House Hearing, 108TH Congress - Funding For First Responders: Ensuring That Federal Funds Are Distributed Intelligently

FUNDING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS
HEARING
OF THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND

SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
OCTOBER 16, 2003
Serial No. 10832
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Homeland Security
(
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

21512 PDF WASHINGTON : 2005
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 204020001
SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
CHRISTOPHER COX, California, Chairman
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington JIM TURNER, Texas, Ranking Member
C.W. BILL YOUNG, Florida BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi
DON YOUNG, Alaska LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Wisconsin NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
DAVID DREIER, California JANE HARMAN, California
DUNCAN HUNTER, California BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky LOUISE MCINTOSH SLAUGHTER,
SHERWOOD BOEHLERT, New York New York
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania NITA M. LOWEY, New York
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
PORTER J. GOSS, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
DAVE CAMP, Michigan District of Columbia
LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas
PETER T. KING, New York BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
JOHN LINDER, Georgia DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN,
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona U.S. Virgin Islands
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas CHARLES GONZALEZ, Texas
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada KEN LUCAS, Kentucky
KAY GRANGER, Texas JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
PETE SESSIONS, Texas KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida
JOHN E. SWEENEY, New York
JOHN GANNON, Chief of Staff
UTTAM DHILLON, Chief Counsel and Deputy Staff Director
DAVID H. SCHANZER, Democrat Staff Director
MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk
(II)
CONTENTS
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable Christopher Cox, a Representative in Congress From the

State of California, and Chairman, Select Committee on Homeland Security
Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 1
Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 2
The Honorable Jim Turner, a Representative in Congress From the State
of Texas, and Ranking Member, Select Committee on Homeland Security .... 7
The Honorable Sherwood Boehlert, a Representative in Congress From the
State of New York ................................................................................................ 17
The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Maryland ................................................................................................ 40
The Honorable Norman D. Dicks, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Washington ............................................................................................. 38
The Honorable Bob Etheridge, a Representative in Congress From the State
of North Carolina ................................................................................................. 33
The Honorable Jim Gibbons, a Representative in Congress From the State
of Nevada
The Honorable Peter King, a Representative in Congress From the State
of New York .......................................................................................................... 25
The Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Texas ....................................................................................................... 61
The Honorable Nita M. Lowey, a Representative in Congress From the State
of New York .......................................................................................................... 28
The Honorable Ken Lucas, a Representative in Congress From the State
of Kentucky ........................................................................................................... 38
The Honorable Karen McCarthy, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Missouri
The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr., a Representative in Congress From the
State of New Jersey ............................................................................................. 23
The Honorable Harold Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the State
of Kentucky ........................................................................................................... 35
The Honorable Christopher Shays, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Connecticut ............................................................................................. 21
The Honorable John E. Sweeney, a Representative in Congress From the
State of New York ................................................................................................ 26
The Honorable Bennie Thompson, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Mississippi .............................................................................................. 19
The Honorable Curt Weldon, a Representative in Congress From the State
of Pennsylvania .................................................................................................... 31
WITNESSES
Mr. Scott Behunin, Director: Division of Emergency Service and Homeland
Security, Salt Lake City, Utah
Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 53
Mr. John D. Cohen, President and CEO of PSCOMM, LLC, Co-Director,
Progressive Policy Institute-Homeland Security Task Force
Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 43
(III)
IV
Page
Mr. Ray Kelly, New York City Police Commissioner, State of New York
Mr Ray A. Nelson, Executive Director, Office for Security Coordination, Com-
monwealth of Kentucky
Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 50
The Honorable John G. Rowland, Governor, State of Connecticut
Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 9
APPENDIX
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Questions for Mr. Scott Behunin ............................................................................ 69
Questions and Responses from Mr. John D. Cohen .............................................. 71
Questions and Responses from Mr. Mr. Ray A. Nelson ....................................... 75
Questions for the Honorable John Rowland .......................................................... 68
FUNDING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS:
ENSURING THAT FEDERAL FUNDS ARE
DISTRIBUTED INTELLIGENTLY
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:45 a.m., in room
2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher Cox [chair-
man of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Cox, Dunn, Rogers, Boehlert, Smith,
Weldon, Shays, Camp, Diaz-Balart, King, Shadegg, Gibbons,
Granger, Sweeney, Turner, Dicks, Cardin, DeFazio, Lowey, McCar-
thy, Jackson-Lee, Pascrell, Christensen, Ethridge, Lucas, Langevin,
Meek, Thompson and Harman.
Chairman COX. Good morning. A quorum being present, the Se-
lect Committee on Homeland Security will come to order. This com-
mittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the critical topic of
funding for our first responders.
I want to inform the members at the outset that I have consulted
with the Ranking Member, Mr. Turner, and we have agreed that
in order to allow us to proceed more directly to testimony from our
witnesses on this important issue and to help members keep to our
schedules, including the vote that we expect on the floor at 11
oclock, we would ask unanimous consent that opening statements
be limited to the Chairman and Ranking Member. Is there objec-
tion? If other members have statements, they can be included in
the hearing record under unanimous consent. So ordered.
(1)
2
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER COX, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, SELECT COMMITTEE
ON HOMELAND SECURITY
The Select Committee on Homeland Security held a hearing today on first re-
sponder grant funding today and Chairman Coxs (RCA) recently introduced legisla-
tion, H.R. 3266, Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders. The witnesses
included the Honorable John G. Rowland, Governor, State of Connecticut, and New
York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. Chairman Cox emphasized the need for threat-
based analysis to be incorporated into homeland security grant formula funding deci-
sions. Chairman Cox made the following statement:
Since 9/11, the President, the Congress, and the American people have come to
recognize the pressing need to prioritize homeland security funding. If we try to pro-
tect everything equally, we will protect nothing.
The Administration and Congress worked together to stand up a Department of
Homeland Security with the analytic capability to set these priorities. The Informa-
tion Analysis & Infrastructure Protection Directorate (IAIP) has the statutory obli-
gation to develop risk assessments that map threat against vulnerability, both on
a strategic and tactical level. IA&IP analysis must be authoritative, comprehensive,
and dynamic. It will integrate the best intelligence with the rigorous vulnerability
assessments of state and local governments, and the private sector. This is the best
way to ensure that we are targeting these funds appropriately and getting the most
securitynot porkfor our dollars.
The amount of money at stake is significant. The President signed into law the
first Homeland Security Appropriation bill which will distribute over four billion
dollars to first responders. In fact, in the past two years, Congress has increased
the amount of funding to first responders by more than 1000 percent, for a total
of almost 20 billion dollars since 2001. We can expect even more funds for homeland
security in the years ahead. This is all the more reason to ensure now that we are
targeting these funds appropriately.
This Committee has met over the past several months with first responders in
Seattle, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Orange County as well as in Detroit, Buffalo,
and New York City. It has held four Committee hearings in the Congress on this
topic. First responders acknowledge that the Federal Government has significantly
increased its allocation of homeland security funds, but they continue to complain
that they are not getting their share. In July, Orange County Assistant Sheriff
George Jaramillo testified before this committee that Orange County had only col-
lected $875,000 of its 12 million dollar federal grant. Just last week, Mayor James
Garner of the US Conference of Mayors testified that 90 percent of cities have not
received their share of funds from the states. It is our duty to ensure that federal
funds get to our first responders more quickly.
We must find ways to direct federal funds to states and regions that are at great-
est risk. Currently, grant money is allocated by political formula, based chiefly on
population. Under the present system, in 2003, California, New York, and Texas re-
ceived approximately five dollars per capita in homeland security funding, compared
to twenty-nine dollars per capita for North Dakota and almost thirty-five dollars per
capita for Wyoming. Does California with its large population, hundreds of miles of
coastline, and large cities with vulnerable targets present a greater risk than North
Dakota, a primary source of food for the nation? Our current grant system does
notand cannotaddress this. New York, of course, continues to be a major ter-
rorist target. Yet, the current formula does not adequately weigh the higher risks
in that region. Our country needs a new formula for distributing funds based on rig-
orous authoritative risk assessments that match threat with vulnerability - the core
mission of the Department of Homeland Security.
Today, funds cannot be directed to regions, and this too must change. In July of
this year, Captain Michael Grossman of the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department testi-
fied that, any attack in the Los Angeles/Orange County area would unquestionably
require a regional response. . . (but) the dispersal method of funds does not address
the overall regional readiness and needs requirements. Regional collaboration is
fundamental to the success of the Presidents Homeland Security strategy; we must
do everything we can to encourage it.
Since 9/11, we have identified serious problems with our grant-making process
and now is the time for solutions. I look forward to working with the Ranking Mem-
ber, Mr. Turner, and all Members of the full Committee to develop a bill that will
enhance the preparedness of our first responders. We owe it to the men and women
who put their lives at risk everyday to keep this nation safe.
3
PREPARED OPENING REMARKS FROM THE HONORABLE KAREN MCCARTHY, A
REPRESENTATIVE FOR CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Todays hearing is about first responders. Both pieces of first responder legislation
before the Committee include provisions that would affect the directorate for Infor-
mation Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.
Both bills make important adjustments to the Homeland Security Advisory Sys-
tem, requiring changes in the threat level to be issued on a regional and industrial
sector basis. This is a welcome improvement, and one that I know is supported by
local and state governments and, most importantly, by first responders. The bills
also address the backlog of security clearance investigations, and the need to grant
clearances to key state and local officials in order to improve the sharing of informa-
tion.
The most critical provision, however, is the requirement in Chairman Coxs lan-
guage that the Under Secretary of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protec-
tion assess and prioritize all first responder grant applications. I have seen no evi-
dence in the course of the Intelligence and Counterterrorism Subcommittees work
that the directorate is capable of conducting this task on top of its other duties. In
fact, the Department frequently states that the intelligence it has does not point to
a specific threat or a specific target. Given the nature of threat intelligence, I want
to know how the Department will determine priorities for grant funding to one state
or another, and which regions may not warrant funding.
The High Threat, High Density Urban Areas Grant Program, first created in the
2003 Supplemental Appropriations Act, already distributes grants based solely on
terrorist threat. Members of Congress have rightly asked how these grants are de-
termined, and the Department has not provided any answers. As a representative
of a major metropolitan area, I understand the need to send additional grant dollars
to areas of higher threat. Kansas City, which I represent, received nearly $10 mil-
lion in high threat grant funds. It is uncertain if we will receive additional funds
in the next round, or upon what threats the Department based that $10 million.
I look forward to the witnesses comments on whether any threat intelligence from
the Department of Homeland Security leads one to conclude that detailed resource
allocation decisions can be determined by our current threat intelligence. Informa-
tion from the Department on how it decides where to spend high threat urban area
appropriations is unclear and undermines the confidence of our local responders.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Chairman, thank you for highlighting this important issue and assembling
these prestigious panelsI appreciate the dedication of you and your committee
staff, working to ensure the security of our homeland. I would like to welcome our
panel members and look forward to the information they will provide.
Chairman Cox unveiled the first part of a comprehensive, homeland security re-
form proposal two weeks ago. The first piece of his four-part plan focuses on emer-
gency responder funding.
The emergency response piece, called the Faster and Smarter Funding For First
Responders Act, would establish a new grant system for homeland security activi-
ties. The funds would be dispersed based solely on the terrorist threat level faced
by the locality. Grant applications will be ranked by the Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security. The
language in this bill would guarantee direct funding to local governments.
H.R. 3266 directs the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Direc-
torate to evaluate and prioritize applications for first responder grants based on:
The threat to population, including military and tourist populations.
Threats to the water supply.
Threats to energy supply.
Threats to structures of symbolic national importance, particularly those that
routinely attract large numbers of tourist visitors.
Threats to significant concentrations of natural resources.
Other homeland security bills are now in circulation. Among them are one spon-
sored by Representative Sweeney, one by Representative Shays and another spon-
sored by Ranking Member Jim Turner, which would respectively revise the grant
funding formula, establish quality standards for training and equipment, and
prioritize first-responder funding. These bills raise many good points, and I look for-
4
ward to debating these issues in future hearings for a positive overall outcome to-
ward first responder funding.
Since September 11th of 2001, Congress has provided states and other govern-
ment entities with significant assistance to upgrade infrastructure and personnel to
meet domestic security needs. In addition, Congress has also provided increased
funding for first responders.
When Congress passed the wartime supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 1559)
on April 16 of 2003, we provided $2.23 billion for grants to first responders through
the Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP), $230 million above the presidents re-
quest.
$1.3 billion was provided for ODPs basic grant program to the states with
80 percent of the funds going to localities.
$200 million was provided for grants for critical infrastructure distributed by
formula with no less than 50 percent of the funds going to local governments.
$700 million was provided as a discretionary grant to address security re-
quirements in high threat, high-density urban areas with critical infrastructure.
$1.5 billion in grants to states and localities has been made available via
ODP, aimed at helping first responders with planning, training, equipment, and
other costs associated with enhanced security measures deployed during the
heightened threat period.
The Departments of Homeland Security and Justice have received extra funding
for the sole purpose of helping local and state governments. These grants are avail-
able for all aspects of securing our communities, from educating and training first
responders to helping purchase new equipment. The biggest obstacle in the process
is getting direct funding to local jurisdictions, because most of the available grants
go directly to the states rather than localities.
With the constant threat of terrorism, the future of this massive funding effort
is bright. With different threats being identified everyday the need is great and
Congress is pressed to meet this need. Congress understands that increased funding
will be essential to safeguard our communities. The expectations for public safety
are high and with this legislation, Congress will make progress toward securing our
communities even more.
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has previously stated that he would like
to change the state formula to include risk factors. A major issue we must discuss
and resolve is whether or not to require the Department of Homeland Security to
develop a new formula for allocating funding to states based solely on threat. Cur-
rently, every state receives a minimum of 0.75 percent, and then the remainder of
the funding is allocated based on population.
The problems with the current grant-making process were highlighted in a recent
report entitled, First Mayors Report to the Nation: Tracking Federal Homeland Se-
curity Funds Sent to the 50 State Governments. This 50-state analysis surveyed 168
cities of all sizes about the delivery often different homeland security funding
streams designed for first responders.
The survey found that 90 percent of cities have not received the intended funding
designed to assist local officials, police and fire departments, and other first re-
sponders, such as public hospitals. Additionally, over half of the cities have either
not been consulted or have had no opportunity to influence state decision making
about how to use and distribute funding. In my home State of Nevada, we have
begun working these same issues and recognize the importance of collective commu-
nity inputworking together we will continue to make progress.
Mr. Chairman I look forward to the education this hearing will provide and also
to working with my colleagues on resolving these issues for a better prepared Amer-
ica.
Chairman COX. Without objection, those members who are
present and who have agreed to waive opening statements will,
therefore, be allowed 3 additional minutes for questioning.
Governor Rowland, thank you for making the time to testify be-
fore the committee, for joining us again here in your old haunts
here in the House of Representatives on this critical issue of first
responder funding. Your demonstrated commitment to our first re-
sponder community and the invaluable perspective you bring to us
as a State Governor will help this committee toward its goal of ex-
pediting the delivery of Federal funds to our first responders.
5
I also want to take this opportunity to thank New York Police

Commissioner Kelly and the other witnesses on our second panel.
You are excellent representatives of the first responder community,
almost 2.5 million strong across our country. Our first responders
are truly the front line in our defense against a terrorist attack on
the homeland and, as you will see, there is strong bipartisan sup-
port on this committee for legislation that will make the grant
process more responsive to your needs.
The latest tape released to al-Jazeera over the weekend is one
more reminder that our struggle against global terrorism will be a
long one. Osama bin Laden, allegedly speaking on this tape, tells
us We will continue to fight you as long as we have weapons in
our hands. Two years after 9/11, the United States still remains
al Qaèdas first target, but the threat as usual is purposely vague.
The terrorists want us to act out of fear. They would like us to be-
lieve that they can strike anywhere, at any time, and they want
us, in response, to act desperately; take measures of uncontrolled
spending on unfocused security measures that would seriously
weaken our economy and weaken our country.
Since September 11, the President, the Congress, and the Amer-
ican people have come to recognize the pressing need to prioritize
homeland security funding. We quickly learned that if we try to
protect everything, we will, in fact, protect nothing. The adminis-
tration and Congress have worked together to establish the Depart-
ment of Homeland Security and, importantly, to give it an intel-
ligence analytical capability to help set these priorities.
Under the Homeland Security Act, the Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection Directorate, which we on this committee
are fond of calling IAIP, has the obligation to develop risk assess-
ments that map threat against vulnerability, and to do this on a
strategic and tactical level. To do this job right, the Departments
analysis will have to be authoritative, comprehensive, and dy-
namic. A perishable snapshot of threats wont be sufficient. The
Department must integrate the best intelligence with rigorous vul-
nerability assessments produced in cooperation with State and
local governments and the private sector. Relying on this threat
analysis is the best way to target first responder funds for our Na-
tions security and to ensure that they go towards security and not
pork.
Just recently, the President signed into law the first homeland
security appropriation bill, which will distribute over $4 billion to
first responders. Already, over the past 2 years, Congress has in-
creased the amount of funding to first responders by more than
1000 percent, for a total of almost $20 billion since September 11,
2001. We can expect even more funds for homeland security in the
years ahead. That is why spending this money wisely is so impor-
tant.
The committee has met over the past several months with first
responders in Seattle, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Orange County,
Detroit, Buffalo, and New York City. We have held four committee
hearings in Washington on this topic. First responders have told us
that the Federal Government has significantly increased its alloca-
tion of homeland security funds, but they continue to complain that
they are not getting their share. In July, Orange County Sheriff
6
George Jaramillo testified before this committee that Orange Coun-

ty, California had collected only $875,000 of its $12 million Federal
grant. Just last week, Mayor James Garner of the U.S. conference
of Mayors testified that 90 percent of cities have not received their
share of funds from the States.
At the same time, we have heard repeatedly in all of our meet-
ings with first responders that they are not receiving adequate
threat information. As a result, they cant prioritize their own cost-
ly security protective measures. A first responder in Seattle earlier
this month said that today, information, not money, is our biggest
problem. The demand for more and better intelligence along with
interoperable communications is clearly a top priority for our first
responders.
It is the job of this Congress and the DHS to direct Federal funds
to the greatest risks. Currently, grant money is allocated by polit-
ical formula. Chiefly, this means population, but even the popu-
lation allocation is not working. Under the present system, in 2003,
California, New York, and Texas, three of our most populous
States, received approximately $5 per capita in homeland security
funding compared to $29 per capita for North Dakota and $35 per
capita for Wyoming. Is California, which has a large population,
hundreds of miles of coastline and large cities with vulnerable tar-
gets, more important than North Dakotas agricultural sector which
feeds our entire Nation? The current system cannot answer this
question. Our country needs a new formula for distributing funds
based on rigorous authoritative risk assessments that match threat
with vulnerability, the core mission of the Department of Home-
land Security.
It is equally important to recognize that many of the highest
threat areas in our country are regions which cross State bound-
aries or are included within them. Police Commissioner Kelly
works hard with his counterparts in neighboring burroughs and
States to build collaboration and expand interoperability against
the continuing terrorist threat in New York. Governor Rowland not
only has to protect Connecticut, but also collaborate across his bor-
ders to protect the Long Island Sound. The port cities of Los Ange-
les and Long Beach have been a model of interjurisdictional col-
laboration since well before 9/11. Washington, D.C., where we meet
today, sits at the intersection of two States and in the midst of a
five-State region. For years, the evacuation plans for each of us in
Congress had us being taken from the Nations Capital in Wash-
ington to West Virginia.
Today, funds cannot be directed to regions, and this must
change. In July of this year, Captain Michael Grossman of the Los
Angeles Sheriffs Department testified that Any attack in the Los
Angeles/Orange County area would unquestionably require a re-
gional response, but, continuing the quotation, the dispersal
method of funds does not address the overall regional readiness
and needs requirements. Regional collaboration is fundamental to
the success of the Presidents homeland security strategy, and we
must do everything we can to encourage it.
Since September 11, we have identified serious problems with
our grant-making process. Now is the time for solutions. I look for-
ward to working with the Ranking Member, Mr. Turner, and all
7
members of the full committee to develop a bill that will enhance

the preparedness of our first responders. We owe it to the men and
women who put their lives at risk every day to keep this Nation
safe.
I now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Turner, from Texas for
his opening statement.
Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This hearing today is perhaps the most important hearing that
this committee has conducted because, as we know, next year we
will spend $4 billion on efforts to strengthen our first responders
to make America safer, and how we spend that money and where
we spend that money is essential to knowing whether we are doing
the job of protecting America against terrorism.
In my view, our current spending on homeland security is hap-
hazard, unfocused, and, more often than not, based on past events
with little regard to the threats and vulnerabilities we face today
and will face in the future. The Chairman and I have both intro-
duced separate legislation, because we wanted to try to get the best
ideas on the table before this committee. The two bills are similar
in some respects, but differ in others. We both agree that we need
a greater emphasis upon regional planning to deal with the ter-
rorist threat. We both agree that we must move money faster to
our States and to our localities than we are doing today. And we
both agree that to simply disperse money based on the sole factor
of population is not dealing honestly with the security needs of our
country.
We must, in my judgment, train and equip our local first re-
sponders with, what we call in the legislation that I have intro-
duced, along with 144 of my Democratic colleagues we must pre-
pare our local responders by determining what the essential capa-
bilities are that we need to prevent and respond to terrorist at-
tacks. The essential capabilities.
It has been suggested to this committee from many sources that
we need a standard by which we measure our progress in making
the homeland secure. In order to measure our progress, we believe
it is important to establish what the essential capabilities are for
every region and community in America in order to make that re-
gion or that community safe and secure and capable of responding
and defending against a terrorist attack. The expanded capabilities
must be determined in a bottoms-up approach, and that is why in
our legislation we propose a task force of local responders to make
recommendations to the Department of Homeland Security as to
what the essential capabilities of every area of the country must
be.
Now, these essential capabilities must be determined in light of
the threats and vulnerabilities that exist in our country. Those
threats obviously vary from time to time, from community to com-
munity, and the vulnerabilities of the regions and communities in
our country vary. And in order to properly determine the essential
capabilities, the determination must be made upon a fair assess-
ment of the threats and capabilities.
Our approach contrasts with the Chairmans legislation, which
bases preparedness funding on a snapshot of the threat faced by
a community or region. In our judgment, that would ignore the re-
8
ality that threat information is often vague, often inconsistent, and

certainly ever-changing.
We hope that as we approach the legislation before us, that we
can reach a compromise piece of legislation that will move us for-
ward in better preparing our local communities to deal with the
threat of terrorism. We both share the same goal, and that is to
make our first responder grant-making process be rational, be tar-
geted, and utilize the threat and vulnerability information upon
which it must be based. Our judgment is not enough simply to
reslice the available funding pie by using threats alone to deter-
mine who gets money. We need a comprehensive, nationwide plan
where we understand what the essential capabilities for every com-
munity must be. Those essential capabilities will be different in
New York City than they are in my hometown of Crockett, popu-
lation 7,500, in east Texas.
As Massachusetts Governor Romney stated at an earlier hearing
before this committee, and I quote, It is essential to have guide-
lines as to what it is we are trying to accomplish. If you ask the
cities and towns and the States how much money they need for
homeland security but dont tell them what you expect them to do,
what kind of event they are trying to prepare for, then the sky is
the limit as to what they will come back with. Our legislation and
the task force included in our legislation is designed to provide the
guidelines that Governor Romney is seeking.
second, our legislation will measure our countrys security gap,
and our goal is to close it in 5 years. By setting the targets, we will
be able to measure our progress and, hopefully, succeed in estab-
lishing the essential capabilities that all of our communities need.
As I said, the act will determine these needs based on rec-
ommendations of first responders themselves. We think this is crit-
ical, to have the local and State buy-in to support this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony today. I am very
grateful for Governor Rowlands presence here today. I appreciate
seeing Commissioner Kelly here, and I thank him for the hospi-
tality extended to our committee a few weeks ago when we visited
him in New York, and I commend him on the progress that he has
made in leading his city toward greater security.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the hearing.
Chairman COX. I thank the gentleman.
Chairman COX. Governor Rowland, I am sure you are aware of
the range of possibilities when the bells ring, but you will be
pleased to know that there is a single vote on the floor. There are
7 minutes left in that vote. I think that in order to permit members
to make that vote, we should interrupt the proceedings for the pur-
poses of members going to the floor, voting on the CR and return-
ing, and that should put us back in action at 11:15, if that is ac-
ceptable to you.
Governor ROWLAND. That would be fine.
Chairman COX. Thank you, and we will see you at 11:15.
[Recess.]
Chairman COX. I welcome members back from the vote. I thank
you, Governor Rowland, for your patience.
9
Our first witness is Governor John G. Rowland of the State of

Connecticut, not only a distinguished Governor, but also a distin-
guished former Member. Welcome back.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN G. ROWLAND,

GOVERNOR, STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Governor ROWLAND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
thank you for your comments and your opening remarks. Congress-
man Turner, thank you. It is an honor to be here today. As well
as being the Governor of the State, I have also been serving as a
member of the State and Local Officials Senior Advisory Com-
mittee to Homeland Security, and I hope that between those two
roles, I can provide some input and some insight into what occurs
back home.
I prepared a written statement that I have entered into the
record, and what I would like to do with your support is to make
a few summary remarks, hopefully stimulate some continued dis-
cussion and debate and, frankly, to take what I think has been a
thoughtful proposal that is before us today.
Based on your comments, Mr. Chairman, and based on Congress-
man Turners comments, it seems that you are going in the right
direction. And we would like to I am sure the rest of the testifiers
as well would like to talk about some of the proposals and some
of the improvements that we would like to see.
First and foremost, it stimulates a very necessary discussion
about how grants are going to be awarded. The Chairman, of
course, talks about risk and threat, and I would suggest that left
to our own devices, the grant distribution would take place in a
very different way, probably based just on option or, at the very
least, perhaps based on political considerations, political pressures,
lobbying, perhaps the appropriate committee assignments. That
process, although it may work in other areas like education, I dont
think would work necessarily all that well or just that well for dis-
tribution of these grants for homeland security.
I would like to offer a couple of tweaks, if I may. First and fore-
most, State oversight. It is imperative that the States have over-
sight and that we be seen as a pass-through to the cities and towns
and to the first responders. In the last 6 months or so, the States
have been very effective in passing through a lot of the dollars that
have come from homeland security, and we continue to coordinate
and work with all of our cities and towns.
In listening to both the opening remarks of the Chairman and
Ranking Member, I would also offer a suggestion perhaps to my
fellow colleagues and Governors. Governor Ridge does a great job
in communicating to the Governors. It is probably little known that
he has conference calls with Governors and homeland security di-
rectors almost on a weekly basis, sometimes to talk about very rou-
tine matters, other times to discuss an increase in focus on our se-
curity across the country.
One of the things that I have taken from that is that I have done
conference calls on a monthly basis with my mayors and first se-
lectmen. In my small State of Connecticut we have 169 political di-
visions, namely cities and towns, and I have found that by having
conference calls with the mayors, first selectmen, fire chiefs and po-
10
lice chiefs, they feel part of the process and so some of the dis-
connect does not occur.
There is a discussion in the bill about regionalization and in con-
ference and in discussions with some of the staff here, I call it self-
administered regionalization would never work; self-administered
regionalization meaning that any number of cities and towns in my
State would come together for a particular reason to submit grant
requests. If that were to occur in our State or any of the other 50
States in a self-administered manner, it would be chaos. It is dif-
ficult enough to try to communicate to the political subdivisions in
a formalized way. To then have numerous other regions would be
very difficult.
So I would suggest one of two things. One, that you predetermine
the regions through the homeland security officials, or possibly that
it goes through the Governors so that the Governors sign off. Is it
appropriate, for example, that southern New York and New Jersey
work together on a region? Absolutely. But I think it has to happen
through the Governors or through a predetermined mechanism.
Some would suggest that the New England States should automati-
cally form a region which may or may not work as well. But to
have cities and towns self-administer regions would be chaotic at
the very, very least.
There is also a discussion of a 25 percent match. I read that to
understand a 25 percent match either from the States or from the
cities and towns. I dont think that is needed. I know that the
mindset there must be to have stakeholders to have some skin in
the game, if you will, but by having a 25 percent match, you add
another increment to the funding request and an increment, of
course, is economic ability to pay. Some States may have the eco-
nomic ability to pay, some may not. Some cities and towns may be
able to afford a 25 percent match, and some may not. So if we are
going to base this on greater risk and proportion, then I think we
should take the economicthe 25 percent requirement off the
table, or at least suspend it for a few years until we go through
the process.
There is also discussion of the time for the pass-through. I have
found in my experience, whenever we set up a schedule of time, in
this case in the bill it talks about 45 days, everybody focuses on
the 45 days; and if it takes longer than 45 days, then it is not a
success. So I would be a little bit more lenient on that period of
time and allow the process to work its way through. This is a bid-
ding process in many cases when States are procuring equipment
and training personnel, and procedures have to be followed which
may take more than that period of time.
I must say that as a neighboring State to New York City, we
lived through the horrors of 9/11. More than 150 Connecticut fami-
lies lost a loved one. We lived through one of the five anthrax
deaths that occurred in our country, and it was our own public
health officials that helped pinpoint the contamination that took
part in our mail system.
I want to point out that when tragedy strikes, it is the Governors
and the mayors that are the traffic cops. And as we consider any
funding levels, it is important to remember that it is the soundness
of the investment and not necessarily the speed of the investment
11
that is made. What I mean by that is that the right investment

against the right risk or threat is the way to go versus worrying
about the particular period of time.
The question of regional procurement again should be worked
out, and I would encourage you to again work that through the
Governors.
I know that the bill suggests that it would be 100 percent consid-
eration of the risk assessment and, to be facetious, I would say that
in that case you would look at the risk and evaluate that certainly
New York City and Washington, D.C. are the two greatest threats
that we have in our country. Someone might argue we should take
all the homeland security dollars, divide it down the middle and
distribute that money to Washington, D.C. and New York City. Ob-
viously, the threats are far more diverse than that. And although
we recognize those two areas as dominant, we also know that each
and every day the threat changes. One particular day it might be
bridges. Another particular day it might be our borders. Another
particular day it might be national historic landmarks. Another
day it might be undefined biological attacks on our public water
systems. Therefore, we need a continuation of the COPS program,
the Fire Act, and many other existing grant programs. The emer-
gency management performance grants are working very, very
well.
So the bottom line is that I would suggest that we maintain a
minimum baseline of funding to all States to be used for training,
to be used for basic equipment, and then incorporate a risk-need
assessment for additional funding. I understand that the debate
will begin as to what percentages and what dollars will apply. The
key here is I dont believe we want to rob Peter to find money in
the grant dollars to give to Paul, and I dont think anybody should
suffer from the baseline support that they need.
So the most important message I would like to leave with you
today is that the 50 States are the key distribution points. The 50
States and the Governors are needed for coordination, for planning,
for communication and response. It needs to be streamlined. I saw
some of the reports from GAO with regard to streamlining and
some of the confusion that takes place. You are right to pass the
money on to the cities and towns through the States, not directly.
That would be chaotic, at best.
In reality, if there is disaster in our States, whether it is a State
nuclear disaster, whether it is an anthrax threat, smallpox, bioter-
rorism, who is in charge? When there is a declaration of a state of
emergency, who makes that declaration? And the answer, of course,
is the Governors.
This proposal goes in the right direction, Mr. Chairman. The the-
ory is correct, and I would just encourage you to maintain a base
allocation to the States and incorporate the risk assessment on top
of that, and, to Mr. Turners point, apply standards as well.
So I think you are going in the right direction. The utmost flexi-
bility given to the Governors and given to the States would be help-
ful. I believe that you will see that we will act responsibly in co-
ordination with our cities and towns.
In finality, I would say that just a few moments ago the press
was asking me, well, the cities and towns havent gotten their
12
money, and that is a mindset that we need to get rid of. The focus
should be that the cities and towns will get the necessary equip-
ment they need to do their jobs based on the risks that we face in
each and every one of our States. It should not be a formula which
merely distributes funds to cities and towns for their use. With all
due respect, you will then find what I call the toy grab, and every-
one will be buying their favorite newest high-tech toy available.
That is not the way to assess the threats that we face as States
and the threats that we face as a country.
So I thank you for the opportunity to make a few brief remarks,
and I am more than happy to take any questions that you might
have.
[The statement of Governor Rowland follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN G. ROWLAND
Thank you Chairman Cox, Ranking Member Turner, and distinguished committee
members for this opportunity to offer my testimony on homeland security funding
and programs for first responders. It is my honor to appear before you to help rep-
resent the progress and challenges faced by our first responder community in pro-
tecting states and municipalities.
Let me also commend you for the timeliness of this hearing as well as the support
of Congress and the Administration to date in implementing a new Department of
Homeland Security and assisting states with our preparedness. There continues to
be uneasiness in America, now even two years after the attacks of September 11th,
2001. Citizens are concerned about their own futures and their own security. We
must, through continued dialogue and actions, demonstrate the great commitment
of this nation and our individual states to do everything possible to maintain a se-
cure homeland. The willingness and leadership of both Congress and Secretary
Ridge to make changes, implement new structure and programs, and seek feedback
from those on the frontlines sends a powerful message to our citizens.
The world in which we now live has been largely influenced and shaped by the
events which occurred on a beautiful Tuesday morning just over two years ago. And
while we are still coming to grips with a changed world, we have had to imme-
diately act on the new reality of preparing for an enemy that can strike at any
place, at any time, with virtually any weapon.
States and municipalities have done just that.
Over the last two years, as both a memorial to those who died and as a collective
passionate attempt to do everything possible to prevent further attacks, there has
been significant activity at all levels of government, academia, and private industry
to buttress domestic preparedness and security.
From this experience and as a result of our endeavors, emergency management
has been redefined evolving from a natural disaster, cold war civil defense focus to
a much more comprehensive and inclusive discipline. Barriers have been broken
down and cooperation is at an all time high. But more can and must be done.
All threatsfrom burning buildings to an odorless, invisible biological agent
must be considered. All stakeholdersfrom professional responders to volunteers to
medical personnelmust be involved and highly trained.
For government, the despair and destruction of 9/11 served as a jolting reminder
that its foremost responsibility is to protect the health, safety and well-being of its
citizensthere is no more important mission. The United States now spends in ex-
cess of $100 billion per year on homeland security, not including military spend-
ingcertainly one measure of its commitment.
But with this commitment, are we safer than before 9/11? That ultimately is the
question before us today. The answer is yeswe are safer and each day that passes
is safer than the one before. Still, the more we do, the more we learn what we need
to do. The new and emerging dangers of today instruct us that we can only meet
these challenges by developing a more comprehensive and shared vision of how best
to secure America.
And although we all feel the urgency to shore up our capacity to defend against
and respond to new threats, we must give ourselves the time and space to do it
right. I have been in your shoes. I know the tendency of Congress to measure and
quantify all success in terms of time and speed. I would submit our measure for
this particular mission should focus more on quality, integration, and effectiveness.
13
The soundness of our investments is more important than the speed of those invest-
ments. In short, we must define and measure against set standards.
One of those clear standards is to provide easily accessible funding, equipment,
and trainingthat is the tools to respondto our front line first responders.
I am here today to speak in favor of several of the principles expressed in HR
3266, The Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act, and other re-
lated pieces of homeland security legislation before Congress. Ultimately, together,
we must craft and support legislation that with help make the day-to-day respon-
sibilities of first responders and emergency planners easier and more effective.
The three goals this legislation is built around are simple yet vital.
First, grants must be allocated throughbut not necessarily forstate govern-
ments. Despite all the controversy and debate, states have effectively worked with
municipalities and pushed funding and equipment down to the local level in accord-
ance with state developed plans and Congressional guidelines. Governors clearly un-
derstand the importance of regional cooperation and mutual aid but we should not
encourage regional efforts to be developed in a vacuum. Comprehensive, interoper-
able national and state plans simply cannot be created if funding goes directly to
municipalities or other separate organizations without the involvement of a state.
When large scale disaster strikes and local resources are overwhelmed, it is Gov-
ernors who are directly responsible for the safety and well-being of our citizens. The
buck rests at our desks. State coordination is essential and must be maintained.
Secondly, we must streamline and simplify the grant process. The sixteen dif-
ferent grant programs spread across three major federal agencies, and several sub-
offices, are simply too cumbersome and too confusing. The more overhead and bu-
reaucracy at the federal level, the more overhead we must maintain at the state
level.
Thirdly, grants should be at least, partially, distributed based on threat analysis
and unique regional vulnerabilities. All states and communities need a base level
of response capabilities and we certainly should not do away completely with for-
mula, non-competitive based funding. But lets put some substantial funding where
the intelligence professionals think we have the greatest vulnerabilities and offer fi-
nancial incentives for creative preparedness partnerships.
All chief executiveswhether governors, mayors, or county executivesare con-
cerned about controlling budgets and the ability to provide matching funds. Avail-
able grants are of no use if we cannot afford the match. Unfortunately, that is a
reality in todays economic environment. This is all the more reason why regional
grant initiatives and applications for grants must be coordinated through the states.
I have 169 municipalities who have their own tight budgets and look to the state
for maximum assistance with matching funds. Allowing towns and regional entities
to apply for their own grants, while looking to the state to help cover matching re-
quirements, is simply not practical.
Those real life economic issues mean we must keep two other principles in mind
as we design future grant programs.
We must approach this from an all-hazards approach and not short change the
basic needs of our firefighters, law enforcement personnel, and emergency manage-
ment professionals. We have a lot of catching up to do in basic infrastructure and
communications improvements. That takes dedicated, restricted funding. We cannot
loose sight that the most common and frequent threats to this nation and our states
remain natural disasters, fires, and the scourge of drugs on our streets.
That is why I am encouraged to see that most of the legislation before you will
not modify the existing and very successful FIRE ACT, COPS, and Emergency Man-
agement Performance grants that are so vital to that progress. They are working,
essential, and must be maintained. This funding provides the base level infrastruc-
ture, programming, and staffing that will allow us to take our preparedness to the
next level. Lets not rob Peter to find new grant money for Paul.
Additionally, maximum flexibility must be a core component of future grant pro-
grams. For example, for too long grant funding for first responder training has been
limited and restrictive. Although the equipment is starting to flow into the field,
municipalities cannot afford to take their public safety employees off-line and get
them through necessary training. We must improve access to training and help lo-
calities with the costs of personnel backfill and overtime.
Both states and municipalities have proven that we can rise to the homeland se-
curity challenge, even in difficult economic times. While many Governors have made
very painful budget decisions, including permanent layoffs of employees, we have
used our own resources to respond to terrorism threats while keeping up with the
management of federal homeland security grants
States have obligated over 75 percent of the homeland security funding obtained
through FY02. States and municipalities are now working jointly on new, detailed
14
threat assessments and new plans in preparation for FY04 funding. Many Gov-
ernors and legislatures have authorized millions in state funding to develop new of-
fices to focus on homeland security, invest in new infrastructure, improve commu-
nications capabilities, develop new response teams, and respond to periods of height-
ened alert.
In Connecticut, our experiences range from being one of New Yorks neighbors
during the terror of 9/11 to having a citizen killed by anthrax spores sent through
the mail. We have created one of the best staffed Homeland Security offices in the
nation entirely with state resources. We have created our own state anti-terrorism
task force to better serve the intelligence needs of local agencies. We have linked
police, fire, and emergency medical incident commanders together through a single,
statewide communications system. We have developed and trained regional mental
health response teams to provide behavioral health services in time of crisis. We are
bonding $3 million to equip a state Urban Search and Rescue Team. We expect to
invest $30 million in a new state-of-the-art public health lab and portable 100-bed
hospital to be prepared for any public health emergency. And I could easily go on.
Like many other states, our experiences, initiatives, and capabilities are varied
and impressive. We can effectively turn federal funding into tangible, effective pre-
paredness.
In summary, we must always keep in mind that there will be consequences for
all of us if we fail to improve processes, streamline requirements, and focus on
standards, not time. Specifically, we will end up with equipment that is not inter-
operable; purchases that are inefficient; response protocols that are not uniform;
and training that is disparate. Now is the time to take stock of where we are, where
we need to go, and what is the most efficient way to get there. We cannot afford
to wait for the next tragic attack.
Your continued efforts to help streamline this process and assist us with the chal-
lenges we face will surely continue to advance our readiness. Thank you for your
support and consideration.
Chairman COX. Thank you, Governor. That was very useful testi-
mony. In particular, I am impressed with the concern that you
raised about subdivisions, political subdivisions of States looking to
the State after they have applied as regions for matching funds.
Would it satisfy your concern if no region would apply without dis-
closing the source of its matching funds, and to the extent that the
matching funds were to be provided from without the region, there
were a further requirement that the supplier of the matching funds
be party to the application?
Governor ROWLAND. My observation and my experience in the
last 10 years says that regionalization will be very confusing in and
of itself. Where we are right now is confusing. And the press re-
ports that we have seen that the money has been wasted or hasnt
made it to the cities and towns, that is all wrong. The money has
made it to the cities and towns, but it is not like a fire chief is
standing around with a check in his hand. He is standing around
with new protective equipment, communications equipment, per-
haps training, and contamination containers that we have supplied
across our State.
So my point is that if indeed there is a regionalization, it should
take one of three venues:
One, that it goes through the particular States. If we are going
to have regionalization between southern Connecticut and Long Is-
land, the two Governors should be part of that process. Otherwise,
who knows what resources we have, what coordination we have, or
what direction we are going in? If it is among States, again, I think
there has to be some coordination that it is not just an effort to
grab more dollars in a particular area.
15
And then, third, the concept of cities and towns coming together
would be a total disaster. It is complicated enough with the polit-
ical systems that we have set up.
With regard to matching dollars, I think I understand where you
are going, and that is to require these political entities to have
some skin in the game; in other words, to put something on the
table.
Chairman COX. Well, no, actually, it is a different point that I
am trying to make. It is literally responsive to the concern that you
raise; it was not a concern that we had focused on previously. But
if the concern is, as stated in your testimony, that subdivisions of
States are applying for grants and then after getting the grant they
are going to look to the State, with everyone being strapped for
funds to match it, that the State will not be able rationally to plan
or to provide.
Governor ROWLAND. Mr. Chairman, I would eliminate the whole
25 percent match to begin with. It doesnt bring anything to the
table. The States, most States, 40, are still suffering through some
kind of economic recession, and if it is required, you may not have
the political entitieswhomever they may be, whether it is the
State, the cities and towns or the regions may not apply for those
dollars because of the inability to match the 25 percent. I would
also suggest to you that most Governors will not like the idea of
passing on 80 percent of the Federal dollars to the cities and towns
and then the State being required to match another 25 percent to
the city and town. We would look at that as a string tied to that
grant. But I think it becomes more difficult.
Chairman COX. In your comments you have referred multiple
times to cities and towns as paradigm political subdivisions. I think
it is useful that you are here as our witness today to describe the
situation of Connecticut. I would just observe that Connecticut has,
correct me if Im wrong, approximately 3 million people?
Governor ROWLAND. 3.2.
Chairman COX. And so does my county in California, which is
one of 58. We have cities with a lot more than 3 million people. So
the paradigms are different, depending on where you look. I think
it is correct that it would be somewhat chaotic for the Department
of Homeland Security to have to deal with grant applications from
all of the cities in Orange County, the cities and towns. But Orange
County, jurisdictionally, and Connecticut is also, at least as a
State, is geographically compact. Orange County and Connecticut
may be comparable for this purpose, but we have a lot of different
States. Some are vast, Alaska being the limiting case, very few peo-
ple, but lots of territory. We have some that are compact with lots
of people, and all different varieties. If we are not planning for the
purpose of protecting the country and instead we start with the
map that we got and the constitutional compromise that gave us
2 percent of the vote for every State in the Senate, and we do our
funding that way, I think we are going to leave a lot of room for
error.
So I want you to know that we take your point, and that I dont
think anybody here has in mind burdening you as the Governor of
Connecticut with an unmanageable situation in which every city
and town has the right to go apply to DHS. Likewise, the Secretary
16
has made it very clear that he doesnt want the Federal Govern-
ment to have that burden because the Federal Government wont
be able to deal with that many suitors. We have to have the States
in position to ration those requests. So I think it is an excellent
point, and I think everybody on the committee appreciates it.
Governor ROWLAND. Thank you.
Chairman COX. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for
questions.
Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Governor. There were several comments that you
made that I certainly agree with. One was that no one, you said,
should suffer from the baseline of support they need. That concept
is very consistent with the legislation that I introduced with 144
of my Democratic colleagues, because what we do in our legislation
is we provide for the determination up front of what the essential,
if you will, baseline capabilities of every community in the country
should be, by a task force consisting of first responders, local offi-
cials, local emergency management people, to take the threat vul-
nerability information that exists and to build a definition of the
capabilities that you need in your State and our communities.
The Chairman and I were approached by Congresswoman Emer-
son on the way to the floor a minute ago, and she expressed some
concern about basing the funding solely on threat, because she rep-
resents a rural area, as I do, and she is also the cochair of the
Rural Caucus. And she wanted to be sure that we understood that
there are threats to her district from the march of traffic up and
down the Mississippi River that may not be a threat today, but
that clearly represent a vulnerability.
You said in your testimony that you wanted all communities, and
I quote, to get equipment based on the risk we face. And as you
know, risk is composed of two elements: the threat and the vulner-
ability.
So our proposal is that we have the planning process to establish
the baseline and then we fund to that baseline, and by establishing
that up front, we will have the ability to measure our progress. Be-
cause if we continue like we are, just ad hoc funding based on ap-
plications coming to Washington, we will never know whether we
have achieved a given level of preparedness or not.
I also liked what you had to say about the problems of regional
administration. You said self-administered regionalization will not
work, and I certainly agree with that. The way we attempt in our
legislation to get around that is through this planning process that
establishes a baseline, which the task force and the Department of
Homeland Security that reviews the task force recommendations,
we would hope, would force regions to plan together so that when
we determine what kind of capability, for example, we needed to
have to deal with a chemical attack, then many times that should
be looked at in terms of what is the regional capability to move to
the location of that attack and to deal with it successfully.
So we would attempt to get regionalization in the basic planning
process for the determination of what you call the baseline.
So I dont know how that strikes you, that approach, but I would
be interested in your comments about that direction that we envi-
sion.
17
Governor ROWLAND. Well, Congressman, you make some very

good points. I think we are all going in the same direction. I ob-
serve that the devil is always in the details, and the devil always
becomes the process in who gets what.
My experience tells me that you have to find the honest broker,
and that is really the challenge that we are facing today and as we
move ahead. Is the honest broker the Department of Homeland Se-
curity? Is it the entire United States Congress? Is it the task force
you refer to, or is it the advisory committee of first responders that
do report to Governor Ridge?
The States are required to submit State plans, and in that we
do our own assessments and we commit to the homeland security
folks that these are the risks that we see. We have asset lists, we
have all kinds of evaluations that take place. And then the hard
part begins, because I do know Congresswoman Emersons district,
and her needs and her costs and her baseline are certainly dif-
ferent than what I need in my State.
So having said that, I again kind of fall back to a baseline of sup-
port as determined probably by Homeland Security, with input
from the Congress. I think what we are trying to avoid at all costs
is take the funding, make up a number, and divide it by 435 and
we are finished. That is kind of the process, left unsaid, and we all
know that. That is the fairest and easiest process. We could pass
that bill in about 5 minutes, but it is not the right thing to do, be-
cause the biological terrorism that we may face in the northeastern
part of the country is significantly different than the threat in Mis-
souri. Nuclear threat. If we have a nuclear threat, there are 30
States with facilities. Ports, and, of course, airports and so forth.
So define the baseline. It is the baseline that every single fire-
fighter has protective equipment and HAZMAT training and port-
able radios and segues and the latest and greatest. Maybe, maybe
not. But my concern is process, and I think the only way you can
find the honest, most honest broker, if you will, is either homeland
security folks in concert with homeland security State officials and
the Governors. Not to say that we are not prone to political pres-
sures and everything else, but perhaps at the end of the day when
the call comes and that 911 call takes place, that call doesnt come
here, it goes to that first responder. And in the best of all worlds
we are trying to anticipate what that vulnerability is, to your point,
what the risk is. And that is why I believe and my best guess is
you are going to have some number between .25 and .75, that is
going to be the baseline to States, and then whatever difference is
there, and then somebecause this is not a one-shot deal by any
stretch of the imagination, this is forever, at least our adult lives
that difference in funding will probably, hopefully, I would suggest,
be determined by the risk and the threat.
Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Governor.
Governor ROWLAND. Thank you, Congressman.
Chairman COX. The gentleman from New York, the chairman of
the Committee on Science, Mr. Boehlert, is recognized for ques-
tions.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Governor, I want to thank you very much for ex-
cellent testimony. You presented a case very effectively and logi-
18
cally. And you are absolutely right. The States are on the firing
line, and I agree with your basic thesis.
A concern I have is, would you be receptive to some sort of limi-
tation on administrative costs for States? Because we have found
from time to time when we have pass-through programs, the State
is supposed to pass it through, and then a disproportionate share
of the resources are used up for administrative charges.
Governor ROWLAND. Absolutely, Congressman. I think that is a
great point. Governors will always tell you we want flexibility. I
mean it is in our oath of office, you know, that we want flexibility
from all of you. But when we are getting Federal dollars, I think
you have a responsibility to the taxpayers, and we do as well. We
dont want to create a situation where the dollars are glommed in
creating fiefdoms and creating empires called homeland security of-
fices. And we do want to pass it on. One of the requirements,
frankly, is that you pretty much require us to pass on 80 percent
to cities and towns, and that is appropriate. The hard part, to the
Chairmans point, is we pass on 80 percent and oh, by the way,
then you have to match the 25 percent. You will find Governors
arent going to be crazy about that. But we have no problems on
restrictions on administrative costs, making sure the dollars get
where they need to go.
But I think if we do anything today, I hope we get away from
this idea that fire chiefs and police chiefs are going to be running
around with checks in their hands. That is not the process, in my
opinion. If they are running around in protective clothing and
training and decontamination containers and HAZMAT training,
then we are getting somewhere. But this should not be a check dis-
tribution system. If it is, then we are going in the wrong direction.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Well, we would all agree with that up here, too.
We dont envision this as a check distribution system, we envision
it as a method to get the equipment to the people who need the
equipment and in that regard, we want to get it to them sooner
rather than later.
Let me ask you one other thing. Do you think that the Depart-
ment of Homeland Security Information Analysis and Infrastruc-
ture Protection Directorate, is that the place, based upon your
knowledge, are they adequately prepared to make threat assess-
ments?
Governor ROWLAND. That is a good question. My experience is
getting information from Governor Ridge on kind of a monthly
basis, and they are very good about disseminating the information
to the Governors. Nine times out of 10, it is not with reference to
any specific area. It is very generic information. It sends shivers
down our spines as we try to figure out what our vulnerabilities
are as Governors but, for the most part, I think that the Depart-
ment is doing a better-than-expected job in collecting the intel-
ligence information, in sharing it. And you know and I know, get-
ting intelligence operatives, whomever they may be, from the CIA
to the FBI and any other information we can gather, we are break-
ing a culture of getting them to share information. So that is quite
an extraordinary event. But Governor Ridge seems to be doing it
better than any expectation I think any of us had, and has been
able to get the information to us.
19
The proof of the pudding is that we have had a pretty good 2

years, and the proof of the pudding is that we are getting better
at it every single day.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Well, I too would give Governor Ridge very high
marks. I was comforted by the fact that you indicated on a regular
basis, I think you said weekly, the Governor and his team at DHS
is in contact with the Governors conference calls?
Governor ROWLAND. Either talking to us or homeland security di-
rectors, or in contact all the time, weekly.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Chairman COX. Mr. Thompson is recognized for questions.
Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Governor.
I am sure you have had this experience many times.
Some of us dont have the luxury of living in urban areas and,
therefore, sometimes get overlooked as we prepare vulnerability
studies and threat assessments. But as I look at the legislation be-
fore us, I like to talk about some things that any legislation ought
to have. As I talk to mayors and commissioners and other things,
they say every time we raise the so-called threat levels, it costs us
money. And in return, we dont get anything back from the agency
that caused the threat level.
Do you think it is feasible to include in this legislation some re-
imbursement for the elevation of those threats?
Governor ROWLAND. Congressman, you are asking a Governor if
he would like to be reimbursed from the Federal Government? All
day long. You raise a very legitimate point. When we do raise the
threats, our State police, we have incurred costs to the State and
generally some of our cities incur some additional costs. So we
work very hard at trying to figure out what the incremental dif-
ference is, and try to reimburse them through the Federal dollars
when it is allowable, or through our own State dollars. The truth
of the matter is that it is going to become a way of life. It is going
to become kind of a daily cost of doing business, if you will, in pro-
tecting our citizens. But if we can be smart about figuring out the
incremental difference when we change our codes for example, we
send more State police, for example, to the nuclear facilities or Bor-
der Patrol.
Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I understand that, but I hope you are
aware that one piece of legislation allows for the reimbursement
and another does not. What I am trying to get from you is that
whatever legislation that comes forth from this committee should
have that as an integral component of it.
Governor ROWLAND. I guarantee you the Governors would love to
get more reimbursement.
Mr. THOMPSON. Not more reimbursement.
Governor ROWLAND. More than what we have now. Well, there
is a process for reimbursement that we follow.
Mr. THOMPSON. But under this legislation, you dont have that.
Governor ROWLAND. It might be silent on it, yes.
Mr. THOMPSON. Well.
Governor ROWLAND. But that is why if you pass through the dol-
lars to the States and give us some flexibility, we could respond to
that. But I am sure in the committee process.
20
Mr. THOMPSON. But the pass-through is not in the legislation

that we have considered.
Governor ROWLAND. That is correct.
Mr. THOMPSON. So I am just trying to make sure we keep that
in whatever we pass.
The other notion is interoperability or the ability to commu-
nicate. One legislation is silent on it and another makes it a pri-
ority. As a Governor, do you think the ability for police and fire de-
partments and other emergency personnel to talk to each other is
something that ought to be in any kind of legislation?
Governor ROWLAND. I would suggest to you that it has probably
already been done. The very, very first thing that I did with $2.9
million that I received from the Federal Government was to buy a
portable radio communications system for every mayor and first se-
lectmen, for every fire chief and for every police chief in every one
of my political subdivisions. We have that intact.
Mr. THOMPSON. And you are to be congratulated.
Governor ROWLAND. I suspect that most States have already
done that.
Mr. THOMPSON. But they have not.
Governor ROWLAND. Well, then, Governors ought to think about
it.
Mr. THOMPSON. I am just saying that if we are trying to set pub-
lic policy from a national perspective, then we should make that a
benchmark for the legislation so that people can talk to each other.
Governor ROWLAND. The first thing we did.
Mr. THOMPSON. I am not.
Governor ROWLAND. I am just suggesting to you that Governors
are smart enough to figure out that is the first thing you should
do, and whether you make it a benchmarkif you make it a bench-
mark, I think that is fine, but I think you will find most States
have already done that.
Mr. THOMPSON. Well, you individualize it, and then you do the
other. But I am just saying that the legislation that we are talking
about now does not make that a priority, and I think it should be,
and I just asked your opinion. I am not trying to.
Governor ROWLAND. Okay.
Mr. THOMPSON. The only other thing is youno other questions.
Chairman COX. I thank the gentleman. I will just observe that
we actually havent any disagreement on either side of the aisle on
the importance of interoperability of communications. The spec-
trum allocation question to which the gentleman refers by agree-
ment between this committee and the Energy and Commerce Com-
mittee is within the jurisdiction of the Telecommunications Sub-
committee and the full Committee on Energy and Commerce, and
we are not going to legislate in that area. But for that, I dont
think there would be any question we would have our own bill on
it.
Mr. THOMPSON. Well, but, you know, until we get some jurisdic-
tionand you know we go across the waterfront, we are a select
committee.
Chairman COX. But I think on the bill that allocates spectrum
for first responders, we might well seek a sequential referral. But
I dont think as Chairman I am prepared to ask for jurisdiction
21
even for a permanent Homeland Security Committee over the spec-

trum.
Mr. THOMPSON. Welland I still have a little time. My point is
for a lot of communities, the ability to communicate is important,
so we are talking about first responders and other things. I think
it is clear that that is an important part of any legislation. So if,
in fact, we are talking about emergency preparedness, the ability
to communicate is essential. I dont think we ought to pass it; I
think we ought to acknowledge it and suggest that it should be in-
cluded.
Chairman COX. Well, I agree strongly with the gentleman, to the
maximum extent that we can do so jurisdictionally in which com-
mittee, we should do. As you know, two members on this committee
on the majority and minority side, Mr. Weldon and Ms. Harman,
have testified before a hearing of this committee on this subject. I
think we have complete bipartisan agreement.
The gentleman from Connecticut, the Vice Chairman of the Com-
mittee on Government Reform, Mr. Shays is recognized for ques-
tions.
Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Connecticut delegation of Governors is very proud to have
you here, and appreciate your outreach to the local communities.
And the way you have communicated with them has been very
helpful. And we think your Department has done a very good job
as well.
The question I ask you is to respond to what Senator Rudman
did in his report that basically said we are giving money and we
dont really have any standards to decide how it should be given.
The States are being asked by the Department of Homeland Secu-
rity to tell us your capabilities. But, for instance, if a local commu-
nity says we can put out three fires at once, the question we then
have is should the standard in that community be two or should
it be four. In other words, is there capability matching what should
happen or not. And I would like you to speak to how you are wres-
tling with standards and any recommendations you could have for
us.
Governor ROWLAND. Thank you very much, Congressman.
Let me say first of all that the States dont operate in a vacuum
and each and every State has the ability and is charged with as-
sessing the threat to their State based on obvious issues, intel-
ligence information, things that are shared with us, and based on
what we have that is unique to our States, nuclear facilities, air-
ports, shoreline, bridges. And the process right now is a lot simpler
than we all think it is. We then put a proposal together. We submit
it to Homeland Security Federal and say, listen, we need radios.
To the point of Congressman Thompson, we very early determine
we need the communication capabilities between our fire, police,
and, of course, local officials and our State police. So we made the
request. That was a no-brainer. That money came through quickly.
Now after 2 years have passed and we have gotten through the
initial stages and the sense of urgency, if you will, in getting some
basic things in place, now we should be talking about standards.
And I know that your committee has discussed it. Should be basic
minimum standards to be followed. The hard part is measurement;
22
how do you measure the standards in Connecticut and New York

versus what may or may not happen in Utah? But I think that
homeland security folks in concert with this committee and in con-
cert with the Congress can come up with standards, so we have
some measurement and some baseline, and we do that every day
of the week.
What I would suggest to the committee, and as I listen to some
of the questions and as I watched the comments over the last sev-
eral months and I have seen the press reports, what I think we
want to avoid, we want to avoid an entitlement program. We want
to kind of steer away from this concept that everybody deserves
something, because. Make us prove, make the States prove what
our needs are. Make us prove what our possible threats are, what
our vulnerabilities are. And if I dont have radios, I need radios.
If I got radios, I want to get contamination containers or moni-
toring equipment because I am near New York City. I have got a
lot of ports or I got a lot of bridges. I may want something dif-
ferent. Make us prove, the homeland security folks, what we need,
not based on entitlement but based on logical, thoughtful standards
and hopefully objective information that is presented. I think that
is really the challenge we are floundering through.
Mr. SHAYS. If you were in New York City, the Bronx has about
21/2 million people. Our largest city is 140. So your administra-
tion has sought to have local communities team up. Can you kind
ofand then apply for grants, not just from the Federal grant, but
from the State. Can you speak a bit to the success of that?
Governor ROWLAND. You bet. We bonded State money, about $3
million for our own search and rescue teams. We have done a lot
of regional mental health programs. We have linked, obviously, our
police and fire regionally, but also we have done it directly with our
State police. But the next stepand I was talking to the chief
about this earlierwe recognize our threat and vulnerabilities are
very much connected to Long Island, Long Island Sound, and New
York City, evacuation issues, our airports, certainly our nuclear fa-
cilities. There are three within a pretty short stretch of mileage. So
those are issues that we can regionalize and we do anyway because
we need toyou know, nuclear problems and bioterrorism prob-
lems know no State borders, so we need to be working together on
those issues. We will spend money at the State level rather than
wait for the Feds. If we get money from the Feds, great. But I dont
think there is a Governor in this country who sees a threat and sits
back and waits 2 years to get radios, for example. You just got to
go get them. And if you get reimbursed, fine. If you dont, then you
know you have to do it.
Mr. SHAYS. What is the most difficult challenge you have as it
relates to homeland security?
Governor ROWLAND. That is a good question. It is the most dif-
ficult challenge that Tom Ridge faces every day, an unknown
threat by an unknown enemy at an unspecified time. And how do
you not wreck our civil form of society and interrupt our livesI
am not talking about convenience but interrupting our livesbut
at the same time provide as much protection as you possibly can?
I think we are finding that balance every day. And I would say
to you that every day it gets better. And we are learning. And the
23
reports of the masking tape and all that stuff is behind us. We are
now down to some real stuff and real focus. And you will hear from
others who will be testifying today that I think we have come a
long way in a short period of time. And I for one am impressed
with what the Homeland Security Division has done and the work
Tom Ridge has done.
Mr. SHAYS. I thank you for your leadership on this issue and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman COX. Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from New
Jersey, Mr. Pascrell, is recognized for questions.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify something
before I ask the Governor some questions if I may. The figure of
$4.4 billion in first responder funding, $915 million of that is really
the results of money for nonterror programs, basic needs as the
Governor referred to it. And the $100 billion that the Governor re-
ferred to in his prepared remarks, two-thirds of that comes from
the private sector in investment. I just want to make that clear,
because we have the tendency to meld these dollars, and folks are
apt to think that all Federal dollars are included here. We are talk-
ing about private investment as well. And I wanted to make that
very, very clear before we went on.
Governor I think you make a very, very cogent point on page 3
of your testimony, second paragraph up, that youwe know that
there is a difference between basic needs with our first responders.
The Congress has tried to respond to those basic needs, not only
through the Fire Act, which I think you rightfully say should be
held harmless and separate from other programs that we are dis-
cussing today. The Fire Act was passed before 9/11 and dealt with
very specific needs of our first responders. But you also referred to
the COPS program as being an entity onto itself. And yet you know
that there is a recommendation from this administration to reduce
the COPS program by $560 million.
Now your Governor, like most Governors, are struggling with
budgets, like most mayors, like most councilmen. And that money
has gone a long way in providing police officers in what we would
call basic needs on the streets of Connecticut, and yet here we are
discussing the threats of terror. You dont accept that proposed cut
by the administration, do you, in terms of the COPS program,
which has truly been proven, according to the Governors, effective
in reducing crime in this Nation?
Governor ROWLAND. Congressman, as I have learned from my ex-
perience in Washington, that a cut may not always be a cut. And
before I give you an answer, I sure would like to know what the
numbers were last year and what the proposals are this year, be-
cause there is a tendency for what I call the Washington talk and
the Washington cuts. So I dont know what the numbers are.
Without regard to the numbers, the COPS program is a great
program and we do support it, and I endorse it as well as the Fire
Act and other emergency programs that I made reference to. So I
dont know if the jurisdiction of this committee takes in the COP
act or not.
Mr. PASCRELL. No, it doesnt. But I think, Governor, what you
are saying is that here we are talking about those things beyond
those basic needs that communities have and States have. And the
24
COPS program was in response to that. And the police officers

have a lot to do with the protection of our communities, particu-
larly in the area of terror. And yet we are reducing those very basic
needs. And yet we will be talking about homeland security dollars
going to the communities. It doesnt make sense.
Governor ROWLAND. If I understood you correctly, I thought you
said it was a proposal by the administration. That means that the
Congress will take some action on it, and I suspect it wont be re-
duced, and whatever the numbers areand I will let you guys fig-
ure that out but whatever the numbers are, I suspect it will not
be reduced from last year. And I can sit there and start to calculate
the money that is being spent now at the airports and the reim-
bursements and the number of Federal employees and the billions
and billions and billions of dollars being spent on homeland secu-
rity. And we are getting a lot of flexibility, the States have gotten
a lot of flexibility, and we have been able to respond to, quote un-
quote, the basic needs. And I dont think anybody would argue
across the country that our basic needs, if we use that term, had
been enhanced, dollars had been enhanced, and that our police and
firefighters are better prepared than they were 2 years ago. No
question about that. Could we do more? Could we use more fund-
ing? Absolutely.
Mr. PASCRELL. Governor, I think Connecticut, from what you are
telling us, is moving in the right direction. If you had your choice
then in terms of where the Federal dollars go, where would your
priorities be?
Governor ROWLAND. I think that the proposal that the dollars go
through the State to the cities and towns is fine, because that is
where the first responders are, the 80 percent. I would suggest to
you that we continue to do the grant program where we do have
the flexibility and the requirement, as I said in answer to another
question, to show where our needs are, and stay away from the
kind of entitlement bells and whistles and stick to some of the ba-
sics. If one State doesnt have appropriate communication equip-
ment they should have the flexibility to request those dollars. If I
determine with my homeland security folks that I need bomb
trucks and I need monitoring equipment because I am concerned
about bioterrorism, or if I want to have more border patrols for dif-
ferent States, then I think we should be allowed to put the re-
sources there.
Mr. PASCRELL. You recognize, Governor, the Federal responsi-
bility in these matters. I asked you a very specific question: What
are your priorities at this point in Connecticut in view of what the
State has done already? I mean, we are trying to determine where
dollars are needed and where they will be spent without a national
assessment, a risk assessment. And this is a very dangerous road
for us to go down. We are going to be spending money we are going
to find out we shouldnt have spent. What do you say in Con-
necticut are your basic needs for terror, to combating terror?
Governor ROWLAND. I will repeat myself by saying, give me the
flexibility to assess my vulnerabilities; and my vulnerabilities may
be significantly different than other States. So we have responded
to the communications. I may need more dollars for training on
HAZMAT. I sure would like to get all the best equipment for every
25
firefighter, throughout my cities especially, and then try to get

some into the other rural communities. If you understand the proc-
ess of application, we are tested and challenged to prove what the
needs are to make the request, and then the grants come our way.
Mr. PASCRELL. If I do say so, I think your answer is evasive, and
this is why I say that with all due respect. I asked you two times,
given your basic needs are being responded to, given the fact that
Connecticut has gotten out in front on a couple of the things that
you brought out very distinctly and specifically in your report, then
what do you need right now? You are saying to me and to this
panel, give us the flexibility to find out what we need. And I am
saying to you, we should be past that. And you should be telling
us what are your basic needs that you cant afford to provide as a
State and need Federal help in. And I dont think that that is an
unrealistic request on my part, if I do say so through the Chair.
Governor ROWLAND. I dont think you are making an unrealistic
request. I am just giving you an honest answer. Congressman
Thompson mentioned in his particular State he does not feel they
have the communications equipment for his State. I am telling you
that we got radio equipment and we got equipment for bioter-
rorism. We have 34 decontamination trailers. We have bomb trucks
and robots. We have training for most of our cities and towns. But
what you might not understand is that technology is changing even
as we speak. And as the technology changes, I might want more
monitoring equipment so I can pick up bioterrorism. I might want
more equipment for the Department of Public Health. I have
trained public health officials in case there is an outbreak of small-
pox. I may need more training for our police officials to respond to
something that may or may not occur at our ports or nuclear facili-
ties or at our airports.
So the answer is we need to continue to do more of what we have
been doing for the last 2 years. And to quantify it in just one area
is not appropriate, because there is no way you can quantify the
threat. The threat is across the board. And today it might be my
airports, tomorrow it might be my nuclear facilities. Day after, it
might be my bridges. It might be the effect it is going to have on
the bioterrorism.
We have had anthrax in our State. Can you monitor anthrax? Do
you know how to monitor anthrax? We are just learning how to do
that. No one knew what anthrax was 2 years ago. So we may need
the best possible technology for monitoring in all of our cities and
perhaps in every single town. So this is a moving target. This is
a work in progress. And you will find Governors diligently working
with the best scientists, researchers, and public health officials and
firefighters and police officers to prepare for the future, and that
is where my answer is that I need flexibility and I need to figure
out what tomorrows threats are going to be, because we dont
know what it is going and when we know what it is going to be
tomorrow, we will get the proper equipment and be ready to go.
Chairman COX. Thank the gentleman. The gentlemans time has
expired. And the gentleman from New York, Mr. King, is recog-
nized for questions.
26
Mr. KING. I wasnt here during the Governors testimony. I was

over on the House floor, so I will yield my time to whomever on
this side.
Chairman COX. Mr. Sweeney is recognized for some questions.
Mr. SWEENEY. I thank my friend from New York.
Mr. KING. If I had known that, I wouldnt have yielded.
Mr. SWEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time. And I
want to thank the Governorthis isnt faint praise, Governor. Your
testimony has been the most concise and enlightening testimony
that I have heard in 2 years while working specifically in this area
as it relates to solving this fundamental, convolution of problems,
and how we get the money to where we need to get it so we have
the most impact to protect the American public. I have to tell you
that.
Serving on the approps side, the Homeland Security Sub-
committee, I dont think it isI was probably a principal in getting
the high-threat urban density formula changed on the 8020. My
friend and your colleague and my former boss, Governor Pataki,
wasnt crazy about the idea. But coming from the 32nd largest
rural district in America, I thought that was a practical way to
make sure the dollars got to where they had to go.
And your testimony seems to me to provide a great level of clar-
ity in terms of what the challenge in Congress is ahead of us. I
agree we need to avoid the notion that this is an entitlement pro-
gram and that we need to find the honest broker. I am not so sure
I know whether the honest broker is going to change based on cir-
cumstances that are presented before us.
I have my own horse in this race a little bit. I have a bill, a for-
mulation bill that bases funding on threat, vulnerability and con-
sequences. Consequences being sort of a state-of-the-art term that
says DHS, the States, and the rest of us all planning this out need
to look with some aforethought as to what is going to be needed
based on whatever the particular threat and challenge is going to
be ahead of us.
I would like to hear a little bit about your notion of the
aforethought we can provide for this. But it seems to me the only
difference I have with what you said and it is minor and I think
you are right, we are real close to being able to figure this process
outis in establishing a minimum baseline support percentage. In
my bill, we have it at 40 percent. How do we ensure that the hy-
brid cases in terms of threat-based dollars are taken care of? And
I will give you a couple of examples.
For example, Ray Kelly and Mike Bloomberg stand at a higher
level of threat than almost anybody else in the country every day
of the week. That means they obviously incur substantial costs,
most of which they have not been reimbursed for from the Federal
Government. Nevertheless they do it and do it, I think, better than
anybody else in the world. The Port Authority of New York is a
cross-jurisdictional enforcement entity and has enforcement respon-
sibility at the World Trade Center, but it is essentially only respon-
sible for first responder dollars on the 20 percent figure rather
than something else.
And that is the real challenge that we all have here in trying to
find something that isnt one-size-fits-all, flexibility, but in real-
27
time gets dollars to real places. And I would like yourI mean, I
heard you say earlier that there needs to be some predetermined
mechanism that has the States in there. You are absolutely right.
That is why we had some percentage arbitrarily to do that. How
are we sure Ray Kelly is going to be heard as well, and the extra
layers of flow-through dont just cause a layer of hardship for Ray
Kelly to get his the job done?
Governor ROWLAND. That is the essential question, and the
Chairmans bill I think begins to speak to this discussion. And the
important factor to know is that Ray Kelly is going to have a dif-
ferent mission than there might be in other parts of the country.
So if, indeed, you can in your collective wisdom come up with a
baseline, a base amountand we can argue that until cows go
home in terms of what is baseline and what is readiness and how
much is enoughit is what it is and whatever the number is going
to be, then we will work with them. Then I think it makes a heck
of a lot of sense for Ray Kelly to compete with me and make the
argument to Homeland Security that their risk is greater than
mine and whatever dollars are left over should go to the port au-
thority, New York, police, fire, versus Connecticut. And I think that
is the way it should work.
And this is unlike anything else we have ever done. I mean, if
you think about it, all the grants and things we do on education
and human services and everything else is based onI mean we
got all the factors. We got population, poverty, income. There are
10 of them that we universally use for other formulas. This is dif-
ferent.
Mr. SWEENEY. Do you think DHS in that capacity can serve as
that honest broker, at least based on what we know at this time
and place to make that determination on that competition?
Governor ROWLAND. Yes, I do. And I think it is because that is
the only broker that can negotiate or can differentiate, if you will.
Is there a lot of discretion there? Yes. But ultimatelyse hearing
and I had, for example an anthrax caseultimately you are the
first line and the first responder. I had a 94-year-old woman die
of anthrax. There was no way in the world I could have predicted
that that was going to happen or combatted it or protected against
it. That is what we up against, the unknown.
So if HHS suggests with all their officials that a bioterrorism
threat is greater in a 60-mile radius of New York, then you know
what? That is good enough for me. And I think we need to put the
necessary resources to address that. CDC and others will be the
ones that will respond to any real or perceived threat.
Mr. SWEENEY. And I understand my friends on the other side of
the aisle and Mr. Turners bill call for the creation of an advisory
group. And I understand the rationale of that. It is really sort of
a basic sense of insecurity on the part of Members of Congress that
if we dont develop something that devovles down to the most
basic levels, whether it is Ray Kelly or the fire chief in
Schaghticoke, New York or somewhere else in the world, they are
not going to be heard in this process. And I think that is why this
hearing.
Governor ROWLAND. Could I make a political observation? I
would suggest that it is an unnatural act for Democrats or Repub-
28
licans in Congress to send any money back to the States without

strings attached.
Mr. SWEENEY. That is where Mr. Shays standardization comes
into play. And I want to say thank you to the Chairman for incor-
porating the language of 2512 into his underlying bill. And I look
forward to working with him and the Ranking Member in making
sure this committee gets something that you can work with.
Chairman COX. Thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from New
York, Ms. Lowey, is recognized.
Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you. Before I ask you a few questions, I just
want to recognize Commissioner Kelly of New York. We have sev-
eral hearings going on at the same time, so our movement in and
out does not reflect our commitment and our interest in this issue.
And I just want to say to you, Governor, that I am sure that you
would support, given the proximity of Connecticut to New York,
Commissioner Kellys request for reimbursement of $261 million
that he has spent on Operation Atlas. And if I get back in time to
ask the Commissioner additional questions, I think it is important
that we pursue this, because he has only been reimbursed 60 mil-
lion. And I hope it is not a matter of time when New York will
have to cut back because of all the other demands.
And I also want to say at the outset, I am pleased to be working
with my colleague, John Sweeney, on the whole issue of formula,
because it really doesnt make sense that Wyoming may get up-
wards of $9 per capita and New York gets about $1.80; and then
there are other formulations that say New York gets 5, and it is
even higher for Wyoming. I think we do need a real formula based
on threat assessment, vulnerability, et cetera. Just to give the
money out across the country per capita to satisfy everyones polit-
ical needs without a real analysis of threat just doesnt make any
sense to me. And I know in your wisdom you would agree with
that. And I am hoping that Mr. Sweeney I and others who are real-
ly working on getting some real solid formula will get your support
and the support of others.
I wanted to refer to a recent report from the Conference of May-
ors entitled Tracking Federal Homeland Security Funds Sent to
the 50 State Governments. It highlighted many of the deficiencies
of the current system of allocating Federal funds to State and local-
ities. The results confirm much of what the first responders, frank-
ly, in my district have been telling me for months, in all kinds of
language, that funding from the Federal Government is coming too
slowly, is not reaching the areas most in need, is not adequately
reflecting input from the first responder community. This is not
what Congress envisioned when appropriating money for our first
responders.
So perhapsand I apologize if you discussed this before, based
on the briefing I had, I dont think you haveif you can tell us in
your judgment what are some of the challenges that you face, that
States face, are facing, in distributing Federal funds to counties
and municipalities? And how can we better incorporate the input
of mayors and first responders to better allocate Federal resources
based on real needs?
I know in New York, I keep hearing from first responders, we are
not in any better shape now than we were on September 11. And
29
I keep hearing from those who are distributing the funds, it is com-
ing, it is coming, dont worry, it is coming. So perhaps you could
comment on those two quick questions.
Governor ROWLAND. Couple of thoughts. I am trying to a lay this
illusion that checks are being sent to firehouses and police stations.
And the truth is that Governors, in working with their homeland
security officials, are doing the best they can to analyze the needs
of our communities and then hopefully prioritizing. I think that is
the key word I havent used yet, prioritizing what the needs are
and how we get there from here.
Having said that, we talked about radio technologies and talked
about HAZMAT training and equipment. I am afraid that there is
a lot of miscommunication to the first responders. And there is a
first responders advisory committee to Governor Ridge, and they do
an excellent job. I think the real challenge for Governors is to com-
municate directly with the first responders and the mayors and the
police chiefs and find out what their needs are. Now the grab bag
mentality takes off. We need a new fire truck. We need new this,
we need a new that. I need a new fire boat for the Sound and so
forth and so on. And I would argue with all due respect to my 169
fire chiefs and police chiefs, they may not have the information, the
knowledge, or the capability to determine what the real threats
are.
Now, do they want stuff? Do they need stuff? Absolutely. Are
they getting what they need to respond to the real and perceived
threats that we face as a Nation and as States? We are in that
process. And we are in that process.
Mrs. LOWEY. Where in that process?
Governor ROWLAND. I cant speak to exactly what New York has
or doesnt have, but billions of dollars have gone into the State. In
Connecticut we now have the capability for communications. We
have done training of all of our firefighters and HAZMAT, bioter-
rorism. We are alsowe havent said a lot about our public health
officials. That is a whole new area where you have to train hun-
dreds and hundreds, and, in the case of New York, thousands of
public health officials how to respond to a bioterrorist attack. Bomb
equipment, decontamination trailers, all the things we are trying
to do to respond on a daily basis to what we think the threats are.
I know $4.2 billion has been distributed. And I think the problem
isand if you think it is hard to watch with where the $4.2 billion
is, imagine as we talk about this issue how you are going to keep
track of the billions and billions dollars more and making sure it
goes to the right places.
What I come back to is the necessity of the money coming
through the States and charging the Governors and their homeland
security people to prove the needs, the vulnerabilities, and what we
have or dont have in our arsenal, if you think about our arsenal
to combat terrorism. And some States are more prepared than oth-
ers and better prepared. And are there going to be firefighters out
there complaining they dont have enough HAZMAT material or
protective gear? Absolutely. Are we going to get there eventually?
Yes.
Mrs. LOWEY. Following up on that, I have heard from many that
there is a major obstacle standing in the way of our security, that
30
State and local governments have not received clearly defined

guidelines from the Federal Government to determine a basic level
of emergency preparedness. Now maybe the Governors would like
it that way, I am not sure, but we have all these various divisions
set up at the Department of Homeland Security.
So first of all, I wonder how much flexibility would you rec-
ommend be given to local officials for emergency preparedness
plans? Should they be allowed to set their own priorities based on
their specific needs in the absence of clearly defined Federal guide-
lines? I ask this question based upon my own experience in trying
to figure out what was the best communication system that was
being used around the country, because for the past year, frankly,
everyone is wallowing in promotions, and there was no clear guide-
line from the Federal Government. And I remember someone sit-
ting where you are from that division saying, well, we are first
going out with a RFP, and probably a year from now will be able
to get guidelines to our States and our communities on what kind
of a communication system they should purchase. And no one is
really waiting. And they are doing their own thing.
I am not even sure, Mr. Chairman, if at this point the Federal
Government has any clear guidelines to the States. Is it better that
the States figure it out themselves or should there be clear guide-
lines from the Federal Government?
Governor ROWLAND. The States should figure it out for them-
selves.
Mrs. LOWEY. Maybe we dont need that big Department of Home-
land Security.
Governor ROWLAND. I think you do need it, and they are doing
a heck of a job. I say that because thewe are using the example
of communication capabilities. The last thing you want in the State
of New York is 73 different communication capabilities. One has
Motorola, one has this, and one has got that. And if you cant com-
municate with your State officials, then it is all for naught. The
simple fall-off-the-curb answer is that each State determines the
best technology that they have available and what do you already
have in your inventory. What I have in Connecticut may be signifi-
cantly different than what is in Washington State and what works
there. What works there may not work in Connecticut. The tech-
nology and the terrain may be so different. And if I have already
invested, 40, 50, $70 million in radio technology for my State po-
lice, doesnt it make sense for me then to apply and be able to give
to every police chief and fire chief the same radio technology so we
can communicate?
Now in Washington State, maybe the State police cant commu-
nicate. Maybe they dont have that technology or maybe they are
way ahead of us, but the State of Washington should be able to de-
termine their best needs and their best information capabilities,
where their investment should take place, and then be up and run-
ning.
Mrs. LOWEY. I see my red light is on, and just one other com-
ment in conclusion. I hope when the Federal division figures out
the best technology and recommends it to you, that we will have
some kind of a buy-back program to buy back the equipment that
you have invested in and we can provide you some up-to-date tech-
31
nology. I think it is due in June, something like that. But thank

you so much for appearing before us.
Chairman COX. Thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from Penn-
sylvania, Mr. Weldon, is recognized for questions.
Mr. WELDON. I thank the Chairman.
Governor it is good to see you, former neighbor on the Armed
Services Committee and great star on the Republican baseball
team that you were. My perspectives are all going to come from the
local level up, and I want to make some comments and hopefully
some clarifications.
I want to first of all acknowledge the comments of the Chairman
that this committee is aware of the frequency spectrum problem.
It is the number one issue in the country to give us a unified inter-
operable system across America so our agencies can communicate
with each other, and it is the biggest challenge we have in the
country. I was at the APCO conference this year with Governor
Sununu, and their number one priority of the 6,000 representatives
of every municipality in America is that we dont today have an
interoperable communication capability. It is not talking about ra-
dios for the police. It is talking about interoperable frequencies, be-
cause, Governor, as it is in your State, it is across the country. You
have a largely volunteer fire department. They bought those radios
themselves. They bought them through tag days and chicken din-
ners without State money. So some of them got low-band frequency
years ago. Some have high-band frequencies. They may both have
Motorolas, but they are totally different in terms of their capability
to interact. And our problem is having an interoperable system
that can allow those different frequency spectrums to talk to one
another.
That does not exist in America today. The frequency bill that we
put forward, the Chairman has agreed to help us, but he is right.
Chairman Tauzin has claimed jurisdiction. It is a top priority and
we must move that bill. The advisory committee report that came
out in 1995 had the Congress saying what needed to be done, but
unfortunately the TV stations in the upper area of the 60 to 69 TV
channels in our cities across the country wont give up that fre-
quency so we can use it for public safety. That has got to be ad-
dressed.
I want to get to a more fundamental issue and I want to take
the support of the 1.2 million first responders that I work with
every day and have visited in every State including your State of
Connecticut. They have been protecting America longer than Amer-
ica has been a country, in 32,000 organized departments; 85 per-
cent of them are volunteer. They know what the threats are. They
are not stupid.
Now we say we have got these new threats. If you have been a
firefighter and go into a chemical plant where you have got butane
or you have got vinyl acetate exploding, that is in fact a chemical
situation. I wonder how many of our military personnel have been
exposed to a real chemical incident. I can tell you firefighters all
across the country have. They go into a chemical plant with the
training they have done on their own. They go into a place where
there may be a hospital with contaminants or biological material
that is on fire, and they do that and risk their lives. So we dont
32
give our first responders, I dont think, enough credit. They know
what they need to protect their communities.
In fact, Mr. Chairman there is a rating system for America that
I would challenge my colleagues to understand, called the ISO rat-
ing system. As the American Insurance Association allows insur-
ance companies to underwrite policies for protection against the
perils they are insured against, every municipality in America for
the past 50 years has been given a rating, and that rating is from
1 to 10. And that rating, which is done independently of any com-
pany, looks at the water supply, weather conditions, threats, the
protection of the fire department, whether or not they have got up-
to-date equipment, how well they are trained. So we dont have to
go out and reinvent the wheel.
Every municipality in Connecticut, every municipality in Cali-
fornia, already has an ISO grading assigned to it. And that grading
is done independently, based on that municipalitys ability to re-
spond to an insured threat. And those threats could be fires, they
could be floods, hurricanes, or tornadoes.
And we somehow in Washington think we have to reinvent the
way we protect our cities and towns. I would say if we listen more
to the first responder and give them the basic tools they need, then
we would be a lot better off in this war against terrorism. We have
tried to do that. As Mr. Pascrell said, in 2000 the Congress passed
legislation to create a grant program. There is no middle person in
that grant program. It goes directly to departments.
Why do we do that? Let me give you an example. In the mid-
1990s, I remember D.C., when Marion Barry was the mayor, had
been cutting its funds for the D.C. fire Department. The D.C. fire
Departments mandate is to run 16 ladder trucks and 33 engine
companies to protect the city. In the midnineties, because they
had not put any money into maintenance or repair, they had
dropped down to two ladder trucks, two ladder trucks for the whole
city.
How can we talk about giving more money for homeland security
when they are not even funding the basic needs to protect the peo-
ple from the perils that the fire department has to respond to every
day? So the first priority is to give the equipment to those munici-
palities that provide that basic level of protection and then come
in with the kinds of extra resources for a biological incident, a nu-
clear contamination incident, a chemical incident. And we have got
to understand they are two separate and distinct functions. If we
dont deal with the basic needs of our municipalities, we are never
going to be able have them feel comfortable that we are assisting
them in dealing with homeland security threats.
The only thing I will say in closing to my good friend the Gov-
ernor, you didnt mention technology transfer. And what really
bugs me, John, and you served on the Armed Services Committee,
we spent $400 billion on the military. You were a big supporter.
Much of the technology we spend in the R&D area could have di-
rect application for the first responder, and we are not transferring
that technology quickly enough.
And I would hope that you as a representative of the Governors
Association would go back and demand us to do more to transfer
that technology so it can be used, which has already been paid by
33
the taxpayer, by our first responder community. Thank you for

being here.
Governor ROWLAND. Appreciate it.
Chairman COX. Thank the gentleman. Mr. Etheridge is recog-
nized.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Governor, welcome. I dont know if I can add a lot more to what
has been said, but I may say it again in a different way. But the
point I want to make is that you talk about in your testimony the
25 percent max, and I happen to agree. I think that is a burden,
especially on a lot of these jurisdictions, especially in my State of
North Carolina that has the second highest unemployment of man-
ufacturing job losses in the country, especially at a time when the
threats are up, even in rural areas.
But I am also reminded that we have to have some effort, be-
cause I remember years ago as a young county commissioner, we
had a thing called revenue sharing in this country, and Congress
figured out that they didnt have any figures in it and were sending
money and it didnt take long to cut it out.
This is too important for us to get to that pointI think there
has to be, as you said earlier, whatever we call it, some strengths,
so there is an investment, there is input at the Federal level, at
the State level, and, as my colleague from Pennsylvania just said,
truly at the local level because all the rest of us may get involved.
But if it doesnt work at the local level it isnt going to get done.
And you know that in putting together plans.
So my question comes back to this whole issue of we have to
have a national plan, I think, and I am not sure we have it yet.
I know we are talking about getting there and we are sending the
money out. Until we get a national plan, we have 50 States with
varying different issues, as you have so eloquently elaborated. But
what we dont need to wind up at the end of day is 50 plans for
homeland security that are not coordinated.
And I just mention one area, and then I want to raise another
question as it relates to interoperability of communication. And if
every State had theirs, it brings to mind an issue that some States
cross State lines and you have got to be able to communicate there
as well. So there has to be a national plan that works, that is tied
to the States, and they have to have flexibility.
Because of the dynamic nature of the threat that we all perceive
and we face, and I think we do, do you believe and you touched
on this earlier, so I want to lay out the question on baseline fund-
ing. There has to be a baseline. I am not going to ask you to deter-
mine that baseline. I wish you could impart upon that.
Governor ROWLAND. That leaves something for you guys to do.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Because I think that is the critical piece we have
to come up with. If we dont have a baseline for the rural depart-
ments that are out there or the small towns, the threat could be
very well there tomorrow if we think about our food supply. May
not be an issue in Connecticut, but in Mississippi or North Caro-
lina or North Dakota, that could well be an issue tomorrow.
Do you think that it is necessary for States to reach a baseline
level of preparedness that can be adjusted quickly to a response
threat? And if the answer to that is yes, which I think it has to
34
be at some point, how do you think we should go about determining

that baseline of preparedness for our first responders? Because
those first responders are the people in every State we are going
to call on first to get the job done. And I am not only just talking
about a funding level. You know, funding is just one part of that
process. There is a broader piece, because that response is beyond
the issues we have talked aboutour schools no one has talked
aboutas we look at this, as we allocate those resources beyond
money.
Governor ROWLAND. I think you bring up a great point. I think
it kind of speaks to what Congressman Weldon was saying as well.
First and foremost, in the real world that I work and live in
every day, we dont put our plans together, nor does any Governor
put his plan together in a vacuum. You have got two things at
work. One, of course, is the national plan which somebody men-
tioned, and that national plan is here are the threats, here are the
risks, here is what we are doing on a national level, here is what
we are doing on border patrols, here is what we are doing with air-
port security, so forth and so on.
Then as I kind of see this unfolding, there are 50 State plans,
and those State plans are put together with good hard old-fash-
ioned work and a lot of listening. And to Congressman Weldons
point, listening to first responders is the key.
I hired a new emergency management director. He happened to
be the fire chief of a small fire station in the State. And he has
now become my person as the emergency director. So my point is
I dont think that there is a Governor or a homeland security direc-
tor in any State that is not listening to the first responders, re-
sponding to their base needs. I think the point here is you cant
jump to have HAZMAT training of the tenth degree if you dont
have radio technology or capabilities to put out a fire because you
are a rural area or some other deficiency.
Let me also say that in Connecticut, it took us over 20 years for
the State police to get their new radios. Alexander Graham Bell,
I think, devised the first radio system. It took us 20 years to get
there for all of our State police. We got to the capability to commu-
nicate with our cities and towns in less than a year. So your point
is well made. And I think you all need to know Governors each and
every day are assessing the threats, analyzing the information from
a Federal standpoint, but religiously listening to our first respond-
ers and trying to differentiate from I wish we could have, from
what we really need. That is kind of the key there.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. While I have a little time left, let me come back
to that one, because Congressman Weldon touched on it. As we
think of our first responders, they really are on the front line,
whether they are in New York City or rural North Carolina or
North Dakota. Their funding levels are different. Probably none
will admit they are funded at a level they would like to be funded
at. But some of them are on tax rolls where they get some money
for that, and others have absolutely no dollars except the dollars
they may get in a grant or the dollars they get from maybe having
a barbeque or some other kind of funding mechanism.
That is the kind of baseline funding we have to deal with here
or at the State level, or a combination thereof, because those com-
35
munities may not be a threat, as I said earlier today, but at some

point our adversaries are going to find the weakest point. And if
you can create something in the food supply here, that will end up
in New York City or Connecticut or somewhere else in this country.
Governor ROWLAND. Congressman, I think your point is well
made. If we dont give the basics to everyone across the board, and
to your pointI think in our State well over 75 percent are volun-
teer firefighters, but you cant expect them to have, from a volun-
teer status, to being experts on HAZMAT technology and HAZMAT
threats, without going through a few other wickets first to get
there; and maybe it is an understanding of chemical fires and
maybe it is having the right equipment or maybe having the chem-
ical capabilities within the fire department. What I found so far is
everybody agrees on getting to the basic first, because you cant
make that other leap of faith to respond to threats we are seeing
nationally until we are all on the same page.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Governor, thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman COX. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized, Mr.
Rogers.
Mr. ROGERS. Governor, good to have you with us. The essential
question, I think here in this bill is do we replace the present for-
mula distribution of funds with a system based entirely on threat
assessment or vulnerability; i.e. do rural communities, rural areas
need some form of funding irrespective of any other consideration,
or do we take away the moneys that essentially rural areas have
for a different formula? The new grant program would greatly favor
high-density urban areas. But we have learned that terrorists do
not often prepare for their attacks in urban areas; rather, they
stage them in rural isolated parts of the country.
For example, the recent terrorist cell broken up in Lackawanna,
New York, the rural central Pennsylvania training camp used by
terrorists prior to the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the
reported interest in crop dusting equipment by terrorists and the
like, we have seen many of the threats, if you will, originate in
those isolated parts of the country. Do you not agree with that?
Governor ROWLAND. Congressman, I would agree with you on a
couple of things. Oneand I think in my remarks I injected that
I thought the Chairmans position was to spark the debate, which
worked real well, and the importance in my opinion of having a
base amount to all cities and towns and States, and I used the
term we dont want to rob Peter and take the grant money to pay
Paul.
And so the baseline is what we have been discussing during this
hearing. You need to maintain the baseline, whatever that baseline
is. That is for all of you to determine. But then I think there ought
to be an extraordinary effort in homeland security, and Governors
and others working together to use a risk assessment or threat as-
sessment for additional dollars. And I think that is necessary, be-
cause I think we canand in most cases over the last year or so,
although there has never been specific threats to a specific area,
we have a pretty good idea thatwe know one thing. We know
that the terrorists want to do maximum damage to us. It is not
going to be a small, disconnected event. All of our intelligence tells
us it has to be a massive, big, destructive event. And so we know
36
that. And that is why we need to have, I believe, a threat assess-

ment added to the base.
Mr. ROGERS. Do we not have that now? We have the formula dis-
tribution based on population essentially to all States in order for
them to have the base protection in all areas. And then we have
the high-threat, high-density urban grant program, which is com-
pletely based on threat assessment and vulnerability on top of the
base program. Is that not a workable program that fits the criteria
that you have mentioned?
Governor ROWLAND. It may very well be. I look at this as a work
in progress. I look at this, frankly, as more funding coming this
year, next year, and the year after. I dont think it is going to have
any finality.
One of the issues that came up in our discussion which I think
is important is that it gets to the revenue sharing issue, is this
going to be ongoing funding or is it just for capital investment and
what about recurring costs? And so that is a whole other issue we
need to grapple with.
But I think your pointI would still stress to the Chairmans
point that we need to have additional dollars to higher-risk areas,
wherever they may be, and I am willing as a Governor to live with
the consequences of what those decisions are.
Mr. ROGERS. In the 2004 appropriations, we provided 4.2 billion
for State and local first responders. That includes 1.7 billion for the
ODPs basic formula grant program to all States. And then on top
of that, 725 million for the high-threat, high-density urban grant
program to focus money where we think the threat is the most se-
vere and could cause the most damage. It seems to me that if we
keep the formula grant program to all States, to allow their first
responders to prepare and then even add to, if necessary, the high-
threat, high-density urban grant program to cover the special
needs of those areas, it seems to me that that is getting at the pol-
icy goals that you have set forward for us here; is that not correct?
Governor ROWLAND. I dont think the debate is over. I think we
are in the middle of it. And to your verbiage of add to, I would
suggest if you are going to add to, that it be done based on threat
assessment than just based on population.
Mr. ROGERS. That is what I am saying, too. High-density, high-
threat urban grant program is just exactly that. We asked the De-
partment to assess those areas of the country that are most vulner-
able, most susceptible to attack, where great damage could be done
because of population or some special circumstance, perhaps a nu-
clear power plant close to an urban area or what have you.
The high-density, high-threat grant program is just for that pur-
pose. In essence, it is a reflection of what the Chairman in his bill
is attempting to do, and that is focus money where the threat is
the worst. The question is, do we do away with the formula grant
program to all States, such as yours, and just focus the money
where we think the threat is the worst, disregarding, it seems to
me, that many of the staging areas for these threats to the high-
density areas actually come from more isolated areas? Do you find
fault with the present program in those two aspects, formula grant
distribution plus high-density extra special moneys?
37
Governor ROWLAND. No. I dont think I find fault. I find improve-

ment.
Mr. ROGERS. More money.
Governor ROWLAND. More money. But I think you and I are on
the same page, and maybe the way you skin the cat with the high-
density program is what you enhance financially; in other words,
what you put more money into. Whether that fits what we are talk-
ing about in this legislation, I dont know that off the top of my
head, but I assume it is speakingI think we are going in the
same direction here. But I would not give up the base.
Mr. ROGERS. Now when we send money to you, you have a com-
mittee, a statewide committee, do you not, that helps you deter-
mine where in the State you need to spend money?
Governor ROWLAND. Slightly more scientific than that. We do an
assessment of all of our 169 cities and towns. We basically say,
what do we have before us, what do we have in our arsenal and
what do we need, and then we make some decisions. For example,
we want to have decontamination equipment and have decon-
tamination trailers, so if and when there is a bioterrorist attack,
we are prepared. Do we need one in every city of town? No. We
need 34. So there is some scientific process to determine that and
they are spread out. We need new bomb trucks. We need new bomb
detecting equipment. Do we need one in every city and town? No.
We need one in New Haven and Hartford and Stamford. We do go
through kind of a scientific analysis and try to do it as clean as
possible, but it isthere is a lot of discretion there.
Mr. ROGERS. Well, do you not think that Governors such as your-
self with the statewide committees assessing the needs in each of
your locales, do you not think that you know best where the threat
is in Connecticut, or does some bureaucrat downtown here know
where the threat is?
Governor ROWLAND. I think the answer is that I can best deter-
mine the threat based on the bureaucrats information, which is in-
telligence information and stuff that I have no access to on a daily
basis. And I think you should know that homeland security folks
get briefed more than once a day on the threats. My job is to go
back and to inventory, if you will, my locals to see what we need
and to match the two.
So I am not saying we know best, but I am saying my joband
in my testimony I refer to Governors as the traffic cops. And we
have to be the traffic cops in determining where the dollars could
and should go, and we have to be the traffic cops to try to get the
dollars from the Federal Government and, in many cases, matching
it on our own.
Chairman COX. Thank the gentleman. The gentlemans time has
expired. The other gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Lucas, is recog-
nized for questions.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor I appreciate your testimony and the end is near. First
of all, I might say as it relates to Congressman Rogers, I think in
the minority legislation we dont repeal the basic formula that he
is talking about. I think that might speak to that as well. I would
give you one last platform. You mentioned something that made a
lot of sense to me about we all believe in regionalization, as you
38
said, but you said that you know self-administered regionalization

would be a disaster and that should probably come at the Gov-
ernors level. And I give you 60 seconds to enhance.
Governor ROWLAND. I will take 60 seconds. The last thing you
wantyou dont want 27, 30, 100 new regional self-administered
groups; i.e., three cities and towns getting together, three counties
getting together, in addition to all the other political divisions, in
addition to the State. If you think it is complicated and complex
now, that is a recipe for disaster.
Having said that, if there can be a process going through Gov-
ernors, with his coordination with the traffic cops, or in your wis-
dom working with homeland security folks you decide there should
be 10 regions in addition to, I buy that.
Governor ROWLAND. But to have self-administered would be a
recipe for disaster.
Mr. LUCAS. One other quick question. You obviously have dealt
with the communications. Do you feel that you haveI know Con-
gressman Weldon talks about interoperability being on the same
channel, and we dont have that ability now. But do you feel that
you have the interoperability in your communications setup now?
Governor ROWLAND. I do now, in the State of Connecticut.
Mr. LUCAS. So we can do it. But as I understand it, and I am
not a communications expert, that if we had one channel where ev-
erybody could be, it would be great; but now we dont, but we still
have interoperability.
Governor ROWLAND. We can within my State, Within my State
police and all my local officials. We didnt have it 2 years ago.
Mr. LUCAS. In the interest of time, I will stop there.
Governor ROWLAND. Thank you, kind sir.
Chairman COX. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Dicks.
Mr. DICKS. We miss you here, Governor, and appreciate all your
good work and your comments here today. I will be very brief.
One thing, the high-threat urban area program, the Department
of Homeland Security has not laid out criteria, at least to our satis-
faction, about how they make the decision about which of these
high-density urban areas should be funded. Dont you think that
they have a responsibility to come up with some way of deciding
on which areas they fund?
Governor ROWLAND. Congressman, I think that is a good point.
I think part of the magic of what has occurred over the last 2 years
is they have scrambled to put 320,000 people together, and I dont
think that they have been able to, not because they dont want to,
but to communicate what the criteria should be. So this is an im-
perfect process. But to the best of my knowledge, from what I have
been able to do, what I have been able to request, what I have been
able to apply for, they have been respectful of the unique needs of
my State, which I think other Governors will say as well.
But I think there is a legitimate question to be asked: what the
heck is the criteria? Who is determining this, and how are you
using the discretion to make those determinations?
Mr. DICKS. I mean, even if it is threat, vulnerability risk, what-
ever, I think they ought to be able to put it down so that fair-mind-
ed people can look at it.
Governor ROWLAND.And say it makes sense.
39
Mr. DICKS. and make a justification on it.

I would also say to the distinguished Chairman of the Homeland
Security Appropriations Subcommittee, you talk about these cells
being out in rural areas planning these attacks on urban areas. I
think what we have to focus on there in my judgment is preven-
tion. I mean this again gets back to the FBI, our counterterrorism
officials, the people who are supposed to be doing the job on a day-
by-day basis of finding out where these people are and what they
are up to. That, to me, may be the thing we want to focus on. If
that is, in fact, how they are operating.
Have you had any problems in Connecticut? Have you had any
actualwe had out in the State of Washington, we captured one
fellow coming in across the Strait of Juan De Fuca into Port Ange-
les, actually, into my district. And a former prosecuting attorney
who had lost the election, went to work for Customs, and was one
of those who captured Ahmed Ressam. They were either on the
way to the Space Needle or down to L.A. airport.
But have you had any problems in Connecticut?
Governor ROWLAND. We havent had any problems, but I will say
that we have had concerns and we have had information.
Mr. DICKS. About possible problems?
Governor ROWLAND. Absolutely. And that is something everybody
has to be catching and we have to be careful about our discussions.
But you are absolutely right, that is the key. Because after the fact,
it is almost possible. It is like try to track drugs once they get in;
it is very difficult.
Mr. DICKS. Right. You have to prevent.
Finally, what ought to be in these State plans? What are the key
elements? As each State develops their plan and as the Nation de-
velops a plan, what are the things you think ought to be in the
plans?
Governor ROWLAND. Good question. What I try to do is to take
the threat as analyzed by the Federal information and homeland
security folks and they give us, if you will, a menu. What I then
try to do is say, OK, in the big picture, having an out-of-body expe-
rience, what is the threat to my State, to my region, to my terri-
tory; what are my capabilities to respond to that threat; and then
go to the first responders and say, OK, I am worried about bioter-
rorism, I am worried about nuclear fallout, I am worried about
evacuation from Fairfield County, New York City, I am worried
about something happening in our airports. What do you need to
respond do that? Do you have the training, the personnel, the
equipment? Do we have decontamination containers, and so forth?
So what hopefully all of us are doing, and I think it has hap-
pened, and again in an imperfect way, is that we are taking the
threat information as best we can, disseminating that information,
going to our first responders and analyzing how prepared we are,
and then making the request to Homeland Security, saying we
need dollars for these things.
And then it gets to your point about criteria. We talk about the
political process here. We shouldnt assume that it is perfect and
cleansed and white in their world either. So I think you are right
about the criteria.
40
So that is kind of what I go through and what my folks go

through. It seems to be going in the right direction. It seems to be
working.
Mr. DICKS. Thanks for being here today. We miss you.
Governor ROWLAND. Thank you. Miss you guys, sort of.
Chairman COX. We miss you sort of, too.
Governor ROWLAND. Some days.
Chairman COX. Governor, you have been outstanding in your pa-
tience.
We have Mr. Cardin, who has not been recognized. You will have
to be further outstanding in your patience, I think.
The gentleman is recognized, the gentleman from Maryland, for
5 minutes.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you.
Governor, thank you for being here. Appreciate it very much. I
am intrigued by Mr. Rogers suggestion about expanding the high-
threat urban area programs. I understand Connecticut has applied
for funds under that program, but have you been successful in ob-
taining any funds to date?
Governor ROWLAND. We have. Off the top of my head, I cant re-
member exactly how much. And I have not looked into whether
that is the venue to respond to the risk. It may very well be. And
I havent really sat down and analyzed. I mean, I was asked on Fri-
day to come down and testify on this bill. So what I am in spirit
suggesting is that you go with the baseline and then go to risk as-
sessment. I dont know if the existing program, from a formula
standpoint, whether the existing program satisfies that, but it may
very well.
Mr. CARDIN. It is my understanding that there are a lot of areas
that have high risks that have not been able to qualify for that
grant to date. My own community in Maryland, some of our coun-
ties have qualified, others have not. Yet we all, like Connecticut,
have a similar problem of close proximity to potential targets that
provide us additional concerns on security.
So I think if we could expand that program that is sensitive to
high risk in a broader context, it might be a way in which we can
get to one of the underlying points, and that is making dollars
available based upon threat assessment rather than just a plain
formula.
You raised, though, an interesting point, that it is difficult for
you as Governor to assess threat when it is a changing target. And
although we are trying to make the formula more sensitive to
threat, and I agree that we should, I am curious how you as Gov-
ernor do planning if the funding is not going to be predictable. If
you have to wait every year to determine whether you are going
to get the funds from Washington or not, based upon a competitive
assessment of risk, how do you as Governor do your planning to
make sure that your State is properly prepared in regards to home-
land security?
Governor ROWLAND. Well, first and foremost, I am in the public
safety business. So the last thing I would say is, well, geez, I really
need to be able to communicate with the radios, but I am going to
wait for as long as it takes to get the dollars from the Federal Gov-
ernment.
41
So I think to answer your question, we do what we have to do,

and it may mean overtime at the airports, it may mean more oper-
ational expenses for our first responders; it may mean capital in-
vestment at our public health laboratories. For example, we are
going to bond $30 million to do some lab work, because our public
health lab facilities are decrepit. So that is an investment I am
willing to make. And I may or may not get reimbursed, but it is
the right thing to do and I will do it anyway. So I think you will
find that most first responders and Governors and even mayors
will do what they have to do, politically and otherwise, to respond
to the threats. And if the Feds are part of it, that is great and it
is wonderful. But there may be cases where I am making invest-
ments where the Feds are not willing to reciprocate or to reim-
burse. But so far, we all seem to be on the same page.
To your point about the urban dollar request and some of your
counties not getting it, that I think leads to Congressman Dicks
point. We need to know what the criteria is. I think that is a real
legitimate issue for Governors and for this committee.
Mr. CARDIN. I agree with that. A similar issue on which we all
agree is that the States need to coordinate their requests from the
first responders, because we dont want to see duplication or waste,
and it is important to prioritize, using your terms. But on the other
hand, we have constantly gotten complaints that the monies are
not getting down fast enough to the first responders.
I am just curious as to whether you think this is a problem with
Federal law, or do we just have to have a better system in place
to allow the first responders confidence that the system is working
as quickly as it can to get the money to where it is needed for first
responders to carry out their important functions?
Governor ROWLAND. I think it is a problem of interpretation. I
said this earlierI dont know if you were herethat I hope that
fire chiefs and police chiefs back home arent thinking when am I
going to get my check, because that is not really the process.
Mr. CARDIN. I was here when you said that.
Governor ROWLAND. So I think there is that misinformation that
bunches of money are going to be flowing to fire chiefs and police
chiefs across the country, and that is not the case.
Mr. CARDIN. I can tell you in my State of Maryland and in Balti-
more City which is, of course, a very large jurisdiction, there is
money in the pipeline, but there is still not confidence from Balti-
more Citys use of those funds as to when those funds are going
to be received. I am just wondering whether that is a unique prob-
lem or whether it is being confronted by other States, that there
are monies that are being committed, but it seems like it takes a
longer time than should be necessary for those funds to actually
get approved.
Governor ROWLAND. Some legitimate issues. First of all, you
have bidding procedures and processes. We are finding, even to buy
some of the equipment, we have to go through our own legitimate
bidding procedural processes. So we are finding that we are holding
ourselves up. And even after we have donethink about this: you
are doing a whole new kind of unnatural process of examining a
threat, doing a grant application, which is very new to all of us,
stumbling through that, getting it to the Feds, letting them look at
42
thousands and thousands and thousands of grant requests, getting

the information back to us, crossing the Ts, dotting the Is. We
then go through the bidding procedures and processes. We then get
the equipment back to the cities and towns.
So it is kind of an unnatural act, if you will, to get through this
pyramid. So I think that there is going to be snags and there are,
and there is misinformation and misunderstanding. But, at the end
of the day, are we better off than we were yesterday, than we were
last year, or than we were 2 years ago? And we certainly are.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you.
Chairman COX. I thank the gentleman. And again, I thank you,
Governor Rowland. You have been very, very helpful to this com-
mittee as we seek to determine the impact, both of the current
grant programs and of potential changes in them.
I would say to my colleagues, based on the discussion that we
have just had concerning, for example, the high-threat, high-den-
sity program that we presently have in the law, that certainly it
is not the aim of either the majority or the minority bills simply
to perpetuate that system, or to use that terminology as inter-
changeable with threat or vulnerability or consequences. I think
many times people are using the term threat to mean vulner-
ability, the term vulnerability to mean threat; or when they say
vulnerability, they mean consequences. We are going to be very
clear about defining our terms legislatively.
But from my standpoint, the high-threat, high-density grant is at
best a way station as we proceed towards more objective risk as-
sessments that map threat against vulnerability. The high-threat,
high-density program is, because of the fact that it was created so
rapidly, somewhat arbitrary, extremely unsophisticated, it is an a
priori determination that certain highly populated areas are more
deserving of funding. I think the process by which these determina-
tions are made lacks transparency and objectivity. It is one of the
reasons we need legislation, and we are going to continue to de-
velop it in this committee.
Governor, as we proceed to do this, the concerns of the State of
Connecticut and your responsibilities as Governor will be upper-
most in our minds. We very much appreciate your willingness to
cooperate on it.
Governor ROWLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good luck in
your deliberations.
Chairman COX. Thank you.
We would now like to welcome our very patient and expert next
panel. Our next panel will consist of John D. Cohen, Special Assist-
ant to the Secretary of Public Safety for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts; Ray A. Nelson, Executive Director, Office for Secu-
rity Coordination, the Commonwealth of Kentucky; and Lieutenant
Colonel Scott Behunin, Director, Division of Emergency Service and
Homeland Security for the State of Utah, who is testifying on be-
half of the National Emergency Management Association.
Chairman COX. Gentlemen, welcome. Mr. Cohen, we will begin
with you. Before you testify, I know that, Mr. Lucas, you would like
to make a special welcome for Mr. Nelson. We are getting a vote
on the floor any time, so what I would like to do is get your testi-
43
mony on the record first and then come back for questions, but I
would first recognize Mr. Lucas.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. But it is my pleasure
to introduce Colonel Ray Nelson who, after a distinguished career
in the military, as of November of 2001, right after September 11,
was appointed as the Executive Director of the Office of Security
Coordination. I have worked with Mr. Nelson and we have had sev-
eral town hall meetings with the local responders and he has been
very effective and a very good advocate of homeland security. So it
is a pleasure to have you here today, Mr. Nelson.
Mr. NELSON. Good to be here.
Chairman COX. I would recognize also the chairman from Ken-
tucky for an additional word.
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be real brief. It
is a pleasure to have Mr. Nelson with us. He is distinguished back
home, doing a good job for the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and we
are proud that he is here with us today. Thank you.
Chairman COX. You are all welcome. We will begin with Mr.
Cohen.
STATEMENT OF JOHN D. COHEN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE

SECRETARY OF PUBLIC SAFETY, COMMONWEALTH OF MAS-
SACHUSETTS
Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Turner
and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be
here with you today and congratulate you for taking on what I
view and what many of the folks that I am working with in state
and local governments view, as one of the most critical issues hav-
ing to do with homeland security today.
My perspective is somewhat unique because, in addition to work-
ing with Massachusetts over the last 2 years, I have worked with
a number of cities, including Houston, Detroit, New York City and
Los Angeles and other states, Arizona and Maryland on helping of-
ficials there think through the issue of homeland security and de-
velop strategies to address these issues on state and local basis.
I have to be honest. I guess to some degree my perspective on
this issue differs a little bit from the governors because, as I travel
around the country and as recently as yesterday, I am hearing a
high level of frustration over both the direction and the progress
that we have made over our national homeland security efforts. In
some sense that frustration stems from the fact that many state
and local leaders who I am working with think that some in Wash-
ington have an overly narrow focus on what is meant by homeland
security. They believe it is not just simply a domestic intelligence
issue, but it is blending of intelligence capabilities with other key
areas of government: public safety, public health, social services,
and general government operations.
Treating homeland security as an adjunct responsibility of state
and local government with a different set of systems, rules and
processes, many believe, is not only counterproductive but ineffec-
tive. We tell the public we need to be vigilant each day. We tell
state and local governments they need to work each day to detect,
prevent, and be prepared to respond to an act of terrorism. But we
44
dont provide them the resources they need to carry out this critical
function.
We need to make sure that state and local governments have the
information, communication systems, and operational processes
that they use to provide daily emergency and nonemergency service
each day and that these systems are robust enough to be prepared
to respond to catastrophic emergencies.
If the jurisdictions 911 system becomes overloaded during a
snowstorm, it is certainly not going to work during a terrorist at-
tack. If the information systems used by local law enforcement can-
not help us catch snipers, even though they are stopped over 11
times in the vicinity of each attack and even though their prints
were lifted at the scene of a robbery-homicide, then we are not
going to be able to catch a terrorist or stop a terrorist attack. If
our radio systems used by first responders do not allow them to
talk to each other at the scene of an accident or at the scene of a
structure fire or during a hurricane, they are not going to work in
response to a terrorist attack.
We need to become much more information driven in our home-
land security efforts. Two years have passed since the attacks of
September 11 and yet the Nation still lacks a comprehensive threat
and vulnerability assessment, one that tells us which locations are
most at risk and from what.
To Congressman Rogers point, it is unclear to me how the urban
area security initiative grant funds can be distributed based on
threat and vulnerability assessments when one has not even been
completed yet. This is a serious deficiency, and it has resulted in
a disjointed domestic homeland security effort, one that has re-
sulted in a lack of consistency from city to city. Without a national
threat and vulnerability assessment, our nations first preventers
and responders are forced to respond to a one-size-fits-all, color-
coded threat and advisory system. They are forced to seek to obtain
Federal funding resources through a system that essentially re-
wards the jurisdiction that hollers the loudest.
If we were doing this correctly, this national threat and vulner-
ability assessment would be guiding all of our operational and tac-
tical planning in the development of training exercises and funding
decisions. But unfortunately, work on this assessment has only just
begun, and although ODP has released some pretty good stand-
ards, recently we have heard from Homeland Security it may take
up to 3 to 5 years to complete this assessment.
We have to be careful that we do not just take a solution where
we say we have to provide more funds. We have to be smarter
about how we provide these funds. We have been told for years
that interoperability can only be achieved if we spend hundreds of
millions of dollars building these huge, statewide radio systems.
But, what we have now learned over the last year is that is not
in fact the case; you can achieve interoperability for a fraction of
that cost.
We need to make sure that dollars are provided to those commu-
nities that are most at risk. That is a valid point that somebody
made earlier. But we also have to recognize that as we mitigate
risks and harden targets, terrorists will seek out softer targets.
And, the targets of today may not be the targets of tomorrow.
45
We also need to be much more sophisticated in understanding

how these groups operate. While a cell may be targeting a major
city, the members of that cell may be most vulnerable to discovery
or arrest while they are engaged in some type of traditional crimi-
nal activity or while they are in the rural community in which they
live. If a major event occurs, no one city will be able to handle the
response to that, as we saw with the Pentagon. The communities
relied upon their neighbors.
So, to separate funding from the regions in which that funding
needs to be allocated doesnt make sense, because what you have
to do is force that region to come together and planto plan from
a detection perspective, to come together and plan from a response
perspective and to plan from a standpoint of inventorying what
types of resources they have and what type of resources they need
should an event occur.
I know there is a lot of debate right now between whether the
funds should go to states or go to localities directly, and that is a
tough issue. But I would offer this piece of information to the mem-
bers as they consider this: if states are going to be given the lead
in disbursing funds to localities, there needs to be some type of
oversight to ensure that county and local leaders are at the table
when these plans are created.
In Massachusetts, before they distributed interoperability fund-
ing, they brought every public sector entity that would need to be
on the system together to develop a strategy. They will be distrib-
uting those funds in a smart, rational manner.
We also need to ensure that statewide strategies are based on
local needs, because when that 911 call goes in, it is not going
to be the state that is going to respond; it is going to be the local
fire department, the local police department, or the county fire and
police departments.
This is not a simple issue, but it doesnt require that we forget
the lessons of the past. There are a lot of innovative people at the
state and local levels out therethey just need to get the resources
to get the job done.
Chairman COX. Thank you for your testimony.
[The statement of Mr. Cohen follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN D. COHEN
Introduction
Good morning Chairman Cox, Ranking Member Turner and other distinguished
members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this criti-
cally important hearing.
The comments and observations I offer today are based on having spent my entire
careerclose to 20 yearsinvolved in law enforcement operations, oversight and
policy development. My views on this issue come from a somewhat unique experi-
ence base that includes service as a:
Special Agent in the Office of Naval Intelligence;
Police officer who regularly worked side by side with federal agents to conduct
investigations of international criminal organizations;
Senior investigator for a Congressional committee that conducted oversight
reviews of our nations intelligence and law enforcement efforts;
Policy advisor to the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy;
and
A homeland security advisor who has helped a number of city and state gov-
ernments assess and improve their ability to detect, prevent and respond to acts
of terrorism. My clients have included: the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
46
the State of Arizona, the City of Detroit, the City of Houston, Transportation
for London, New York City, and the City of Los Angeles.
Background
President Bush has declared that we are a nation at war with terrorists. And, as
you are well aware, since 9/11, the role of federal, state and local governments has
become much more complex and is very much in a state of flux. Today, governments
must identify and integrate homeland security needs and responsibilities into day-
to-day activities. And, although we have come a long way in the 25 months since
the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the view from state and
local officials who serve at the front lines of our domestic war on terrorism is that
we have not come nearly far enough. We still have a long way to go before we are
truly and sufficiently secure in both our liberties and our safety.
We should first learn a lesson from the British and the Israelis, who understand
that terrorism is a daily threat and that an attack could happen any day, anytime
and anywhere. The public needs to be vigilant each day, and state and local govern-
ments need to make detecting, preventing and being prepared to respond to acts of
terrorism a part of everyday business. We also need to become more information-
driven in our homeland security efforts. Over two years have passed since the Sept.
11 attacks, and the nation as a whole still lacks a comprehensive threat and vulner-
ability assessmentone that tells us which locations are most at risk and from
what. This serious deficiency has resulted in a disjointed domestic homeland secu-
rity effortone without consistency in the level of preparedness from city to city.
Without such a threat and vulnerability assessment, our nations first preventers
and responders are forced to respond to a one size fits all color coded threat and
advisory system and seek to obtain federal funding resources through a system that
rewards the jurisdiction that hollers the loudest. In theory, it is this national threat
and vulnerability assessment that should be guiding operational and tactical plan-
ning, the development of training exercises, and all funding decisions. Unfortu-
nately, work on this assessment has only just begun and some Department of Home-
land Security officials are predicting the completion of this coordinated, proactive
and long-term strategy over 3 to 5 years away.
Establish a national threat and vulnerability assessment
There is no question that the lack of a comprehensive national threat and vulner-
ability assessment is a serious deficiency in this nations homeland security efforts.
Federal, state and local governments must make it a top priority to identify and en-
sure the protection of those infrastructures and assets that we deem most critical
in terms of national public health, safety, governance, economic security and public
confidence. Given that we do not have unlimited resources, we must allocate re-
sources based on threat vulnerabilities which requires a comprehensive, national,
state-by-state, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction, business-by-business and market-by-mar-
ket threat assessment and vulnerability analysis of critical infrastructures and as-
sets. It cannot be done in an ad hoc, non-inclusive, reactive or subjective way if it
is to provide immediate, short and long-term success in achieving efficient and effec-
tive national security and homeland defense.
The threat and vulnerability assessment not only serves as a guide for funding
decisions but also directs state and local homeland security priorities and efforts.
Unfortunately, aggressive awareness and prevention efforts cannot provide a 100
percent guarantee that all terrorist attacks will be prevented. Therefore, it must be
a top priority of the national government to be prepared to mitigate the wide range
of potential activity by terrorists (and others) that include, threats, hoaxes, small
scale attacks designed to disrupt services and cause mass casualties. Preparedness
is achieved by using threat and vulnerability information to develop potential inci-
dent scenarios and developing plans to respond to these scenarios; developing the
systems and processes that support the rapid identification of the indicators of
emerging incidents; and training first responders to quickly identify emerging inci-
dents and initiate pre-established mitigation procedures.
Being prepared requires the constant evaluation of sustainable performance in
order to prevent, prepare for and respond to incidents and diligence in seeking grant
funding to support these efforts. Public safety entities must therefore establish a dy-
namic threat and vulnerability identification process that will guide operational
planning and training activities. The monitoring of key threat-related information
will involve blending existing threat and vulnerability assessments with other rel-
evant information/intelligence (such as an inventory of all assets, crime reports, fed-
eral intelligence updates, etc.). The purpose of this effort will be to identify and doc-
ument the baseline threat and to create a process for updating that threat base-
line on a continuing basis. This process will include the identification and collection
of other non-public safety-related information (health, quality of life, litter and de-
47
bris reports, etc.) that may be relevant to determining the vulnerability of the sys-
tem. As a part of these efforts, local governments should establish a prioritized list
of potential targets and potential methodologies of attack; share target lists with
key officials in operations; identify environmental or other conditions that may fa-
cilitate the ability of a terrorist to successfully carry out an attack; establish a proc-
ess for identifying and tracking key pieces of information that represent the indica-
tors of evolving/emerging terrorist-related activity; monitor these indicators as a
part of their daily enforcement efforts; and disseminate key information to those re-
sponsible for geographic enforcement areas.
Allocate resources based on threat and vulnerabilities-provide more flexi-
bility to state and local entities on how funds are used
The current methodology used to allocate homeland security grant funds to state
and local governments is inadequate to meet the needs of those governments. It is
not just about providing more money. We need to become smarter on how we allo-
cate funds ensuring that resources are provided to those jurisdictions or regional en-
tities that face the greatest risk. It makes no sense from a law enforcement perspec-
tive to use population based formulas or other non-data driven techniques to deter-
mine what jurisdictions will get homeland security funding. One of the principle
methods to disburse these funds is to make it contingent on the threat and vulner-
ability risk analysis. Priorities should be given to those jurisdictions that face the
greatest risk because they are the locations of a target which is attractive to a ter-
rorist attack. These funds should also be provided in such a manner to foster re-
gional cooperation because at the end of the day, should a catastrophic event occur,
effective emergency response will require collaboration on a regional basis.
Once funds are allocated, state, county and local governments must have the flexi-
bility to use those funds in a manner which best addresses their specific needs. Cit-
ies and localities have their own unique needs based on their specific threat assess-
ments. Therefore, the provisions that guide the use of federal funds should not be
structured so that they impede the ability of state and local governments to address
the specific threat and vulnerability needs of these localities. The priorities of one
large city may not be the same as those of another large city. Likewise, small states
or rural areas may find that their threat and vulnerability assessments determine
that there should be a greater importance on regional cooperation. And, with cur-
rent information suggesting that in the future terrorists may focus on softer targets
in more rural areas, funding should be fluid and flexible enough to adjust to commu-
nities? updated priorities.
In the future, the federal government also needs to broaden its focus on homeland
security to include the linkages between domestic counter-terrorism and crime con-
trol efforts. We need only to look as far as the involvement of terrorists in tradi-
tional criminal activity to realize that counter terrorism is inherently tied to fight-
ing crime every day and we need to ensure that counter-terrorism and crime control
efforts are interlinked. Therefore, to improve our homeland security, we need to im-
prove existing technology, infrastructure and business processes so that cities and
other localities can not only run more efficiently on a day-to-day basis, but also be
prepared in the event of a terrorist attack.
State and local authorities play a critical role in detecting and preventing such
attacks. In the future, a police officer with the help from a member of the commu-
nity may be the first to identify an impending terrorist threat. For example, the fact
that a terrorist cell is operating in this country may first be uncovered by a local
police officer or a member of the community. Terrorists are dangerous, not because
they say or believe dangerous things, but because their beliefs motivate them to
commit acts of violence targeting people, places and things. These acts of violence
whether motivated by political or religious ideologyare still criminal acts. Also, we
know that terrorists work with crime organizations and often use traditional crimes
such as drug and illegal weapons trafficking, money laundering and bank robbery
to offset costs and further support their objectives. It is inefficient and dangerous
to create barriers to effective information sharing because we choose to define
counter-terrorism as a domestic intelligence issue and crime fighting as a law en-
forcement issue.
For now and the foreseeable future, efforts to detect, prevent and respond to acts
of terrorism will be a part of the day-to-day business of public safety entities. On-
going problems of crime and disorder are not isolated incidents and, over time, they
can escalate into more consequential situations. Public safety efforts in this regard
should be based on the understanding that terrorists often commit traditional
crimes to support their extremist agenda; they often collaborate with individuals in-
volved in traditional criminal activity; the same methods used to effectively ad-
dress crime serve as the foundation for anti and counter-terrorism efforts. Con-
48
sequently, public safety entities must be able to proactively and continuously mon-
itor crime trends and emerging terrorist threats.
We must work to incorporate efforts to detect, prevent and respond to acts of ter-
rorism and other critical incidents into our national crime prevention efforts. Intel-
ligence/information gathering and crime analysis efforts must be expanded to sup-
port police departments serving as the hubs for the collection, analysis, dissemina-
tion and re-evaluation of threat and vulnerability information relevant to preventing
crime. Departments should use this information to proactively develop and deploy
risk mitigation strategies and monitor the implementation of those strategies to en-
sure success.
Establish a risk identification and mitigation process
The federal government must also recognize that risk identification and mitiga-
tion efforts must be flexible and updated on a regular basis. As we expand the na-
tions ability to collect, analyze and update threat-related information, it will be crit-
ical that this information be disseminated. This approach will facilitate the develop-
ment of effective law enforcement prevention and interdiction operations that deter,
pre-empt or disrupt terrorist activities. As specific risk mitigation efforts are
achieved, this information should be factored into system-wide vulnerability assess-
ments so that appropriate re-evaluation of risks can be accomplished. By constantly
updating threat information with reports of suspicious activities and risk mitigation
efforts, intelligence analysts will be able to more accurately assess real threats to
the system.
Create national standards for radio interoperability
There is a greater awareness today among policy makers and operational per-
sonnel of the problems caused by the lack of radio interoperability and the benefits
that could be realized if independent radio systems used by first responders could
be interlinked. The challenge of providing radio system interoperability has less to
do with technology and more to do with identifying and putting in place the proc-
esses, protocols and agreements necessary to support multiple agencies using an in-
tegrated radio system.
Addressing these non technology issues needs to be a part of the pre-design stage
of system implementation. Once a state or region has identified what agencies need
to talk to each other and under what conditions that communication should take
place, the technical design of a system can then be accomplished. The lack of best
practices and defined national standards has complicated the efforts of state and
local governments to acquire and deploy radio interoperability systems. Some states
have begun taking steps to answer these critical questions as a part of the pre-ac-
quisition phase interoperability system deployment. For example, the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts has begun to design and plan a strategy to provide a fully
interoperable, statewide radio/data system. The Commonwealth began by aggres-
sively surveying every public safety entity in the state to catalogue interoperability
issues, identify necessary partners, and facilitate working with those partners.
Initially, many in public safety believed that the only way to achieve radio system
interoperability was through the use of a statewide radio system that allows state
and local agencies to operateif necessaryon the same radio channel. This belief
stemmed from aggressive efforts by a number of radio system providers (the entities
that would benefit from the sale of these types of system) to convince public safety
officials that these types of systems offered the best solution to the problem. Some
have argued that the lack of progress in achieving interoperability can be directly
tied to the efforts of industry to influence the attitudes of federal, state and local
officials on this issue.
Over the past several years, state and local officials have begun to look at solu-
tions other than statewide or regional networks to solve the interoperability prob-
lem. Statewide radio systems are expensive, costing tens and sometimes, hundreds
of millions of dollars. Statewide radio systems also require that state and local agen-
cies operate within the same frequency range, often requiring that their individual
existing systems be upgraded.
Through the efforts of the Public Safety Wireless Network Program (PSWN) and
the National Institute of Justice, attention has focused on a more cost effective and
efficient solution to achieve radio system interoperabilityone that involves the use
of inter-connector or patching technology. The use of inter-connector technology
provides for radio system interoperability at a fraction of the cost of a new statewide
radio system, while allowing individual local jurisdictions the flexibility of maintain-
ing existing radio infrastructures.
A growing number of state and local jurisdictions are providing radio system
interoperability utilizing this inter-connector or patching technology. For example,
the states of Maryland, Colorado and Arizona have begun to network a number of
49
inter-connector devices in fixed locations in an effort to provide permanent radio
system interoperability. Arizona is deploying a patching network that will be capa-
ble of supporting both day-to-day public safety operations and the response to crit-
ical incidents. The state will deploy a number of cross-band radio connector devices
at various locations along the border region. Each of these devices will then be
linked providing contiguous coverage for an area that stretches along the entire bor-
der between Mexico and Arizona. Once installed, the independent radio systems
used by federal, state, county, local and Mexican public safety entities will be inter-
linked and personnel will able to communicate with each other. In support of this
project, the state has established a project management advisory board comprised
of state and local officials from the region that will be chaired by Yuma County.
This board will focus on facilitating communication between US public-safety enti-
ties (police, fire, EMS) with appropriate entities from Mexico through the develop-
ment of appropriate protocols and mutual aid agreements.
Focus on coordinated regional efforts
Efforts to detect, prevent and respond to acts of terrorism require a high degree
of regional cooperation. Like many other state and local governments, in the wake
of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and subsequent anthrax threats, the greater Boston
area began to reevaluate its priorities for existing and planned government pro-
grams. And, the efforts of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)
are a good example of how a single entity can take the lead in coordinating with
other public safety entities within a region.
The MBTA is the nations oldest transit authority. With a service area that in-
cludes 175 communities within the greater Boston area, the MBTA provides bus,
boat and rail service to approximately 600,000 customers each day. The MBTA sys-
tem includes four subway lines, 13 commuter rail lines, five boat routes and 162
bus routes that service approximately 3,244 square miles and the 175 cities and
towns that comprise the MBTAs service area. The system brings together persons
of different socio-economic, racial, age and cultural groups who share the constricted
transit environment. Today, the transit system includes not just subways and buses,
but also commuter rail, commuter boat and para-transit service. The MBTA system
now extends beyond the immediate greater Boston area into such communities as
Worcester, Newburyport, Middleboro, Plymouth and even Providence, Rhode Island.
Crime and other safety issues are addressed through the activities of the MBTA
Transit Police Department and through the Safety Department (a part of MBTAs
Operations Component). Crime and disorder problems on the system are often
linked to crime and disorder issues that originate in the neighborhoods through
which the various components of the transit system travel. Typically, local public
safety entities address neighborhood crime and other public safety issues, even
those that impact the system.
Mass transit systems around the world have long been considered attractive tar-
gets for individuals and groups wanting to commit acts of terrorism. Transporting
large numbers of people within concentrated predictable areas and time frames each
day, these public transportation systems provide the opportunity for a single
attacker (using an explosive device or a firearm) to kill or injure a relatively large
number of people. Additionally, the central purpose of these transit systems is to
move people throughout a large geographic area. Therefore, they offer an effective
dispersal mechanism for biological, chemical or radiological weapons. But, attacks
by terrorists need not be mass casualty events to be catastrophic. A significant dis-
ruption in servicewhether caused by an attack, a hoax or the threat of attack
can seriously impact a regions economy and the publics faith in governments abil-
ity to provide basic protections to its citizens.1
However, while acknowledging that the potential vulnerability of the MBTA is im-
portant, there is only limited value in determining that the entire system is an at-
tractive target for terrorists. The MBTA Transit Police have neither the stamina nor
the resources to post a police officer on every train, every boat, every bus, in every
station and in every building within the system. The challenge for the MBTA Tran-
sit Police is to determine what component(s) of the system are most at risk for at-
tack at any given time and then take steps to mitigate those risks. Therefore, they
have developed a homeland security strategy that includes continually:
Collecting information about individuals and groups of individuals who have
the motivation and the means to carry out an attack upon the system and are
living in, visiting and traveling through the MBTA service area;
1 Protecting Public Surface Transportation Against Terrorism and Serious Crime: Continuing
Research on Best Security Practices, Mineta Transportation Institute, September 2001.
50
Identifying the business processes, personnel behavior and physical character-
istics of the various components of the system infrastructure that could be vul-
nerable to an attack;
Disseminating threat and vulnerability information to relevant operational
staff, law enforcement personnel and the public so that risk mitigation strate-
gies can be rapidly developed and implemented; and
Tracking the progress of these risk mitigation efforts so that senior manage-
ment can support and hold key personnel accountable for the effective imple-
mentation of these efforts.
For now and the foreseeable future, efforts to detect, prevent and respond to acts
of terrorism will be a part of the day-to-day business of the transit police depart-
ment. The transit police department acknowledges the fact that on-going problems
of crime and disorder are not isolated incidents and, over time, they can escalate
into more consequential situations. With a strong emphasis on prevention, regional
issues and conditions are being resolved to prevent future incidents; police time is
being saved; and safety and security on the transit system significantly enhanced.
Conclusion
If we as a nation are truly serious about preventing acts of terrorism, there are
several challenges that must be addressed. The Department of Homeland Security
must work with state and local officials to rapidly draft our national threat and vul-
nerability assessment; base the planning, training and allocation of resources on
threat and vulnerabilities; establish a risk identification and mitigation process;
proactively and continuously monitor crime trends and emerging terrorist threats;
ensure that crime control and anti and counter-terrorism efforts are inter-linked;
create national standards for radio interoperability; and focus on coordinated re-
gional efforts to respond to terrorist acts and critical incidents.
While stopping an attack by a committed terrorist is difficult, a strong emphasis
on prevention, underlying issues and safety can significantly enhance our national
security. We must always keep in mind that the threat of today may not be the
threat of tomorrow. And, any program that is established must be flexible enough
to take into account that the entities receiving money today may not be the highest
priorities tomorrow.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing.
Chairman COX. Mr. Nelson.
STATEMENT OF RAY A. NELSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

OFFICE FOR SECURITY COORDINATION, COMMONWEALTH
OF KENTUCKY
Mr. NELSON. Chairman Cox, Ranking Member Turner, distin-
guished committee members, I, too, would like to personally thank
you, and on behalf of the members of the Commonwealth, for being
here today. In the essence of time, simplicity, and avoiding redun-
dancy, I would like to reiterate a couple of minor points from our
perspective.
We have done some research in Kentucky, and we have found
that not only does the Department of Homeland Security put out
grants that touch our first responders and also the many other
agencies that support them, but there is actually less than 50 per-
cent of those grants coming out of DHS. When you look at DHHS,
DOJ, even Veterans Administration, they are putting out grants
that touch either terrorism, homeland security, or our first re-
sponders.
One of the challenges I have in the State, as the director, is try-
ing to get my hands around these monies, as well to find out what
is going down to our first responders, what programs are in place
coming out of the other departments here in the Federal Govern-
ment to ensure again that we dont have duplication, redundancy
and waste in some of these programs. That has been a major chal-
lenge that we have had.
51
The other point is that the States are mandated to do a state-

wide assessment. We are doing vulnerability assessments, needs
assessments, which will culminate in a comprehensive strategy.
Out of that strategy, we will develop our plans on how we are going
to do that. The means to do that, of course, is the appropriations,
the funding. What we dont have now is the information on our ca-
pabilities and needs. We dont have it refined. We think we have
an answer, but we dont have a good one so that we can develop
these plans. The only way that we are going to be able to do that
from a State perspective is to have these funds come through the
Governors Office for coordination. The problem is there is less than
50 percent of this money that is coming through, so we dont have
visibility on it. I have to read the newspaper or see the morning
news about a new program that is coming to the State. So, we need
to change how we do business there.
The other thing we need to do, of course, and I want to just reit-
erate the point of maintaining baseline capability and capacity.
Tactically speaking, you never want to put all of your eggs in one
basket; you never want to put all of your forces at ground zero. We
have to maintain baseline capacity and capability in a regional
manner to allow us to respond anywhere that the threat may come.
The last thing is we need to really enforce standards, coopera-
tion, and interagency coordination process, from both Federal,
State, and local governments. This will ensure that the information
in all of these programs is integrated, and that it meets the goals
and ideas of the strategy that the States are currently planning.
So with that, I will summarize and thank you very much for the
opportunity to be here today. I look forward to questions later.
Chairman COX. Thank you for your testimony.
[The statement of Mr. Nelson follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAY NELSON
Chairman Cox, Ranking Member Thompson and Distiguished Committee Mem-
bers:
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today and personally
thank you on behalf of the citizens of Commonwealth of Kentucky.
In providing you a state perspective, I hope I am able to aid you in your efforts
to better plan for the use of federal grant programs as we prepare our nation for
threats or acts of terrorism by making our communities safer and provide our citi-
zens with the security they expect and deserve. Thanks to the efforts of Congress,
states and communities have received millions of dollars to ensure that they have
the resources necessary to meet this new threat. These enormous homeland security
efforts have required unprecedented cooperation between disciplines and jurisdic-
tions and the building of partnerships at every level of government. The result has
been the recognition of the complexities of the interagency coordination process. The
increased requirements for interagency coordination are paramount as we work to-
gether in preparing for acts of terrorism. On that note, I would like to provide you
with some issues that states and local governments are dealing with as we receive
and distribute federal grants.
I would like to start by addressing the scope of homeland security related grant
programs. The grant programs coming out of DHS are not the only Homeland secu-
rity related grants that are being directed to our emergency responders, community
leaders, state agencies, and the many supporting agencies that would be involved
in any crisis. In working with GAO, we have identified over 92 federal grants that
have an impact on homeland security. Of those, over 50 perecent (47) come from
federal agencies outside DHS. Most of these grant programs have been in existence
for some time, but their focus remains on our emergency responders and our ability
to protect our communities and respond to a crisis. The grants coming from the
other federal agencies are programs requiring direct application with direct funding
52
(stovepipe) to the agency applying for the grant. This process circumvents the inter-
agency coordination process.
My second point is the requirement for each state to develop an integrated Home-
land Security Strategy. We are all currently involved in conducting statewide
threat, vulnerability and needs assessments; that will result in a comprehensive
state strategy. We must ensure that we can deter, deny, detect, delay and defeat
any would be terrorist; and then of course, be able to respond and recover from a
successful attack should one occur. Our strategy will undoubtedly focus on a re-
gional approach, to ensure that we maintain, and sustain, a base-capability and ca-
pacity statewide, as well as maintaining our focus on population centers, critical in-
frastructure and the actual threat. As you can see, this approach cannot be accom-
plished working in a vacuum or through a stovepipe funding process.
My third point today is to remember that development of a strategy and capabili-
ties is only the beginningsustainment of these efforts will be the challenge. States
need to have assurances of baseline federal funding that will fund these initiatives
for the long term. With limited shelf-life of equipment, improvements in technology
and training upgrades, states will need consistent and predictable funding.
This brings me to the focal point of my comments here today. We must develop,
and enforce, a federal, state and local government interagency coordination process
as it relates to federal homeland security grant programs. To effectively orchestrate
a federal, state or local jurisdiction homeland security strategy, requires that all af-
fected agencies coordinate to maximize the efforts and effects of current federal
grant programs. The outcome of our efforts will depend upon the states ability to
build comprehensive and integrated plans at the state and local level. We can no
longer afford to allow organizations to operate as autonomous entities and plan in
a vacuum. As an example, the interoperability problems we face today are a direct
result of a lack of interagency coordination.
As states, we recognize our role and responsibility and are moving rapidly to en-
sure we take the steps necessary to develop and sustain our capabilities. As a na-
tion, we can only be secure when every community in every county in every state
is secure. Therefore, if our states, in particular our governors, are to be held respon-
sible and accountable for the safety and security of our citizens, all federal grant
programs that affect our emergency responders, or the multitude of agencies sup-
porting their efforts, must be coordinated through the governors office.
As the states homeland security coordinator, I frequently discover additional
homeland security grant programs coming from federal agencies; whether it is for
school terrorism planning, agri-terrorism, inter-city bus security programs or eco-
terrorism; by reading the local newspaper. This is not the most effective way of
doing business. Having said this, I must complement the Department of Homeland
Security in their efforts to coordinate all federal grant programs coming from the
new department. However, there are numerous other federal agencies that have not
embraced the necessity for interagency coordination at the federal, state and local
levels.
My final point is that to ensure the effective use of taxpayers dollars, we must
measure effectiveness, efficiencies, performance and compliance, in the expenditure
of these funds. Without mandated coordination, performance and compliance meas-
ures, we will be no better off five years from now, than we were on 10 September
2001.
In the words of professor Albert Einstein, Todays problems cannot be solved with
yesterdays thinking.
This is no longer business as usual. We must coordinate all Homeland Security
related Grant Programs throughout the federal government to allow a fully coordi-
nated implementation by the States, counties and cities. There is only one strategy
and all initiatives should support this statewide strategy.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that each and every day our communities be-
come more secure and our first responders better prepared. Achieving our goal to
make our homeland secure will take time. This is a team effort and states are com-
mitted to being a team player. We need the resources to meet this challenge, but
please dont tie our hands. Give us the flexibility and tools help us do our job better.
I appreciate this opportunity and will be glad to answer any questions you may
have.
53
54
55
56
Chairman COX. Lieutenant Colonel Behunin.

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL SCOTT BEHUNIN,
DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICE AND HOMELAND SECU-
RITY, STATE OF UTAH
Lieutenant Colonel Behunin. Thanks, Chairman Cox and Rank-
ing Member Turner, for allowing me to speak today on behalf of
NEMA, the National Emergency Management Association.
NEMA represents the 50 State directors who answer to the Gov-
ernor on issues like emergency preparedness, homeland security,
mitigation, response, and recovery activities for natural, man-
made, and caused disasters.
We appreciate the attention and funding that Congress has given
to ensure first responders and emergency management is ade-
quately prepared for threats to our Nations homeland security.
Our emergency responders are better prepared today to face the
various threats associated with terrorism because of the Federal
commitment to address the war on terrorism. This is being played
out in our cities and towns and our States. States continue to take
an all-hazards approach to disaster preparedness, as we have inte-
grated our domestic preparedness efforts into proven systems that
are already being used and dealt with on man-made and natural
disasters.
The most critical issue for NEMA is the opportunity to build and
sustain a national emergency infrastructure that addresses the
needs of the entire emergency community without taking away pro-
grams that are the basic building blocks of these systems. We must
seek to build baseline capabilities in each State that are adequately
funded through reliable and predictable multiyear funding.
NEMA continues to support Federal efforts to increase emer-
gency management capacity-building at the State and local level
for personnel, planning, training, equipment, interoperable commu-
nication, coordination, and exercises. Building each States home-
land security capacity allows for a national system that is resilient
enough to deal with ever-changing threats. Our national system
must also have resources in place to maintain and sustain a system
as equipment changes, technology changes, and new training meth-
ods become available. A significant Federal commitment must be
made to give State and local governments the tools to ensure ade-
quate preparedness in every jurisdiction.
All efforts to increase emergency management capacity-building
must be coordinated through the States to ensure harmonization
with the State emergency operations plan and ensure equitable dis-
tribution of resources and to synthesize resources at intraand
interstate mutual aid. The Stafford Act, which governs the way dis-
aster assistance is allocated, successfully uses States and Gov-
ernors as the managers of Federal disaster relief funds for local
governments which can be overwhelmed in the need of assistance
when a disaster occurs.
While many States are implementing programs to assist in re-
gional coordination for homeland security, it is critical that Federal
requirements for regional efforts are coordinated with the State
homeland security plans. Otherwise we end up with a patchwork
quilt of preparedness activities that are not systematically address-
57
ing holistic needs identified in a comprehensive plan. While NEMA

supports incentives for regional initiatives, regional efforts must be
coordinated with an accountable authority such as the Governor.
States understand the need to get funds out quickly to first re-
sponders and have long coordinated, statewide and regionally, to
ensure adequate State assistance to local governments for emer-
gency preparedness and response. States continue to work to en-
sure the grants get out as quickly as possible to all localities.
New requirements included in the 2003 and 2004 appropriations
bill mean that we have less time to get out significant amounts of
funds to local governments, but States are managing the process
and meeting deadlines put in place by Congress. While we strive
to ensure the influx of funding gets to local governments swiftly,
we also want to make sure that we are deliberative about the ways
the grants are used in order to meet the goals of homeland security
plans.
Currently, States are doing assessments as directed by ODP.
This process helps to identify gaps, shortfalls, priorities for ad-
dressing homeland security in each State. Federal funding should
be flexible enough to allow for the State homeland security grant
to address the unique needs identified by these strategic plans.
Statewide strategic planning ensures a basic preparedness re-
sponse capability throughout the State.
Of critical importance to the State homeland security grant
comes down to some key issues that have not been mentioned yet
today, and that is being able to fund training for these personnel
to attend training and exercise and to cover overtime and the back-
fill in overtime. I would also like to see the streamlining of the
grant application and not so much oversight by the administrating
agency.
As far as the standard, we believe there should be standards es-
tablished. There are standards, a current standardization program
with the Emergency Management Accreditation Program, or
EMAP, and that process is going on now to measure up the capa-
bilities of State emergency management jurisdictions around the
country.
In conclusion, as we work to fully implement our new Federal
Department of Homeland Security and revise the State homeland
security grant program, we must not forget about the all-hazards
approach to emergency management and the role it plays in pre-
venting our Nation from losing focus on the daily perils that we
face in addition to the new threats. We must be prudent and
thoughtful in addressing homeland security enhancements in our
preparedness and not waste the opportunities we have before us
today. Only through a partnership of Federal, State, and local gov-
ernment, along with the citizens and businesses, can our country
prepare and respond to all emergencies and all disasters.
Thank you.
[The statement of Lieutenant Colonel Behunin follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL SCOTT BEHUNIN
Introduction
Thank you Chairman Cox, Ranking Member Turner, and distinguished members
of the Committee for allowing me the opportunity to provide you with testimony on
the state homeland security grant program. I am Scott Behunin, Vice-Chair of the
58
National Emergency Management Association Homeland Security Committee and
Director of Utah Division of Emergency Services and Homeland Security. In my
statement, I am representing the National Emergency Management Association
(NEMA), who are the state emergency management directors in the 50 states and
the U.S. territories. NEMAs members are responsible to their governors for emer-
gency preparedness, homeland security, mitigation, response, and recovery activities
for natural, man-made, and terrorist caused disasters.
We appreciate the attention and funding that the Congress has given to ensuring
first responders and emergency management is adequately prepared for threats to
our nations homeland security. Our emergency responders are better prepared
today to face the various threats associated with terrorism because of the federal
commitment to address the war on terrorism that is being played out in our states,
cities, and towns. States continue to take an all-hazards approach to disaster pre-
paredness as we have integrated our domestic preparedness efforts into the proven
systems we already use for dealing with both man-made and natural disasters.
We recognize the efforts that Chairman Cox and Ranking Member Turner and the
members of the Select Committee have made to simplify homeland security grants
and appreciate the opportunity to provide input in the process of crafting a com-
promise bill that will make the state homeland security grant program stronger and
more flexible. We salute the foresight of Congress in creating this Committee when
forming the Department of Homeland Security, while maintaining individual pro-
gram authorities for the 22 agencies included in the Department in the traditional
Committees. The Select Committee is a step in the right direction to address the
immediate threat of terrorism and for building preparedness for the national emer-
gency system.
NATIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING
The most critical issue for NEMA is the great opportunity that we have before
us to build and sustain a national emergency infrastructure that addresses the
needs of the entire emergency community (for example, fire, law enforcement, emer-
gency medical services, emergency management, public health, and emergency com-
munications) without taking away programs that are the basic building blocks of
these components. We must seek to build baseline capabilities in each state that are
adequately funded through reliable and predictable multi-year funding. NEMA con-
tinues to support federal efforts to increase emergency management capacity build-
ing at the state, territory, and local level for personnel, planning, training, equip-
ment, interoperable communications, coordination, and exercises. Building each
states homeland security capacity allows for a national system that is resilient
enough to deal with ever-changing threats. Our national system must also have re-
sources in place to maintain and sustain the system as equipment changes, tech-
nology changes, and new training methods become available.
In order to build this capacity, we must not take funding from the traditional pro-
gram accounts that ensure our all-hazards preparedness. This includes programs
like the Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG), the COPS program,
and the Fire Grants. A significant federal commitment must be made to give state,
territorial, and local governments the tools to ensure adequate preparedness. While
states have significantly increased their commitment to emergency management
over the last decade, states are struggling with budgetary issues and the increased
investments necessary to meet new demands. The threat of terrorism is a national
security issue that must be addressed with federal dollars and federal coordination.
State Coordination
All efforts to increase emergency management capacity building must be coordi-
nated through the states to ensure harmonization with the state emergency oper-
ations plan, ensure equitable distribution of resources, and to synthesize resources
for intra-state and inter-state mutual aid. The Stafford Act, which governs the way
disaster assistance is allocated, successfully uses states and Governors as the man-
agers of federal disaster relief funds for local governments, which can become over-
whelmed and in need of assistance when disasters occur. While many states are im-
plementing programs to assist in regional coordination for homeland security, it is
critical that federal requirements for regional efforts are coordinated within the
state homeland security plans. Otherwise, we end up with a patchwork quilt of pre-
paredness activities that are not systematically addressing holistic needs identified
in comprehensive plans. While NEMA supports incentives for regional initiatives,
regions must be coordinated with an accountable authority such as the Governor.
States understand the need to get funding quickly to the first responders and
have long coordinated statewide and regionally to ensure adequate state assistance
to local governments for emergency preparedness and response. There has been
some discussion of the states? effectiveness to coordinate these programs; our data
59
shows that the criticism is exaggerated. States continue to work to ensure the
grants get out as quickly as possible to the localities. New requirements including
in the 2003 appropriations bill and the 2004 appropriations bill mean that we have
less time to get significant amounts of funds out to local governments, but states
are managing the process and meeting the deadlines put in place by Congress.
While we strive to ensure the influx of funding gets to local governments swiftly,
we also want to ensure that we are deliberative about the way the grants are used
in order to meet the goals of our state homeland security plans.
Currently, states are working with local governments to complete state homeland
security assessments with ODP. This process helps to identify gaps, shortfalls and
priorities for addressing homeland security in each state. Federal funding should be
flexible enough to allow for the state homeland security grant to address the unique
needs identified in these strategic plans. Statewide strategic planning ensures a
basic preparedness and response capability throughout each state in a coordinated
approach.
REFORM FOR THE CURRENT PROGRAM
Critically important to the state homeland security grant program is allowing
funds for emergency responders to be used to pay for training and exercises. Addi-
tionally security costs for critical infrastructure and key assets, as well as hardening
defenses and security to these potential targets, must be recognized in times of
heightened alert associated with specific threats. Flexibility is needed to cover the
overtime costs associated with training and exercising. In order to send a first re-
sponder to train on equipment, states and localities must pay overtime for that per-
sons time, but also overtime for the person who takes their shift to replace them
on duty.
We suggest that the Department of Homeland Security provide quarterly reports
on the status of federal funds for state and local governments in detail to Congress
and share those reports with key state and local government associations and first
responder associations. We believe this would provide the opportunity for all inter-
ested parties to see the same data regarding homeland security grants as well to
see where assistance is needed in getting grant funding distributed and most impor-
tantly, it would provide an ability to track our progress in protecting our commu-
nities from terrorism.
Federal streamlining is necessary to consolidate the federal grant application
process for homeland security funds in order to ensure that funding can be provided
faster to first responders. NEMA has been supportive of initiatives to eliminate du-
plication such as multiple planning requirements and efforts to allow for waivers
on the uses of grant funds so grants may be best tailored for state and local needs.
The current application submission, review, and approval process is lengthy and
should be reviewed for efficiency. In particular, extra steps for federal approval are
involved once a community and state identify equipment that they would like to
purchase with grant funds. Allowing greater autonomy in the process would allow
states to better meet unique needs in their communities and expedite funding to
local communities.
Fiscal Conditions and Match Requirements
Further, because the war on terrorism is a national emergency and states and
local governments are in the toughest fiscal situation since the deep recession in the
early 1980s, we must be wary of programs that would require significant matches.
In fact, for local governments to meet the match would be even more difficult given
their fiscal constraints. If a significant match is required, the application of this ini-
tiative will only go to those agencies and governments that can fiscally afford the
match and not necessarily where the need is greatest. If a match is necessary, we
would suggest that the match be non-fiscal or in the form of a deliverable as op-
posed to soft or hard dollars. We support the idea of suspending the match require-
ment in the early years of the program.
Standards
A national performance standard should be developed so state and local govern-
ments know specifically what is recommended for preparedness. The Department of
Homeland Security should take into account the size of a jurisdiction when consid-
ering preparedness guidelines, knowing that there are not enough resources to go
around. Having a definition of a robust homeland security and emergency manage-
ment program will help state and local governments prioritize areas in need of fund-
ing.
Standards must be developed to ensure interoperability of equipment, communica-
tions, and training across state, regional, and local jurisdictions. In terms of estab-
lishing voluntary minimum standards for the terrorism preparedness programs of
60
state and local governments, NEMA offers itself as a resource in this area. Our or-
ganization, along with other stakeholder groups such as the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, the International Association of Emergency Managers, Na-
tional Governors? Association, National Association of Counties, International Asso-
ciation of Fire Chiefs, and others, has developed and is implementing an Emergency
Management Accreditation Program (EMAP). EMAP is a voluntary standards and
accreditation program for state and local emergency management that is based on
NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) 1600 Standard for Disaster/Emer-
gency Management and Business Continuity Operations (an ANSI or American Na-
tional Standards Institute approved standard) and FEMAs Capability Assessment
of Readiness (CAR). Consequence management preparedness, response and recovery
standards are being developed in conjunction with those for the traditional emer-
gency management functions. NEMA suggests that these standards already being
collaboratively developed through EMAP be considered in the development of min-
imum standards for training, exercises and equipment. Additionally, EMAP accept-
ance would provide the natural mechanism for federal and state agencies to meet
the requirements of the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA). EMAP, in
partnership with FEMA and the Department is conducting baseline assessments of
all states, some of which wish to pursue accreditation in conjunction with this initial
assessment. Last month, the EMAP program accredited the emergency management
program of the State of Florida and the District of Columbia.
Other Needs
As you consider legislation, we ask that you consider other specific needs to: im-
prove information and intelligence sharing between federal, state and local govern-
ments; upgrade emergency operations centers; assess, plan, and provide interoper-
able communications equipment and solutions; address the lack of public safety
spectrum and radio frequency; provide mutual aid planning assistance; and provide
effective warning systems for all citizens.
NEMA is taking the initiative to develop solutions to some of the issues and con-
cerns of state government related to homeland security with strategic partnerships.
On April 1, 2003, NEMA, along with the Adjutants General Association of the
United States and Mitretek Systems launched a Center for State Homeland Secu-
rity. The Center will provide assistance for states in implementing their homeland
security missions by facilitating access to the best available tools, information and
facilities. The Center will provide direct support to states in key areas where assist-
ance is needed including engineering, analysis, program planning, management, and
procurement, in addition to identifying best practices. This project will help states
navigate the vast web of information on homeland security and provide a framework
for benchmarks to assist with spending accountability.
CONCLUSION
As we work to fully implement a new federal Department of Homeland Security
and revise the state homeland security grant program, we must not forget about the
all-hazards approach to emergency management and the role it plays in preventing
our nation from losing focus on the daily perils that we face in addition to new
threats. We must be prudent and thoughtful in addressing the homeland security
enhancements to our preparedness and not waste the opportunities we have before
us today. Only through a partnership of federal, state, local government, along with
our citizens and businesses, can our country prepare and respond to ALL emer-
gencies and disasters. Thank you for your consideration.
Chairman COX. I thank each of you gentleman for your excellent
testimony and for your willingness to help us here today.
Let me begin, Mr. Cohen, with you. You have testified that intel-
ligence and information-gathering and crime analysis efforts must
be expanded to support police departments serving as the hubs for
collection, analysis, dissemination, and reevaluation of threat and
vulnerability information. And you are suggesting that we more
closely integrate the two tasks of terrorism prevention/response on
the one hand, and crime prevention and control on the other hand.
I wonder if you are familiar with the existing provisions of Fed-
eral law enacted in the mid-1990s and signed by President Clinton
that authorized State and local law enforcement to be deputized by
the Federal Government to enforce immigration law. Is that an
area where we can be doing more?
61
Mr. COHEN. I think you hit on an area where there needs to be

more advances made in how we are responding to this problem.
Yesterday I attended a meeting and, Mr. Chairman, just by way of
background, I was both a special agent in the Office of Naval Intel-
ligence, and I was a police officer that was assigned to Federal task
forces, so I have spent a good chunk of my career working both on
the Federal side and the local side, working right on the streets.
I dont think we have done a very good job yet as a country linking
together the resources at the local law enforcement level with those
at the Federal level. And, there is a reason for that. I think we are
operating on two different sort of philosophical mindsets. On the
Federal law enforcement side, at least with some agencies, we still
tend to view homeland security as an intelligence or
counterterrorism as an intelligence-type of issue in which we have
to keep information close to the chest, and we have to be very se-
lective in what we provide other law enforcement, whether they are
local police, state police, or even some other Federal agencies. On
the local side, the approach is bringing as much information as you
can from as many different sources, blend it together and then de-
velop a preventive approach to stopping that entity or that person
from doing something violent.
Right now, I would like to see a better job done. The law enforce-
ment people who I am working with blend intelligence information
with law enforcement information. Now, whether that information
comes from an immigration investigation; whether that information
comes from a drug dealing or a drug trafficking investigation; or
whether that information comes from an intelligence source; the
key is that we have to blend those law enforcement and informa-
tion-sharing activities together.
Chairman COX. As we blend, we recognize that fighting terrorism
and fighting crime are complementary functions. We are being
asked at the same time or at least, Mr. Behunin, in your testimony
you have suggested this, and I think we have had this suggestion
from other first responder groupswe are being asked to get rid
of matching requirements. If you get rid of a matching require-
ment, you have made something entirely a Federal responsibility
and not a State or local responsibility.
How do we conform those two approaches? If at once we are sup-
posed to be recognizing that these are complementary functions
and melding fighting terrorism with fighting crime and, on the
other hand, we are supposed to have it be purely federally funded,
how can we accomplish one at the same time as the other?
Shouldnt we maintain some local interest in how these funds are
spent? In particular, as we are considering making regional grants
to units beneath the State level, dont we lose the opportunity for
the United States Congress and even for the executive branch of
government to conduct proper oversight? Dont we need the States
and our regional governments to do some oversight and have a fi-
nancial stake?
Lieutenant Colonel BEHUNIN. Well, in a perfect world, yes, I
think that is appropriate. Our office runs through, for example, the
CSEP program; it falls under our responsibility and other Federal
grants that are matched. I guess the best example in this par-
ticular time it makes it very difficultis the money that is out
62
there now is the only reason there is a game in town. That is the
only reason they get together, because what I am hearing from
local jurisdictions is I have enough on my plate right now, I cannot
stand to have any other burden. We all know the States are at in-
creased burden and cannot meet those matches.
We just recently had a round of emergency operation center
grants that were 7525. And when you look at the distribution of
funds, those that had the money were able to match and get the
largest cut. I received one of those grants, but I was able to match
the minimum and received a pittance compared to what they re-
ceived. The money is not there to match. Now, if you want to
match in personnel and in other areas, you can do that to some de-
gree, but right now the money is not there. I would like to see more
State involvement. The bottom line is the money is not there.
Chairman COX. Mr. Nelson, you have tried to direct our attention
to having government at all levels cooperate. And, of course, the
name of the game in homeland security is sharing and cooperation
in ways that we have not before. We are trying to break down the
barriers between law enforcement and intelligence, between Wash-
ington and the States and localities.
In addition to the structures that are already in place, do you
have in mind anything specific that we should be generating?
Mr. NELSON. As thesefor example, the grants, if we could get
the grants to come through the Governors office, we could coordi-
nate those with the States strategic plan. That would be the first
step with that; because then with the guidance that would come
out of Congress on how to expend those funds, the Governor could
put on additional guidelines, perhaps, on focus areas within the
State, not telling the mayors or the Governors how to do their job,
but to emphasize with them what the focus is, what the current
priorities might be, that we can then execute and take advantage
of the monies that are coming. That is basically what we really
need more than anything else.
Chairman COX. Mr. Turner.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure how much oppor-
tunity the witnesses have had to look at the legislation before our
committees. We have two pieces of legislation, one sponsored by the
Chairman, one by me and other members on the Democratic side.
When we look at trying to improve how we fund homeland secu-
ritywhich is our mutual objective here, because we feel that in
many ways the funding has been haphazardit hasnt been fo-
cused. One of the things that I have envisioned is trying to estab-
lish a process where we can determine the essential capabilities
that our States and our locales need, and I will ask each of you to
briefly respond to this.
Do you perceive that as a need, to establish some standard that
we are trying to target so that we can measure our progress in pre-
paring all of our communities to meet the essential capabilities
that you need to respond and, as I think you said, Colonel, not just
to terrorism but to all hazards? Do you think that would be an im-
portant contribution that we could make?
Lieutenant Colonel BEHUNIN. Yes. We are trying to find that in
our State, the State of Utah at this point. We have six counties
that have an all-hazards capability response. I mean the bomb
63
team, HAZMAT, and all that kind of stuff. We have 23 counties

that have little or nothing, we are trying to bring up to a basic
level of expected response capability or, as you define it, as essen-
tial. I think that is certainly easier in our State than it is for the
Nation. How many decon units per thousand do we need, what
kind of communications systems do we need, what kind of training
and so forth? How do you measure that? I think that is yet to be
determined.
But I think it makes sense, because at some point the money is
going to dry up and there is going to have to be a balance where
real life is. And if we meet the minimum, so be it, and if we are
a high-threat city, maybe that notches us a little higher and so
forth and so on, based on threat. But I think that is a smart move;
yet to define is a tough job.
Mr. NELSON. I agree that we need to identify a baseline so that
we always have a measuring point. In a sense, I think we have al-
ready established that point. We know what resources we have
used to conduct crime prevention. The public health sector knows
what we have had to do over the past 20, 50 years to keep in check
these diseases. Fire service knows what we need to have to support
the community.
Now, have we fully funded those to support those basic needs?
Probably not. But I think that may be the baseline to support our
communities.
Then, as we get into the terrorism and counterterrorism arena,
those are all kinds of add-ons. One of the things I try to emphasize
with our mayors, judge executives, and the corporate leaders is
that there are some things that we need to do permanently to pro-
tect ourselves, whether it is physical security, operational security,
or whatever. But there is this surge capacity we must have and
build so we can move resources around the State, around the city,
wherever, based on that threat. Because the threat will change.
The more we harden a facility and reduce our vulnerabilities, the
terrorists are going to look for some other way to hit us, either
through a vulnerability that we havent detected, or they are going
to go to a different target. So we have to do some things perma-
nently, long term, and then again, we have to establish a surge ca-
pacity.
So baseline is protection of us today on all of those things we
have been doing for the last 200 years.
Mr. COHEN. I think you bring up an excellent point. I think there
is a lot of confusion out there still, over 2 years since September
11, on what we actually mean by homeland security. Depending on
which jurisdiction you are in at any given time, that definition may
be different. Localities right now are creating their own definitions
and standards, and that makes it very complex when they are look-
ing to draw resources down from the Federal Government.
Interoperability is a perfect example. Secretary Ridge, I think a
week ago in Detroit when he was at the Homeland Security Advi-
sory Council, said that they have started a new project which I
think he calls the lexicon program. The Department is going to ac-
tually define words that are commonly used throughout homeland
security, because depending on where you go throughout the coun-
try, interoperability can mean something different. In some cases,
64
it is something that you only need in the event of a catastrophic

incident. In other jurisdictions, it is something that you need to
have every single day.
So I think a very important step, if we are going to get a handle
on this funding issue and making sure we are putting the dollars
where they can do the best, is we all have to be operating off of
a common philosophy, common terminology, and common stand-
ards.
Chairman COX. I thank our witnesses for appearing today.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have not had a chance to ask
questions.
Chairman COX. Well, there is a vote on the floor right now.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I have voted already, and I will be willing to
continue questioning while the Chairman goes to vote.
Chairman COX. The gentlewoman will be able to submit her
questions for the record, but we are going to have to excuse the
panel. They have been with us since 10:30 this morning.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I would like to pose some questions at this
point and make some comments on the record. I think it is more
than appropriate.
Chairman COX. We will leave the record open for questions and
comments. The gentlewoman.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Well, can I make a comment on the record,
please?
Chairman COX. Please be brief, in 30 seconds or less.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. First of all, let me say that I think this is the
most important hearing that we have had probably in the whole
session of homeland security, because it goes back to the crucial
point of first responders. And what I hear you saying, Mr. Nelson,
is that more funding, as I glean from your testimony, is necessary
and needed for homeland security. I will be asking that question
as well as being able to provide monies directly to the first re-
sponders. I have concern that there are too many layered processes
before the first responders, like firefighters and police persons, can
get monies to the community. If you can just answer that one ques-
tion, and I will submit the rest of my questions for the record, be-
cause as I said, this is a very important hearing.
Chairman COX. I appreciate the gentlewoman putting her ques-
tions on the record. The witnesses are excused. The hearing is ad-
journed.
[Whereupon, at 1:45 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
PREPARED STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER RAYMOND W. KELLY

Chairman Cox, Congressman Turner and Members of the Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to discuss with you what New York City has done and is doing
in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 and to the continuing terrorist
threat, especially as it concerns New York City.
There is no question that the terrorist threat to New York City is serious and on-
going. As recently as February of this of this year, a tough, seasoned Al Qaèda oper-
ative named Iyman Faris was in New York City on a mission to destroy the Brook-
lyn Bridge. This is the same man who fought alongside Osama Bin Laden, who en-
gaged in a battle which included the wholesale slaughter of Russian prisoners, and
who helped supply Al Qaèda fighters more recently with sleeping bags, airline tick-
ets, cash and cell phones. Nearly two years after the destruction of the World Trade
Center, Iyman Faris was in New York City. He stayed in a hotel near Newark air-
port. He rented a car there and drove into Manhattan. He ate at a Pakistani res-
taurant a few blocks from City Hall. And after conducting surveillance of the Brook-
lyn Bridge, Faris reported back to his handlers that, the weather is too hot; mean-
ing security was too tight for the plot to succeed. I want to stress, again, that an
experienced Al Qaèda operative, linked directly to Bin Laden, was in Manhattan
plotting to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge just eight months ago.
We know how Al Qaèda thinks: If at first you dont succeed, try, try again. They
viewed the first attack on the World Trade Center as a failure. So they came back.
New York City has been the target of six separate plotsthat we know ofby Is-
lamic terrorists in the last decade alone. There was the first bombing of the World
Trade Center in 1993, followed by the plot to simultaneously attack the Lincoln and
Holland Tunnels, the George Washington Bridge, the United Nations, and 26 Fed-
eral Plazathe Federal office complex in lower Manhattan. Fortunately that plot
was uncovered, as was another plot in 1997 to attack the New York City subway
system. This was followed, of course, by the horrendous destruction of the World
Trade Center in 2001. Two more plots against New York City, one involving the
Garment District, and the one to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge were underway this
year when they too were uncovered.
The highly visible security that the New York City Police Department had in
place on the Brooklyn Bridge, in addition to the unseen protection, appeared to pay
off in the Faris case. The added coverage we have been providing at sensitive loca-
tions like the Brooklyn Bridge is just the tip of the iceberg in a comprehensive
counter-terrorism strategy. At the beginning of 2002, we created a new Counter Ter-
rorism Bureau. We assigned over 250 officers to it. About half of them were posted
to the Joint Terrorist Task Force with the FBI. On September 11th of 2001 we had
17 detectives assigned to the Task Force. Now 121 are assigned there.
When all is said and done, we have about a thousand police officers directly in-
volved in protecting the city against another terrorist attack. We also dramatically
expanded the role of our Intelligence Division. We are conducting around-the-clock
threat assessments, and integrating this real-time information into daily decisions
about where to place resources and personnel. We appointed outstanding individuals
from outside the Department to lead our intelligence and counter-terrorism func-
tions. They have decades of CIA, counter terrorism and national security experience.
We built a new counter terrorism center from scratch and staffed it with police
officers who speak Farsi, Urdu, Arabic, and Pashto. We have sent New York City
detectives with the FBI to Guantanamo, Cuba and to Afghanistan to interrogate ter-
rorist suspects there. We have also sent our detectives to other international cap-
itals to work directly with their counterparts in tracking down any threats to New
York.
(65)
66
At home, we are engaged in extensive training, and we are conducting drills on
a daily basis. Our Hercules teams, comprised of specially trained officers, with
heavy weapons, appear unannounced at sensitive locations. They are there to re-
spond to a terrorist incident and to disrupt the kind of surveillance we know Al
Qaèda engages in. We also regularly conduct something we call Sampson drills, in-
volving teams of up to 100 officers at a time, including snipers, who can be dis-
patched quickly to any given location in the city.
Our detectives meet with suppliers of explosives, laboratory equipment, scuba
gear, specialized rental equipment. . . just about anything that a terrorist may
want to acquire in advance of an attack. The Police Department has also held brief-
ing sessions for various segments of the public who may come in contact with ter-
rorist plotters. For example, we briefed real estate agents on exactly what Al Qaèda
tells its operatives to look for in renting an apartment.
Last March, with the commencement of the war in Iraq, we launched a height-
ened security program called Operation Atlas to protect New York City from pos-
sible reprisal. Given the ongoing terrorist threat, Operation Atlas remains in place
today. It brings together all of the core elements of the Police Department; Patrol,
specialized units, Counter Terrorism, and our Intelligence Division, in a coordinated
defense of New York City. Checkpoints are established periodically at key locations
into and out of Manhattan. COBRA teams, which specialize in biological and radio-
logical response, have been deployed throughout the city. We have increased protec-
tion of commuter ferries. Archangel teams, composed of emergency services per-
sonnel, bomb experts and investigators, have been staged across the city. Hammer
teams, the police and fire department experts in hazardous materials, have been de-
ployed jointly. We are also having teams of officers board subway trains, and search
them car-by-car for anything suspicious. We want to discourage or even intercept
a terrorist attack in the subway system. We have put a medical team together to
help us train and protect police officers who might face biological or other unconven-
tional weapons.
The short version is this: We are doing a lot, and it is costing us a lot; something
on the order of $200 million a year in operational expenses for counter terrorism
in the Police Department alone. The police department has also identified $261 mil-
lion in training needs, equipment and supplies directly related to counter terrorism.
We asked the Federal government for $261 million. Weve received a little less than
$60 million. And that $261 million does not include requests from other NYC de-
partments. Only recently has financial help from the Federal government begun to
arrive. We are grateful for the help, but it does not come anywhere near the needs
that we have. Part of our challenge is, of course, the fiscal restraints under which
we all must operate. You may not be able to do anything about those. But you can
correct the system that sends more than 80 percent of the Federal assistance to first
responders across the country in a manner that is blind to the threats this country
faces, blind to the vulnerable infrastructure that exists in different places, and blind
to the consequences of an attack.
The City of New Yorks initial estimate of its counter terrorism needs for all agen-
cies was $900 million. I have attached a summary of that estimate to my testimony
and would like to submit a more detailed description for the record. To date, the
City has been awarded about $84 million in assistance from the Federal government
for homeland security. It began arriving in August of this year. We expect that an
additional $75 million will be approved from fiscal 2003 funds. I want to thank all
those who helped create and who funded the High Threat Urban Area program but,
as you can see, far and away, the people and City of New York are bearing the cost
of defending the homeland in New York. This is despite New York being the number
one target and that the consequences of an attack there could have national and
worldwide repercussions.
Of the total of approximately $160 million in Federal assistance for New York
City, eighty percent of those funds have come from the High Threat Urban Area
program, even though that program accounts for only about twenty percent nation-
ally of the federal assistance for first responders. The High Threat Urban Area pro-
gram attempts to compensate for the failure of the other programs to address the
countrys counter-terrorism needs. Unfortunately, it does not succeed in correcting
the lack of any consideration for threat in the other programs.
In fiscal 2003, the Federal government provided a total of $3.45 billion for first
responders through the Department of Homeland Security in three major programs:
$1.9 billion in homeland security formula grants to states, $750 million in Fire-
fighter Assistance Grants, and $800 million for high threat urban areas. Only the
last program for High Threat Urban Areaswhich was only 23 percent of the
totaltakes into account terrorist threat, vulnerabilities and consequences.
67
In fiscal 2004, the total amount and proportion of funds being distributed on the
basis of threat and need will decline. For this year, high threat urban areas will
receive $725 million, nearly a ten percent cut, while the other programs will receive
$2.95 billion, more than a ten percent increase. The result is that more than 80 per-
cent of the Department of Homeland Securitys first responder funds will be distrib-
uted blind to the nations counter-terrorism needs.
Let me first tell you why I am including the firefighter assistance grants in these
totals. I recognize that there are needs in many communities throughout the coun-
try and that the Firefighter Assistance grant program existed prior to the events
of September 11, but it has been increased greatly in response to September 11. I
am not suggesting that those funds should be distributed on the basis of threat, but
neither can their existence be ignored. Because these grants are limited to a max-
imum of $750,000 per jurisdiction, they are of little help in those areas that have
significant counter-terrorism needs, though they can be a significant help to rural
areas and smaller communities.
Regarding the Homeland Security formula grants to the states, they were created
after the events of September 11 and are a direct response to those terrorist attacks.
They should be distributed on the basis of known threats, the presence of critical
infrastructure and the magnitude of the consequences of an attack. Currently, those
grants are distributed completely otherwise. Each state receives three-quarters of
one percent of the total amount and the remainder is distributed on the basis of
the states population.
The result is virtually a complete mismatch between the funding provided under
this program and the need, as evidenced by the Department of Homeland Securitys
funding of the high threat urban areas. I have attached a table that compares the
funding received by the ten states that received the most high threat urban area
funds and their ranking, on a per capita basis, of the formula grants. New York,
which received the most high threat funds, ranked 49th in the formula grants. Cali-
fornia, which received the second most high threat funds, ranked 50th. Texas, which
received the third most high threat funds, ranked 48th.
Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, I was Commissioner of U.S. Customs when Ahmad
Ressam, the millennium bomber, was captured by Customs inspectors as he at-
tempted to smuggle explosives into the U.S. as part of a plot to bomb Los Angeles
International Airport. More evidence, I believe, that Al Qaèda focuses on high pro-
file, major city targets.
It is clear that large amounts of the first responder funding are not going where
they are needed. The result is wasted resources and, much worse, a population
placed at risk of attack and of the economic consequences of an attack. Some have
suggested that the high threat funds make up for the misdirected block grant and
firefighter grants but the goal is not to even out every state and locale. We are in
a war against terror and we must deploy our resources where they will do this coun-
try the most good.
In light of this, I have a few recommendations.
First, the funds in all of the programs to assist first responders established after
September 11 should be distributed on the basis of three factorsknown threats,
the presence of vulnerable critical infrastructure, and the consequences of an attack.
I want to thank Chairman Cox, Congressman Turner and Congressman Sweeney for
introducing legislation that would move these programs in that direction.
Second, as you can see from my description of the steps that New York has taken,
personnel costs are a significant part of the expense. Consequently, overtime costs
and the personnel costs associated with training and with filling positions while per-
sonnel are being trained should be eligible uses of the funds.
Third, the funds should be directed to local governments. Currently, this is done
by requiring a minimum pass-through to local governments. In New York, the City
and the State are working very well together. However, it may be that the Depart-
ment of Homeland Security should have the authority to provide grants directly to
regional consortiums, as is provided for in Chairman Coxs bill. I would also rec-
ommend that the Department have the authority to provide grants directly to indi-
vidual local governments, as was done in the first round of High Threat Urban Area
grants.
The funds should not require maintenance of effort on the part of the local govern-
ments as a condition of the grant. Such a requirement can result in the denial of
Federal assistance just when it is needed most. Unlike the federal government, local
governments cannot run deficits. As a result they may have to cut expenditures and
if there is a maintenance of effort requirement they could become ineligible for fed-
eral grants. Similarly, any matching requirements should be interpreted to include,
for example, in kind contributions.
68
Finally, State and local governments should be able to make procurement pur-
chases through the federal contracts already negotiated by the General Services Ad-
ministration. In New York, for example, the City can purchase equipment through
statewide contracts. If State and local governments were able to do this through fed-
eral contracts, it would be more expeditious, help ensure the interoperability of the
equipment and would probably produce a cost savings. The City has its own budget
difficulties. This year the City of New York closed an $8 billion deficit. The deficit
for next year is estimated to be an additional $2 billion. Although the Mayor has
attempted to protect the Police Department from cuts, even we have had to reduce
our expenses. I would just like to note here, that the City estimated that it lost $3
billion in revenues directly as a result of the September 11 attacks, and not as a
result of the general economic slowdown, in 2002 and 2003. That estimate was re-
viewed and validated by the General Accounting Office. Although the City has been
promised $20 billion from the federal government post-September 11, that figure
will cover only about one-quarter or less of the actual losses, both to the City and
the City economy, from the attack. The City did not receive any Federal assistance
for lost tax revenues. We are grateful for the Federal assistance received to date
but the City needs further assistance to meet the threats posed by this war on ter-
ror.
Thank you for this opportunity. I would be happy to work with you on any pro-
posals and I will be glad to answer any questions.
ATTACHMENT FOR RAYMOND W. KELLYS PREPARED STATEMENT
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE NEEDS OF FIRST RESPONDERS CITY OF
NEW YORK
New York City has 5 first responder agenciesNew York Police Department
(NYPD), Fire Department of New York (FDNY), Office of Emergency Management
(OEM), Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH), and Health and Hos-
pitals Corporation (HHC).
These agencies are responsible for the prevention of and response to any terrorist
attacks in New York City, with its resident population of approximately 8 million
and approximately 11 million population total during the workday. New York City
is the center of national and international finance, media and diplomacy. It has
been a target of six Al Qaèda-linked attacks, twice successfully.
The City has taken steps to protect against terrorist attacks, including estab-
lishing a Counterterrorism Bureau and expanding its Intelligence Bureau in the
NYPD. One thousand police officers are now devoted to these activities. The City
has undertaken emergency planning and preparation in all of the first response
agencies. Virtually all of these efforts have been funded from the Citys own funds
despite the Citys struggles to meet the more usual responsibilities of a municipality
in a time of large City deficits.
However, these funds will apparently be distributed through existing programs
that were not designed to prepare the country for a terrorist attack.
The risk of terrorist attack is not distributed by population. New York
City is approximately 2.85 percent of the nations population and Wash-
ington DC is approximately 0.2 percent. Those two cities represent far
more than 3 percent of the risk of attack.
New Yorks 5 first responder agencies have identified $900 million in needs. The
Federal Government should provide that one-third to half of the first responder
funds go directly to 3 or 4 or 5 local jurisdictions most at risk of attack and with
the largest needsincluding New York City and Washington, DC.
In addition, the First Responder and Bioterrorism programs must not be funded
by eliminating existing federal programs that currently provide funding for the City,
such as the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant or the State Criminal Alien Assist-
ance Program (SCAAP)
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE NEEDS CITY OF NEW YORK FIRST

RESPONDERS
Counterterrorism, Intelligence and Public Safety $200,000,000

Training for First Responders
Police $40,053,028
Fire $41,761,026
69
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE NEEDS CITY OF NEW YORK FIRST

RESPONDERSContinued
Dept. of Health and Mental Health $16,050,000

Public Hospitals $1,861,600
Subtotal $99,725,654
Security Enhancements for Facilities
Police $90,256,275
Fire (included under equipment)
Office of Emerg. Managment $6,500,388
Subtotal $187,740,488
Emergency Preparation and Response Equipment
Police $81,848,251
Fire $76,150,000
Office of Emerg. Managment $7,448,690
Subtotal $189,527,305
Communications and Information Technology
Police $49,484,646
Fire $160,000,000
Office of Emerg. Management $9,183,429
Dept. of Health and Mental Health (included under facilities)
Subtotal $223,969,075
TOTAL $900,962,522
COMPARISON OF RANKING OF HIGH THREAT FUNDING AND BLOCK

GRANT FUNDING PER CAPITA
FISCAL 2003
The Department of Homeland Security distributes First Responder funds through
two basic programsHigh Threat Urban Area programs, where the funds are dis-
tributed based on an assessment of the threat of a terrorist attack, and State Block
Grants where the funds are distributed under a formula where each state gets the
same flat amount and the remainder of the funds are distributed based on popu-
lation. Under the Block Grants, which account for more than 70 percent of the First
Responder funding, there is no consideration at all of the threat of terrorist attack.
The chart below shows how the 10 states that received the most High Threat Urban
Area funding rank on a per capita basis under the block grant programs.
RANK FOR RANK FOR

STATE HIGH THREAT BLOCK GRANT
FUNDING PER CAPITA
New York 1 49
California 2 50
Texas 3 48
Illinois 4 45
Maryland 1 5 32
Washington 6 36
Virginia 1 7 39
Pennsylvania 8 46
Florida 9 47
New Jersey 10 42
1 Funding for the National Capital Area ($60.6 million) was divided evenly between Maryland and Virginia.
70
QUESTIONS FROM THE HON. JIM TURNER FOR THE HON. JOHN G. ROWLAND
Question: 1. In your testimony, you stated that the regionalization concept
in the Chairmans legislative proposal would never work, and that if such
regionalization was self-administered by localities, it would be chaos. As an
alternative, would you support the process envisioned in the PREPARE Act
(H.R. 3158) where Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provides guid-
ance to States and localities to assist them in determining their needs for
essential preparedness capabilities, and the States and localities then make
a joint determination on how to best meet these needs, whether it be at the
State, local, or regional level of government? No response has been re-
ceived.
Question: 2. You also indicated in your testimony that a grant matching re-
quirement of 25 percent was not needed, and that such an economic re-
quirement would prevent some states and localities from applying for
grant funds. Would you support legislation that provided: (1) the ability to
adjust the cost share to up to 90 percent federal/10 percent state and local,
and if so, what criteria should be used to make such an adjustment; and
(2) the ability for States and localities to provide a soft-match to meet the
matching requirements (i.e., meet the matching requirements by using
means other than cash)? No response has been received.
Question: 3. You testified that Congress should maintain a minimum base-
line of funding to all States for terrorism preparedness. As opposed to set-
ting a percentage or some other formula to determine this baseline of fund-
ing, would you support legislation that mandated that each State be pro-
vided with funding to meet its need for essential preparedness capabilities,
after such needs have been determined by the States and localities using
DHS guidelines? Would you support multi-year funding to meet such
needs? No response has been received.
Question: 4. In response to questions from Members of the Select Committee,
you stated that DHS should be tasked to develop basic minimum standards,
and that grant programs for terrorism preparedness should not be entitle-
ments, but rather, that grant programs should meet the terrorism pre-
paredness needsbased on these standardsof the States and localities.
The PREPARE Act (H.R. 3158) would require DHS to provide such min-
imum standards, and to fund the preparedness needs of the States and lo-
calities based on these standards. Is the PREPARE Act consistent with
your construct of how the terrorism grant programs should be executed?
No response has been received.
Question: 5. In another response to a question from a Member of the Select
Committee, you stated that the State of Connecticut had received funding
under the High-Threat, High-Density Urban Area Grant program. A review
of the Office for Domestic Preparedness grant application for the two
rounds of this program (fiscal year 2003 appropriation and fiscal year 2003
supplemental appropriation) clearly indicates that Connecticut was not eli-
gible for any of these grant funds. Therefore, can you clarify your response
to the Committees question, and provide any insight as to why cities in the
State of Connecticut were not eligible for this program? Would you be con-
cerned with moving completely to a grant system exclusively based on
threat? No response has been received.
Question: 6. The grant process in Chairman Coxs bill, H.R 3266, is open to
states, interstate regions, and intrastate regions. This would potentially re-
quire the Under Secretary of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Pro-
tection to sort through hundreds of applications on a regular basis, making
detailed threat comparisons for each. The PREPARE Act, H.R. 3158, re-
quires states to include local and regional entities in a detailed planning
process to identify needs and where the grant funds need to flow in order
to pay for those needs. In your experience with receiving federal first re-
sponder grants, which funding model is more likely to reach the goal of
fast, effective, and accountable grant funding? No response has been re-
ceived.
Question: 7. I agree with the problem that Chairman Cox has repeatedly
raised, that of first responder grant money going to places with lower
needs. Can you describe how Connecticut has used the first responder
funds it has received, and why it is important to keep funding intact for
71
regions that dont have the same threat profile as New York or Los Angeles
or Washington D.C.? No response has been received.
Question: 8. States and local jurisdictions have prepared detailed analyses
and assessments to meet requirements established by the Office of Domes-
tic Preparedness. Have these assessments been useful as you compile state
plans? Shouldnt the federal government take into account all of the spe-
cific vulnerabilities identified? No response has been received.
Question: 9. Chairman Coxs bill draws a clear line between funding for ter-
rorism preparedness and funding for traditional missions of the first re-
sponder communities. I dont think a clear line between the two can be
drawn in a practical sense. Did first responders in law enforcement and
public works in Connecticut take actions during the August blackout?
Would their actions have been any different if the blackout was caused by
an act of terror? No response has been received.
Question: 10. When states and regions assess their emergency response
needs, is that generally based on threat (what terrorists want to do),
vulnerabilities (what targets are in the vicinity and how secure are they),
or a combination of the two? Shouldnt grants take into account the total
risk, both threat and vulnerability? No response has been received.
Question: 11. H.R. 3266 requires grant applicants to provide, as part of the
application, a description of the source of the threat to which the pro-
posed grant relates, including the type of attack for which the applicant is
preparing for in seeking the grant funding. Do states and regions typically
have access to the intelligence necessary to know the exact source of a ter-
rorist threat that may affect them? Arent a lot of first responder grants
used to improve general emergency readiness rather than to improve de-
fenses against a specific type of attack? No response has been received.
Question: 12. Since 9/11, the federal government has spent four to five bil-
lion dollars each year on first responder grants. I am unaware of any jus-
tification for why this is the right amountcertainly the amount isnt
based on an assessment of threat, of vulnerability, or of first responder
needs. Would you support legislation that tied the first responder budget
to some assessment of what is needed by the nations first responders? No
response has been received.
Question: 13. The PREPARE Act, H.R. 3158, includes a provision that would
require the federal government to reimburse state and local jurisdictions
for the overtime costs incurred when the threat level is elevated. How dif-
ficult is it for your jurisdictions to increase operations under heightened
Question: 14. Almost none of the federal first responder grants since 9/11
cover personnel costs. The PREPARE Act, H.R, 3158, states that having an
adequate number of trained first responders is essential to be prepared to
prevent or respond to terrorist attack. Can you comment on whether grant
funds should include personnel costs? No response has been received.
QUESTIONS FROM THE HON. JIM TURNER FOR SCOTT BEHUNIN

Question: 1. The grant process in Chairman Coxs bill, H.R 3266, is open to
states, interstate regions, and intrastate regions. This would potentially re-
quire the Under Secretary of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Pro-
tection to sort through hundreds of applications on a regular basis, making
detailed threat comparisons for each. The PREPARE Act, H.R. 3158, re-
quires states to include local and regional entities in a detailed planning
process to identify needs and where the grant funds need to flow in order
to pay for those needs. In your experience with receiving federal first re-
sponder grants, which funding model is more likely to reach the goal of
fast, effective, and accountable grant funding? No response has been re-
ceived.
Question: 2. Threats from terrorists are based, in part, on what a terrorist
intends to attack. Terrorists intend to attack the United States where the
defenses and countermeasures are weakest. Terrorists will presumably
know what areas have been deemed worthy of receiving grant funds. So,
areas that DHS determines to be low threat will automatically become
72
higher threat. So doesnt it make sense to ensure that all communities have
some baseline level of preparedness? No response has been received.
Question: 3. States and local jurisdictions have prepared detailed analyses
and assessments to meet requirements established by the Office of Domes-
tic Preparedness. Have these assessments been useful as you compile state
plans? Shouldnt the federal government take into account all of the spe-
cific vulnerabilities identified? No response has been received.
Question: 4. The Chairman has said that the Under Secretary for Informa-
tion Analysis and Infrastructure Protection has the resources needed for
conducting the threat assessment to guide the grant review because he can
draw upon the combined resources of the federal government. Other than
the Department of Homeland Security, the only entity I know of that is
conducting terrorist threat assessments on the homeland is the Terrorist
Threat Integration Center. Do you believe that the TTIC has the extra re-
sources available to assist the Under Secretary with grant application re-
views, or is it at maximum capacity already? No response has been re-
ceived.
Question: 5. According to testimony from Under Secretary Libutti and As-
sistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection Liscouski, the Department
of Homeland Security will have a plan for completing a threat and vulner-
ability assessment by December 15. Not a completed assessment, a plan of
how they will do such an assessment. In fact, Mr. Liscouski indicated that
he would be surprised if an actual comprehensive risk assessment will be
done within FIVE years. Is it reasonable that we should wait years for an
assessment to be done before targeting first responder grant? No response
has been received.
Question: 6. When states and regions assess their emergency response needs,
is that generally based on threat (what terrorists want to do),
risk, both threat and vulnerability? No response has been received.
Question: 7. Chairman Coxs bill, H.R. 3266, would have the allocation of all
first responder grants go by threat. The program that does this now, the
High Threat Urban Area grants has distributed grant funds to 30 urban
areas in 19 states. While we have repeatedly asked the Department of
Homeland Security to explain how these grant funds are distributed, we
have yet to receive a satisfactory answer. Do any of you have any insight
into the Departments funding process? Would you support turning all first
responder funding over to a system with no visibility and no way of know-
ing Washington is distributing billions of dollars? No response has been re-
ceived.
Question: 8. A Council on Foreign Relations Task Force found recently that
there are no agreed upon standards for emergency preparedness and no
way to measure how prepared a locality is or should be. Do you feel that
it is important that there be some way to measure preparedness levels and
preparedness needs? No response has been received.
Question: 9. In addition to providing first responder grant funds, should the
Department of Homeland Security be giving states and local communities
guidance in what equipment and training to buy? Isnt this guidance and
planning necessary for equipment interoperability? No response has been
received.
Question: 10. H.R. 3266 requires grant applicants to provide, as part of the
application, a description of the source of the threat to which the pro-
posed grant relates, including the type of attack for which the applicant is
preparing for in seeking the grant funding. Do states and regions typically
have access to the intelligence necessary to know the exact source of a ter-
rorist threat that may affect them? Arent a lot of first responder grants
used to improve general emergency readiness rather than to improve de-
fenses against a specific type of attack? No response has been received.
Question: 11. Since 9/11, the federal government has spent four to five bil-
lion dollars each year on first responder grants. I am unaware of any jus-
tification for why this is the right amountcertainly the amount isnt
based on an assessment of threat, of vulnerability, or of first responder
73
needs. Would you support legislation that tied the first responder budget
to some assessment of what is needed by the nations first responders? No
response has been received.
Question: 12. The PREPARE Act, H.R. 3158, includes a provision that would
require the federal government to reimburse state and local jurisdictions
for the overtime costs incurred when the threat level is elevated. How dif-
ficult is it for your jurisdictions to increase operations under heightened
Question: 13. Almost none of the federal first responder grants since 9/11
cover personnel costs. The PREPARE Act, H.R, 3158, states that having an
adequate number of trained first responders is essential to be prepared to
prevent or respond to terrorist attack. Can you comment on whether grant
funds should include personnel costs? No response has been received.
QUESTIONS FROM THE HON. CHRISTOPHER COX FOR JOHN D. COHEN

Question: 1. The current formula used to distribute funding for the largest
grant program for first responders is based on political formulas. What are
the dangers of funding homeland security efforts based largely on political
formulas?
Answer: 1. Today, not every city across the nation faces the same threat of attack.
We know that there are some areas of the country that represent more attractive
targets than others. From an operational perspective, the danger that arises from
using population based formulas or other non-data driven techniques is that the
very jurisdictions that face the greatest risk of attack may not receive adequate re-
sources to support efforts to detect, prevent and respond to a terrorist attack. Given
that the nation does not have unlimited resources, it makes sense to take into ac-
count threat, vulnerability and risk when allocating homeland security related fund-
ing. Priority should be given to those jurisdictions that face the greatest risk. Home-
land security funding should also be provided in such a manner to foster regional
cooperation because at the end of the day, should a catastrophic event occur, effec-
tive emergency response will require collaboration on a regional basis.
Question: 2. In your testimony, you stress the importance of regional co-
operation and give anecdotes from your experiences with the MBTA. Can
you cite examples from your experiences as Special Advisor to the Sec-
retary of Public Safety on Homeland Security in Massachusetts where di-
recting funds specifically to one locale has in fact shortchanged regional
planning because surrounding areas were not involved in the planning
process?
Answer: As the Commonwealth began the process of disbursing 2002 homeland se-
curity related funding, two things became clear. First, a top priority for a number
of local entities for the use of these funds focused on establishing interoperability
among the independent radio systems used by first responder entities. Second, while
there was general agreement that interoperability was important, there had been
little coordination amongst these local entities in developing a plan to address this
issue. This lack of collaboration and communication among individual local entities
resulted in different agencies having different perceptions of both the problem and
the potential solution. This inconsistency was not surprising because, traditionally,
there is little collaboration among individual public safety entities when they ac-
quire information and communications systems. This lack of coordination has re-
sulted in the proliferation of radio and information systems that cannot interoperate
with each other.
Accordingly, before providing this funding to localities, the Commonwealth worked
with local entities throughout the state to develop a statewide interoperability plan
that required collaboration among federal, state and local entities on a regional
basis in designing and implementing radio interoperability systems. Through this
process, we found that the radio interoperability solution that best met the needs
of one region in some cases differed from that which best met the needs of other
regions. With the completion of this plan, these funds will be allocated for the acqui-
sition of interoperability solutions that effectively address the needs of each region
throughout the state.
Question: 3. As Special Advisor to the Secretary of Public Safety on Home-
land Security in Massachusetts, you have surely become frustrated with
the application process for funding first responder needs. Governor Row-
land testified that sixteen different grant programs for first responders are
spread across three major federal agencies, and several sub-offices, and are
74
cumbersome and confusing. Would it be helpful for States to have one sole
interface within the federal government for homeland security grants, as
Chairman Cox outlines in his legislation?
Answer: In the past, there has been much confusion and uncertainty regarding
grant applications, requirements, guidelines, allowable expenses, due dates and, of
course, the distribution of funds. This confusion stemmed from the fact that relevant
grant programs were typically managed by numerous entities throughout different
departments of the federal government. However, recently, there has been progress
in addressing this issue. The Department of Homeland Security has combined a
number of homeland security grants and has centralized the management of these
grants within the Office of Domestic Preparedness. Hopefully, DHS will continue
moving in the direction of centralizing the management of all homeland security re-
lated grants. As part of this centralization, establishing one sole interface within the
federal government for homeland security grants would be helpful.
QUESTIONS FROM THE HON. JIM TURNER FOR JOHN D. COHEN
Question: 1. H.R. 3266 allows first responder grant funds to be spent on the
purchase or upgrading of equipment; exercises to strengthen emergency
response; training in the use of equipment; and training to prevent ter-
rorist attack. (Conversely, the PREPARE Act allows first responders to
spend grant funds as necessary to provide the essential capabilities their
jurisdiction needs.) Isnt it possible that H.R. 3266 would allow first re-
sponders to use funds year after year without meeting all of their pre-
paredness needs?
Answer: Homeland security efforts will be more effective if coordinated at the state-
wide level. The collection, analysis and distribution of terrorism and other relevant
information on a statewide basis should serve as the foundation for all operational
planning and training efforts that focus on detecting, preventing, responding to and
managing the consequences of a terrorist attack or other critical incident. It is fis-
cally irresponsible but also operationally dangerous to have a local and county enti-
ty operating in a stovepipe environment and making key decisions based on oper-
ational priorities that may be different from other entities within a state. Operating
in this stove piped manner will pretty much guarantee that the use of funds will
not be as efficient as it would if decisions are made on a regional and/or statewide
basis. But, statewide plans need to be based on the understanding that local govern-
ments are generally the first to respond and the last to leave a catastrophic event,
and homeland security funding needs to be used to support the needs of local first
responders. Therefore, local and county governments (as well as the private sector)
need to be at the table when statewide plans are created. There needs to be flexi-
bility built into how localities can use these funds so that they operate in a manner
consistent with the statewide plan but also address their specific needs. There is
no one-size-fits-all answer, and the provisions that guide the use of federal funds
should be structured in recognition of the fact that the threats of today may not be
threats of tomorrow, so states need the flexibility of meeting the essential needs of
communities and first responders in light of updated risk priorities.
Question: 2. The PREPARE Act, H.R. 3158, includes an authorization of $20
million to immediately deploy interoperable communications equipment to
every major metropolitan area and at least one per state. Can you discuss
these switch technologies, whether theyre available for deployment, and
the importance of connecting first responders on different radio systems?
Answer: County and local officials across the nation have complained for years
that the ability of multiple public safety entities to effectively work together at the
point of servicefires, accidents, natural disasters, search and rescues, etc.has
been seriously compromised because the radio systems used by independent entities
operate on different radio frequencies. This means that first responders from one
agency may not be able to use their radios to communicate with first responders
from other agencies. This can result in a difficult (if not life threatening) operational
environment, because every emergency response requires that information and in-
structions be communicated rapidly and accurately to all personnel that are on the
scene. There has been much debate about the best way to achieve this interoper-
ability. Today, there still remains a lot of confusion about what is actually meant
by the term interoperability. For example, in the minds of some public safety offi-
cials, interoperability is something that is only necessary during a critical and/or
catastrophic incident, and it can best be achieved through the deployment of tem-
porary capabilities (stockpiled radios, command vehicles, etc.). Others believe that
interoperability is a crucial part of day-to-day emergency and non-emergency service
delivery. Under this model, the infrastructure that supports interoperability must
75
be permanent, and front line personnel must be trained so that these systems can
be used daily. In many respects, the challenge of providing equipment interoper-
ability has less to do with technology and more to do with identifying and putting
in place the processes, protocols and agreements necessary to support multiple agen-
cies using an integrated system.
Some have suggested that the only way to achieve interoperability is through the
establishment of regional or statewide radio systems that cost millions of dollars
and will take years to establish. First responders need interoperability today and
do not have the money to pay for such systems nor the time required to free up
the spectrum necessary to establish the regional and/or statewide radio systems. As
a result, over the past several years, state and local officials have begun to look at
solutions other than statewide or regional networks to solve the expensive interoper-
ability problem. Through the efforts of the Public Safety Wireless Network Program
(PSWN) and the National Institute of Justice, attention has focused on a more cost
effective and efficient solution to achieving radio system interoperability. It is a so-
lution that involves the use of inter-connector patching or switch technology. The
use of inter-connector technology provides for radio system interoperability at a frac-
tion of the cost of a new statewide radio system, while at the same time allowing
individual local jurisdictions the flexibility of maintaining existing radio infrastruc-
tures. Patching technology is readily available for deployment, and a growing num-
ber of state and local jurisdictions are providing radio system interoperability uti-
lizing this technology. For example, the States of Maryland, Colorado and Arizona
have begun to network a number of inter-connector devices in fixed locations in an
effort to provide immediate radio system interoperability.
Question: 3. The Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness and Response
held a hearing where one witness talked about the importance of not sup-
planting state and local first responder dollars with federal funds. We all
agree that preparing first responders needs to be a federal, state, and local
partnership. Can you explain why it is so difficult to separate what the fed-
eral government should pay for and what is better left to state and local
governments?
Answer: The difficulty in separating what the federal government should pay from
what state and locals governments should pay stems from the fact that to some
degree, state and local officials viewed homeland security from a different perspec-
tive than some in Washington. Many state and local officials understand that efforts
to protect the nation from future acts of terrorism need not be done at the expense
of effective day-to-day service. Nor does it require that the state and local govern-
ments invest millions of dollars for technology and equipment that is only used in
the event of a terrorist attack. In fact, the very information technology, communica-
tion systems, and business processes that support effective service delivery each and
every day provide the foundation for effective efforts to detect, prevent and respond
to terrorism and other critical incidents. If the information systems used by law en-
forcement entities day-to-day are designed in such a manner so that the sharing of
crime related information is difficult, they will also have difficulty sharing terrorism
related information. If first responders from multiple entities cannot use their radios
to communicate at the scene of a major traffic accident because they all operate on
different frequencies, then they will have the same problem at the scene of a ter-
rorist incident. If a local 911 system becomes overwhelmed during a snowstorm,
then it stands to reason that it will be unable to handle the large number of calls
that arise during a terrorist incident. From a state and local perspective, being pre-
pared to detect, prevent and respond to acts of terror means having the capabilities
to provide effective service each day. For some time, this philosophy of dual use
was not understood by some in Washington. However, recent guidelines dissemi-
nated by the Department of Homeland security suggest that the concept of dual
use capabilities has become more accepted.
As the Commonwealth of Massachusetts looks toward the future, efforts to en-
hance its ability to detect, prevent, respond to and manage the consequences of acts
of terrorism and other critical incidents will be based on three fundamental prin-
ciples:
The same multi-discipline methods used to effectively address crime, disorder,
public health, social service and other emerging problems serve as the founda-
tion for homeland security related efforts;
Terrorists often commit traditional crimes to support their extremist agenda
(they often collaborate with individuals involved in traditional criminal activ-
ity); and, therefore,
The Commonwealth must be able to proactively and continuously monitor and
respond to crime trends, emerging terrorist threats, public health conditions
76
and other emerging problems on a neighborhoodby-neighborhood basis and
then be able to support efforts of local, regional, private sector entities and com-
munity members to rapidly develop, implement and track efforts to mitigate the
identified problem.
Question: 4. The Chairman has said that the Under Secretary for Informa-
tion Analysis and Infrastructure Protection has the resources needed for
conducting the threat assessment to guide the grant review because he can
draw upon the combined resources of the federal government. Other than
the Department of Homeland Security, the only entity I know of that is
conducting terrorist threat assessments on the homeland is the Terrorist
Threat Integration Center. Do you believe that the TTIC has the extra re-
sources available to assist the Under Secretary with grant application re-
views, or is it at maximum capacity already?
Answer: I have no personal knowledge of whether the TTIC has adequate re-
sources. However, completing this national threat assessment must be a top priority
of our countrys homeland security efforts. However, it is unrealistic to believe that
the federal government alone can complete the national assessment. The only effec-
tive way to conduct a national threat assessment to guide the grant process is to
include state and local governments in completing this effort. The federal govern-
ment should provide a consistent format and guidelines so that each state, in close
collaboration with local governments, can complete a statewide threat, vulnerability
and risk assessment that can then be used by federal authorities to complete a na-
tional assessment.
Question: 5. According to testimony from Under Secretary Libutti and As-
sistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection Liscouski, the Department
of Homeland Security will have a plan for completing a threat and vulner-
ability assessment by December 15. Not a completed assessment, a plan of
how they will do such an assessment. In fact, Mr. Liscouski indicated that
he would be surprised if an actual comprehensive risk assessment will be
done within FIVE years. Is it reasonable that we should wait years for an
assessment to be done before targeting first responder grants?
Answer No. There should be no greater priority than the completion of a com-
prehensive national threat and vulnerability assessment. This threat and vulner-
ability assessment will not only serve as a guide for funding decisions, operational
and tactical planning and the development of training exercises, it should direct
state and local homeland security priorities and efforts. Over two years have passed
since the Sept. 11 attacks, and it is regretful that the nation as a whole still lacks
a comprehensive threat and vulnerability assessmentone that tells us which loca-
tions are most at risk and from what. This has resulted in what some have de-
scribed as an ad-hoc, disjointed domestic homeland security effortone without con-
sistency in the level of preparedness from city to city. Without such a threat and
vulnerability assessment, our nations first preventers and responders have been
forced to respond to a one size fits all, color coded threat and advisory system and
to seek to obtain federal funding resources through a system that rewards the juris-
diction that hollers the loudest. A number of states (such as the Commonwealth)
have recognized that the completion of a statewide threat, vulnerability, and risk
assessment is critical to the development of risk mitigation strategies. As more
states develop these statewide assessments, the federal government may want to
use them to support their efforts.
is that generally based on threat (what terrorist want to do),
risk, both threat and vulnerability?
Answer: The allocation of grant funding should be based on riska combination
of both threats and vulnerabilities. However, nationally, there is a lack of consist-
ency regarding the criteria that states, regions and localities use to assess their
threat, vulnerability and risk. In the coming months, the Commonwealth intends to
establish a dynamic threat, vulnerability and risk identification process that will
guide operational planning and training activities and direct federal grant funds to
those most in need. The risk faced by any individual community is fluid, and the
threats of today may not be threats tomorrow. Therefore, the federal government
should help states and localities create systematic approaches to continually evalu-
ate and update statewide risk assessments and therefore their preparedness levels
and future needs.
77
Question: 7. A Council on Foreign Relations Task Force found recently that
there are no agreed upon standards for emergency preparedness and no
way to measure how prepared a locality is or should be. Do you feel that
it is important that there be some way to measure preparedness levels and
preparedness needs?
Anwer: Yes. The Department of Homeland Security should work collaboratively
with all levels of the government and private sector organizations to establish and
identify national preparedness levels, preparedness needs, performance goals and
performance metrics that define success. The lack of defined national standards has
complicated the efforts of state and local governments to design and implement
homeland security strategies.
planning necessary for equipment interoperability?
Answer Yes. Once state and local governments have determined their operational
requirements, national standards of what equipment, technology and systems best
address these requirements would be helpful. But, while national standards should
be provided, at the end of the day, decisions regarding equipment and training
should be left to state officials and should be based upon the individual threat and
vulnerability and risk assessments of states and localities.
QUESTIONS FROM THE HON. CHRISTOPHER COX FOR RAY A. NELSON
Question: 1. Why are cities not receiving the appropriate funds? What fur-
ther incentives do states need to distribute funds in a timely manner?
Answer: The Commonwealth of Kentucky has developed a coordinated effort for
planning for, reacting to and recovering from natural and man-made disasters. This
effort develops Emergency Management Plans from the county level up and then
seeks to provide funds, training and planning necessary to make them workable.
This means that funds in Kentucky are distributed with the goal of meeting the
needs of all of the citizens of a given County, not just a few select cities. In the Com-
monwealth, all disbursements of funds must be made through the county. Further-
more, Ky Statutes require each county to establish an Emergency Planning Com-
mittee; whereas this body will develop contingency plans, establish operating proce-
dures, and delineate the dispersal of state and federal grants. If cities say they are
not receiving federal grant funds, then they are not participating the emergency
planning committees that are mandated by state law.
The dispersal of funds through the state to local jurisdictions (i.e. counties here
in Ky) is encumbered by federal requirements for detailed budgets, which is often
delayed due to the requirement to bid purchasing requirements. Incentives: Allow
all state and local jurisdictions to make purchases from the GSA catalog.
Question: 2. Why are cities often not included in statewide homeland secu-
rity planning?
Answer: As mentioned in the previous question, Ky Statues require cities to partici-
pate in local emergency planning committees. Is this a reality in all 120 counties
in the Commonwealth?Probably not! However, the current ODP Homeland Secu-
rity assessment that is being conducted statewide, the Ky League of Cities and Ky
Association of Counties were jointly contracted to coordinate the assessment of local
jurisdictions; to ensure representation by all jurisdictions across the state. This is
model we intend to utilize in all future grant programs.
Question: 3. Would it be helpful for States to have one sole interface within
the Federal government for homeland security grants, as Chairman Cox
outlines in his legislation?
Answer: In our research, working alongside GAO, we have identified 92 grant
programs that support first responders, secondary responders, or specifically men-
tion terrorism or homeland security. Furthermore, 51 percent of these grants are
not coming out of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). What exasperates
this problem further, is that DHS is not coordinated with, nor informed of, other
grant opportunities. If the other federal agencies that offer these grants would co-
ordinate with DHS, or the state homeland security coordinators, then these addi-
tional programs could be integrated, coordinated and synchronized with state strate-
gies. This is very difficult under the current grant management program.
The Department of Homeland Security is actively developing a one-stop-shopping
grant program, for those grants controlled and managed by DHS. However, there
is no such effort to coordinate the other 51 percent of homeland security related
grant programs. If these grant programs are not coordinated at the state level, then
78
where would it be coordinated? Isolation by Grant, which turns cities and counties
into islands of federal funding, with no logical connection to their surrounding juris-
dictions, reflects a very harmful me first attitude that results in lives lost and
money misspent.
QUESTIONS FROM THE HON. JIM TURNER FOR RAY A. NELSON
Question: 1. In your experience with receiving federal first responder
grants, which funding model is more likely to reach the goal of fast, effec-
tive, and accountable grant funding?
Answer: There is only one model that can solve the disconnect between inter-
state jurisdictions and the hundreds of federal grant coming into our state. That
model is the model where all federal grant programs be coordinated through the
Governors office. Anything short of this method will result in the continued stove
piping of funds to local jurisdictions and the inability to coordinate, integrate and
synchronize this funding in to a state strategy.
Question: 2. So doesnt it make sense to ensure that all communities have
some baseline level of preparedness?
Answer: It is paramount that we maintain baseline capabilities and capacities
not only across the nation, but across jurisdictions within the states. Furthermore,
we must ensure continued baseline funding to each state so that capabilities and
capacities that have been acquired can be sustained and maintained.
Note: The more we openly communicate the threat, then the threat will change.
So, the more we openly designate high-threat areas, the terrorists will seek out a
less protected target that can be used to deliver their message of fear and terror.
Question: 3. Have these assessments been useful as you compile state plans?
Shouldnt the federal government take into account all of the specific
vulnerabilities identified?
Answer: 3.a Absolutely yes! The continuing assessment process is invaluable in
the development of strategies, protective measures, contingency plans, and the ex-
penditure of federal grant dollars.
3.b Although we must take into account all vulnerabilities identified, we must
also prioritize our assets and resources. It will take years and billions of dollars to
mitigate every vulnerability identified during the assessment process. Tough deci-
sions must be made, and a certain level of risk accepted in our everyday lives.
Question: 4. Do you believe that the TTIC has the extra resources available
to assist the Under Secretary with grant application reviews, or is it at
maximum capacity already?
Answer: I do not feel that I am qualified to comment on the capabilities, or ca-
pacity, of the TIIC.
Question: 5. Is it reasonable that we should wait years for an assessment to
be done before first targeting first responder grants?
Answer: Although I would like to say no, that we need a comprehensive assess-
ment now, I understand the reality of limited resources to conduct these assess-
ments. In fact, it may take five years or more to complete detailed assessments of
our entire critical infrastructure across the state. Our greatest limitation is qualified
personnel to conduct these assessments.
Note: The ODP mandated statewide assessments being conducted are not site-spe-
cific, detailed vulnerability assessments; that could be used to develop protective
measures, counter-measures and contingency plans. It will take years to complete
these detailed assessments.
is that generally based on threat (what terrorists want to do),
risk, both threat and vulnerability?
Answer: Here in the Commonwealth, we have identified a risk management ap-
proach to defend against terrorism, to enhance levels of preparedness, and to re-
spond to national and state emergencies, whether man-made or unintentional in na-
ture. The approach is based on assessing Threats, Vulnerabilities, and the impor-
tance of assetsCriticality. The results of the assessments are used to balance
threats and vulnerabilities, and to define and prioritize related resource and oper-
ational requirements. Therefore, grant programs should take into account all three
aspects of this process: threat, Vulnerability and Criticality.
Additionally, a Threat Index must be developed that can be used to measure the
probability of attack occurring within a given region. State, sector or special event.
79
The index would be used to establish the base amount of funds allocated to a state.
Keeping in mind that not all terrorist attacks are planned and staged outside the
US, some funds would continue to be sent to states which have a low probability
of attack index rating, but may have a greater potential of being a staging site for
the terrorists. Making the index rating the primary guide for distribution and the
population distribution the secondary guide would improve the funding streams to
those most likely to have an attack. The Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection Directory would be the primary agency for developing the probability of
attack index, based on input from US intelligence services and Law Enforcement
Agencies.
Question: 7. Do any of you have any insight into the Departments funding
process? Would you support turning all first responder funding over to a
system with no visibility and no way of knowing Washington is distributing
billions of dollars?
Answer: 7.1(a) It is my understanding, the distribution model for the ODP State
Homeland Security Grant program utilized a base amount for each state, plus a per-
centage of the remaining funds based on state population. Therefore,
Base+Population=state allocation.
7.1(b) I believe they considered Threat + Critical Infrastructure + Population as
part of the formula, but I have no knowledge on the criteria used for selection cities
that will receive funds in the High Threat Urban Area grant program.
7.2 I would not support any funding methodology that excluded states and local
jurisdictions from participating in the development of, or execution of, grant pro-
grams.
Question: 8. Do you feel that it is important that there be some way to meas-
ure preparedness levels and preparedness needs?
Answer: Performance measures and readiness levels are imperative in measuring
our ability to prevent, respond or recover from acts of terrorism. Our military has
used a standards based evaluation system for many years and has proven to be ef-
fective in not only determining readiness levels, but also in determining resources
required to achieve desired readiness levels.
planning necessary for equipment interoperability?
Answer: 9.(a) General guidance is acceptable, and welcome, particularly in estab-
lishing interoperability and standardization requirements. However, vendor specific
equipment, services or training resources should be avoided at all costs. Addition-
ally, states need the flexibility to resource unique requirements identified within
their jurisdictions; so long as it meets interoperability requirements.
9.(b) In the Commonwealth of Kentucky we have an established coordination proc-
ess through which our Emergency Services Groups are working to coordinate the
planning for and the expenditure of Homeland Security Funding. These Groups are
comprised of all County, City, Industry and Volunteer agencies within a jurisdiction.
Question: 10. Do states and regions typically have access to the intelligence
necessary to know the exact source of a terrorist threat that may affect
them? Arent a lot of first responder grants used to improve general emer-
gency readiness rather that improve defenses against a specific type of at-
tack?
Answer: 10.a All required intelligence resources are available within the state.
Either through federal or state agencies, including the National Guard, and local
jurisdictions can receive the necessary information to conduct threat assessments.
However, classified information may not be passed to those without the requisite
clearance. From my personal experience, this has not been a hindrance to con-
ducting a through assessment. Routinely, knowing the source of intelligence is not
important, and the source is often what makes it classified. Therefore, strip the
sourcing and classified information, and relevant information can then be passed to
the end-users of the intelligence. We must develop a system that will allow for the
sanitizing of National Security Information to a working level that can be used
by those engaged in the detection, prevention, response and recovery from a ter-
rorist attack.
10.b Over the past two years, federal grant programs, and the preponderance of
efforts within the states, have been focused on response rather than prevention.
The equipment restrictions placed on the states, and first responders, often prohib-
ited the acquisition of defensive and anti-terrorism protective measure equipment
and devices. The FY04 ODP grant will finally address anti-terrorism, although it
80
is not at the desired level. Most of us in the homeland security arena have said that
prevention is the cornerstone to our war terrorism here at home. Until we aggres-
sively implement anti-terrorism and counter-terrorism programs, we will always be
focused on responding to an attack that we should have prevented.
Question: 11. Would you support legislation that tied the first responder
budget to some assessment of what is needed by the nations first respond-
ers?
Answer: The question presupposes that there is a direct correlation between the
safety of a community and the amount of money spent on its First Responders. We
have yet to see that proven. Maybe Utah does not need millions in First Responder
funds, but really needs to be given good actionable information on how to short cir-
cuit terrorist activities that are staging within the state. Maybe they need better
training of law enforcement officers to detect and deter terrorist activity, not an-
other multi-million dollar drop. The question must be asked, when is enough,
enough, and when can any state say that they are relatively secure. What is the
definition of secure?
I believe that all budgets must be linked to a strategic plan. We must identify
the Ends, Ways, and Means by which we achieve our goals and this will result in
Requirementsi.e. Funding. As we refine our strategies, we are also assessing our
current capabilities and needs. This snapshot will provide us with current Require-
mentsas it relates to the federal budget. These requirements will change over
time, and therefore, a continual assessment process is necessary.
Additionally, the shorter timelines for obligating funds to local governments has
placed an arbitrary deadline on a decision that should be a process of informed re-
sponse to a stated need, but is instead a race to meet the deadline first, and figure
out what weve done afterwards. It makes the entire process of distribution of funds
suspect and thus lowers confidence in the stated goal of improving the security of
citizens. Imposing penalties on states for not meeting deadlines created out of thin
air rather than reasoned discussion will not improve the planning or distribution
process for the funds. Penalties would only increase the cynicism of those involved
and reinforce the appearance of funding for political gain rather than providing for
the common defense of the Nation.
Question: 12. How difficult is it for your jurisdiction to increase operations
under heightened threat?
Answer: Without some reassurance of reimbursement of expenditures used for
additional protective measures, most jurisdictions will respond to a change in threat
levels my redirecting and prioritizing existing resources. Personnel overtime costs
are not the only expense incurred when implementing a higher level of protective
measures. Additional fuel and maintenance of vehicles, barrier materials, revisions
to credentialing programs, additional lighting, and changes to security programs,
are just examples of additional costs associated with going to a higher level of secu-
rity. Some jurisdictions with larger budgets may have budgeted for times such as
these. The development of contingency funds is one way of covering the costs associ-
ated with a heighten threat level, bur the preponderance of jurisdictions do not have
this luxury.
Question: 13. Can you comment on whether grant funds should include per-
sonnel costs?
Answer: With the majority of states experiencing some sort of financial crisis, the
inclusion of personnel in the grant programs would help significantly. For example,
all efforts, including personnel manning, within my office is covered by money that
was never budgeted for, yet the coordination requirements continue. The State Po-
lice and Emergency Management have been forced to take personnel reductions due
to budget constraints, yet the majority of homeland security efforts evolve around
law enforcement and emergency management. Governors have been placed in a dif-
ficult position by redirecting resources toward homeland security, when public at-
tention remains on jobs, healthcare and education. Homeland Security does not get
a governor reelected.
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88

House Hearing, 108TH Congress - Funding For First Responders: Ensuring That Federal Funds Are Distributed Intelligently

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

House Hearing, 108TH Congress - Funding For First Responders: Ensuring That Federal Funds Are Distributed Intelligently

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

House Hearing, 108TH Congress - Funding For First Responders: Ensuring That Federal Funds Are Distributed Intelligently

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FUNDING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND

OCTOBER 16, 2003

Serial No. 10832

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Homeland Security

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

The Honorable Christopher Cox, a Representative in Congress From the

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Tuesday, October 21, 2003

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

I also want to take this opportunity to thank New York Police

George Jaramillo testified before this committee that Orange Coun-

members of the full committee to develop a bill that will enhance

ality that threat information is often vague, often inconsistent, and

Our first witness is Governor John G. Rowland of the State of

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN G. ROWLAND,

that is made. What I mean by that is that the right investment

Governor ROWLAND. Well, Congressman, you make some very

The proof of the pudding is that we have had a pretty good 2

Mr. THOMPSON. But the pass-through is not in the legislation

even for a permanent Homeland Security Committee over the spec-

how do you measure the standards in Connecticut and New York

COPS program was in response to that. And the police officers

firefighter, throughout my cities especially, and then try to get

Mr. KING. I wasnt here during the Governors testimony. I was

licans in Congress to send any money back to the States without

State and local governments have not received clearly defined

nology. I think it is due in June, something like that. But thank

the taxpayer, by our first responder community. Thank you for

be at some point, how do you think we should go about determining

munities may not be a threat, as I said earlier today, but at some

that. And that is why we need to have, I believe, a threat assess-

Governor ROWLAND. No. I dont think I find fault. I find improve-

said, but you said that you know self-administered regionalization

Mr. DICKS. and make a justification on it.

So that is kind of what I go through and what my folks go

So I think to answer your question, we do what we have to do,

thousands and thousands and thousands of grant requests, getting

STATEMENT OF JOHN D. COHEN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE

We also need to be much more sophisticated in understanding

STATEMENT OF RAY A. NELSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

The other point is that the States are mandated to do a state-

Chairman COX. Lieutenant Colonel Behunin.

ing holistic needs identified in a comprehensive plan. While NEMA

Mr. COHEN. I think you hit on an area where there needs to be

team, HAZMAT, and all that kind of stuff. We have 23 counties

it is something that you only need in the event of a catastrophic

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER RAYMOND W. KELLY

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE NEEDS CITY OF NEW YORK FIRST

Counterterrorism, Intelligence and Public Safety $200,000,000

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE NEEDS CITY OF NEW YORK FIRST

Dept. of Health and Mental Health $16,050,000

COMPARISON OF RANKING OF HIGH THREAT FUNDING AND BLOCK

RANK FOR RANK FOR

QUESTIONS FROM THE HON. JIM TURNER FOR SCOTT BEHUNIN

QUESTIONS FROM THE HON. CHRISTOPHER COX FOR JOHN D. COHEN