Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Holds Hearing on Homeland Security Challenges

COLLINS:

The committee will come to order. Good morning.

Today the Committee on Governmental Affairs begins a series of hearings on how the federal government can best help our state, communities and first responders protect our homeland.

Last year, the Senate spent nearly three months on the Homeland Security Act. Yet the law contains virtually no guidance on how the department is to assist state and local governments and first responders with their homeland security needs.

In fact, the 187-page Homeland Security Act mentions the issue of grants to first responders in but a single paragraph.

There is no guidance on how federal dollars should be spent or how much money should be allocated or to whom it should be allocated. Those decisions were left to another day. And today is that day.

As we embark on this effort to improve homeland security grant programs, there is no more important group to hear from than our first responders who serve on the front lines, protecting our communities. After all, when disaster strikes, it is our police officers, our firefighters and our emergency medical personnel who answer the calls for help.

We must invest in additional homeland security resources for our first responders. Just as our first responders stand by to protect our communities, they deserve a federal government that stands by them.

The current structure of a one-size-fits-all homeland security program, however, is not doing the job. The needs of our states and their first responders vary widely and are as diverse as the people who live there. We must make sure that federal assistance is sufficiently flexible to meet these differing needs.

When I met with Maine's emergency management officials a few weeks ago, they told me that the structure of many homeland security grant programs hinders their efforts to help first responders secure communities across our state.

As you can see from this chart, the current homeland security grant program, administered by the Office of Domestic Preparedness, or ODP, is part of the problem. ODP provides funding for training, equipment, exercises and planning, based on a uniform, predetermined formula for every state.

That may sound good, but let's look at the impact of this formula. The exact same percentage of each state's funds is allocated for training, equipment, exercises and planning. That's leaving no room to accommodate different priorities.

In each and every state, for example, 70 percent of the federal funds must be spent for equipment. Seven percent must be spent for planning. Five percent must be spent for training.

In allocating funds in this manner, the federal government is effectively saying that Maine must spend exactly the same portion of homeland security dollars on training as Hawaii or Delaware.

Moreover, states cannot transfer surplus funds from one category to another to meet their needs. Maine's officials, for example, told me that they need more funding to train first responders to use the equipment purchased under the ODP grant program. The regulations, however, prohibited Maine from transferring surplus exercise dollars to train first responders in using the new equipment.

Thus, in some cases, we may see communities with up-to-date, complex equipment, but lacking the training to use it most effectively. This defies common sense.

I believe states should have the flexibility to spend homeland security dollars where they are most needed. To allow flexibility in homeland security funds that have already been appropriated but remain unspent, I will introduce legislation later today that authorizes the secretary of homeland security to grant waivers to allow states to use funds from one category, such as training, for another purpose—such as purchasing equipment or whatever the need may be.

I've also introduced legislation that would move the Office of Domestic Preparedness from the Border and Transportation Security Directorate to Secretary Ridge's office, where it belongs. By elevating ODP's stature, I hope to begin the process of establishing a centralized location to help support our first responders.

Let me take this opportunity to commend Secretary Ridge for his efforts to promote flexibility, as he has worked to incorporate nearly two dozen agencies into the new Department of Homeland Security.

But Secretary Ridge can only play the hand Congress has dealt him, and we've left him a couple cards short.
These hearings are intended to provide this committee with the information to assess whether the current structure of grants programs is getting the right resources to the right people. The witnesses will address many of the roadblocks in our grant programs, including the lack of flexibility I've previously described and difficulties in communication and coordination.

COLLINS:

The hearings will also focus on what some have referred to as the "tangled web" of existing programs that is very difficult for states and local communities to penetrate.

In the omnibus funding bill, as well as the supplemental appropriations legislation passed just last week, we put a down payment on the needs of our communities. The increased funding of programs such as the Fire Act and the state homeland security grants, are important steps forward in providing adequate resources to our communities.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. We have a very distinguished panel of first responders. And it is my hope that they'll work with us so that we can build a stronger and better homeland security partnership to better serve our nation in the months and years ahead.

It is now my great pleasure to call upon Senator Carper from Delaware for any opening remarks that he might have. And I am pleased that he could join with us today.

COLLINS:

Thank you, Senator. The committee will now proceed to hearing from our witnesses. We're very pleased today to have an outstanding panel of dedicated public servants who are first responders, including police chiefs, firefighters and emergency medical technicians, and in one case a firefighter who plays both roles, which is common throughout our country.

First, I would like to welcome my friend Michael Chitwood, who is the police chief in Maine's largest city of Portland, Maine. He has some 38 years of law enforcement experience. And I rely on him often in talking about the security challenges facing our country.

I have no doubt that his advice will be very helpful to this committee as we seek to craft legislation. And, again, Chief, I want to thank you for all of the help that you've provided, for the outstanding leadership that you give the city of Portland's police force and for taking the time to be here with us today.

CHITWOOD:

Thank you.

COLLINS:

Our second witness is going to be Jeffrey Horvath, who, as Senator Carper has pointed out, serves as Dover, Delaware's police chief. He's moved steadily up the ranks, I understand, since joining the city of Dover in 1984 as a patrolman.

His range of law enforcement experiences will help him to bring valuable perspectives to this hearing. And like Senator Carper, I'm particularly interested in the relationship between the police force and Dover Air Base. That is—that does add a whole new dimension to the threat facing Delaware. And I'll be interested to hear from the witness on that issue.

Our next witness that we'll hear from is Chief Ed Plaugher—Plaugher, right? I've got it wrong—

PLAUGHER:

That's OK.

COLLINS:

... the fire chief of Arlington County, Virginia. He offers the committee also a wealth of the knowledge in discussing homeland security programs.

His 36 years of service began in February, 1966. It's my understanding that the president has recently appointed the chief as a senior advisory committee member to the Homeland Security Council.

I would also point out that the chief served as the incident commander at the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001. So he certainly brings first-hand experience of the role of first responders when a terrorist attack occurs.

And finally, it's a great pleasure to welcome this morning Captain Chauncey Bowers from Prince George's County Fire and Rescue. Captain Bowers brings to the committee a dual perspective as both an EMT and a firefighter.

And I think that's very important. I always want to make sure we hear from the EMT community, as well, when we hear from first responders. So I thank you for being here, as well.

I'd like to start with Chief Chitwood. If you would proceed with your testimony, Chief. Thank you for being here.

COLLINS:

Thank you very much, Captain.

Chief Chitwood, I want to start my questions with you. You mentioned in your testimony that the City of Portland has incurred costs of some $800,000 since September 11th for increased staffing at the airport. And, as I understand it, that increased staffing is federally mandated by the requests you're getting from the FAA and TSA. Is that correct, that this wasn't an action taken by the city on its own, but rather in response to federal requests?

CHITWOOD:

Correct, Senator.

COLLINS:

Has the city received, and has your police department received, any funding from the federal government to help cope with that enormous hit on the city's budget?

CHITWOOD:

With respect tot the monies that are spent at the airport, through the Jetport Enterprise Fund and through the mandate of TSA for personnel, we have been reimbursed for those particular monies.

For the flip side of that, for all monies that are spent to fill the shifts that are left open because we're at the Jetport, no.

COLLINS:

And that's your point about the increased overtime that the department is incurring because its officers are at the airport rather than, perhaps, patrolling the streets of Portland?

CHITWOOD:

That's correct.

COLLINS:

That cost is being borne by the city without any reimbursement from the federal government?

CHITWOOD:

That's correct.

COLLINS:

I'm interested in the comments that all of you have made about whether the funding that we're providing for homeland security actually makes it down to the local police departments, the local fire departments, to EMTs. Because that is our intent, and we have appropriated literally billions of dollars for homeland security. But is it making its way down to the local level?

Chief Plaugher?

PLAUGHER:

Absolutely not. And, as I talk to my colleagues around the nation, the frustrations just continue to mount. The bureaucracy is just consuming the energy, consuming the monies. And at the end of the stream, there's very little, if any, money.

In my community, for the years—I hope I get the right years, because it's taken so long, I actually am forgetting what years we're involved with. I think the first set of monies through some of the state and local assistance programs was in federal year 1999, and then 2000, 2001, 2002.

We just recently got a block of monies from, I think it was 2000, 2001, 2002. By the time it got to us, it was such small monies that we could only use it for one purpose, and that was to buy regulators for our firefighters because our current regulators failed to pass the test and were not effective against chemical and biological agents. So we were forced to then buy the regulators for that purpose, because of our needs in the subway system in the Washington and metropolitan area.

So, again, when it did come to us, it was in a such small amount that it could only go for one purpose, and one purpose only. And, because it was a regulated program, we could only use it to buy equipment. Now, we did have a need but, if, in fact, we didn't have a need for that, we would have been forced to have said back to the state that we were unable to use this money because it was very specifically regulated for one purpose and one purpose only.

So, there is no flexibility, and the amount that comes out at the end of the stream is very small.

COLLINS:

I think the lack of flexibility is an excellent point, because you know that's what your needs are. And I think it's one reason we're seeing these unspent balances, also, in the monies that the states have received.

PLAUGHER:

In the Commonwealth of Virginia, when we participated as mandated by the Department of Justice program, we participated in the assessment—a risk assessment and risk hazard. We were not—as we participated in that, we did not particularly agree with the outcome, but had no choice but to accept the state's outcome.

As a matter of fact, in the state's list of hazards in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Pentagon was at the bottom of the third page in each page of about 75 to 80 target hazard properties on it. So, it wasn't even rated high on the list of target hazards.

And so, that would have meant we would have, using that formula, we would have received no federal funding for an obvious national symbol, a national hazard.

So, again, these programs have been very convoluted. They're difficult to follow. They are difficult to work within the state systems. And so, where they're intended for the first responders, usually is not getting there.

The last study that was done by a private institute found that less than two cents was actually ending up in first responders' hands. Two cents on the dollar.

COLLINS:

Well, that is a major disappointment and a major problem and one reason that I wanted to convene this hearing.
Captain Bowers, aside from fire grants, which is, as you pointed out, was a preexisting program and goes directly to fire departments—are you receiving homeland security money as a result of these billions of dollars that were appropriated?

BOWERS:

I would have to echo the chief's comments that that process is very slow and cumbersome, and the money is a long time coming in the end.

When you opened this hearing, you made some comments about restrictions on the use of the money and restructuring to put this in a central location. I think your efforts in that area are 100 percent on target.

Some of the problems that we have experienced is when a grant is applied for, we may identify Item A, but by the time that is approved and we're ready to purchase equipment, there may be a new item, Item B, that is now available. But in order to switch from Item, A, which we specified in the application, to Item B, there's an entire bureaucratic process to get that approved. That again delays the amount of time it takes us to have the equipment.

Having these programs in a central office will also eliminate the problems that we face now, where sometimes it goes through the state, and sometimes it goes directly to a federal agency. And the guideline and the management of these grants are different for each and every program.

COLLINS:

Thank you. My time has expired, but I just want to give Captain Horvath a chance to respond to the same question of whether the money is getting down to the local police department in Dover.

HORVATH:

Well, I'll quote him when he said, "Absolutely not," because my police department hasn't seen any of it. And that's the quick answer.

We keep hearing of this money, and no one can tell us when it's coming, when we're going to get it. And then it has to go through DEMA, which, for part of the process, I think is a good thing, because Delaware being small again—I keep harping on that, but—we're putting together a plan to give to them on what equipment first responders should have in their cars with them so all police officers in the state will have the same equipment. It'll work together, we can go and help another jurisdiction out and actually share equipment, if we have to.

That part of it's a plus. But there are other needs that each police department needs. And each police department may have different things in their jurisdiction. As I mentioned, they may have different needs. It would be nice if the money was more flexible, and if some of the money could directly come to the police departments themselves and not through a middleman, so to speak.

COLLINS:

And finally, Chief Chitwood, you've mentioned some reimbursement for the airport costs, but obviously, we have a major port in Portland. Are you receiving federal funding directly to the police department to assist with those costs?

CHITWOOD:

No, we're not. In fact, when you answer that question, if I could expand on my answer.

COLLINS:

Surely.

CHITWOOD:

Over the years, starting in 1994, anytime we needed money for a policing program, we always had to apply to the state, who received the grants directly from the federal government. And anytime we made a request, our request was either filled partially or not filled at all.

Subsequently, I think that the federal government did one of the best things for law enforcement that I've ever seen in my 38 years. And that was allow the local police departments to articulate a particular need directly to the federal government.

And the following programs that I'm talking about were the Universal Hiring Grant, which supplied police departments across the country with the COPS Program, the Officers in School Program.

You fill out an application, you articulate your need, the federal government sends you the money, you hire the officers. There is no bureaucracy, there is no breakdown.

We look at other block grants that we can apply directly to the federal government for to enhance technology in our organization. For the last seven years, once a year, we apply for these grants. Once a year, after we articulate a need, we get those monies. No middleman, we don't have to deal with the state bureaucracy—directly with the federal government.

CHITWOOD:

And I truly believe that when you look at homeland security, if the departments who could articulate the greatest threat risk could apply directly to the federal government and receive those monies, whether they're any one of our four organizations or across the country, like it's been said, each community has a different need. And I think once you articulate that need to the federal government, then those monies could be supplemented directly to the department.

For example, in Maine, Portland has a much more need than Bethel would have. But yet, under the formula, everybody would be getting the same amount of money vis-a-vis the state guideline. And I think that having the ability to apply directly, articulate the need, look at the threat risk assessment, and then those monies go directly to the department.

I believe that the needs of the localities could be filled in a very, very quick and professional way where they could be spent to protect our communities.

COLLINS:

Thank you.

COLLINS:

Thank you, Senator Pryor.

I want to follow up on the communication issue that Chief Chitwood just raised. We're now at a state where we're at the orange- alert level, and I'd like to ask each of you two questions related to that.

First, how did you learn that we had gone to an alert level of orange? And second, does that system for communicating the increased alert status work better now? There were terrible problems in the beginning, which, Chief, you referred to as well.

And I'd like to just ask all of you those questions, starting with Chief Chitwood.

CHITWOOD:

The last level, the orange level, I had heard vis-a- vis TV/radio that we were at orange, but I never saw anything vis-a- vis teletype. Probably eight hours later, we got a teletype I think. I learned it from CNN.

COLLINS:

That is so troubling to me, that that still seems to be the source, with all due respect to CNN's good reporting.

(LAUGHTER)

But it's just extraordinary to me.

Chief Horvath?

HORVATH:

I also learned about the alert from watching the news. If we did get a teletype eight hours later, it was never brought to my desk. I don't think we did.

I will say diagonally across the street from my office is the local FBI office in Dover, and communications have improved greatly over the past few months. There is a problem where information can't be—something I didn't bring up earlier, but I'll bring it up now—I get things that can't be told to me because it's top secret, and then you hear about it later on the news, and you mention it, and they want to know how you know it, because it's top secret.

So if the news can know it, I think the police departments and the fire departments across the country ought to know it.

COLLINS:

Well, that's something we can relate to when we have our classified briefings and then go back to our offices and find out on the news what we just learned in the highly classified briefing.

(LAUGHTER)

Chief, how did you find out?

PLAUGHER:

If my memory is correct, I think I was told by a friend who has a friend who has a wife that works as a clerk in a government office...

(LAUGHTER)

... and the government office was advised they were going to the orange alert. So I went back to my emergency services coordinator and asked him the specific question, are we at orange alert? And he did not know, he was going to have to go check. And then eventually we heard it on CNN that we had been raised.

So again, there is no—as a matter of fact, to this day, there is no system to notify fire departments in the United States about anything that happens on a national scale. We do not communicate. We don't even have a teletype system to talk to each other.

So there is no communication network for us to receive alerts or inside information—or, I should say, information that we think is critical to our ability to prepare.

COLLINS:

We clearly have a lot of work to do in that area as well.

Captain, are you aware of how your department found out that we'd moved to an alert status of orange?

BOWERS:

We, too, discovered that by the television networks. So that seems to be a common thread here among all the agencies, that the notification in change of the status filters out to us by the network television operations.

COLLINS:

That's just so troubling to me. I remember a state trooper telling me that on September 11th he heard about the attacks on the radio and radioed into his headquarters to try to find out whether any entity in Maine had been attacked, and he just—no one knew who to ask, even. The communication structure is still very flawed, it seems to me.

One final question, all of you—from me, before I go to Senator Carper. All of you have mentioned the need for improved communication, and I think the exchange we just had illustrates that.

During the debate on the Homeland Security Act, Senator Carper, Senator Feingold, and I proposed that there be a federal liaison for first responders established in every state, who worked for the Department of Homeland Security but would be actually stationed in each of the 50 states. And unfortunately, that provision was dropped from the final version of the bill.

Do you think it would be helpful to have a state liaison, who worked for the Department of Homeland Security, in each of the states, so that there would be single contact point within your own states?

Would that be helpful, do you think, Chief?

HORVATH (?):

I think it would. I think that any time you can communicate and give people knowledge, it goes a long way in assisting with whatever assets your particular community needs. And I think that that's what's needed, especially homeland security being the umbrella of what we're going to do in the future of our country with respect to any type of terrorism-type activity. So, absolutely, I think it would be a plus.

COLLINS:

Thank you.

Chief?

CHITWOOD (?):

I agree. I think it would be extremely helpful. It would be someone we can call when we have questions, someone they can call when they have important information to pass on. And it would be very helpful if I forget to watch the news and I could find out we're on a higher alert status.

COLLINS:

Thank you.

Chief?

PLAUGHER:

This is awkward for me, because in the nation's capital area we do have a coordinator from Homeland Security for the Washington, D.C., immediate area. However, Arlington is in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Commonwealth of Virginia does not. So it's kind of an awkward situation.

And we find that the coordinator that we have is just fabulous and is doing a spectacular job for the national capital area. So if you want to point to an example of how it can work and work really well, here is an excellent example for you.

COLLINS:

That's a great example. Thank you for sharing that.

Captain Bowers?

BOWERS:

We're in that national capital area also.

But I would also bring up a second part to your question. It's not only good to have that coordinator, I think, in every state, but that coordinator also needs to share particular information about what the threat may be, so that the departments can then plan and act appropriately to be prepared for that threat.

So the single point of contact is excellent, but then the information flow needs to be there so that we can take the appropriate actions once we do receive the information.

COLLINS:

Thank you.

COLLINS:

Thank you, Senator.

I want to thank my colleagues for joining me this morning for this very important hearing.

And most of all, I want to thank our witnesses. You truly have given us extraordinarily helpful testimony.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank you on behalf of this panel for the extraordinary work that you're doing each and everyday in your communities. We're very grateful to you. It's why I wanted to hear first from those who are on the front lines as we seek to tackle this issue. You've given us a number of very practical suggestions.

And I'm confident that working together we can come up with legislation that will achieve our goal of making sure that the money that we're appropriating does get to you and helps you in a way that makes our nation more secure. We want to make sure that our folks who are on the front lines receive the equipment, the training, the staffing, the planning that they need to be as effective as possible. So your suggestions were excellent and we'll continue to work with you. And I thank you very much for taking the time to be here today.

Finally, I also want to thank my staff which has worked very hard in putting together this hearing.

And to announce that our next hearing on the issue of homeland security and first responders funding is scheduled to take place on Thursday, May 1. At that time we will hear from Secretary Ridge. You've given us a lot of issues to raise with him, as well as state and local governments. And that'll help address the issue of how do we make sure the money flows down to the local level and to local fire, police and to emergency medical personnel who really need it. So we're looking forward to that hearing, as well.

The record for this hearing will remain open for 15 days for the submission of additional statements or questions.

Before I adjourn the hearing, I just want to turn to my colleagues to see if they have any closing remarks.

(UNKNOWN)

I think, Madam Chair, you've giving a fitting benediction to a most informative and extraordinarily helpful hearing. And to that benediction I would simply just say, Amen.

COLLINS:

Thank you.

This meeting is now adjourned.