    [House Hearing, 106 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

      COMBATING TERRORISM: PROPOSED TRANSFER OF THE DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS
                                    PROGRAM

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,
                      VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND INTERNATIONAL
                                   RELATIONS

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                               GOVERNMENT REFORM

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 26, 1999

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 106-27

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

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

                                     ______

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    59-450 CC                    WASHINGTON : 1999

                         COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

                         DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
    BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York         HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
    CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland       TOM LANTOS, California
    CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
    JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    STEPHEN HORN, California             PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
    THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia            CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana           ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana                  DC
    JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida             CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South     DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
        Carolina                         ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
    BOB BARR, Georgia                    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    DAN MILLER, Florida                  JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
    ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas             JIM TURNER, Texas
    LEE TERRY, Nebraska                  THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    DOUG OSE, California                             ------
    PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin                 BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California            (Independent)
    HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

                          Kevin Binger, Staff Director
                     Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
               David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
                          Carla J. Martin, Chief Clerk
                     Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

    Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International
                                   Relations

                    CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, Chairman
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         TOM LANTOS, California
    JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
    DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana           THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
    MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South     EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
        Carolina                         BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    LEE TERRY, Nebraska                      (Independent)
    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

                                   Ex Officio

    DAN BURTON, Indiana                  HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
                Lawrence J. Halloran, Staff Director and Counsel
                    Michele Lang, Professional Staff Member
                            Jonathan Wharton, Clerk
                        David Rapallo, Minority Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on May 26, 1999.....................................     1
    Statement of:
        Cragin, Charles L., Acting Assistant Secretary for Reserve
          Affairs, Department of Defense.............................     6
        Light, Catherine, Director, Office of National Security
          Affairs, Federal Emergency Management Agency, accompanied
          by Bruce Baughman, Director of Operations and Plans,
          Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency.    45
        Martinez, Barbara Y., Deputy Director, National Domestic
          Preparedness Office, Department of Justice.................    37
        Mitchell, Andy, Deputy Director, Office for State and Local
          Domestic Preparedness Support, Office of Justice Programs,
          Department of Justice......................................    19
    Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
        Cragin, Charles L., Acting Assistant Secretary for Reserve
          Affairs, Department of Defense, prepared statement of......    10
        Light, Catherine, Director, Office of National Security
          Affairs, Federal Emergency Management Agency, prepared
          statement of...............................................    47
        Martinez, Barbara Y., Deputy Director, National Domestic
          Preparedness Office, Department of Justice, prepared
          statement of...............................................    40
        Mitchell, Andy, Deputy Director, Office for State and Local
          Domestic Preparedness Support, Office of Justice Programs,
          Department of Justice, prepared statement of...............    22
        Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Connecticut, prepared statement of............     4

      COMBATING TERRORISM: PROPOSED TRANSFER OF THE DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS
                                    PROGRAM

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 1999

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

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.002

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

    STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. CRAGIN, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
                 RESERVE AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

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

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.011

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

     STATEMENT OF ANDY MITCHELL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE FOR STATE
      AND LOCAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS SUPPORT, OFFICE OF JUSTICE
                    PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

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

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.026

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

      STATEMENT OF BARBARA Y. MARTINEZ, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
          DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

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

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.031

        Mr. Shays. Ms. Light.

      STATEMENT OF CATHERINE LIGHT, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NATIONAL
        SECURITY AFFAIRS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY,
       ACCOMPANIED BY BRUCE BAUGHMAN, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS AND
      PLANS, RESPONSE AND RECOVERY, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
                                 AGENCY

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

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.036

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

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

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

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]59450.038