increase of $16 billion for next year for homeland security,
much of which would go straight to States and localities, and
that is after review and consideration by State and local
officials and others. This included $7.5 billion above the
President's $3.5 billion for first responders, including $4
billion in funding to ensure that our first responders could do
something as basic as communicate with one another in a crisis,
which we saw they were unable, tragically, to do on September
11.
I also believe that we, in the Federal Government, need to
help pay salaries and overtime for local first responders, who
are carrying out now a national responsibility. The fiscal
crisis facing State and local governments has forced one in
four cities, I am informed by the National League of Cities, to
lay off police officers in the past year, which creates, of
course, a double danger, threatening our homeland security and
the fight against domestic crime at the same time.
I am proud to stand with a bipartisan coalition of
Senators, which I am pretty sure includes the Chairman, to
support the SAFER Act, which would help communities across the
country hire some 70,000 firefighters nationwide over the next
7 years. We are in a war, and we should be strengthening our
front line troops, not eroding them. So this is a very
important hearing which underlines the fact that fixing the way
these programs operate is critically important. But then we
have also got to fund them adequately, and that is what it
means today to fulfill our constitutional responsibility to
both provide for the common defense, ensure domestic
tranquility and build a more perfect union.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lieberman follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN
Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for holding these very
valuable hearings on how we can reform and reengineer Federal homeland
security programs to meet the needs of States, localities, and the
first responders and preventers who protect us. Madam Chairman, I
appreciate your leadership and bi-partisanship in focusing the
Committee on how we can improve programs that really are vital to the
security of the American people. I also want to thank our distinguished
witnesses for being with use today.
Earlier this week, our Nation was reminded that, despite the
success of the war in Iraq, the war against terrorism has not been won.
All Americans pray for the families of those killed and injured by this
latest act of cowardice and evil in Saudi Arabia. These terrorist will
never relent in their hatred for America--so we must never falter in
our flight to defeat terrorism overseas or in protecting our people
here at home.
The attacks only underscore the fact that one of the Federal
Government's first responsibilities under the Constitution is to
provide for the common defense. Today, in the face of the terrorist
threat, that means more than building a mighty, well-equipped, and
well-trained Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. It means
strengthening the shared security of our 50 States and their cities and
towns, as well as our territories. Today, the readiness of our
firefighters and police officers and public health professionals is
every bit as important to our national security as the readiness of our
soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
And homeland security cannot be done on the cheap. It takes serious
money. To employ, train, and equip top-flight first responders. To buy
new biometric security systems, install information sharing networks,
and develop biological and chemical testing and treatment capabilities.
To improve security around water plants and airports. To revamp aging
seaports and protect chemical and nuclear plants. These tough jobs and
countless others can't be accomplished with wishful thinking or a magic
wand. And they cannot be accomplished by placing an unfair share of the
burden on State and local governments who are already facing the worst
fiscal crises in decades.
Madam Chairman, I am convinced that we in the Federal Government
have to do much more to fulfill our responsibility.
One challenge we face is clearly to improve the way we distribute
funds to State and local governments. We need to make the funds flow
faster, cut unnecessary red tape, provide greater flexibility, and make
certain that programs are adequately coordinated. Madam Chairman, I am
pleased to co-sponsor your legislation to provide State and local
officials with some of the ability to move Federal funds between
accounts when it is necessary. That's a smart and long-overdue reform.
But this is more than just a red tape problem. It's also a red ink
problem.
Across the country, States and localities are being spread thinner
than ever at the moment they can least afford it. Homeland security and
healthcare costs are rising. Deficits are growing. But the economy
isn't. I must say, it makes no sense to me that, as we lose jobs and
struggle to meet our national needs, the Bush Administration's top
priority is to push for billions of new tax cuts that won't improve the
economy but will shortchange homeland security and other urgent needs.
I have called for $16 billion in funding for homeland security in
the next fiscal year above and beyond the President's request, much of
which would go straight to States and localities. This includes $7.5
billion above the President's $3.5 billion for first responders,
including $4 billion in funding to ensure that our first responders can
do something as basic as communicate with one another in a crisis.
It is simply unacceptable that in most States and regions,
including right here in the Washington, D.C. region, local police
officers, fire fighters, paramedics, and other emergency personnel
responding to an attack cannot talk to one another. America has some of
the most advanced communications technology on the planet, yet 20
months after September 11, we're still struggling with something as
urgent and basic as this. That doesn't speak well to the
administration's priorities.
I also believe that we in the Federal Government need to help pay
salaries and overtime for local first responders. The fiscal crisis
facing State and local governments has forced one in four cities to lay
off police officers in the past year, according to the National League
of Cities. That is creating a double danger--threatening our homeland
security and the fight against domestic crime at the same time.
I am fighting to restore law enforcement grants cut by the Bush
Administration, and am proud to stand with a bipartisan coalition of
Senators to support the SAFER Act, which would help communities across
the country hire some 70,000 firefighters nationwide over the next 7
years. We are in a war. We should be strengthening our frontline
troops, not eroding them.
Those are just two critical priorities among many. And both
underline the fact that fixing the way these programs operate, while
important, is just one part of the solution. Our States and localities
also need more support. More funding. And more leadership from the
President on down. That's what it will take to fulfill our
Constitutional duty to provide for the common defense and build a more
perfect union.
Thank you.
Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator Lieberman.
I now am going to turn to our colleague, Congresswoman
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, who represents the 15th District in
Michigan. She is here in a dual capacity today, and we are very
pleased to ask her to introduce one of our distinguished
witnesses, who happens to be her son. I know the Congresswoman
is on a tight schedule, so I am going to turn to her first so
that she can excuse herself and return to the other body.
TESTIMONY OF HON. CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for your
leadership and your colleagues' bipartisan spirit as we rebuild
and secure our Nation together. Thank you very much for your
leadership.
And, Mr. Ranking Member, always on point. Thank you for all
that you do as a team, as a Senate, as the upper body of our
Congress.
Senator Lieberman. You are on record now.
Ms. Kilpatrick. Every now and then we say that when we want
something and come to you to ask. [Laughter.]
So I certainly want to acknowledge your hard work. Thank
you, Senator Lieberman, for helping to get us on the agenda. I
think it is most important that we, as policy makers, listen to
people out in America, so that we actually do what is right to
best serve them, and thank you very much.
I additionally want to thank you for our working together.
Last night Secretary Ridge announced $700 million in his next
round of grants. We are very happy that the City of Detroit was
able to get a portion of that. I want to thank everyone for our
bipartisan effort.
It is my distinct pleasure to present to you a gentleman
who needs no introduction, who is certainly known by all of
you, and a new energy, a new source in our part of the world to
rebuild the City of Detroit and its nearly million people.
This young man I have known before he took his first
breath. He is a young lawyer, and former Democratic leader of
the Michigan House of Representatives, now the Mayor of the
City of Detroit, let me present my son, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.
Chairman Collins. Thank you very much. We are going to
start with the Governor, but I did want to give you the
opportunity to introduce your son.
Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you very much.
Chairman Collins. I would note that I think as a result of
our last hearing with Secretary Ridge, that both Boston and
Detroit got funding this round, so I think we have had an
impact.
Senator Lieberman. What about New Haven? [Laughter.]
Chairman Collins. We are working on Portland and New Haven,
right.
First today, as I introduce our distinguished panel, and it
really is a great panel that reflects the perspectives of
State, county, city and emergency management officials. I think
this diverse panel will give us the broad range of perspectives
that we are looking for.
First I want to welcome Governor Mitt Romney of
Massachusetts, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. His
experience as Co-Chair of the National Governors Association
Task Force on Homeland Security will certainly provide a
valuable perspective to this Committee. As the former President
and CEO of the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee, he will
also assist our Committee in learning about what is perhaps the
most effective Federal, State and local homeland security
effort in recent memory.
We have already had the Mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick,
introduced to us by his distinguished mother, and we are very
much looking forward to hearing the perspective of a mayor of a
major city. We thank you for being here too. I know that you
have done a lot of work on the issue of homeland security and
we look forward to hearing your testimony.
It is always a pleasure for me to extend a warm welcome to
Art Cleaves, who is the Director of Maine's Emergency
Management Agency. One of my colleagues on this Committee has
commented that somehow I manage to have a witness from the
State of Maine at virtually every hearing, but that is because
the State of Maine has so much to offer to the rest of the
Nation.
I have relied on Art's advice on numerous homeland security
issues. In fact, it was he who first pointed out to me the lack
of flexibility in States being able to transfer funds from one
category to another. He has been down there on the front lines
and really understands the nuts and bolts issues that are
facing officials at the State, local and county level.
Finally, since I was in Minnesota just Monday with our
colleague, Norm Coleman, for a field hearing on homeland
security, it is a great pleasure to introduce Mark Stenglein,
who is a Commissioner from Hennepin County, Minnesota. Did I
pronounce that correctly? I learned how when I was out in
Minnesota.
I am very happy today that we will hear from a county
official. A lot of times we focus on the local and State level,
and do not pay enough attention to the counties, so we
appreciate having your perspective as well.
Governor, we are going to start with you, and again, thank
you for your effort to be here today.
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. MITT ROMNEY,\1\ GOVERNOR, STATE OF
MASSACHUSETTS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION
Governor Romney. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman. It is
good to be here with you, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Levin.
I feel like it is coming home for me because I have my
neighboring States to the north and south represented, and the
State of my birth also represented, so I am very comfortable
here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Governor Romney appears in the
Appendix on page 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me begin by saying thank you for the work which you are
doing in crafting legislation, filing legislation, which brings
as the Chairwoman has indicated, greater flexibility to the
process of the grant system in our homeland security effort,
and also a streamlining of the grant process which is being
provided by the Federal Government. That flexibility and
streamlining I believe is key.
As you have noted, I come on behalf of the National
Governors Association and my Co-Chair, Governor Ruth Ann Minner
of Delaware. We have been working together over the past
several weeks as we have taken on this new responsibility, and
look forward to working with you.
I think this morning, rather than reading through my
testimony, I might ask that you include my written testimony in
the record, and I might summarize for you some thoughts that
are taken from that.
First, I think there are two key points that I would like
to provide, and that is that in our view, investing resources
in homeland security based upon a comprehensive and integrated
plan is essential. Second, perhaps drawing on the comment that
was made by Senator Lieberman with regards to a term I had not
heard before, but not just first responders, but preventers as
well, maximizing our investment in the prevention of terrorist
acts is also something which I think should be a high priority
in thinking about how we allocate our resources. We think about
prevention. We think about intelligence, gathering intelligence
communication. We think about as well hardening the various
targets that might exist in a locality or in a State, and we
also think about operational security.
So I would like to focus a couple of thoughts with regards
to those two issues, maximizing the efforts going to
prevention, as well as investing our resources based upon a
comprehensive and unified plan.
I had the experience, Madam Chairwoman, as you indicated,
to have spent some time helping to organize the Olympic Winter
games. I recognize that by virtue of doing so, that security
and terrorist issues were going to become a major part of that
task. I had not recognized how large a part of that task they
would be. More than 15 percent of the budget of the Olympic
Games was spent on security, some $300 million, actually more
than that, was associated with our security program at the
Olympic Winter Games. That spending was overwhelmingly directed
based upon a comprehensive plan. The planning process literally
took years. In checking this morning with my colleague, our
estimate was that some 5 years were spent by law enforcement
professionals putting together a comprehensive plan to secure a
number of venues, not even an entire city or State, but just a
number of venues, against terrorist attack. Of course, the
Olympics had been the target of attacks in the past. And by
applying those resources against a comprehensive plan, we were
able to, I believe, provide a much higher degree of security
from potential terrorist acts than if we had just sent money
out to the various localities, communities, States, and
counties that were associated with the Olympic Games. The
alternative to allocating resources by plan is to provide
resources by population or by geographic territory or something
of that nature.
I am just fearful that the differences between municipal
needs, municipal responsibilities are so dramatic that if we
allocate money based on population or based on geography, as
opposed to being allocated based on a formulated plan, that we
will severely restrict our capability to provide for the
security of our citizens.
I look at my own State, and just thought this morning I
have a large number of cities and towns in Massachusetts. We
have 351 cities and towns in a relatively geographically small
State, and they are very different. Even though the populations
for several might seem the same, the needs from a security and
terrorist prevention effort are dramatically different. One of
our towns--I will take three that are about the same size--one
has a nuclear power plant in it. Obviously, that presents a
degree of difficulty that is different from another that is
just a simple residential community. And another, which houses
two LNG tanks and a tank farm for jet fuel and other sources of
fuel. So the needs of those different communities are quite
dramatically different. At the same time, one might say: Gee,
given all of these differences and needs, perhaps the Federal
Government could allocate money, not to States, but rather
allocate directly to these different municipalities and make
its own assessment of the needs of each one of these different
cities and towns. But with 351 different cities and towns, the
process of literally scoring on the Federal basis, not just the
differences between States, but the differences between all the
cities and towns, would become an overwhelming responsibility.
I believe therefore it is critical for us to allocate the
funding to the States and task the States with the
responsibility of not only creating a unified plan, but making
sure that it involves the participation of all those who have
stakes in the outcome of that effort.
Let me also note that with regards to this planning
process, that my experience with the Olympics is that it is
only effective if it involves the widest range of people who
are helping prepare it. Yes, we have professionals who knew
something about planning, but our effort was led by Federal
participation, State involvement and local participation as
well. Working together, a plan was created that had a high
degree of credibility and support across the widest range of
participation.
Let me also turn for just a moment to the topic of
prevention, and making sure that as we think about allocating
our resources, that prevention is very high on our list.
Thinking about response and first responders is of course
critical. Senator Lieberman's comments about thinking about
preventers, I think, is just as critical. When we think about
the funding that we allocated through our Olympic experience,
the overwhelming majority was allocated towards the effort of
assuring prevention of a terrorist act of one kind or another.
The heart of that is intelligence. In our case the FBI led
the State and local efforts with regards to intelligence. State
and local authorities were given primary responsibility for
gathering information and gathering data, but surveillance and
analysis was held by the FBI. As they managed that process and
worked with us, they were able to assign responsibility so that
we didn't have duplication across the three levels of
government or four levels of government, including our
counties, and at the same time were making sure that the party
responsible for the particular action had the highest degree of
expertise in carrying out that function. I note the FBI played
a superb role in managing our intelligence effort at the games
and continues to play a very critical role in the work which we
do now. As a governor, I could not be more pleased than I am
with the work of the FBI in helping coordinate the efforts in
planning and the intelligence work which goes on to protect our
Commonwealth.
Let me note second with regards to my experience there,
that training played a key role in the prevention programs,
training to help, if you will, first preventers know how to
gather intelligence and what they were looking for, perhaps
with the license of a person who they stopped on the highway,
and looking at that license in a way that would assess
potential terrorist implications, understanding how to
communicate with one another, how to survey potential threats.
Let me go from training to the area of hardening sites and
operational security. In that regard the Secret Service played
the key role. It led in the effort of looking at each one of
our venues and aspects of our community and found ways to
secure those venues, to harden those venues, if you will. Their
expertise in providing to us templates, suggesting distances
for barricades, fencing options, gating options and so forth,
were absolutely essential. If we had instead relied upon our
expertise as Olympic planners or local law enforcement, we
would not have begun to have the kind of capability that the
Secret Service provided to us. They were again key to our being
able to create the kinds of robust and complete plans that we
were able to put together.
I would therefore continue to urge that our focus remain on
prevention, and that we draw in Federal, State and local
authorities in creating these prevention plans, that we also
allocate resources largely based upon those plans, and that we
assure that the dollars are going against the targets and the
efforts that are integral parts of the plan which have been
created on this local, State and Federal level.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Thank you very much, Governor.
I am now going to ask my colleague, Senator Levin, to call
on the mayor from the largest city in--I think Detroit is the
largest city in Michigan.
Senator Levin. By far.
Chairman Collins. By far. While I go vote, and I will
return shortly.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN
Senator Levin. It is a joy to recognize my mayor, and
recognize his mother. We talk about the mayor's energy. We, who
have served in the Congress, who have served with you, know
where he gets a great deal of that energy and vision from. So,
welcome to you, Congresswoman Kilpatrick.
Mayor Kilpatrick.
[The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN
I am pleased to welcome to the hearing today the Mayor of Detroit,
Kwame Kilpatrick, and I thank the leadership of this Committee for
inviting him and for holding this hearing. Prior to my Senate days, I
was a member of the Detroit City Council so I know firsthand how hard
it can be to deal with the Federal bureaucracy; to get the information
needed to apply for funds; and then to be denied the funds you asked
for when you need them.
In my travels around Michigan this year, a number of local
officials have described difficulties in dealing with the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). Recently, the Mayor of Adrian, Michigan,
Samuel Rye, spoke of problems he was having both in reaching and
obtaining information from the DHS. At a May 9th meeting of city and
town managers in the Upper Peninsula in Michigan, the manager of Sault
Ste. Marie, Spencer Nebel, asked which of those in attendance had
actually received homeland security funds. The answer he got was no
one, despite the Upper Peninsula's great need for communications
equipment. As a former city official, I understand the frustrations of
these local officials, and I share with them the frustration that the
DHS isn't making it any easier for them.
For 6 months now, I and others have been urging DHS to set up an
800 number for grant information as well as a one-stop grant process
for State and local officials. There is still no 800 number and no one-
stop grant process. At the May 1 hearing, Secretary Ridge admitted that
the DHS Office for State and Local Coordination could and should, but
still does not, provide local officials with a single point of entry
for obtaining DHS grant information. That central clearinghouse for
grant information needs to happen. In addition to a central grant
office, the Michigan Homeland Security Director, Col. Mike McDaniel,
wants to hold a series of forums around the State of Michigan to
educate local fire and police departments on available grants. This is
another area where the DHS Office for State and Local Government
Coordination could provide assistance, and I hope it will join in this
effort.
A related issue is making sure that, once allocated, Federal
dollars flow quickly to the States. In the FY 2003 budget, Michigan is
supposed to receive $42 million overall and another $15 million from
the 2003 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, but so far, 8
months into fiscal year 2003, Michigan has received only $15 million.
Those funds need to get where they are supposed to go.
Additional frustration relates to the funding formula now used in
allocating the basic Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) grants
issued by DHS. The current formula does not distribute money to
localities with the greatest needs. Instead, the ODP grants are
distributed under a formula that provides a mandatory minimum amount of
funds for every State and, only after that minimum is met, provides
additional funds to States facing the greatest terrorist threats. The
result is that the formula disproportionately funds smaller States at a
higher per capita rate than the larger States. For example, why should
Wyoming receive more funding per capita than New York for first
responders? Experts have indicated that this funding formula is flawed,
and Secretary Ridge has said that he is working on altering it.
Hopefully, he will act soon and prior to the distribution of 2004
funds.
And then there are the new special DHS grants to high risk urban
areas. These grants are also funded out of ODP, but they are not
distributed according to a fixed formula. Instead, they are awarded at
the discretion of the Secretary based, in part, on classified
information. The first round of these grants doesn't add up in terms of
threats. Detroit is the largest U.S. border crossing for trade with
Canada or Mexico. In fact, Canada is our largest trading partner with
over $1 billion worth of goods and services crossing the border every
day. More than 40 percent of that trade passes through the Michigan-
Ontario border. Detroit has already been the site of several anti-
terrorism probes, and it is a microcosm of all the complex issues that
require a balancing of civil liberties and security needs. Detroit
produced in April 2002, a Homeland Security Strategy that laid out the
city's vulnerabilities, provided a 10-point action pan, and won praise
from Secretary Ridge as a model for other cities.
But a good action plan is not enough to get the job done. Detroit
needs resources if it is to protect its population. Yet, much to the
dismay of Mayor Kilpatrick and myself, when the DHS issued the first
round of grants to protect high risk urban areas, Detroit wasn't on the
list. That exclusion is difficult to understand in light of Detroit's
vulnerabilities and concrete plan to move forward. At a Committee
hearing on May 1, Secretary Ridge said that DHS had decided to disperse
the high-threat urban area grants in larger sums to fewer cities
instead of smaller amounts to more cities, and that more at-risk cities
would be getting these funds. Governor Ridge offered to share the
classified threat analysis information used for the grants, and I look
forward to reviewing it.
On top of all this, there is another problem that is also briefly
referenced in the Mayor's testimony--the fact that the Administration's
2004 budget request is actually providing lower overall amounts of
funding to first responders than last year. Let's take a look at the
big first responder picture:
First Responder Funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 04 Senate
Program FY 03 FY 04 Admin Budget
Request Resolution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ODP Office of Domestic 3,289 3,558 3,558
Preparedness (DHS)...........
Fire Grant Program (DHS)...... 745 0 0
-----------------------------------------
Total..................... 4,034 3,558 3,558
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary first responder programs are ODP and the Fire Grant
Program that funds local fire departments. When you add the totals, the
result is a 1-year funding decrease of $476 million. When I asked
Secretary Ridge about this at the May 1 hearing, he admitted that there
was an overall decrease.
On top of that decrease, the Administration is proposing huge cuts
to our tried and true local law enforcement programs. Three grant
programs for local police show what's happening: In 2003, the COPS
program--the same program about which Attorney General John Ashcroft,
said ``Since law enforcement agencies began partnering with citizens
through community policing, we've seen significant drops in crime
rates''--was funded at $929 million, but in 2004 the Administration
requested just $164 million for this program, an 82 percent decrease.
In 2003, the Byrne Grants for first responders were funded at $651
million, but in 2004 the Administration requested zero; and the Local
Law Enforcement Block Grant Program was funded at $400 million last
year, but in 2004 the Administration requested zero dollars. The
question is how and why the Administration is requesting less funding
for first responders at a time when the same Administration insists
that communities like Detroit gear up to defend the homeland.
All today and all this week, the Senate is voting on proposals for
billions of dollars in tax cuts, most of which go to the upper 10
percent of citizens. To pay for its tax program, the Administration has
proposed to cut government funding, including for much needed programs
like homeland security. It's a mistake. To prevent or react to a
terrorist incident, our government personnel need resources. Our first
responders need radios that can communicate with each other. Our
hospitals need medical training, supplies, and data systems to track
injuries. Our cities need well-thought out plans to protect citizens.
None of that can happen if homeland security needs are shortchanged to
pay for tax cuts.
Local officials are on the front lines of homeland security.
Recently, I took part in a Detroit town hall meeting that examined the
complexities involved with homeland security issues, and at which Mayor
Kilpatrick greatly enhanced the dialogue between the community and its
elected officials about what needs to be done. The Mayor showed not
only his knowledge of the city and the careful balancing of interests
that need to take place, but also a determination to meet the homeland
security challenges facing his city. The experiences of local officials
like Mayor Kilpatrick in working with the new DHS can help show us the
gaps in the programs and begin to get them working. I look forward to
hearing about his experiences on the front lines.
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. KWAME M. KILPATRICK,\1\ MAYOR, CITY OF
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
Mr. Kilpatrick. Thank you. Madam Chairman, thank you very
much and thank you Ranking Member Lieberman, and Senator Levin,
my main man. People talked about feeling at home--and I heard
the Governor say that he feels at home here. There could not be
anyone who feels more at home than me because my mommy is here.
[Laughter.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Kilpatrick appears in the
Appendix on page 55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I do want to talk about homeland security from two
different perspectives, one as the Mayor of the City of
Detroit, and the other as a member of the U.S. Conference of
Mayors Advisory Board and Co-Chair, along with Betty Flores of
Laredo, Texas, of the Cities and Borders Task Force.
Detroit is the largest city in Michigan. I want to give a
couple specifics about Detroit before I go into the homeland
security issue. The city is on a major waterway and comprises
40 percent of the border between U.S. and Canada. It is the
global headquarters of the largest corporation in the world
(General Motors sits right on our international waterway) and
the other two large auto makers also have homes there, Ford and
Daimler Chrysler. We have one of the largest convention
facilities in the country and several professional sports
arenas right in the downtown core area. We have a regional
airport to which we just added a $1.4 billion new terminal, and
Detroit faces some serious security concerns with all of these.
Some believe that to attack domestic issues and domestic
problems, we need to have a one-size-fits-all approach. I want
to wholeheartedly disagree with that view. I believe that we
need to look at the uniqueness of each city and really target
that uniqueness and figure out how we can fund the things that
cities need. While LA may need one thing or Chicago may need
one thing; Detroit may need another. One city may need HAZMAT
equipment or gas masks, while the City of Detroit may need a
technology foundation or telecommunications dollars.
I believe that Detroit was the first city in the Nation to
deliver a comprehensive strategic homeland security package and
plan to then-Governor Ridge, now Secretary Ridge. And since the
release of that strategy, we have worked to implement each one
of the 10-point items we identified as essential to protecting
the citizens of Detroit.
One was to appoint a full-time local Homeland Security
director. We have done that, and now he is partnered with all
of our agencies inside the City of Detroit, and has developed a
full homeland security plan. Our focus and mission in the City
of Detroit is to be able to respond to every day activities in
public service, so we are able to respond to an emergency, a
chemical or biological weapon threat, or weapons of mass
destruction threat. We believe that our health departments, for
instance, need to be able to counsel people for drug
intervention as easily as they need to be able to counsel
people in the event of a large emergency. So, we need to make
sure that those systems actually work.
We have also begun to do incredible work on our radio
systems interoperability, and we do not believe that should be
done in a vacuum. We hear often of counties wanting to do their
own system or States wanting to do their own systems. We
believe now, more than ever, that efforts need to be
coordinated so all of us are able to talk to one another in the
event of an emergency. I applaud the efforts of some counties
taking the lead and some States taking a lead in those efforts.
It has to be done in the era in which we are living so all of
us are able to talk to one another. Detroit has done a lot of
great work in upgrading our system and we will be fully
operable by the end of this year.
Detroit is a very diverse community, as many of you know.
We have the largest Arab population anywhere outside of the
Middle East. We have the largest Iraqi population anywhere
outside of the Middle East. I believe that Detroit is a
microcosm of what people can do when we do communicate. Many of
the people in this Nation did not even know that because we did
not have many of those large problems that people saw across
the country. But we did have the sweeps and we did have the
opportunity to share information among our local police
officers, our local firefighters, all the Federal agencies that
were working inside the City of Detroit, and the Iraqi, Arab
and Caribbean communities. We believe that is something that we
can learn from.
Additionally, we established a citizens corps in Detroit,
which is a volunteer program, and we asked people to submit
their names, numbers, addresses, so that they can volunteer in
the event of emergencies. Thousands of people have called and
registered for this. We held a town hall on March 24, 2003.
More than a thousand people came to that meeting. We wanted to
show them the homeland security outfits of our police
department. Senator Levin and Senator Stabenow both
participated in that town hall meeting. It was an excellent
opportunity to alleviate some of the fears that were in our
community. We conducted a poll after the town hall meeting, and
Detroiters felt more comfortable. A thousand people came to the
facility at the State fairgrounds, and many more saw it live on
television and felt so much better after that opportunity.
From a national perspective, I agree with many things that
the governor said in his comments, but this is one place where
governors and mayors actually differ in how homeland security
is funded. I wholeheartedly agree that cities need to sit at
the table with their State Governments and figure out how we
coordinate homeland security funding. But when an emergency
happens, there will be a local police officer and a local
firefighter, who will be the first in and the last to leave. I
want to make sure that point is strongly made and emphasized.
The dollars need to follow where the activity is. We can no
longer politicize this issue, especially on a State level, and
if this has to have some legislative debate, then it becomes
partisan, and homeland security dollars cannot become political
and partisan, and often that is what happens in State capitals
around this country. On behalf of the U.S. Conference of
Mayors, we are advocating that uniqueness is looked at on the
local level and in funding in that manner.
So in closing--and this is a long closing--I am not a
Baptist preacher, but I do have long closings. The City of
Detroit, as I mentioned before, we are on an international
waterway and local police officers have been protecting that
border for a long time. As a matter of fact, between September
11, 2001 and December 31, 2001 we spent nearly $3 million in
overtime reassigning officers. In 2002, we spent just over $10
million with the local police officers reassigned to patrol our
borders and to deliver national security to all of us in the
United States of America. With the efforts of Senator Levin,
Senator Stabenow and the outstanding leadership of
Congresswoman Kilpatrick, through the Omnibus Appropriations
Bill, we were able to receive some funding to be reimbursed for
that activity. But, we are constantly running up those bills as
well to continue to provide that security.
We need help from the Federal Government. Obviously, any
decision made at the border has a direct impact on the economic
well being of my city and this country. In Detroit we are the
home of just-in-time delivery for the manufacturing industry.
Many of us remember after September 11 the two- and three-mile
backups at the border that essentially stopped the American
economy. We need your help. And that is why State and local
governments need to be included in planning future border
security efforts.
I want to stress once again, as I finish my remarks, that
local police officers, local fire departments, will be the
first to arrive and the last to leave.
I thank you for this enormous opportunity to speak directly
to you today, and I look forward to working with the Chairman
and Ranking Member of this Committee, Senator Levin, and all of
the distinguished Members of the Governmental Affairs
Committee. Thank you.
Senator Lieberman [presiding.] Thank you very much, Mayor
Kilpatrick. I am delighted that you could be here. I said some
great things about you before you came in. Somebody said to me,
in Washington that you know you are doing well when people say
great things about you when you are not in the room.
[Laughter.]
And you are doing very well, and your testimony has been
very helpful today, and I look forward to the question period.
Mr. Cleaves, it is an honor to call on you and welcome your
testimony now.
TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR W. CLEAVES,\1\ DIRECTOR, MAINE EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Mr. Cleaves. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. Senator Levin,
and distinguished Members of the Governmental Affairs
Committee, I am Art Cleaves, Director of Maine Emergency
Management Agency. Our office is also the Homeland Security
Coordination Center for the State of Maine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Cleaves appears in the Appendix
on page 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, our office administers all FEMA grants in the
State and all Office of Domestic Preparedness grants beginning
with the program's inception under the Department of Justice.
Maine is largely a rural State and may be thought of less
at risk from terrorist activities than the more urban areas.
However, our long coastlines and international border have
unique vulnerabilities. We have a great responsibility in the
State for ensuring that our citizens remain safe. We have a
unique opportunity and a responsibility that we feel keenly
about, to act as a sentinel for our neighbors to the South and
to the West. We will never forget that two of the September 11
hijackers began their deadly journey in our State.
Since before September 11 those of us in the profession of
emergency management have been working closely with the Federal
Government on fielding terrorism preparedness and weapons of
mass destruction preparedness programs. On September 11,
however, awareness was tragically awakened of the critical need
of these programs. Our office, as I am sure every Member of
Congress, was overwhelmed with requests for funds to support
planning, training, equipment, and personnel costs.
In addition, there were requests to reimburse States and
communities for what were perceived as national security costs,
dollars expended by the States and the local governments to
help respond to a national threat.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate and
thank the Congress for the passage of the 2002 State Homeland
Security Grant Program Part II. This is a giant step forward,
not just the resources it provides the States, but also for the
flexibility in the implementation it gives us. In addition to
our ability to reimburse cities and towns for actions taken
during Operation Liberty Shield and in future events is
something I think we have collectively wanted to do since
September 11. It will be with great pleasure that Governor
Baldacci is able to distribute these funds to the local
communities.
With the package just fielded, we are afforded flexibility
in the amount of the award that can be used for equipment,
planning, training, exercise, or administration. We are also
permitted to use the training dollars, if needed, to reimburse
overtime personnel costs required for successful training and
exercise. This flexibility is welcome beyond words, and for
more than what it will do in allowing us to achieve
preparedness goals. It demonstrates how responsive this
Committee and the Congress, as a whole, has been to the
feedback on the effectiveness of these grant programs. It bodes
well for our collective ability to be able to serve our
citizens well into the future. We must always be willing to
look at what is working and then fix what is not working.
We also appreciate and support S. 838, introduced by
Senator Collins, which creates a process whereby the States can
request to reallocate funds received pursuant to appropriations
of the State Homeland Security Grant Program among all four
categories of equipment, training, exercise, and planning. This
will give us the opportunity for flexibility in all the grants
we are currently administering, and in Maine's case it will
allow us to use all of our allocation and not have to return a
portion that will otherwise remain unspent.
I am totally supportive of the guidelines that dictate 80
percent pass through of the ODP grant funds to local
communities. It is after all the local communities who bear the
brunt of that first response. We have not adequately addressed
their needs, and we must do so. But without reducing direct aid
to the communities, I think in the future we will need to look
at those cases where supporting programs at the State level
will benefit communities in an efficient and cost effective
manner. Let me reiterate. I do not support sacrificing any
direct pass through programs in order to increase State
capability, but there are times when increasing these
capabilities achieves a direct benefit for the local
communities. As we look at the structure of future fielding
possibilities, I think we need to be able to identify and
support those opportunities.
Please allow me to address a couple of other concerns we
have, one being the efficient coordination or grants from the
Federal level. In Maine, when we first began to administer the
FEMA's Terrorism Consequence Management Planning Assistance,
TCMPA, that is 100 percent terrorism funding program that
started before September 11, and the Department of Justice, now
the ODP funds, it was immediately obvious that we needed to
supply an in-state coordination that was not present within the
Federal Government.
We put together an interagency team of county and local
members to develop our homeland security strategy and to guide
the grant-making process.
Today, a number of funding streams are gathered at the
mantel of the Department of Homeland Security. But there are
others that are not. There are funds available from HHS, CDC,
EPA, Department of Transportation, and probably other Federal
sources of which I am not yet aware. We could create 50 full-
time jobs across the States, tracking Federal homeland security
grants. How much more efficient it would be if the Federal
Government agencies could better coordinate their grant
opportunities, ensure that there was no redundancy in these
precious resources, and even support each other in publicizing
these opportunities.
I think we are doing a good job in Maine coordinating our
State agencies and using the grants to complement each other,
not duplicate each other's efforts. And I could stop being
concerned right now. But as a taxpayer, I think we could do a
better job at coordinating that can be done from the top. I am
not advocating that all funding opportunities be relocated to
the Department of Homeland Security. It is absolutely
appropriate that Federal agencies with particular missions work
directly with their State. But the Department of Homeland
Security and other Federal departments can use the bully pulpit
afforded them as sources of funding to encourage States to
coordinate all efforts of all State departments involved in
homeland security. The best bang for the buck can be achieved
by building capability for homeland security incidents on the
backbone of all-hazard emergency management capability, which
has as a basic tenet cooperation and coordination among all
agencies.
Last, I would like to address the grant application process
itself. My agency administers the Emergency Management
Performance Grant, EMPG, and the Office of Domestic
Preparedness grants. We find that both models have merits. The
EMPG model is one that we find extremely flexible and easy to
work with. Annually, we submit a strategic plan containing
long-term goals and objectives and broad strategies that we use
to achieve these goals. We also submit detailed work plans we
use to track annual activities, and FEMA approves that plan, as
well as the budget we submit. We report quarterly on our
spending activities and the achievements at the strategy level.
With our final report, we compare our accomplishments with our
goals of the year. We identify our significant accomplishments
and those areas that remain to have more work done. We are held
accountable both fiscally and programmatically, but we are
allowed flexibility in the design of the overall program. And
that is for the whole State.
We use a similar process to manage EMPG grants at the
county level, and we monitor their progress against their
goals. This is the model we would like to see all grants
follow. Indeed, we could envision an EMPG program platform
expanded not only to include matching funds that would help us
build our base emergency management capability, but also the
100-percent grants made available to address homeland security.
With the Department of Homeland Security now in place, we
have a great opportunity to improve program coordination. With
the all-hazards approach that has been the foundation of
emergency management and the existing programs in the mix, we
have the people and experience in administering grants
effectively and efficiently and the infrastructure to support
them. The relationship is already in place that connect
Federal, State, and local governments in preparedness,
response, recovery, and mitigation, and that is working every
single day. As the Department continues to evolve, we have a
solid base to build on.
Senator Collins, I thank you very much for this opportunity
to testify today.
Senator Collins [presiding.] Thank you very much, Mr.
Cleaves.
First, let me apologize to the mayor for missing his oral
testimony, but I did read your written testimony and I look
forward to asking you questions. As you can see, we are doing a
tag team here to try to keep the hearing going. So we are
taking turns voting and chairing.
Commissioner, we look forward to hearing your statement.
TESTIMONY OF MARK J. STENGLEIN,\1\ COMMISSIONER, BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Mr. Stenglein. Well, thank you. Thank you, Chairman
Collins. And I am very far from home, but everybody has made me
feel quite at home. The table I am used to sitting around has a
7-, 5-, and 4-year-old, so it is quite a different atmosphere
here. But I bring you greetings from the State of Minnesota,
the Upper Midwest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Stenglein appears in the Appendix
on page 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would also like to thank Senator Lieberman and the two
Senators from my State, Senator Dayton and Senator Coleman, and
Members of the Committee where they may be.
My name is Mark Stenglein, and I am a county commissioner
from Hennepin County in Minnesota. Hennepin County is the most
populous county in Minnesota with over 1.1 million residents.
Hennepin County is charged with helping to maintain the health,
safety, and welfare of one-quarter of the State's population,
and I am honored to have the opportunity to testify before you
today. I will also note that the National Association of
Counties has submitted testimony for the Congressional Record
as well. I would also like to personally thank Senator Coleman
for his invitation to testify this morning.
Since the attacks of September 11, Hennepin County has been
preparing for the day that everyone hopes will never come
again. We have begun the difficult task of assessing our
current preparedness planning and assets. We have continued to
seek cooperation and collaboration with other units of
government. And, finally, we have sought the resources
necessary to achieve our goals.
First, I would like to give you a brief summary of where we
currently stand in our assessment and planning stages.
Hennepin County has assessed our vulnerabilities at all
levels. We have upgraded our emergency preparedness plans,
reassessed our evacuation procedures for all county buildings.
We have made structural improvements to ``target harden'' our
facilities and infrastructure and added additional security
measures at our citizen service centers to enhance the safety
of our employees and the public.
Hennepin County is the keeper of records for millions of
Minnesotans. We issue everything from birth certificates to
death certificates, passports, and driver's licenses. We must
provide access for our citizens so they may conduct their
business in a convenient and safe manner. County facilities
that were once designed for easy public access must now be
reconfigured. Security measures must be retrofitted to ensure
safety for our employees and citizens--all while keeping the
delicate balance between safety and service.
Another area of intense focus is our hospital. Hennepin
County operates the Hennepin County Medical Center, known as
HCMC. HCMC is the only public hospital in the metropolitan
region and the only hospital in the downtown core with a Level
I trauma facility. When it comes to serving the citizens in a
time of crisis, we are it. It is a tremendous responsibility
that we take very seriously. That is why HCMC has been leading
the smallpox vaccination program for area hospitals and is also
the lead agency for biological and chemical decontamination
units. We have also developed a mutual aid compact involving 22
hospitals in the metropolitan region. HCMC is also a global
admitting hospital designated by the CDC.
We have begun planning for continuity of government and the
continuation of operations in the event of a tragedy. The
continuity of government and the continuation of operations is
essential. Clearly identified roles and responsibilities allow
our first responders, emergency coordinators, and
administrators to carry out emergency plans with precision and
without hesitation.
Hennepin County has not focused all of its efforts
internally. We have also sought to partner with the Federal
Government, the State of Minnesota, neighboring counties, and
municipalities. These partnerships define where we are headed
in preparing for an emergency. One example of this cooperation
was a joint venture with the City of Minneapolis on an
emergency preparedness training program, sponsored by FEMA, at
Mount Weather, Virginia. City and county leaders, including
myself, along with emergency personnel at all levels, conducted
training operations under differing scenarios. This hands-on
approach to learning highlighted our strengths and outlined our
weaknesses, providing us with a blueprint for improvement.
Our cooperation does not end there. The Hennepin County
Sheriff continually meets with city police chiefs, State and
Federal law enforcement officials, emergency management
planners, and other security first responders to share
information. Firefighters meet with EMS personnel to discuss
tactics and scenarios to ensure that emergency plans are
developed consistent within all disciplines.
Another example of cooperation is the county-wide advisory
group formed to recommend and prioritize how to best use scarce
economic resources. Representatives from police, fire, EMS,
sheriff's office, public health departments, and the hospital
meet to provide information and insight related to emergency
preparedness planning. Each representative knows how her or his
respective agency needs to respond in a moment of crisis. The
challenges to respond in a crisis increase under the threat of
terrorism or biological and chemical weapons of mass
destruction.
Hennepin County has also partnered with local entities such
as the Minneapolis Airports Commission and the Metropolitan
Council on the preliminary design study of a secure cargo
facility near our international airport located within our
county. We believe that a consolidated regional distribution
center for air cargo will streamline the security screening
process of the thousands of tons of cargo leaving Hennepin
County and Minnesota each year. This regional distribution
center will also impact the local economy and maintain the
balance between security and the economic impacts of delay.
Working together, we are able to share ideas and concerns.
We have worked hard to identify and prioritize equipment and
training needs. Most importantly, we have moved from an
independent approach to a shared, regionally-centered approach.
We are breaking down many of the old barriers to cooperation.
We have made tremendous progress in uniting behind best
practices and ensuring that we are doing all we can to protect
and serve our residents.
Last, I am going to talk about the kinds of help we need in
order to be successful.
We need money.
Should I say that again? We need money.
We lack the training and equipment to prepare or respond to
a radiological attack. A ``dirty bomb'' would have a
devastating impact. We agree with the Hennepin County Sheriff
that the concept of a regional law enforcement response team
may be necessary to effectively operate in hazardous or
contaminated areas. Resources are required to coordinate such
an endeavor.
More funding is needed for specialized equipment. There is
virtually no capability in Hennepin County or the State of
Minnesota for heavy urban search and rescue. It would take
nearly 48 to 72 hours to call in such equipment. By then it may
be too late.
We require funding so we can prepare, so we can plan, so we
can train, so we can test ourselves, so we can assess and
reassess, and so we can repeat the process until we have got it
right.
Thus far, Hennepin County has received supplemental funding
for the county and local communities to update plans for
terrorism. We are currently utilizing a grant from the
Department of Justice for first responder equipment. Resources
have been slow to reach local governments, and we are just now
in the process of applying for the 2003 Homeland Security grant
intended for equipment and exercises.
Hennepin County strongly supports the current formula of
the Homeland Security Department, Office of Domestic
Preparedness grant program. That formula requires 80 percent of
the money awarded to States be directed to local units of
government.
Hennepin County also believes that the Emergency Management
Performance Grant, EMPG, program funding needs to be increased.
This is the program that facilitates and coordinates emergency
planning and exercises. EMPG funding is essential for all local
emergency planning programs. Local planners need the
flexibility offered through the EMPG program.
We must keep in mind that disasters originate at the local
level. Local responders are the first to arrive at a disaster
scene. Those horrific first hours of September 11 are etched in
our memories forever; local responders bore the brunt of that
horror.
Counties are willing participants in emergency
preparedness. We pledge to work with all agencies on a
national, State, and regional level. Hennepin County is staffed
with hard-working, dedicated individuals willing to do all they
can to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of our citizens.
We ask that you help provide us the tools necessary to make
that a reality.
Madam Chairman, Members of the Committee, I sincerely thank
you for the opportunity to testify here.
Chairman Collins. Thank you very much, Commissioner.
The commissioner put it very bluntly. He said, ``We need
money.''
Mr. Stenglein. I said it twice.
Chairman Collins. I would like to ask all of our witnesses
today your advice on how best to allocate that money.
Regardless of the level of funding for Homeland Security, if
the funds aren't getting to the people who need them most, if
they aren't based on a formula that takes into account the
threat, whether a State is a border State, whether it has major
institutions or nuclear plants, etc., then no matter how much
money we invest, we may not accomplish the goal of making our
Nation safer.
And you represent four different perspectives, so starting
with the Governor, I would like to ask your advice, as the
Committee drafts legislation, on the issue of how do you best
and most effectively allocate the funding?
Governor Romney. Well, the funding, I think we would all
agree, should go to the individuals who are the first-line
preventers and first-line responders. That is going to be
overwhelmingly at the city and town level. Some States have
counties and, therefore, county government may participate in
that, may have law enforcement; other States don't, therefore
they would not. Some States have very extensive involvement of
the State police in this effort; others don't. So you would
have a wide range of differences between who those first
responders and first preventers might be, but that is where the
money ought to go. And that is why I think the direction that
has been pursued in the past, which money is flowing through to
those first responders and first preventers is the right way to
go.
I would underscore what the Chairman has said, however,
which is that money ought to go not just based on how many
people there are in a location or what the geographical size is
but, rather, what is the potential risk in a particular area.
What kind of targets are there? What kind of access and
availability is there to terrorist infiltration in the area?
What kind of threat might exist from other sources, whether
domestic or foreign, is something which has to be considered in
where the funds would flow.
And it would be conceivable for the Federal Government to
say we are going to do that kind of scoring, if you will, on
the unique qualifications, I think as the mayor indicated, or
the unique circumstances of each city and town in the country.
But you would have tens of thousands that would have to be
scored that way. I think the preferable matter would be to have
the respective States carry out that scoring and do that on the
basis of the integrated plan which they and the localities
would create.
I mentioned that we have a city that has a nuclear facility
in it, and one might say, oh, they obviously should get a lot
of money then in that city to take care of that nuclear
facility--except in our case the nuclear facility is not
protected by the city or town. The protection entirely comes
from the State Police and the National Guard. So, according to
our plan, the funds should flow there.
On the other hand, the city I mentioned that has the LNG
tanks and the jet fuel tanks is entirely protected by local law
enforcement. The State Police plays no particular role in that
community. And, therefore, the funds should flow in that
direction in that particular community.
So I would underscore, let's flow the money where it is
needed, that is, to the first responders and the first
preventers. That is overwhelmingly going to be the cities and
towns and counties, depending on the nature of the structure of
the governmental entity in a particular State. But let's make
sure it flows in a way which is consistent with a plan which
has been created by all of those parties, Federal, State, and
local working together, and then make sure that the individual
uniqueness, as the mayor has indicated, of a particular
community is factored into that assessment.
Chairman Collins. Thank you very much, Governor.
Mr. Mayor, I know in your written testimony you have said
that, until very recently, Detroit had received very little by
way of homeland security funding. What is your advice to us on
allocating the funding?
Mr. Kilpatrick. Well, thank you for asking that question,
Madam Chairman. I would say I agree almost in whole with the
Governor. I think we all agree that the money should go
directly where it is needed most, and it should be based on a
needs assessment, not based on population. And we should talk
about where the health labs are that are doing the testing for
the chemical or biological weapons. We should talk about where
the Level I trauma centers are in our State. We should talk
about the border security in a city like the City of Detroit
and look at those unique qualifications of cities and towns and
figure out how that money is allocated.
I think that is where the big debate comes and how it comes
to those cities. I think mayors in this country have to have a
direct relationship with the Federal Government. Being a former
legislator, I truly agree that if all things were equal, and
there was a fair assessment of scoring, and things went into
our State capitals and came out fairly, that would be the best
way to do it. But we all know, just like Portland in Oregon and
Detroit in Michigan and Boston in Massachusetts, we are the
giant sucking sound. And oftentimes we are politicized when we
are trying to do good things for our city that also protect the
entire State. Detroit is 46-plus percent of the GDP of the
State of Michigan, and a lot of people don't like that. You
know, it gets political in State Houses, State legislatures,
and even many governors' offices.
So cities and mayors across this country in the 319 metro
areas that make up 86 percent of the gross domestic product of
this country are saying we need the money to come directly to
cities because those local firefighters--I mean, when we have
to pick up the phone and say there is an emergency, we don't
call the county fire department or the State fire department.
On the border every single day are our Detroit police
officers, and that money is coming directly out of general fund
dollars that would pay for more crime fighting in
neighborhoods. So we need that money to come directly to the
city. Legislative bodies represent people all over the State
and they are there to fight for their constituencies.
Oftentimes they don't look at the direct issue of how we
protect our entire State. It is more of how do I get money to
my hometown.
So I think the dollars should be allocated directly to
cities based on a needs assessment put together by the Federal
Government's relationship to those cities. I said in my
testimony, Los Angeles may need something different than the
City of Detroit. In the City of Detroit, we have gone out and
purchased a thousand HAZMAT outfits because we thought that
would be a concern. We don't need any more of those, so we
don't need money for HAZMAT. We need flexibility in spending so
we can go out and say what we need is technology
infrastructure; what we need is to do some work on our tunnel
or our bridge crossing; or we need to improve our seawall so
there is better access and better security measures there.
So we need a direct relationship with the dollars, or it
will be politicized in a State like Michigan. Thank you, Madam
Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Thank you very much. Mr. Cleaves.
Mr. Cleaves. Thank you, Senator. I wouldn't dare to sit
here and disagree with a governor or a mayor at all.
[Laughter.]
But I would stress a couple of points, I think, that are
very important.
To this point, there hasn't been any money distributed to
the States that we could get to the community except for the
supplemental that just went through. That is the first money we
have seen at the State level that can actually be flowed down
to the local communities. And the other thing that I would
underscore is that at the State level we have visibility of all
the planning, and in order to coordinate it so that one city,
one community doesn't duplicate what the next community has,
i.e., I would point out that Portland, Maine, doesn't have its
own HAZMAT team today and it relies on volunteers from four
neighboring communities. They are building that capability, but
we see at the State level all of this regional planning coming
together so we could put together one strategic plan for the
whole State.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Commissioner Stenglein.
Mr. Stenglein. Well, it is very difficult, Madam Chairman,
to come at the end of such esteemed and honored people who have
some very good answers. Each unique community has their own
needs, and the reality is that the people that sent us here are
just counting on government to do it: ``They will take care of
it.'' We are the ``they.'' And in Hennepin County, as an
example, our hospital is a public hospital. There are hospitals
that are private hospitals. They don't operate on capacity,
they don't worry about capacity. They are always filling it up
all the time, where our hospital, we have to maintain capacity
all the time.
So, again, the uniqueness of each area--and as Governor
Romney pointed out, depending on how difficult an area is to
secure, could mean various parts of a problem that hopefully
our elected people are coming to you and bringing the wants and
needs.
Senator Lieberman was very accurate when he said that the
war is within our borders now. The next 101st Airborne could be
the Detroit Fire Department. It is very true, and they need
those resources right away. Not saying that everything needs--
it is incumbent upon us to coordinate all things. If the
National Guard has a lot of HAZMAT suits in a locality, they
should become available without question.
Chairman Collins. Thank you.
Governor Romney, you mentioned the importance of a plan,
and that is an issue that the Committee is also looking at. I
wonder if you could share with us more about your experience in
coordinating in your role with the Olympic Committee. It is my
understanding that you came up with a single plan. I would like
to know how important that was to the success of your effort
and how you involved Federal, State, and local officials.
Because, really, what you have done in many ways in that
capacity is a model for what we need to do, in my opinion, for
Homeland Security.
Governor Romney. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It was a very
interesting experience because, initially, as you might
imagine, with the award of the Olympic Games and the prospects
of literally billions of dollars coming to the State of Utah,
there were a number of law enforcement agencies that thought
this was going to be the Holy Grail. We would have all the
money necessary for equipment, for communications, and for
security, and so we had police departments, city police
departments, county sheriff's police, as well as the State
Police, all creating their own plans. And much as planning has
been done so far in our Nation, for many States planning is
every city puts together their own plan, we staple it all
together and bind it and say here is the statewide plan.
That would have not held us in good stead. I remember early
on in my experience receiving a visit from the State Police,
suggesting that they really needed an additional helicopter and
couldn't we make that part of the security program for the
Games. There was a sheriff in one of the rural counties that
said they would love to have a mobile command center and
couldn't we make that part of the overall plan.
And what we found is that the cities and towns, the county,
and the State each had their own vision of what they needed.
But the only security program that was highly effective was one
which was planned together with the cities, the towns, the
county, looking at, if you will, a theater-wide strategy for
providing security.
I don't know as much about all the communities seated at
this table as I do about the one in Salt lake City, Salt Lake
City itself is a relatively small population and geographic
center with many, if you will, suburbs around it. Having a plan
for Salt Lake City alone, without encompassing those
communities around it, wouldn't have been effective. And having
each one of them develop their own plans with their own
communications systems, their own mobile command centers and so
forth would not have been efficient or effective. That is what
happened in the Atlanta Games. That is how the Atlanta Games
were planned, and we had a terrorist incident there.
What we moved toward was a program where the local
authorities, the State authorities, and the Federal Government
sat down and worked together on a multi-year basis to create a
truly comprehensive plan with no holes, where assignments were
made, and where we said, for instance, OK, we only need one
mobile command center, not one for each community. We need a
communications system which is interoperable, and, therefore,
cities and towns, we are not going to give you the money to go
out and buy whatever you want. We are going to create a
systemwide setting, and we put in place with Senator Bennett's
help--a Member of this Committee--a communications program that
covered all of the police and fire in the greater community.
This kind of interoperability was only possible given the
fact that there was a statewide plan and a theater-wide plan
that was developed.
Chairman Collins. Pardon me. I have to go.
Governor Romney. That is fine. Thank you.
Chairman Collins. Please complete your comment.
Governor Romney. You have to go vote. That is fine. Thank
you.
I would note that what we have found as we have gone about
the work of planning for our own community--and I have here
with me today my Secretary of Public Safety, who was formerly
the police chief in Arlington County, the home of the Pentagon,
who is experienced in saying how do you create a plan which is
robust enough to prevent terrorism and also to respond to
terrorism, unless you do so on a regional basis where
interoperability and efficiency are high priorities. And that
is something which we are increasingly able to do on a State
basis. This stapling together of all the cities' and towns'
plans and calling it a State plan just doesn't make sense. And,
therefore, it has been critical from our standpoint to insist
on the monies we have received--we have now passed through the
State Government more than 95 percent of the homeland security
funds that have been appropriated since 1999. But when people
came to us and said, gee, we would like this project, we said
we will only approve projects that are part of a regional plan.
With 351 cities and towns, we don't want 351 plans. We want
regionality, with the City of Boston working together with the
City of Chelsea and the City of Revere, which are right next
door, which happen to house these LNG and volatiles tanks,
making sure that we have a system that encompasses both.
So I am, following on the Chairman's question, a strong
believer in creating that plan with all parties and making sure
that the funding is being allocated according to that plan. And
I agree with the mayor. We don't want to have this as a
political process, whether at the Federal or the State or the
local level. It really has to be a plan based upon the specific
needs and roles of the different parties.
Senator Lieberman [presiding.] Thank you. I was thinking I
feel like I am in the old Johnny Carson show where you hear the
answer before you hear the question. [Laughter.]
It was a good answer.
Governor Romney. Senator, I was asked with regards to the
Olympic experience the nature of the planning process that we
had undertaken and how that worked. And just to repeat a small
piece, we began with each locality putting together their own
plan and trying to cobble them together, and it was impossible.
What we ended up with was a planning process which was city,
State, and Federal, where the Federal played a very important
role in helping us to build templates to tell us what needed to
be done area by area. And that is really what made all the
difference.
Senator Lieberman. I appreciate your answer, Governor. I
thank you.
Let me raise another question going to the relationship
between the Federal Government and the local governments with
regard to funding, and it is the question of whether because of
your efforts in response to the terrorist threat or a response
to a national problem, whether we should be directly funding
personnel at the State, county, and local level?
Now, to some extent in a different context, the domestic
anti-crime context, we made this decision in the 1990's when we
created and funded the so-called COPS program, but this
proposal which I mentioned, which Senator Collins and I and
others are cosponsoring, called the SAFER Act, would basically
take the COPS idea and move it to firefighters, and we would
fund, directly fund additional firefighting personnel based on
the conclusion that fire departments are being required to
bring on and train additional personnel to deal with terrorist
threats.
There is some disagreement about this. Governor Ridge was
before the Committee a couple of weeks ago and said that he
thought there was--I believe I am doing him justice, that he
thought there was probably an argument for funding overtime of
personnel, particularly based on Federal determinations of
higher alert levels, but not to pick up personnel costs.
So I wonder if I could ask you how you feel about us
assuming some personnel costs at your levels of government
based on a conclusion that those costs are necessitated by the
national threat of terrorism. Yes, Mayor, do you want to start?
Mr. Kilpatrick. Yes. Senator, that speaks directly to the
individual uniqueness of each community in this country. And on
behalf of Detroit, the only time we have received any homeland
security money has been directly from the Federal Government.
The supplemental appropriation gave our State $15.9 million.
The City of Detroit was provided $369,000 of that--2.5 percent.
It was given out in a way that everybody gets some money
instead of a real needs assessment on what is needed in our
State.
When you have $1.4 billion of trade coming across your
waters every single day; when you have the largest corporation
in the world sitting on your riverfront, when you have local
police officers performing the job of national security; there
has to be another conversation.
So I believe that the COPS program, and additional
personnel are things that we should look at. But it should be
done on a formula basis even from here. The individual COPS
grants just allow local communities to hire police officers or
firefighters. On behalf of Detroit, I am willing to submit what
we actually need as far as homeland security, so that we can be
evaluated fairly in a way where we get exactly what we need. I
know mayors across the country would do the same.
We put together this homeland security plan. We have
outlined from each department what they actually need to
deliver public service, every single day, because I don't
believe that emergency response will ever work unless you are
delivering services that way every day. If you are trying to
jump into a good communications system when an emergency
happens, it won't work. If you are trying to energize your
health department when an emergency happens and it doesn't work
on a day-to-day basis, it won't work.
So we have spent a lot of time really getting our house in
order to make sure that we can deliver basic public services,
communicate with our citizens and bring our telecommunications
and interoperable systems together with everyone so it works
every day.
I agree wholeheartedly with the governor--the comments he
made when he spoke about the Olympics. These plans can't be
piecemeal, and that is why I believe that so much money is
being wasted when it comes to our State, because we want to
give money to this plan or to that plan instead of forcing the
regions around the State of Michigan to get together and deal
with this in a comprehensive form. When you have a million-plus
people in downtown Detroit for the fireworks display, those are
Detroit police officers there. We get mutual aid from county
sheriffs for those events. When the Red Wings--not this year--
win the Stanley Cup (but that is a usual happening around the
City of Detroit), and a million people come downtown, those are
local police officers.
So, we have these agreements where we can work out regional
things on a fund basis, and we want to drive everyone to sit
down and talk about a real comprehensive plan. And I believe
that with a direct relationship with local governments, an
allocation of COPS dollars or COPS-formula-type dollars in
homeland security would especially work for cities like Detroit
that have become so politically charged in legislatures, in our
legislature in Michigan. But it is always the big city--New
York in New York, L.A. in California--it is always that big
political thing that prevents the dollars from doing the most
good for the citizens of that State.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mayor, for that thoughtful and
helpful answer.
Mr. Stenglein. Just briefly, Senator?
Senator Lieberman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stenglein. On the surface, that sounds like a great
idea because, you are right, the police and firemen are the
first line of defense. But we have to be very careful, because
when the police dollars went away, it was devastating to some
cities because cities relied on those dollars and spent money
that should have probably gone into public safety elsewhere.
So my only caution is, if that happens, to be very careful
in how it is allocated to the cities.
Chairman Collins. Governor or Mr. Cleaves, would you like
to answer that question?
Governor Romney. I would be happy to. I will need to speak
on my own behalf as opposed to the National Governors'
Association.
Senator Lieberman. Sure.
Governor Romney. Because I am sure that from their
standpoint any money would be greatly appreciated. [Laughter.]
So I don't want to draw them into my own remarks, but I
would say that certainly there is justification for the Federal
Government playing an ongoing role in funding virtually any
effort it wished to fund relating to homeland security. The
Federal Government has a responsibility for defending the
homeland, for national security, for national defense, and this
clearly falls within that range.
I would note, however, that our own experience at the
Olympic Games was that the Federal Government rule, if you
will, that we applied was that the funding would be provided
for overtime only and that Federal support came for overtime,
not only for those officers involved in the direct security
effort but for those officers who were left at home that had to
carry out overtime responsibilities because of those officers
we had drawn away. So it was a pretty robust program.
In this circumstance, I think we have an unusual setting,
and that is that the homeland security challenge has been
unanticipated and unplanned for. And cities and towns and the
States have not put in place a structure for being able to deal
financially with this sudden post-September 11 financial
crisis. And, therefore, the prospect of receiving some support
or reimbursement for not only equipment but also personnel I
think is appropriate in these kind of unplanned, unanticipated
emergencies.
Going forward, that is an issue that we will be happy for
any largesse that comes our way.
Senator Lieberman. Mr. Cleaves.
Mr. Cleaves. My answer will be very brief.
Senator Levin. May I interrupt you just one second? Mayor
Kilpatrick has to leave because of his schedule this morning
and he is late for an appointment at HUD. And I am wondering
whether or not we could excuse him, unless there is a question
that any of us have--and I know I have a quick one, too.
Senator Coleman I guess is our acting Chairman, so I will look
at Senator Coleman. But if we could excuse the mayor, it would
be very helpful, after a question or two. And I would ask the
understanding of our other witnesses.
Senator Lieberman. Mr. Cleaves, did you want to finish
briefly?
Mr. Cleaves. Yes, sir. Very briefly.
Senator Lieberman. People from Maine are very much to the
point. [Laughter.]
Mr. Cleaves. We absolutely need funds with training
flexibility because we don't have the police officers or the
fire officials to adequately train today. So we can't even
cover shifts. So, absolutely, money with flexibility for their
training.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you. Did you want to ask a
question?
Senator Levin. I think Senator Coleman is probably our
acting Chairman, so let me ask Senator Coleman----
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN
Senator Coleman. Well, as an ex-mayor, I did want to get
the mayor's response, and actually from others. But while the
mayor is here, I was always a great believer in direct funding
to the cities and was oftentimes concerned as dollars went to
the States that they never found their way down, and you have
indicated that in your testimony about the supplemental.
My concern, though, is that not every city needs to have a
robot bomb dog. Small cities don't. Have you thought about a
regional approach? What do we do to make sure dollars get to
you that you need in a more focused way, and whether at the
State level that works fine, or a regional approach? How should
we look at this?
Mr. Kilpatrick. I believe that there are several things
that you should force us to do regionally, and when I got into
office, Detroit had always been--had friction regionally. We
brought everyone to the table. We now for the first time, I
believe, in Detroit's history have a great working relationship
with Oakland County and with Macomb County. We have brought all
of our hospital systems in the entire southeastern Michigan
region together. We meet about our planning now, and we are
doing exactly what the Governor outlined.
It has taken us a while to get here. People are still
scrambling because, yes, this is new. Homeland security is new.
You still have some people saying they want their own
interoperable system, which is kind of oxymoronic, you want to
have your own interoperable system. But we are working out some
of those issues.
But you are right, there are some cities that receive
funding from the State that absolutely cannot use it to do any
furtherance of homeland security or hometown security for us in
Michigan. So, I believe that there should be some parts that
come directly to the local government. We are kicking up people
to supervise now, and you are taking them out of the line ranks
because you have got your good people leaving.
So that is a big issue, but there are some concerns--the
hospital funding, health care funding, Trauma I centers--where
are they in the region? That should be regionally allocated, I
believe, and there are some places that we should sit down and
talk about how we deliver applications here together.
I think that the perfect example is transportation funding
when you talk about bringing together regional systems around
this country to get the biggest bang for transportation
funding. I think something like that can happen when we talk
about homeland security.
Senator Coleman. I will hold off in getting a response from
the others, and I will recognize Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Just one question. First of all, the mayor
has made reference to the action plan that he and the city have
adopted relative to homeland security. And, Mr. Chairman, this
is really a very visionary plan. It was done I think perhaps
first in the country, and I would like this to be made part of
the record of the hearing today.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ City of Detroit Action Plan for Homeland Security, Background
Paper, April 4, 2002, submitted by Senator Levin, appears in the
Appendix on page 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Coleman. Without objection.
Senator Levin. And my question is basically this: I also am
a former local official. I was president of the City Council in
Detroit, and we had----
Mr. Kilpatrick. I wish you were there now, Senator.
Senator Levin. And I understand the local perspective, too.
It is essential, as the mayor said, that we not only have this
regional effort put together to avoid handing out money to
local communities that might not need it and to avoid
duplication and waste, but you have got to have the local input
at that table, as the mayor said. You have got to have a seat
at that table. And it seems to me that is the challenge for us,
to guarantee the local input at the same time we try to achieve
the regional output or the regional outcome.
So I don't know if the mayor has a comment on that, but I
just want to thank the mayor for this visionary plan, and I
thank all of our witnesses for allowing me to interrupt you so
I could get our mayor out of here to the commitment he has.
Thank you.
Senator Coleman. Thank you, Senator Levin. And, Mayor, if
you have to leave, you are excused, we appreciate your
testimony.
Mr. Kilpatrick. Well, thank you, Ranking Member Lieberman,
Senator Coleman, and distinguished Members of the Committee. I
apologize for having to leave, but as a mayor, HUD just
threatened us for taking $46 million from us for something that
happened in 1988 when I was a senior in high school.
[Laughter.]
So I have to go over to HUD to try to save $46 million so I
can keep my job. I apologize, but thank you for the
opportunity.
Senator Lieberman. Mayor, thanks for being here. I just
think not only based on your ability, your intelligence, your
commitment, but on your size, I would never threaten you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kilpatrick. Thank you very much.
Chairman Collins [presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for
being with us today.
Mr. Stenglein. I think regionalism is--you are absolutely
right, Senator Coleman. As you well know, Minneapolis and
Hennepin County, the county has a crime lab, the city has a
bomb squad, and we share, we interact. I don't know if other
major metropolitan areas have a Met Council type planning
agency, but regionalism like that on a seven-county--because we
are within a compressed area enough that we can share
resources, and it is absolutely incumbent upon us to work on
sharing resources.
Senator Coleman. Madam Chairman, if I can continue?
Chairman Collins. Yes.
Senator Coleman. The question I had asked, I would actually
be interested in--and I appreciate that. One comment, by the
way, before the other responses, and I want to make it--
Commissioner Stenglein, it is a pleasure to have you here. We
talked about the COPS program and the money going away. The
``going away'' doesn't mean it is because the program is gone.
The ``going away'' is because the money is phased to go away.
Mr. Stenglein. Right.
Senator Coleman. And what we are seeing in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, right now is a situation where, because of financial
difficulties of the city, we have the prospect of potentially
laying off cops. In St. Paul, I hired ten folks in the COPS
program, but had a long-term payment plan. And if you don't,
that is the danger that you face. So I presume when you said
going away----
Mr. Stenglein. Exactly. It is important that those
positions are guaranteed or the payment stream like you did to
keep them going.
Senator Coleman. I appreciate that.
Governor, I would be very interested in your perspective on
regional approaches.
Governor Romney. Thank you. I think Mayor Kilpatrick and
myself would underline the same observations. One is that each
city and town has a very unique circumstances or set of
circumstances that they have to deal with as it relates to
terror and security and that assessing those is essential to
deciding what level of funds and what level of resources are
necessary in a particular area.
Second, the only effective plans can be done on a regional
basis. You can't put plans together on a citywide basis. Now,
perhaps in some States, they only have three cities and that
encompasses the entire population, you could do that. In our
State, we have 351 cities and towns, so you can't do that. It
has to be done regionally. And I don't know how you do
something on a regional basis which takes into account the
unique differences between cities and towns unless it is being
done by the State. I don't know how you encompass regionality
and pulling together regions unless the State is playing a lead
role in doing so.
We could say we would like the Department of Homeland
Security to create regions across the entire country, but the
Department of Homeland Security has enough difficulty just
dealing with 50 different States and their differences. But to
say now you are going to take States apart and figure out their
regions and get them to work together, put together plans, I
just don't think is possible.
That is why I look to our Secretary of Public Safety, as a
former police chief, and say let's make sure and create plans
that are regional, that account for the differences and the
unique elements of the respective communities within that
region, and let's remove the politics. And I guess that was the
question, I think, that the mayor had said, gosh, this could be
political. You could have a State Government decide to hang
onto the money or give it to their friends instead of the
communities that need it.
I don't know how much that occurs in his State. I certainly
don't believe it happens in our State. I believe this is an
issue, homeland security, which is amenable to pretty clear
objective criteria of targets and risks and who is playing
which responsibilities, and the money should flow on those
bases.
If someone really felt that the process had become too
political, I guess one could ask the Department of Homeland
Security to review the plans of the respective States to make
sure that they are comprehensive and are fairly scored and are
fairly encompassing the risks of the communities within that
State. That is if someone felt it were out of bounds. But I do
believe that regionality and uniqueness of circumstances forms
the basis of how we have to carry out our homeland security
effort.
And I would note again, just underlining that Olympic
experience, that something that Senator Levin mentioned was
that we have to have the localities as part of this process.
You don't want to have a group of State employees and appointed
officials putting together the plans of security. My
experience, again, with the Olympics was that when we asked the
State folks to come up with a plan, it wasn't right. When we
asked the Feds to come up with a plan, it wasn't right. When we
asked the localities to come up with a plan, it wasn't right.
The way the plan worked is by having all come together on a
multi-year basis to create a unified plan where, in fact, the
FBI played a lead role in intelligence, the Secret Service a
lead role in terms of operational security and the hardening of
our sites, and that kind of comprehensive planning process
involved localities is an essential part of creating a regional
plan which recognizes those uniquenesses.
Senator Coleman. Mr. Cleaves.
Mr. Cleaves. Senator, I couldn't say it any better than
Governor Romney just did. Maine built its strategy around
regionalization, and it involved paper companies with HAZMAT
teams, and we continue to do that. And the only way you can
achieve true efficiency and effectiveness is through
regionalization. We stress that from the State level. We have
got the emergency management grant process that we could follow
that teaches building that, and an e-map, an assessment through
emergency management that allows you to measure the progress of
each of those regions as you build them.
Chairman Collins. Thank you for that response.
Mr. Cleaves, I want to follow up with you on a point that
you made in your testimony. You talked about that you receive
homeland security funds from a variety of different agencies
and that each agency requires a separate emergency management
plan and each has a separate grant program that requires a
separate application.
I assume that that paperwork involves duplicating work that
you have done for one agency but doing it on a new form and
responding in little different ways. Is that correct?
Mr. Cleaves. Absolutely, Senator.
Chairman Collins. Is that a problem? Does that divert time
away from higher priorities? Do we need to try to streamline
the process so that you have one plan?
Mr. Cleaves. Yes, please. Senator, we have to give plans to
FEMA currently, and the Department of Justice or ODP grants,
each one containing different strategies, slightly different.
Same overall strategy for the State of Maine but different
forms to fill out.
Shortly after September 11, we had to divert our crews to
finish the ODP grant that we were working on so we could get at
the money for the first responders to provide equipment for
them. So we diverted help from one area in order to fill out
these grants. So if we could have one strategic plan for the
whole State, and as a matter of fact it would be ideal if it
encompassed the Bureau of Health so CDC and HRSA money would
also be under one total plan for the State. That would be ideal
for us. One time and one computer input, please.
Chairman Collins. In view of the circumstances today I am
just going to ask one final question but we may have some
additional ones for the record, and I am going to give Senator
Levin an opportunity to see if he has some additional ones. I
do want to say that all of your written testimony will be put
in the hearing record as well.
My final question, and I will start with you, Governor, is
would it be helpful to have a single entity within the
Department of Homeland Security that is knowledgeable about all
the homeland security grant programs both inside and outside of
the Department, so that you could have a single point of
contact, sort of one-stop shopping, if you will, for homeland
security?
Governor Romney. I think that principle is so attractive
that I wish it could apply to all agencies of the Federal
Government. I think one of the great challenges we have at the
State, and I am sure at the municipal level as well, is trying
to find where to go to obtain support or financial help as
necessary to carry out the missions of State Government. And
particularly in an area as important as homeland security,
having a place where one could apply for help and guidance
would be remarkably valuable.
I salute the work of Secretary Ridge. He is creating a
remarkably successful program. We have had a chance to meet on
a couple of occasions now and each time I am impressed with
what is being accomplished there. The work to create some
templates, if you will,--and by that term I mean some guidance
as to what types of action we might want to carry out at a
particular threat level for a particular type of potential
target. Those kinds of templates are highly valuable to us.
So, likewise, receiving support for making a single point
of access to homeland security for grant purposes as well as
for other informational purposes would be highly valuable.
Chairman Collins. Mr. Cleaves, would that be helpful for a
small State like Maine to have that single point of contact?
Mr. Cleaves. Yes, Senator, I certainly do agree with that.
That would be very helpful to us. I would suggest that if that
were to occur that the individual or individuals would be
located at the one homeland security center where the governor
has access to that. That, in our case, is Maine Emergency
Management. It would be collocated so that we could more
effectively work all the programs.
Chairman Collins. Commissioner?
Mr. Stenglein. Madam Chairman, echo 100 percent. Yes, it
would be. It would be wonderful.
Just to follow, when I first became a commissioner--and I
am a business guy--to follow Federal health care funding is an
absolute maze. Hopefully we do not get into that problem with
security funding because, the bottom line is, our residents
depend on us to keep them safe. So the most we can streamline
this with one entity, one agency here, the better off for
everybody.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Madam Chairman. This seems to be
4M day here. We have got Massachusetts, Michigan, Maine,
Minnesota. I do not know how Delaware got in here?
Governor Romney. Governor Minner.
Chairman Collins. Very good.
Senator Levin. On this issue that Senator Collins has
raised, I have raised this central point question in a slightly
different way with Governor Ridge a number of times. In Senator
Collins' bill is a very important provision about that central
point of contact. It should be presumably, or what it is going
to be is the office for State and local coordination in the
Secretary's office. But that has not been done and the bill is
very helpful in that regard to promote it.
But I would also urge Governor Ridge to have an 800 number
where State and local governments can call in the meantime.
Just one place where you can call for information. He is
committed to creating that number. It has not yet been created,
but I want to let you know that Senator Collins and all of us
here are very conscious of the dispersal or the dispersion of
information even about grants and other needs at the
department. So the 800 number commitment has been made by
Governor Ridge.
My second point really is a question. Is there any overall
number in your States, dollar figure, for the extra cost of
homeland security since September 11? Would you be able to tell
us in your States or your local communities--does a number
exist in any of your States or local communities, this is what
you were spending on security prior to September 11. This is
what our expenditures are since September 11. Governor, let me
just ask you first, perhaps.
Governor Romney. Let me respond to your first point first,
the 800 number, and then the second. I would note that our
ability to access information from homeland security has been
remarkably good, both through the White House, Ruben Berellas,
who does intergovernmental affairs in the White House, gets us
to the right place quickly. We likewise, through both of
undersecretary contact and through Governor Ridge himself have
been able to get superb information. I have no complaints
there. I do not always like the answer, but I love the
communication and we have been very pleased there.
Senator Levin. I do not think that is true with a lot of
local governments. It is shared more so with State Governments.
Governor Romney. I am sure that is the case. I cannot
possibly read all the figures to you, but I have just been
handed here a summary of our spending on security associated
with preventing terrorism and responding to potential terrorist
acts since September 11. That is something we will be happy to
provide to the Committee in great detail.
Senator Levin. The extra amount----
Governor Romney. The extra amount of spending. I am given a
total here of approximately $53 million is the cost to our
State and municipalities associated with additional spending
post-September 11.
Senator Levin. Per year?
Governor Romney. That would be in total since September 11.
The numbers are getting better and better. When Secretary Ridge
contacted us with the most recent declaration of the Orange
level of threat he said, I would like you to collect community
by community and statewide what your true incremental costs
are.
For instance, in the community I mentioned that has the LNG
facilities, I spoke with the mayor there. He said, we would
like to consider putting on--and I will not give you the exact
number, but we would like to consider putting on additional
patrols to circulate in that area. I said, what will it cost?
He said, it is $100,000 in additional overtime to protect that,
per week. I said, go ahead. We will stand behind you on a State
basis. We did that with a number of localities, again,
according to our statewide plan. We add those numbers up and
can look on a weekly basis. At the State police level we were
spending about $250,000 incremental overtime during Code Orange
that we do not spend otherwise. This was to protect our
tunnels, our bridges, and certain other key targets.
So we calculate the number, gather the number and $53
million is the round figure. We can provide that on a pretty
detailed basis.
Senator Levin. Does Maine have a figure?
Mr. Cleaves. I cannot give you that figure, Senator.
Senator Levin. For the record, if you could try.
Mr. Cleaves. What I can tell you is that from the Maine
Emergency Management agency, we have chased the figures every
time and there is a difference between should have and could
have. What the folks want to do, municipal officials wanted to
do, they were not able to do, so many of the communities ran a
great risk. We went from Portland, Maine all the way to Caribou
and Fort Kent trying to assemble those costs, but all we got
back was a lot of, this is what we would have done. So a lot of
holding our breath out there right now.
Senator Levin. Madam Chairman, that is a very important
point and I would ask the governor also to submit the need
figure as well as what you actually spent above your previous
amount, because Mr. Cleaves' point is critically important in
that regard, too.
Mr. Stenglein. I could not agree more. There is a need
level that everybody will say, oh my gosh, I cannot believe you
did not do that even though you should have done that but you
did not have the resources. In Hennepin County it is in the low
millions. That may be a small number for the folks who deal
with numbers out here, but for us it is a large amount. The
exact number will be forthcoming.
Our courthouse was built to access the public. There are 32
entrances and it is very difficult to screen 32 entrances. Then
there was the cost of closing down a public garage which
generated revenue for us too. We had that closed down for 8
months. Now it has reopened again.
Senator Levin. Which is a cost.
Mr. Stenglein. Sure it is. If opportunity cost.
Governor Romney. Senator, might I add a comment as well
with regards to our spending and the $53 million? Following
September 11, a significant portion of our security spending
was designed to reassure the public that we were doing
something. But not all of that spending was really essential to
actually securing various sites. We had, for instance, State
troopers at the entrance to major tunnels, the entrance to
which was a 55-mile-an-hour, eight-lane highway. There is not
much the trooper was really going to be able to do if there
were to be some kind of a terrorist attack at that tunnel other
than to communicate to the public that we were there and
caring.
So we spent a lot of money to be visible and to show that
we were concerned. How much was absolutely essential to
protecting that asset is something which we would also need to
calculate.
Senator Levin. Thank you. I am going to pass on my other
questions just because of the circumstances.
Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Madam Chairman. To our witnesses,
welcome.
Where are you from, Mr. Stenglein?
Mr. Stenglein. Minneapolis, Hennepin County.
Senator Carper. Welcome. Maine; is that correct?
Mr. Cleaves. Yes, sir.
Senator Carper. And Massachusetts?
Governor Romney. Correct.
Senator Carper. As an old governor, I welcome you. I have
not had the privilege of meeting you, but welcome today. I
always thought it was a privilege to be Governor of Delaware
and I wish you great success in your responsibilities.
Senator Collins, who usually leaves the room when I am
about to speak---- [Laughter.]
Thank you for carrying on while I go vote.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Senator Collins and I introduced
legislation last month--we try to introduce a bill a month. We
introduced a bill last month that says, let us address a little
bit the flexibility of the first responder monies as they come
to States. I think there are four categories that you can be
spend your first responder dollars in.
I think one is for planning, one is for training, one is
for exercises, and I think the other is equipment purchases.
The current program is rather restrictive as to how those
monies can spent. The bill Senator Collins and I have
introduced gives States the option, if they want to, to ask for
a waiver from the Secretary of Homeland Security that would
allow them to spend their first responder money more flexibly.
Not to create a fifth or sixth or seventh pot, but to move
money back and forth between those four.
I do not know if you are aware of that legislation, if you
have any thoughts as to whether it might be a good or a bad
idea. I do not know if any of the organizations that you are
part of, including the National Governors Association might
have a view on it that you could share with us.
Governor Romney. I cannot share the National Governors
Association view of the specific legislation because I am not
really authorized to speak on behalf of all the governors on
that matter. I will speak as one of them, however, and
anticipate that the other governors would agree. That is that
the principle of flexibility is something which they would very
much applaud.
The constraints occasionally of programs or funding which
come from Federal programs can be challenging and can suggest
that money needs to be spent in a way that may not be
consistent with the comprehensive plan which has been developed
by the State, the region or the municipality. Being able to
have a mechanism to approach the Secretary of Homeland Security
and ask for a waiver to spend money in the four categories but
according to our plan I think would be a very positive step.
I am concerned about the fact that municipalities and State
Governments facing tough economic circumstances will look to
take money to solve budget problems elsewhere. Homeland
security money should, of course, be directly towards solving
homeland security needs. So there need to be strictures and
guidelines which are applied. But the principle of flexibility
within those different categories is one which I think is
consistent with safeguarding the public's money and providing
for homeland security.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Mr. Cleaves.
Mr. Cleaves. Senator, very specifically, in our State,
under the ODP grant process that we are currently working with,
we are allocated $1 million in exercise money for this year. We
cannot train, we cannot exercise, so I cannot get from point A
to point B. So what Maine is facing is the return of $1 million
unspent and still leaving needs that are unmet in terms of
training. It is the cost for overtime, flexibility is what we
really need.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Mr. Stenglein. Senator, I think the need for flexibility is
pretty obvious. Earlier, the Mayor of Detroit brought up an
excellent situation in that if they have a bunch of HAZMAT
suits and they get money to buy HAZMAT suits, it is unfortunate
that they do not need any more HAZMAT suits. So we need the
ability to move the money around.
Senator Carper. What we have in mind is permission to move
money from one of the four categories to another. It would be
in order to allow them not just to meet their individual needs
but to be consistent with their emergency management plans.
There would have to be some rationale to the movement.
All right, good. Thanks. Thanks very much. Is anyone in the
room from the National Governors Association? Do we have
anybody who is from the NGA? Welcome. I thought if the NGA
could share with this Committee, with Senator Collins and
myself, a view of the legislation that would be most
appreciated. Thank you very much.
Senator Coleman. Senator Carper, Senator Levin asked the
question--I did not hear all the answers but I would direct it
to you, governor, about increased homeland security costs post-
September 11. I was a mayor on September 11, and afterwards
with the whole set of things we had to do. But one of the
things that troubled me as a Mayor was that I would have my
department heads and fire department come in, and I would have
a list of all sorts of needs. I did not need to increase the
number of firefighters in St. Paul in order to deal with
September 11.
So as that question is asked, the question I have, again,
wanting the money to be well spent, and wanting to be focused,
who should assess the needs? Who assesses whether Bangor, Maine
needs certain equipment, whether Minnetonka, Minnesota, a small
town, has needs? How do we do that so in the end when we get a
response as to here are the increased security costs, we have a
sense of confidence that the security costs are in fact
September 11 related in different perspectives, not simply, we
have a lot of needs and in this environment, this is an
opportunity then to have all those needs met? Who should be
responsible for that kind of assessment? I will start with you,
governor.
Governor Romney. Thank you. I would not have an answer for
that had I not gone through this experience with the Olympics.
Here we had a setting where we knew we were a potential target
for terrorism. The Olympic Games have been terrorized at least
twice before resulting in a loss of life. So we began a process
several years before the games beginning to plan for what the
security would be at our various venues and so forth.
The legislation which created the designation of a national
special security event came very much to our benefit. That is
that the Federal Government was tasked with providing specific
guidance in helping us construct a security plan for the
Olympic Games and for the community in which the games were
being held.
What that meant was that, for instance, when it came time
to decide what we are going to do at our basketball arena, that
instead of asking the local Salt Lake police or the sheriff of
Salt Lake County or the State police to develop a plan to
protect the basketball arena during the Olympic Games, instead
we were able to work with the Secret Service and they said,
these are the parameters. This is a template, if you will, of
how to protect a facility which is a potential target, which
will potentially be hosting heads of State, against a terrorist
attack.
They provided us with the specifics; the number of feet we
needed to have barricades, distance from the facility. How we
dealt with the media trucks and cables and so forth that might
be in the facility. The level of search that would be necessary
for people coming in the facility. They really provided the
guidelines. Then we at the local level and the State level,
working with them, applied them to the specific circumstances
of the physical plant we were looking at.
So in creating those plans on a regional basis or a city
basis, I look to a similar model, which is the Department of
Homeland Security, which now I understand has the Secret
Service within it, provides to us a series of, if you will,
broad guidelines or templates saying that when you reach a Code
Orange state, or a Code Red state, or a Code Yellow state, then
these are the parameters that we think should be applied for a
nuclear facility, these are for a major tunnel, a major bridge,
these are for major buildings, these are for gatherings of
individuals. These are the types of things that you should have
in place. This is the amount of HAZMAT capacity you should have
based on population. So they provide, if you will, some
overview guidelines.
We take those guidelines and on a State basis, working with
our localities, we apply them region by region, city by city,
town by town. I would then anticipate that the Federal
Government will look at those and say, yes, looks like you did
a pretty good job. You are not over-politicizing, you are not
taking care of your friends, you are doing the right job
statewide, and now we have a plan which is consistent not only
within our State but consistent across the Nation, and has
associated with it the funding requirements of that plan as
well.
Senator Coleman. So you see a very clear Federal role
providing some kind of template, almost so that the specifics
get dealt with at the local level?
Governor Romney. Exactly. We do that, for instance, with
nuclear facilities today. Prior to the September 11
circumstance, as I understand it, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission lays out, if you will, a series of guidelines for
how a nuclear facility is to be protected. Those guidelines are
interpreted and managed differently in different States. But
the Federal Government does provide some direction.
With regards to our planning for the Olympics, the help of,
in this case the Secret Service in laying out the protection of
physical facilities was very helpful. The help of the FBI in
giving us direction on intelligence and who should play which
role, and how the local authorities would gather data and
funnel that to the Federal authorities or State authorities was
something they had done before, they managed for us. So they
played a very important role in doing that.
Had we been left to our own devices we might have cobbled
something together in the manner that it happened in Atlanta,
where there were gaping holes between plans of the different
municipalities and the State and the Federal Government. So a
far more comprehensive plan was established by having all
parties work together with extensive Federal involvement.
Senator Coleman. I would be very interested in the other--
particularly a more local perspective coming from the
commissioner, but Mr. Cleaves.
Mr. Cleaves. Senator, thank you. I am concerned about a
template that you describe from the Federal level because it
cannot be a cookie-cutter approach. All local municipalities
need to know what mutual support is available left and right,
and they know that. So the planning group needs to include the
local, then a regional level, and State level, and then not to
forget the Federal partners. In Maine we have formed an
antiterrorism task force----
Senator Coleman. You actually have a joint Federal task
force, you have that model in Maine?
Mr. Cleaves. Yes, we do. We have a model that the U.S.
Attorney chairs along with us at the emergency operation
center. We meet frequently to look at the plans and pull--one
of the things that we found most out of sync was that the
Federal departments that support our coastline or our borders
were not interwoven on a daily basis with the State departments
or the local government entities. At meetings sometimes, but
not interwoven so that you know operational details on a daily
basis. It also includes the FBI.
So that is working well for us. But it has got to include
from the local level up so they know what both Federal and
State capabilities are, so you will know what that response is.
That is the most effective and efficient way to do it.
Senator Coleman. Commissioner Stenglein.
Mr. Stenglein. Senator, are you asking with specificity
what person would be in charge of that? I think that is what
you are looking for.
Senator Coleman. I am trying to figure out who should do
the assessment. I am sitting at my level and we hear that--the
question from Senator Levin was, tell us about your increased
cost. We have to assess. Folks need more money. My concern is,
who is assessing whether those are truly homeland security
costs? I need to have more confidence based on my own
experience as a mayor where a fire chief coming in wanting
increased firefighters, increased all this stuff and I am
sitting there--I have got to tell them, that is not related to
September 11. So who should do that kind of assessment that
will allow policymakers at this level to have confidence in
needs so that we can make judgments about needs?
Mr. Stenglein. Senator, speaking from the perspective of
Minnesota and the county form of government we have there, St.
Paul has different needs than White Bear, as you well know.
White Bear does not have a River Centre or an Excel Center. The
person closest--I believe firmly in keeping those decisions and
those realizations as close to the residents as possible. The
elected sheriff in each town, in each county, is a good person
to turn to for that. As you well know, back in Minnesota with
the 800 MHz communication process, those sheriffs and the
counties have gotten together. CRIMNet is another great
example, taking a front end device of technology through joint
powers boards and pulling it together to understand that.
The exact assessment needs to come from as close to the
people. I think the elected sheriff in each county is a good
person to turn to.
Senator Coleman. And the Federal role in that?
Mr. Stenglein. The Federal role in that, clearly we
definitely depend on the Federal role to give us guidelines on
how to protect a power plant, how to protect a tunnel, how to
protect bridges, airports, these sorts of things. The expertise
coming from the Federal level, we should not duplicate that at
the State level at all.
Senator Coleman. The question, I think was a very good
comment made about the joint task forces, which I know in
Minnesota are very strong. Do they have a role to play in this?
Mr. Stenglein. Yes.
Senator Coleman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Collins. Thank you very much, Senator Coleman. You
have been very interested in this issue and I was pleased to
join you earlier in the week in Minnesota where we could hear
from other officials and that was very valuable as well.
I want to thank all of our witnesses for their
extraordinary patience with the unusual circumstances of this
hearing today. It was very valuable to us. And I want to thank
my colleagues for keeping the hearing going. Last night, at one
point we thought of trying to postpone the hearing, but then we
realized we could not find you to tell you that. I am glad that
we decided instead to go forward because we do want to act on
legislation within the next few weeks.
I am sure that we will be in touch with you for drafting
the bill to get additional advice, but your testimony today has
been extraordinarily helpful. Again, I want to thank you for
your patience as we have run back and forth from the floor to
vote. So thank you very much.
The hearing record will remain open for 15 days. I want to
thank my staff for their hard work on this hearing as well. We
look forward to working with you to strengthen the partnership
among the Federal, State, county and local governments as we
all work toward the goal of strengthening our homeland
security. So thank you and this hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Good morning and thank you, Madam Chairman.
Madam Chairman, I commend you for your continued leadership and
dedication to ensure that our State and local governments have a forum
in Congress to discuss the challenges they face in securing our
homeland. Protecting Americans from further acts of terrorism is the
top national priority. It is an enormous task that involves the
cooperation of hundreds of thousands of dedicated local, State, and
Federal employees who guard the ports and borders of our country,
gather and analyze intelligence, investigate leads, make arrests, and
respond to assist the victims of terrorist attacks.
It is clear that terrorism has changed the way we govern at the
Federal, State, and local levels. As a former mayor and governor, I
understand what it takes to make hard choices in tough economic times.
Therefore, I am extremely attentive to the fact that our States are
facing their worst economic crisis in 50 years. State legislatures
across the country are attempting to balance their budgets through
challenging and unpopular mechanisms, such as raising taxes or cutting
services. Unfortunately, the Federal Government is not in the position
to offer a great deal of financial assistance, as we are faced with our
own tough budget decisions.
However, Madam Chairman, I strongly believe the Federal Government
could offer better structural solutions to help the States and
localities improve the delivery of homeland security services. For
instance, there is one homeland security grant program, administered by
the Office of Domestic Preparedness, which is based on a pre-determined
formula that does not provide the States any flexibility when
disbursing funds.
Furthermore, the General Accounting Office recently noted that
there are at least 16 different grant programs for the Nation's first
responders. These grants are currently provided through two different
directorates of the new Department of Homeland Security, and through
the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human
Services. This is a clear example of how fragmented the homeland
security grant process is. Madam Chairman, I am afraid this
fragmentation is causing confusion and an administrative burden for
State and local officials, a situation Congress specifically intended
to avoid in creating the new Department. One of the main reasons for
creation of the new Department was to consolidate, coordinate, and
streamline homeland security functions and to provide for homeland
security more effectively.
Fortunately, Senator Collins introduced two legislative solutions
to alleviate these problems and I am pleased to co-sponsor both bills.
The first bill would give States the flexibility to use Office of
Domestic Preparedness grant money from one category of funding, such as
training, for another purpose, such as equipment. The second bill would
move the Office of Domestic Preparedness from its current location in
the Border and Transportation Security Directorate to the Office of
State and Local Government Coordination. This organizational shift
should establish a centralized location within the new Department of
Homeland Security to help our first responders identify and apply for
important grant funding.
At the Federal level, we also must make a concerted effort to
ensure that funds are distributed to the States and localities in a
timely manner. In fact, I recently discussed this issue with the Dale
Shipley, Director of the Ohio Emergency Management Agency. I was
astounded to learn that Ohio did not receive the FY 1999 and FY 2000
funds for homeland security until March 2002. Remarkably, as of April
17, 2003 only 88 percent of the FY 1999 funding was spent.
In May 2002, my State of Ohio received the FY 2001 funding and as
of December 2002, just 49 percent of those funds were spent.
Unfortunately, the process did not improve for FY 2002, as funding was
not distributed until October 2002, one year after the beginning of the
fiscal year. As of December 2002, only 11 percent of the money was
spent.
Today, I am interested in hearing if our witnesses are encountering
similar problems and, if so, what solutions they propose. At the end of
this process, I am hopeful that we can ease the strain caused by the
disjointed homeland security grant process. My goal is to go back to
Dale Shipley, and the Mayors of the six largest cities in Ohio, who
recently contacted me about their homeland security challenges, and
tell them that we are making the grant process clear, efficient and
responsive to their needs.
Madam Chairman, thank you for your leadership on this issue, and I
look forward to an engaging discussion with our witnesses.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8248.080