Page 1       TOP OF DOC

    PLEASE NOTE: The following transcript is a portion of the official hearing record of the Committee on Government Reform. Additional material pertinent to this transcript may be found on the web site of the committee at [http://www.house.gov/reform]. Complete hearing records are available for review at the committee offices and also may be purchased at the U.S. Government Printing Office.

59–450 CC



before the


of the

 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC



MAY 26, 1999

Serial No. 106–27

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/reform

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
STEPHEN HORN, California
JOHN L. MICA, Florida
 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
BOB BARR, Georgia
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
DOUG OSE, California
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
TOM LANTOS, California
ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont (Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director
DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director
DAVID A. KASS, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
CARLA J. MARTIN, Chief Clerk
PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
TOM LANTOS, California
ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont (Independent)
Ex Officio
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
LAWRENCE J. HALLORAN, Staff Director and Counsel
MICHELE LANG, Professional Staff Member
DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Counsel

    Hearing held on May 26, 1999
Statement of:
Cragin, Charles L., Acting Assistant Secretary for Reserve Affairs, Department of Defense
Light, Catherine, Director, Office of National Security Affairs, Federal Emergency Management Agency, accompanied by Bruce Baughman, Director of Operations and Plans, Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency
 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
Martinez, Barbara Y., Deputy Director, National Domestic Preparedness Office, Department of Justice
Mitchell, Andy, Deputy Director, Office for State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Cragin, Charles L., Acting Assistant Secretary for Reserve Affairs, Department of Defense, prepared statement of
Light, Catherine, Director, Office of National Security Affairs, Federal Emergency Management Agency, prepared statement of
Martinez, Barbara Y., Deputy Director, National Domestic Preparedness Office, Department of Justice, prepared statement of
Mitchell, Andy, Deputy Director, Office for State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice, prepared statement of
Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut, prepared statement of


House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher Shays (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Present: Representatives Shays, Mica and Tierney.
    Staff present: Lawrence J. Halloran, staff director and counsel; Michele Lang, professional staff member; Jonathan Wharton, clerk; David Rapallo, minority counsel; and Jean Gosa, minority staff assistant.
    Mr. SHAYS. I would like to call this hearing to order.
    Preparing to meet the threat of a terrorist attack here at home, local, public safety and health care officials today face a confusing array of Federal programs and agencies offering expertise, training and equipment. In 1995, the President designated the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], as the lead Federal agency for consequence management, the measures needed to protect life, restore essential services and provide emergency relief after a terrorism event involving conventional, biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction. At the same time, the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], part of the Department of Justice [DOJ], was directed to lead crisis management, the measures needed to prevent or punish acts of terrorism.
    In 1996, Congress directed the Department of Defense [DOD], to provide consequence management training and equipment to cities through what is now known as the Domestic Preparedness Program while also authorizing FEMA and DOJ to enhance the response capabilities of local police and fire departments. So the proposed transfer of the Domestic Preparedness Program from the Department of Defense to the Department of Justice offers the promise of one-stop shopping for State and local first responders, but raises key questions that should be addressed before an act of terrorism puts that promise to the test.
    The central question, does the consolidation of domestic preparedness programs in DOJ ignore the clear, necessary distinction between crisis management and consequence management reflected in the President's original lead agency designations? Will FEMA be able to assert a primary role in consequence management once the bulk of Federal training and equipment funds are coming from Justice? How will DOJ resolve inevitable conflicts between the law enforcement imperative to maintain the integrity of a crime scene and the equally compelling need to mitigate consequences by evacuating and decontaminating the same area when they are responsible for both?
 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    These are not abstract policy questions. When, not if, terrorists strike within our borders again, Federal support will be indispensable to an effective local response. Unless that Federal effort is properly structured and targeted, local planning may be inadequate, local preparations may be hazard, and critical assets may be misallocated. More than 40 national departments and agencies have responsibilities in the fight against domestic terrorism. Unless their roles are thoughtfully sorted out now, uncoordinated Federal assistance could, like the Keystone Cops of silent films, only serve to confuse and confound local response operations.
    Our witnesses today represent the key departments and agencies involved in the proposed consolidation and transfer of domestic preparedness activities, DOJ, DOD, and FEMA. We appreciate their testimony today and look forward to their continued cooperation in the subcommittee's oversight of Federal anti- and counterterrorism programs.
    When we talk about the number of departments within the Department of Justice, you have the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Marshals Service, Drug Enforcement Agency, Office of Justice Programs.
    Then you have the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    Then you have the Department of Defense: Joint Chiefs of Staff; U.S. Army; U.S. Navy; U.S. Marine Corps, particularly their chemical-biological incident response forces; U.S. Air Force; U.S. Special Operations Command; U.S. Central Command, Defense Intelligence Agency; Advanced Research Projects Agency; Defense Information Systems Agency; Defense Special Weapons Agency; Director of Military Support.
    Department of State: U.S. Information Agency under State starting October 1999.
    Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service; Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
    Department of Energy: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Environmental Protection Agency.
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration; U.S. Coast Guard.
    Department of Treasury: U.S. Customs Service; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; U.S. Secret Service.
    Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, National Security Council.
    Department of Commerce.
    Department of Veterans Affairs.
    U.S. Postal Service, White House Communications Agency, U.S. Capitol Police, Office of the Vice President, U.S. Supreme Court Marshals Office, State and local entities with terrorism-related programs and activities, Governors' offices, National Guard, State police, State fire, State Departments of Environmental Protection, State Department of Emergency Management, State public health departments, city-county fire departments, emergency medical services, hazardous materials teams, urban search and rescue, city and county police departments, sheriffs' offices, hospitals, emergency room physicians. It is a long list.
    [The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:]
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    Mr. SHAYS. At this time I would call our witnesses, the Honorable Charles L. Cragin, Acting Assistant Secretary for Reserve Affairs, Department of Defense; Mr. Andy Mitchell, Deputy Director, Office for State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice; Mrs. Barbara Y. Martinez, Deputy Director, National Domestic Preparedness Office, Federal Emergency Management Agency; Ms. Catherine Light, Director, Office of National Security Affairs, Federal Emergency Management Agency. In place of Mr. Lacy Smith, we have Bruce P. Baughman, who is the Director of Operations and Plans, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    What I'm going to do, as you know we swear in all of our witnesses. If there is anyone that is going to accompany you, Mr. Cragin, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Martinez, or Ms. Light, if you think you would call on to actually say something, I would ask them to stand, and we will swear them in as well in case they would be called upon to speak.
    If you would rise, and if there is anyone that you would suggest that might, if you would raise your right hands, please.
    [Witnesses sworn.]
    Mr. SHAYS. Note for the record all five have responded in the affirmative, and it's very nice to have all of you here. Mr. Cragin, it's nice to have you here, and I would ask you to open up this hearing. Thank you.

    Mr. CRAGIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about this very, very important issue.
    Let me briefly summarize the history and status of the DOD Domestic Preparedness Program as well as our plans for transitioning leadership responsibility for the program to the Department of Justice.
    The Domestic Preparedness Program, as you observed, was established to implement the provisions of the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996. DOD was designated as the interagency lead to carry out a program to provide civilian personnel in Federal, State and local agencies with the training and expert advice regarding responses to a use or threatened use of a weapon of mass destruction.
    In 1997, DOD began providing training and expert assistance for the Nation's 120 largest cities. A listing of those cities and the status of their training is included as an attachment to my statement for the record. To date 58 cities have participated in the training, and more than 15,700 first responder trainers have been trained.
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    My Federal interagency counterparts participated in the initial development of the training approach for this program, and they continue to participate in the program's execution today. The training approach for this program involves initial visits to selected cities to plan and customize the training; a week of ''train the trainer'' training for local first responder, HAZMAT, firefighter and law enforcement and emergency medical service personnel; tabletop and functional hands-on exercises using chemical and biological scenarios to further reinforce this training; and a training equipment package which is loaned to each city for their subsequent training use.
    Although I have oversight responsibility for this program, the U.S. Army's Soldier and Biological Chemical Command and the Director of Military Support serve as DOD's principal agents for executing this training program. The program is accomplished largely through contracts with certified professional instructors and subject matter experts in the areas of nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological medicine; public health; law enforcement; and emergency response.
    The enabling legislation for this program requires DOD to plan and coordinate an annual Federal, State and local exercise to improve the integration of Federal, State and local response assets during a WMD response. The fiscal year 1999 exercise will be held in New York City in September and involves a biological scenario.
    Other components of the Domestic Preparedness Program provide direct support and assistance to the first responder community. These include the Improved Response Program and the Expert Assistance Program.
    The law requires that the Department annually use the lessons learned from program execution to revise or update the program to ensure the training is effective, that it is technically up-to-date and is responsive to user requirements. While the Improved Response Program helps to prevent technical obsolescence, responder feedback from the execution of training and exercises associated with this program has profoundly influenced the training focus.
 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Without exception, the No. 1 request of first responders has been to identify a single Federal agency to lead the training and equipping of first responders. As you observed in your opening statement and in their words, they seek the ease, convenience and predictability of one-stop shopping at the Federal level.
    Last summer, in an effort to respond to President Clinton's direction to work more collaboratively and aggressively to combat terrorism, Deputy Secretary of Defense Hamre, Attorney General Reno, FEMA Director Witt, FBI Deputy Director Bryant and Director Clarke from the NSC met to discuss the feasibility of accomplishing that objective. The result was an agreement in principal that the Department of Justice would assume lead Federal agency responsibility for the WMD Domestic Preparedness Program.
    Since that time the Department of Defense and Department of Justice have been formulating and negotiating the terms of an interagency agreement to transfer lead responsibility for the WMD Domestic Preparedness Program from DOD to DOJ beginning in October of the year 2000. Although our negotiations are not yet concluded, we are moving toward finalizing that agreement. DOD will retain responsibility for the city training and equipping program until the end of fiscal year 2000, at which time DOJ will honor the commitment to train the remainder of the originally designated 120 cities. Beginning in fiscal year 2000, DOJ will coordinate with DOD during city training planning visits and will provide training equipment grants to cities trained by DOD in fiscal year 2000.
    The transition will occur in stages to accommodating existing budgets and program plans. Checks and balances are built into the staged approach to the transition. DOJ will coordinate with DOD throughout fiscal year 2000 and will participate in joint planning as articulated in the finalized Memorandum of Understanding which we hope to complete in early summer.
    DOD's focus beginning in fiscal year 2001 will be to continue to enhance the readiness of its WMD response units as well as installation responders. DOJ will focus on the domestic preparedness of State and local responders. As a result both Departments will contribute funding to benefit from the lessons learned from the Improved Response Program beginning in fiscal year 2001. Joint planning will be conducted through a multiagency task force to coordinate improvements needed not only for State and local response, but also for DOD's military WMD response elements.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Beginning in fiscal year 2001, the Department of Justice will assume full responsibility for managing and funding the first responder hotline, the helpline, and the Internet Web site. DOD will continue to fund and maintain the data base of WMD-related chemical-biological information and the equipment testing program as these program elements are integral to satisfying the DOD mission. DOJ will coordinate with DOD in joint planning efforts so that the State and local responder communities will continue to benefit from these Expert Assistance Programs.
    DOD will also continue to maintain at least one domestic terrorism rapid response team capable of aiding Federal, State, and local officials in the detection, neutralization, containment, dismantlement and disposal of WMD chem-bio materials as was required by the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici law. In fiscal year 1999 a chemical-biological rapid response team as well as 10 rapid assessment and initial detection teams were established to meet that requirement. In fiscal year 2000, DOD has requested the funding to support the establishment of an additional five RAID teams.
    The Department of Defense will continue to support the Department of Justice both during the transition and following its completion. The continued partnership for WMD preparation among local, State and Federal authorities is mandatory for our success. The recently enacted fiscal year 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act has made that point very clear. Title III of the act acknowledges the new leadership role of the Department of Justice in combating terrorism and the need to actively engage the 54 States and territories in the development of a national WMD preparedness strategy.
    The act requires that a fully coordinated final NDPO, that is the National Domestic Preparedness Office, blueprint outlining the specific roles and involvement of all Federal, State and local NDPO participants be submitted to Congress within the next few weeks. The NDPO must develop a plan for consulting with the States and developing and implementing a national strategy for domestic preparedness that builds on the existing all-hazard emergency management capabilities.
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Among other things, Mr. Chairman, the act requires the Attorney General to request that each State Governor designate a lead State agency or other entity to develop a comprehensive State-level domestic preparedness plan. Each State plan is to be based on a State-level needs assessment that identifies local and State first responder needs and provides an assessment of the resources currently available at the local, State and Federal level. My colleague Mr. Mitchell will discuss in more detail the needs assessment process.
    Since President Clinton issued PDD–62 a year ago to enhance our Nation's capability to combat domestic terrorism, there has been a concerted interagency cooperative effort to coordinate and streamline our programs in a way that is fairly consistent with this most recent round of congressional direction.
    We know what we need to do. We have made a good beginning, but we have a very long way to go. The NDPO is getting started, and the Attorney General has the full support of the Department of Defense in her leadership role. We are faced with a multiyear effort, which requires cooperation, patience and a long-term commitment. I thank you, sir, for your continued support and interest in this vitally important area.
    Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Cragin.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Cragin follows:]
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    Mr. SHAYS. I want to correct the record. Mr. Mitchell, you are next. Mrs. Martinez, you are not from FEMA, you are from the Department of Justice.
    Mrs. MARTINEZ. Yes, I am.
    Mr. SHAYS. Thank you for your restraint.
    Mrs. MARTINEZ. We have a great partnership.
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SHAYS. Anyway, great to have you from the Department of Justice. I was wondering who would represent the Department of Justice here. OK. You are on, Mr. Mitchell.

    Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Tierney. On behalf of Attorney General Janet Reno, Assistant Attorney General Laurie Robinson, I am pleased to be here today to discuss OJP's programs to enhance the capabilities of State and local first responders to deal with domestic terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction.
    Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Mitchell, let me just have you suspend for 1 second to recognize that Mr. Tierney is here. I apologize. I would ask unanimous consent that all members of the subcommittee be permitted to place any opening statement in the record and that the record remain open for 3 days for that purpose. Without objection, so ordered. I ask further unanimous consent that all Members be permitted to include their written statement, too, in the record, and without objection, so ordered. Thank you. I am sorry, Mr. Mitchell.
    Mr. MITCHELL. No problem. Thank you. In 1998, the Attorney General delegated authority for key facets of DOJ's Domestic Preparedness Program to the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs, who in turn proposed the creation of the Office for State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support to develop and administer critically needed financial and technical support to the Nation's first responders.
    Building on experience developed through 30 years of providing public safety and law enforcement support for training and technical assistance to State and local governments, OJP is focusing on five interrelated areas. First, we are conducting a national needs assessment to better help allocate resources and direct our design of training and exercise programs to meet the needs of the first responders as they define those needs.
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Second, our office is providing financial assistance to enable State and local jurisdictions to buy much needed equipment. This fiscal year OJP will award $85.5 million to over 200 cities and the 50 States. We just finalized our agreements with appropriation staff yesterday, and we will have information for the committee on how those funds will be distributed early next week.
    Third, OJP offers a broad spectrum of training to ensure that State and local emergency response personnel, fire, law enforcement, HAZMAT, EMS, and public officials have the knowledge, skills and abilities to respond safely and effectively to a terrorist incident.
    Fourth, OJP will support local-level tabletop and functional exercises for State and local agencies to help identify strengths and weaknesses within their current response plans.
    And fifth, we offer a wide range of technical assistance to help transfer knowledge and assist State and local agencies to make critical decisions the domestic preparedness issue requires.
    In delivering training and equipment to emergency personnel, OJP will closely coordinate and cooperate with the Department of Justice's National and Domestic Preparedness Office [NDPO], as Mr. Cragin has already discussed, which was proposed to coordinate Federal domestic preparedness initiatives and to serve as a single point of contact for first responders for information on Federal preparedness programs. In working with the NDPO, OJP participates in an intergovernmental coordination process that helps all Federal agencies to better focus and coordinate program policy across the Federal Government.
    In formulating our plans, OJP in concert with NDPO has made every effort to coordinate existing and planned domestic preparedness programs with those sponsored by other Federal agencies. This coordinated approach helps ensure that our programs are integrated with those efforts and that program funding is maximized to deliver the best training in the most effective manner.
 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    In particular, the intergovernmental coordination has been very significant and effective as the Departments of Defense and Justice are planning to transfer the Nunn-Lugar Domestic Preparedness Program. The Department of Justice is committed to completing the training in the 120 jurisdictions originally identified by DOD. Our two departments are working extremely well with excellent coordination between the agencies, particularly from the staff of the Reserve Affairs Office headed by Mr. Cragin.
    I am confident that the program transition will result in a much more robust and comprehensive Federal training program for the Nation's first responders, enabling OJP to integrate our existing training and other domestic preparedness assets with the Domestic Preparedness Program implementation.
    The integration will also address legitimate concerns regarding the two programs having different target groups with different mechanisms. As Charlie said, the memorandum of agreement is undergoing final review, and we should hope to have that finalized by this summer.
    The training equipment component of Nunn-Lugar is a critical element. OJP will provide grants for this purpose for the 20 cities beginning the training in fiscal year 2000 under DOD's leadership and in subsequent years. This will eliminate confusion and the difficulties inherent with the current equipment loan program. This is another area where OJP's grantmaking authorities and capabilities can enhance the program implementation.
    A major element of our program in OJP is the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium. Funding for all five members was provided for the first time in fiscal year 1999 to develop and implement specialized training for first responders. Each of the consortium members, Louisiana State University, Texas A&M University, the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, the Department of Energy's Nevada test site and OJP's Center for Domestic Preparedness at Fort McClellan, AL, has unique capabilities and expertise that will contribute to more diverse, well-rounded training opportunities for the Nation's first response community and will add significantly to the training opportunities for these responders.
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Throughout the development of OJP's programs and under the umbrella of the NDPO and our Federal partners, we have made every effort to keep in close touch with those that we are here to serve, the Nation's first responders. We will work closely with, for example, the National Emergency Management Association, the National Association of Fire Chiefs, and the National Sheriffs Association and other key stakeholder groups. With their help and constant feedback, we will continue to develop and improve our programs so that we can enhance the Nation's ability to deal with events that we all hope will never occur. Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
    Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    Mr. SHAYS. We will hear from Mrs. Martinez now.

    MRS. MARTINEZ. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this opportunity to speak before distinguished Members of Congress and my colleagues regarding the proposed role of the National Domestic Preparedness Office in combating terrorism within the United States. My intent is to highlight the importance of achieving coordination across the Federal Government of the various individual agency efforts that currently provide valuable assistance to State and local communities in preparing them to face the challenge that terrorism presents.
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    As you have noted, over 40 Federal agencies would have a role in the response to a true terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction. So, too, are many of these agencies in a logical position to provide various forms of expert assistance to prepare their State and local counterparts whose job it is to save lives and protect the security of our communities if such an event occurs.
    The mission of the National Domestic Preparedness Office, as recommended to the Attorney General by State and local authorities, will be to serve as the central coordinating body for Federal programs that can help emergency responders prepare for such events.
    As you know, in the past few years Congress and the President have taken significant steps to increase our national security and to promote interagency cooperation. Most recently, cooperative efforts against terrorism have been expanded to include State and local agencies as well as professional and private sector associations. For example, in the preparation of the administration's 5-year interagency counterterrorism and technology crime plan, the Attorney General sought the input of over 200 local and State representatives of response disciplines that would be most likely involved in the response to a terrorist event. Collectively, fire services and HAZMAT personnel, law enforcement and public safety personnel, emergency medical and public health professionals, emergency management, local and State government officials as well as various professional associations and organizations recommended to the Attorney General and others on ways to improve Federal assistance for State and local communities. These recommendations have been incorporated into the administration's 5-year plan.
    The most critical issue identified by stakeholders was the need for a central Federal point of coordination. Due to the size and complexity of both the problem of terrorism and the Federal Government itself, it was no surprise that the many different avenues through which aid may be required by State and local officials and the resulting inconsistency in those programs was simply deemed to be overwhelming. In essence, the Federal Government, though well intended, was not operating in an optimal manner, nor was it effectively serving its constituents with regard to domestic preparedness programs and issues.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    State and local response officials made a strong recommendation in the presence of the Attorney General and the presence of the Director of FEMA and the Secretary of Defense for the coordination and integration of all the Federal programs that rate State and local agencies for terrorism preparedness. In heeding that recommendation, the Attorney General further conferred with the National Security Council, FEMA, HHS, DOD and others, and with their support proposed the National Domestic Preparedness Office. If approved, the office will provide a productive forum for the coordination of the vital efforts of the Office of Justice Program's Office for State and Local Preparedness Support, FEMA, Department of Defense, National Guard, EPA, the environmental agency, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, FBI, and the many other Federal agencies with related assistance programs.
    Stakeholders also cited the need for formal representation of State and local authorities along with the Federal agencies in the form of an advisory board to guide the development and delivery of more effective Federal programs. Federal agencies agreed that State and local participation is critical to the whole process of domestic preparedness. Therefore, in addition to the advisory board, it is anticipated that when fully staffed, the NDPO will be staffed approximately one-third by State and local experts from various disciplines. These positions will be filled through establishment of interagency reimbursable agreements or contract hires.
    Overall the NDPO will serve as a clearinghouse to provide information to local and State officials who must determine the preparedness strategy for their community. The stakeholders easily identified six broad issue areas in need of coordination assistance: planning, training, exercise, equipment research and development, information sharing, and public health and medical services. If I could, I would like to highlight just a few of these, the efforts the NDPO could engage in.
    In the area of training, the NDPO would establish a mechanism to ensure that Federal training programs comply with minimal national standards, such as those of the National Fire Protection Association, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The NDPO could also develop a national strategy to make sustained training opportunities and assistance available to all communities and States nationwide. The NDPO would maintain an after-action tracking data base for the repository and review of all lessons learned during exercises and actual events that might assist other communities.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    In connection with information sharing, the NDPO can implement a mechanism to facilitate access by personnel outside law enforcement to information that would be critical for preparedness and consequence management.
    In the area of equipment research and development, the NDPO, with direct input by emergency responders, has already established a standardized equipment list which has been incorporated into the grant application kits used by the Office of Justice Programs. The NDPO again would serve as a clearinghouse for product information provided by private vendors and testing data provided by approved testing facilities, including those of Department of Defense, to promote a synergy and avoid costly duplication in the area of Federal research and development.
    Finally, in the area of health and medical services, the NDPO, under the guidance of the Public Health Service of the Department of Health and Human Services, would coordinate the efforts to support the metropolitan medical response systems, pharmaceutical stockpiling systems, the establishment of a nationwide surveillance system, and over other efforts to improve the identification of infectious diseases and the overall integration of the public health and mental health care community into the WMD response plans.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today and in the future as the NDPO continues to mature into the one-stop shopping for domestic preparedness as proposed by the Attorney General of the United States. She has recently said that the actions of the first people on the scene can really make a difference between life and death, and the key is to work together in a partnership among Federal, State, and local communities to prepare a coordinated response that saves lives and provides for the safety of all involved. I will answer any questions that you may have.
    Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much, Mrs. Martinez.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Martinez follows:]
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    Mr. SHAYS. Ms. Light.

    Ms. LIGHT. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, Mr. Tierney. On behalf of Director James Lee Witt, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the status of terrorism-related Domestic Preparedness Program activities. I have provided a written statement and will now summarize key points from that statement. First I will give a brief overview of FEMA's roles and responsibilities with respect to domestic terrorism and then discuss our position on the proposed transfer of the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness Program from the Department of Defense to the Department of Justice.
    FEMA is the Federal Government's lead agency for consequence management preparedness and response to domestic incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. FEMA uses the Federal Response Plan [FRP], as the vehicle to coordinate the Federal consequence management activities. Over the years, the FRP has been used in numerous Presidentially declared disasters and emergencies. The plan brings together 27 departments and agencies to organize Federal disaster response and recovery efforts in support of State and local requirements. Most importantly, the FRP provides a known and flexible framework under which local, State and Federal officials can orchestrate their response and make the most effective use of available resources.
    In implementing its domestic preparedness activities, FEMA strives to ensure four key points: First, that State and local first responders and emergency management personal are the focus of the Federal programs; second, that the needs of the balance of the Nation, not just the largest cities and the metropolitan areas, are addressed; third, that initial training is reinforced and sustained with refresher information and updated instruction; and finally, that existing plans, systems and capabilities are used as the foundation for addressing the unique requirements of responding to terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction.
 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    FEMA Director Witt has been working closely with the Attorney General to better coordinate interagency efforts for domestic preparedness including support for the National Domestic Preparedness Office. In addition to supporting the NDPO, FEMA will continue its lead agency responsibilities for consequence management.
    With respect to planning, FEMA applies experience gained in responding to natural disasters to the development of plans and procedures for terrorism response. In 1997, we published the Terrorism Incident Annex to the Federal Response Plan, and we continue to work with the interagency community to refine our response. In addition, FEMA grant assistance is being used to enhance State and local planning resources and capabilities.
    In the area of training, FEMA has developed and delivered a number of terrorism-related courses utilizing existing networks and facilities. In particular, we rely on the National Emergency Training Center, which includes the Emergency Management Institute and the National Fire Academy as well as State fire and emergency management training systems to deliver terrorism-related training to States and local responders. Additionally, the Emergency Management Institute developed a Senior Officials Workshop for DOD's Nunn-Lugar-Domenici program, and the National Fire Academy worked very closely with the Department of Justice to provide a curriculum for DOJ's metropolitan fire and emergency services training.
    Regarding exercises, we are working very closely with the NDPO, FBI, other departments and agencies in the States to ensure the development of a comprehensive exercise program that meets State and local needs.
    As for equipment, we assisted in the development of the standardized equipment list that has been referenced earlier today.
    With respect to the proposed transfer of the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness Program, FEMA strongly supports the transfer from DOD to DOJ. FEMA has worked very closely with DOD and the interagency community to help institutionalize the process, and we will continue to work very closely with the Department of Justice as the program is transferred to them.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    FEMA is committed to work with the Federal interagency community in coordinating our activities and programs as part of the overall Federal effort, and we are committed to doing everything that we can to better prepare the States and local jurisdictions for dealing with this immense challenge.
    Once again, thank you for the opportunity to address this subcommittee.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Light follows:]
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]

    Mr. SHAYS. Thank you all very much. First, let me say this will be the first of a number of hearings. The advantage that this committee has is that we are an investigative committee. We are not a committee that promulgates legislation. We advocate legislation and then encourage other committees to do it, but we really look at how programs are working.
    The advantage that this committee has is that we aren't limited by one department or agency. We have total jurisdiction in the Government Reform Committee of terrorism and anything related to it, whether it be in the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, FEMA or anywhere else. We think that we need to take advantage of that.
    Second, this is really our first hearing, so I am going to go through questions that have been written out because we really want them on the record. I am interested in asking some other questions as well, but I am going to go through to put these on the record. Some of them are in your statement, but I want them in response to the questions that I ask.
    The other thing that I want to say is that we really are putting you all in the same table. I am not trying to pit one against the other, but I am going to ask questions that will hopefully force us to just come to grips with why decisions are made and so on.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So, one, I appreciate the fact that you all wanted to be at the same table, but I think what you all are doing is one of the most important things. It is one reason why I chose to chair this committee. One of my greatest concerns is not an errant missile that comes to the United States. It is a suitcase or a bomb in a truck left in Times Square, the absolute rejoicing that some nations would have if this great country were wounded in some way.
    I also say that while your faces may not be public, I believe they will during the course of the next years because I do think there will be a terrorist attack; hopefully not one of great magnitude, but I think there will be. The odds are there will be, in my judgment. There are three weapons of choice, whether they be chemical, biological or, in fact, even nuclear. So you all are on a very important mission.
    These questions are going to be first addressed to all of you. I think, Mr. Cragin, this came from your statement. You said,

    The Attorney General announced last October a plan to transfer the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness Program from the Department of Defense to the Department of Justice. DOJ and DOD are finalizing the Memorandum of Understanding on the transfer of the Domestic Preparedness Program. This MOU will set forth how the transfer will be implemented.

    I would like to just know a little bit more about that ultimately, but first I would like to ask, Mr. Cragin, why was the decision made to transfer the Domestic Preparedness Program? What was the motivation to do that?
    Mr. CRAGIN. Initially, Mr. Chairman, the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici legislation itself authorized the President, beginning on October 1, 1999, or thereafter, to designate an agency other than the Department of Defense as the lead agency for conducting the Domestic Preparedness Program. So we have the existence of the legislation.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Second, we had been involved, and have been historically, as a supporting agency in the Federal inventory supporting FEMA and supporting the Department of Justice. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there was a great deal of confusion, as Mrs. Martinez mentioned in hers, within the first responder community. They were coming to the Department of Defense for certain aspects; they were coming to the Department of Justice for others. We also had as part of this constellation of events that was occurring—in fact, just a year ago, May 22 of last year, President Clinton issued Presidential Directive 62, which really directed the Federal agencies to have a much more programmatic and collaborative approach to coordination of WMD responses. So you had all of this happening.
    Dr. Hamre looked at the mission of the Department of Defense as a mission to provide support, but recognized that we really didn't on a daily basis have direct contact with the first responder community, and that the Department of Justice did have that sort of daily contact through all of the FBI agents in, I think, the 56 field offices out there.
    Frankly, it was a very collaborative discussion, as I mentioned in my statement, between Dr. Hamre and Ms. Reno and Director Witt and Mr. Richard Clarke, who, as you know, is designated as the national Director for the critical infrastructure and domestic terrorism at the NSC, and Mr. Bryant from the FBI. A conclusion was reached following those discussions that it was in the best interests of America and in the best interests of providing the support to first responders that we transfer this program to the Department of Justice.
    Mr. SHAYS. Would anyone else like to add to that response?
    Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I think at the time, as Charlie indicated, there were a number of Federal programs, DOD and the one in DOJ predominantly, that had similar targets, but different lists of groups that were eligible in different cities. One of the things that I think the transfer will accomplish is to eliminate any redundancy or confusion as to who is eligible for what and provide a much more comprehensive Federal training program to make a wider range of training and equipment and other assistance available in a much more integrated fashion. So I think that the transfer in addition to the legal and policy aspects of it, just organizationally, it seemed to make sense, and I believe that the first responder community has responded well to the proposal. We have not heard any concerns or anxieties from our end that they are concerned about that.
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SHAYS. Would anyone else want to make a comment? The second question is the decision that you did respond to, why DOJ and not FEMA? I would tell you that in some ways it seems that FEMA has more contact with local communities in terms of I would think that they would be more likely to want to be the one that would provide the training and the preparedness for the consequence management. So it was surprising to me that DOJ grabbed it instead of FEMA. So my question is why DOJ and not FEMA?
    Mr. CRAGIN. I think one of the reasons, Mr. Chairman, was because we had two programs that were going down tandem tracks. We had the Equipment Grant Program that was being administered by the Department of Justice and, in fact, has been significantly plussed up in the last year or so. And we had the Domestic Preparedness Training Program that was over at the Department of Defense. So there was almost——
    Mr. SHAYS. I know why it left DOD. I do know that, but I don't know why you chose to go DOJ instead.
    Mr. CRAGIN. Because they were doing the equipment grants. Say, for example, FEMA ended up doing the training. You still have Justice doing the equipping, so you don't have a one-stop shop.
    Mr. SHAYS. I understand.
    Why would not the equipment go to FEMA? It seems to me that that would have been the logical place to put it.
    Mr. CRAGIN. That was the wisdom of Congress, Mr. Shays, that the equipment grants programs were in the Department of Justice.
    Mr. SHAYS. But it is also the wisdom of Congress that the other part was at DOD.
    Mr. CRAGIN. But it was the wisdom of Congress that after October 1, 1999, that portion could, in fact, be transferred to the other agency.
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SHAYS. Right, but the question is why didn't we transfer both to FEMA? That is what I am trying to get at. It seems to me that DOJ is basically going to be focused on really the issue of crisis management to prevent a crime and then to punish the criminal. FEMA seems logically to me to be the one that works with local communities, tries to prepare them for the consequence management, and it would seem to me that they should be the ones dealing with the equipment and management and training, et cetera. That is what I am trying to sort out. There may not be a perfect answer, but I would at least like to know.
    Mr. MITCHELL. In the instance of the agency administering the training and equipment and other support programs, it is the Office of Justice Programs which is the principal grantmaking agency. It is an operational agency, as the FBI would be, in the crisis management responsibilities. So the mission of OJP is solely to provide a wide variety of training and technical and financial support to State and local governments on a wide range of public safety issues. This is one of many public safety areas in which OJP has an aggressive and very comprehensive relationship with Governors, mayors, elected officials, public safety officials throughout the United States.
    Mr. SHAYS. Feel free to jump in.
    Mr. TIERNEY. Excuse us going back and forth. We have some of the same curiosity. Doesn't FEMA have the same kind of relationships? FEMA might know that.
    Mr. SHAYS. Ms. Light, if you would move the microphone down a little lower.
    Ms. LIGHT. Is that better?
    Yes, FEMA is responsible for consequence management, and FEMA does have an excellent relationship with the emergency management and the fire community because we deal with them very regularly. Just as we deal with those communities, however, the Department of Justice deals very regularly with the law enforcement community, which is also a very essential component, as does the Department of Health and Human Services deal with the health officials that are part of the response also.
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Regardless of the department or agency who has lead responsibility, the program is one in which all of the departments and agencies need to continue to work very closely together to make sure that we are meeting the needs of the first responders across the spectrum; emergency management, fire, law enforcement, health and medical personnel. We have been very much a part of that program both at the national level and in delivering it out in the communities, and we will continue to be very much a part of that program as the program is transferred to the Department of Justice. It will do nothing really to diminish our role with respect to consequence management in the aftermath of a disaster. We will still have that lead responsibility, and we will still utilize the Federal response framework for responding to disasters.
    Mr. SHAYS. But what makes the question for me, though, is the contact you would have by the equipment and the training is now going to be handled by someone else. You won't have that kind of contact. It seems to me that it would have been logical to develop that relationship because the training for the consequence management is going to be done by someone else, but you are the one that is ultimately going to have to deal with the consequences.
    Ms. LIGHT. We will deal with the consequences, but we are very much involved in the delivery of that training. We assisted in the development of that training. In fact, we developed a particular course that met the needs of the local responders, and we will continue to be a part of the delivery of that training even as the program is transferred to the Department of Justice. Every city visit, every training program, every exercise that is associated with that we are a part of and will continue to be a part of.
    Mr. SHAYS. That is helpful.
    Mr. TIERNEY. What is DOJ going to do?
    Ms. LIGHT. Pardon me?
    Mr. TIERNEY. What is the Department of Justice going to do with respect to training?
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. LIGHT. The training program, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, EPA, HHS, and Department of Energy are all integral parts of that training program. When we go out to the cities and deliver that program, all of us are there as a united entity.
    Mr. TIERNEY. Under the direction of DOJ?
    Ms. LIGHT. Yes, that would be the case. Now, under the direction of DOD, but then under the direction of DOD, yes.
    Mr. SHAYS. If the transfer is going to move to DOJ, which it is, why not place everything in the Office of Justice Programs, which already has established State and local relations for administering law enforcement grants and programs?
    Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, the vast majority, the assistance-related programs of the Domestic Preparedness Program, the city visit training, the equipment component, training equipment component, the Improved Response Program that deals with enhancing the training for State and local first response benefits will be transferred to the Office of Justice Programs.
    Mr. SHAYS. OK. When is this transfer going to begin to take place, and when will it be completed?
    Mr. MITCHELL. The initial transition planning and integration will begin this summer as we go out, our staff, the companies, the DOD program personnel, to the initial regional kickoffs for the jurisdictions that will begin the training process, the 20 cities that will begin the process in fiscal year 2000, and then we will increasingly participate. The program is complex, and there is a fairly long time line associated from the first initial contact with the city through the completion of the field exercise and the bio tabletop at the end of this process. So our MOU is quite specific as to the DOJ–DOD coordination on those jurisdictions where there will be a residual activity remaining after the transfer occurs on October 1, 2000.
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SHAYS. What will happen to the existing DOD contracts?
    Mr. CRAGIN. The existing DOD contracts will either reach their conclusion as far as the fiscal year applicability is concerned, or they will be transferred to the Department of Justice. That is an issue that we look at on a regular basis because of the fiscal year program. We are going to be budgeting some last-quarter dollars in the preceding fiscal year to get over to the first quarter of the transition year so that there is absolutely no hiatus in the program evolution. From the city's perspective, Mr. Chairman, this will be completely transparent to them.
    Mr. SHAYS. OK. Thank you.
    Mr. Cragin, I think this is also from your statement. You said the Domestic Preparedness Program currently consists of five program elements: One, the city, training the trainer programs. The second one was the annual Federal, State and local—FSL—exercise. I think the third one is the Improved Response Program [IRP]; four, expert assistance; and five, chemical and biological response. What parts of the program will DOD retain, and what parts of the program will DOJ receive of these?
    Mr. CRAGIN. As I indicated in my opening statement, we are essentially going to retain the chemical and biological rapid response team. As you know, the legislation required that the Department of Defense establish at least one of those teams. We have established that in fiscal year 1999.
    Mr. SHAYS. That is within the marine——
    Mr. CRAGIN. That is an amalgam of expertise within the Department of Defense. That includes and can utilize, for example, the tech escort units, Chemical and Biological Incident Response Task Force from the Marine Corps. But we have also established, and not up and running yet, and I believe this committee is going to have a hearing to discuss the topic on June 23, what we call rapid assessment and initial detection teams, which will be fielded through the United States to assist State and local authorities in assessing an event in determining exactly what they are dealing with and providing support. So we are going to retain those things. We are also going to retain part of the expert assistance aspects because we have mission requirements for those activities within the Department of Defense.
 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SHAYS. As it relates to the trainer program, what part will DOJ assume, and what part will DOD continue?
    Mr. CRAGIN. DOJ will assume the entire aspect of that program. That is essentially the guts, so to speak, of the Domestic Preparedness Program where they go out, as we have to date, with 58 cities and about 15,700 first responders, and we train them as trainers so that you get the leveraged capacity of them going forward to train additional personnel.
    Mr. SHAYS. When will the FSL Exercise Improvement Response Program be transferred to Justice?
    Mr. CRAGIN. That will not be transferred, Mr. Chairman, because by the law the Department of Defense is only required to conduct that for a 5-year period. So 2001 will be the last year of that program, and we have agreed to maintain that as a Department of Defense-led activity. But I echo Ms. Light's comments to you. This is an interagency process. Everybody is collaborative in working this process, and they all participate in the exercise planning as well.
    Mr. SHAYS. I think that is clear. I think it is important for us to begin to appreciate all of the parts to it, which leads me to ask after 2001, won't the program continue? Won't Congress authorize it up to 2001?
    Mr. CRAGIN. I am going to let Mr. Mitchell respond to the question of the program, but I want to emphasize the Federal, State and local annual exercise aspect expires at the end of 5 years. The rest of the program continues.
    Mr. SHAYS. Let me just say, you are going to be having an exercise this year in New York City?
    Mr. CRAGIN. Yes, sir.
    Mr. SHAYS. That will involve how much; over what period of time will that exercise take place? I am sure that you are planning for it now, but is that a 1-day event? Is it a 5-day event?
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. CRAGIN. I am not sure about the specific days. It will be more than a day, I can tell you that.
    Mr. SHAYS. Actually, I can get into that issue later, that is a little off subject. I will try to make a point to be there if I can.
    Mr. CRAGIN. We would be happy to provide your staff with all of the necessary information.
    Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.
    Mr. Mitchell.
    Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, we fully intend to take the program as exists and through the interagency process that we are engaging in now to determine what would be the next phase of the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness Training Program, recognizing that 120 municipalities, while a large part population-wise of the country, there are areas of the country, 12 States, where there has been no program activity at all.
    So we are going to look at the requirements and also look at some of the ways that we can improve the delivery of that, hopefully over the next few years, to have a more objective means of targeting not only the Domestic Preparedness Program training, but equipment and others on something other than population, which gets to the needs assessment and the other activities that are under way now, which hopefully will give us a broader range of criteria and something more substantive to base targeting of training equipment on other than population, certainly to address the support in those 12 States where there has been no Nunn-Lugar-Domenici or OJP involvement.
    Mr. SHAYS. When you do this training exercise, you invite community leaders from other areas to witness and participate? There has got to be an answer yes, because I see a nodding of the head in the audience.
    Mr. CRAGIN. I don't want to say that I anticipated the question, but I happen to be reading an after-action report on a domestic preparedness training session that was done out in Oakland, CA. It was 1 of the 120 cities. This is the student demographics that they report. Students were selected by the local jurisdiction and represented several key responder disciplines, major disciplines, firefighters, law enforcement, emergency medical service and hospital care providers. Other students included representatives from the Federal Aviation Agency; Federal Bureau of Investigation; U.S. Air Force; U.S. Army Reserve; and the U.S. Department of Energy; California Army National Guard; California Office of Emergency Services and the California EMS Authority; Alameda County Fire; Contra Costa County Health; OES and sheriff, cities of Alameda, Berkeley, Hayward, Livermore, Pleasanton, Newark, Presidio of Monterrey, Richmond, Salinas, San Francisco, San Leandro, San Rafael and Emeryville; city of Oakland Public Works and Office of Emergency Services; American Medical Response; Bay Area Rapid Transit; Lawrence Livermore National Lab; Oakland Coliseum; Port of Oakland; and Stanford University.
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SHAYS. So the answer is yes?
    Mr. CRAGIN. The answer is yes.
    Mr. SHAYS. DOD has said, Mr. Cragin, that it will retain control of the chemical-biological rapid response team. But my question is to Mrs. Martinez. Does FBI have or plan to have any WMD rapid response teams of its own?
    Mrs. MARTINEZ. In the way of rapid response teams, I would say we are offering training to the technician level HAZMAT in each of our offices—excuse me, in 10 of our offices. Operations level has been met in the remaining 41. I would offer that this largely has to do with the event of collecting evidence in a contaminated crime scene as opposed to moving in to do that job that would otherwise be done by State and local HAZMAT professionals. We feel there will be a teaming and concerted training effort for sustainment of certification between the local offices and the local fire and HAZMAT teams, not to replace, though, the other teams.
    Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much.
    Let me just ask a question here of counsel.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Tierney.
    Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you.
    Mr. Mitchell, the testimony indicated that under the current program there are 120 cities designated to receive training and equipment loans. Prior to the announcement of the proposed transfer, GAO criticized the Department of Defense for delivering the Domestic Preparedness Program to cities rather than larger metropolitan areas that GAO said would have greatly increased the coverage. Does the DOJ plan to change that geographic methodology for determining which places receive training and equipment?
    Mr. MITCHELL. Congressman, we certainly concur that there is limited utility in focusing on a single hub city where under existing mutual aid agreements and other protocols there is going to be a joint response. I will—in DOD's defense, they have, as based on Mr. Cragin's reason—they have made incremental changes over time as required by law to broaden that net. We certainly intend to maintain that broad base so that—working with the local jurisdiction to identify and involve in training all relevant first response units within the surrounding jurisdictions.
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. TIERNEY. Yes?
    Mr. MITCHELL. Yes.
    Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you.
    How many of the original 120 cities under the Domestic Preparedness Program will not be trained prior to the date of transfer?
    Mr. CRAGIN. Well, we have done 58. I think that we are looking at 69 that will be fairly well along in the transfer. As Mr. Mitchell said, Congressman Tierney, this is a lengthy process that goes on over a year by the time you get to the local exercise aspects of it. We have a very precise transition plan with three stages that is articulated in our Memorandum of Understanding, which, as we indicated, we expect will be finalized in summer.
    Mr. TIERNEY. You anticipate that all of those that aren't, at the time of transfer it can be guaranteed that they eventually will be trained?
    Mr. CRAGIN. That is correct.
    Mr. MITCHELL. Under the current MOU, there are really two phases. Phase one is all of the preliminary meetings up through and including the delivery of the training and the fielding of the chemical tabletop. And then there is a subsequent period of time where they conduct their training and the other exercise is planned, which is phase two. Under the current agreement, DOD by the end of fiscal year 2000 would have provided complete training, complete phase one and phase two to 68 jurisdictions, and they will have completed a phase one training to an additional 37, which will bring a total of 105 jurisdictions that have actually received the training. The remaining 37 will be exercised—the phase two exercise will be part of the transition for responsibilities to OJP. But there will only be 15 of 120 cities as of the date of the transfer that have not begun the process.
    Mr. TIERNEY. They will still get it?
    Mr. MITCHELL. That is true. They will be the first group of cities that will be targeted to receive the program in fiscal year 2001.
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. TIERNEY. One significant change of the program appears to be that the Department of Justice will offer equipment grants to cities that it trains after the transfer; is that right?
    Mr. MITCHELL. That is right.
    Mr. TIERNEY. What about those cities that got loans prior to the transfer? Are they going to do anything with that, change the nature of that relationship?
    Mr. CRAGIN. I think this is another perfect example of why we needed this all in one shop, Congressman Tierney. Under the legislation that we were administering at the Department of Defense, there really was no equipment grant program authorized. So essentially what the Department did is it provided a modest amount of equipment that could be utilized for training purposes, and it was, to use the term of art, on loan. I would suggest it was on loan in perpetuity, and I think that the GAO made some comment about that in their evaluation.
    But we are talking about equipment grants for an inventory of equipment that the first responders can utilize operationally rather than just having a training set. I think the Department of Justice moved forward with this. They are going to be looking at each of these entities having the ability to compete and submit requests for equipment grants regardless of whether they receive the equipment loan for training purposes from the Department of Defense.
    Mr. TIERNEY. So the loans really were just a startup kit, so to speak.
    Mr. CRAGIN. Yes, sir.
    Mr. TIERNEY. Nobody is going to call that note? Nobody is anticipating calling it, but if they then think they have to upgrade, they can apply for grants along with everybody else. Is there any pecking order as to who is going to be—liable to be first in line for those new grants?
 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. CRAGIN. Let me just say that I don't anticipate that anybody is going to call the note. I expect that this equipment will over the passage of time be degraded, and they will be looking for additional equipment grants from my colleague Mr. Mitchell.
    Mr. TIERNEY. But there is no priority list?
    Mr. MITCHELL. For fiscal year 1999 that we just recently completed this agreement, there will be grants made to the 157 this year, fiscal year 1999, to the 157 largest cities and counties. That is consistent with the language in the conference report that accompanied our fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill. Plus we will make additional grants to the balance of the Nunn-Lugar cities, which, if my memory serves, is 55 cities in addition this year, total of 212. So they will all receive operational equipment grants this year.
    The training equipment—really if they are doing training, the training is ripped. It gets used. It is OK to train in a level A suit that is ripped if it is for training. It is not OK to use operational equipment to train, because if you take it off the HAZMAT truck, or you remove it from service to train in, then when that response unit is called, their equipment is not going to be there, nor can they use equipment that has been damaged through training.
    There are two distinct purposes for the equipment that we will be providing them currently. DOD's equipment is for training support. We think that is appropriate. Additionally there will be operational equipment grants also to build both their training capabilities and their operational response capabilities.
    Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you.
    I think that you have already indicated this, but let me put it in the record anyway. How will the implementation of the five elements of the Domestic Preparedness Program that Mr. Cragin discussed be divided between OJP and NDPO exactly?
    Mr. MITCHELL. I will start with what we are doing in OJP. OJP will be responsible for all the facets of the city visit program, the training program, which is the city training itself, the development and conduct of the exercises that support that, and all of the contractual activities and support that allow us to provide that training.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The Improved Response Program, which is the testing and the validation of programs and activities and equipment that allows us to upgrade the training and inform the first responder community of information that we glean from this to help them be better prepared, we will—OJP and DOD—will jointly support that because they have their own requirements that they need to do that. We will augment and participate in that for the benefit of State and local first responders. The Expert Assistance Program, the technicians, the people that will answer the phone, under the current process that will be a responsibility that will be transferred to the NDPO.
    Mrs. MARTINEZ. Technically that will be the helpline, a hotline, and a Web site. As we are the information clearinghouse, if you will, they will take on the execution of the city visit and training program along with the equipment aspects, and we will maintain the helpline, hotline and Internet Web site.
    Mr. TIERNEY. Helpline, hotline, Internet site. They are all basically the same, three different ways to contact?
    Mrs. MARTINEZ. No, sir. The helpline is basically manned 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern Standard Time with voice mail after that and on weekends and holidays. It is intended for nonemergency calls, general calls about preparedness and help. The hotline is an emergency call line. That is staffed 24 by 7 by the national response——
    Mr. TIERNEY. And the Web site is informational bells and whistles?
    Mrs. MARTINEZ. Yes, sir.
    Mr. TIERNEY. If I am a local fire department and I want to call for any of these, is there one number that I call, or do I have to call individually down the line to the appropriate aspect here in order to get my questions answered?
    Mrs. MARTINEZ. Well, the vision here is that you will have one telephone number for nonemergency activities.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. TIERNEY. That is somewhere down the line?
    Mrs. MARTINEZ. We hope soon, yes. As the NDPO would be approved, we think that would be the very first step.
    Mr. TIERNEY. And in emergency situations?
    Mrs. MARTINEZ. They would use existing protocols as well as the hotline, which is the National Response Center that most of them already use in addition to 911.
    Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.
    Also, to set the record straight, this is really the first hearing. We had Mr. Clarke in earlier and with respect to this committee before I chaired it, it had a number of hearings before.
    Mr. CRAGIN. I was here.
    Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Cragin, exactly. I need to make sure that the record reflected that you were here when Speaker Hastert who was not then the Speaker, chaired this committee.
    I would like to now ask Ms. Light as well as Mr. Baughman, if I could, to respond to this question. Would you describe the types of relationships that FEMA has established with State and local officials and the structure from which you carry out these relationships? I am trying to think of the operational process that takes place. So I want to know the relations that FEMA has established with State and local officials and the structure from which you carry out these relationships.
    Ms. LIGHT. FEMA on a regular basis has a relationship with the State emergency management basically through the State directors. We deal with them on a very regular basis for preparedness types of initiatives. In a natural disaster situation, just as there is a Federal coordinating officer that would be designated for a Federal disaster declaration or emergency, there is a State coordinating officer, and our relationship through the State would be the Federal coordinating officer with the State coordinating officer to make sure that the requirements by the State are, in fact, coordinated and responded to at the Federal level.
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SHAYS. Could I have a little more detail? In other words, you also work directly with the local governments as well, don't you? You have the fire chiefs, you have the Governor's office. I would like a little more detail to this answer.
    Ms. LIGHT. We do work with those, but we work principally through the States. In fact, we have 10 regional offices, as you probably know, and we have regional representatives who are specifically designated to work with State directors in each of the States to ensure State coverage. They work directly through the States with the locals. So the States work more directly with the local personnel than we do. And in a disaster, in a response kind of situation where there is actually a disaster, the requirements for the locality come up through the State, and then they are coordinated at the Federal level.
    Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Baughman, I would really like your contribution. Why don't we get another chair up there, I am sorry.
    Mr. BAUGHMAN. When local fire departments respond, they set up an incident command post. If, in fact, they need additional resources, the request goes to the local emergency operations center. If they need outside resources, they either go through mutual aid or back up to the State emergency operations center. In such States as California, they have a statewide mutual aid agreement, and they can bring in resources throughout the State. If, in fact, Federal resources are needed, we plug in with the State emergency operations center. By that time they have already identified what kinds of resources are needed down at the local level, such as in Oklahoma City. When we send a team down, we plug in with the local incident commander down at the incident scene, and we use our resources just like other mutual aid assess on the scene.
    Mr. SHAYS. Wouldn't it be wise to develop relationships now with some of our local governments and county governments?
    Mr. BAUGHMAN. Actually we do this. We have two organizations that we deal with, primarily the National Emergency Management Association, which is State level, and at the local level it is now the International Emergency Management Association, and we deal with county and local officials in addition to dealing with NACO and all of the other traditional organizations at IAFC and IAFF.
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SHAYS. I have three more questions that I would like to focus in on, and then basically I will just ask you all, if Mr. Tierney has some more, to just make any last comment that you want to make.
    I would like to know what authority will the National Domestic Preparedness Office have to restrict other agencies from initiating and implementing their own training and equipment program?
    Mrs. MARTINEZ. That is certainly not the intent, nor would it satisfy us in any way. There will be no authority, nor will we seek such authority as to limit other agencies from developing programs. Our interests, rather, would be that those programs would be developed in association or accordance—compliance with, if you will—minimum standards that we would all agree to ahead of time.
    Mr. SHAYS. My question was not advocating that you have that authority, but it was to get that response. Thank you.
    I would also like to ask the Department of Justice how they are going to reconcile, which I alluded to in my statement, the obvious conflicts with crisis management including the followup on criminal investigations and consequence management. I really think of the DOJ as being the organization that prevents crimes and then wants to establish who committed them, but I think of FEMA as just coming right in there, and we have people who need help, and we are going to help them right now and the investigation be damned kind of thing. How do you reconcile since you all now will be making that decision?
    Mrs. MARTINEZ. Largely this is a partnership. As a few of us at the table did respond to Oklahoma City, we recognize right away the priority of saving lives. Consequence management sometimes does require a front seat to what later may put someone in jail, which is our collective ultimate responsibility at Justice. We are working very closely with FEMA, and you will see the interagency plans that we have put together, the Concept of Operations Plan and the Federal Response Terrorism Incident Annex—will show that there has been a collaboration of partnership in recognition of the need to simultaneously address crisis and consequence management, in many cases consequence management comes first.
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.
    My last question. Give me the mechanism that is going to be established between the NDPO and OJP and other agencies. What kind of mechanism are you actually establishing, a formal mechanism? In other words, I know that you want to agree with each other, and you are going to cooperate. I don't mean that facetiously, that is fairly clear. It is essential to have that happen. But is there any formal mechanism that will facilitate that?
    Mrs. MARTINEZ. At the present time we have a detailee from the Office of Justice Programs, Office for State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support that is co-located at the NDPO and would have access to all of the programs and issues that they would be interested in weighing in on. In addition to that, we have individual program area meetings. For instance, there are committees formed on the interagency on the issue of, for instance, the development of a national strategy for training, the development of national standards for training, the issue of equipment, R&D and so forth, as I mentioned earlier in my statement.
    Mr. SHAYS. I actually thought of one question that I did want to ask.
    Did you want to respond, Mr. Mitchell?
    Mr. MITCHELL. Just to followup on Barbara's. We do have staff actually physically located in NDPO, but we also have other program staff that are a program specific to participate in the actual working groups on training and exercises and equipment. Plus I personally sit and represent our office on the Federal Leadership Advisory Group, which is kind of the umbrella Federal agency group. So we have multiple opportunities and multiple avenues where our programs can be integrated and reviewed. Everyone has a better perspective across the Federal agency of just what everybody is doing so that we can maximize the effect at the local level with the limited resources that we do have.
    Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell, for responding to that. The last question I wanted to ask is what is the involvement that you all have with the national coordinator for terrorism and infrastructure security? Mr. Clarke in the White House, how does he interface with all of this?
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. CRAGIN. I think that we all have quite a bit of involvement with the National Security Council Director, Mr. Chairman, in that under the PDD–62 directive, a management structure within the interagency was formed which is chaired by Mr. Clarke. And then there are subgroups dealing, for example, with assistance to State and local authorities. I happen to represent the Department of Defense at the NSC subgroup on assistance to State and local authorities. Many of my colleagues at the table are there at those meetings as well.
    In response, as an adjunct to one of your earlier questions, it is that group of interagency officials that work the issues of duplication and coordination of programs rather than the NDPO. The NDPO is really the conduit between the Federal Government and all of the programs that it brings to bear in this arena and the local and State officials.
    Mr. SHAYS. Thank you all very much. I would make a request that you consider allowing our staff periodically to just observe some of these meetings. I would also like to attend a few as an observer, not as a participant.
    I don't know, Mr. Tierney, if you have anything you want to say?
    Mr. TIERNEY. I just want to thank the witnesses for testifying.
    Finally, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for putting this together and your staff for doing an excellent job.
    Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much. There may have been a question that we should have asked. I am happy to have you ask that question and answer it for yourself if you would like to. Is there any comment that any of you would like to make?
    Mr. Baughman, I always have the sense that the person who listens the most has the best contribution. Do you have any closing comment that you would like to make?
    Mr. BAUGHMAN. No, I don't.
    Mr. SHAYS. Will you tell me later?
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. Cragin, any other comment?
    Mr. CRAGIN. Mr. Chairman, I was a trial lawyer for 20 years. I always tried that gambit, is there any other question that I should have asked you that I have not? I was never able to win that one.
    Mr. SHAYS. Actually, it was a friendly question though.
    Mr. Mitchell.
    Mr. MITCHELL. No, Mr. Chairman. We do thank you for the opportunity to present to you what we think is the beginning steps, and I think this is really the beginning steps, in what is hopefully going to be a coordinated Federal effort that focuses principally and foremost on meeting the needs of State and local first responders. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here.
    Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.
    Mrs. Martinez.
    Mrs. MARTINEZ. I would just like to thank you and welcome the interface of your staff with NDPO, in the future.
    Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. We would like that very much.
    Mr. Baughman.
    Mr. BAUGHMAN. I don't have anything.
    Ms. LIGHT. No questions. Thank you.
    Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much. I appreciate you being here, and I appreciate your patience.
    [Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]
    [The official committee record contains additional material here.]
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC