Hearing of House Committee on Homeland Security - Challenge of Protecting Mass Gatherings in a Post-9/11 World

Press Release

REP. THOMPSON: Well, speak of the angel, he's here. (Laughter.)

The Committee on Homeland Security will come to order. The committee is meeting today to receive testimony on the challenge of protecting mass gatherings in a post-9/11 world.

Good morning. I'd like to thank our witnesses for appearing before us today.

When Americans think of mass gathering, events like the Super Bowl, the national conventions and the pope's recent visit come to mind. How the Department of Homeland Security manages and coordinate these high-profile national security events is certainly worthy of discussion, but that is a discussion for another day. Today we'll turn our attention to the challenges of securing mass gatherings that are not considered national special security events that do not have the federal government coming in to run security and are held in communities that do not have a huge amount of resources for security. Think of state fairs, collegiate sporting events, and even large shopping complexes during the holiday season.

Mass gatherings, whether they have a national security event rating or not, could be particularly tempting targets for al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with the goal of killing or injuring the most people, destroying the most infrastructure, and having the greatest impact possible with the least amount of effort.

As you all know, I've made it a priority to look at mass gatherings of all types. In fact, last year I directed committee staff to explore a variety of venues to see how mass gatherings are being handled. At these venues, committee staff observed members of the public and private sectors working to ensure the health, safety and security of all involved. They found that support personnel at these venues are doing the best they can with what they have, especially when they do not have the benefit of substantial federal support.

This exploration culminated in a report that the majority staff of the committee released in May entitled, "Public Health, Safety and Security for Mass Gatherings." The report concluded that while local and state official efforts are laudable, the federal government needs to partner with them in three particular areas: countering biological threats, collaborating and planning, and partnering across sectors. Among the report's recommendations were that the Department of Homeland Security help these localities in hosting these mass gatherings now by strengthening public health and other critical infrastructures, establishing comprehensive biological surveillance systems, and ensuring that intelligence about biological threats is made actionable for decision makers on the scene.

It is remarkable just how state and local and private sector partners have worked together to develop solutions on their own given the absence of dedicated federal resources. Fighting a common fight, they have established trusted relationships with other very different entities, and that trust serves as the basis for sharing information and resources that would not otherwise occur. The Department of Homeland Security could stand to learn a lesson about information sharing here.

The Department of Homeland Security should also take note that the districts that the members of this committee represent are diverse. Some, like mine, are largely rural, while others, like the one represented by the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Clarke, are decidedly urban. However, when it comes to mass gatherings, we all share the same goal: ensuring that our communities are prepared for and can respond to the challenges of protecting mass gatherings. To that end, I look forward to this morning's testimony.

The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. King, for an opening statement.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. THOMPSON: Other members of the committee are reminded that under committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the record.

I welcome our first panel of witnesses. Our first witness is well known to the committee. Lieutenant Colonel Robert Stephan is assistant secretary for infrastructure protection at the Department of Homeland Security. He's responsible for the department's efforts to secure different aspects of the nation's infrastructure, including our commercial facilities where many mass gatherings occur and for which risk management assessment is a must.

Our second witness is Vice Admiral Roger Rufe, director of the operations coordinations directorate at the Department of Homeland Security. His responsibilities include integrating component agency operations across the department, coordinating with other federal and nonfederal agencies, and ensuring that the National Operations Center, which monitors many mass gatherings, functions efficiently and effectively.

We thank both witnesses for their service to the nation and for being here today. Without objection, the witnesses' full statement will be inserted into the record.

I'll now ask each witness to summarize his statement in five minutes, beginning with Assistant Secretary Stephan.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. THOMPSON: Thank you very much. I will start out questions for our first panel.

Assistant Secretary Stephan, before I actually ask my first question I want to share with you my disappointment in the chemical security bill progress that we worked with your staff and this committee's staff on for more than nine months. And at the beginning of that process another committee had a hearing, and the day before the hearing we received a letter saying you were against the bill. And we had worked in good faith with you on that. I have since sent the secretary a letter asking for a clarification on how we worked for nine months on getting a chemical facility bill through this body, this committee passed it, and when another committee takes it up, you're against it.

So I just want to let you know that some of us are real concerned that if there was opposition to a bill, the way we work it out -- and this committee does a good job at it -- is we work it out before we go public. And that was a real concern on my part, and I just wanted to make sure that you understood the disappointment we had because we spent time in my office and committee staff on trying to work the bill out.

MR. STEPHAN: May I respond to your point?

REP. THOMPSON: Sure.

MR. STEPHAN: Sir, I just would like to remind you that we did in fact provide several objections to the bill during a previous testimony that I delivered personally to your committee chairmanship and to several of the subcommittee meetings chaired by Chairwoman Jackson Lee. We've also worked with your staff to voice our objections over time as the bill seemed to get larger and larger and larger and more complex over time, and I believe we did a fairly good job at bringing you and your staff and Ms. Jackson Lee up to speed in terms of our specific objections. Not many of those objections, however, were noted in the final version of the bill.

REP. THOMPSON: Well, thank you. We're both on the record now, so we have a record.

Admiral Rufe, one of the things we're told by state and locals is that every time an event occurs they have to make an application, whether it's an event that -- let's take a new event -- if it happens every year. There is some concern as to whether or not the "laborious-some" process of repeating the submission of the data can somehow be streamlined.

Have you all looked at that?

MR. RUFE: Yes, sir. We have a questionnaire that we developed over time. In fact, we just met yesterday with some -- well, a focus group to look at it again. We try to improve that over time to make sure it meets the needs of the state and local folks so that we're not asking for information that's not useful.

And I understand the concern that we'd be asking the same thing for a similar event each year, but over the state and local capacity to be able to handle those events may change, may get better or may degrade. The incident itself -- the event itself may grow or shrink. The participation could grow or shrink. And certainly the threat from year to year may change. So while an event may rate a one level one year, it may change the next year depending upon the response to the questionnaire by the state and locals who are submitting the information.

REP. THOMPSON: So it's your testimony that you plan to at some point relook at the information requested or --

MR. RUFE: Yes, sir. Actually, we do that every year. The process starts right about now for next year, in fact. We hope to have it completed by the first of December. And the initial step in the process is to meet with representatives of about five to eight states who represent a focus group for us to look at what we did the previous year to make sure the questionnaire is meeting their needs as well as our needs and then changing it as we need to. And we'll do that each year depending upon feedback that we get from our partners.

REP. THOMPSON: Colonel Stephan, you know, most of us live in communities where there are a number of gatherings of all sort, from state fairs to what have you, and they do make attractive targets. To what extent have you communicated with state and locals what you have to offer in support of their security concerns?

MR. STEPHAN: Sir, I principally do that through my protective security advisers. I have 78 of them deployed now throughout the country, some in rural areas, some in major urban areas of the United States. We have a request for 10 additional positions in our '09 budget, which I hope you all support. Those are my eyes on, ears forward. They're my boots on the ground. They have developed over the three years of the program's lifespan to date very extensive collaborative relationships with state homeland security advisers, local officials, municipal officials, emergency managers, and more importantly of all -- or most importantly of all - private sector owners and operators to include commercial venue owners and operators where lots of these mass gatherings take place.

Principally through that forward arm, they facilitate a more detailed level of planning for events that don't necessarily pop up on Admiral Rufe's radar screen through his process, and I think top down through that process as well as bottom up through my protective security advisers, I think we are doing a fairly good job now at providing more blanket coverage, situational awareness, training, exercise involvement, doing site-specific vulnerability assessments, and just helping out our state and local partners in many ways.

REP. THOMPSON: Yield to the gentleman from New York for five minutes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. THOMPSON: Thank you.

Admiral, maybe you could help clear us up -- if you take the highest level, where it's Secret Service -- is there a formula for federal participation at that level? Or how is that derived?

MR. RUFE: There's not -- no sir, Mr. Chairman. There's not a strict formula, there are some guidelines, however. For NSSEs, that is within the purview of the Secret Service, as we've said. And they look at each event individually and decide what level of support is needed.

You may have noticed just recently that the presidential -- the Democratic presidential candidate is going to do his acceptance speech now at the Mile High Stadium, which is going to change, obviously, the requirements for protection for that event.

So Secret Service looks at those things as they move along and makes adjustments as necessary for those events.

On the SEAR 1, SEAR 2, SEAR 3 events, there are some general guidelines. So, for an example, for a SEAR 1 event, the FAA always puts in a temporary flight restriction in the area. That does not necessarily hold true for a SEAR Level 2 event -- they might put in a TFR, but they might not.

So there are some -- and it varies depending upon the type of event you have. In some cases you'll have a waterfront activity, where the Coast Guard would play a pretty big role. In another case, it might be pretty far inland, there wouldn't be a Coast Guard role. So there's no real set formula for the amount of federal responsibility -- federal assets that are used. It's based on what capacity is available locally and with mutual aid agreements and then what the holes and the gaps are that need to be filled by the federal government.

REP. THOMPSON: I guess -- the point I'm trying to figure out is, how do we derive what's a state or local financial burden, versus the federal burden? Is that some formula that's worked out in advance? Or how is this done?

MR. RUFE: No, sir, there is no formula for that. The formula is when each one of these events, these 4,000 events, is entered into the data call each year, the state and local officials who are putting the information in respond to the questionnaire, and among the questions they have to answer is, is the state and local capacity sufficient to cover the requirement?

And oftentimes, they answer yes. And in that case, there really isn't a need for federal assistance.

Now, whether the state and local capacity that's utilized is available for reimbursement from the federal government is another question. And that's where the grants from DHS would play a role.

REP. THOMPSON: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. THOMPSON: Thank you very much.

In the event that, Ms. Jackson Lee, something that you asked or wanted to ask, we did not -- we will gladly provide our witnesses with anything you provide us, in terms of questions for their response.

We want to thank our first panel, the witnesses. You've been very thorough in your answers and we appreciate again your service to this country. Thank you very much.

We will now call our second panel of witnesses.

MR. STEPHAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. THOMPSON: (Sounds gavel.) We'd like to welcome our second panel of witnesses. And I appreciate your patience and obviously your service to the country.

Our first witness, Dr. Thomas Blackwell, is the medical director for the Center for Prehospital Medicine at the Carolina Medical Center in Charlotte, North Carolina. He's also the medical director for MEDIC, the Mecklenburg EMS Agency, Lowe's Motor Speedway, and the Bank of America Stadium, all in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Dr. Blackwell, we want to thank you especially for making the time to testify today. We know that you have deployed your mobile hospital to the state of Indiana to provide support as part of the response to the recent floods there. We appreciate your dedication to providing emergency medical care throughout the nation.

Our second witness is Sergeant Scott McCartney. Sergeant McCartney is a program manager and lead exercise planner for the Large Stadium Initiative for the state of California. He's also a member of the Critical Incident Negotiation Team for the Sacramento County sheriff's office.

Welcome.

Our third witness, Mr. Doug Reynolds, the director of security for the Mall of America, in Bloomington, Minnesota. We commend his service in this capacity as well as his previous 21 years of service as a member of the Army National Guard.

Speaking of the Mall of America, my wife appreciates the security. (Laughs.)

We thank our witnesses for their service to the states and to the nation and for being here today.

Without objection, the witnesses' full statement will be inserted into the record.

And now I ask each witness to summarize his statement for five minutes, beginning with Dr. Blackwell.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. THOMPSON: I thank all of witnesses on this panel for their excellent testimony -- and your excellent testimony; I'll leave it at that.

Dr. Blackwell, first of all, let me thank you for the help you've done in the past in addressing natural disasters, not just in the state of North Carolina but my home state of Mississippi as well, as well as Indiana. But I'm interested in your notion of sustainability for your own local unit and how you see the federal government helping with that, but also the notion of mutual aid you talked about and how we can somehow put that in some structure that people can just plug into rather than people coming together just because they have good will.

DR. BLACKWELL: Yes, sir. First, Mr. Chair, let me say that I could think of no better place to initiate our project than Waveland and Bay Saint Louis. The people there were grateful; they were a pleasure to help. And it was a great experience that will long live with all of us for the rest of our lives.

As far as sustainment goes, these programs are expensive. When a MED-1 unit is sitting on the ground not deploying, there's a cost for that. When MED-1 goes out to a venue to provide mass gathering support, to provide medical care at any mass gathering venue or strategic event, there's a cost for that.

And for those two costs, our hospital is absorbing those costs right now. Carolina's Medical Center is a level one trauma center, sees the need for that, supports the initiative but is providing the funds for the sustainment dollars. When there is a deployment, obviously the federal government steps in, be it HHS or FEMA or whatever. With our three deployments we've been under a federal contract. So the federal government does step up. But to get that unit prepared and ready to go and on the ready, there is a cost for that readiness, and no one's picking up the tab for that.

So sustainment dollars, again, are equally important through the Department of Homeland Security to support these initiatives, to keep them functional and operational.

Regarding getting out the door, it was a real chore for us. It took four days before we could deploy -- before moving to the Gulf Coast. We were ready to deploy, our units were packed, we were staged, we had units from physicians, nurses and allied health personnel, 22 vehicles, 100 staff ready to deploy to the Gulf Coast, and it took four days before the agreements could be mustered to get us out the door.

Attorneys from both sides were settling contracts, they were disputing contracts, and we were ready to go see patients. They needed help on the Gulf Coast. We wanted to go. We were ready to go. But we had to wait until those contracts were signed. There is a process in place called the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, the EMAC agreement. All 50 states are part of that today, but to get a streamlined approach to this I would encourage Congress to really take a critical look at that EMAC agreement and see if there are ways -- when people need help, they need help, and attorneys don't need to be arguing over contracts for that.

REP. THOMPSON: Well, and as you know, we held some oversight hearings on some of those issues. We have heard stories of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police often help and after about four days, they just called Continental Airlines from Canada, flew to Houston, rented vehicles and drove into Louisiana. And there were a number of stories, and I think it's incumbent upon all of us to fix the mutual aid situation so it's seamless.

Now, we put some language in the reorganization of FEMA to cut down on a lot of the red tape in times of natural disasters. Our National Response Plan basically provided for a seamless approach to that process, but we do have to fix it. And your comments won't fall on deaf ears because we know what you're trying to do.

Mr. Reynolds, you talked about a seven-year effort to get into the JTTF program. With 100,000 people on any given day in the operation, that's in my mind a significant venue of a gathering. What was the reluctance to include the Mall of America into this joint terrorism task force?

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Thompson, I am not 100 percent certain of where that reluctance came from. I do know that when a new ASAC (sp) arrived for the area, we gave him a tour of our facility and he understood what we were doing, saw it as cutting edge and said I will get you access to the JTTF executive board. I replied, "With all due respect, I have heard that before and it hasn't happened." However, he was true to his word and he did speed the process up and get it through.

I know in the past when we'd inquired about access and I had an active top-secret SCI clearance from the military, I said yes, I understand that's a military clearance. It's not any good to the JTTF ward. And I found it frustrating, especially when it was the same paperwork I filled out to get the -- (laughter) -- the access that I ended up getting eventually.

REP. THOMPSON: So since your inclusion, you feel that you are a true partner in the effort?

MR. REYNOLDS: Absolutely. We had talked about how we have people out there looking for what we call suspicious indicators. Well, we need real-time intelligence to tell our people what to look for, what it is, what the trends are, what the bad things are they should be looking for. And I do feel we're a great contributor. In 2007 we were the number one source of actionable intelligence for the Minnesota Joint Analysis Center, and that's a private entity.

REP. THOMPSON: I guess one of the other questions is Admiral Rufe talked about having to submit paperwork annually for every event. Now, as a private entity, are you required to submit any paperwork showing how many people come in the mall every day, or are you exempt from that?

MR. REYNOLDS: And that's one of the benefits of sitting on the JTTF board is we share that information with others, what events we have coming up, that type of thing. We have had assessments done by many different agencies that come in and look at our facility. Are we required to submit that paperwork? No.

REP. THOMPSON: But they are aware of what's going on?

MR. REYNOLDS: Correct. And that's one of the great things, again, about being on that board is just being able to exchange information openly with people and build those contacts.

REP. THOMPSON: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. THOMPSON: Thank you. I have a couple other questions that I'd like to probably just throw out.

Mr. Reynolds, one of the challenges in any kind of potential situation is the ability for people to communicate with each other.

Since you're in a private setting, are you allowed to have the ability to communicate with local law enforcement on their radio frequencies?

MR. REYNOLDS: That's an excellent question. There's a couple different ways to look at that. We do have one of the police base radios and one of their hand-held radios within our dispatch center. And yes, we are -- we have direct ring down lines to the local police department that we pick it up, it goes straight to their dispatch. We have unlisted phone numbers to their dispatch area. We have a great communication center with the local police department.

REP. THOMPSON: So with real-time communication, it's like a relay system or something like that?

MR. REYNOLDS: Absolutely. We pick it up, their dispatch knows it's us on the other end, we know it's them.

REP. THOMPSON: Okay.

MR. REYNOLDS: It's a direct call line to them.

REP. THOMPSON: Was that difficult to work out, to get the ability to have a radio?

MR. REYNOLDS: No, I started working for Mall of America in 1996 and we've had it ever since I started, before I started. And then we've continued to make improvements on that along the way.

REP. THOMPSON: Sergeant, in your working with the LSI initiative, have you seen any interoperability challenge?

SGT. MCCARTNEY: It has certain challenges in certain areas, depending on the interoperability in the local area, but for the most part in California, that has been a huge component of getting ourselves better prepared: law enforcement, fire, EMS, private partners, especially private partners in college stadiums, which have mostly law enforcement first responder assistance during those venues.

Some colleges in California have police departments that actually police for that university. Some other colleges don't, so in some of the stadiums and some of the other areas they used first responders to assist in that in either or with first responders being there or the private police or the police department from the university, they can work together, and quite frankly, they're retired from the police department in the city is usually how they build the police department in the university. So they do work together to make sure that if there is a problem anywhere on one of those sites that local first responders can talk to each other and talk to them to get the best resources in to take care of the problem.

REP. THOMPSON: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. THOMPSON: And one of the -- if the gentleman will yield -- one of the problems with that is how do we plan for the agility, because everybody wants their own piece of equipment. And if we have to buy mobile command centers for everybody who has a unit to deploy, then we won't have many other resources to push toward the problem.

One of the other problems associated with this too is our vendors have been very strategic in going out, convincing some less sophisticated departments that all they need to do is buy a new system.

REP. LUNGREN: Yeah.

REP. THOMPSON: Well, that new system is fine for that unit -- (laughs) -- but if it's a police system but they can't communicate with the fire, you've only stovepiped that communication.

REP. LUNGREN: Right.

REP. THOMPSON: And so you're absolutely correct. The temporary piece is how can we patch everyone in with these units, and ultimately, from a technology standpoint, we just have to be able to move it even farther. But that's been one of our real, real problems. I yield back.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. THOMPSON: Thank you again, gentlemen, for your excellent presentation to the committee and again for the service all of you do for our country. We appreciate it. I think I speak for the entire committee, our commitment is to do all we can to make sure that the planning, the equipment, the resources at the federal level get pushed down in concert with working with state and locals and the private sector to see that mass gatherings are as safe as any other venue in this country.

Thank you again.

MR. : Thank you.

REP. THOMPSON: (Sounds gavel.) The hearing is adjourned.

Source