[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE TRAINING OF FIRST RESPONDERS IN RURAL COMMUNITIES
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT,
INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 22, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-130
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
46-631 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Loretta Sanchez, California Peter T. King, New York
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Lamar Smith, Texas
Norman D. Dicks, Washington Christopher Shays, Connecticut
Jane Harman, California Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Tom Davis, Virginia
Nita M. Lowey, New York Daniel E. Lungren, California
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Mike Rogers, Alabama
Columbia David G. Reichert, Washington
Zoe Lofgren, California Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Charles W. Dent, Pennsylvania
Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida
Islands Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida
Bob Etheridge, North Carolina David Davis, Tennessee
James R. Langevin, Rhode Island Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Henry Cuellar, Texas Candice S. Miller, Michigan
Christopher P. Carney, Pennsylvania
Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Al Green, Texas
Ed Perlmutter, Colorado
Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
I. Lanier Lavant, Staff Director
Rosaline Cohen, Chief Counsel
Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Robert O'Connor, Minority Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT
Christopher P. Carney, Pennsylvania, Chairman
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Mike Rogers, Alabama
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Ed Perlmutter, Colorado Candice S. Miller, Michigan
Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey Peter T. King, New York (Ex
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (Ex Officio)
Officio)
Tamla T. Scott, Staff Director
Daniel Wilkins, Clerk
Michael Russell, Senior Counsel
(II)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Christopher P. Carney, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Management, Investigations, and Oversight...................... 1
The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Alabama, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Management, Investigations, and Oversight...................... 2
Witnesses
Mr. Dennis R. Schrader, Deputy Administrator for National
Preparedness, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department
of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
Mr. James M. Walker, Jr., Director, Alabama Department of
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 13
Prepared Statement............................................. 15
Dr. William Meehan, President, Jacksonville State University:
Oral Statement................................................. 17
Prepared Statement............................................. 20
Mr. John C. Pearce, Associate Director, Canine Detection Training
Center, Auburn University:
Oral Statement................................................. 22
Prepared Statement............................................. 23
Mr. Matthew C. Knight, Vice President, Alabama Association of
Rescue Squads:
Oral Statement................................................. 28
Prepared Statement............................................. 29
Appendix
Questions From Honorable Bennie G. Thompson...................... 51
EXAMINING THE TRAINING OF FIRST RESPONDERS IN RURAL COMMUNITIES
----------
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight,
McClellan, AL.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in
the Auditorium, Auburn University CDTC Building, 265 Rucker
Street, McClellan, Alabama, Hon. Christopher P. Carney
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Carney and Rogers.
Mr. Carney. The subcommittee will come to order.
The subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on
``Examining the Training of First Responders in Rural
Communities.''
First, I would like to take a moment to thank
Representative Rogers for suggesting this venue and the subject
of today's hearing. Last summer, Mike was kind enough to travel
up to Pennsylvania for a field hearing our subcommittee held to
investigate our Nation's preparedness for a large-scale event
involving agriculture, be it accidentally contaminated food or
something more malicious. We started talking about how similar
our districts were while we were at lunch that day and I think
that is when the wheels started to turn to get this hearing set
up. Not only are both our districts predominantly rural and
apparently really hot in July----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Carney [continuing]. But the majority of the United
States looks very similar in terms of urban versus rural.
Unfortunately, pre-9/11 training for responders in rural
areas was lacking compared to what we have today. I am not
knocking the efforts pre-9/11. Those programs were and are
invaluable. But when our responders are preparing for a
terrorist attack or a natural disaster, it is nice to know they
have the training similar to that of their urban counterparts,
which is exactly why Congress sought to establish Federal
training programs for first responders in rural areas.
Representative Rogers has the unique opportunity to
represent a district that includes the Department of Homeland
Security's Center for Domestic Preparedness, which provides
first responders in rural areas with unparalleled Federal
training for emergency events, and offers its expertise to all
States as well as local or tribal agencies.
In advance of our visit to the CDP yesterday, I received a
list of all the Pennsylvania first responders who have trained
at the Center. Frankly, I was very pleasantly surprised to see
that over 1,800 responders from Pennsylvania, including a
number from my district, have had the incredible opportunity to
train and graduate here at the Center. Frankly, I wish I had
had the same opportunity back in the days when I was an EMT--
when we had horse-drawn ambulances.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Carney. All of our time today will not be spent
discussing training centers for first responders in the rural
areas. Long before I arrived in Washington, Mike began
advocating for improvements in the myriad of Federal canine
detection programs. Now I know why. Another incredible facility
here in Alabama is Auburn University's Canine Detection
Training Center.
After visiting yesterday, I came to understand the desire
to change the way the current system operates. Right now, there
are a number of separate training programs for various Federal
law enforcement canine detection teams spread throughout the
Federal Government, not to mention the procurement arrangements
with foreign entities. Yesterday, at the Auburn canine
facility, we saw what can actually be done when it comes to
training canines.
I was glad to join Mr. Rogers and the Chairman of the full
Homeland Security Committee, Bennie Thompson, as an original
co-sponsor of H.R. 659, the Canine Detection Team Improvement
Act. H.R. 659 seeks to unify the training and streamline the
procurement of canines for the various components of the
Department of Homeland Security currently deploying canine
teams. What the bill proposes to do is evidently do-able, but
as we have seen too many times with DHS, there are bound to be
inter-agency battles at the mere discussion of proposals like
H.R. 659.
That said, our committee has made some significant headway
encouraging improvement at DHS. I think reforms outlined in the
Canine Detection Team Improvement Act are well-suited for
inclusion in the next DHS authorization bill. I, of course, am
continuing to work with Representative Rogers to help it move
forward.
Thanks again, Mike, and both majority and minority staffs
for helping to arrange this trip.
Just a quick housekeeping note. This is still an official
Congressional hearing, so we have to abide by certain rules of
the Committee and the House of Representatives. So we ask that
we have no applause of any kind, no demonstrations with regard
to testimony. Once again, I thank you all for being here. This
turnout is quite a testimony to the importance of this topic.
Now I will turn to Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome you
again to Alabama, and I thank you for traveling from northeast
Pennsylvania to be here with us today.
I also want to thank our witnesses for taking the time out
of their busy schedules to be with us as well. It is very
important. As Chris said, this is an official hearing and the
whole purpose is to get your testimony in the Congressional
Record about this very important topic.
I want to make special recognition of Dr. Jay Gogue from
Auburn, President of Auburn University, who is with us here
today. I welcome you here, and one of your trustees and my
friend Earlon McWhorter, thanks for being here.
Today's hearing will examine the training of first
responders in rural communities and the role of detection
canines in homeland security. Yesterday, we had a chance to
tour the CDP, Center for Domestic Preparedness, its Noble
Training Center and its Live Agent Chemical Agent Training
Facility called COBRATF.
Today, there are 250 responder students training at the CDP
representing 32 States, including Alabama and Pennsylvania. We
saw first-hand how hard these folks are training and how
important this kind of training is to prepare for major
emergencies.
We also toured the Auburn Canine Detection Training Center
that provides a valuable resource to homeland security missions
across the country. We were briefed at the Alabama Emergency
Management Agency in Calhoun County, which is a state-of-the-
art facility and a model for other communities across the
country.
The training of first responders in rural communities is a
critical element in the effort to secure our homeland. Those
folks who are on the front line of our Nation's security are
the first line of defense against terrorist attacks or natural
disasters.
To further these efforts, in 2007, I created a provision in
the
9/11 Act which President Bush signed into law, to authorize the
establishment of the Rural Policing Institute at the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center, or FLETC. My dad, as many of
you know, is a fireman, retired fireman. So I grew up with the
challenges of rural firefighters. I have seen how many of our
loved ones leave their jobs and their families for long periods
of time to receive training outside of their communities. Down
the road, I hope the Institute could be an important step in
that direction to helping train these important individuals
across our country.
This hearing also builds on the subcommittee's work in 2005
on the use of detection canines in homeland security. We heard
about how these dogs have helped save lives both here and
overseas. Since then, Congress has passed a number of bills
that helped expand the use of canines throughout the Department
of Homeland Security, a fact that I am very proud of.
We look forward to hearing about these and other issues
today from our panel of witnesses that includes the Honorable
Dennis Schrader, Deputy Secretary of National Preparedness at
FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency; we have Mr. Jim
Walker, Director of the Alabama Department of Homeland
Security; Dr. William Meehan, President of Jacksonville State
University and Mr. John Pearce, Associate Director of Auburn
University Canine Detection Training and Matthew Knight, Vice
President of Alabama Association of Rescue Squads from just
south of here in Randolph County. Welcome.
Thank you all for being here and I will yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Carney. I would like to welcome our panel of witnesses.
Our first witness is the Honorable Mr. Dennis Schrader, who was
confirmed by the Senate in August 2007 to serve as the Deputy
Administrator for National Preparedness within FEMA.
Prior to his current position, Mr. Schrader served as the
first director of the Maryland Governor's Office of Homeland
Security. In addition, he spent 16 years at the University of
Maryland, where he worked extensively on medical preparedness
plans. Mr. Schrader also served in the Navy until 1987 and in
Reserve status until 2006. I thank you for your service, and
thank you for being here today, Mr. Schrader.
Our second witness is Mr. Jim Walker, the Director of the
Alabama Department of Homeland Security. Director Walker served
in the Army for 20 years before retiring as a Lieutenant
Colonel. He has served in his current position since January
2003 when he became the first Director of the Alabama
Department of Homeland Security.
Director Walker has testified before our committee several
times, we are pleased to have him back again.
Our third witness is Dr. William Meehan, the President of
Jacksonville State University. Dr. Meehan has served at the
University since 1977 and assumed the role of President in
1999.
We are very pleased to have Dr. Meehan here today to
discuss the University's Institute for Emergency Preparedness
and its undergraduate and graduate programs in emergency
management. I appreciate you being here with us.
Dr. Meehan. You are welcome, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carney. Our fourth witness is Mr. John Pearce, the
Associate Director for Auburn University's Canine Detection
Training Center.
Mr. Pearce had a distinguished career in the Air Force
where he became an expert in canine detection. In addition to
his numerous military assignments, Mr. Pearce successfully
trained over 200 explosive detection dog teams that have been
used in 36 major airports across the country.
He has served in his current position since 2002 where he
developed and now leads Auburn's Canine Detection Training
Center. We had the pleasure of visiting the center and came
away thoroughly impressed. We'd like to thank you for the tour
and for joining us today, Mr. Pearce.
Our final witness is Mr. Matthew Knight, who serves as the
Vice President of Alabama Association of Rescue Squads.
He has been an emergency management service provider since
1995. He holds numerous licenses and certifications and has
served as an instructor for several EMS training classes.
Mr. Knight, it is good to have you with us. I am a first
responder myself. Welcome, brother, it is good to have you
here.
Mr. Knight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carney. Without objection, the witnesses' full
statements will be inserted into the record. I will now ask
each witness to summarize his statement for 5 minutes,
beginning with Mr. Schrader.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS R. SCHRADER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR
NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Schrader. Good morning, Chairman Carney and Ranking
Member Rogers, I am Dennis Schrader, Deputy Administrator for
National Preparedness at FEMA in the Department of Homeland
Security. I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss
the training of our Nation's response community, and how the
Center for Domestic Preparedness is currently working toward
meetings those needs, including those of the rural first
responder.
Today, the Center for Domestic Preparedness, or CDP for
short, is an impressive facility that employs nearly 1,000
personnel, including 50 authorized Federal positions. The
facility offers 38 courses, on-site billeting and dining
capacity for 465 students, and a fully certified multi-
disciplinary instructional staff with an average of 19 years of
experience in their chosen field.
Citizens from every State in America come to Anniston to be
trained each year in learning and using real-world scenarios
that feature live nerve agents, also known as chemical weapons
of mass destruction.
Methods of CDP training include resident training, which is
delivered on-campus; non-resident training, which we deliver
through mobile regional training delivery; and indirect
training, also known as train the trainer. While all these
courses are available on the CDP campus, select courses are
available through non-resident programs and mobile training
teams.
At FEMA, we know that CDP's non-resident training delivery
is highly valued for rural responders, eliminating the need for
the responder to travel in order to benefit from in-person
instruction. This capability is particularly beneficial not
only to rural response agencies that are often limited in
staff, but also to the thousands of volunteers that serve as
response officials in their home jurisdictions.
Training for rural first responders poses unique challenges
as compared to those in urban areas. For instance, an often-
quoted study suggests that 90 percent of law enforcement
agencies across the Nation consist of 50 officers or less.
The CDP, to include the COBRATF and Noble Training
Facilities, delivers high-quality training that addresses
aspects of every target capability, including the 20 that are
associated with threats to rural America.
In Washington, my staff and the National Integration Center
work closely with CDP staff to ensure that the curriculum
taught at the CDP aligns with the target capabilities which
address the mandates established in the Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 8 and the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act.
The CDP is also a member of the National Domestic
Preparedness Consortium that along with the Rural Domestic
Preparedness Consortium works collaboratively to address the
needs for response training. The CDP enjoys a close working
relationship with Alabama's Department of Homeland Security and
Public Safety and collaborative partnerships with Auburn
University, Tuskegee University, the University of Alabama at
Birmingham and Jacksonville State University.
In conclusion, the CDP's training program has grown and
adapted to the needs of our Nation's first responders. FEMA is
proud of the capability that CDP offers America's response
community and is working to ensure that the needs of these
first responders are met.
Chairman Carney, Ranking Member Rogers, I appreciate the
opportunity to be here with you today and look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Schrader follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dennis R. Schrader
July 22, 2008
Good morning, Chairman Carney, Ranking Member Rogers and Members
of the committee. I am Dennis R. Schrader, Deputy Administrator for
National Preparedness in the Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). I am pleased to appear before
you today. I welcome this opportunity to discuss our Nation's current
training capabilities and needs for first responder training, and how
the Center for Domestic Preparedness fits into the National Training
Program.
introduction
The Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP) is the only
congressionally chartered Federal training center for advanced hands-on
training for incidents involving live chemical/nerve agents. Over the
years, the curriculum has expanded to include all-hazards incident
management as well as specialized training for hospital and health care
workers. The CDP offers training to State, local, and tribal emergency
response providers from all 50 States and 6 territories in 10 emergency
disciplines, which include, Emergency Management, Emergency Medical
Services, Fire Service, Governmental Administrative, Hazardous
Materials, Health Care, Law Enforcement, Public Health, Public Safety
Communications, and Public Works.
In addition, the CDP received one-time statutory authority to train
Federal, private sector, and international students this year--which
has proved to be extremely valuable in creating a learning environment
that mirrors real-world operations. The fiscal year 2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 110-161) included this specific authority
for the CDP:
``Provided further, That (a) the Center for Domestic Preparedness may
provide training to emergency response providers from the Federal
Government, foreign governments, or private entities, if the Center for
Domestic Preparedness is reimbursed for the cost of such training, and
any reimbursement under this subsection shall be credited to the
account from which the expenditure being reimbursed was made and shall
be available, without fiscal year limitation, for the purposes for
which amounts in the account may be expended, (b) the head of the
Center for Domestic Preparedness shall ensure that any training
provided under (a) does not interfere with the primary mission of the
Center to train State and local emergency response providers.''
The Center's mission is to train emergency response providers. The
CDP brings together students from across the Nation to learn standard
concepts and procedures, and exchange experiences and best practices.
history
The impetus for the CDP can be traced back to the 1995 Sarin nerve
agent attacks on the Tokyo subway system. As the event unfolded, public
safety officials in New York City and elsewhere began to seek ways in
which a similar event could be prevented in their back yard. These
officials asked the Department of Defense (DoD) for permission to allow
civilian responders to train at Ft. McClellan's Chemical Defense
Training Facility (CDTF). DoD officials granted them access to toxic
agent training at the CDTF in 1995 and civilians continued to train at
the DoD facility until 1998.
Coincidentally, Ft. McClellan was identified for closure by the
1995 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission. Elected officials
from across Alabama and local community leaders continued to seek ways
to utilize the soon-to-be-decommissioned Army facility. A concept was
developed and presented to Members of Congress, who recognized the
national benefit of having a facility dedicated to training civilian
emergency responders under Federal Government management. Thus, in
1998, a plan to establish a permanent federally operated site to train
civilian emergency responders was put into motion using facilities
already in place at Ft. McClellan. This training facility would be
called the Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP). Ft. McClellan
officially closed in September 1999.
current capabilities
Today, the CDP employs nearly 1,000 personnel, including 50
authorized Federal positions, and manages an annual operating budget of
over $60 million. In its current capacity, the CDP offers 38 courses,
on-site billeting and dining capacity for 465 students, and a fully
certified, multi-disciplinary instructional staff with an average of 19
years of experience in their chosen field.
Methods of CDP training delivery include resident training
(training delivered on campus), nonresident training (regional and
mobile training delivery), and indirect training (train-the-trainer).
All courses are available as resident training. Select courses are
available through non-resident programs to include mobile training
teams.
Non-resident training delivery is ideal for rural responders,
eliminating the need for the responder to travel away from home in
order to benefit from in-person instruction. This is especially
beneficial, in that many rural agencies are limited in staff and many
responders are volunteers who have a primary occupation other than
their volunteer discipline.
CDP training programs address critical topics such as Chemical,
Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives (CBRNE) awareness and
response, hazardous materials, emergency response, law enforcement
protective measures, incident command, crime scene management, protest
events, evidence collection, personal protective equipment,
agricultural emergency response, instructor training, medical
preparedness, health care leadership, and pandemic planning and
preparedness.
While every training program is relevant to rural jurisdictions,
the Agricultural Emergency Response Training (AgERT) course is
specifically tailored for the rural sector. This course provides an
overview of agricultural terrorism and CBRNE hazards impacting the
agricultural and traditional emergency responder. The course includes a
hands-on exercise that places the responder in an agricultural
environment where responders can perform tasks to improve response
skills in realistic surroundings. CDP training uses a scenario-based
approach that requires responders to train to standard, not time. By
visually altering the hands-on training lanes to replicate scenarios
that responders may encounter in their everyday work, the CDP presents
realistic training based upon current and emerging threats. More than
60 percent of the CDP courses provide hands-on training and practical
exercises. This training method provides the rural responder with the
opportunity to perform response-related tasks that increase individual
readiness. Hands-on training provides rural responders with the
experience needed to fulfill their duties in life-and-death situations.
The CDP also uses mockups of clandestine laboratories in both
resident and mobile training, to ensure responders recognize equipment
and paraphernalia that can indicate a terrorism threat. The CDP's
clandestine labs include Sarin, Anthrax, Ricin, infectious diseases,
and methamphetamine laboratories.
Some of CDP's programs include the use of human patient simulators
that represent the latest in state-of-the-art simulation technology for
training responders and health care professionals. Sophisticated
mathematical models of human physiology and pharmacology automatically
determine the ``patient's'' response to user actions and interventions.
The simulators provide real-time feedback to responders as though they
were working with a human being. With dynamic coupling of
cardiovascular, pulmonary, and pharmacological models along with the
ability to replicate physical damage, the simulators are a powerful
tool the CDP uses to provide realistic training to responders.
Studies conducted by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in
1989 and the Army Research Laboratory in 1994 strongly endorsed the use
of toxic chemicals as the only method of providing high levels of
confidence in equipment, procedures, and most importantly, individual
readiness. Some courses at the CDP thus include training at the
Chemical, Ordnance, Biological, and Radiological Training Facility
(COBRATF) where live nerve agents are used in the conduct of training.
Toxic chemical training reduces fear of the unknown, solidifies
personal and operational skills, verifies operational procedures, and
creates training ``veterans,'' who then share their knowledge and
experience with other emergency responders. The training at the COBRATF
may be the only experience with toxic agents a responder may receive
prior to being faced with a real event.
In 2007, the Noble Training Facility (NTF) integrated with the CDP.
The former Noble Army Hospital was converted into a training site for
health and medical education in disasters that include both acts of
terrorism and natural disasters. The diverse curriculum includes
application of public information skills in a major emergency or
disaster situation, leadership, mass casualty exercises, emergency
management training, and CBRNE incident management. The facility
includes traditional classrooms as well as exercise and simulation
areas, resource centers, and two prototype mass casualty
decontamination training lanes. It is the only hospital facility in the
Nation dedicated to training hospital and health care professionals in
disaster preparedness and response.
The CDP's training for State and local emergency response providers
is fully funded by the Department of Homeland Security's Federal
Emergency Management Agency, through congressional appropriation.
Transportation, lodging, and meals are provided at no cost to
responders, their agency or jurisdiction.
Because the CDP stores and actively uses two forms of nerve agent,
the COBRATF facility is managed and controlled as a chemical surety
site. The Surety program is a system of special reliability, safety,
and security control measures designed to protect the staff, local
population, and the environment. This program ensures that only
personnel who meet the highest standards of reliability conduct
chemical agent operations, that chemical agent operations are conducted
safely, and that chemical agents are secure at all times.
The CDP owns or leases 30 buildings on 123.95 acres with 898,244
square feet of space. The center manages and executes all
infrastructure support operations for the extended campus, to include
facilities and grounds maintenance, engineering, and site security. Six
active dormitories can house 465 responders; an additional 240 rooms
are pending renovation. A full-service dining facility provides all
student meals and an on-site lounge provides a place for after-class
relaxation and networking.
Numerous Federal and non-Federal training partnerships enable the
CDP to take advantage of shared knowledge, to ensure the students
receive the most up-to-date training.
metrics for success
According to an April 2002 report entitled ``Rural Communities and
Emergency Preparedness'' conducted by the Office of Rural Health
Policy, Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, 65 million Americans live in rural areas.
A follow-on report entitled ``Rural Emergency--the Safety and Health
Safety Net'' by Dr. Gary Erisman, Department of Health Sciences,
Illinois State University, indicated that 29 States have at least one-
third of their population classified as ``rural''.
While ``rural'' is not typically a student population that we track
at the Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP), for the purposes of this
testimony, rural refers to ``other than Urban Areas Security Initiative
(UASI) jurisdictions.'' This category is sometimes referenced to as
balance of State or in the aggregate as balance of Nation. Over the
past 8 years, nearly half--48 percent--of the CDP's responders have
been from rural jurisdictions. In the CDP's first decade, more than
161,000 rural responders have benefited from the CDP's training
opportunities.
Total rural responders trained through CDP training programs are as
follows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Responders Total Percent of Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2007: 25,342........ 65,832............ 38.5
Fiscal year 2006: 27,112........ 61,680............ 43.95
Fiscal year 2005: 30,124........ 60,296............ 49.96
Fiscal year 2004: 23,453........ 55,262............ 42.43
Fiscal year 2003: 13,096........ 25,294............ 51.77
Fiscal year 2002: 9,521......... 14,862............ 64.06
Fiscal year 2001: 1,586......... 2,522............. 62.88
Fiscal year 2000: 1,412......... N/A............... N/A
Fiscal year 1999: 642........... N/A............... N/A
Fiscal year 1998: 350........... N/A............... N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fiscal year 2008 thus far, more than 28,000 rural responders--
nearly 32 percent--of the total responder population that exceeds
79,000, participated in CDP training programs. At the current rate, we
anticipate that the total number of rural responders benefiting from
CDP training in 2008 is expected to exceed 31,000. We anticipate that
the total population reached through CDP training programs in this
fiscal year will exceed 100,000.
training america's rural first responders
Training for rural first responders poses unique challenges as
compared to those in urban areas. For instance, 90 percent of law
enforcement agencies across the Nation consist of departments of 50
officers or less. In a survey of rural law enforcement officers
conducted by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), the
two most-cited hindrances were freeing up the officer to attend
training and the cost of training itself. Additionally, in a 2003
Nation-wide survey of rural law enforcement, officers listed terrorism
training as the fifth-most imminent training need in their
jurisdictions, ranking it after drug offenses, computer/internet crime,
physical assaults, and property offenses. In order to address these
challenges as well as the significant numbers of volunteers in various
emergency response disciplines, FEMA's National Preparedness
Directorate (NPD), with funds provided by Congress fiscal year 2005,
established the Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium (RDPC). In
conjunction with the Emergency Management Institute (EMI), the Center
for Domestic Preparedness (CDP), and the network of over 50 national
training partners, the RDPC began providing effective training and
technical assistance to rural jurisdictions, which are delivered
regionally in a variety of formats.
The RDPC is comprised of academic partners with extensive
experience and unique capabilities in serving the rural emergency
response community.
East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee
Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, Kentucky
Iowa Central Community College, Ft. Dodge, Iowa
NorthWest Arkansas Community College, Bentonville, Arkansas
The University of Findlay, Findlay, Ohio
strategic approach
On December 17, 2003, the President issued Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 8 ``National Preparedness'' (HSPD-8). The
purpose of HSPD-8 is to ``establish policies to strengthen the
preparedness of the United States to prevent and respond to threatened
or actual domestic terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other
emergencies by requiring a national domestic all-hazards preparedness
goal, establishing mechanisms for improved delivery of Federal
preparedness assistance to State and local governments, and outlining
actions to strengthen preparedness capabilities of Federal, State, and
local entities.'' The National Preparedness Goal (now National
Preparedness Guidelines) just mentioned helps to guide Federal
departments and agencies, State, territorial, local and tribal
officials, the private sector, non-government organizations and the
public in determining how to most effectively and efficiently
strengthen preparedness for terrorist attacks, major disasters, and
other emergencies.
A unique aspect of the RDPC is that it addresses preparedness
activities for a broad scope of stakeholders within rural
jurisdictions. Though the traditional emergency response disciplines
play a pivotal role in HSPD-8, RDPC will also address equally important
activities performed by stakeholders across the emergency support
functions, as specified in the National Response Framework. This will
include local elected officials, critical infrastructure owners/
operators and others.
The program is organized to enable both internal networking among
RDPC partners in coordination with national training partners and,
through the advisory board, and extensive external outreach mechanism
to capture inputs from the entire stakeholder community on rural
domestic preparedness training and relevant information-sharing
activities. The Advisory Board consists of members from the following
groups and associations: Adjutants General Association of the United
States, Fraternal Order of Police, International Association of Chiefs
of Police, International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement
Standard and Training, International Association of Emergency Managers,
International Association of Fire Chiefs, National Association of
Counties, National Association of EMS Physicians, National Emergency
Management Association, National Association of Emergency Medical
Technicians, National Association of Sate EMS Officials, National
Governors Association, National Rural Health Association, National
Volunteer Fire Council, and the North American Fire Training Directors.
In the summer of 2006, the Department of Homeland Security released
the latest version of the Target Capabilities List (TCL), which is
comprised of 37 core capabilities. The TCL describes and sets targets
for the capabilities required to achieve the four homeland security
mission areas: Prevent, Protect, Respond, and Recover. It defines and
provides the basis for assessing preparedness for all-hazards events.
Capabilities are delivered by appropriate combinations of properly
planned, organized, equipped, trained, and exercised personnel. In
2006, the RDPC conducted its first comprehensive training requirements
survey that was modeled to ensure alignment with TCL to support the
National Preparedness Guidelines. The survey, published as ``Assessing
the Needs of Rural Emergency Responders: National Training Needs
Assessment 2006,'' was circulated across a wide array of community
profiles in rural America to capture input from the appropriate
stakeholders. Additional focus groups were conducted to ensure the
training initiatives are appropriately aligned with the overarching
goals of the States' homeland security strategies and cognizant of the
evolving needs of particular regions of the Nation. The focus groups
served to augment the results of the survey. The RDPC analyzed the data
for trends and gaps and prioritized the results in a report of
findings. RDPC used this report to develop an annual training agenda of
balanced investments to meet critical training needs with limited
resources.
Important findings from the report are:
Every discipline has significant unmet training needs--for
no target capabilities has the training need been completely
satisfied.
Substantial numbers of target capabilities were selected by
a majority of rural respondents in each discipline as areas of
training need in the next 2 years:
Law enforcement--25 target capabilities;
Fire service--27 target capabilities;
Emergency medical service--23 target capabilities;
Health care--24 target capabilities;
General government--28 target capabilities.
``Planning'' (for terrorism events) was the target
capability that the greatest proportion of all rural
respondents indicated as a training need for their agencies
within the next 2 years.
Each discipline had a different target capability rated as
its greatest training need from the standpoint of the
number of personnel needing the training:
Law enforcement--responder safety & health;
Fire service--citizen preparedness & participation;
Emergency medical care--CBRNE detection;
Health care--planning for terrorism events;
General government--WMD/hazardous materials response &
decontamination.
The RDPC is currently planning its next assessment due out in 2009.
additional training providers
In order to avoid duplication of effort, the RDPC has forged
partnerships with academic institutions which have developed FEMA-
certified training products and services in niche areas which directly
align with the emergency preparedness training needs of rural
communities. Agreements are in place with the University of California-
Davis to provide training in food safety and agro terrorism issues,
Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Inc, training for
working with Special Needs Populations, and with West Virginia
University to deliver certified training on homeland security issues
for campus and university executives.
leveraging the national domestic preparedness consortium
The RDPC currently participates in the National Domestic
Preparedness Consortium's (NDPC) quarterly meetings. This collaboration
helps facilitate the sharing of ideas and experiences of both
consortium groups, which adds value for each on a regular basis. The
NDPC is comprised of seven organizations: (1) the Center for Domestic
Preparedness; (2) the National Energetic Materials Research and Testing
Center, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology; (3) the National
Center for Biomedical Research and Training, Louisiana State
University; (4) the National Emergency Response and Rescue Training
Center, Texas A&M University; (5) the National Exercise, Test, and
Training Center, Nevada Test Site; (6) the Transportation Technology
Center, Incorporated, in Pueblo, Colorado; and (7) the National
Disaster Preparedness Training Center, University of Hawaii. The
mission of the NDPC is to identify, develop, test, and deliver training
to State, local, and tribal emergency response providers, provide on-
site and mobile training at the performance and management and planning
levels, and facilitate the delivery of training by the training
partners of the Department.
In January 2008, a strategy document entitled ``The National
Preparedness Directorate's Strategic Plan for the National Domestic
Preparedness Consortium (NDPC)'' was submitted to Congress. This
strategy describes how the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium
(NDPC) supports the tenets of national preparedness doctrine and
effectively addresses States' evolving training needs. The strategy
also provides direction for coordinating NDPC's programs with similar
training programs throughout the Nation, including those provided by
other Federal agencies.
The RDPC and NDPC are working together to leverage activities being
conducted by both entities (i.e., State and local outreach, training
needs assessments, and data analysis) to meet the goals of the
strategy. Goals such as: design and deliver courses to meet training
priorities as defined in State Homeland Security Strategies and other
forecasts of training needs; ensure training is consistent with
homeland security doctrine; and adapt capacity to meet training demand.
The RDPC has received the following funding:
Fiscal year 2005, $5,000,000;
Fiscal year 2006, $6,103,000;
Fiscal year 2007, $11,640,000;
Fiscal year 2008, $8,549,000.
FEMA/NPD's Training Operations Branch currently offers 134 courses
through 54 training partners Nation-wide. These courses are offered to
all State and local jurisdictions including those located in rural
areas.
future/integration--national training program
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the devastation
experienced during Hurricane Katrina in September 2005, reemphasized
the critical importance of training Federal, State, tribal, local,
private sector, and non-governmental responders in integrated planning,
decisionmaking, and coordination processes. Training is necessary to
prepare for, prevent, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the
effects of incidents, regardless of cause, size, location, or
complexity, to reduce the loss of life, property, and harm to the
environment.
Public Law 109-295, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform
Act (PKEMRA) of 2006, Section 648, tasks the administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to `` . . . carry out a national
training program to implement the National Preparedness Goal, National
Incident Management System, National Response Plan (now National
Response Framework), and other related plans and strategies.'' The
National Training Program (NTP) is a major component of the National
Preparedness System. Public Law 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of
the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, also calls for measures to improve the
Nation's preparedness through increased emphasis on training programs.
Additionally, the Hurricane Katrina lessons learned and after-action
report offer numerous recommendations to improve various aspects of
training for the Nation's responders.
Collectively, these documents mandate strengthening the all-hazards
preparedness of the United States and establish the need for more
focused coordination, planning, and progressive development of
capabilities-based training designed to ensure that the Nation's
responders can effectively execute their responsibilities under any
combination of emergencies that might occur.
The National Preparedness Directorate is currently drafting an NTP
which, as a part of the national preparedness system, will create a
premier national homeland security training enterprise by providing an
integrated, capabilities-based method of aligning training with the
National Preparedness Guidelines, the National Incident Management
System, the National Response Framework, as well as other related plans
and strategies. Additionally, this dynamic enterprise will be designed
to achieve the greatest value of limited resources for all key
stakeholder groups, of which one is most certainly rural responders.
This approach enables the clear identification of training needs and
provides opportunities to realize the greatest return on investment for
rural responders, urban area responders, and other key stakeholders to
the greatest degree possible.
The resultant NTP will provide the architecture to improve the
coordination and synchronization of training of the Nation's responders
to prepare for, prevent, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the
effects of incidents, regardless of cause, size, location, or
complexity, in order to reduce the loss of life, property, and harm to
the environment.
The NTP's vision and mission statements are linked to Department of
Homeland Security and Federal Emergency Management Agency mission and
vision statements, and emphasize an all-hazards approach to training
which is consistent with the intent of Pub. L. 109-295, Pub. L. 110-53,
Vision for New FEMA, several Homeland Security Presidential Directives,
and Executive branch guidance.
The vision of the National Training Program is: A Nation trained to
prepare for, prevent, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the
effects of incidents, regardless of cause, size, location, or
complexity, in order to reduce the loss of life, property, and harm to
the environment.
The mission of the Homeland Security National Training Program is
to: Develop, implement, and maintain a Homeland Security National
Training Program that creates a premier national preparedness training
enterprise providing an integrated, capabilities-based method of
aligning training with National Preparedness Guidelines (NPG) and
National Exercise Program (NEP), as well as capturing and incorporating
lessons learned from exercises and real-world events. On January 26,
2007, the Homeland Security Council's Deputies Committee unanimously
reached agreement on the NEP Charter and on April 11, 2007, the
President approved the NEP Implementation Plan. This plan establishes
the NEP under the leadership of the Secretary of Homeland Security.
The NEP provides a framework for prioritizing and coordinating
Federal, regional and State exercise activities, without replacing any
individual department or agency exercises. The NEP enables Federal,
State and local departments and agencies to align their exercise
programs.
The NTP also lays out specific strategic goals and objectives which
must be accomplished if we are to achieve our stated mission. The five
major strategic goals of the NTP are:
Goal 1: Partner with Federal, State, tribal, and local governments
and with private sector and non-governmental organizations to build
training capabilities Nation-wide to prepare for, prevent, respond to,
recover from, and mitigate the effects of incidents, regardless of
cause, size, location, or complexity, in order to reduce the loss of
life, property, and harm to the environment. The NTP will accomplish
this goal through a series of major objectives designed to improve
relationships and foster cooperation within the responder community.
Goal 2: Align emergency responder training with the National
Preparedness Guidelines (NPG). This goal will be accomplished by
ensuring that responder training at all levels of government is
consistent with the NPG. A critical part of aligning training to the
NPG is ensuring that training is aligned with the Target Capabilities
List (TCL).
Goal 3: Coordinate the integration of all hazards training and
exercise programs. A key component of integrating training and exercise
programs will be management and upkeep of the National Incident
Management System and the National Response Framework.
Goal 4: Optimize management practices. The NTP establish meaningful
performance metrics, measures, and outcomes and also be measured in
accordance with the President's Management Agenda and Program
Assessment Rating Tool.
Goal 5: Develop a closer link between training and exercises.
Experience has shown that exercises are the best method of evaluating
training effectiveness. Because the TCL includes specific, measurable
preparedness and performance measures of the 37 capabilities needed to
address a broad range of man-made and natural disasters, it becomes the
primary tool to link training and exercises.
The NTP will also address several key training policy issues.
Addressing these policy issues is vital to establishing the framework
which will allow the Nation's response community to work in an
integrated and coordinated process to achieve the NTP strategic goals.
Some of these key policy issues include:
Who needs to be trained?
What specific skills do responders need and what tasks
should they be trained to perform?
How can the Nation best increase training capabilities?
Standardize training. Section 647, Pub. L. 109-295, PKEMRA
2006, requires FEMA to ``Support the development, promulgation,
and regular updating, as necessary, of national voluntary
consensus standards for training.''
How can we best establish an all-hazards core curriculum,
standardize instructor qualification and certification, and
streamline course development and approval?
How do we utilize the TCL in establishing a closer linkage
between training and exercises?
What resources are required and available to accomplish NTP?
Which authorities are required for Federal training centers and
organizations to train private sector, non-governmental
organizations, private citizens, and international responders?
As the National Preparedness Directorate begins to implement the
NTP, senior officials at all levels will want to know what progress is
being made. While the number of responders trained provides an
indication of progress toward meeting established objectives, data on
the quality and effectiveness of the training is also important. The
TCL provides specific, measurable preparedness and performance measures
for evaluating and improving capabilities as part of the National
Preparedness Cycle. The effectiveness of training delivering will be
evaluated using the Kirkpatrick's four levels of evaluation to
effectively measure success of the program.
My staff is currently drafting a charter for the NTP. Once the
charter has been staffed and approved with input from the training
partners and key stakeholder groups, we will develop an implementation
plan.
conclusion
The 2007 integration of the Noble Training Facility and the CDP
suggests a need to review the health care curriculum in order to ensure
the needs of healthcare response providers and receivers are served
across the Nation. The threats within the medical community--to include
events such as pandemic flu, health care facility decontamination
following an incident, serving the special needs population, mass
prophylaxis, and mass casualty events--are on-going threats that must
be addressed in the CDP's health care curriculum.
As you've heard here today, the CDP's training programs have
continued to grow, expand, and adapt to the needs of the Nation's
responder population. As we have grown, we have not lost sight of the
responders' needs--both rural and urban.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Thank you.
Mr. Carney. Thank you for your testimony.
I now recognize Director Walker to summarize his testimony
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAMES M. WALKER, JR., DIRECTOR, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT
OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Walker. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rogers. Thank
you for coming to Alabama. I know you have been here before,
trained in Pensacola and I have invited you to spend your
summer vacation in Gulf Shores on the beach if you will bring
your family down----
Mr. Carney. I will take it up with Jennifer right now.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walker. I have a request, I know that you all can move
mountains in the Congress, if you would take some of this
humidity back to Washington with you.
Mr. Rogers, it is always good to see you. Folks at home, we
do not get the opportunity to thank you enough for the great
work you do for us on this committee but also on Armed Services
and on the Agriculture Committee. I wanted to tell you, as I
was driving up through Talladega County yesterday, I passed
about a 30-year-old pickup truck with a bumper sticker on the
back that said ``If you eat, then you are involved with
agriculture.''
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walker. We are here today really at the Nation's best
facility. I am pleased to be joined by my friend Dennis
Schrader, who was my colleague in Maryland for years, and so we
are actually glad to have him in FEMA, he understands some of
the problems that we face. Also the presence of the two
universities. I would like you to know that on my small staff
in Montgomery, I have two of my employees that are continuing
their education right now at Auburn University, Mr. President;
and I have two of my employees that are going to Jacksonville
State University working on a masters degree in homeland
security studies. If we had more money, we would certain
purchase more of the dogs that are trained here, they do a
terrific job. Then my friend from Randolph County, I think you
can see all the uniformed folks here today, they really do
represent the best first-responder community in the Nation, and
they absolutely love this country.
It is interesting that when we talk about rural America,
you know, they are faced with a lot of challenges. The fact
that we have got this first-class facility here in Alabama, we
take advantage of it, but one of the challenges that rural
America faces is when you get to some of these local
municipalities, police departments, sheriffs' departments, fire
departments, they are really only about one deep in many
positions. It is very, very difficult to free people up for
training. Even though the training is free, that is just a
challenge that rural America faces and I would ask the Chairman
that at some point down the line, if the committee would look
at what I see as an impending manpower shortage among first
responders in this country.
I think that young people are being pulled in many
different directions on what to do with their lives, whether to
become military, whether to become doctors or surgeons. At some
point, we are going to hit critical mass where we are going to
have a difficult time keeping our streets safe because we
cannot keep enough police officers in uniform and firefighters,
et cetera. One of the statistics that I like to use is that the
Alabama Fire College 10 years ago had over 2,000 applicants to
come in and receive their basic firefighter training. Last
year, they had just over 300. So young people are not making
the decisions that they used to make and that is going to be a
challenge for rural America. Kind of like finding that hometown
doctor to live in rural America to treat folks, it is going to
become the same with first responders.
That is why in rural America, there is a real reliance on
volunteers. You know, here in Alabama, about 80 percent of our
firefighter community are volunteers. God love them, I mean
these folks are incredibly patriotic. They take time away from
their families, from the things that they enjoy doing to stand
on the street corner on Saturday morning with a big rubber boot
and have you throw your change in there so that they can go buy
a piece of equipment to help you if your house catches on fire.
I mean these are terrific people. We have guide teams in the
State of Alabama that will come and help look for folks that
have gotten lost. They are all volunteers, they do all of this.
So we have got an obligation to train them as well.
So that really is the challenge. The Congress has been so
kind, rightfully so, to rural America, in the homeland security
grant dollars that you have pushed our way. Now we have seen a
decline in the last few years, but we have got to be careful
not to do that, I would ask. Because we had a big surge post-9/
11 and we were able, in every State, Alabama, Pennsylvania, to
buy incredible capabilities. You know, we have outfitted 54
mutual aid response teams around the State of Alabama. We have
got heavy rescue, medium rescue, urban search and rescue, swift
water rescue, light rescue. We have got mortuary teams, we have
all of this capability that under mutual aid we can now push in
and around the State. In fact, post-Katrina, we sent thousands
of Alabamians, even though we were an affected State, thousands
of Alabamians to Louisiana and Mississippi with a lot of our
homeland security equipment to help our neighbors.
So that is what rural America does, they provide the surge
capacity in a large disaster. By getting capability into rural
America, in the past, I think that you would see a rural
community be devastated by an event and they would have to
wait. They would miss the golden hour because urban
capabilities would have to come over and help them. With these
homeland security dollars, we have been able to start building
basic capabilities in rural America, so that they can help
themselves, which is incredibly important.
I wanted just to mention that during my Governor's tenure
as Governor, since Bob Riley has been Governor of Alabama, we
have at the State--just at the State level--we have responded
to three major hurricanes, a tropical storm, 371 tornadoes, 607
floods, 1,464 hazardous material spills, 116 bomb threats, 22
ice storms, 91 incidents that involved air or rail modes of
transportation, 17 terrorist threats or hoaxes, eight reported
earthquakes, two virus outbreaks and a dam failure. That is
just those that have required State assistance. Can you imagine
all of the hundreds of events that rural communities, who
usually do not call government as their first line of action?
They try to take care of themselves. So your volunteer first
responders, one deep, we give them capabilities, we train them
and then we have to have the money to take trained people with
their equipment and bring them together in a multi-disciplinary
and jurisdictional faction so that they can handle disasters in
and of themselves.
That is really the system that I think FEMA is looking for
and that is what we want in our State. We want self-sufficiency
and I think we are moving in that direction.
I think my statement captures some other factors, Mr.
Chairman, so that is a brief summary and I will look forward to
any questions that you might have for me later.
[The statement of Mr. Walker follows:]
Prepared Statement of James M. Walker, Jr.
July 22, 2008
Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today representing State and local
interests during this important field hearing.
As Director of the Alabama Department of Homeland Security, it is
my responsibility to manage the homeland security preparedness programs
and initiatives Governor Bob Riley wants in place to serve Alabama's
citizens and communities. During these past 5\1/2\ years of the Riley
administration in Alabama, our State has seen exponential improvements
in first responder capabilities, citizen preparedness, and situational
awareness.
Today, in my third appearance before the subcommittee, you have
asked me to address homeland security in rural America, and
specifically training of first responders in rural America. Let me
begin by stating there are three major components to homeland security
training: proper equipment, individual and collective training, and
exercises. Following a logical sequence, first responders should be
properly equipped, trained to standard on individual, team, and
organizational skills, and exercised with their equipment and training
as part of a multi-agency or jurisdictional exercise. This model is
commonly referred to as the crawl, walk, and run methodology to
training.
In rural America, many of our first responders are volunteers. In
fact, volunteer firefighters represent approximately 80 percent of the
total fire service organizations in Alabama. As volunteer
organizations, they are routinely in need of new equipment and funds to
help them train and conduct exercises.
In rural areas, local governments do not have the ability to
generate the tax revenue capable of outfitting and training all the
first responder organizations serving their population. The homeland
security grants the Congress has made available to rural America are
making a sea change of difference in how rural areas can prepare for
and manage disasters.
On behalf of the rural first responders in Alabama, and for my
colleagues around the country, please allow me to thank the Congress
for the homeland security grants you appropriate every year and make
available to rural America. Your continued support is much appreciated
and much needed.
It is interesting to note that annually more homeland security
grant dollars go to the 50 largest cities in America than they do all
of rural America and the rest of the country combined. Yet, the
metropolitan areas have a much greater ability to generate revenue to
outfit, train, and sustain first responders. I highlight this fact
because if we are truly serious about protecting our country, we must
also recognize America will only be as strong as her weakest link. We
must develop and sustain capabilities everywhere, even in rural
America, so we are able to safeguard lives and protect property.
A problem rural America faces is that it is not the proverbial
squeaky wheel. People in rural America are self-reliant. They
understand that hardship and disaster are a part of life and the fabric
of history. They know how to cope with difficult circumstances and by
their very nature are resilient and tough.
Calls to Government for assistance are not the first calls made by
rural Americans. They will always try to solve their own problems first
with the help of neighbors, friends, and volunteers before they
willingly invite the Government into their lives. This philosophy
conflicts with Americans who believe the Government is responsible for
their livelihood and for solving all of their problems.
Rural Americans are disaster-experienced problem-solvers and do not
sit back and wait for someone to solve their problems for them. As a
result, they will remain the silent majority, and, in some cases,
become forgotten because they don't write talking points and clamor for
face time in front of news cameras and microphones. They simply do what
needs to be done to restore routine in their communities and lives
after disaster strikes.
I congratulate my fellow citizens in Iowa and the Midwest for their
quiet resolve and fierce determination to nobly and proudly recover
from one of the worst natural disasters in their history. Iowans today
are showing us the strength and silent steely resolve of the American
spirit in rural America.
Rural Americans are criticized in some circles for clinging to
religion, but I thank God they do. The beliefs and shared values of
rural America are the moral anchors of this country, and represent the
ideals and principles most of us associate with the America of our
hopes and dreams. We can never risk losing the faith rural Americans
have in their government. We will be in serious trouble as a Nation if
we do. One way we keep this faith is by responding with all the
assistance our Government has to offer in the wake of a disaster that
overwhelms a rural area.
I am reminded of the soldier who was once asked if he'd ever seen
heavy combat. The soldier's response was, ``If you are in combat, it's
heavy!'' The same can be said of living through a disaster. You can ask
if a hurricane, tornado, flood, or fire was severe and devastating and
the answer will be, ``If it destroys your home and injures you or a
loved one, it is severe and devastating.'' This maxim holds true
whether the disaster rolls through downtown Atlanta or rural Lawrence
County, Alabama. The difference is downtown Atlanta is more likely to
qualify for Federal Individual Assistance than Lawrence County.
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
sets forth the guidelines for requesting Federal assistance. This Act
is designed to work for disaster victims and not against them.
Unfortunately, it was used against rural victims during a recent
tornado outbreak in Alabama.
The truth is there is no thermometer that establishes a scalable
threshold for who qualifies for Individual Assistance in the wake of a
disaster. Earlier this year parts of Tennessee and Alabama were hit by
the same outbreak of tornadoes, causing death and destruction in both
States. However, as if a disaster recognizes State boundaries, the
damaged parts of Tennessee qualified for Individual Assistance, but the
damaged parts of Alabama did not. I can tell you it was very difficult
for Governor Riley to explain this denial of Individual Assistance to
the rural Alabamians who lost loved ones and everything they owned in
that disaster.
Rural areas need homeland security capabilities, training, and
assistance just like their urban counterparts. They have the same
responsibilities to safeguard lives and protect property. In many
cases, rural areas have a limited ability to respond until a needed
capability arrives from a better equipped urban area to assist. A self-
sufficient rural area is often the first line of defense to immediately
containing an event or disaster before it escalates into something much
larger and more destructive.
Additionally, homeland security capabilities in rural areas
represent the surge capacity and increased capability we rely upon to
assist in large-scale disasters. Under the Emergency Management
Assistance Compact thousands of Alabamians and pieces of homeland
security equipment deployed from Alabama to both Louisiana and
Mississippi to assist our neighbors in their response to Hurricane
Katrina. As we meet here today, trained and properly equipped
Alabamians are deployed to both Iowa and California to assist our
fellow Americans with disasters in their States.
During Bob Riley's tenure as Governor of Alabama, which began in
January 2003, State assets were requested to assist our local
communities with the following events: 3 major hurricanes, 1 tropical
storm, 371 tornadoes, 607 flood warnings, 1,464 hazardous material
spills, 116 bomb threats, 22 ice storms and winter storm advisories, 91
incidents involving air and rail modes of transportation, 17 terrorist
threats and/or hoaxes, 8 reported earthquakes, 2 virus outbreaks, and 1
dam failure. This list is far from exhaustive, and does not reflect the
hundreds of events local governments and rural areas did not seek State
assistance. This is an enormous workload for predominantly rural first
responders, considering it does not reflect the routine police, fire,
and other first responder duties performed on a daily basis.
As a final point, history teaches us that suspected terrorists are
prone to planning, living, and training in rural areas. It is
imperative rural law enforcement have the investigative tools and
technology needed to combat terrorism in the 21st century. Please
consider the following:
The D.C. snipers murdered in Alabama before terrorizing and
spreading panic in the National Capitol Region.
Two of the 9/11 hijackers were detained for traffic
violations in rural Marion County, Alabama before they
participated in the deadly attacks that killed over 3,000 of
our fellow citizens.
Hundreds of weapons, improvised explosive devices, and
rounds of ammunition were confiscated and destroyed recently in
parts of rural counties in northeast Alabama. These instruments
of death were being stockpiled by domestic hate groups that
still regrettably proliferate in rural America.
To ignore the need for a level playing field between urban and
rural law enforcement officials and other first responders would be a
grave mistake for the future safety and security of our country.
I close by stating we continue to make enormous progress in
securing our country, but a great deal of work remains. Federal, State,
and local authorities are collaborating better now than at any time in
our Nation's history. It is important to remember security for our
citizens is not a sprint, but a marathon. Local, State, and Federal
efforts must be sustained for the long haul, and I worry many of our
citizens do not have the same long view of history as our adversaries.
The same holds true for natural disasters. They have always been a part
of the human experience, and will remain.
Thank you for the privilege of appearing before you today. I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
Mr. Carney. Thanks for your testimony.
I now recognize Dr. Meehan for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MEEHAN, PRESIDENT, JACKSONVILLE STATE
UNIVERSITY
Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Chairman Carney, Congressman Rogers;
thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I speak as
President of Jacksonville State University, to talk about our
role in emergency management.
I know Congressman Rogers is very familiar with
Jacksonville State, having been our graduate twice over. We
appreciate that. If we had a law school, maybe he would have
gone to law school with us.
But for those of you who do not know, Jacksonville State
celebrated its 125th year this year in 2008.
Mr. Carney. Congratulations.
Mr. Meehan. Thank you, sir.
In 1883, we started as a State normal school, but we have
now grown to over 9,000 students offering 45 undergraduate
degree programs, 24 graduate programs and we occupy a 459-acre
campus just 7 miles north of us here.
We have had a number of accomplishments that are in my
testimony for homeland security. I am very proud of our role in
helping to establish the Center for Domestic Preparedness here
at McClellan.
Shortly after the announcement that Fort McClellan would be
closed, it became obvious that there was no planned use for the
Army's Live Agent Training Facility and it would remain an
eyesore unless it was dismantled, but doing so would cost
tremendously. Congress had just passed the Nunn-Luger-Domenici
Act, which started the domestic preparedness initiative in
1996. JSU took a leading role, along with others, to develop a
concept of a first responder training facility. The
establishment of the CDP became a reality through the efforts
of Jacksonville State University and strong local commitment
through the Chamber of Commerce along with the help of Senator
Shelby, Senator Sessions and then-Congressman Bob Riley, now
Governor of our great State.
But through those efforts with CDP, we at JSU became
acutely aware of the need for emergency management education
programs to address both terrorism threats as well as natural
disasters. JSU has been providing online academic programs for
emergency management and first responders since 1998. So even
prior to the events of September 11, 2001, JSU had academic
programs in place to address planning considerations for both
terrorism and natural disaster events. Recognizing that
terrorist attacks, while devastating, cannot match the
destructive potential of Mother Nature, our degree programs
continue to be designed to strike a balance between natural
disasters and terrorist or man-made events.
We currently offer bachelors and masters degrees in
emergency management. We know there is a critical need for
individuals with doctoral degrees to teach emergency management
and homeland security courses in other colleges and
universities. Therefore, we are now in the process of
establishing a doctoral program in emergency management. With
the Association of Public-Safety Communication Officials
International, APCO, and through a partnership with Gadsden
State Community College, we developed the APCO Virtual College
where many 911 operators, who are sometimes referred to as the
Nation's true first responders, are able to pursue academic
programs in public safety, emergency management and homeland
security.
In order to rapidly get seasoned professionals into the
field and make the greatest impact on national security, our
programs are targeted toward mid-career professionals in the
public safety arena. Recognizing that these individuals must
continue working while earning a degree, the courses are
completely on-line. The success of these courses and programs
has been greatly rewarding and ultimately benefit the United
States and other nations with the work of our students. We have
had students from 49 States, several territories and many
foreign countries, and we have had students represented on all
seven continents. To date, we have graduated 173 masters, 85
baccalaureate emergency management degrees. Our greatest
impact, however, is through the accomplishment of our
graduates, as Mr. Walker mentioned, as many currently hold
positions with public, private and non-profit sectors. For
example, our graduates work for local and State emergency
agencies, the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, Red Cross,
Centers for Disease Control. Furthermore, our graduates can
also be found on Capitol Hill, the Pentagon and overseas in
both civilian and military-oriented positions. To illustrate
our program's popularity, enrollment in last fall, 2007,
included 232 students in the baccalaureate program, 48 in
certificate programs, and 80 pursuing masters degrees.
JSU has actively supported local, State and national
emergency management and homeland security initiatives through
the provision of contractual assistance in a number of areas.
We have assisted with CSEPP, Chemical Stockpile Emergency
Preparedness Program, and have included development of
emergency operation plans for municipalities and other
entities, design and support for annual exercises, drills and
plans for special needs population, and service as a medical
coordinator.
Another academic program with a strong connection to the
Center for Domestic Preparedness is the Lurleen B. Wallace
College of Nursing and Health Sciences at JSU. Created by the
legislature in 1967 to meet the educational needs of the State,
JSU's nursing program educates and graduates exemplary health
care professionals known for expertise in critical thinking and
decision-making. That college has had an extraordinary increase
in its population, as you are aware. That has grown with a 120
percent increase since 2001. Just last year, the program
graduated 11 Master of Science in Nursing, 157 Bachelor of
Science in Nursing students and enrollment for fall 2007, last
year, was 50 in the MSN program and 423 in the baccalaureate
program in nursing.
Both our undergraduate and graduate nursing students have
experiences at the Center for Domestic Preparedness, which
makes it a unique experience for those students. Recognizing
the importance of preparing a health care workforce with
knowledge and skill in disaster response, emergency and
domestic preparedness, the concepts are integrated through a
variety of undergraduate and graduate courses in the nursing
curriculum. Our students have the unique opportunity to
participate in courses offered through the Center for Domestic
Preparedness.
We have indeed had a big impact in a short period of time,
and our work will continue in these efforts. I believe that the
initiative of our doctoral program will have an even greater
contribution to the safety and security of our Nation. JSU will
also continue to be a significant contributor to helping our
emergency planning and response professionals prepare for
terrorist and natural disaster management.
I appreciate the opportunity to summarize my testimony and
thank you for your leadership in Congress.
[The statement of Dr. Meehan follows:]
Prepared Statement of William Meehan
July 22, 2008
Chairman Carney and Congressman Rogers, thank you for this
opportunity to testify before the Homeland Security Subcommittee on
Management, Investigations and Oversight. I am President of
Jacksonville State University (JSU), and it is my pleasure to be here
as a witness because this is an opportunity to highlight the
contributions and achievements of JSU in the area of preparing our
Nation's first responders.
Jacksonville State University (JSU) celebrated 125 years on
February 22 of this year. Founded in 1883 as a State normal school, JSU
currently enrolls over 9,000 students, offers 45 undergraduate programs
and 24 graduate majors and has grown into a 459-acre main campus with
59 major buildings and other locations here at McClellan, Gadsden and
Fort Payne. We have earned more accredited programs than any other
regional university in our State, including discipline specific
accreditations that are unique to only JSU in the State of Alabama. It
is also noteworthy that we have as many Fulbright scholars as any other
institution in Alabama, an indication of our university's exemplary
faculty and our commitment to scholarship and global education.
JSU plays an integral role in the economic development of Northeast
Alabama. Our graduates contribute significantly to the growth of the
region and the State, and it is a goal of the University to further
promote the health and wealth of Northeast Alabama. JSU is focused on
outreach opportunities that will better the lives and economic well-
being of the citizens of Alabama. To that end, JSU has a long history
and strong commitment to preparing emergency response professionals for
any situation: terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale
emergency. In fact, in May 2008 the National Weather Service designated
JSU as the first ``Storm Ready'' university in Alabama.
Now I would like to briefly tell you about some of our
accomplishments in Emergency Management and Homeland Security. JSU
became involved in this arena while working with the redevelopment of
Fort McClellan many years ago. We at JSU are indeed proud of our role
in helping to establish the Center for Domestic Preparedness. Shortly
after the announcement that Fort McClellan would close, it became
obvious that there was no planned use for the Army's live agent
training facility, and it would remain as an eyesore since the cost of
dismantling the structure would be prohibitive. Congress had just
passed the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness Initiative in 1996
and JSU took the initiative to develop a proposal to utilize the live
agent facility, along with other facilities at Fort McClellan, in order
to prepare civilian first responders for a terrorist attack involving
chemical weapons. As many of you may remember, JSU then took the lead
role in marketing the concept of a first responder training facility.
The establishment of the CDP became a reality both through the efforts
of JSU and the strong support of the local community, Calhoun County
Chamber of Commerce and Senator Shelby, Senator Sessions and then-
Congressman Bob Riley, now Governor of the great State of Alabama.
Through our efforts in developing the CDP, we at JSU became acutely
aware of the need for emergency management education programs to
address both the terrorism threat as well as natural disasters. JSU has
been providing on-line academic programs for emergency managers and
first responders since 1998. So, even prior to the events of September
11, 2001, JSU had academic programs in place that addressed planning
considerations for both terrorism and natural disaster events.
Recognizing that terrorist attacks, while devastating, cannot match the
destructive potential of Mother Nature, our degrees continue to be
designed to strike a balance between both natural disasters and
terrorist (man-made) events.
We currently offer bachelors and masters degrees in emergency
management. We know there is a critical need for individuals with
doctoral degrees to teach emergency management and homeland security
courses in other colleges and universities; therefore, JSU is now in
the process of establishing a doctoral program in emergency management.
JSU is also a member of the Department of Homeland Security Center for
the Study of Preparedness and Catastrophic Event Response and the
Homeland Security Defense Education Consortium. Also, with the
Association of Public-Safety Communication Officials International
(APCO), and through partnership with Gadsden State Community College,
we developed the APCO Virtual College whereby many 9-1-1 operators, who
sometimes are referred to as the Nation's true first responders, are
able to pursue academic programs in public safety, emergency management
and homeland security.
In order to rapidly get seasoned professionals in the field, and
make the greatest impact on national security, our programs are
targeted toward mid-career professionals in the public safety arena.
Recognizing that these individuals must continue working while earning
a degree, the courses are completely on-line. The success of these
programs has been greatly rewarding--and ultimately beneficial to the
United States and other nations through the work of our students and
graduates. We have had students from 49 States, several territories and
many foreign countries, and we have had students represented on all 7
continents. To date, we have graduated 173 with masters and 85 with
baccalaureate emergency management degrees. Our greatest impact,
however, is through the accomplishments of our graduates, as many
currently hold key positions with the public, private, or non-profit
sectors. For example, our graduates work for local and State emergency
management agencies, the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, the Red
Cross, and the Center for Disease Control. Indeed, many of these
graduates and currently enrolled students' preferred career path is to
serve rural communities. Furthermore, our graduates can also be found
on Capitol Hill, at the Pentagon and overseas in both civilian and
military-oriented positions. To illustrate our program's popularity,
enrollment in fall 2007 included 232 students in the baccalaureate
program, 48 in the certificate program, and 80 pursuing the master's
degree.
Finally, JSU has actively supported local, State and national
emergency management and homeland security initiatives through the
provision of contractual assistance in a number of areas. Several were
related to the Alabama Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness
Program (CSEPP) and included development of Emergency Operations Plans
for municipalities and other entities; design and/or support for annual
exercises/drills; plans for special needs population, and service as
medical coordinator.
I am very proud of our accomplishments, and I believe that JSU has
already helped to make our country a safer place in which to live. We
have indeed made a big impact in a short period of time, and our work
will continue in these efforts. Along with the significant
contributions our bachelors and masters degree recipients are making
globally, I believe that the initiation of our doctorate program will
have an even greater contribution to the safety and security of our
Nation. Furthermore, through our contractual and community services,
JSU will also continue to be a significant contributor in helping our
emergency planning and response professionals to be prepared for
terrorist or natural disaster events.
Another academic program with a strong connection to the Center for
Domestic Preparedness is the Lurleen B. Wallace College of Nursing and
Health Science (CNHS) at Jacksonville State University. Created by the
Legislature of the State of Alabama in 1967 to meet the educational
needs of the State, JSU's nursing program educates and graduates
exemplary health care professionals known for expertise in critical
thinking and decisionmaking. The College of Nursing and Health Sciences
(CNHS) continues to experience extraordinary growth with a 120 percent
increase in enrollment since 2001. Just last year the program graduated
11 Master of Science in Nursing students and 157 Bachelor of Science in
Nursing Students. Enrollment for fall 2007 was 50 in the MSN program
and 423 in the BSN program, numbers indicative of the growth in this
discipline so vital to the region, indeed the Nation.
However, a Nation-wide nursing shortage threatens our rural
communities. Since fall 2004, 310 qualified nursing applicants have
been denied admission at Jacksonville State University's (JSU) College
of Nursing and Health Sciences (CNHS) due to lack of nursing faculty,
classrooms, and clinical sites. In 2006 the Alabama Board of Nursing
reported that 4046 qualified applicants were denied admission to
nursing programs in Alabama; while at the national level more than
46,000 qualified applicants were denied. Rural communities need these
qualified nurses who are prepared to respond to disasters, natural or
man-made.
Both undergraduate and graduate nursing students have clinical
experiences at the Center for Domestic Preparedness. Recognizing the
importance of preparing a health care work force with knowledge and
skill in disaster response, emergency/domestic preparedness, concepts
are integrated throughout various undergraduate and graduate courses in
the curriculum. Our students have the unique opportunity to participate
in courses offered through The Center for Domestic Preparedness, which
is viewed by faculty and students as an extremely valuable learning
experience.
Just last week, two of our Master of Science in Nursing students
attended the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Courses here at the CDP.
Their week concluded with the opportunity to participate in live nerve
agent training, a rather unique experience for a health care provider.
While the likelihood of an actual nerve agent event is slim, the
lessons learned about the importance of personal protective equipment
and decontamination can be applied to many emergency and disaster
situations. As a result of such training, one of our recent graduates
led the development of a Pandemic Influenza Response Plan for a large
school system in Alabama. Our MSN graduates are employed in diverse
roles, including school health, health care administration, education,
and clinical services. Knowledge of emergency preparedness, coupled
with the nationally renowned training offered through the CDP, provides
our graduates with a foundation to positively influence planning and
response efforts in their respective institutions and communities.
Jacksonville State University clearly plays an important role in
preparing first responders; a role that is in keeping with our
University's mission and critical to our community at large. We
continue to capitalize on these disciplines and reach out to potential
community, State and Federal partners. We at JSU strongly encourage the
Federal Government's contribution and support of training and preparing
our Nation's rural first responders. I thank you for your leadership on
this issue, and I am delighted to answer any questions you may have at
this time.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
I now call on Mr. Pearce to summarize his statement for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN C. PEARCE, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CANINE
DETECTION TRAINING CENTER, AUBURN UNIVERSITY
Mr. Pearce. Good morning, Chairman Carney and Congressman
Rogers. On behalf of Auburn University's President Jay Gogue,
welcome to our Fort McClellan facility. Thank you for the
opportunity to talk about our detector dog research and
training program and the benefits of detector dog teams for law
enforcement and first responders.
The Auburn University program is focused on enhancing the
use of dogs for search and rescue and detecting hazardous,
unsafe or illegal substances and materials through basic
research, development and instruction. Along with our College
of Veterinary Medicine, we have a 17-year track record of
helping local, State and Federal agencies fulfill their public
safety and national security missions.
For example, Auburn-trained detector dog teams are
screening for explosives on the mass transit system in Atlanta.
Here in Alabama, our dog teams are helping keep firearms from
entering Lee County schools and interdicting illicit drugs
along part of Interstate I-20. They are also protecting Federal
buildings and detecting explosives for the United States forces
in Iraq. We are proud of the service that they provide to our
State and Nation.
Detector dog teams are ideal for protection of rural
communities and serve as a very visible deterrence to crime and
terrorism. A well-trained team is the most capable, readily
available and least expensive detection tool for local law
enforcement and public safety officials. They are also an
important force multiplier for agencies in rural areas where
resources are stretched thin. These agencies do not have the
luxury of multiple overlapping jurisdictions, but they often
face the same threats as metro areas, including illegal drug
reduction, school violence and the challenges of special
events. A detector dog team is a solution for these scenarios.
Congressman Rogers has been a proponent of detector dog
teams for domestic and military uses for many years. Your
support of research, development, standards and innovation in
canine detection has resulted in safer communities and enhanced
our national security. Thank you for your efforts.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Mr. Pearce. In order for the benefits of detector dog teams
to be realized, they must have good equipment, be well-trained
and equipment and training must be well-maintained just like
any other facet of law enforcement or emergency preparedness.
The most important piece of equipment is the dog. We
recommend it be bred through selective breeding for a long
service life and to successfully capture the most important
traits. Just as important, proper preparation of the puppy is
needed so it can express the genetics given to it through
breeding. This is prior to entering a strong training program
that is equally focused on educating the handler through a
comprehensive education process. Finally, upkeep of the dog's
health and ongoing training of the team are necessary to
maintain its performance over time.
We believe the Federal Government is essential to
increasing detector dog resources for local, rural
jurisdictions in at least four ways:
First, we recommend that the Government encourage
development of standards that follow the best practices such as
those developed by the scientific working group on dog and
orthogonal detector guidelines.
Second, we recommend the Federal role in developing funding
mechanisms to assist local, rural jurisdictions to obtain
detector dog resources.
Third, we believe the Government should encourage the
development of domestic sources of high quality detector dogs.
Finally, we recommend that the Government encourage
programmatic research and development efforts to enhance the
performance and utility of the use of dogs for detection of
hazardous materials.
Congressman Carney and Congressman Rogers, this is a brief
summary of suggestions and concerns that my years of experience
tells me should be brought before the committee for
consideration. In my written testimony, I have expounded on
these issues and covered additional areas that I believe are a
good example of what a focus on detector dog breeding and
training can mean for America and the first responders that put
themselves in harm's way each day.
The Center and the University truly appreciate the
committee choosing our facility as a venue to explore the needs
of our Nation's first responders and I am grateful for the
privilege to testify. I am pleased to answer any questions you
may have.
[The statement of Mr. Pearce follows:]
Prepared Statement of John C. Pearce
July 22, 2008
Mr. Chairman and Congressman Rogers, my name is John Pearce and I
am the Director of Training and Operations for Auburn University's
Canine Detection Training Center. On behalf of Auburn University
President Jay Gogue and Acting Vice President for Research, Ralph Zee,
welcome to our Fort McClellan facility. Thank you for the opportunity
to talk with you about Auburn's canine detection research and training
program, the benefits of detector dog teams for local law enforcement
and first responders, and the Nation's canine detection capabilities.
The Center that we are in now is part of a comprehensive Auburn
University program focused on enhancing the use of dogs for the
detection of hazardous, unsafe or illegal substances and materials
through basic research, development, and instruction. Along with
researchers at our College of Veterinary Medicine, we have a 17-year
successful track record of helping local, State and Federal agencies
fulfill their public safety and national security missions. These
agencies include, for example, the Orange County, California, Sheriff's
Office, the Clayton, GA Police Department, the Federal Protective
Service, and the U.S. Marine Corps.
For example, Auburn trained detector dog teams are screening
passengers for explosives on the mass transit system in Atlanta and
Amtrak inter-State commuter rail lines. Here in Alabama, Auburn-trained
dog teams are helping keep explosives and firearms from entering Lee
County schools and interdicting illicit drugs along the I-20 corridor
from Leeds to Heflin. They are also protecting Federal buildings and
detecting improvised explosive devices for U.S. forces in Iraq. We are
proud of the service they provide to our State and Nation.
As the most capable, readily available and least expensive tool for
the detection of explosives and illicit drugs, a well trained detector
dog team is ideal for the protection of rural communities and serves as
an important force-multiplier for them to deal with an often large
service area with only a few first responders. The detector dog team is
a complement to and extends the capabilities of first responders as
well as providing a very visible deterrence to crime and terrorism.
From an emergency management perspective, rural communities do not have
the luxury of close-by mutual aid in terms of either detector dog or
bomb squad resources but they increasingly do have significant threats
of illicit drug production, potentially catastrophic school violence
events, special event venues in the form of regional sporting and
festivals, and an under-appreciated level of important national
infrastructure in the form of, necessarily less-well monitored,
pipelines, water resources, and power generation/transmission that
could be a target of terrorism. A well-trained and -maintained detector
dog team resource in such a community can serve as an important
regional first responder asset and potentially important homeland
security asset.
In order for the benefits of detector dog teams to be realized,
those teams must have good equipment, be well-trained, and the
equipment and training must be well-maintained just like any other
facet of law enforcement or emergency preparedness. The most important
piece of equipment is the dog itself; it must be bred to have the
propensity to successfully perform and have a long service life as a
detector dog. The quality of the training of the dog and its human
handler are critical to the team's performance. Finally, upkeep of the
dog's health and fitness and on-going training of the team are
necessary to maintain its performance over time.
Providing competent canine detection resources for public service--
first responder organizations in smaller and rural areas is often
overlooked in discussions regarding the status of the detector dog
industry. I appreciate the opportunity this hearing provides to discuss
our programs mission and activities, the status of the canine detection
industry, and especially the canine detection resources for smaller and
rural communities.
We believe the Federal Government will be essential to increasing
detector dog resources for local, rural jurisdictions in at least four
ways. First, the Government should encourage the development and
promulgation of minimum standards for the provision of detector dog
services. Second, and most obviously, the Government should develop
funding mechanisms to assist local, rural jurisdictions in obtaining
detector dog resources. Third, the Government should encourage the
development of domestic sources of high-quality candidate detector
dogs. Finally, we believe that the Government should encourage
programmatic research & development efforts to enhance the performance
and utility of the use of dogs for detection of hazardous materials.
Eight years ago, Auburn created the Canine Detection Training
Center to transfer technology and provide formal instruction on the
lessons learned through our research. The center's mission is to
provide instruction of these principles in all facets of canine
detection to include program management. Another goal of the Training
Center was to provide a resource for the quality of dogs and level of
instruction afforded to larger Federal Government and the U.S. Military
canine programs to State and local law enforcement agencies. We also
believe the approach must include selective breeding to ensure detector
dogs have the proper genetics to excel in performance of their duties
and identified bloodlines to ensure an adequate and readily available
source of such dogs. Importantly, breeding alone is not sufficient to
realize the potential of such dogs and we are engaged in efforts to
engineer the early experiences of puppies such that we maximize such
potential.
The industry as a whole is still primarily procuring dogs from
European vendors. This tradition stems from a culture of breeding and
raising dogs for working dog tasks as being an enthusiast or sporting-
type hobby in central European countries. Some of these enthusiasts
turned their hobby into a business by becoming vendors of such dogs for
sale to military, government, law enforcement, and private security
entities in the United States and elsewhere. It is clearly the case
that since the events of 9/11, the worldwide market for these dogs has
increased resulting in a diminution of the average quality of dogs
imported into the United States. The dogs must meet certain medical
criteria and performance standards but this does not ensure the dogs
have had critical environmental exposures and proper preparation.
There are always the exceptional dogs out there, but we need to
have consistent, reliable source of good dogs. Vendors typically know
the procurement/selection test on which the dogs will be assessed and
train the dog to meet this standard. Upon entering training a good
portion of these dogs exhibit behavioral issues causing the dog to fail
initial training and/or complete training with substandard results.
Often overlooked, but very critical to this process is the proper
raising of the puppy so it may express the genetics it received through
selective breeding. This is overlooked because of the costly time and
money involved in preparation of the puppy to become a good detector
dog.
Auburn, in collaboration with Corrections Corporation of America,
has significantly reduced the cost of this process through preparation
of the puppies within prisons. The key to the success of this program
has been educating inmates in development of these puppies: The
commitment of the prison administration to the education of the inmates
and professional management of such programs are essential to its
success. Auburn's original plan was to use local volunteers by placing
a puppy in their home for 1 year. The training plan was structured to
ensure various environmental exposures and enhance performance.
Although the volunteers' contributions were admirable, they just didn't
have the necessary time from day-to-day to fully implement the training
plan. This resulted in only 25 percent of the puppies being
successfully trained as detector dogs. However, the initial results of
our prison program are that 85 percent of puppies have successfully
entered and completed training. We strongly recommend that the
development of domestic programs for selectively breeding and the
engineered raising of detector dogs be supported to prepare detector
dogs for Federal, State and local law enforcement as well as our
military.
The United States has the potential for self-sufficiency with
regard to detection and other needed working dogs. We have an often
overlooked existing source of very sound breeding stock, the American
field and hunt trial sporting-dog enthusiast industry, and we now have
a proven mechanism for raising dogs to be detector dogs, the well-
trained inmate volunteer. It should be noted that our prison program
can be scaled up to practically any level of production and replicated
across the Nation at a very favorable cost-to-production ratio: We
could double the production of the current Auburn program with addition
of only one employee due to the support provided by the prison. With
seed funding to initiate growth of such detector dog production efforts
and an emphasis on Federal Agencies and our military procuring dogs
from such programs, a reliable self-sufficient resource of dogs well-
prepared to enter and succeed in training could be created. The
attendant benefit of such a system would be a more readily available
source of high-quality dogs for first-responder organizations in
smaller and rural communities.
Although, the quality and preparedness of the dog is critical,
there is a tendency for discussions regarding canine detection to focus
only on the dog whereas the actual detection capability is as much or
more a consequence of the preparedness of the handlers of those dogs.
Perhaps the most overarching goal of Auburn's Canine program is to
advance the practice of canine detection from the level of a craft to a
more mature technology. Albeit there will always be a strong element of
craftsmanship involved in training and handling detector dogs, the fact
that the detector dog is the most capable tool available for the
important job of hazardous substance detection demands that we aspire
for a more sophisticated technological approach.
There are two fundamental reasons for moving toward a more
technological approach to the training and handling of detector dogs,
reliability and accountability. The most significant problems in
relation to homeland security presented by the current state of the
canine detection industry is variability in the reliability with which
it is practiced and absence of a mechanism for homeland security
officials to assess, or account for, such variability. Put in the
perspective of the ``First Responder'' focus of the committee's current
field hearings: The most likely first detector dog team resource
attending to a potential threat is from local law enforcement or
security service provider and there is no current mechanism in place
for homeland security officials to know very much if anything about the
reliability of that team meet the challenges presented by different
levels and types of threats. Taken one step further back in the
process, there is also no current formal way that a funding agency
supporting the costs of handler training or purchaser of detector dog
team services can account for the quality of such training or services.
The working dog industry has not fully evolved from a craft. This
includes educating handlers in the basic science principles that
informs their training and use of their dog and providing them with a
strong foundation in operational best practices. Handler instruction is
where the industry is cutting corners in competition with one another
to reduce cost because it is least amenable to accountability; a
handler trainee can exit a training a program having been provided a
very capable dog that provides the appearance of initial competence,
but without adequate handler instruction, the actual reliability of
that team 3 months later is highly suspect. This is particularly
relevant to public service agencies in smaller, rural communities which
presently do not have the same access to higher-quality detector dog
team training services.
The need to move the use of dogs for detection from a craft to more
of a mature technology has been recently recognized in three important
ways. Perhaps the most important contribution to this movement has been
the House Homeland Security Committees' emphasis, led by Congressman
Rogers, on the importance of canine detection and thus need for
standards and innovation in its practice and domestic resources for
quality detector dogs. The industry has taken notice of the committees'
attention to canine detection, which has buttressed efforts within the
industry for self-assessment and the promotion of Best Practice
Guidelines.
The most significant of these efforts has been the Scientific
Working Group on Dogs and Orthogonal Detectors Guidelines (SWGDOG).
This has been a truly seminal event in canine detection which has for
the first time in my 30-year career brought together a true cross-
section of the industry (e.g., DHS, DoD, State and local law
enforcement as well as other public service agencies, commercial
training and security providers, SME's from other nations, and
academia) to develop consensus-based best practice guidelines for
detector dogs. Strong debate amongst different factions in SWGDOG is
the norm but the process is working and is nearly on its original
schedule. I feel that the emphasis your committee has demonstrated has
kept a lot of the SWGDOG members motivated to complete the difficult
tasks of arriving at scientifically valid best practice guidelines.
The guiding principles of SWGDOG are consistent with the defining
qualities of a technology and include:
A common technical language, which facilitates and improves
accuracy of information transmitted across generations of
instructors and handlers.
Establishes basic best practices to guide the industry and
provides consumers of detector dog services with basis for
assessment of those services.
Facilitates enhancement and new applications for working
dogs.
The third and most recent effort in advancing canine detection as a
technology has been the efforts of the DHS Office of Bombing Prevention
(OBP) to develop a canine detection capabilities assessment tool,
initiate a trial run at conducting such assessments across several
metropolitan areas, and initiate the development of a model canine
handler curriculum designed to meet DHS instructional guidelines. Oak-
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has executed the first segment of work
for the OBP for which Auburn has served as an SME sub-contractor.
Conducting a national canine detection capabilities assessment will
provide DHS with a resource-typed database critical to ensuring that
the appropriate level of capabilities are deployed in response to
particular threat situations. Such a tool will also provide a mechanism
for determining the allocation of resources to improve canine detection
capabilities in particular areas of the country. Finally, the
development of a DHS standard handler curriculum will provide a
replicable model that will promote greater consistency and quality
control of handler instruction. ORNL is exploring the conversion of
some of the didactic portions of such a curriculum to web-based
instruction, which will serve to reduce the duration that a handler
candidate must be away from his or her agency for training, which may
be critical for smaller organizations to access such services.
We believe that the ideal utilization of Auburn's unique program is
to conduct systematic R&D resulting in enhanced or new operational
capabilities while providing a resource for exceptionally well-prepared
potential detector dogs and filling a gap for advanced detector dog and
handler team instruction for national, State and local public service
organizations without an inherent training program.
We hope that we can work with your committee and DHS officials to
overcome barriers to smaller and rural communities' access to high-
quality detector dog resources. State and local law enforcement
typically do not have the financial resources and/or the administrative
support to attend our 6-week drug or 10-week explosive detector dog
team course. There have been a few exceptions to this: I believe two
smaller communities have found ways to use DHS-provided grant funding
to attend our course and we have provided significantly subsidized
services to law enforcement in our local area and, to a lesser extent
other departments across Alabama. I have been impressed with the
efforts of some communities to obtain our services, such as Lee County,
which split the cost between Sheriff Jay Jones Office and the School
Board, Cullman County, which engaged in a fundraising campaign led by a
distinguished veterinarian in the area, or Heflin, AL where the city
traded us a vehicle, confiscated in a drug arrest executed with a dog
we previously trained for them, for a new trained dog.
However, faced with the dilemma of either replacing an unreliable
emergency vehicle with 200,000+ miles of service or obtaining a high-
quality detector dog and team training, the choice for any police chief
or sheriff is appropriately to take care of the most fundamental needs
first (i.e., replacing the vehicle). This leaves the enterprising
public service official seeking a working dog and training for the
least possible cost and herein we find the dilemma of extreme
variability in the reliability with which canine detection is
practiced. The canine detection industry is replete with vendors of
highly variable quality dogs and, as short as 1 week, training courses
offering services in such circumstances. Some of these vendors are just
uninformed but many are professionals who do know better but target
this niche market. Many public service officials in the position of
deciding on the acquisition of a canine are not well-informed because
this is not something covered in most law enforcement academies (the
information emanates mostly from prior military or Federal agency
working dog service) and there is no accountability of DHS-promulgated
standards, such as, for example that which exist through resource-
typing of equipment with which most public services officials are now
aware, for canine detection. The committee's attention to this issue
and attendant efforts such that of SWGDOG hold promise for providing
the needed framework for establishing minimum training and
certification standards. Therefore, Auburn strongly recommends that the
committee consider mechanisms for smaller and rural communities to
obtain canine detection resources but in a way that helps ensure those
resources are competent, which is particularly important in this market
because there are often no readily available internal or external
sources of such information or control regarding such competence.
Returning to the topic of Auburn canine detection R&D efforts, it
seems we are continually scratching the surface on ways to enhance
canine detection through sporadic, non-systematic development projects
in which we produce a few dogs for a special application; examples
include, off-lead remote detection of IEDs to increase the safety and
security of the war fighter and first responder, Vapor-Wake Detection,
which is the detection of hand-carried or body-worn explosives, wide-
area autonomous screening for explosive caches (WAX), and canine
physical conditioning programs to enhance overall performance. All of
these projects were either examined by independent researchers or
tested operationally and assessed as being very successful. Increasing
the capabilities of the detector dog team through development of such
technologies is particularly relevant to supporting first responders in
rural and smaller communities because it serves to extend the
versatility of applications and area one detector dog team can cover.
However, longer-term programmatic support of such projects, analogous
to the long-range programmatic efforts to develop detection
instrumentation, is needed to fully advance these technologies.
Two examples illustrate well the potential of enhanced canine
detection applications and how they could serve to extend or be a
force-multiplier for first responders in rural and smaller communities.
The vapor-wake detection (or person-screening) of hand-carried and
body-worn explosives development project was actually suggested by the
former Chief of the MARTA Police, who was concerned about the transit
system being a vector for the entry of explosive devices into high-
profile venues in Atlanta. We researched existing information on the
plume of heat and air emanating from static and moving people from work
related to the development of the electronic explosive detection
sampling portals. We used this information to tailor a prototype
training program for dogs to interrogate this vapor-wake emanating from
persons. DHS S&T somehow learned of our work with MARTA and requested
to examine its effectiveness as part of larger rapid transit security
technology review. That review, conducted by Sandia National Labs,
assessed the vapor-wake detector dog capability as being capable of
very effectively screening over 1,000 rapid transit patrons an hour
passing through a chokepoint with practically no affect of the
screening on through-put in the transit system. We have had further
interest from large metropolitan law enforcement agencies for obtaining
vapor-wake detector dog team training and Amtrak is in the process of
obtaining such training for several of their detector dog teams from
us. There is certainly more to be learned that would support and
advance the use of dogs for vapor-wake detection and such information
would undoubtedly inform and support the use of electronic chemical
detection systems for stand-off detection, but yet, we there has been
no interest expressed in a systematic program of research and
development of this topic.
In another program, Auburn teamed with the Potomac Institute for
Policy Studies (PIPS) to develop an off-lead, remotely commanded, IED
detection canine capability for the U.S. Marine Corps Infantry through
the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory (MCWL). We assessed the
necessary requirements and demands of such dog to support Marine Corps
Infantry without presenting any but the most minimal additional
operational burden and no reduction in the combat capability of the
combat infantry squad. This actually did begin as very much a
systematic development project, but based on the assessed capability of
the prototype dog, the Marine Corps requested that Marine Infantrymen
be trained ASAP to operate these dogs and for them to be deployed to
Iraq. The development of this capability, designated as the Improvised
Device Detection (IDD) Dog, utilized the full complement of Auburn
University resources to include our College of Veterinary Medicine,
Sports Medicine Center, which developed a nutrition and conditioning
program that made the dogs capable of working in the extreme conditions
hour-for-hour with the Marine Combat Squadrons with which they were
deployed.
This program is an example, as is very often the case, of the
development of a technology for military purposes that has direct and
immediate application in homeland security: In this case, providing the
first responder with a means for stand-off detection of explosives
through use of a remotely controlled dog. First responders and the
Marine Corps Infantry share the need of two critical characteristics of
the IDD canine capability: Stand-off, remotely guided detection to
increase the distance, and thus safety, between the first responder and
public from a potential threat; and rapid screening of relatively large
areas.
In closing, I would again like to commend the committee on the
attention it has given canine detection. I can report that such
attention has already had very positive effects in the canine detection
field. I believe it is very worthy of the attention of Congress and
support this contention with the fact that the numerous scientists and
engineers involved in the development of detection technology I have
encountered over the years, without exception, acknowledged that the
well-trained dog and handler team is by far the ``gold standard'' of
capability by which all other detection technology is judged. We are
honored by you visiting our facility and I am very grateful for the
privilege of testifying before you today. I would be pleased to answer
any questions you may have of me.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Pearce.
Now I will ask Mr. Knight to summarize his statement for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW C. KNIGHT, VICE PRESIDENT, ALABAMA
ASSOCIATION OF RESCUE SQUADS
Mr. Knight. Chairman Carney, Congressman Rogers, thank you
for this opportunity to represent the association today for
first responder training.
As a current instructor and volunteer member, I have
experienced many first responders receiving training from
various agencies through the support that Homeland Security has
provided. This continued support will only make more
educational opportunities available to the first responders
across Alabama as well as this great Nation.
To validate part of the training, the Alabama Association
of Rescue Squads has partnered with the Alabama Fire College to
offer certain courses that were not available previously to any
of the volunteers in our association. These courses have
objectives and outcomes that really hold the quality and the
integrity of the courses to quality standards. With this
partnership and availability of funding, this would allow our
instructors to travel across the State to other regions and to
other areas to provide this training to our members.
The funding from previous years has provided excellent
opportunities for those who have received the training at this
great facility. However, there are many more wanting and
seeking that desire to receive this training. I, being one of
those. I have not had the opportunity, with a recent career
change, to get this training available here.
Communications are so critical during any disaster. With
Federal funding and/or grants that have been provided, it has
allowed the bridge and the backbone foundation to be laid. With
this continued funding now we can look at the interoperability
among State, regional and local entities.
However, I must point out that unlike the fire departments,
the rescue squads, in their mission of first responder duties,
have missed out on much of the available grants provided. So I
must ask to please consider allowing rescue squads to submit
applications for grants to carry out their missions. These
individuals go above and beyond their call to duty to aid in
any endeavor only to be denied the proper equipment to function
at times.
Once again, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to
represent the association and I look forward to answering any
questions that you might have.
[The statement of Mr. Knight follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matthew C. Knight
July 22, 2008
Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, thank you for your time
and the opportunity to appear before you to represent the Association
for first responder training.
As a current instructor and volunteer member I have experienced
many first responders receiving training from various agencies through
the support that Homeland Security has provided. This continued support
will only make more educational opportunities available to the various
first responders across Alabama as well as the Nation.
To validate part of the training, the Alabama Assoc. of Rescue
Squads has partnered with the Alabama Fire College to offer certain
courses that were not available previously to many of the volunteers in
our association. These courses have objectives and outcomes that really
hold the quality and integrity of the course to quality standards. With
this partnership and availability of funding this would allow
instructors to travel to the various regions across the State and allow
hundreds of our members receive the desired training.
The funding from previous years has provided excellent
opportunities for those who have received training at this great
facility. However there are many more wanting and seeking that desire
to receive the training this facility provides. I being one of those,
the most recent career change has not allowed me to participate in the
various offerings.
Communications is so critical during any disaster. With Federal
funding and/or grants that has been provided it has allowed for the
bridge and backbone foundation to be laid. With the continued funding
now we can look at interoperability among State, regional, and local
entities.
However I must point out that unlike the fire departments, the
rescue squads in their mission of first responder duties have missed
out on much of the available grants provided. So I must ask to please
consider allowing rescue squads to submit applications for grants to
carry out their missions.
These individuals go above and beyond the call of duty to aid in
any endeavor only to be denied the proper equipment to function at
times.
Once again thank you for allowing me this opportunity to represent
the Association on this important hearing. I will be glad to answer any
questions you might have.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Knight.
I thank all of you for your testimony. Mr. Rogers and I
will now have 5 minutes each to question the panel. I imagine
we will have several rounds back and forth here. One of the
privileges of being Chairman, I get to go first.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Carney. So I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
I will start with Mr. Schrader. In your written testimony
you point out that 90 percent of law enforcement agencies
across the country have 50 officers or less--90 percent is a
large number, obviously. I think that shows just how important
it is to train responders from small communities, and despite
that fact, from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2007, the
percentage of rural responders being trained by CDP has
gradually decreased, from nearly 63 percent in 2001 to 38
percent in 2007.
What can be done by FEMA, by local communities and the
Congress to make sure that trend is reversed?
Mr. Schrader. Well, actually we have a very aggressive
program for pushing mobile training out into the field. Last
year, for example, we had 37,000 course completions that were
done throughout the country in the 20 different courses that we
offered. As of July 19 of this year, those same 20 courses, we
had 1,600 offerings in 38 States and 45,000 course completions.
So the vast majority of the offerings that we have are being
pushed out into the country. There is a lot of value to that
because what it does is it not only reaches people who might
not otherwise have the opportunity to be exposed to this kind
of training, but it also makes them aware of what else is
available back here at the CDP for future training
opportunities.
Mr. Carney. Have you been able to discuss the efficacy of
those programs you send out?
Mr. Schrader. We use--there is a technique called the
Kirkpatrick Method and we do follow up with the actual
employers and the technique there is to make sure that there is
a perceived improvement in performance by the responder, by the
actual supervisor. So we do that kind of follow-up assessment,
yes.
Mr. Carney. This is for you, Mr. Schrader, but Mr. Walker,
you may want to jump in.
The grants program directly provides funding for States to
enhance the capabilities of the local first responders. I
understand the directorate is currently trying to improve the
ability to measure the effectiveness of those grants. What
steps are being taken to address the directorate's ability?
Mr. Schrader. Well, I think in the wisdom of the Post-
Katrina Act, one of the things that we have done inside FEMA is
we have actually broken out the National Preparedness
Directorate as a separate focused activity from the Grants
Directorate so that the mechanics of putting the grants out and
the grants guidance is run by Assistant Administrator Ross
Ashley. I handle the preparedness cycle which is planning,
training, exercising and assessing. That allows us on a
continuous basis to be focused on that.
We have actually done two real important things that the
law required. One is that we are putting more resources into
the regions. We really believe that decentralization and
putting more authority to the States in coordination with our
regions is the best way to go over the long haul. Public safety
and public health is fundamentally a State and local
responsibility and they put tremendous resources into it. There
was a recent CRS study that showed the vast quantities, in the
billions of dollars, that are invested by State and local
governments.
So our role is to empower the States through the regions
and put those resources out in the regions. We now have in
every region a Federal preparedness coordinator. We have added
additional resources for planning and assessment in the
regions. So our focus at the headquarters is to, again,
decentralize.
We have also organized a group that is focused on
assessments. They are collecting data from the field as well as
from the program areas to make sure that we are getting value
with all the dollars.
So there is a lot more work that has got to be done in this
assessment area, as far as I am concerned, and we have got a
focus on it daily.
Mr. Carney. Director Walker, should States be involved with
this process and the accountability structure?
Mr. Walker. Yes, sir. I think if you ask any State director
in the country how he feels about the administration of
homeland security grants, he really wants two things. He wants
predictability and he wants flexibility. You cannot run a
business, you cannot run an organization unless you can have
some level of predictability on what your resources are going
to be for the next year or the year after. It is difficult to
start a program, like interoperable communications, and try to
build a State plan--if it is a 5-year plan, there has got to be
some predictability you are going to be able to fund it at the
end of the 5 years. We have got to also keep faith with our
counties and our locals. When you consider that folks in
Washington realize that you cannot secure this country from
inside the beltway, you have got to have 50 State programs that
are part and parcel working together. It is the same here in
Alabama. I cannot sit in Montgomery and manage 67 counties, we
have got to invest in each of our 67 counties and you have got
to have predictability to do that.
Then the flexibility. The flexibility to take these dollars
and put them where we, the State and local officials, feel like
it is the most necessary. I mean with all due respect to my
friend, he does not really know exactly what we need in Alabama
as well as we do. So we think if we have the flexibility to
spend the money the way that we see fit, build the capability
that we want, conduct the training and the exercises, then it
would be a much better use of the dollars.
Mr. Carney. Thank you. My time has expired for this first
turn and I will now recognize Mr. Rogers for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to follow up, Mr. Schrader, on what you referred to
as mobile training. My understanding is that the residents here
in the departments, whether it is fire or police department or
rescue department, can participate here for 2 weeks, cost-free,
with room and board, in this excellent training. That is the
feedback that I have gotten over the years is the people that
come to this facility from across the world are very impressed
with the training they receive.
In touring yesterday, I really was probing about the mobile
training that you referenced. I understand that you have had
some success with that. Yet my understanding in asking
questions about the mobile training is that it is also a 3-day
training program, even though it is sent out to the community.
It is generally participated in by departments that just cannot
turn loose folks to come up here for 2 weeks.
I am still trying to figure out how we can reach these kind
of folks that are working, as the Chairman referenced, in 90
percent of the first responder positions in the country, they
are volunteers, they work during the day and could not
participate in a 3-day program if it was during the day time. I
know that there was some reference made--I think your phrase
was indirect training, train the trainer.
I would like to discuss--and I am not being critical when I
say this--when I asked yesterday during our tour of CDP about
this train the trainer, I was told that the trainer received 12
hours of training. They then went out and delivered 6 hours of
training to the first responders. I really would like to find a
way that we could get a professional, of the quality that we
saw in the facility, who is going out to do the training. So
that if one of my friends from Clay County started asking some
probing questions beyond the scope of that person's 12 hours of
training that the trainer had received, that they would find it
of benefit.
How difficult would it be, or manageable, for you to put
together a program of outreach that went out in these
communities that had the kind of professional that we are
talking about?
Mr. Schrader. Well, let me start by addressing the mobile
training program, because I obviously have the same interest as
you do and the questions are spot on. If you examine the mobile
training program, for example, we have about 260 folks here at
the CDP to support all the training efforts. Of those 260,
about 58 are the instructors on this site and then the balance
provide all the support for all the training efforts.
The way we deliver the mobile training is that there is a
national contract outreach through the contract that we have
here at CDP and they go around the country and find
professionals. There are probably around 360, plus or minus,
professionals who deliver the mobile training around the
country. Of those folks, 50 percent of them are still active in
their communities. They make some of the best trainers because
they are in the business. The other 50 percent are within 3 to
5 years of having retired from the field and, therefore, they
are still reasonably current in their profession. So when you
think about these 360 people that are deployed all over the
country, that is the way to do it. By using the contract
vehicle, they are able to recruit nationally and they go into
these local jurisdictions. We are finding with some of our
other training partners, they use the same strategy. Nothing
substitutes for having a first responder, from a credibility
perspective, a first responder delivering training to another
first responder.
Now what I want to make sure we do with the indirect train
the trainer program is to make sure that the people that we are
training are in a position to make a commitment to do the
follow-up training. That is always an issue. We ask for a
commitment for folks who take that training to be willing to
follow up, and we actually collect data on how many training
hours they have delivered to various individuals.
Mr. Rogers. Have you ever entered into a relationship with
a university or community college so that the people that are
trainers, that go out, these professionals who do it on a
regular basis? Again, I am concerned about somebody who just
received 12 hours of training going out and being the only
source of information. It would be great if it was a
professional, who has that as their job to go out and regularly
deliver that training.
Mr. Schrader. Well, let me give you one other point of
view. The folks that we train, for example, if you are getting
a haz-mat course here, the people who are being trained are
haz-mat technicians. So they are not folks who are not familiar
with the business. We are not taking people off the street who
have no background. So the expectation is that we are raising
their level, just like in the military, where you train--that
is a pretty typical, you know, you train the trainer and it is
the squad leader's job to train the rest of the squad.
So we believe that that approach has value. I would not
want to move away too far from that approach. But working with
universities is also very valuable. We have these various
consortia, but even a consortia, one of our consortium
partners, for example, trains many people out in the western
part of the country and they use the same strategy of bringing
in--almost all of their trainers are first responders from
around the country that they bring out on a regular basis.
Mr. Rogers. I see my time is up. I will pick this back up
in the next round of questions.
Mr. Schrader. Sure.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
Director Walker, once again, as you know, the Department of
Homeland Security determines how security dollars are going to
be distributed. What do you think they ought to take into
account?
Mr. Walker. In my written statement, Mr. Chairman, I--you
know, the fact is, and it is risk-based, but the 50 largest
cities in this country receive more Homeland Security grant
dollars than all the rural areas and the rest of the country
combined. I understand the risk component, but the practical
component is that the larger cities and urban areas have got a
greater ability to raise revenue to outfit and sustain and
train their first responders. Rural communities do not
necessarily have that advantage. It is difficult in some rural
communities to get county commissions and local government just
to fund the match on emergency management performance grants
required to keep a full time EMA person in a local county.
When we started about 5\1/2\ years ago, we still had some
counties in Alabama where the emergency management function was
a part-time duty and somebody worked out of their kitchen. Now
in a post-9/11 world, we can obviously do better than that,
whether it is in Alabama or anywhere else in the country.
So we set out to try to improve communications. We used
Homeland Security grant money, for example, to create a cache
of capabilities that we believe every county in the 21st
century ought to have. We set about funding that. But the issue
is that it is very, very difficult for local communities who
have got to stretch revenue dollars a long way to make the kind
of investments, not just to pay their police force, or if they
have a paid fire or emergency management director, that is just
to keep them on the staff. I mean we have got to continue to
invest to get them the kind of capabilities because if you look
at terrorism, for example. We have already talked about some of
the natural disasters that routinely plague rural America, but
the terrorism aspect. I mean here in Alabama, the D.C. snipers
murdered before they went and wreaked havoc in the national
capitol region. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were stopped in rural
Marion County, Alabama before they went and perpetrated their
acts against the World Trade Center. Then finally, you know,
hate groups in this country, domestic hate groups, continue to
flourish. Here just recently, we destroyed hundreds of
improvised explosive devices, thousands of rounds of ammunition
and machine guns that were captured in rural counties in
Alabama by hate groups that were set on doing damage. Those
folks are in jail now, but that has all happened here recently.
So in a 21st century world, you have got to get the right
kind of capabilities into the hands of law enforcement and
first responders to deal with challenges in rural America.
Rural America is relevant and so we have got to look and see if
the formula, although risk-based, is practical based on the
requirements of the country.
Mr. Carney. Mr. Schrader.
Mr. Schrader. Well, having sat in Mr. Walker's chair, I
think he did not say anything that I would disagree with. I had
many of the same experiences and actually had my own list. When
you are in these jobs as State director sitting right next to
the Governor, those are tough jobs and you need to have the
entire State mobilized. I know we had money that we distributed
through grants that created a skeletal network of operations
around our State when I was in Maryland. We used the Homeland
Security grant money and we were very careful to distribute it
to not only just the urban areas, but to make sure that it was
put out in every jurisdiction. Because you never quite know
where people are going to show up. We used to get regular FBI
briefings, we knew that folks would be, you know, trying to lay
low somewhere else in the State, they did not want to be
obvious. So I think Mr. Walker is right on target.
I think, again, the safety and security of this country
really rests very heavily on folks like Mr. Walker and his
peers around the country as well as the emergency directors.
Some are one and the same and others are divided, depending how
each State is organized. But I think those roles are critical.
Mr. Carney. Are you satisfied that FEMA is sensitive to
that in terms of distributing the grant money?
Mr. Schrader. Yes, absolutely. I sat with Ross Ashley, who
has had quite a bit of experience in this area. Obviously the
focus, you know, is very clear, that risk is where we need to
put the emphasis and Secretary Chertoff, over the last couple
of years, has been very focused on making sure that you can
explain the formulas. I do not want to get too far afield here,
but the bottom line is that we are focused on risk but there is
a balance there. We have got to make sure that we have
capabilities across the board.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
I want to pick back up on the rural training. One of the
primary reasons why I sought this position on Homeland Security
and am so involved in it is that my district is rural and poor,
and I want to make sure that we get the same quality of
attention and education as other cities. There has been a tug
of war on the committee trying to allocate resources. My
colleagues from the more urban areas, like New York, Chicago,
San Francisco, they obviously think they are bigger risks. But
we have already talked about the fact that 90 percent of the
first responders in this country are rural and they come from
small departments most of which in my view are volunteers. So I
want to make sure that they are not given second-class status.
That goes for training, so I want to come back to this
training issue. I understand you came back and revisited the
mobile training, but I want to talk more about the indirect
training, which seems to be the viable option for rural
departments.
Mr. Schrader. Uh-huh.
Mr. Rogers. In talking with your staff yesterday, or CDP
staff yesterday when we toured, I was told that there is not a
lot of participation in indirect training and primarily because
it is not being requested by the State Department of Homeland
Security. That under our new structure, and I was on the
committee when we put it together, it has to go through the
State homeland security office to get resources.
I would like to ask Mr. Walker, are we doing enough to
raise awareness for these volunteer departments to ask you or
do we need to ask? How do we need to make sure emphasis is put
on that training resource that the folks at CDP will ramp up
their resources to provide professionals to go out and deliver
this training in the rural areas?
Mr. Walker. I think the mobile team concept is incredibly
valuable.
Mr. Rogers. As opposed to indirect? It's 3 days training
and a lot of these volunteers will never be able to do that.
Mr. Walker. What I am thinking about, Mr. Rogers, as you
know, volunteers are incredibly important and valuable. There
is training that they obviously receive outside of the CDP
channel. You know, there is another grant that you all
administer called Citizen Corps grant that kind of gets cut one
year and not cut the next year. But we take those small
dollars, for example, and we invest. We have State trainers. It
is not high level training, but for me, it is a low-cost, high-
yield program. You take these handful of dollars, we have
trainers at the State level that receive training, they go into
every county with the Citizen Corps Council, and we train our
locals who then go out in the community. Because what you find
in rural America, as you know, is that there is a lot of pride
and self-sufficiency, self-reliance in rural America. They will
not call Government.
But that does not take away our obligation to try to get
equipment out there, to try to train volunteers. Because
oftentimes, it is neighbors and volunteers and others that will
come and help you in a disaster as opposed to somebody paid. As
you know, in some of your districts, there is not a single paid
fire department in the entire county. There will be 16, 17, 18
volunteer fire departments and there is an obligation to train
them.
My friend on the end, who talked about rescue squads not
receiving some of the grant money. I talked to Dennis about
this. You know, you cannot give Homeland Security grant money
to an entity that is for-profit. In other words, if they make
money off of their rescue service, you cannot issue them
Federal grant money, which poses a problem for them trying to
service a rural community.
Training comes at you a lot of different ways. The
opportunities are there. I think a lot of our rural folks just
do not have the ability to take advantage of it because, as you
know, they cannot leave their day jobs to go to training for
something that they are a volunteer for or if they are in a
paid position, they are only one deep and the city cannot do
without a police chief or a deputy.
Mr. Rogers. Dr. Meehan, you are the President of a
University that is primarily first-generation students.
Mr. Meehan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. A lot of the challenges we are talking about
here: You and I talked last night about what I am trying to
achieve with this push in the rural communities. How do you
think we can achieve this goal to meet the needs of these
volunteers?
Mr. Meehan. I think what Deputy Schrader and what Director
Walker talked about, we have to do it in a variety of ways. You
need to do it in a train the trainer model, the mobile unit and
we need to do it with universities that can train the new
career professionals. That is where our expertise is, training
new career professionals on site. That is where we found our
niche and have done very well with that. All those can be
expanded into the rural area. I see that as a terrorist threat.
You mentioned last night the possibility of a terrorist who
could target a variety of rural areas through WalMarts, for
example. That would be devastating to this Nation's economy.
Mr. Rogers. That is the thing I share with our audience, my
concern that the country is not just vulnerable in New York
City. You know, if terrorists really want to show how
vulnerable we are, you go into small town America and on the
same day have several attacks that occur simultaneously. We
have got to be prepared to deal with that.
Mr. Knight, my time is almost up but I wanted to ask you,
to get at the subject of training. Your members who
participate, what is the most viable way for them to receive
training? What kind of increments of time could they allocate?
Mr. Knight. You know, they work 40, 60, 80 hours a week in
general, a lot of weekends, which is out of the norm.
Mr. Rogers. So if CDP were going to come out and provide
training to your volunteers, how much time in a block of time
could they provide--could they meet a 3-hour block of time or a
6-hour?
Mr. Knight. Three hours, 3 or 4 hours.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. I want to go back to the mobile unit. Is
there any way that you can imagine that we could structure the
mobile training so that we could cluster counties, like, for
example, take Clay, Randolph, and Cleburne Counties, which are
contiguous geographically, and have those units be available
for this training and have the mobile unit come out since it is
a 3-day training period, and do it twice a week in 3-hour
increments for about 6 weeks to get it done?
Mr. Schrader. Right, Congressman. I would agree that that
is an option. We are actually looking for innovative methods.
We are working in Iowa now, for example, right now, a multi-
county regional approach to mobile training. So those are the
kind of innovations that I think we are going to have to use.
Because if you get multiple counties working together, they can
back each other up. So those are the kind of techniques I think
that are possible. We are testing some of those innovative
ideas as we speak.
Mr. Rogers. What will Mr. Walker have to request, for us to
be in a position to give him what he needs?
Mr. Schrader. For that kind of----
Mr. Rogers. That kind of training out in the rural
communities.
Mr. Schrader. Well, what we are pushing is the FEMA
regions, we have a Federal preparedness coordinator in each
region now. Mr. Vaughan is the Region IV FPC and he has a
staff. We have annual training and exercise workshops in every
region and what we are trying to do is gather information. You
know, because each region is most familiar with its States.
Once that request is made, we can begin working on it and we
are looking for those kind of pilots. So if Mr. Walker had that
interest, we would jump on it.
Mr. Walker. I was just thinking, Mr. Rogers, that perhaps
what we may want to do in Alabama is form like a team of folks
like Mr. Knight and others to try to develop a module that
would serve rural communities. Because the CDP is here in
Alabama, we will be glad to sit down and try to iron something
out that perhaps would work in rural America and we would be
glad to test it here in Alabama.
Mr. Rogers. I yield back.
Mr. Carney. Dr. Meehan, can you be specific on some of the
program offerings that you do that really have an application
to the rural responder?
Mr. Meehan. They are in homeland security and public
safety. Dr. Barry Cox is our director of that program and
initiated that for us and he can speak directly to it more so
than I could in that regard possibly, on curriculum. But what
we have done with the on-line programs, training those 911
operators, has allowed them to move up in their careers in
those areas of homeland security, public safety and emergency
management. They are able now to move up to different positions
that Mr. Walker has, and others. We have enabled them to have
those career ladders where they would not have had that
previously.
Mr. Carney. Do you see the JSU model as something that
could be transferred across the academic community?
Mr. Meehan. I do, I do. It is not that difficult to
implement. The biggest problem we have right now is finding
professionals to serve as faculty members. Our faculty members
are the strength of the program. They have had expertise as
practitioners as well as academicians. They have the theory and
practical knowledge. That is why we want to pursue a doctoral
program, because we need more of those and the Nation's
universities need more of those as well.
Mr. Carney. Okay, let us shift gears just slightly and talk
about some of JSU's involvement in developing plans for special
needs populations. As Director Walker will attest, we have to
strike a delicate balance between helping those who need the
most and able bodied citizens who are prepared to help
themselves. What has JSU done in that regard?
Mr. Meehan. We helped to coordinate the CSEPP program with
emergency kits. We are still doing that primarily through the
awareness program at the incinerator here locally. We have
worked with both county agencies in Talladega and Calhoun
Counties, Randolph County, Cherokee County and others to make
sure the word is out to the public that if an accident
happened, a plume came up, what they would do, preparing the
public, getting the information out is the primary way that we
have done that.
Mr. Carney. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. We have partnered with JSU on a couple of
missions. They have helped build the Government structure that
we have used to implement our interoperable communications
system in Alabama by which we can tie all of our first
responders together. We are still working with JSU and with
Auburn University in Montgomery now to try to take a look at
some of the societal models that help us reach a percentage of
the Alabama population that will more than likely, based on
some of the models that we've seen, more than likely need the
Government's assistance. As you know, Mr. Chairman, about 1
percent of our population make up the first responders and
about another percentage or percentage and a half makes up the
volunteer community that comes together and assists in a
disaster. That leaves really 97 percent of our folks that you
have either got to be self-sufficient, self-reliant, try to
take care of yourself and your family for 72 hours, so that
that 2 or 3 percent can be helping the portion of our
population which in some estimates could be as many as one in
five of us that will have a special need where you will need to
be assisted in a disaster. But we are working with Jacksonville
State on some of our modeling in helping us determine where our
most at-risk population is.
Mr. Carney. Citizen preparedness generally. Not first
responders generally, but citizen preparedness, generally: Is
there something in the works there that you are working on?
Mr. Meehan. There is. For example, identifying, as Mr.
Walker said, that special needs population. Just this week, I
received information in my own personal mail if I had special
needs in my family or if I knew of neighbors that had special
needs, identifying those. So it is trying to energize and
inform everyone in the community to be active partners in
protecting not only themselves but each other as well.
Mr. Carney. Mr. Pearce, we have not forgotten you. We are
going to get to you in just a minute.
Mr. Pearce. That is fine.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Carney. Mr. Knight, you spoke about how rescue squads
are missing out on some grant opportunities. Can you be more
specific?
Mr. Knight. You know, a lot of the FEMA grants and
everything is specifically geared toward fire departments and
all, and we do have some members of our organization at fire
departments within their district, you know, and have received
some of the funding. But as a general rule, rescue squads in
their goal and mission, the grants fail to recognize them. Like
Mr. Walker had stated earlier, you know, to a certain degree we
do charge in some areas for our services that we provide. So we
are a for-profit business, if you look at that distinction. So
we miss out on a lot of that. Other agencies get that money and
we need it.
Mr. Carney. Mr. Schrader, as long as you are here, any
suggestion about how we can fix that or alleviate that or
modify the program so we can help the rescue squads?
Mr. Schrader. It is not a simple problem and I would not
want to speculate from the chair here. It is an area of a gap.
It has been there for awhile and we had it when I was in
Maryland.
Mr. Carney. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. One thing that is interesting about the
homeland security grants, Mr. Chairman, is that the first
couple of years, I guess maybe 2003, 2004, 2005, when we pushed
the money out to our local communities, the emphasis in local
communities was clearly on equipment, on capabilities. They
really wanted to get new equipment. We did a reasonable job.
After about 2 or 3 years into it, we thought, you know, we have
got a lot of stuff out here, but that stuff does not do you a
lot of good if we do not have people trained to use that
equipment. Then as we start to put more of an emphasis on
training, then we get our folks trained and you said well, it
is really not going to be that good, you have got the equipment
and you have got people trained, but in a disaster are they
able to work with first responders from other jurisdictions and
engage the local community. So that is really the process. You
have got to get the right equipment, you have got to get
individual and collective training so the individuals are
trained and then your organizations, whether it is fire or
police training, and then you have got to be able to exercise
yourself as a fire crew in a broader community in order to
really do well in a disaster. So it is that model. I have
seen--a lot of our communities still want equipment, because
what we find--and when you talked a moment ago about striking
that balance between funding urban areas and funding rural
areas, is that equipment will--for lack of a better term, it
expires or it loses its shelf life, like Level A suits or
protective masks or whatever, they are only good for--and if
you do not have the resources to replace the filters or replace
the suits, then you have lost the capability.
So that is why we have really seen a push between funding
States to funding 50 large cities. You have really got to
manage that closely or a lot of capability that we built in
Alabama and around the country is going to degrade because they
do not have the ability to continue to train or to upgrade or
sustain their equipment.
Mr. Carney. I might offer one thought. This is an area that
I have had an active interest in for quite awhile. You were
trying to build this relationship in your program, but the
community college network around the country is where--they do
a tremendous amount of public safety staff training. Just
recently--I think Mr. Walker mentioned a community preparedness
program--we just brought the community college association into
our network of community preparedness. There are many counties
that share community colleges, but that is a platform for both
adult learning but also follow up education, certificate kind
of training that would be a possibility. I think that may be an
untapped opportunity nationally, is the community colleges.
Mr. Walker. In Alabama, Mr. Chairman, Governor Riley has
been incredibly innovative in the use of the community colleges
in that we use our community colleges in disasters, like a
major hurricane, as shelters. He just committed to housing
10,000 evacuees from neighboring States should they be hit,
with the community colleges, because if you look at a community
college, they have clinics, dormitories, classrooms,
cafeterias. So we have, working with FEMA, put huge generators
at like 19 of our community colleges around the State and we
are using those to assist us in disasters. We thought that was
a pretty innovative use of space as opposed to FEMA trailers.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Carney. Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
I know I am going to use the wrong phraseology, but talking
with Mr. Walker yesterday in discussing the needs and the risk
assessments, the acting director of CDP informed me that there
is no city in Alabama that meets the risk definition of a city,
that the nearest one is Atlanta. That was surprising to me, to
find out that we do not have that urban threat. Do you find
that affects your ability to get resources to the State?
Mr. Walker. In the Urban Area Security, 50 largest cities
in the country, we do not have one in Alabama. What that means,
Mr. Rogers, is that States will receive Homeland Security
grants. If you are a State that also has a UASE city, then that
city also competes for a separate pot of money. The problem----
Mr. Rogers. Over and above what they would get otherwise.
Mr. Walker. Over and above what the State would get. The
problem, just for Alabama's purposes is that we have the
population density in the Birmingham-Jefferson County
multiplex, but we do not have the critical infrastructure per
se. In Mobile, we have the critical infrastructure per se, with
ports, chemical industry, what-not, but we do not have the
population base in proximity to a lot of critical
infrastructure. So every year we get the opportunity to go back
and fight for one of our cities, but we have not made that list
of 50 yet.
Mr. Rogers. Well, my question is: Does it disadvantage you
in an unreasonable or unfair way, in your opinion?
Mr. Walker. It does, sir, in that with the amount of
funding that we get, we could very easily push it into
Birmingham, Mobile, Montgomery and Huntsville and it would be
gobbled up. But as you know, and as we hold this hearing today,
you have got to look at all 67 counties. All 67 counties have
to be relevant. Every community has a stake, particularly in
the 21st century. The example that I cited earlier is that they
have to have the investigative ability, the ability to solve
crimes, the ability to manage disasters, to be able to surge
and be self-sufficient. The money is not there to do it all.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Schrader, do you have any thoughts on that?
Mr. Schrader. Well, the issue of the formula has been
revisited every year. One of the things that the law does
provide is an appeal process which folks are able to use, as
Mr. Walker mentioned. But the reality of the situation is that
there has to be some objective process in place. I know that
the folks who do those risk formulas spend an awful lot of
detail time informed by intelligence and others, so you know,
it would take a lot more time and we would have to have
different people here to have that conversation today.
Mr. Rogers. This will be my last question before I shift my
thoughts to canine training. I would ask Mr. Walker and you if
you have thought of this. What is the No. 1 take-away that you
would like for me and the Chairman to leave here with, knowing
that we can push for a policy change that would help you better
reach these rural responders with training?
Mr. Walker. Is that rural communities, sir, are relevant.
They are relevant in the 21st century, and particularly as you
look at the dollars. A rural county like yours, they may have
an operating budget of the entire county of $10 million. A
disaster can blow through here today, a tornado, and cause a
million dollars worth of damage. They qualify for public
assistance, but it is a 15 percent match, that is $150,000 out
of a road fund or something. So you cannot discount that urban
areas have the ability to raise revenue to outfit their first
responders, to train and build capability that rural America
does not.
Mr. Rogers. So get rid of the match for local, rural
communities. Is that in a nutshell what you are advocating?
Mr. Walker. Well, now we are talking about assistance in a
disaster and match funds. You know, in my testimony, we had a
frustrating incident in Alabama a few months ago where we had a
tornado, a lot of tornadoes that blew through Tennessee and
Alabama, the same line of storms. Tennessee got declared for
individual assistance, Alabama did not. Because there is really
no scale or thermometer that determines who gets individual
assistance or not. It is not in the law, it is kind of
subjective. There is a guideline. But we did not qualify. You
have to understand in a rural community, a tornado that travels
a quarter of a mile wide for 17 miles and tears up 70, 80
houses is far more devastating to a rural county than it would
be going through downtown Atlanta, when you just look at the
scale and scope of the disaster.
So I think we have got to look at the thermometer for
individual assistance and I think that we have to look at the
formulas for spending more money on 50 big cities than we do
the rest of the country, when you look at the big cities'
ability to raise revenue and outfit themselves as opposed to
what rural America can do.
Mr. Rogers. Any thoughts, Mr. Schrader?
Mr. Schrader. Yes, I think the biggest take-away I have had
from this whole process, and I appreciate the opportunity to
have some of these conversations over the last 2 days, is that
we need--we are already focused on the issue of how do we reach
our rural first responders around the country, but it just
redoubles my commitment and my team's commitment to stay
focused on this and to continue digging in and making sure we
have a better understanding of how to improve it.
So I appreciate the focus and it is something we have got
to do. The one thing I will offer, the other thing is I want to
make sure we do not leave with a misperception, the Center for
Domestic Preparedness provides advanced training. We are not
competing with State training academies. That is always an
issue around the country where every States has very fine
institutions. It is not the intent of the Center for Domestic
Preparedness or our other consortia partners to be competing
with States' basic services. We are targeting folks who already
have basic training and are looking for the advanced senior
technician focus and reaching out and reaching those people is
critical. So that is the major take-away I have had from this
couple of days.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carney. Mr. Pearce, it is your turn now. I know that
scientists are trying to replicate the dog's ability to detect
all kinds of things, and has fallen short, so far at least. In
fact, TSA bought a bunch of these explosive trace portals, I
guess they call them, for airports and different places and the
machines cost a couple hundred grand each and they have
encountered significant maintenance problems. Can you comment
on that? How much does a dog cost when it is trained, how much
does it cost to train them and how much maintenance problem do
you have with a dog?
Mr. Pearce. Well, a fully trained explosive detector dog,
which would be comparable to--that would come from our
facility, which would be comparable to a TSA explosive
detection dog would cost around $14,000. Of course, there is a
20 percent subsidy that Auburn University provides to local law
enforcement here in Alabama and a 10 percent subsidy to law
enforcement as a whole. You are not going to find a better
piece of technology that is mobile, that can discriminate
against all the various odors in its environment, and a piece
of technology that is constantly having to be calibrated.
One of the unique things in my travels working with the TSA
program before was, what I noticed is you can get out of the
vehicle--a police officer can get out of the vehicle with a
piece of equipment and nobody would ever even notice them. But
the moment the police officer stepped out of vehicle with a
canine at his side, everybody took notice. So the deterrence
level that the canine brings to a police department or an
aviation security or any environment such as that, is
intangible.
Mr. Carney. In terms of maintenance cost, upkeep on a team.
Mr. Pearce. In terms of maintenance cost, in speaking of
rural responders, it is going to be costly as far as the
initial procurement of those teams, it is just a canine in
training, a well-trained canine, more or less educating the
handler on the proper techniques of maintaining the dog is
going to be rather costly up front in the initial $14,000 that
you are going to spend to get that team, but it is no more
different than a seasoned police officer that basically get out
into the law enforcement department and goes to training
through the academy, learns how to do his job, gets out there
and gets experience underneath his belt. There is initial cost,
there is initial investment of time up front, but as the years
go on and the experience of a well-trained team, there is less
time involved, less cost involved.
Mr. Carney. I yield to my friend, Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to offer a little story to kind of bring up
why this subject is important to me. A little over a year ago,
I got an earmark--and I am one of those Congressmen that will
tell you I am proud of earmarks, I do not ask for anything I am
not proud of and I went on the front page of the paper when I
asked for it, I think it is part of my job. But in any event, I
asked for an earmark and got it for Auburn University for
genome research in catfish, for the safety issue. Auburn has
been very involved in this research. Well, as you know, there
are critics to earmarks in the country and they like to
ridicule things like studying catfish genomes and such. I had a
guy from Fox News Channel come and interview me to say isn't it
a waste of money to study catfish genomes and I said well that
depends on whether or not you are eating a catfish. That is
true. We sell millions of pounds of catfish in this country and
it is a food safety issue, just as tomatoes were a food safety
issue for us a couple, 3 weeks ago.
Well, all that is to say that is the same way people view
canines historically. You know, you talk about the need to
increase the emphasis on this asset for the security of
America, from an American security perspective and people do
not really take it seriously until you start to think about the
world that we live in post-9/11, and how valuable this asset
has become and how relatively inexpensive it is and how very
efficient it is.
In my trips to Iraq, I found that when you are going in and
out of the green zone, whether you are going into one of the
embassies, one of the former palaces of Saddam Hussein, any of
the ports of entry, when we go into a mess hall, you have got
canines sweeping everybody, because you never know who is going
to be carrying a bomb. We have seen with the canines that
Auburn has trained that are working over there, they sweep
roads and buildings for the Marines, who have not had a single
death since those canines have been in the field.
I regularly go out to Walter Reed and visit wounded troops
and I can tell you, any one of those troops who lost a limb or
was seriously maimed because their vehicle was hit by IED, that
that road could have been swept by a canine right in front of
them, and they would have been thrilled to have this asset.
They will tell you it has international security implications
for them.
These are very valuable assets. We look at the London
bombings, the Spain bombings, and we see what happened in our
country. These assets are needed in our transportation hubs,
whether it is airport, bus station, train station. We are
grossly underutilizing this asset. The Secretary of Homeland
Security Chertoff acknowledged that.
Now with that backdrop, I want to discuss what Auburn is
doing. I have found that there is a real gross inadequacy of
assets in the field, canine assets. But more importantly from
my perspective, we are overly reliant on foreign sources for
the dogs that we train for Secret Service, ATF, Customs. I know
the Defense Department gets all their dogs from overseas, as
does TSA who relies on the Defense Department to procure their
dogs. Tell me, do you know what percentage of the dogs that are
being used, or can you estimate what percentage in the Federal
service are coming from overseas? Tell me about why they go
overseas to get them, Mr. Pearce.
Mr. Pearce. Yes, sir. You know, you will raise your
eyebrows when I say probably close to 95 percent would be my
guess. The reason why I say that is not only are they going
overseas, but they are procuring dogs from State-side vendors
also, but those State-side vendors are also going overseas and
getting the dogs that we think that they are getting from the
United States. The dogs that they are getting overseas are
basically bred probably to pass the statement of work which
included the health of the dog and possibly a procurement test
on performance. The problem that you run into when you procure
those dogs with a procurement test is once they get them back
here, they go flat in training. Basically they have learned all
they could to pass the procurement test and did not have the
ability to learn any more.
Additionally, they were not prepared properly to work in
the environments that we may have here, such as an aviation
security environment, a transit system, what-have-you. When you
put the dogs in there, they will basically collapse on you
there and will not work as hard or are not comfortable in that
condition and basically cannot work as competently as you want
them to.
Mr. Rogers. Why are we going overseas to get them?
Mr. Pearce. Because the channels have already been
established, a history of people going over there for many,
many years. They have got breeding lines that they are using
for Belgian Malinois and German shepherds that have been there
for some time and they basically produced those over the years.
Mr. Rogers. I see my time has expired. I yield.
Mr. Carney. I know you have trained personally a lot of
teams and there are 478 teams out there now roughly? We have
450 major airports. How long can a dog team stay on the job
during the day?
Mr. Pearce. It varies and depends on how long--and we call
it basically sniff time, how long the dogs are required to work
such as what we watched out earlier this morning, the dog
working around the vehicle. It probably took the dog probably
about 15 seconds to clear that vehicle. If you take that dog
and work several vehicles right in a row and just continue the
dog over and over, over a period of time you would want to
start the dog out slow and actually build up to a certain
amount of search time, rather than just all of a sudden throw
the dog in a situation like that and require the dog to work a
long period of time.
A good example of that is if you were a track person and
you could run a mile, you could not necessarily run a marathon
tomorrow. You would have to actually gradually go into that and
that is basically what you need to do with the dog.
Mr. Carney. Do the nasal perceptors of the dog, receptors,
get fatigued?
Mr. Pearce. It is not so much the nasal receptors as it is
the dog becoming fatigued itself.
Mr. Carney. Okay. You know, I am pleased to be a co-sponsor
along with Congressman Rogers on the Canine Detection Team
Improvement Act. I agree with Congressman Rogers on the
necessity of improving this program Nation-wide, I think it is
essential that we do not rely on overseas sources for what is
essentially a national security asset. I do not want to ever
find ourselves in a position where we cannot access things that
are vital to our security. From what I have seen in the last 2
days, these dogs are absolutely essential to national security.
So can you tell me in your own words, Mr. Pearce, why it is
so important that we establish a national standard, national
detection standard?
Mr. Pearce. That is a very important point and in all
aspects of what we are doing, from breeding to training of dogs
and to also training handlers, which often is overlooked as
well. As you know, the Scientific Working Group for Dog and
Orthogonal Detection Guidelines, that association is basically
building best practices for dogs to be trained by, for handler
training, for breeding, those things. In the absence of a
national standard, we have had things like in 2003 where we
had--we saw a case where we more or less fraudulently produced
dog teams and had them providing security services in our
Nation's capitol and that was more or less the awakening point
and made us all aware of what could actually happen. Just the
title as a detector dog team or an explosive detector dog team
does not necessarily mean the detector dog team is capable of
working at a standard, and we need to get away from more or
less the title and have a guideline that provides evaluations
and provides--to ensure that dog teams are working at a certain
level.
Mr. Carney. Mr. Rogers, anything further?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, to follow up on that, I was surprised on
my most recent trip to Iraq to find that most of the canine
teams over there were on contract. We do not have a national
standard that we require be met when we spend Federal money to
put a canine asset in place, whether it is the Defense
Department or domestically.
I know you were with TSA at one time and I want to talk a
little bit about that. You know, these canine assets are
currently used some, but not nearly as much as they should be,
to the level that they should be, of course in our Nation's
capitol and in Federal buildings, some transportation hubs and
of course our borders coming in from other countries, ports of
entry where we have ships and such.
But one of the areas I think people would most be
interested in is the airplanes, people want to know that their
airplane is going to be safe. I have been surprised to find
that only in major hub airports, like in Atlanta and Reagan
Airport and Dulles and O'Hare, do they have the very
sophisticated screening equipment for the baggage. Obviously
all passengers are screened carefully but baggage in some of
the smaller airports is not. How realistic is it, do you
believe, based on your experience, for us to get these canine
assets in the level they would need in the small regional
airports, like for example, Montgomery or Huntsville, to sweep
the baggage? I explain this for folks who are not familiar with
it, at Lackland Air Force Base, TSA has a training facility,
they have a warehouse set up and they have the carts that carry
your luggage from the airport terminal out to the plane to load
it into the belly of the plane, they have rows of them just
like you'd find in an airport, lined up along this warehouse.
They can take that dog, turn it loose and it will sweep within
30 seconds down one side, back up, two or three dozen of these
carts with relative ease, if there is any drugs or explosives
in there, they will recognize it immediately. My point is that
is a very cost-efficient, inexpensive asset, but we do not have
them in the smaller airports.
How massive a program would we need to be able to meet just
that need? I'm not talking about our borders, not talking about
our train stations and such, just the airports to make sure
regional airports have a screening by canines. How many dogs
are we talking about?
Mr. Pearce. I am unaware of how many dogs it would take,
Congressman, but I can tell you that has been looked at by TSA
before and part of the problem is putting one dog in an
airport, more or less is not giving them the ability to train
and assist each other. Some of the situations we are talking
about today as far as first responders, rural first responders,
kind of gets into that area there, it is kind of hard to set up
and they may want to look at some type of regionalization of
rural areas to include those that are at the airport.
Recently we traveled to Pennsylvania to support a DHS
mission to conduct a survey. There they had Pima 13 and Pima 13
basically is a conglomerate or cluster of counties that--13
counties that came together to provide each other training and
networking and things of that nature and that worked out fairly
well for them, as long as you could keep the counties close
together and they could travel, because the frequency of
training that they are going to need is critical. But I believe
that to include the airports and some of those rural
communities, it might be a good idea to cluster them together.
Mr. Rogers. Talking about clustered utilization, how
difficult is it to cross-train these dogs to do multiple
things? For example, explosive detection but also be a cadaver
dog, so if there was a tornado set down in east Alabama, the
rescue folks would have that Federal resource to draw on. Is
that cross-training too difficult?
Mr. Pearce. Yes, sir, and a lot of times it is confusing
for the dog. We do not recommend it. We actually recommend that
there be one discipline taught to the dog. It is a lot easier
if you tell me--and a lot of times, patrol is the other
discipline that is placed with detection, such as explosives or
narcotics. In a lot of cases, it is very time-consuming to
train on both of those disciplines and it is a lot harder for
us as a producer of those dogs to find dogs that meet the high
standards of both those disciplines.
Mr. Rogers. Do cadaver dogs require a particular breed or
special type of dog?
Mr. Pearce. No, sir, very similar to the type of dog that
we are breeding here or you can purchase for regular detector
dog work.
Mr. Rogers. We had one of these field hearings in New
Orleans about 2 years ago talking about post-Katrina and the
inadequacy of their assets in trying to find all the bodies
after that disaster. I guess this is more for you, Mr. Walker,
talking about the need for more assets. Would a program that
provided Federal cadaver dogs that were trained--paid for by
the Federal Government, trained and then provided at no charge
to a local rescue squad to be drawn upon in the event of a
disaster be of benefit and is there anything like that out
there now?
Mr. Walker. There is not, sir. I think that when you look
at canines, when you look at rural America and a lot of
Alabama, we have obviously a number of canine teams in the
State but they are an asset that is nice to have, not
necessarily a need-to-have. I agree with you, I think we need
to transition from the canines being a nice-to-have asset to a
need-to-have asset, because they can do so much, you are
absolutely right, post-Katrina, trying to cover that area along
the Gulf coast and New Orleans, and even in Mobile. If we had
had more dogs, better dogs for the sweep of tornadoes, missing
people, I mean dogs are an incredibly valuable asset and I
think that your legislation, I hope, will take it from a nice-
to-have asset to a need-to-have asset and it will not only be
useful in cities like Huntsville that have regional airports,
but then also dispersed around the country.
Mr. Rogers. Two more questions, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Carney. Absolutely.
Mr. Rogers. We have just put in this year's appropriation
bill, $1.7 million for Auburn to construct a canine training
program for local communities. If you had Dr. Gogue's ear--
because you do right now--to say we would like you to construct
this program to meet a specific need, what would those be? Mr.
Knight, would it be a cadaver dog, would it be something for
local sheriffs to have? What would you want? This is going to
be a program for the Nation and just for rural communities,
small communities.
Mr. Walker. Mr. Rogers, I think you have to have a mix and
you would have to look at geography of the State. I think if
you look at Alabama, we would want cadaver dogs and those that
are post-incident probably down along our coastal counties; in
Birmingham, Huntsville, Montgomery, the focus would probably be
more on drug and police work dogs. So, you know, the State
obviously represents a mix of interests and I think that we
could take advantage of dogs with any number of capabilities.
It would probably be tied to geography and with the existing
assets that we already have.
Mr. Knight. I agree, totally agree.
Mr. Rogers. I have had some local sheriffs and police
departments talk about the need to have these on a shared
basis, to sweep schools. So every school would know that
periodically unannounced there is going to be a dog coming
through and sweeping for drugs in the hallways, as a deterrent.
Anyway, I would be interested in you thinking about that
more. This has got to be a work in progress. We have to
remember also we have, as I talked about with you, these major
events in Alabama like the Iron Bowl or for that matter any
home ball game at Auburn or Alabama, Talladega 500, where we
have large numbers of people--no offense taken.
Mr. Carney. Your time is up.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rogers. We are not going to let him come back to
Alabama any more. That we have to prepare for, you know, making
sure that we have got appropriate security measures for that.
Do you have that now? If you have got a big event coming, let
us say for example, the Iron Bowl. I know that you take
precautions in advance of that, prepare for potential threats.
Do you have canines now that work those events?
Mr. Walker. They do work the events, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Where do you get them?
Mr. Walker. The locals get them. The State has not
requested them. At Talladega, for example, they will contract
dogs and pay for them. You know, at any given Talladega race,
we will have over 650 sworn law enforcement officers around the
State and bordering States with all sorts of capabilities.
Which raises an interesting point. You talk about a rural
community that 340 days out of the year will have basic needs
that most rural communities do, but for about 2 weeks out of
every year, they will become the fourth or fifth largest city
in the State of Alabama, talking about Talladega specifically.
So when you look at a rural community that then has to displace
surge capability and incorporate all sorts of different assets,
that is a perfect example.
But I would like to take that on, for the record, Mr.
Rogers, and be able to come back to you and talk to you about
the canine assets that we have around the State, how we use
them to surge, but then work with your staff to explore how we
could get more canines in for events like Talladega.
Mr. Rogers. What I am specifically looking for, and this is
simply talking the breeding program capacity, I would like to
know how many assets we have now and where you ideally would
like to see us be as far as canine assets in this State. I
would appreciate that very much.
My last area I want to probe on is with Mr. Pearce.
Yesterday, watching the video on off-leash canines that are
working over in Iraq with the Marines, it is great, and you
gave us a demonstration this morning out here how they can
sweep a building off leash. What I was thinking about when I
was watching the demo yesterday is our ports of entry on the
southwest border, specifically the major ones like El Paso, San
Diego, where you have 10, 12, 15 lanes of traffic waiting to
come into this country daily, all day long, backed up 20 and 30
cars. What we have now is typically one or two dogs that are
rotated, they work 2-hour shifts amongst the lanes. We
currently have spotters, the drug dealers put spotters on the
Mexican side of the border that are walking amongst the cars
like they are selling things, but what they are really doing is
watching to see which lanes the dogs are in, so they can shift
their carriers over to different lanes to make sure they go
through a lane without a dog. I was curious yesterday with the
off-leash dogs that were sweeping for explosives in Iraq, would
they be able to work off-leash and meander amongst those cars
on the Mexican side of the border and signal to a spotter that
that car has something, so when it gets up to the front you can
pull it off? How long do they work and is that a practical use
for those dogs?
Mr. Pearce. The problem I see with that is the fact that
you have a vehicle and the possibility of getting your dog
injured, things of that nature. However, you know, if you were
going to do some type of an off-leash application, they would
need to be trained the way that we trained those dogs for the
Marine Corps project, just as you said, rather than just----
Mr. Rogers. How would they be injured? They are just
basically sitting in traffic.
Mr. Pearce. Well, if the traffic is still, it is very
feasible that you could do that because the quantities of
narcotics that they are bringing through there would not be
that hard for a dog to detect. So in that aspect, if you could
lock the vehicles down to where they cannot move and then they
were still for a moment, it would be very feasible to do that.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that is all I have.
Mr. Carney. Does this panel have any final comments? Mr.
Schrader, Mr. Walker?
Mr. Walker. Sir, I would just like to say we have had 1,800
Pennsylvanians that have gone through the training, we have had
14,570 Alabamians, so we are awfully grateful to have----
Mr. Carney. We will deal with that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walker [continuing]. That facility right here in
Alabama. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for taking your time to
come to our great State.
Mr. Carney. My pleasure. Dr. Meehan.
Mr. Meehan. Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you very much, appreciate you being here.
Mr. Knight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carney. The panel is reminded that this is a
congressional hearing and we may have questions for you later
that people will ask and we would like an expeditious reply in
writing. If there are things you would like us to know that
were not addressed today, please do not hesitate to get in
touch with the staff of the committee or myself or Mr. Rogers.
There being no further business before the subcommittee, we
stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Honorable Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi for Dennis
R. Schrader, Deputy Administrator for National Preparedness, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security
Question 1. The CDP is authorized to administer training to
students from overseas on a fee basis, could you please elaborate on
this program?
Answer. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008
authorized the Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP) to train Federal,
private, and international responders, on a reimbursable, space-
available basis. The inclusion of response professionals from other
countries to the CDP to train with our students benefits the CDP and
our traditional student population by allowing us to hear and learn new
ideas from others. These new ideas enrich our instructional programs
and make them even more robust for our Nation's responders.
International students are enrolled only after appropriate clearances
from the State Department are received via FEMA's Office of
International Affairs. International responders participating in CDP
training must be fluent in speaking and reading English, and are
responsible for funding their air travel, food, and lodging costs.
Accurate recovery of participation costs for international students
has posed new challenges. CDP staff has established tuition costs for
25 courses based on historical course delivery data. The CDP does not
currently have a system in place to collect tuition. The CDP business
office is currently working with the appropriate FEMA offices to
establish the required business process for invoicing and collecting
tuition. The CDP is dependent of FEMA business processes where
currently, there is not a system in place to collect tuition for CDP
students who would be required to pay tuition.
Question 2. Has CDP trained students from overseas? If so, how many
and from what countries?
Answer. Yes. The following is a collective list of international
students that have trained tuition-free since inception. Each of these
participants were approved by headquarters and participated when there
were availability of seats that did not impede State and local
participation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Amount Country
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004.................. 1 Canada
Fiscal year 2004.................. 15 Trinidad and Tobago
Fiscal year 2004.................. 1 United Kingdom
Fiscal year 2004.................. 4 Sweden
Fiscal year 2005.................. 16 Mexico
Fiscal year 2005.................. 1 Saint Martin
Fiscal year 2005.................. 4 Qatar
Fiscal year 2005.................. 2 Sweden
Fiscal year 2006.................. 7 Canada
Fiscal year 2006.................. 1 South Korea
Fiscal year 2006.................. 1 Spain
Fiscal year 2007.................. 2 Canada
Fiscal year 2007.................. 1 Taiwan
Fiscal year 2008.................. 3 Israel
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 59
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 3. What are CDP's plans to grow this program in the
future?
Answer. CDP's ability to adequately conduct outreach and provide a
long-term projection of our plans is hampered by the fact that the
program is only authorized on a year-by-year basis. Unequivocally,
CDP's first priority remains training America's first responders,
however, because of the multi-faceted benefits associated with
including international students, CDP hopes that it will be able to
continue regularly hosting training partners. This will allow CDP to
continually seek out new investivee methods that will provide
additional training for all of our students.
FEMA Leadership is cognizant of the benefits that international
students bring to CDP and FEMA. At Administrator Paulison's
encouragement, the first Israel Defense Force Home Front Command
responders were trained at the CDP in June of this year. This opened
the door to training in Israel for FEMA personnel. In August of this
year, Israel provided training on Israeli Home Front Command Operations
to a FEMA Region 2 Disaster Operations staff member. The best practices
and course work lessons learned from this training opportunity will be
shared throughout FEMA.
To build on this and other successes, FEMA's Office of
International Affairs works closely with the CDP's public/external
affairs office to ensure that the international community is aware of
the center's capacity to train international students.
Question 4. Can you describe the current staffing levels at the CDP
and also describe the capability available there?
Answer. The Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP) has an
authorized Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staffing level of 45 with
additional Federal support provided on-site by 5 FEMA FTE's not
formally attached to the CDP staffing roll. The 5 FEMA additional FTE's
include the Attorney Advisor and 4 Contracting Officers/Specialist who
work as liaisons between the CDP and their Headquarters. The current
vacancy rate is 16 percent with a goal of 5 percent by November 2008
based on current Human Resource efforts. In addition to the FTEs, the
work force at the CDP contains a large number of contractor personnel.
The CDP's contractor rolls have gradually increased over the past 10
years and now equate to approximately 1,000 contractor support
personnel. This is due in part to the fact that the CDP has evolved
from what was originated as a resident training center to a current
state including both a vibrant resident and an immensely successful
Nation-wide mobile training program. For fiscal year 2008, as of
September 6, the CDP has provided training to more than 105,000
emergency responders through our resident, non-resident, and train-the-
trainer programs.
The CDP offers cutting-edge training in weapons of mass destruction
protection and response as well as all-hazards curriculum through its
use of traditional classrooms, the Nation's only live chemical agent
training facility dedicated to civilian training, and a full scoped
hospital used solely for training public health professionals affording
them the opportunity to experience mass casualty training in the real
environment.
Question 5. How is CDP and FEMA reaching out to rural America and
providing them with the training and resources they require?
Answer. The CDP is continuing discussions with its partners through
the Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium to create a program of
instruction that specifically addresses the needs of rural response
professionals. While rural responders do come to the CDP and
participate in our resident training courses, the need across the
country to accomplish rural response training is immense. To date, in
fiscal year 2008, approximately 33,740 of the total 105,437 responders
trained this year can be classified as ``rural'' responders. A longer-
term review of our files reveals that approximately 48 percent of the
responders trained through CDP courses over the past 8 years are
classified as ``rural'' responders.
The CDP's success to date in reaching this important response
demographic only bolsters the need to for the CDP to do more. However;
if the CDP is to deliver the volume of training to address the needs of
the rural responders adequately, the CDP must work in partnership with
consortium members and others who can assist us in the collaborative
delivery of training. Only then will we be able to increase our
capacity to put the curriculum and experiential learning in the hands
of rural responders at the local level. Working collaboratively with
our committed partners represents the best strategy to meet this
important need.
addressing special training considerations of rural responders
The CDP is both cognizant and respectful of the staffing
limitations that affect rural responders. In many cases, rural
departments cannot release staff to attend resident training or non-
resident training offered by the CDP, even when the training is offered
in the home jurisdiction. The CDP met with the Rural Domestic
Preparedness Consortium (RDPC) representatives on September 11, 2008,
to establish formal relationships designed to provide training for
rural responders. The concept for this initiative is focused on
delivering advanced training to rural communities designed in a modular
format. This training will incorporate elements of existing training
offered through the members of the National Domestic Preparedness
Consortium (NDPC), the RDPC, and the CDP. The training courses
currently offered by FEMA providers typically require a minimum of 8
hours for training and can take up to 40 hours, when coupled with
travel time for resident courses. The modular training labs would
travel to rural locations, offer training during non-traditional times
(nights/weekends), and focus on critical skills associated with
Decontamination, Hazardous Materials, Incident Management, Mass
Casualty, and other topics identified in surveys conducted by the RDPC.
The modules would be packaged in 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-hour increments,
to allow responders to select training that meets their time
constraints and specific training needs. The outcome of this modular
approach will not necessarily provide a comprehensive learning model
consistent with the completion of an existing course; however, the
training will provide rural responders an opportunity, over a series of
days, to capture as many modules as their time and resources permit.
These modules can be catalogued and packaged in a manner that achieves
a course-completion certificate if the responder accomplishes the pre-
determined modules over a pre-established time. Rural responders can
also participate in any of the Independent Study courses offered by the
Emergency Management Institute (EMI) or the U.S. Fire Academy (USFA).
Assessing rural responder needs:
DHS/FEMA funded the Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium--
the RDPC--led by Eastern Kentucky University's Justice and
Safety Center.
Partners include East Tennessee State University, Iowa
Central Community College, Northwest Arkansas Community College
and the University of Findlay, Ohio.
RDPC sought to identify gaps in training for homeland
security.
Each RDPC member hosted a regional forum and distributed
more than 3,200 surveys focused on all-hazards homeland
security training needs.
National Rural Emergency Preparedness Summit convened in
September 2007.
CDP conducts weekly sessions with resident students focused
on identifying training gaps and specific challenges faced with
obtaining training.
CDP hosts annual focus groups with the State Administrative
Agency (SAA) Training Coordinators to identify solutions
designed to meet State training strategies encompassing both
urban and rural training needs.
Specific outcomes instituted to assist the rural response
community include:
Offering mobile training in their jurisdiction, allowing
multiple jurisdictions to train in a regional approach;
Conducting mobile training at night and on weekends to
meet the volunteer response communities' schedules;
Offering courses in Train-the-Trainer formats;
Funding resident training (tuition, lodging, meals and
travel).
Question 6. Based on your experiences, how do you see the role of
detection canines in supporting the homeland security mission?
Answer. FEMA's National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Response
System is a framework for structuring local emergency services
personnel into integrated disaster response Task Forces. The 28
national US&R Task Forces have the necessary tools, equipment, skills
and techniques, including disaster search canines, that can be deployed
by FEMA to assist tribal, State and local governments in rescuing
victims of structural collapse incidents or to assist in other search
and rescue missions. Disaster search canines, along with Canine Search
Specialists, deploy with Task Forces to provide critical victim search,
reconnaissance, and rescue capabilities, through their ability to
detect and alert to live human scent. The deployment of search and
rescue canines in coordination with the US&R Task Forces is dependent
upon availability and need. Each Task Force has the capability to
respond with four Disaster Search Canine Teams (handlers and canines),
but this can vary depending on the event. There are approximately 200
FEMA advanced-certified teams (dog and handler) in the US&R Response
System.
The canines are owned and trained by either the volunteers or the
organizations that contribute to the Task Force (local fire
departments, EMS, or other first responder organizations). Canine
Search Specialists on each Task Force usually provide their own dogs.
FEMA does not own any detection, search, or rescue canines.
In the aftermath of bombings and other explosives incidents,
explosives detection canines that are trained by the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) within the Department of
Justice, play a critical role in detecting explosives residues and
thereby furthering criminal investigations. These canines, and those
trained by DHS to secure special events, airports and other high-threat
venues, play an important role in protecting against and preventing
bombings.
Questions From Honorable Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi for John C.
Pearce, Associate Director, Canine Detection training center, Auburn
University
Question 1. How many dog teams would be needed to cover regional
airports in the United States, and what would be required to provide
them?
Answer. We estimate that, at minimum, three canine teams are needed
for each of the approximately 80 regional airports in the United
States, or 240 teams, which includes both the dog and the handler.
Depending on the size and traffic load of each regional airport, more
than three canine teams may be needed for some of the facilities, but
240 teams is a baseline estimate needed to provide canine detection.
Training, including lodging, food and travel expenses, for each
team is approximately $30,000 per team. Auburn University is well-
positioned to provide the needed training, either at its current
facilities or through certification of regionally approved training
centers.
Question 2. How long can a dog work?
Answer. Numerous factors impact how long a dog may work, including
the capabilities of the handler, the physical environment in which the
team is operating, the level of training and the dog's physical
condition. Auburn University's program prepares dogs for optimal
performance in the environment in which they will perform. In addition,
our research and experience has provided information that allows us to
enhance the dog's physical stamina, endurance and performance.
There are two measures of ``work'' duration to be considered. One
is duty-cycle or ``sniff-time'', which is the duration of any
individual active search episode. The other is duty-duration or
``shift-duration'', which is the total amount of time on-duty between
periods of extended rest (i.e. work-day duration). We have found
appropriately conditioned dogs capable of duty-cycles of at least 1
hour and duty-durations of 18 hours with only short (i.e., 15-30
minutes) breaks.
However, for daily operations, it is anticipated that a 9-hour
shift is reasonable. Using airport screening as an example, a minimum
of two dog teams will be required for each location, assuming a 6 a.m.
to 12 midnight operation. A third team should be available for
rotation. This scenario is consistent with the three-dog team
requirement for each regional airport.
A separate issue of time is the duration of service a dog can
provide before retraining is necessary or retiring. With proper
breeding and training, a detector dog should be capable of maintaining
her detection capability and fitness for an effective service life of,
nominally, 10-12 years of age. In order to accomplish this, the handler
will need to be supported by a program that provides adequate oversight
to include at least annual evaluations of team performance, adequate
veterinary support, training aids, and opportunities for continuing
education related to detector dog operations. It would be normal for at
some point, usually in the first 2 years, of the working life of any
detector dog team for some problem in performance of either the handler
or dog to occur that requires the intervention of a canine training
professional to correct.
Question 3. Give an example or tell us why a lack of training and
certification standards is detrimental?
Answer. The lack of standards and uniform certification is perhaps
the biggest problem in the detector dog community from a homeland
security perspective. In other words, the extreme variability of
quality with which canine detection is practiced means first responders
and Government agencies can have no confidence in the level of training
or efficacy of the dog team.
For example, dog teams are working in critical areas that are not
trained or tested to effectively work in such a high operational tempo.
Without training or certification standards that ensure operational
effectiveness, it is unknown just how effective the team is performing.
Training and evaluating are a necessity in the operational environment
to ensure operational effectiveness of the canine team in detection of
explosives.
There are a number of organizations that promulgate their own
standards and conduct certification events for detector dog teams.
Although all are well intentioned, these organizations vary
significantly in the rigor and operational validity of the testing they
conduct for certification. Some of the most prolific existing
organizations also suffer from significant regional variability.
The DHS Office of Bombing Prevention, which has conducted national
capabilities assessment and maintains a resource-typing database for
bomb technicians, initiated a pilot capabilities assessment survey for
canine detection. We recommend that, along with supporting the
development of best practice guidelines, Congress encourage DHS to
continue with this canine detection capabilities activity.
Auburn University has proven its effectiveness in detector dog
training to meet the needs of first responders and public safety
officials. As such, we are eager to assist in development of best
practice guidelines and certification standards.
Question 4. Is it feasible to use unleashed dogs with remote
sensors to screen cars for illegal drugs on the Mexican side of the
border?
Answer. Using technology to instrument dogs with command-and-
control, guidance and remote-sensing capabilities could serve as an
effective means to quickly screen cars for illegal substances at border
crossings. The remote sensing capabilities enhance and extend the
applications for detector dogs, making it possible to screen large
numbers of vehicles with guidance from a handler who is physically
removed from the area being searched. Such a procedure would require
certain safety precautions for the dogs, such as ensuring that the
vehicles are stationary as they are screened.
Question 5. Can Auburn University produce and train or certify as
many as 500 dogs per year and what would it take to do so?
Answer. Yes, and we would welcome the opportunity. Auburn
University has a unique combination of needed capacity for facilities,
a proven and readily expandable system for raising puppies to be
detector dogs, and the support of a nationally recognized College of
Veterinary Medicine. These factors combine to make Auburn University
the optimal institution to economically and successfully launch a
national detector dog production and training program.
If needed, Auburn University can provide a detailed budget and
action plan on expansion of our current facilities to fulfill such a
need.
I hope this provides further insight; however, should you have
additional questions, please feel free to contact me. Again, thank you
for this opportunity.