[Senate Hearing 108-291] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 108-291 NOMINATION OF C. SUZANNE MENCER ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON THE NOMINATION OF C. SUZANNE MENCER TO BE DIRECTOR, OFFICE FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY __________ SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs 90-234 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2003 ____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001 COMMITTEE ON 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, Deleware 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 Counsel Johanna L. Hardy, Senior Counsel Tim Raducha-Grace, Professional Staff Member Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel Beth M. Grossman, Minority Counsel Jennifer E. Hamilton, Minority Research Assistant Amy B. Newhouse, Chief Clerk C O N T E N T S ------ Opening statements: Page Senator Collins.............................................. 4 Senator Lautenberg........................................... 10 Senator Levin................................................ 12 Prepared statements: Senator Coleman.............................................. 17 Senator Akaka................................................ 17 WITNESSES Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Hon. Wayne Allard, a U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado..... 1 Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, a U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado....................................................... 2 C. Suzanne Mencer to be Director, Office for Domestic Preparedness, Department of Homeland Security.................. 6 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Allard, Hon. Wayne: Testimony.................................................... 1 Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse: Testimony.................................................... 2 Mencer, C. Suzanne: Testimony.................................................... 6 Biographical and professional information requested of nominees................................................... 19 Pre-hearing questionnaire.................................... 37 Post-hearing questions and responses for the Record from: Senator Lautenberg......................................... 75 Senator Akaka.............................................. 80 NOMINATION OF C. SUZANNE MENCER ---------- TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 U.S. Senate, Committee on Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:38 a.m., in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan M. Collins, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Collins, Levin, and Lautenberg. Chairman Collins. The Committee will come to order. I notice that two of my distinguished colleagues from Colorado are with us this morning and I also know that they are on very tight schedules, so I am going to dispense with the ordinary order for this hearing and call on my colleagues to introduce the witness and then I will do my opening statement. This is a hearing on the nomination of C. Suzanne Mencer to be the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, the Department of Homeland Security. I would say to the nominee that she obviously is thought very well of by the two Senators from Colorado, that both of them have taken time from their extraordinarily busy schedules to join us this morning. We will start in order of seniority with Senator Campbell. Senator Campbell. Madam Chairwoman, with your permission, I would like to yield to Senator Allard. I know his schedule is a little tighter than mine. Chairman Collins. OK. Senator Campbell. The last two times, I think I went first anyway. Chairman Collins. That would be fine. Senator Allard. TESTIMONY OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO Senator Allard. Madam Chairman, if that would be all right with you, I will proceed. Chairman Collins. Absolutely. Welcome. We are delighted to have you here. Senator Allard. Thank you for your consideration and thank you for the good work that you do. Madam Chairman, it is a privilege to be here with my good friend and colleague, Senator Campbell, to present to you Sue Mencer, who the President has nominated to be the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness in the Department of Homeland Security. Madam Chairman, Members of the Committee, we in Colorado approach this nomination with mixed emotions. On one hand, we are pleased that the President selected such a strong, competent leader to head this important office. Yet on the other hand, we feel the impact of losing one of the Rocky Mountain State's finest public servants. Ms. Mencer served our country for nearly 25 years and the State of Colorado for the last 3 years as the State's Executive Director of Public Safety. As a distinguished FBI agent, Sue proved her mettle during several high-profile national security investigations and later as the FBI's supervisor for the Denver Joint Terrorism Task Force. However, those years in the FBI must have seemed like a walk in the park compared to the last 3 years. Appointed in 2000, Sue took over the Department of Public Safety just in time for the tragedy of September 11. As we all know, the shock waves from that terrible day were felt around the country, including Colorado. Fortunately for Colorado, though, we had in Sue a leader capable of developing a new plan for preventing and, if necessary, responding to a potential terrorist attack. Under her guidance, Colorado quickly moved to create an Office of Preparedness, Security, and Fire Safety, which brought focus and structure to the State's terrorism prevention and response planning. The Office has also acted as a conduit for counterterrorism and response activities, including Federal first responder grant programs. Perhaps more importantly, Sue helped develop Colorado's homeland security strategy. This well-crafted document strikes a delicate balance between enhancing the State's homeland security activities while emphasizing the importance of close cooperation with local officials, Federal agencies, and the private sector. Madam Chairman, the importance of first responder preparedness cannot be understated. Sue once said, ``A lot of home security is common sense.'' That is refreshing, isn't it? ``It is preparing for times that there might be a cessation of activity as you know it, no different than being prepared for a natural disaster, like a winter snowstorm or a tornado in the Midwest.'' As the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, Sue will bring the same common sense, practical thinking, and steady leadership that made Colorado one of the most prepared States in the country. I believe the President chose the right person in Sue and I give you my strongest endorsement for her confirmation. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Chairman Collins. Thank you very much. Senator Campbell. TESTIMONY OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO Senator Campbell. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate being here also to co-introduce Suzanne Mencer. I have been scratching a few things off of my notes. Everything that Senator Allard has already said, I certainly endorse, but will try not to be redundant. As Senator Allard said, Suzanne served as an FBI agent for over two decades. She began her career with the Bureau after spending several years teaching Spanish in the public school systems of Florida, Ohio, and Missouri. One thing I did not know about her is that she met her future husband through FBI training, too, and I would like her to introduce her family before I finish my statement, if she would. Ms. Mencer. Thank you, Senator. With me today, I am very happy to have my husband, John Mencer, my son, Alex, my nephew- in-law, Chris, and my brother-in-law, George Doms. They came from New Jersey for my hearing. Thank you. Chairman Collins. We welcome all of them today. Senator Campbell. Thank you. Once with the Bureau, she left for service in Mobile, Alabama, and continued on to positions in New York City, FBI headquarters here in Washington, DC, and finally a move to the Denver office in 1990, which was certainly Colorado's gain. During her term with the FBI, she participated in specific operations which made use of her English and Spanish skills. She is fluent in Spanish, and in this day and age, I think that is an extremely important asset to have in any public sector. She went on to serve as a supervisory special agent while here at the headquarters in Washington, and she was also in charge of investigations in country-specific areas of national security and had responsibilities for preparing the Congressional budget for the National Security Division of the Bureau. Once in Denver, she had the important responsibility of supervising a squad of special agents, analysts, local law enforcement officers, and other Federal agency investigators in the Joint Terrorism Task Force that Senator Allard mentioned. She served as the chair of the Interagency Threat Analysis Group for the Summit of Eight which was held in Denver in 1997, and leaders from literally all over the world were at that conference. She was also the chair of the Intelligence and Threat Analysis Committee of the Denver Consortium of the White House Commission on Aviation Security and Safety. After she retired from the FBI in 1998 and thought she was going to move forward in a life of relaxation with her family, she worked as a consultant providing antiterrorism training to local law enforcement throughout the United States in cooperation with the Institute of Intergovernmental Research. Then in 2000, Suzanne was appointed by the Colorado Governor, Bill Owens, as Senator Allard mentioned. She has done a terrific job in that capacity, overseeing the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, the Colorado State Patrol, the Division of Criminal Justice, and the Division of Fire Safety. She currently manages 1,200 employees and an operating budget of $195.5 million. I might also say, Madam Chairperson, when Suzanne first got involved in law enforcement some years ago--I am sure you are well aware of this--it tended to be a male profession. There were very few women in those days in the FBI or any Federal agency, and even in the local departments. They did have some trouble in those years working themselves up to positions of authority and to command. And certainly from that standpoint, Suzanne, I think, was really one of the women that cracked the glass ceiling, so to speak, in law enforcement. During her time with the Department of Public Safety, she has also been instrumental in creating the Colorado Office of Preparedness, Security, and Fire Safety, and did all that without adding additional employees and without receiving appropriation from the Colorado General Assembly, which is generally broke, as all State offices are now. She worked with a number of groups that I was very interested in, and, in fact, sponsored a number of bills dealing with them, the Police Officers Standard and Training Board, the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Board, which is called HIDTA, the Judicial Discipline Commission, the Governor's Clemency Board, and she currently also serves as adjutant professor at the University of Colorado in Denver. So I have no doubt, as does Senator Allard, that she is more than well qualified to be the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness. She understands that the new warriors in this war on terrorism very often are local police, local firemen, and certainly has the support of them, too. So with that, I would say that this very dedicated, tenacious, and extremely talented lady, I should think would be well received by this Committee and by our colleagues on the floor of the Senate. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Chairman Collins. Thank you very much, and in that regard, your strong endorsement makes a great deal of difference to this Committee and to your colleagues, so thank you very much for taking the time to be with us today. Senator Campbell. Thank you. I told Suzanne that I would have to excuse myself because I have other commitments, too. Thank you. Chairman Collins. Absolutely. Thank you. We are now going to resume with the normal order of procedure and I will deliver my opening statement. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS Senator Collins. Today, the Committee on Governmental Affairs is holding a hearing to consider the nomination of Suzanne Mencer to be the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, known as ODP to the Members of this Committee, in the Department of Homeland Security. The ODP administers a number of homeland security grants to State and local governments. If confirmed as Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, Ms. Mencer will be responsible for assisting States and local jurisdictions in their efforts to help prevent, plan for, and, if necessary, respond to acts of terrorism through training, equipment, technical assistance, and other support. She will also be called upon to distribute billions of dollars of Federal assistance for States, localities, and first responders with what is now a notable lack of guidance from Congress. Indeed, the 187-page Homeland Security Act contained but a single paragraph on grant programs for first responders, but help is on the way. This Committee has taken a keen interest in improving the way we support our States, communities, and first responders. The Committee has held three hearings examining this important issue. In addition, earlier this year, the Committee unanimously endorsed legislation I introduced, the Homeland Security Enhancement Act, which would streamline and strengthen homeland security grant programs. And just last week, Senator Pryor and I introduced legislation to provide advanced counterterrorism equipment and information to law enforcement agencies to help them prevent, detect, and apprehend terrorists. By working with and listening to State and local officials and first responders, the Director of ODP will be able to improve the security of each and every community. I am hopeful, Ms. Mencer, if you are confirmed, that you will take swift action to correct some of the problems we have experienced in the distribution of homeland security grants. One is making sure that the grants, training, and exercises are flexible enough to meet the homeland security needs of our communities. On a number of occasions, officials and first responders from my home State of Maine, as well as other States, have expressed concerns to me about the lack of flexibility in grant funding. This has hindered their efforts to protect their communities. For example, Maine's fire chiefs have told me that the rigid rules of homeland security grant funding are actually preventing fire fighters from accepting training opportunities at the National Fire Academy. That just does not make good sense. There have also been delays in distributing money from the Federal Government to the local level. I hope you will work to expedite the distribution of funding so that we don't have the experience that we heard about at one of our hearings, where the local fire chiefs and police department chiefs who testified said that they had yet to receive any homeland security funding. I was very pleased to read in your written responses where you stressed your commitment to providing flexible resources to each and every State. I strongly endorse your commitment to establishing a baseline level of capacity to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. We recognize that different areas of the country have different needs, but every area needs to bring their homeland security baseline up to a certain level. After all, each State must protect its vulnerabilities, including critical infrastructure and borders. Each State must train and equip first responders. Coordination with agencies within and outside the Department will also be key to your success. I hope that you will take steps to eliminate redundant paperwork, standardize equipment and training standards, and coordinate emergency preparedness plans. And I realize that you can't do this alone. This Committee has worked on a bipartisan basis to improve the resources available to the Department. I hope that you and your staff do not hesitate to contact this Committee and work very closely with us if you find that you need additional tools to effectively assist our communities and first responders. Let me end my statement by saying that I am very pleased you have agreed to take on these challenges. Your extensive experience in the FBI, as the State official leading the Department of Public Safety in Colorado, and as a private consultant providing antiterrorism training to local law enforcement make you unusually well qualified for this vital position. I now want to indicate for the record that you have filed responses to a biographical and financial questionnaire, that you have answered the pre-hearing questions submitted by the Committee, and that your financial statements have been reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics. Without objection, this information will all be made part of the hearing record, with the exception of the financial data, which are on file and available for public inspection in the Committee offices. Ms. Mencer, our Committee rules require that all witnesses at nomination hearings give their testimony under oath, so if you would please stand and raise your right hand so I can administer the oath. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? Ms. Mencer. I do. Chairman Collins. You may be seated. It is my understanding that you do have a statement you would like to make and I would ask you to proceed at this time. TESTIMONY OF C. SUZANNE MENCER,\1\ TO BE DIRECTOR, OFFICE FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Ms. Mencer. Thank you. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today and I just want to express my sincere thanks to Senators Allard and Campbell for their statements. That was very humbling and I appreciate that. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The biographical and professional information of Ms. Mencer appears in the Appendix on page 19. Pre-hearing questionnaire appears in the Appendix on page 37. Post-hearing questions and responses appear in the Appendix on page 75. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- My name is Suzanne Mencer and I am President Bush's nominee for the position of Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness in the Department of Homeland Security. It is indeed a great honor to appear before you today. If I may, I would like to introduce yet again very briefly my husband, John, who has been my biggest supporter, my mentor, my biggest fan through these 25 years. Our son, Alex, who is here missing school today but getting extra credit for his American Government class, so we are happy that he is here. Our daughter, Jessie, is unable to be here. She is a student in Massachusetts in college and she couldn't make it for the hearing, but she has always been very proud of everything I have done and I appreciate that. My brother-in-law, George, and his son, Chris, who came all the way from New Jersey this morning to be here with me today. Thank you for allowing me to introduce them again. Thirty-five years ago this month, as I began a 10-year career as a high school Spanish teacher in Worthington, Ohio, I never dreamed I would be sitting here today, nominated by the President of the United States. And not even after a 20-year career in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, investigating and supervising foreign counterintelligence, international and domestic terrorism, did I dream of this. Not even when Governor Bill Owens appointed me to become the Executive Director of Public Safety for Colorado 3 years ago did I imagine being here today. Indeed, this is a great honor. However, I do believe that my experience at the Federal level in terrorism matters, combined now with my years of service at the State level, working closely with first responders and local law enforcement, provide a truly unique perspective. I have seen what is necessary at the Federal, State, and local level to combat terrorism and I have seen it from an investigative response and tactical perspective. I know firsthand how important equipment, training, and exercises are to prevent another event from occurring, but if it does, to have the resources to respond in the most effective and efficient way possible. I have worked closely in Colorado with sheriffs, chiefs, fire chiefs, emergency response personnel, health care providers, and our Federal partners to develop plans using regional approaches. We stress in Colorado that we must all work together, crossing city lines, county lines, State boundaries, because a weapon of mass destruction overwhelms the capability of any one community to respond. But more importantly, we stress that we must combine our resources. Terrorists are not restricted by city, State, or county lines, and we need to prepare accordingly. If confirmed, I hope to use that perspective to ensure that the Federal funds so necessary to the defense of our country are directed and applied throughout the United States to reap the greatest benefit to detect, deter, and respond to a terrorist act. If I am confirmed, I would be grateful, humbled, and honored to have the opportunity to use my expertise and my abilities to serve the President and my country in the Department of Homeland Security. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, for considering my nomination and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Chairman Collins. Thank you very much. I will start my questioning today with the standard questions that we ask of all nominees. First, is there anything you are aware of in your background which might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office to which you have been nominated? Ms. Mencer. No, Madam Chairman. Chairman Collins. Second, do you know of anything personal or otherwise that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have been nominated? Ms. Mencer. No, Madam Chairman. Chairman Collins. And finally, do you agree without reservation to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify before any duly constituted Committee of Congress if you are confirmed? Ms. Mencer. Yes, Madam Chairman. Chairman Collins. We will now begin the first round of questions, which we will limit to 8 minutes each. In response to the Committee's written questions, you voiced your general support for creating a one-stop shop for homeland security grants and other assistance for State and local governments and first responders. A number of us on this Committee, including Senator Levin and myself, have pushed very hard for there to be a central point of contact that State and local governments and first responders could go to get information about grant programs. And as I mentioned in my opening statement, the Committee has approved legislation that would create a one-stop shop for first responders. It would also enact other measures to streamline the grant process. In addition, the Department is moving in that direction, as well. The legislation would require the creation of a single toll-free number for grant assistance. It would reduce duplicative grant applications and required plans. Based on your experience in Colorado and elsewhere, what specific steps would you take to bring about a consolidation as far as having a single point of contact for our first responders and our State and local governments? How can we improve the ability, since you have seen it from the State level, of our governments and first responders to get quick and accurate information about potential grants? Ms. Mencer. Yes, Madam Chairman. I do believe that there are things that can be done and I think ODP, the Office for Domestic Preparedness, has already started down that path, to look at ways to streamline this process. And certainly in the State of Colorado, ODP has been a tremendous help already with answering our questions concerning all the grant issues on this very important issue of homeland security. I think the Office for Domestic Preparedness will continue to do that and I understand there is some discussion at the Department of Homeland Security to further streamline the process, as you have suggested. Chairman Collins. Are you aware that it is now a 12-step process to actually get the money down to the local level? It requires the filing of a report saying how you want to spend the money, then that is approved, then another report, and another plan have to be filed. Will you commit to working very closely with this Committee to simplify the process? We are committed to getting our bill through, but it may be next year before it is signed into law. Ms. Mencer. Absolutely, Madam Chairman. I would be committed to working with this Committee on a number of issues and that is one of them. I think streamlining is always something that we should strive for, as long as we maintain the funding for the maximum amount of good and make it efficient and effective. Chairman Collins. I also want to bring to your attention a very popular grant program that has worked extremely well in my State and in States across the country, and that is what is known as the Fire Act. It gives grants directly to local fire departments so they can improve their capacity to respond in the event of a terrorist attack. And with the help of the fire fighting community, we drafted our bill very carefully to preserve the administrative structure of the Fire Act program because it has a minimum of bureaucracy. It works extremely well and there is a high satisfaction level. The administration has suggested a different approach. We want to make sure that this program, which is working so well, while it is being transferred to a new location, continues to be administered as a separate grant program. When something is working very well, we ought to preserve that and not jeopardize it by folding it into other grant programs that aren't working as well. If confirmed, will you work to preserve the administrative structure of the Fire Act? Ms. Mencer. Madam Chairman, I believe it is the intent of Governor Ridge--Secretary Ridge at this point to maintain the Fire Act as it presently stands no matter where it happens to reside. I think it is a good program. I have heard from my fire fighting associates that, indeed, it is a program that they like, and I am sure that it will maintain its integrity no matter where it goes. Chairman Collins. The next issue I want to discuss with you has to do with the formula for allocating homeland security grants. As you can imagine, whenever we discuss formulas or the allocation of resources in Congress, those of us who represent smaller States often have different views than those of us who represent more urban populated States. What I want to point out to you, since you will undoubtedly be involved in the discussions on this, is that each and every State, regardless of its size, has certain homeland security needs and vulnerabilities. The State of Maine is a perfect example of that. We only have 1.2 million people, but we are a border State with Canada. We have an extensive coastline that makes us vulnerable. We have a very busy port that is the second-largest port by tonnage along the East Coast. We know that two of the hijackers on September 11 started out in Portland, Maine. I think that illustrates that we have to be very careful about allocating funds purely on a per capita basis--and some have argued that that is how it should be done. Larger States already receive substantial homeland security funding from other programs, such as the High-Threat Urban Area Grant Program, which I support, and which the legislation that I have authored would expand upon. In fact, during the past 2 years, Congress has provided more than $1 billion for high- threat funding, which benefits only a handful of States, and that amount is roughly a third of the total homeland security assistance to State and local governments. Second, not all potential threats directly target people where they live. A recent edition of Government Executive magazine focuses on the growing threat to our agricultural sector and our food supply. The article notes that foot and mouth disease is the most infectious virus known, for example, and that it could be spread by the wind more than 170 miles in aerosol form. The article also cites a National Defense University report that states even a limited outbreak of foot and mouth disease in this country affecting not more than 10 farms could have a $2 billion impact. I wanted to take some time to give you that background because I have a feeling you will be hearing alternative views from some of my colleagues. But I want to make sure that I have your commitment that you will carefully assess this whole area of funding and not adopt what I believe would be a simplistic approach based on population that would not take into account the real vulnerabilities and threats that different States may have. Another example would be a State like Delaware, a very small State but one that has a large Air Force base in Dover, a speedway. I know my colleague, Senator Carper, is very concerned about the issues that his State would face, too. Do you share my belief that we need to consider a range of risks, threats, and vulnerabilities in addition to population when deciding how to effectively allocate homeland security grant funding? Ms. Mencer. Yes, Madam Chairman. I believe you are absolutely correct. It is a complicated issue that deserves a more measured response, and certainly not a simplistic approach. And I think you are absolutely right that you have to take in many factors when you look at how to protect a State and what needs to be protected. You have to consider its vulnerability, the threat level against that State, and also its critical infrastructures and its population. So it is a multi-faceted view of how to protect these States. Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Lautenberg. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and welcome, Ms. Mencer. It is nice to see someone here who is so well qualified and we look forward to your service. I doubt that establishing the Department of Homeland Security has not been a gargantuan undertaking, but I was concerned about something--and by the way, you have a Colorado connection and I have two. They are two little grandchildren, my son's children who were born in the mountains in Edwards, Colorado, just a beautiful place. We have a real fondness for Colorado and understand Colorado builds great character---- [Laughter.] So we are happy to see you here. Chairman Collins. Senator, excuse me for interrupting you, but I would note that she has New Jersey relatives with her that she introduced, so I knew you would want to know that and---- Senator Lautenberg. From where? Maybe we can wrap this up. [Laughter.] Senator Lautenberg. Where are you from? Mr. Mencer. Pennsauken. Senator Lautenberg. Oh, Pennsauken, more in the Southern part of our State. It is nice to see you here, and for sure, that is another plus, Ms. Mencer. [Laughter.] That was good judgment. [Laughter.] There was an article in Sunday's Washington Post entitled, ``The Government's Hobbled Giant,'' and it talked about the slow start and the confusion and suggests low morale at DHS. Now, the President initially resisted creating the Department and we hope that he is fully committed to giving it the resources that it needs to do the job that it must. I am interested in what you have had to say on the subject. I am also interested to learn what our nominee thinks about the adequacy of the formula ODP used to allocate first responder grants. Last March, ODP made an additional allocation of $566 million. Small States received anywhere from $4 to $9.78 per capita. New York, ground zero on September 11, received $1.40 per capita. Only California did worse on a per capita basis. My home State of New Jersey lost 700 people on September 11, received $1.69 per capita when the nationwide per capita average was $1.98. Now, Congress is partially to blame for the allocation formula used since the PATRIOT Act requires that each State, regardless of size, receives 0.75 percent of the total funding. That means that nearly 40 percent of it gets doled out in equal allocations. The Chairman talked about a bill that she has to improve the ODP grantmaking. Unfortunately, the bill does not fix the small State minimum, nor does it require that the population density be incorporated into the allocation formula. So I hope that you will be able to agree with us that S. 1245 needs to be fixed so that we can reduce the enormous per capita disparities in the ODP's first responders grants, disparities that I, frankly, cannot justify to my constituents, many of whom were directly affected by the tragedy of September 11. I am concerned that in the nearly 2 years since September 11, the Bush Administration has failed to direct and assist States in developing a comprehensive threat assessment, which is of immediate importance to local and State Governments, as you surely know based on your own experience. If confirmed, what can you do to help expedite these Federal-level assessments and to help the States and the locals to develop their own comprehensive threat assessments or threat evaluation? Ms. Mencer. Madam Chairman, Senator Lautenberg, that is kind of a multi-faceted question and I will try to take them as I remembered them. As to the morale in the Department of Homeland Security, I certainly haven't been there, but I certainly haven't noticed anything in the individuals that have been working with me through this confirmation process. Senator Lautenberg. You saw the story in the paper? Ms. Mencer. I saw the version that was printed in our Denver Post, yes. Senator Lautenberg. I see. Ms. Mencer. Yes, but that is all I have seen, but I have not witnessed that at all. As to the formula process and trying to assess what a State needs and what kind of funding should be distributed, as I said earlier, I think it is a multi-faceted process and it is my understanding that the Department of Homeland Security is presently working on revising a formula--the formula, revising it so it is more comprehensive and takes into account a lot of factors. Senator Lautenberg. The threat assessment, I think, is the most important. I mean, if there is ever a vulnerability that has been identified---- Ms. Mencer. Right. Senator Lautenberg [continuing]. It is our region, New York-New Jersey region, and---- Ms. Mencer. Yes, sir, and they also are working--I know we are working very hard in Colorado to do a threat assessment now that is due to the Office for Domestic Preparedness by December 31, and that is working with our State, Federal, and local law enforcement and first responder community to do certainly a comprehensive and complete threat assessment. Senator Lautenberg. Would you comment on the effectiveness of the color-coded homeland security system? I have had some significant doubts about it because it is so non-specific that people don't know what to do. I get calls in the office from constituents asking, ``Is it safe to plan a wedding in New York? Can we visit this place or visit that place? Do we dare do it? These are friends of children, grandchildren. So I say, yes, you can't not conduct your normal life. What do you think about the homeland security system--and I understand there is some review taking place there, is that true? Ms. Mencer. Yes, sir. It is my understanding it is under review currently. In the State of Colorado, I can tell you that we have made decisions based on what we perceived as our threat in our particular area by consulting with all of our partners in the State. I am certain that my former colleagues at the FBI would certainly, if there were specific threat information, let that be known to any area that might be more susceptible or the subject of a threat. So I am fairly confident that if there were specific information, it would be passed, then we must devise--each State must determine how are you going to react to these threat levels, and that is what we have done in Colorado. Senator Lautenberg. Yes. I think that the system was originally designed to reach those who are responsible for the law enforcement side, the whole security agenda, and as a consequence, there was some comfort taken, well, the governor would know and the head of the State police and the local police departments and emergency units. But again, because of the confusion that it brought, and without any direction or any warning as to what you do when the threat level is raised, what you don't do, do you keep your kids home from school, don't go to the doctor, don't go to work, all of those things. But, Madam Chairman, we have a very good nominee here and I am sure that she will pass with flying colors. I just want her to remember that New Jersey has specific vulnerabilities in our attempt to protect the entire country. Thanks for being here. The job, though complicated, is one that has to be done and we are sure that you will lend excellent leadership to it. Ms. Mencer. Thank you. Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Levin. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN Senator Levin. Thank you, Madam Chairman. First, let me welcome our nominee. We congratulate her, and we look forward to her speedy nomination. Our Chairman has raised a number of issues with you which are very important issues which I think all of us have a great interest in, including the question of the administration of Fire Act grants, and I understand that your answer to that is that they will continue to be administered in the same way even though they are located in a different place. Does that mean that the Fire Act grants would still go directly to fire departments? Ms. Mencer. Just to clarify, I believe, Senator, it is Secretary Ridge's intent to maintain them as they are. I am, of course, not privy to those discussions, have not been to this point, so that is something I think I will be looking forward to working with and to looking at that issue if I am confirmed. Senator Levin. Is it your belief, then, from what you know and have been informed of that the Fire Act grants would still go directly to fire departments? Ms. Mencer. I think, presently, that is the intent. I, of course, again, am not privy---- Senator Levin. As far as you know. I understand. Ms. Mencer. As far as I know. Senator Levin. OK. That is fair enough. On the one-stop shop issue, I again congratulate and commend our Chairman because she has been a leader in this effort to try to get the Department to have an 800 number, to have a one-stop shop, because there is a huge amount of confusion and uncertainty out there and they need our local communities, fire departments, responders, they all need to have one place, one number where they can go and get information and find out where applications are going to be filed. I know it is forthcoming and I would hope that, when confirmed, that you would speed up that process. Ms. Mencer. I think that Secretary Ridge has expressed that he is also looking for a one-stop shop to enable the States to have a central location to refer all their questions, all their grant information to, and I believe that is his intent. Senator Levin. What we have seen, I am afraid, so far, however, is some real storm clouds here in terms of funding. As I read the numbers, the administration has actually requested less for first responders in the 2004 budget than in the 2003 budget when we add together the Office of Domestic Preparedness budget with the fire grant program budget. In 2003, the total of those two programs was $4 billion plus, and it is $3.5 billion, slightly more than $3.5 billion in the 2004 request. And that, it seems to me, is a real underfunding. We will have the debates over formulas, which are perfectly normal around here and understandable, but it seems to me when it comes to the overall funding of first responders, that we are way underfunded. There was a report issued by the Council of Foreign Relations detailing the inadequacy of Federal funding for our first responders entitled, ``Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded and Dangerously Unprepared.'' It concluded that an additional $20 billion is needed to adequately fund first responders, and that is $16 billion more than is being provided in the 2003 budget. I am wondering whether or not you will be weighing in on that issue. Do you have any feelings on that issue? Ms. Mencer. I think it is always a concern, how safe is safe enough and how much money do you need to do what you have to do to protect the country, and I think that will always be an ongoing debate. I think we have seen in the State of Colorado more money coming in than we have ever seen, and it has made a tremendous difference and will continue to make a tremendous difference. And yes, I would be committed to working to try to determine how safe is safe enough. Senator Levin. And would you be committed to trying to obtain adequate funding for our first responders? Ms. Mencer. I think we absolutely have to ensure that we put the money where it can do the maximum benefit and make sure we are efficiently and effectively doing that. Senator Levin. And that we have adequate funds to do that? Ms. Mencer. I think that is part of the whole interpretation of that, is to make sure the funding is adequate to protect our citizens. Senator Levin. Now, on the formula issue, obviously, there are some differences depending on what States we represent, but there is a common theme, I think, which is that funding ought to go where there are vulnerabilities and threats. There are States with small populations which have greater threats than some States perhaps with larger populations. The Chairman's State, with a long seacoast, for instance, that is a real vulnerability. The other vulnerabilities and threats that she has identified in Maine are real. The other small States have their own vulnerabilities. Delaware is frequently mentioned. It has vulnerabilities. If we allocate funds based on vulnerability and where threats are, I am happy. The problem is when we go beyond that and have an arbitrary formula, that is where we get into difficulty. Now, traditionally, we have done that. We have had a so-called small State minimum that has been guaranteed to every State, separate and apart from what vulnerabilities and threats will be. That doesn't mean there are no vulnerabilities and threats, it just means as a base, that we have provided funding to all States. Traditionally, it has been somewhere between half of one percent guaranteed to each State and zero, and there are dozens of programs, over 50, where that formula is being used, up to half of one percent, down to nothing. In this particular program, it is three-quarters of one percent, which is, I think, unique except perhaps for one other grant program. And so the issue is whether or not there is going to be that kind of an arbitrary allocation not based on specific threats or vulnerabilities and that is where there are obviously differences here between us. I would like to read to you the Federal Funds Information for States, which is a leading organization that analyzes State grants, Federal grants to States, which says that the structure of the 0.75 minimum as a base represents a departure from the traditional small State minimums, which are typically 0.50 or less, in other words, half of one percent. And so that is what I hope the Department is going to be looking at when they decide what they are going to do. In fact, I think we have on record a statement previously by the governor that he is going to be looking at this whole issue and, indeed, is going to try to make a rational allocation of funds which is based on vulnerability, based on threat to the maximum extent possible. We are going to rely on him and you to do just that, because a minimum State formula just means one that is in keeping with traditions around here to the extent that we have one. But to the extent possible, maximally, based on our vulnerabilities and based on threats. By the way, under the current formula, just to give you one example, Texas receives $4.50 per capita. Wyoming receives $32 per capita. I don't think it ought to be per capita distributed. I happen to agree that that is not a rational system, either, because of the need to distribute based on threat rather than on some arbitrary formula. But that is the result. It is kind of hard to think that Wyoming has got greater threats than Texas. Maybe, but it doesn't jump out at me that way. And finally, on this same point that the Council for Foreign Relations writes that Congress--well, I think I just quoted that, should work to establish a system for distributing funds based less on politics and more on threat. I just mentioned a few minutes ago that Secretary Ridge has stated he has got problems with the current formula and is working on a better way to allocate ODP dollars for 2004. So I think we all want to feel comfortable that we can count on you to the maximum extent possible to be looking at a formula here which does provide some funds for all States, because all States have some threats and all have administrative costs. But to the maximum extent possible, it is based on where the maximum vulnerabilities and threats are. Can we count on you for that? Ms. Mencer. Yes, sir. Senator Levin. Madam Chairman, thank you. Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator Levin. As you can see, Ms. Mencer, it is going to be a challenge to be head of the ODP, but it is an extremely important position. In view of the hour, I am going to just submit some additional questions for the record for you to answer. I do want to make just one final point on the funding issue, not to get into a big debate with my distinguished colleague, but that is as you tackle this issue, I think it is very important that you look at all of the sources of homeland security funding and how they are allocated. And to give you an example, for the funding for fiscal year 2003 that was included in the omnibus bill, just two States, California and New York, received half of all the high-threat funds. So as you review these issues, it is important that you look at all of the funding and how it is allocated. The high- threat urban area funding obviously benefits only a handful of States, but that has been set aside to deal with large urban areas. But only two States get more than half of that funding. So I think it is important to take a broad look. And the final comment I would make is that Secretary Ridge has testified both before this Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee that he supports a base-level of funding for every State because we want to make sure that every State meets a certain baseline level of capacity, and I would assume that you would agree with the Secretary's position on that matter. Ms. Mencer. Yes, ma'am. Chairman Collins. Thank you. I would like to thank you for not only appearing before the Committee today, but also for being willing to take on this task. You really have the ideal background, your many years as an FBI agent, your work at the Department of Public Safety at the State level, and the work that you have done as a private consultant in training local law enforcement in antiterrorism efforts. It gives me great confidence that you are the ideal person to head this very important agency. We look forward to working very closely with you. Without objection, the record will be kept open until 5 p.m. tomorrow for the submission of any additional questions from Committee Members or statements for the record. This hearing is now adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR NORM COLEMAN This hearing marks another important step in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The creation of the Department represents one of the largest management challenges in our Nation's history. It is important that we move expeditiously to approve the President's nominees. We all know that much of the responsibility for protecting our Nation falls on the State and local officials who live in each community. The Office of Domestic Preparedness plays a vital role in making sure that these jurisdictions have the equipment and training they need to do their job. It is also responsible for ensuring that Federal dollars are spent wisely according to a coordinated State plan. Ms. Mencer seems to be well qualified for the post to which she is nominated. Her experience in law enforcement gives her a good appreciation of the challenges facing our Nation. Her experience in State Government should make her more appreciative of the need to make it easy for State and local governments to work with the Federal Government. Today's hearing also gives us an opportunity to address the operation of the State and local grants program. This committee has already passed legislation sponsored by Senator Collins that would give the Department more guidance in how to distribute the grants to first responders. This same legislation would require the Department to implement changes that would make it easier for local governments to identify and apply for grant programs that would meet their needs. I hope that the Department will begin working on these initiatives immediately. __________ PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA Thank you very much Madam Chairman. I would like to welcome Ms. Mencer and her family this morning. Ms. Mencer, as the former Executive Director of the Department of Public Safety for the State of Colorado, you appreciate that homeland security policies must address specific needs to States and municipalities to be effective. The Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) is in the process of working with States to assess and improve preparedness. However, a number of concerns have been expressed, which lead me to believe that more needs to be done to ensure that ODP grant programs address the homeland security needs of each State. Homeland security grant allocations should fully account for all who are present within a State. Grants are currently based on population data from the U.S. Census Bureau. With respect to Hawaii, the high military and tourist populations in the State are not counted for grant allocation purposes. As a result, Hawaii does not receive full funding for the entire population the State must protect. In fact, Hawaii has the largest per capita population of military service members of any State. As the Department of Homeland Security develops its strategy to revise the current grant allocation process, it is imperative that Hawaii and other States' military and tourist populations are included in any new grant formula. ODP grant programs also must ensure maximum flexibility for States to address unique homeland security needs. States are currently required to budget for grant aid in advance and wait for reimbursement once Federal funding is received. This is a considerable burden which diverts State resources and prevents effective program planning. Federal assistance should be tailored to meet each State's homeland security needs. For example, Weapons of Mass Destruction training grants are often only available for preparedness and awareness training, whereas in some States like Hawaii, officials have already received initial training and require advanced operational guidance. In another example, requirements for grant funding to be allocated solely to support interoperable communications systems results in barriers for basic equipment upgrades to ensure reliable communications among first responders. We need to ensure that States have the flexibility to sue these funds as needed. In an effort to address many of my concerns, I am pleased to join Chairman Collins in seeking enactment of S. 1245. Ms. Mencer, thank you for being with us. I look forward to working with you to ensure that Federal homeland security policies administered by ODP fully meet the unique needs of each State. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.064