    [Senate Hearing 108-291]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 108-291

                        NOMINATION OF C. SUZANNE MENCER

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                              GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                     ON THE

      NOMINATION OF C. SUZANNE MENCER TO BE DIRECTOR, OFFICE FOR DOMESTIC
                 PREPAREDNESS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 16, 2003

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

    90-234              U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                                WASHINGTON : 2003
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                       COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                       SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
    GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio            CARL LEVIN, Michigan
    NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota              DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              THOMAS R. CARPER, Deleware
    PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois        MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
    JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire        FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama           MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
                  Michael D. Bopp, Staff Director and Counsel
                        Johanna L. Hardy, Senior Counsel
                  Tim Raducha-Grace, Professional Staff Member
          Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
                       Beth M. Grossman, Minority Counsel
               Jennifer E. Hamilton, Minority Research Assistant
                          Amy B. Newhouse, Chief Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Collins..............................................     4
        Senator Lautenberg...........................................    10
        Senator Levin................................................    12
    Prepared statements:
        Senator Coleman..............................................    17
        Senator Akaka................................................    17

                                   WITNESSES
                          Tuesday, September 16, 2003

    Hon. Wayne Allard, a U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado.....     1
    Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, a U.S. Senator from the State of
      Colorado.......................................................     2
    C. Suzanne Mencer to be Director, Office for Domestic
      Preparedness, Department of Homeland Security..................     6

                         Alphabetical List of Witnesses

    Allard, Hon. Wayne:
        Testimony....................................................     1
    Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse:
        Testimony....................................................     2
    Mencer, C. Suzanne:
        Testimony....................................................     6
        Biographical and professional information requested of
          nominees...................................................    19
        Pre-hearing questionnaire....................................    37
        Post-hearing questions and responses for the Record from:
          Senator Lautenberg.........................................    75
          Senator Akaka..............................................    80

                        NOMINATION OF C. SUZANNE MENCER

                                  ----------

                          TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2003

                                           U.S. Senate,
                             Committee on Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:38 a.m., in
    room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan M.
    Collins, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Collins, Levin, and Lautenberg.
        Chairman Collins. The Committee will come to order. I
    notice that two of my distinguished colleagues from Colorado
    are with us this morning and I also know that they are on very
    tight schedules, so I am going to dispense with the ordinary
    order for this hearing and call on my colleagues to introduce
    the witness and then I will do my opening statement.
        This is a hearing on the nomination of C. Suzanne Mencer to
    be the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, the
    Department of Homeland Security. I would say to the nominee
    that she obviously is thought very well of by the two Senators
    from Colorado, that both of them have taken time from their
    extraordinarily busy schedules to join us this morning.
        We will start in order of seniority with Senator Campbell.
        Senator Campbell. Madam Chairwoman, with your permission, I
    would like to yield to Senator Allard. I know his schedule is a
    little tighter than mine.
        Chairman Collins. OK.
        Senator Campbell. The last two times, I think I went first
    anyway.
        Chairman Collins. That would be fine. Senator Allard.

     TESTIMONY OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
                              OF COLORADO

        Senator Allard. Madam Chairman, if that would be all right
    with you, I will proceed.
        Chairman Collins. Absolutely. Welcome. We are delighted to
    have you here.
        Senator Allard. Thank you for your consideration and thank
    you for the good work that you do.
        Madam Chairman, it is a privilege to be here with my good
    friend and colleague, Senator Campbell, to present to you Sue
    Mencer, who the President has nominated to be the Director of
    the Office for Domestic Preparedness in the Department of
    Homeland Security.
        Madam Chairman, Members of the Committee, we in Colorado
    approach this nomination with mixed emotions. On one hand, we
    are pleased that the President selected such a strong,
    competent leader to head this important office. Yet on the
    other hand, we feel the impact of losing one of the Rocky
    Mountain State's finest public servants.
        Ms. Mencer served our country for nearly 25 years and the
    State of Colorado for the last 3 years as the State's Executive
    Director of Public Safety. As a distinguished FBI agent, Sue
    proved her mettle during several high-profile national security
    investigations and later as the FBI's supervisor for the Denver
    Joint Terrorism Task Force.
        However, those years in the FBI must have seemed like a
    walk in the park compared to the last 3 years. Appointed in
    2000, Sue took over the Department of Public Safety just in
    time for the tragedy of September 11. As we all know, the shock
    waves from that terrible day were felt around the country,
    including Colorado. Fortunately for Colorado, though, we had in
    Sue a leader capable of developing a new plan for preventing
    and, if necessary, responding to a potential terrorist attack.
        Under her guidance, Colorado quickly moved to create an
    Office of Preparedness, Security, and Fire Safety, which
    brought focus and structure to the State's terrorism prevention
    and response planning. The Office has also acted as a conduit
    for counterterrorism and response activities, including Federal
    first responder grant programs. Perhaps more importantly, Sue
    helped develop Colorado's homeland security strategy. This
    well-crafted document strikes a delicate balance between
    enhancing the State's homeland security activities while
    emphasizing the importance of close cooperation with local
    officials, Federal agencies, and the private sector.
        Madam Chairman, the importance of first responder
    preparedness cannot be understated. Sue once said, ``A lot of
    home security is common sense.'' That is refreshing, isn't it?
    ``It is preparing for times that there might be a cessation of
    activity as you know it, no different than being prepared for a
    natural disaster, like a winter snowstorm or a tornado in the
    Midwest.''
        As the Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness,
    Sue will bring the same common sense, practical thinking, and
    steady leadership that made Colorado one of the most prepared
    States in the country. I believe the President chose the right
    person in Sue and I give you my strongest endorsement for her
    confirmation.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Chairman Collins. Thank you very much. Senator Campbell.

    TESTIMONY OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
                         THE STATE OF COLORADO

        Senator Campbell. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate
    being here also to co-introduce Suzanne Mencer. I have been
    scratching a few things off of my notes. Everything that
    Senator Allard has already said, I certainly endorse, but will
    try not to be redundant.
        As Senator Allard said, Suzanne served as an FBI agent for
    over two decades. She began her career with the Bureau after
    spending several years teaching Spanish in the public school
    systems of Florida, Ohio, and Missouri. One thing I did not
    know about her is that she met her future husband through FBI
    training, too, and I would like her to introduce her family
    before I finish my statement, if she would.
        Ms. Mencer. Thank you, Senator. With me today, I am very
    happy to have my husband, John Mencer, my son, Alex, my nephew-
    in-law, Chris, and my brother-in-law, George Doms. They came
    from New Jersey for my hearing. Thank you.
        Chairman Collins. We welcome all of them today.
        Senator Campbell. Thank you. Once with the Bureau, she left
    for service in Mobile, Alabama, and continued on to positions
    in New York City, FBI headquarters here in Washington, DC, and
    finally a move to the Denver office in 1990, which was
    certainly Colorado's gain.
        During her term with the FBI, she participated in specific
    operations which made use of her English and Spanish skills.
    She is fluent in Spanish, and in this day and age, I think that
    is an extremely important asset to have in any public sector.
    She went on to serve as a supervisory special agent while here
    at the headquarters in Washington, and she was also in charge
    of investigations in country-specific areas of national
    security and had responsibilities for preparing the
    Congressional budget for the National Security Division of the
    Bureau.
        Once in Denver, she had the important responsibility of
    supervising a squad of special agents, analysts, local law
    enforcement officers, and other Federal agency investigators in
    the Joint Terrorism Task Force that Senator Allard mentioned.
    She served as the chair of the Interagency Threat Analysis
    Group for the Summit of Eight which was held in Denver in 1997,
    and leaders from literally all over the world were at that
    conference. She was also the chair of the Intelligence and
    Threat Analysis Committee of the Denver Consortium of the White
    House Commission on Aviation Security and Safety.
        After she retired from the FBI in 1998 and thought she was
    going to move forward in a life of relaxation with her family,
    she worked as a consultant providing antiterrorism training to
    local law enforcement throughout the United States in
    cooperation with the Institute of Intergovernmental Research.
        Then in 2000, Suzanne was appointed by the Colorado
    Governor, Bill Owens, as Senator Allard mentioned. She has done
    a terrific job in that capacity, overseeing the Colorado Bureau
    of Investigation, the Colorado State Patrol, the Division of
    Criminal Justice, and the Division of Fire Safety. She
    currently manages 1,200 employees and an operating budget of
    $195.5 million.
        I might also say, Madam Chairperson, when Suzanne first got
    involved in law enforcement some years ago--I am sure you are
    well aware of this--it tended to be a male profession. There
    were very few women in those days in the FBI or any Federal
    agency, and even in the local departments. They did have some
    trouble in those years working themselves up to positions of
    authority and to command. And certainly from that standpoint,
    Suzanne, I think, was really one of the women that cracked the
    glass ceiling, so to speak, in law enforcement.
        During her time with the Department of Public Safety, she
    has also been instrumental in creating the Colorado Office of
    Preparedness, Security, and Fire Safety, and did all that
    without adding additional employees and without receiving
    appropriation from the Colorado General Assembly, which is
    generally broke, as all State offices are now.
        She worked with a number of groups that I was very
    interested in, and, in fact, sponsored a number of bills
    dealing with them, the Police Officers Standard and Training
    Board, the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Board, which is
    called HIDTA, the Judicial Discipline Commission, the
    Governor's Clemency Board, and she currently also serves as
    adjutant professor at the University of Colorado in Denver.
        So I have no doubt, as does Senator Allard, that she is
    more than well qualified to be the Director of the Office for
    Domestic Preparedness. She understands that the new warriors in
    this war on terrorism very often are local police, local
    firemen, and certainly has the support of them, too.
        So with that, I would say that this very dedicated,
    tenacious, and extremely talented lady, I should think would be
    well received by this Committee and by our colleagues on the
    floor of the Senate.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Chairman Collins. Thank you very much, and in that regard,
    your strong endorsement makes a great deal of difference to
    this Committee and to your colleagues, so thank you very much
    for taking the time to be with us today.
        Senator Campbell. Thank you. I told Suzanne that I would
    have to excuse myself because I have other commitments, too.
    Thank you.
        Chairman Collins. Absolutely. Thank you.
        We are now going to resume with the normal order of
    procedure and I will deliver my opening statement.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS

        Senator Collins. Today, the Committee on Governmental
    Affairs is holding a hearing to consider the nomination of
    Suzanne Mencer to be the Director of the Office for Domestic
    Preparedness, known as ODP to the Members of this Committee, in
    the Department of Homeland Security. The ODP administers a
    number of homeland security grants to State and local
    governments.
        If confirmed as Director of the Office for Domestic
    Preparedness, Ms. Mencer will be responsible for assisting
    States and local jurisdictions in their efforts to help
    prevent, plan for, and, if necessary, respond to acts of
    terrorism through training, equipment, technical assistance,
    and other support. She will also be called upon to distribute
    billions of dollars of Federal assistance for States,
    localities, and first responders with what is now a notable
    lack of guidance from Congress. Indeed, the 187-page Homeland
    Security Act contained but a single paragraph on grant programs
    for first responders, but help is on the way.
        This Committee has taken a keen interest in improving the
    way we support our States, communities, and first responders.
    The Committee has held three hearings examining this important
    issue. In addition, earlier this year, the Committee
    unanimously endorsed legislation I introduced, the Homeland
    Security Enhancement Act, which would streamline and strengthen
    homeland security grant programs. And just last week, Senator
    Pryor and I introduced legislation to provide advanced
    counterterrorism equipment and information to law enforcement
    agencies to help them prevent, detect, and apprehend
    terrorists.
        By working with and listening to State and local officials
    and first responders, the Director of ODP will be able to
    improve the security of each and every community.
        I am hopeful, Ms. Mencer, if you are confirmed, that you
    will take swift action to correct some of the problems we have
    experienced in the distribution of homeland security grants.
    One is making sure that the grants, training, and exercises are
    flexible enough to meet the homeland security needs of our
    communities. On a number of occasions, officials and first
    responders from my home State of Maine, as well as other
    States, have expressed concerns to me about the lack of
    flexibility in grant funding. This has hindered their efforts
    to protect their communities.
        For example, Maine's fire chiefs have told me that the
    rigid rules of homeland security grant funding are actually
    preventing fire fighters from accepting training opportunities
    at the National Fire Academy. That just does not make good
    sense.
        There have also been delays in distributing money from the
    Federal Government to the local level. I hope you will work to
    expedite the distribution of funding so that we don't have the
    experience that we heard about at one of our hearings, where
    the local fire chiefs and police department chiefs who
    testified said that they had yet to receive any homeland
    security funding.
        I was very pleased to read in your written responses where
    you stressed your commitment to providing flexible resources to
    each and every State. I strongly endorse your commitment to
    establishing a baseline level of capacity to prevent and
    respond to terrorist attacks. We recognize that different areas
    of the country have different needs, but every area needs to
    bring their homeland security baseline up to a certain level.
    After all, each State must protect its vulnerabilities,
    including critical infrastructure and borders. Each State must
    train and equip first responders.
        Coordination with agencies within and outside the
    Department will also be key to your success. I hope that you
    will take steps to eliminate redundant paperwork, standardize
    equipment and training standards, and coordinate emergency
    preparedness plans.
        And I realize that you can't do this alone. This Committee
    has worked on a bipartisan basis to improve the resources
    available to the Department. I hope that you and your staff do
    not hesitate to contact this Committee and work very closely
    with us if you find that you need additional tools to
    effectively assist our communities and first responders.
        Let me end my statement by saying that I am very pleased
    you have agreed to take on these challenges. Your extensive
    experience in the FBI, as the State official leading the
    Department of Public Safety in Colorado, and as a private
    consultant providing antiterrorism training to local law
    enforcement make you unusually well qualified for this vital
    position.
        I now want to indicate for the record that you have filed
    responses to a biographical and financial questionnaire, that
    you have answered the pre-hearing questions submitted by the
    Committee, and that your financial statements have been
    reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics. Without objection,
    this information will all be made part of the hearing record,
    with the exception of the financial data, which are on file and
    available for public inspection in the Committee offices.
        Ms. Mencer, our Committee rules require that all witnesses
    at nomination hearings give their testimony under oath, so if
    you would please stand and raise your right hand so I can
    administer the oath.
        Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to
    the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
    but the truth, so help you, God?
        Ms. Mencer. I do.
        Chairman Collins. You may be seated.
        It is my understanding that you do have a statement you
    would like to make and I would ask you to proceed at this time.

     TESTIMONY OF C. SUZANNE MENCER,\1\ TO BE DIRECTOR, OFFICE FOR
         DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

        Ms. Mencer. Thank you. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the
    opportunity to speak before you today and I just want to
    express my sincere thanks to Senators Allard and Campbell for
    their statements. That was very humbling and I appreciate that.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The biographical and professional information of Ms. Mencer
    appears in the Appendix on page 19.
         Pre-hearing questionnaire appears in the Appendix on page 37.
         Post-hearing questions and responses appear in the Appendix on
    page 75.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        My name is Suzanne Mencer and I am President Bush's nominee
    for the position of Director of the Office for Domestic
    Preparedness in the Department of Homeland Security. It is
    indeed a great honor to appear before you today.
        If I may, I would like to introduce yet again very briefly
    my husband, John, who has been my biggest supporter, my mentor,
    my biggest fan through these 25 years. Our son, Alex, who is
    here missing school today but getting extra credit for his
    American Government class, so we are happy that he is here. Our
    daughter, Jessie, is unable to be here. She is a student in
    Massachusetts in college and she couldn't make it for the
    hearing, but she has always been very proud of everything I
    have done and I appreciate that. My brother-in-law, George, and
    his son, Chris, who came all the way from New Jersey this
    morning to be here with me today. Thank you for allowing me to
    introduce them again.
        Thirty-five years ago this month, as I began a 10-year
    career as a high school Spanish teacher in Worthington, Ohio, I
    never dreamed I would be sitting here today, nominated by the
    President of the United States. And not even after a 20-year
    career in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, investigating
    and supervising foreign counterintelligence, international and
    domestic terrorism, did I dream of this. Not even when Governor
    Bill Owens appointed me to become the Executive Director of
    Public Safety for Colorado 3 years ago did I imagine being here
    today. Indeed, this is a great honor.
        However, I do believe that my experience at the Federal
    level in terrorism matters, combined now with my years of
    service at the State level, working closely with first
    responders and local law enforcement, provide a truly unique
    perspective. I have seen what is necessary at the Federal,
    State, and local level to combat terrorism and I have seen it
    from an investigative response and tactical perspective. I know
    firsthand how important equipment, training, and exercises are
    to prevent another event from occurring, but if it does, to
    have the resources to respond in the most effective and
    efficient way possible.
        I have worked closely in Colorado with sheriffs, chiefs,
    fire chiefs, emergency response personnel, health care
    providers, and our Federal partners to develop plans using
    regional approaches. We stress in Colorado that we must all
    work together, crossing city lines, county lines, State
    boundaries, because a weapon of mass destruction overwhelms the
    capability of any one community to respond. But more
    importantly, we stress that we must combine our resources.
    Terrorists are not restricted by city, State, or county lines,
    and we need to prepare accordingly.
        If confirmed, I hope to use that perspective to ensure that
    the Federal funds so necessary to the defense of our country
    are directed and applied throughout the United States to reap
    the greatest benefit to detect, deter, and respond to a
    terrorist act.
        If I am confirmed, I would be grateful, humbled, and
    honored to have the opportunity to use my expertise and my
    abilities to serve the President and my country in the
    Department of Homeland Security.
        Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, for considering my
    nomination and I would be happy to answer any questions you
    might have.
        Chairman Collins. Thank you very much. I will start my
    questioning today with the standard questions that we ask of
    all nominees.
        First, is there anything you are aware of in your
    background which might present a conflict of interest with the
    duties of the office to which you have been nominated?
        Ms. Mencer. No, Madam Chairman.
        Chairman Collins. Second, do you know of anything personal
    or otherwise that would in any way prevent you from fully and
    honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to
    which you have been nominated?
        Ms. Mencer. No, Madam Chairman.
        Chairman Collins. And finally, do you agree without
    reservation to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and
    testify before any duly constituted Committee of Congress if
    you are confirmed?
        Ms. Mencer. Yes, Madam Chairman.
        Chairman Collins. We will now begin the first round of
    questions, which we will limit to 8 minutes each.
        In response to the Committee's written questions, you
    voiced your general support for creating a one-stop shop for
    homeland security grants and other assistance for State and
    local governments and first responders. A number of us on this
    Committee, including Senator Levin and myself, have pushed very
    hard for there to be a central point of contact that State and
    local governments and first responders could go to get
    information about grant programs.
        And as I mentioned in my opening statement, the Committee
    has approved legislation that would create a one-stop shop for
    first responders. It would also enact other measures to
    streamline the grant process. In addition, the Department is
    moving in that direction, as well. The legislation would
    require the creation of a single toll-free number for grant
    assistance. It would reduce duplicative grant applications and
    required plans.
        Based on your experience in Colorado and elsewhere, what
    specific steps would you take to bring about a consolidation as
    far as having a single point of contact for our first
    responders and our State and local governments? How can we
    improve the ability, since you have seen it from the State
    level, of our governments and first responders to get quick and
    accurate information about potential grants?
        Ms. Mencer. Yes, Madam Chairman. I do believe that there
    are things that can be done and I think ODP, the Office for
    Domestic Preparedness, has already started down that path, to
    look at ways to streamline this process. And certainly in the
    State of Colorado, ODP has been a tremendous help already with
    answering our questions concerning all the grant issues on this
    very important issue of homeland security.
        I think the Office for Domestic Preparedness will continue
    to do that and I understand there is some discussion at the
    Department of Homeland Security to further streamline the
    process, as you have suggested.
        Chairman Collins. Are you aware that it is now a 12-step
    process to actually get the money down to the local level? It
    requires the filing of a report saying how you want to spend
    the money, then that is approved, then another report, and
    another plan have to be filed. Will you commit to working very
    closely with this Committee to simplify the process? We are
    committed to getting our bill through, but it may be next year
    before it is signed into law.
        Ms. Mencer. Absolutely, Madam Chairman. I would be
    committed to working with this Committee on a number of issues
    and that is one of them. I think streamlining is always
    something that we should strive for, as long as we maintain the
    funding for the maximum amount of good and make it efficient
    and effective.
        Chairman Collins. I also want to bring to your attention a
    very popular grant program that has worked extremely well in my
    State and in States across the country, and that is what is
    known as the Fire Act. It gives grants directly to local fire
    departments so they can improve their capacity to respond in
    the event of a terrorist attack. And with the help of the fire
    fighting community, we drafted our bill very carefully to
    preserve the administrative structure of the Fire Act program
    because it has a minimum of bureaucracy. It works extremely
    well and there is a high satisfaction level.
        The administration has suggested a different approach. We
    want to make sure that this program, which is working so well,
    while it is being transferred to a new location, continues to
    be administered as a separate grant program. When something is
    working very well, we ought to preserve that and not jeopardize
    it by folding it into other grant programs that aren't working
    as well.
        If confirmed, will you work to preserve the administrative
    structure of the Fire Act?
        Ms. Mencer. Madam Chairman, I believe it is the intent of
    Governor Ridge--Secretary Ridge at this point to maintain the
    Fire Act as it presently stands no matter where it happens to
    reside. I think it is a good program. I have heard from my fire
    fighting associates that, indeed, it is a program that they
    like, and I am sure that it will maintain its integrity no
    matter where it goes.
        Chairman Collins. The next issue I want to discuss with you
    has to do with the formula for allocating homeland security
    grants. As you can imagine, whenever we discuss formulas or the
    allocation of resources in Congress, those of us who represent
    smaller States often have different views than those of us who
    represent more urban populated States.
        What I want to point out to you, since you will undoubtedly
    be involved in the discussions on this, is that each and every
    State, regardless of its size, has certain homeland security
    needs and vulnerabilities. The State of Maine is a perfect
    example of that. We only have 1.2 million people, but we are a
    border State with Canada. We have an extensive coastline that
    makes us vulnerable. We have a very busy port that is the
    second-largest port by tonnage along the East Coast.
        We know that two of the hijackers on September 11 started
    out in Portland, Maine. I think that illustrates that we have
    to be very careful about allocating funds purely on a per
    capita basis--and some have argued that that is how it should
    be done.
        Larger States already receive substantial homeland security
    funding from other programs, such as the High-Threat Urban Area
    Grant Program, which I support, and which the legislation that
    I have authored would expand upon. In fact, during the past 2
    years, Congress has provided more than $1 billion for high-
    threat funding, which benefits only a handful of States, and
    that amount is roughly a third of the total homeland security
    assistance to State and local governments.
        Second, not all potential threats directly target people
    where they live. A recent edition of Government Executive
    magazine focuses on the growing threat to our agricultural
    sector and our food supply. The article notes that foot and
    mouth disease is the most infectious virus known, for example,
    and that it could be spread by the wind more than 170 miles in
    aerosol form. The article also cites a National Defense
    University report that states even a limited outbreak of foot
    and mouth disease in this country affecting not more than 10
    farms could have a $2 billion impact.
        I wanted to take some time to give you that background
    because I have a feeling you will be hearing alternative views
    from some of my colleagues. But I want to make sure that I have
    your commitment that you will carefully assess this whole area
    of funding and not adopt what I believe would be a simplistic
    approach based on population that would not take into account
    the real vulnerabilities and threats that different States may
    have.
        Another example would be a State like Delaware, a very
    small State but one that has a large Air Force base in Dover, a
    speedway. I know my colleague, Senator Carper, is very
    concerned about the issues that his State would face, too.
        Do you share my belief that we need to consider a range of
    risks, threats, and vulnerabilities in addition to population
    when deciding how to effectively allocate homeland security
    grant funding?
        Ms. Mencer. Yes, Madam Chairman. I believe you are
    absolutely correct. It is a complicated issue that deserves a
    more measured response, and certainly not a simplistic
    approach. And I think you are absolutely right that you have to
    take in many factors when you look at how to protect a State
    and what needs to be protected. You have to consider its
    vulnerability, the threat level against that State, and also
    its critical infrastructures and its population. So it is a
    multi-faceted view of how to protect these States.
        Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Lautenberg.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG

        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and welcome,
    Ms. Mencer. It is nice to see someone here who is so well
    qualified and we look forward to your service.
        I doubt that establishing the Department of Homeland
    Security has not been a gargantuan undertaking, but I was
    concerned about something--and by the way, you have a Colorado
    connection and I have two. They are two little grandchildren,
    my son's children who were born in the mountains in Edwards,
    Colorado, just a beautiful place. We have a real fondness for
    Colorado and understand Colorado builds great character----
    [Laughter.]
        So we are happy to see you here.
        Chairman Collins. Senator, excuse me for interrupting you,
    but I would note that she has New Jersey relatives with her
    that she introduced, so I knew you would want to know that
    and----
        Senator Lautenberg. From where? Maybe we can wrap this up.
    [Laughter.]
        Senator Lautenberg. Where are you from?
        Mr. Mencer. Pennsauken.
        Senator Lautenberg. Oh, Pennsauken, more in the Southern
    part of our State. It is nice to see you here, and for sure,
    that is another plus, Ms. Mencer. [Laughter.]
        That was good judgment. [Laughter.]
        There was an article in Sunday's Washington Post entitled,
    ``The Government's Hobbled Giant,'' and it talked about the
    slow start and the confusion and suggests low morale at DHS.
    Now, the President initially resisted creating the Department
    and we hope that he is fully committed to giving it the
    resources that it needs to do the job that it must. I am
    interested in what you have had to say on the subject.
        I am also interested to learn what our nominee thinks about
    the adequacy of the formula ODP used to allocate first
    responder grants. Last March, ODP made an additional allocation
    of $566 million. Small States received anywhere from $4 to
    $9.78 per capita. New York, ground zero on September 11,
    received $1.40 per capita. Only California did worse on a per
    capita basis. My home State of New Jersey lost 700 people on
    September 11, received $1.69 per capita when the nationwide per
    capita average was $1.98.
        Now, Congress is partially to blame for the allocation
    formula used since the PATRIOT Act requires that each State,
    regardless of size, receives 0.75 percent of the total funding.
    That means that nearly 40 percent of it gets doled out in equal
    allocations. The Chairman talked about a bill that she has to
    improve the ODP grantmaking. Unfortunately, the bill does not
    fix the small State minimum, nor does it require that the
    population density be incorporated into the allocation formula.
        So I hope that you will be able to agree with us that S.
    1245 needs to be fixed so that we can reduce the enormous per
    capita disparities in the ODP's first responders grants,
    disparities that I, frankly, cannot justify to my constituents,
    many of whom were directly affected by the tragedy of September
    11.
        I am concerned that in the nearly 2 years since September
    11, the Bush Administration has failed to direct and assist
    States in developing a comprehensive threat assessment, which
    is of immediate importance to local and State Governments, as
    you surely know based on your own experience. If confirmed,
    what can you do to help expedite these Federal-level
    assessments and to help the States and the locals to develop
    their own comprehensive threat assessments or threat
    evaluation?
        Ms. Mencer. Madam Chairman, Senator Lautenberg, that is
    kind of a multi-faceted question and I will try to take them as
    I remembered them.
        As to the morale in the Department of Homeland Security, I
    certainly haven't been there, but I certainly haven't noticed
    anything in the individuals that have been working with me
    through this confirmation process.
        Senator Lautenberg. You saw the story in the paper?
        Ms. Mencer. I saw the version that was printed in our
    Denver Post, yes.
        Senator Lautenberg. I see.
        Ms. Mencer. Yes, but that is all I have seen, but I have
    not witnessed that at all.
        As to the formula process and trying to assess what a State
    needs and what kind of funding should be distributed, as I said
    earlier, I think it is a multi-faceted process and it is my
    understanding that the Department of Homeland Security is
    presently working on revising a formula--the formula, revising
    it so it is more comprehensive and takes into account a lot of
    factors.
        Senator Lautenberg. The threat assessment, I think, is the
    most important. I mean, if there is ever a vulnerability that
    has been identified----
        Ms. Mencer. Right.
        Senator Lautenberg [continuing]. It is our region, New
    York-New Jersey region, and----
        Ms. Mencer. Yes, sir, and they also are working--I know we
    are working very hard in Colorado to do a threat assessment now
    that is due to the Office for Domestic Preparedness by December
    31, and that is working with our State, Federal, and local law
    enforcement and first responder community to do certainly a
    comprehensive and complete threat assessment.
        Senator Lautenberg. Would you comment on the effectiveness
    of the color-coded homeland security system? I have had some
    significant doubts about it because it is so non-specific that
    people don't know what to do. I get calls in the office from
    constituents asking, ``Is it safe to plan a wedding in New
    York? Can we visit this place or visit that place? Do we dare
    do it? These are friends of children, grandchildren. So I say,
    yes, you can't not conduct your normal life. What do you think
    about the homeland security system--and I understand there is
    some review taking place there, is that true?
        Ms. Mencer. Yes, sir. It is my understanding it is under
    review currently. In the State of Colorado, I can tell you that
    we have made decisions based on what we perceived as our threat
    in our particular area by consulting with all of our partners
    in the State. I am certain that my former colleagues at the FBI
    would certainly, if there were specific threat information, let
    that be known to any area that might be more susceptible or the
    subject of a threat. So I am fairly confident that if there
    were specific information, it would be passed, then we must
    devise--each State must determine how are you going to react to
    these threat levels, and that is what we have done in Colorado.
        Senator Lautenberg. Yes. I think that the system was
    originally designed to reach those who are responsible for the
    law enforcement side, the whole security agenda, and as a
    consequence, there was some comfort taken, well, the governor
    would know and the head of the State police and the local
    police departments and emergency units. But again, because of
    the confusion that it brought, and without any direction or any
    warning as to what you do when the threat level is raised, what
    you don't do, do you keep your kids home from school, don't go
    to the doctor, don't go to work, all of those things.
        But, Madam Chairman, we have a very good nominee here and I
    am sure that she will pass with flying colors. I just want her
    to remember that New Jersey has specific vulnerabilities in our
    attempt to protect the entire country. Thanks for being here.
    The job, though complicated, is one that has to be done and we
    are sure that you will lend excellent leadership to it.
        Ms. Mencer. Thank you.
        Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Levin.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN

        Senator Levin. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        First, let me welcome our nominee. We congratulate her, and
    we look forward to her speedy nomination.
        Our Chairman has raised a number of issues with you which
    are very important issues which I think all of us have a great
    interest in, including the question of the administration of
    Fire Act grants, and I understand that your answer to that is
    that they will continue to be administered in the same way even
    though they are located in a different place. Does that mean
    that the Fire Act grants would still go directly to fire
    departments?
        Ms. Mencer. Just to clarify, I believe, Senator, it is
    Secretary Ridge's intent to maintain them as they are. I am, of
    course, not privy to those discussions, have not been to this
    point, so that is something I think I will be looking forward
    to working with and to looking at that issue if I am confirmed.
        Senator Levin. Is it your belief, then, from what you know
    and have been informed of that the Fire Act grants would still
    go directly to fire departments?
        Ms. Mencer. I think, presently, that is the intent. I, of
    course, again, am not privy----
        Senator Levin. As far as you know. I understand.
        Ms. Mencer. As far as I know.
        Senator Levin. OK. That is fair enough. On the one-stop
    shop issue, I again congratulate and commend our Chairman
    because she has been a leader in this effort to try to get the
    Department to have an 800 number, to have a one-stop shop,
    because there is a huge amount of confusion and uncertainty out
    there and they need our local communities, fire departments,
    responders, they all need to have one place, one number where
    they can go and get information and find out where applications
    are going to be filed. I know it is forthcoming and I would
    hope that, when confirmed, that you would speed up that
    process.
        Ms. Mencer. I think that Secretary Ridge has expressed that
    he is also looking for a one-stop shop to enable the States to
    have a central location to refer all their questions, all their
    grant information to, and I believe that is his intent.
        Senator Levin. What we have seen, I am afraid, so far,
    however, is some real storm clouds here in terms of funding. As
    I read the numbers, the administration has actually requested
    less for first responders in the 2004 budget than in the 2003
    budget when we add together the Office of Domestic Preparedness
    budget with the fire grant program budget. In 2003, the total
    of those two programs was $4 billion plus, and it is $3.5
    billion, slightly more than $3.5 billion in the 2004 request.
    And that, it seems to me, is a real underfunding.
        We will have the debates over formulas, which are perfectly
    normal around here and understandable, but it seems to me when
    it comes to the overall funding of first responders, that we
    are way underfunded. There was a report issued by the Council
    of Foreign Relations detailing the inadequacy of Federal
    funding for our first responders entitled, ``Emergency
    Responders: Drastically Underfunded and Dangerously
    Unprepared.'' It concluded that an additional $20 billion is
    needed to adequately fund first responders, and that is $16
    billion more than is being provided in the 2003 budget.
        I am wondering whether or not you will be weighing in on
    that issue. Do you have any feelings on that issue?
        Ms. Mencer. I think it is always a concern, how safe is
    safe enough and how much money do you need to do what you have
    to do to protect the country, and I think that will always be
    an ongoing debate.
        I think we have seen in the State of Colorado more money
    coming in than we have ever seen, and it has made a tremendous
    difference and will continue to make a tremendous difference.
    And yes, I would be committed to working to try to determine
    how safe is safe enough.
        Senator Levin. And would you be committed to trying to
    obtain adequate funding for our first responders?
        Ms. Mencer. I think we absolutely have to ensure that we
    put the money where it can do the maximum benefit and make sure
    we are efficiently and effectively doing that.
        Senator Levin. And that we have adequate funds to do that?
        Ms. Mencer. I think that is part of the whole
    interpretation of that, is to make sure the funding is adequate
    to protect our citizens.
        Senator Levin. Now, on the formula issue, obviously, there
    are some differences depending on what States we represent, but
    there is a common theme, I think, which is that funding ought
    to go where there are vulnerabilities and threats. There are
    States with small populations which have greater threats than
    some States perhaps with larger populations. The Chairman's
    State, with a long seacoast, for instance, that is a real
    vulnerability. The other vulnerabilities and threats that she
    has identified in Maine are real. The other small States have
    their own vulnerabilities. Delaware is frequently mentioned. It
    has vulnerabilities.
        If we allocate funds based on vulnerability and where
    threats are, I am happy. The problem is when we go beyond that
    and have an arbitrary formula, that is where we get into
    difficulty. Now, traditionally, we have done that. We have had
    a so-called small State minimum that has been guaranteed to
    every State, separate and apart from what vulnerabilities and
    threats will be. That doesn't mean there are no vulnerabilities
    and threats, it just means as a base, that we have provided
    funding to all States.
        Traditionally, it has been somewhere between half of one
    percent guaranteed to each State and zero, and there are dozens
    of programs, over 50, where that formula is being used, up to
    half of one percent, down to nothing.
        In this particular program, it is three-quarters of one
    percent, which is, I think, unique except perhaps for one other
    grant program. And so the issue is whether or not there is
    going to be that kind of an arbitrary allocation not based on
    specific threats or vulnerabilities and that is where there are
    obviously differences here between us.
        I would like to read to you the Federal Funds Information
    for States, which is a leading organization that analyzes State
    grants, Federal grants to States, which says that the structure
    of the 0.75 minimum as a base represents a departure from the
    traditional small State minimums, which are typically 0.50 or
    less, in other words, half of one percent. And so that is what
    I hope the Department is going to be looking at when they
    decide what they are going to do. In fact, I think we have on
    record a statement previously by the governor that he is going
    to be looking at this whole issue and, indeed, is going to try
    to make a rational allocation of funds which is based on
    vulnerability, based on threat to the maximum extent possible.
    We are going to rely on him and you to do just that, because a
    minimum State formula just means one that is in keeping with
    traditions around here to the extent that we have one. But to
    the extent possible, maximally, based on our vulnerabilities
    and based on threats.
        By the way, under the current formula, just to give you one
    example, Texas receives $4.50 per capita. Wyoming receives $32
    per capita. I don't think it ought to be per capita
    distributed. I happen to agree that that is not a rational
    system, either, because of the need to distribute based on
    threat rather than on some arbitrary formula. But that is the
    result. It is kind of hard to think that Wyoming has got
    greater threats than Texas. Maybe, but it doesn't jump out at
    me that way.
        And finally, on this same point that the Council for
    Foreign Relations writes that Congress--well, I think I just
    quoted that, should work to establish a system for distributing
    funds based less on politics and more on threat. I just
    mentioned a few minutes ago that Secretary Ridge has stated he
    has got problems with the current formula and is working on a
    better way to allocate ODP dollars for 2004.
        So I think we all want to feel comfortable that we can
    count on you to the maximum extent possible to be looking at a
    formula here which does provide some funds for all States,
    because all States have some threats and all have
    administrative costs. But to the maximum extent possible, it is
    based on where the maximum vulnerabilities and threats are. Can
    we count on you for that?
        Ms. Mencer. Yes, sir.
        Senator Levin. Madam Chairman, thank you.
        Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator Levin.
        As you can see, Ms. Mencer, it is going to be a challenge
    to be head of the ODP, but it is an extremely important
    position.
        In view of the hour, I am going to just submit some
    additional questions for the record for you to answer.
        I do want to make just one final point on the funding
    issue, not to get into a big debate with my distinguished
    colleague, but that is as you tackle this issue, I think it is
    very important that you look at all of the sources of homeland
    security funding and how they are allocated. And to give you an
    example, for the funding for fiscal year 2003 that was included
    in the omnibus bill, just two States, California and New York,
    received half of all the high-threat funds.
        So as you review these issues, it is important that you
    look at all of the funding and how it is allocated. The high-
    threat urban area funding obviously benefits only a handful of
    States, but that has been set aside to deal with large urban
    areas. But only two States get more than half of that funding.
    So I think it is important to take a broad look.
        And the final comment I would make is that Secretary Ridge
    has testified both before this Committee and the Appropriations
    Subcommittee that he supports a base-level of funding for every
    State because we want to make sure that every State meets a
    certain baseline level of capacity, and I would assume that you
    would agree with the Secretary's position on that matter.
        Ms. Mencer. Yes, ma'am.
        Chairman Collins. Thank you.
        I would like to thank you for not only appearing before the
    Committee today, but also for being willing to take on this
    task. You really have the ideal background, your many years as
    an FBI agent, your work at the Department of Public Safety at
    the State level, and the work that you have done as a private
    consultant in training local law enforcement in antiterrorism
    efforts. It gives me great confidence that you are the ideal
    person to head this very important agency. We look forward to
    working very closely with you.
        Without objection, the record will be kept open until 5
    p.m. tomorrow for the submission of any additional questions
    from Committee Members or statements for the record.
        This hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

               PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR NORM COLEMAN
        This hearing marks another important step in the creation of the
    Department of Homeland Security. The creation of the Department
    represents one of the largest management challenges in our Nation's
    history. It is important that we move expeditiously to approve the
    President's nominees.
        We all know that much of the responsibility for protecting our
    Nation falls on the State and local officials who live in each
    community. The Office of Domestic Preparedness plays a vital role in
    making sure that these jurisdictions have the equipment and training
    they need to do their job. It is also responsible for ensuring that
    Federal dollars are spent wisely according to a coordinated State plan.
        Ms. Mencer seems to be well qualified for the post to which she is
    nominated. Her experience in law enforcement gives her a good
    appreciation of the challenges facing our Nation. Her experience in
    State Government should make her more appreciative of the need to make
    it easy for State and local governments to work with the Federal
    Government.
        Today's hearing also gives us an opportunity to address the
    operation of the State and local grants program. This committee has
    already passed legislation sponsored by Senator Collins that would give
    the Department more guidance in how to distribute the grants to first
    responders. This same legislation would require the Department to
    implement changes that would make it easier for local governments to
    identify and apply for grant programs that would meet their needs. I
    hope that the Department will begin working on these initiatives
    immediately.

                                   __________

             PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA

        Thank you very much Madam Chairman. I would like to welcome Ms.
    Mencer and her family this morning.
        Ms. Mencer, as the former Executive Director of the Department of
    Public Safety for the State of Colorado, you appreciate that homeland
    security policies must address specific needs to States and
    municipalities to be effective.
        The Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) is in the process of
    working with States to assess and improve preparedness. However, a
    number of concerns have been expressed, which lead me to believe that
    more needs to be done to ensure that ODP grant programs address the
    homeland security needs of each State.
        Homeland security grant allocations should fully account for all
    who are present within a State. Grants are currently based on
    population data from the U.S. Census Bureau. With respect to Hawaii,
    the high military and tourist populations in the State are not counted
    for grant allocation purposes.
        As a result, Hawaii does not receive full funding for the entire
    population the State must protect. In fact, Hawaii has the largest per
    capita population of military service members of any State. As the
    Department of Homeland Security develops its strategy to revise the
    current grant allocation process, it is imperative that Hawaii and
    other States' military and tourist populations are included in any new
    grant formula.
        ODP grant programs also must ensure maximum flexibility for States
    to address unique homeland security needs. States are currently
    required to budget for grant aid in advance and wait for reimbursement
    once Federal funding is received. This is a considerable burden which
    diverts State resources and prevents effective program planning.
        Federal assistance should be tailored to meet each State's homeland
    security needs. For example, Weapons of Mass Destruction training
    grants are often only available for preparedness and awareness
    training, whereas in some States like Hawaii, officials have already
    received initial training and require advanced operational guidance. In
    another example, requirements for grant funding to be allocated solely
    to support interoperable communications systems results in barriers for
    basic equipment upgrades to ensure reliable communications among first
    responders. We need to ensure that States have the flexibility to sue
    these funds as needed.
        In an effort to address many of my concerns, I am pleased to join
    Chairman Collins in seeking enactment of S. 1245.
        Ms. Mencer, thank you for being with us. I look forward to working
    with you to ensure that Federal homeland security policies administered
    by ODP fully meet the unique needs of each State.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.055

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.056

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.057

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.058

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.059

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.060

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.061

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.062

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.063

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0234.064