S. Hrg. 107-410
HOMELAND SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARINGS
APRIL 10, 2002--WASHINGTON, DC
APRIL 11, 2002--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-707 PDF WASHINGTON : 2002
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
TOM HARKIN, Iowa PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
HARRY REID, Nevada MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CONRAD BURNS, Montana
PATTY MURRAY, Washington RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
Terry Sauvain, Staff Director
Charles Kieffer, Deputy Staff Director
Steven J. Cortese, Minority Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Minority Deputy Staff Director<greek-l>
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, April 10, 2002
Page
Opening statement of Chairman Robert C. Byrd..................... 1
Statement of Senator Ted Stevens................................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Prepared statement of Senator Christopher S. Bond................ 6
Prepared statement of Senator Tim Johnson........................ 7
Statement of Senator Patty Murray................................ 8
Statement of Hon. Gary Locke, Governor, State of Washington...... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Biographical sketch.......................................... 15
Statement of Hon. John Engler, Governor, State of Michigan....... 16
Joint prepared statement of Governor John Engler, Governor Roy E.
Barnes, and Governor Gary Locke................................ 19
Biographical sketch of Governor Roy E. Barnes.................... 24
Biographical sketch of Governor John Engler...................... 24
Statement of Hon. Roy Barnes, Governor, State of Georgia......... 25
Statement of Dr. Ashton Carter, Ford Foundation Professor of
Science and International Affairs, Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University................................. 28
Biographical sketch.......................................... 42
Statement of Stephen Gale, Associate Professor, Political Science
Department, University of Pennsylvania......................... 42
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Biographical sketch.......................................... 51
Questioning by:
Chairman Robert C. Byrd...................................... 51
Senator Ted Stevens.......................................... 55
Senator Patty Murray......................................... 57
Senator Byron L. Dorgan...................................... 60
Senator Herb Kohl............................................ 62
Statement of Senator Robert F. Bennett........................... 66
Questioning by:
Senator Richard J. Durbin.................................... 68
Senator Jack Reed............................................ 71
Statement of Senator Barbara A. Mikulski......................... 78
Statement of Hon. Martin O'Malley, Mayor of Baltimore, Maryland;
and Co-Chair, Federal-Local Law Enforcement Task Force, U.S.
Conference of Mayors........................................... 79
Prepared statement........................................... 82
Biographical sketch.......................................... 85
Statement of Hon. Michael Guido, Mayor of Dearborn, Michigan; and
Co-Chair, Working Group on Homeland Security, National League
of Cities...................................................... 88
Prepared statement........................................... 91
Biographical sketch.......................................... 93
Statement of Hon. Javier Gonzales, Commissioner, Santa Fe County,
New Mexico; and President, National Association of Counties.... 103
Prepared statement........................................... 106
Biographical sketch.......................................... 110
Questioning by:
Chairman Robert C. Byrd...................................... 116
Senator Ted Stevens.......................................... 118
Senator Barbara A. Mikulski.................................. 121
Senator Pete V. Domenici..................................... 123
Senator Mary L. Landrieu..................................... 126
Senator Byron L. Dorgan...................................... 129
Senator Daniel K. Inouye..................................... 133
Chairman Robert C. Byrd...................................... 134
Thursday, April 11, 2002
Opening statement of Chairman Robert C. Byrd..................... 139
Statement of Senator Ted Stevens................................. 140
Statement of Thomas Von Essen, former New York City Fire
Commissioner, representing the International Association of
Fire Chiefs.................................................... 141
Prepared statement........................................... 143
Biographical sketch.......................................... 146
Statement of Mike Crouse, Chief of Staff to the General
President, International Association of Fire Fighters.......... 146
Prepared statement........................................... 148
Biographical sketch.......................................... 152
Statement of Philip Stittleburg, Chairman, National Volunteer
Fire Council, and volunteer fire chief, LaFarge, Wisconsin..... 152
Prepared statement........................................... 153
Biographical sketch.......................................... 156
Statement of Colonel Lonnie Westphal, Chief, Colorado State
Patrol, representing the International Association of Chiefs of
Police......................................................... 156
Prepared statement........................................... 159
Biographical sketch.......................................... 162
Statement of General Richard Alexander, Director, National Guard
Association.................................................... 163
Prepared statement........................................... 166
Biographical sketch.......................................... 175
Statement of Gary Cox, Director, Tulsa, Oklahoma, City-County
Health Department, representing the National Association of
County and City Health Officials............................... 176
Prepared statement........................................... 177
Biographical................................................. 181
Questioning by:
Chairman Robert C. Byrd...................................... 181
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell.............................. 183
Senator Herb Kohl............................................ 185
Senator Judd Gregg........................................... 187
Senator Ted Stevens.......................................... 189
Statement of Senator Ernest F. Hollings.......................... 191
Questioning by:
Senator Jack Reed............................................ 194
Senator Daniel K. Inouye..................................... 197
Senator Pete V. Domenici..................................... 198
Senator Barbara A. Mikulski.................................. 201
Senator Conrad Burns......................................... 206
Chairman Robert C. Byrd...................................... 209
Opening statement of Chairman Robert C. Byrd..................... 215
Statement of Senator Ted Stevens................................. 215
Statement of Hon. Warren Rudman, former United States Senator,
Co-Chair, U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century.... 216
Questioning by:
Chairman Robert C. Byrd...................................... 232
Senator Ted Stevens.......................................... 233
Senator Mary L. Landrieu..................................... 235
Senator Pete V. Domenici..................................... 237
Senator Daniel K. Inouye..................................... 239
Senator Ernest F. Hollings................................... 240
Senator Patty Murray......................................... 243
Senator Barbara A. Mikulski.................................. 245
Senator Arlen Specter........................................ 246
Senator Byron L. Dorgan...................................... 250
Senator Dianne Feinstein..................................... 251
Senator Robert F. Bennett.................................... 252
Statement of Stephen E. Flynn, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, National
Security Studies, Council on Foreign Relations................. 255
Prepared statement........................................... 258
Biographical sketch.......................................... 262
Statement of Richard M. Larrabee, United States Coast Guard
(retired), Director, Port Commerce Department, Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey..................................... 262
Prepared statement........................................... 265
Biographical sketch.......................................... 270
Statement of P. Michael Errico, Deputy General Manager,
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, representing the
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies..................... 271
Prepared statement of John R. Griffin, General Manager,
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission........................ 273
Biographical sketch.......................................... 279
Biographical sketch of P. Michael Errico......................... 280
Statement of David Lochbaum, Nuclear Safety Engineer, Union of
Concerned Scientists........................................... 280
Prepared statement........................................... 282
Statement of Jeff Benjamin, Vice President for Licensing, Exelon
Corporation, Chicago, Illinois, representing the Nuclear Energy
Institute...................................................... 294
Prepared statement........................................... 297
Biographical sketch.......................................... 303
Questioning by:
Senator Ernest F. Hollings................................... 303
Senator Patty Murray......................................... 304
Chairman Robert C. Byrd...................................... 308
Senator Patty Murray......................................... 314
Chairman Robert C. Byrd...................................... 317
Closing statement of Chairman Robert C. Byrd..................... 321
Prepared statement of Colleen M. Kelley, National President,
National Treasury Employees Union.............................. 325
Prepared statement of Victor L. Lechtenberg, Chair, National
Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics
Advisory Board................................................. 328
Prepared statement of the National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.....................329<greek-l>
(iii)
HOMELAND SECURITY
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met at 10 a.m., in room SH-216, Hart Senate
Office Building, Hon. Robert C. Byrd (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Byrd, Inouye, Leahy, Harkin, Mikulski,
Kohl, Murray, Dorgan, Durbin, Johnson, Landrieu, Reed, Stevens,
Cochran, Domenici, Bond, Burns, Gregg, Bennett, Campbell, and
DeWine.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ROBERT C. BYRD
Chairman Byrd. The committee will come to order. A scant
212 days ago, on September 11, our country was dealt a vicious
blow, the nature of which was inconceivable to most Americans
until that fateful day. In a space of a few hours our view of
ourselves, and of the world around us, changed. In the most
graphic and horrific way, Americans came face to face with the
fact that their country is extremely vulnerable to attacks of
unspeakable horror by madmen and terrorists.
How we as a Nation deal with that knowledge is the ultimate
test of our leadership and of our wisdom. The preamble of the
United States Constitution speaks to certain broad goals for
the Federal Government: ``to establish justice, ensure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
general welfare and to secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and to our posterity.'' In this new age, those words
have a special meaning. They go to the very survival of our
Nation and of our way of life, both of which may now depend on
our increased ability to respond to threats, understand the
complexities of our vulnerabilities, and still preserve the
individual freedoms that we cherish.
A comprehensive evaluation of every aspect of homeland
defense is essential. We must anticipate the soft spots and act
quickly to shore them up. If the United States is going to be
able to prevent future terrorist strikes, cooperation must
exist on all levels. Cooperation will be essential at all
levels in responding to the havoc of a successful attack.
The swift commitment of resources at the Federal, State,
and local levels is essential. Cooperation at every level will
be key to our success in this regard. Last September this
Congress acted very quickly to enact a $40 billion
appropriations bill within 3 days to respond to the awful
events of September 11--within 3 days of the attacks. I repeat,
that was done.
Of that money, $10 billion was made available to the
President upon enactment of the bill. The President could
allocate, after consultation with Congress, the next $10
billion. The last $20 billion required further Congressional
action which occurred as a part of the Defense Appropriations
bill last December. I might add that the Senate Appropriations
Committee reported the legislation on December 4, 2001, in 6
days--6 days after the House had acted on the bill.
The full Senate passed this legislation 3 days later. All
of this was accomplished despite the fact that this institution
was seriously crippled in October and November because of
heinous anthrax attacks in the country--and on the Congress,
which were delivered through the postal system. My office,
along with several other offices of Senators, was closed for
weeks--3 months. Congress was crippled and yet we acted in the
Senate. We were not slow to walk up to the plate, and we
appropriated that money within the 3 days.
The Federal Government has already committed substantial
emergency resources in the defense of our homeland. But
experience and knowledge are our best allies in the service of
maximum effectiveness. We've only just begun to digest the
scope of the challenges that face us. Senator Stevens and I
have called these hearings because this committee, the United
States Senate, and the American people are watching. We need to
understand these new challenges more fully.
Today and tomorrow the Senate Appropriations Committee will
hear from mayors and Governors about the real obstacles that
they face in preparing for a variety of security threats which
are particular to their circumstances. We also will hear from
men and women who will be on the front lines in responding to
any future terrorist attacks: National Guardsmen, police
officers, fire fighters, public health personnel. The committee
will listen to these so as to understand the security needs of
the Nation's communities in order to better prioritize our
funding decisions to best protect the safety of our citizens.
Everyone understands that the States will confront serious
budgetary problems. Hard budgetary choices will have to be made
at the Federal level as well. Senator Stevens and I and all the
members of this committee want to make sure that funding for
the homeland defense of our citizens is our top priority.
We talk about defense. This is defense of the homeland,
where you live and where I live, where my great grandchildren
live and those who will come after us. We also wish to
understand the threats to our domestic security well enough to
fund the right priorities in the most effective way.
It is essential that the American people have confidence
that their Government is acting swiftly and intelligently to
address their concerns. The President has sent us his budget
for the fiscal year 2003. In that document he makes requests
for substantial additional resources for homeland security.
This committee and the Congress will certainly give those
requests thorough and thoughtful consideration.
We'll be working at night, while some people in the country
are sleeping, confident that we will do our duty. There ought
to be bipartisanship in this endeavor, and there is
bipartisanship here. There is no partisanship on this
committee, there is no middle aisle on this committee. When
Senator Stevens was chairman I was his good right hand man, so
to speak. I worked with him with full cooperation, and I'm
receiving that same full cooperation now.
The coming fiscal year does not begin until October 1.
Assuming that the appropriations bills are signed into law by
that date, it would still take time for States and communities
to apply for the funding, and even more time for the agencies
and the departments to process the applications. As a result,
the homeland defense funds in the fiscal year 2003
appropriations bills may not actually be available for nearly 1
year from now. That delay represents valuable time wasted.
The committee is concerned about the needs here and now.
Lives may depend upon rapid response, here at the Federal level
as well as at the State and local levels. The President sent
Congress a supplemental request for the current fiscal year,
totalling $28.6 billion. Of that amount, $5.3 billion is for
homeland defense, with $4.39 billion aimed at airport security.
The holes in the Nation's airport security are well
documented. But airports are not our only concern. The litany
of potential security risks is long and it is daunting. It is
our hope that the witnesses we will hear throughout these
hearings will help us to sort out and sort through the
vulnerabilities and determine not only what we need to do, but
also what we need to do immediately.
I thank all of our witnesses for coming to Washington to
share with the Senate Appropriations Committee their insights
and their judgments about homeland security at the State and
local levels. We look forward to learning from all of you who
are testifying this afternoon and tomorrow in this room. I now
recognize my friend and colleague Senator Ted Stevens, the
ranking member of this committee, for any remarks that he may
wish to make.
Following Senator Stevens' remarks we will hear from our
first witnesses. And because of scheduling problems that have
arisen for some of our witnesses this morning, it is the
Chair's intention to call the witnesses for the morning session
to come to the witness table at this time. Is Governor Engler
in the room?
Governor Barnes. Mr. Chairman, I think Governor Engler is--
I think he is a little late. I'm told he is delayed.
Chairman Byrd. Alright.
Governor Barnes. Mr. Chairman, I think Governor Engler is
here. He is across the hall at the Senate Finance Committee.
Chairman Byrd. Okay. When he comes, someone will help him
to his chair at the table, please. After we hear from Senator
Stevens we will then hear from each of our five witnesses, and
then we will have a round of questions by members of this
committee. We will hear from our Nation's Governors this
morning, who present the views of the National Governor's
Association on homeland security issues.
Governor John Engler of Michigan is currently serving as
chairman of the National Governor's Association. Governor
Engler was first elected as Governor in 1990 and that makes him
now the Nation's most senior Governor. Governor Roy Barnes of
Georgia was elected Governor in 1998 and is now serving as
Georgia's 80th Governor. Georgia is one of the original 13. I
recall that William Few and Abraham Baldwin of Georgia signed
the Constitution of the United States.
Governor Barnes. Along with Burton Gwinnett.
Chairman Byrd. No, no, just two. Those two signed the--
there were others that attended, but only those two signed.
Governor Gary Locke of Washington was elected as Washington's
21st Governor in 1996. He was re-elected in 2000 to a second
term. These Governors are on the front lines in our Nation's
homeland security effort. We want to hear from them. We want to
hear about what is happening at the State level. We know the
homeland security initiative won't work unless all levels of
government are working together.
We also have Dr. Stephen Gale from the University of
Pennsylvania. Dr. Gale is an associate professor of political
science at the University and also the director of the
organizational dynamics program. He is an expert on the subject
of terrorism, having done extensive research on it. He also is
a consultant on security and terrorism issues.
We are also privileged to have Dr. Ashton Carter from
Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Dr. Carter
is the Ford Foundation Professor of Science and International
Affairs at the Kennedy School. He serves as co-director, with
former Secretary of Defense William Perry, of the Harvard-
Stanford Preventive Defense Project. He served as Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy from
1993 to 1996.
We welcome all of you. We thank you all for coming. So, I
now turn to my colleague, the ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Stevens, for any comments he
wishes to make.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
welcome the opportunity to join you in convening these hearings
before our committee. And I'm going to ask that my full
statement appear in the record as so read, because I'm sure
that others have comments to make too, and I want to get along
with our hearing.
I want to re-emphasize that the Chairman has conferred with
me on all of the witnesses and we have attempted to respond to
the wishes of national organizations, such as the Governor's
Council and other organizations, to pick representatives of
national committees to show that we have the views of those who
are deeply concerned with homeland defense. I think the actions
that have been taken by our President and Congress reflect a
level of cooperation and mutual trust that has not been
witnessed since the Second World War. And we really have a deep
problem now to pursue the requests that have been made by the
President and to get the information we need to really
determine how the funds that are requested should be reflected
in the actions of this committee, and how they should be
treated, really.
We have a $27 billion request from the President to fight
terrorists abroad, and we also have a package of $38 billion in
homeland defense initiatives presented by the President. It is
a combination of $65 billion. It reflects the largest
commitment of Federal resources to any security threat since
the Vietnam War, and significantly exceeds the $15 billion
appropriated by the President during the Gulf War.
We have to reassure the public that the Congress and the
President are prepared to make available whatever resources are
needed to meet the threats. Mr. Chairman I look forward to not
only these hearings, but I am sure there will be follow-on
hearings where we will hear from various representatives of the
administration to attain their views on the testimony taken
here now. But again, I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for
your approach to this.
It is a bipartisan hearing. It has been scheduled and the
witnesses represent--maybe not exactly the witnesses I would
have had the revolution not taken place last year--but they
certainly reflect our judgment on the balance that is necessary
to pursue this very complicated subject. So again, I thank you
very much and look forward to this hearing.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Ted Stevens
Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to join you in convening
these hearings before our committee.
In response to the horrific attacks against our nation on September
11th, we have all learned how vulnerable our nation was to the actions
of determined, suicidal murderers.
We have also witnessed the strength of the character of the
American people, who while mourning our dead, sought justice and
security for the living.
The actions taken by our President and Congress reflect a level of
cooperation and mutual trust not witnessed since the Second World War.
In a matter of days following the attacks against New York and
Washington, the Congress and the White House joined in a $40 billion
package to set the nation on the right course to respond to the
humanitarian crisis in New York, secure our borders and air space, and
go after the Al Queda and Taliban terrorists.
By any definition, that effort in the intervening seven months has
been an extraordinary success.
Our work in this regard is far from finished.
While we have made great progress in the war against terrorism, we
have taken only the initial steps in a comprehensive campaign to ensure
our nation is secure at home, as well as militarily powerful abroad.
This committee is uniquely charged with allocating resources among
federal agencies to address these threats.
The testimony by non-governmental witnesses over the next two days
will shed considerable light on the perceived threats and challenges at
every level of government in our nation, and by those who will be
called upon first to respond to any potential future attacks.
Before the committee now is a $27 billion request by the President
for these next steps in the fight against terrorism, at home and
abroad.
Later this year, the committee will consider a package of $38
billion in homeland defense initiatives presented by the President.
This combination of $65 billion reflects the largest commitment of
federal resources to any security threat since the Vietnam War, and
significantly exceeds the $15 billion appropriated by Congress for the
gulf war.
Our job is to consider these requests, and make sure the money goes
to meet the most pressing needs, and will deliver real security for the
taxpayers of this nation.
It is my hope the chairman will follow these hearings with sessions
where senior administration officials will testify, and explain the
priorities reflected in this package of $65 billion in counter-
terrorism and homeland defense priorities.
There is no question the Congress and the President are prepared to
make available whatever resources are need for this fight.
We must equally be vigilant that the federal resources provided
focus on the aspects of this war that the federal government should,
and must take responsibility for.
I look forward to the testimony by the witnesses scheduled for
today and tomorrow, and again thank the chairman for taking this
initiative.
ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENTS
[Clerk's Note.--Several members have asked that their
submitted statements be made part of the record.]
Prepared Statement of Senator Christopher S. Bond
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling these two days of hearings on
homeland security with a primary focus on state and local capabilities
and needs with regard to acts of terrorism. The VA/HUD Appropriations
Subcommittee has held four hearings since September 11th on homeland
security issues which included testimony from mayors on local needs and
capacity, testimony by the EPA on anthrax and the clean-up of the
Senate Hart building, testimony on the needs of America's firefighters,
and testimony by FEMA on its role in terrorism response. Nevertheless,
there are many issues and concerns that need to be addressed as we move
forward on the President's budget request for fiscal year 2003 and the
fiscal year 2002 Supplemental and these hearings are critical to a
better and more complete understanding of the issues and costs.
While the President has advanced a plan since September 11th which
the Congress has begun to fund, there is still significant work to be
finished before we have in place the necessary protection and
capacities to respond to both the threat of acts of terrorism and the
consequences of such acts. In particular, we need a statutory structure
that will enable the various agencies of both the states and the
federal government to coordinate and build a federal, state and local
capacity to fully respond to acts of terrorism, including acts
involving weapons of mass destruction.
We must do more to ensure that states and localities have the
needed resources, training and equipment to respond to threats and acts
of terrorism and the consequences of such acts. In response, the
President is proposing to fund FEMA at an unprecedented $3.5 billion
for fiscal year 2003 to ensure that the Nation will not be caught
unaware again by a cowardly act of terrorism and is fully capable of
responding to both the threat and consequence of any act of terrorism.
More recently, the President has requested $327 million in the fiscal
year 2002 Supplemental appropriation as an additional downpayment this
year for FEMA to provide equipment and training grants to states and
localities to improve terrorism and chemical-biological response
capabilities. These funds include $50 million for the President's new
Citizen Corp initiative.
Despite the response to September 11th, the current capacity of our
communities and our First Responders vary widely across the United
States, with even the best prepared States and localities lacking
crucial resources and expertise. Many areas have little or no ability
to cope or respond to the consequences and aftermath of a terrorist
attack, especially ones that use weapons of mass destruction, including
biological or chemical toxins or nuclear radioactive weapons.
The recommended commitment of funding in the President's Budget for
fiscal years 2002 and 2003 is only the first step. There also needs to
be a comprehensive approach that identifies and meets state and local
First Responder needs, both rural and urban, pursuant to federal
leadership, benchmarks and guidelines.
As part of this approach, I introduced S. 2061, the National
Response to Terrorism and Consequence Management Act of 2002. This
legislation is intended to move the federal government forward in
developing that comprehensive approach with regard to the consequence
management of acts of terrorism. The bill establishes in FEMA an office
for coordinating the federal, state and local capacity to respond to
the aftermath and consequences of acts of terrorism. This essentially
represents a beginning statutory structure for the existing Office of
National Preparedness within FEMA as the responsibilities in this
legislation are consistent with many of the actions of that office
currently. This bill also provides FEMA with the authority to make
grants of technical assistance to states to develop the capacity and
coordination of resources to respond to acts of terrorism. In addition,
the bill authorizes $100 million for states to operate fire and safety
programs as a step to further build the capacity of fire departments to
respond to local emergencies as well as the often larger problems posed
by acts of terrorism. America's firefighters are, with the police and
emergency medical technicians, the backbone of our Nation and the first
line of defense in responding to the consequences of acts of terrorism.
The legislation also formally recognizes and funds the urban search
and rescue task force response system at $160 million in fiscal year
2002. The Nation currently is served by 28 urban search and rescue task
forces which proved to be a key resource in our Nation's ability to
quickly respond to the tragedy of September 11th. In addition, Missouri
is the proud home of one of these urban search and rescue task forces,
Missouri Task Force 1. Missouri Task Force 1 made a tremendous
difference in helping the victims of the horrific tragedy at the World
Trade Center as well as assisting to minimize the aftermath of this
tragedy. These task forces currently are underfunded and underequipped,
but, nonetheless, are committed to be the front-line solders for our
local governments in responding to the worst consequences of terrorism
at the local level. I believe we have an obligation to realize fully
the capacity of these 28 search and rescue task forces to meet First
Responder events and this legislation authorizes the needed funding.
Finally, the bill removes the risk of litigation that currently
discourages the donation of fire equipment to volunteer fire
departments. As we have discovered in the last several years, volunteer
fire departments are underfunded, leaving the firefighters with the
desire and will to assist their communities to fight fires and respond
to local emergencies but without the necessary equipment or training
that is so critical to the success of their profession. We have started
providing needed funding for these departments through the Fire Act
Grant program at FEMA. However, more needs to be done and this
legislation is intended to facilitate the donation of used, but useful,
equipment to these volunteer fire departments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Prepared Statement of Senator Tim Johnson
I would like to thank Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens for holding
this series of hearings on homeland security. There is no issue of more
importance to the long-term safety of the American people than our
ability to establish and coordinate an effective homeland security
policy. As we begin to consider our budgetary priorities for fiscal
year 2003, it is appropriate for the full Appropriations Committee to
conduct a detailed examination of the complex issues surrounding our
homeland security needs. By relying on the information and expertise of
a broad array of on-the-ground experts, I am hopeful these hearings
will highlight not only what we are doing right, but areas in which
Congress must better focus attention and resources.
Our country's reaction to the tragedies of September 11 was nothing
short of remarkable. Despite the devastating attacks and the fear of an
uncertain future, there was no panic in the streets. Instead, the
American people were somber and resolute in our commitment to honor
those who had died, to rebuild from the destruction, and to ensure that
we would decrease our vulnerability to future terrorist attacks.
In confronting the challenges presented by homeland security, we
face two major obstacles. First, the very idea of defending the entire
United States from future attacks is daunting because our nation is so
large and the threats are so diverse. From airport security to public
health, from food safety to improved border control, homeland security
requires a comprehensive strategy. The complexity of the problem and
the need to define the scope of the threats is one of the reasons why
these hearings are so important.
The second major challenge of homeland security is coordinating the
efforts of federal, state, and local agencies. This means ensuring
there is compatibility between the various agencies, and that local
entities have sufficient funding to fulfill their homeland security
missions. Work in this area has already begun, thanks in large part to
Senator Byrd's insistence that we make a down payment on homeland
security needs in last year's budget.
As a result of that money, the South Dakota Division of Emergency
Management is providing equipment acquisition grants to South Dakota
cities to identify, isolate, and clean-up hazardous materials. FEMA is
providing grants to local firefighters to make certain they have the
equipment necessary to respond to new threats. Federal dollars are
being used to upgrade ambulance services across the state with new
computers and software that will streamline data collection and improve
communications. These resources will allow the ambulance services to
communicate and share information in the event of a widespread bio-
terrorism attack. Over the last few years, I have worked to secure
federal funding to upgrade the NOAA weather radio system in South
Dakota. In addition to providing timely information about dangerous
weather, this system will also be used to distribute official notices
and instructions in the event of a bio-hazard or bio-terrorism attack.
Not only should we focus on providing resources to new efforts, we
should also utilize existing programs and activities to strengthen our
homeland security response initiatives. The Disaster Mental Health
Institute (DMHI) at the University of South Dakota provides mental
health services to communities following major tragedies. The DMHI is a
truly ``one-of-a kind'' Center of Excellence whose members have
literally served around the world in response to emergency situations,
including New York City in the wake of the September 11 attacks.
I would also like to note that the University of South Dakota
School of Medicine will be holding a 2-day symposium in May on the risk
and response to bio-terrorism. This symposium is designed to help
medical personnel, hospital administrators, law enforcement, first
responders, and elected officials discuss the importance of multi-
disciplinary disaster planning and to develop active steps for the next
level of disaster planning.
These are just a few examples of how state and local entities in
South Dakota are beginning to address the challenges of homeland
security. As we look to build upon the funding approved in fiscal year
2002, we must keep in mind the needs of rural America. Often faced with
geographic isolation, low population density, and poor economic
conditions, many rural areas confront the same risks as urban centers,
but lack the funds needed for proper equipment and training. As we
prepare to defend America, we cannot let rural America fall further
behind.
Let me also take a few moments to talk about one of the most
important federal-state partnerships that is already yielding benefits
in the effort to secure our nation. The National Guard is the oldest
component of our Armed Forces. Since its earliest days, the Guard has
served a dual, federal-state role. The National Guard provides states
with trained and equipped units available to protect life and property
during emergency situations. In addition, the Guard provides the
federal government with military units trained and available to be
called up to active duty to defend our nation. Since September 11, more
than 50,000 members of the National Guard have been called up by the
states and federal government to provide homeland security and to fight
the war on terrorism. As we speak, the National Guard can be found
protecting our nation's airports, assisting at critical U.S. border
checkpoints, flying protective missions over U.S. cities, and providing
disaster preparedness in the states. I am certainly proud of the men
and women serving in the South Dakota National Guard. Their
contributions to the security of the people of South Dakota and the
nation are greatly appreciated.
One of the most important lessons learned over the last few months
is that homeland security is not just an issue for the federal
government--the front lines are in our local communities, whether that
community is New York or Aberdeen, South Dakota. Almost immediately
after September 11, in small towns and big cities across the country,
communities began to come together to examine what they needed to do to
protect themselves and their families. The challenges are enormous.
Yet, I have no doubt about our ultimate ability to prevail against
terrorism both abroad and here at home. Once again, I thank Senators
Byrd and Stevens for holding these hearings and for their leadership on
this committee. I look forward to hearing the ideas of our witnesses
and to working with my colleagues to ensure Congress provides the
resources necessary to keep the American people safe.
Chairman Byrd. Governor Locke, would you proceed first?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, before the Governor speaks,
if I could just have a moment just to welcome the Governor from
my home State of Washington here. He has travelled a long way
to be here this morning and I really appreciate his coming and
joining us. He has a great deal of expertise to share with this
committee this morning. Washington State has an international
border. We have major seaports, major airports, critical
defense installations. As the members of this committee know,
we have had first hand experience with potential terrorists
when in December of 1999 an al Qaeda insider named Ahmed Ressam
came across our border and was apprehended. So I really
appreciate the Governor coming here today and sharing his
expertise with all of us, and I am pleased to be able to
introduce him to this committee today.
Chairman Byrd. The Chair thanks Senator Murray. Governor
Locke, would you----
Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, could I interrupt?
Chairman Byrd. Mr. Stevens.
Senator Stevens. I note that there's only cameras on this
side of the aisle--of our table. I wonder why the gallery on
the other side is not open for the press also?
Chairman Byrd. We don't do that.
Senator Stevens. Well I'd like to be informed later, thank
you. I thank you very much Senator.
Chairman Byrd. I had nothing to do with the placement of
the cameras, certainly. And I want my Republican friends to
have equal billing here. That has always been my position.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Chairman Byrd. Governor Locke.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY LOCKE, GOVERNOR, STATE OF
WASHINGTON
Governor Locke. Thank you very much, Chairman Byrd, Senator
Stevens, Senator Murray and members of the Senate
Appropriations Committee. Thank you very much for the
opportunity to testify on homeland security on behalf of the
State of Washington and its citizens. I especially want to
thank you all for continuing to make homeland security a top
priority, a non-partisan priority, and especially as it
involves State and local governments.
September 11th dealt a very hard blow to Washington State's
economy and our State's budget situation. Because of our heavy
reliance on the aerospace industry, the nature of the September
11th attacks and their devastating impact on air transportation
across our country, plunged our State into recession. The
national recession, which was severely aggravated by the events
of September 11th, has cost Washington over 70,000 jobs, and
sent our unemployment rate soaring to a high 7.6 percent, the
second highest in the Nation.
At the same time, the national unemployment rate was around
6 percent. And while it appears that the national economy is
beginning to rebound, Boeing is not yet half way through its
announced lay offs of some 30,000 aerospace jobs in the State
of Washington. The economic recovery in our State will
significantly lag the rest of the Nation.
Washington State has also had to close a $1.6 billion
deficit. We accomplished this with over $700 million in painful
cuts in human services and education programs, layoffs of State
employees and other measures. Despite these challenges,
Washington State is strongly committed to partnering with the
Federal Government to ensure strong homeland security.
Our agencies and public health jurisdictions have already
spent an additional $8 million since September 11th on a wide
range of terrorism response measures, including increased
overtime pay for public health and law enforcement personnel,
new equipment, statewide vulnerability assessments and response
plans, protection of our ferrys and other transportation
facilities, and other prevention measures. But the national
recession and severe budget shortfalls experienced by some 40
States across our country place real limits on what the States
can do. We must have sustained Federal financial assistance,
since the Federal Government has the primary responsibility for
homeland security.
For our State that means an immediate and long term
financial commitment to bolster the security of our seaports
and other infrastructure, such as railroads, highways and
bridges. Washington State, with its extensive coastline, is
vulnerable and has already experienced the smuggling of human
cargo through its international ports. I urge the committee's
favorable consideration of the administration's request for
additional funding for the United States Coast Guard.
There's also an urgent need for sustained Federal support
for bioterrorism preparedness, including support to the States
and local communities to develop plans and hold terrorism
response exercises. Since these new threats are long term the
United States must adopt new approaches that ensure multi-year
Federal funding, much as the Congress has historically done for
the Department of Defense.
One of the issues of critical importance include the need
to share critical intelligence and security information with
key State and local officials who must partner with the Federal
Government to prevent terrorism. Governors need timely and
secure access to intelligence information from a number of
Federal agencies, and those agencies need to share information
with one another as well as with State officials. It is both
costly and grossly inefficient to require our officials to
obtain a separate security clearance from each separate Federal
agency or for one Federal agency to refuse to recognize the
security clearances granted by another Federal agency. And
that, Mr. Chairman, is the current situation.
For example, State agencies are trying to get security
clearances from FEMA. And should those be granted, the
clearances will not allow us to receive similar intelligence
information from the FBI. Federal security clearances should be
standardized and reciprocal between agencies and levels of
government.
Border security is absolutely critical for our State, which
has one of the busiest border crossings in the Nation. While
Washington State has not had a single credible terrorist threat
against it, its people or any installations within the State of
Washington, a documented terrorist was apprehended entering
Washington State from Canada just before the new millennium.
Ahmed Ressam was arrested getting off a car ferry at Port
Angeles on his way to commit a terrorist attack against LA
International Airport. His car was loaded with explosives.
I am therefore grateful for the authorization of increased
Federal staffing along the United States-Canadian border.
However, I and many other Governors along the United States-
Canadian border are still concerned about one, the length of
time it is taking to add trained border agents along our United
States-Canada border. And two, until additional border agents
are in place we are concerned about the decision to Federalize
the National Guard troops for border duty. And we also have
grave concerns about the decision to have these troops serve
unarmed. That decision results in the inefficient deployment of
our National Guard men and women, and adds an undue burden on
Federal agencies to provide force protection when they should
be focused on preventing suspicious materials and people from
entering the country.
Here is an example. Some of our border crossings are closed
at night, but they are still monitored by armed border agents.
But because our National Guardsmen are unarmed, under the terms
of their Federal deployment, they cannot be be the sole
security force at night. They cannot free up these Federal
agents for re-deployment to other, busier parts of our border,
thereby helping provide greater security and ease and speed up
the flow of people across our borders.
The National Guard troops should be activated under Title
32, or State control, in the same manner the States activated
the Guard for airport security. Under State authority the
Nation's Governors provided immediate assistance to the Federal
Government at the airports within days of the September 11th
attacks. Under the Federalization approach it has taken almost
6 months to get relief at our Nation's border crossings.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I emphasize the important role of
the States in managing and coordinating homeland security
funding. Although a large percentage of funds clearly must
support community-based emergency preparedness and first
responders, those funds should be channeled through the States
to ensure a calculated and collaborative statewide strategy. In
Washington State for example, we have an Emergency Management
Council that includes representatives of our cities, counties,
fire chiefs, police chiefs, sheriffs, Federal agencies,
National Guard, seismic safety experts, public health, search
and rescue personnel, and the private industry.
The Emergency Management Council, in turn, has a committee
on terrorism that has been meeting monthly for the past 2\1/2\
years. It includes 60 people including Federal agents. These
groups advise the adjutant general and me on emergency
preparedness strategies and policies. And our State is using
these groups to oversee the distribution and allocation of FEMA
and Department of Justice grant monies, and other Federal
funds, to ensure a coordinated and collaborative strategy for
using Federal funds to enhance our preparation and response to
any acts of terrorism.
Only in that manner can programs be implemented
consistently and comprehensively to raise capacity throughout
all regions of our Nation. And because of the severe deficits
faced by some 40 States, and most local governments within
those States, traditional Federal match requirements, including
so-called soft-matches, may be difficult if not impossible for
jurisdictions to achieve. We ask that you consider that as you
make any appropriations and provide any Federal assistance to
the States and local governments.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee I urge you to
develop a consistent, long term funding structure that helps
State and local governments prepare for this new era of global
terrorism. And, I thank you for your leadership to help our
States and our Nation respond to this new but very real threat
to our peace and freedoms. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement Governor Gary Locke
Chairman Byrd, Senator Stevens, and members of the Committee, I
appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony to you regarding
homeland security impacts on the State of Washington and its citizens.
I want to thank you for your kind invitation to present this
testimony in person to the full committee. And I want to thank you all
for continuing to make support for state and local government homeland
security a top national priority.
SEPTEMBER 11 AND WASHINGTON'S ECONOMY
It is important to place the impact of the September 11 terrorist
attacks within the context of Washington's economy and the pressures
placed on it in recent months. Because our state is so heavily reliant
on the aerospace industry, the attacks had a particularly severe impact
on Washington. The nature of the attacks and their devastating effects
on air transportation dealt a more severe blow to our economy than to
the economies of most other states and the nation.
Prior to September 11, the state was already in the midst of an
aerospace downturn, which had resulted in the loss of 27,400 jobs
between 1998 and 2000. That downturn appeared to be over. But, in the
wake of the attacks, Boeing announced 20,000 to 30,000 additional lay-
offs. The majority of those were in Washington, home of the commercial
airline unit.
The events of September 11 exacerbated the national economic
downturn and, due mostly to cutbacks in aerospace, plunged Washington
into recession.
These impacts have been felt in our employment rates. Since
September 11, Washington has experienced deep declines in employment.
Payroll employment fell at a 3.2 percent rate in the fourth quarter of
2001. That followed a 2.4 percent drop in the third quarter and a 2.5
percent reduction in the second quarter. Only twice in the last 40
years has Washington seen such a precipitous decline in its employment
rates.
Altogether, the national recession, severely aggravated by the
events of September 11, has cost Washington over 70,000 jobs and sent
its unemployment rate soaring to a high of 7.6 percent, the second
highest in the nation. At the same time, the national unemployment rate
was six percent.
Washington, like other northern tier states, has an extensive and
largely unprotected border with Canada. For that reason, border
security is a critical priority for our state, which has one of the
busiest border crossings in the nation. While we have not had any
credible terrorist threats, Washington has had instances where known
terrorists, like Ahmed Ressam, have been apprehended while trying to
enter the United States from Canada.
In addition, our communities bordering Canada were severely
impacted by heavy traffic congestion and delays at border crossings in
the wake of September 11 events. Early estimates from border
communities showed that they experienced a 50 percent reduction in
retail sales attributable to Canadian shoppers immediately after
September 11. They have not yet recovered.
Washington and other northern tier states sincerely appreciate the
additional federal staffing that has been authorized at Canadian border
crossings as a result of actions taken by this Committee and the
special efforts of Senators Murray and Cantwell.
All of these devastating effects have caused severe budget problems
for the state. In December of 2001, our General Fund budget problem
stood at more that $1 billion. By mid-February of this year, the
projected problem had risen to $1.6 billion. The Legislature closed the
gap for this biennium with almost $700 million in painful budget cuts
and a mixture of other equally difficult measures. The aftermath of
September 11 will continue to present difficult fiscal challenges even
in the next biennium.
Coping with these budget problems has been a daunting task for our
state agencies, which are now faced with a hiring freeze and extensive
layoffs to erase the red ink.
STATE HOMELAND SECURITY EFFORTS AND NEEDS
In spite of these challenges, our agencies and local public health
jurisdictions responded to the call for increased homeland security.
They are facing unprecedented responsibilities in providing for
sustained security and protection of critical infrastructure. They have
expended an additional $8 million on terrorism response activities,
ranging from increased overtime pay for public health and emergency
personnel, purchasing new specialized equipment and gear, preparing
risk and vulnerability assessments and response plans, protecting
transportation facilities such as our state ferries, enhancing
electronic monitoring capacity, and other actions.
Faced with declining economies and severe budget shortfalls,
Washington, like other states, must receive sustained financial
assistance from the federal government, which has the primary
responsibility to provide for homeland security.
Security of our nation's seaports and related infrastructure must
receive immediate and long-term federal attention and funding.
Washington, with its extensive coastline, is particularly vulnerable
and has already experienced smuggling of human cargo through its ports.
I, therefore, urge the Committee to give favorable consideration to the
Administration's request for additional funding for the U.S. Coast
Guard.
PUBLIC HEALTH NEEDS AND THE BIOTERRORISM THREAT
Public health and homeland security are absolutely critical. In the
post-September 11 world, we must assume that a major bioterrorism
attack is a likely occurrence. It is our responsibility to prepare and
train accordingly. But states need a sustained financial commitment to
preparedness, so we can be ready to protect public health during a
bioterrorism incident, an infectious disease outbreak, and during other
health emergencies.
Preparedness is an expensive but essential investment. Every part
of our state must be ready. Our citizens live near unprotected borders,
major dams, nuclear sites, and military bases. We need the resources to
plan for emergencies, train the people who will be responding first,
and practice so we are prepared.
We have identified several immediate needs that must have a
continued source of funding if we are to successfully address
bioterrorism threats. These include increased local and state
communicable disease surveillance to detect bioterrorism events,
training of clinicians, hospital staff, and first responders, secure
statewide communication systems, and enhanced public health laboratory
capacity.
The National Pharmaceutical Stockpile is an integral part of
preparedness. However, states urgently need resources so they can be
ready to use it. States and local communities must develop and exercise
plans for receiving the stockpile and distributing the medication to
people quickly and efficiently.
We are grateful that Congress and your committee recognized the
importance of these needs and that we will be receiving funding for
many of them in fiscal 2002. But, it is critical these programs receive
continued funding in future years.
During our nation's civil war, President Abraham Lincoln cautioned,
``As our cause is new, we must think anew and act anew''. We now face
unprecedented threats to our homeland security. As these threats are
new, we must think anew and act anew. And as these threats are long
term, we must adopt a long-term operational and fiscal plan for
defending against and defeating those who would attack our citizens.
This new approach will require programmed, multi-year federal funding
for homeland security and bioterrorism protection, much as we have done
historically for the Department of Defense.
SHARING CRITICAL SECURITY INFORMATION
A second critical need involves sharing of sensitive information on
terrorist threats from all federal sources with Governors and other key
state officials and local public safety officials. The sharing of
intelligence is critical if we are to make informed decisions at all
levels of government regarding terrorist threats, and effectively
defend against them. Most of this information comes from federal
sources, and there must be a system that provides timely access to it
in order to prevent or mitigate terrorist attacks.
At the request of my office and the State Attorney General's
office, Washington's Legislature recently approved legislation that
modified our open public records law to expand restrictions on the
release of sensitive terrorism-related documents, including those
received from federal agencies. We now have much greater assurance that
these documents will be protected and not end up in the hands of those
who would harm our citizens.
CROSS RECOGNITION OF SECURITY CLEARANCES
A related and equally important issue is the need to ensure that
federal security clearances for key state and local officials are
standardized and reciprocal between agencies and levels of government.
It does not make sense for state and local officials who need access to
critical terrorism-related intelligence to be required to obtain a
separate security clearance from each separate federal agency or for
one federal agency to refuse to recognize security clearances granted
by another federal agency. That is what is currently happening and it
is costly and grossly inefficient.
As Governor, I need timely and secure access to intelligence
information from a number of federal agencies and those federal
agencies need to be able to share information with one another and with
me and other key state officials, such as Adjutants General, state
Secretaries of Health, and state police chiefs, as well as with key
local officials, such as mayors and county executives.
BORDER SECURITY AND THE FEDERALIZATION OF THE GUARD
With respect to border security, we are grateful for the increased
federal staffing that has been authorized and for the use of National
Guard troops to augment other federal resources on the borders.
However, we continue to have concerns about the decision to federalize
these troops under Title 10 of the United States Code, and have grave
concerns about the decision to allow these troops to serve unarmed.
That decision places these troops in unnecessary danger and adds undue
burden on federal agents to provide force protection when they should
be focused on preventing suspicious materials and people from entering
the country.
We believe these troops should be activated under Title 32 in the
service of the United States in the same manner as the Guard was
activated for airport security immediately following the September 11
attacks and as the Guard has been used to support law enforcement
agencies for more than a decade under the National Guard Counter-Drug
Program. Title 32 duty allows the Guard to be used in the service of
the federal government while retaining a meaningful role for the
governors and the states in overall mission execution. Title 32 duty
also assures equal pay and benefits for equal service regardless of a
Guard member's duty location. Title 32 facilitates use of the entire
National Guard, both Army and Air, as has been done for airport
security, as opposed to use of one service component only, as has been
done with federalization of the Army National Guard for border
security. Using the entire National Guard force, both Army and Air,
under the state's Title 32 force management authority significantly
enhances our ability to assist the federal government while assuring
our preparedness for state emergencies.
Finally, Title 32 duty is far more cost efficient, flexible, and
responsive in meeting federal needs than is Title 10 duty. The nation's
governors provided no-notice assistance to the federal government in
deploying Air and Army National Guard troops to 420 airports within
days of the September 11 attacks. This mission has been carried out in
direct support of the designated lead federal agency, the FAA, and has
been executed flawlessly and in a uniform manner at airports in every
state, territory, and the District of Columbia.
By contrast, in October and November 2001, border state governors
proffered, and federal agencies such as the Border Patrol, Customs and
the INS specifically asked for, Title 32 National Guard assistance for
enhancing security and speeding private and commercial vehicle passage
at our nation's land border crossings. Because of the Defense
Department's insistence on federalizing the Army National Guard for
this mission, a costly national command structure had to be created and
the mission has taken more than six (6) months to get off the ground.
Under Title 32, the federal government had critical National Guard
assistance at our airports in less than six days; under Title 10 it has
taken more than six months to get relief at our nation's border
crossings.
FEDERAL FUNDING AND THE STATE'S ROLE
Finally, I wish to address the important issues of how federal
funding is made available to state and local governments and what
restrictions or qualifications should be placed on eligibility for
homeland security assistance. It is critical that federal funding for
homeland security be allocated to the states for distribution to local
governments. Although a large percentage of homeland security funding
should be earmarked for enhancing the preparedness of our community-
based emergency management organizations and emergency responder
agencies, it must be channeled through the states in order to insure
enhancement of regional intra-state improvements in our domestic
security infrastructure.
In Washington, for example, we have a state Emergency Management
Council that includes representatives of our cities, counties, fire
chiefs, police chiefs, sheriffs, National Guard, seismic safety
experts, public health, building officials, search and rescue, and
private industry. The Emergency Management Council, in turn, has a
Committee on Terrorism that has been meeting monthly for the past two
and one half years. The Committee on Terrorism includes representatives
from more than 60 federal, state, local and private sector
organizations. These bodies function under state law to advise the
Adjutant General and me on emergency preparedness strategies and
policies.
We also use these bodies to oversee the distribution and allocation
of FEMA and Department of Justice grant monies and other federal funds
to assure a conscious, calculated, and collaborative strategy for using
federal funds to enhance our community and regional intra-state
preparation for natural and manmade disasters. Only in that manner can
programs be implemented consistently and comprehensively to raise
capacity throughout all regions of the nation.
I began my testimony by acknowledging the daunting financial
challenges the attacks of September 11 have thrust upon the state of
Washington. Governors, legislators, and local officials throughout the
nation are confronted with similar challenges and, like Washington, are
unable to generate revenues sufficient to meet the new demands of
homeland security while still satisfying the other mandates of state
and local governance.
As the threat to our national security is new, so we must think
anew and act anew. The federal government must take a new approach in
order to ``jump start'' national preparedness for further terrorist
attacks. It is imperative that homeland security funding for the next
two to three fiscal years (what I refer to as the critical
transformation period for assuring homeland security) not be tied to
traditional federal matching requirements. Under current economic
conditions, and in light of new national security demands, traditional
matching requirements are simply a bridge too far and will preclude
states and local governments from taking the steps necessary to enhance
our national security. As much as we recognize the need for enhancing
our emergency response infrastructure, many states and local
governments will not be able to take advantage of federal
transformation initiatives because of a lack of matching funds.
Given the sheer size of the national problem and the magnitude of
the funding that Congress has recognized is needed, so-called ``soft
matches'' may be equally difficult or impossible to achieve. I,
therefore, urge you to develop a transformation strategy for making
necessary funds available to the states, and through the states to
local governments, for enhancing state, local, regional and national
preparedness for this new era of global terrorism.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Biographical Sketch of Governor Gary Locke
MAKING WASHINGTON A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE, WORK, AND RAISE A FAMILY
Gary Locke was elected Washington's 21st governor on Nov. 5, 1996,
making him the first Chinese-American governor in U.S. history. As
governor, he has worked to make Washington public schools the best in
the nation, promote jobs and economic development in rural and urban
areas, and fight juvenile crime. On Nov. 7, 2000, the governor, a
Democrat, was re-elected to his second term.
Born into an immigrant family on Jan. 21, 1950, Gary spent his
first six years in Seattle's Yesler Terrace, a public housing project
for families of World War II veterans. His father, James Locke, served
in the 5th Armored Division of the U.S. Army under General George
Patton and landed on the beaches of Normandy shortly after D-Day.
Following the war, James Locke met his wife, Julie, in Hong Kong and
settled in Seattle, where they raised their five children.
Gary worked in his father's grocery store. He worked hard, became
an Eagle Scout, and graduated with honors from Seattle's Franklin High
School in 1968. Then, through a combination of part-time jobs,
financial aid and scholarships, Gary attended Yale University, where he
received his bachelor's degree in political science in 1972. After
earning a law degree from Boston University in 1975, he worked for
several years as a deputy prosecutor in King County, prosecuting people
for crimes such as robbery and murder.
In 1982, Gary was elected to the Washington State House of
Representatives, where he served on the House Judiciary and
Appropriations committees, with his final five years as chairman of the
House Appropriations Committee. As chairman, Gary negotiated bipartisan
budgets that increased college and university enrollments, improved
children's health-care services, and strengthened environmental
protections.
Gary was elected chief executive of King County in 1993 and took on
all of the challenges facing Washington's most complex urban area.
During his term, he cut the budget, expanded transit services,
established a program to reward county departments for saving money,
and developed a nationally acclaimed growth management plan.
As governor, Gary has worked to make Washington a better place to
live, work, and raise a family. Believing that education is the great
equalizer, he has made it his top priority. He created Washington's
Promise Scholarships for top high school students from working, middle-
class families. He has pushed to hire more teachers and to reduce class
size in the K-12 system. He appointed an Academic Achievement and
Accountability Commission to help identify and improve schools that are
struggling in the effort to raise test scores. He also created the
Washington Reading Corps to help students who are struggling as they
learn to read. And his Youth Safety Summit brought together educators,
community leaders, students, and law enforcement leaders to begin
addressing school violence.
In 1997, Gary signed into law a landmark welfare reform bill that
puts work first and has reduced the number of families on welfare by
almost a third. He helped roll back business and occupation taxes for
businesses, and in 1999 refunded $200 million in taxes from the injured
workers fund. He has also put forward a Rural Economic Development
proposal to help rural economies grow by making vital funds available
for infrastructure development and work force training. Gary proposed a
transportation plan in 1998 that provides strategic solutions for
congested traffic corridors in urban areas, focusing on basics such as
maintenance and highway improvements. His Offender Accountability Act
will increase the supervision of felons after they have served their
time.
Gary and his wife, Mona Locke, a former reporter for KING 5
television in Seattle, were married on Oct. 15, 1994. They are the
parents of Emily Nicole, born on March 9, 1997, and Dylan James, born
on March 13, 1999.
Chairman Byrd. Thank you. Governor Engler we are glad to
see you this morning. We thank you for your appearance. You've
already been introduced. Why do not you proceed please?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENGLER, GOVERNOR, STATE OF
MICHIGAN
Governor Engler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens,
members of the committee. I apologize for my late arrival. I
was in front of Senator Rockefeller and Senator Grassley, and
either their question or my answer was too long. But I am
honored to be here this morning and to join my colleagues,
Governor Locke from Washington and Governor Barnes of Georgia.
I'd also like to submit for the record more extensive testimony
that represents the position of the National Governors
Association.
Chairman Byrd. Your testimony will appear in the record as
though stated.
Governor Engler. Thank you. I want to thank this body for
its willingness to work in a bipartisan basis with the
administration and America's Governors as we develop a
comprehensive national strategy to protect our people from acts
of terror. When it comes to homeland security it is not about
Republican or Democrat priorities, simply American priorities.
And the National Governors Association is grateful to the
Congress for its focus on homeland security.
The National Governors Association also commends Governor
Ridge for his accessibility to Governors, his willingness to
work closely with State and homeland security officers as we
develop coordinated national security plans. And that is not a
trivial point. As we emphasize in the written testimony, for
our Nation's response to be comprehensive in both theory and
practice the 50 States must be the locus of interaction with
the Federal homeland security effort.
As a common clearinghouse for funding and program
implementation, as Governor Locke just testified very
eloquently, the States are willing to take on the
responsibility of making sure every community is covered. This
will not be the case, though, if homeland defense funding is
scattered to other levels of government that are more limited
in scope. There have been recent news stories on some of the
Justice Department funds, and I think those are unfortunately
maybe the tip of the iceberg on some of this. But, that was
before 9/11 and now it is a different day.
I think Governors recognize that the first responders are
often our local partners. There is no question about that.
Significant funding will need to be passed through to local
government to assure they are trained, equipped and ready to
go. However, without the statewide coordination, there will be
gaps in the emergency-based system. And our people, this
country, cannot risk those gaps.
So, if we are to prevent and to respond to another terror
attack, then the preparation must be comprehensive and across
the board, leaving no community or potential target
unprotected. I'd also like to stress the point that again is in
our submitted testimony, but it regards the interoperability of
communication systems. I think this is a special challenge that
we face.
In this regard, the committee may be interested to learn
just last month in Michigan we enacted a comprehensive strategy
to speed deployment of broadband, high speed Internet
connections. And we think, certainly, there are economic and
educational opportunities that result from broadband deployment
and high speed internet, but enhancing homeland security was
also a very key component of our initiative. The ability to
share data across government agencies, including law
enforcement, at every local level, the emergency management
hospitals, county health departments--absolutely critical. We
have invested in the recent years--we are just bringing online
the last aspect of a state of the art 800 megahertz radio
communications system, nearly $200 million of State money to
build this system out across the State, operated by our
Michigan State Police.
Now we have made it available for use by local law
enforcement and other State and local agencies, and many of
them have come on to this system. But, I guess the point I
would make is that the investment needed to have this kind of
communications capability, to have it done at the right speed
across all agencies, is a substantial cost. And then you add to
it, as we saw in--so important in New York--the need for
redundancy and back up systems, that adds more. And so, State
and local governments are going to struggle trying to bear
these costs alone. I don't think they can handle this all by
themselves.
But, the benefits of this interoperability will spill over
far beyond homeland security, and I think it will have a
positive effect in helping all these agencies be better
equipped to serve the public and carry out there respective
ongoing missions on a day to day basis. But, the Federal
investment is very important, and it is needed.
And I want to stress at the same time, there has been this
investment. But the State coordination is essential because we
can no longer afford or accept the Federal funding that results
in the creation of separate unconnected systems. We literally
have in the State of Michigan examples where different agencies
within the Justice Department in the past had funded different
local communities with systems which couldn't talk to each
other. And today, I think that is a luxury we can no longer
afford.
With regard to bioterrorism expenditures, within 3 months
of September 11th the Michigan experience, through our
Department of Public Health, some $2.6 million were spent
responding to anthrax threats crisis, to bolstering all of our
response capabilities. And we are budgeting now, on a statewide
basis, nearly $29 million in additional immediate investment at
local hospitals, at health departments, and again, in State
laboratories. And again, we are awfully grateful because it has
been the leadership and support from the Congress that formed
the Kennedy-Frist legislation. That makes a big difference,
that helps.
As with bioterrorism preparedness, there are a lot of other
homeland security initiatives too, and our testimony details
some of that and you will hear from each of us. We have spent,
our estimate is, something in the order of $31 million directly
responding to homeland security needs that have been put in
front of us, again, since 9/11. Recurring costs to support
necessary program initiatives are probably going to be in that
$30 million range on an annual basis.
I think, Governor Locke, you have two of us--I think we
both have busy border crossing points. If Governor Pataki were
here he'd be the third one on the Canadian northern border. But
we certainly appreciate the commitment that has been made by
the President and the Congress to add personnel to the borders.
We do need improvements in the staffing. We need a lot of
systems improvements as well. And frankly, this is a scenario
where the Canadians have done a better job, historically, on
the northern border.
Following September 11 the traffic at Michigan's border
crossing with Canada slowed to a crawl. We had delays that were
12 hours or more at border crossings. We operate in the auto
industry on something called just in time. Well, nothing was in
time and on time in those days. While it has gotten back to a
little bit of normalcy now, we still have far more delay than
we need.
Surprisingly, given the amount of trade between the United
States and Canada, it is about $1.3 billion a day, but 43
percent of the traffic flows through Detroit or Port Huron. And
we need that. We need that for the economy. We cannot have it
slowed at the border. We sent in Guard members. We were asked
to do that, and then later on additional Guard were Federalized
and brought in all to assist Customs.
It was amazing to me just adding Guard who were not trained
to be border agents, how much more contraband was being
discovered, what kind of stops were being made that maybe were
not in the past. So, we have got some issues, but we believe--
and I think Governor Locke would agree because he has had some
experience going out of Washington with technology--that
manpower alone is not enough. There has been a lot of
discussions about what would be a smart border approach. And
Mr. Chairman and members, we think that there are some smart
strategies, innovative strategies at the border where you use
new technology, you do a lot more information exchange and
resource sharing, the kind of things we need with Federal and
State agencies. But at the border, we can do a lot.
That is a Federal responsibility. The States do not
maintain the borders. I mean, I often hear let the States do
it. On the borders I am perfectly happy to say that is the
Federal Government's--that is your job. And we want to provide
whatever we can in the way of support to improve the way that
is done. And we recognize that it is going to cost some money.
It is going to take an investment, but we have got to make the
borders better.
And they do have a lot to do with security. In fact,
President McPherson, Peter McPherson at Michigan State who has
spent a lot of time on United States-Canada relations, suggests
that maybe what we really need to look at is the coordination
with the Canadians to the point that we look at the security in
the hemisphere where it really is the water that becomes the
natural boundary. And so, some of that coordination on an
international level to make sure than somebody who is coming to
this hemisphere is actually being appropriately admitted up in
Canada or in the United States. And that might even make our
northern border, at least those problems be a little bit less.
Mr. Chairman, that really is my testimony. I thank you for
the opportunity to be here on behalf of the Governors
Association.
[The statement follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement of Governor John Engler, Governor Roy E.
Barnes, and Governor Gary Locke
Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens, and members of the Committee: The
nation's Governors appreciate this opportunity to discuss the issue of
homeland security. Since September 11, states have responded in every
possible way and at great expense without any certainty of
reimbursement despite the most significant budget shortfalls of at
least a decade--nearly ten percent of state operating funds, or $40
billion overall, with an expectation this will increase to $50 billion
this fiscal year.
Governors are grateful for the Administration's and this
committee's efforts to make support for state and local government
homeland security a top priority. The federal government should provide
adequate funding, support, and information sharing to ensure that
homeland security needs are met. In addition to significant initial
federal investment, ensuring homeland security cannot be a one- or two-
year effort, but rather requires a more permanent recognition of the
vastly changed responsibilities we all confront.
The Office of Homeland Security should have the ultimate authority
to coordinate policy and funding levels from which grants to states
could be provided for sustained state capacity. A well-developed
national strategy and work plan, reflecting the experiences and needs
of local, state, and federal policy officials, should guide the
development and approval of national programs and policies. Maximum
resources must be combined with state and local efforts to achieve a
truly effective national capability to prepare and manage the
consequences of terrorism.
We want to emphasize how critical it is that federal homeland
security funds be funneled through the Governor or a designated state
agency. The ability to coordinate through a single agency or office is
crucial if we are to address the complexity of directing and
coordinating resources towards protecting our citizens.
Before proceeding Mr. Chairman, America's Governors wish to thank
you for your leadership in providing additional funds as part of the
Defense Appropriations bill in the fiscal year 2002 budget directly to
states to immediately enhance the capacity and preparedness to the
state and local public health systems to respond to biological and
chemical attacks, and we appreciate the speed with which your committee
is moving to consider the President's supplemental request for homeland
security. While each Governor works diligently to address public health
threats, they all know that their best response is to develop and
maintain a strong public health infrastructure. Governors hope to
continue a partnership with you to accomplish this objective.
The September 11th terrorist attacks have moved the issue of
terrorism to the top of everyone's agenda. Dealing with the threat of
terrorism is a complex challenge that will not be accomplished
overnight; nor will it be inexpensive or easy to accomplish. It has and
will require significant costs--human and fiscal--at every level of
government. It will also require intergovernmental preparedness and
interagency cooperation at all levels of government to prevent loss of
life and major property damage.
The Governors are pleased that President Bush selected one of their
colleagues to be the Director of Homeland Security. Governor Ridge
recognizes and continues to emphasize the need for a comprehensive
homeland security strategy that is truly national in scope--a strategy
that takes into account the requirements of state and local response
entities, but recognizes that the central coordinating role must be at
the state level through the Governor's office. Many Governors have
appointed directors of homeland security and task forces to coordinate
state activities regarding securing the infrastructure. These
individuals have been consulted often by the Office of Homeland
Security. More importantly, Governor Ridge met with our Executive
Committee last December and with all Governors at their Winter meeting
in February to ensure the greatest possible mutual coordination and
cooperation. The Director has been directly accessible to Governors in
attempts to find answers to questions such as reimbursement for
National Guard security activities or specific questions concerning
infrastructure protection.
The magnitude and urgent nature of the September 11th terrorist
attacks and subsequent anthrax crisis and national alerts have led
Governors to initiate their own efforts to coordinate and implement a
comprehensive state-based strategy to detect, prepare for, prevent,
protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks within
their borders. This great challenge comes at a time when Governors are
``tightening belts'' in order to balance their state budgets. But when
it comes to protecting the citizens of their states and the critical
infrastructure, Governors believe that as homeland defense priorities
are set, they must be accomplished. That is true whether the funds have
been made available yet or not and even though the circumstances were
not foreseen.
States have borne unprecedented costs to ensure that the nation's
critical infrastructure and citizens are protected from terrorist
attacks. These costs involve: building up the nation's public health
system to respond to and recover from a biological, chemical, or other
attack using weapons of mass destruction; developing an interoperable
communications system; securing the critical infrastructure, from
airports to border crossings, water supply to pharmaceutical labs,
bridges and tunnels; and securing and protecting crops and food
supplies vital to the health and safety of citizens.
Mr. Chairman, this is a tall order and as stated earlier, states
have and are paying a substantial price for homeland security. The
National Governors Association estimates that the first-year costs
alone could reach $5 billion to $7 billion nationwide, with $3 billion
of this cost devoted to bioterrorism preparedness and emergency
communication, and $1 billion devoted to guarding critical
infrastructure. These costs will vary from state-to-state because of
the different critical infrastructure and geographic location. But all
states, from Maine to California and from Iowa to Texas, have a story
to tell about the costs of beefing up security since September 11th.
Public Health System--Building a Capacity to Deal with Bioterrorism
The attacks of September 11th and subsequent anthrax scares
highlighted the importance of developing and maintaining a strong
public health infrastructure in every state and territory. In the
months following the attacks, states spent millions of dollars in
unbudgeted funds expanding the duties and work schedules of many public
health employees to prepare for and respond to public health
emergencies. In addition, Governors assessed and strengthened hospital
surge capacity and capability, as well as public health laboratory
capacity to analyze accurately and identify agents of chemical and
biological terrorism.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, our nation's public health system is
built and supported by state and local governments. State governments
conduct a range of disease surveillance and detection activities
necessary for identifying public health threats quickly. States also
coordinate, train, and deploy medical supplies and human resources
required for treating victims of public health emergencies. However,
most systems are currently tailored to respond to routine medical
situations, not bioterrorist attacks.
Mr. Chairman, as stated earlier in this testimony, late last year
this committee led the Congress to appropriate funding to improve
immediately our nation's capacity to respond to bioterrorist attacks.
The nation's Governors are especially encouraged that this committee
recognized the importance of state and local governments in building
public health emergency systems that can adequately protect our nation.
Indeed, states will receive more than $1 billion in fiscal year 2002 to
begin to develop comprehensive statewide and regional plans for
responding to public health threats. The nation's Governors applaud the
commitment of the Administration and Congress in providing this
immediate financial relief for states. States are currently developing
comprehensive, statewide plans in anticipation of funding for
laboratory build-up and other public health necessities. We all
understand there is no way to predict whether an attack will occur in a
metropolitan or isolated rural area--the need to coordinate an
unprecedented response on little notice is critical. The Administration
and Congress should build upon these current programs and recognize
that states need substantial additional resources to protect citizens
from bioterrorism, provide a mechanism for ensuring that funds are
fairly allocated across states and territories, and recognize that
Governors bear the ultimate responsibility and accountability for the
development, implementation, and coordination of state plans. During a
conversation with Governors at their 2002 winter meeting, Governor
Ridge emphasized the essential role of states in coordinating funding.
The most important step that Congress can take at this time to
protect our nation against public health threats is to commit to
continue funding for this important state-based initiative well into
the future. States are working to implement long-term comprehensive
plans to protect Americans from the threats of terrorism today and into
the future. These long-term goals will not be realized unless states
can reasonably expect that Congress will not eliminate or diminish
financial support in future years.
Developing a Communications System
The current focus on security has elevated the demand for public
safety communications and information sharing needs in emergency
situations. There must be interoperability of equipment between first
responders--fire, police, emergency medical workers, and lab teams--
with and between state and local police, across county and city
jurisdictions, and with federal enforcement officials. These
individuals must be able to communicate in a timely manner. There must
not be another incident as that described by New York City officials
when they warned about the imminent collapse of one of the World Trade
Towers on September 11th, but the individuals receiving the information
could not reach fire officials in the Tower with their radio equipment.
Instead they had to rely on the 19th century method of sending a
messenger across long distances only to arrive less than a minute
before the first tower fell. Mr. Chairman, this shouldn't happen in the
21st century with the availability of top notch equipment and technical
expertise.
Communication interoperability is the foundation for improving
communications among public safety and emergency service agencies and,
in turn, for reducing the lapsed time between receipt of, and response
to, calls for assistance from citizens. It is at the heart of efforts
to ensure rapid, clear, and secure voice and data communications. In an
interoperable environment, communications are seamless, coordinated,
and integrated. Also, security improvements are made to guard against
cyber attacks on essential government and other critical sector
operations.
Although interoperability is a national objective, it can only be
achieved on a state-by-state basis. Therefore, the state must play a
central role in designing and advancing the standards and objectives of
the system.
Building an interoperable communication system will not be an easy
task and will require a long-term commitment of federal and state
resources to accomplish. Furthermore, the Governors want to ensure that
funds are not squandered on the ``wrong'' equipment and that limited
personnel and resources are not wasted on incomplete or redundant
equipment and training. There should be no duplication of effort--
resources are too limited. Rather this must be a short- and long-term
sustainable effort to address the immediate and future public safety
needs of interoperable communications.
Action must be taken at the federal level to ensure that there are
adequate radio frequencies, known as spectrum, dedicated to public
safety needs. Under the existing law, allocations are governed by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Currently, there is inadequate
available dedicated public safety spectrum. The situation will rapidly
become worse as states develop more comprehensive communications
systems designed to transmit voice and data targeted at incident
prevention and emergency response.
In 1996, Congress gave broadcasters a portion of valuable public
broadcast spectrum temporarily and at no cost for the auspicious
purpose of conversion from analog to digital signals in the move toward
high definition television (HDTV). At the same time the giveaway was
under consideration, state and local governments submitted comments to
the FCC urging prompt public safety action to allocate 24 megahertz of
spectrum exclusively for state and local public safety including
police, fire, and emergency medical services. On September 17, 2001, in
the shadow of the worst terrorist attack in this nation's history, the
FCC issued a decision that will allow 21 broadcast companies to resell
spectrum to the wireless industry. According to the FCC action, these
channels will not be available for public safety use until 2006, if
ever. In the meantime, state and local governments remain starved for
adequate broadcast spectrum for public safety.
Mr. Chairman, the resulting situation puts states and local
emergency responders in a serious situation with critical fiscal
implications: what equipment should states and local governments
purchase, lacking any certainty whether the public safety spectrum
promised by Congress will, in fact, ever be available? The federal
government must recognize that dedicated spectrum for state and local
government public safety use is a part of the nation's national defense
strategy and must make immediate plans for its accommodation.
Protecting the Critical Infrastructure
Since September 11th, states have spent millions of dollars to
ensure that the nation's public and critical infrastructure are
protected. These costs involve state and local law enforcement
personnel, including the National Guard, who provide security for
energy supplies, water resources, bridges, tunnels and inland
waterways, ports, nuclear plants, borders and chemical laboratories.
Governors believe that securing the infrastructure represents the first
line of defense in homeland security.
Subsequent to September 11th, the President asked Governors to use
the National Guard in augmenting security at the nation's commercial
airports. Although there has been reimbursement for some of these
expenses, Governors did not limit their use of the National Guard or
other security personnel to only that which was mandated at the
President's request, but also to meet federal requests for expanded
security to protect aircrafts in hangars and airfield perimeters.
In addition to augmenting airport security, Governors were asked to
provide assistance at several of the nation's ports of entry and border
crossings. This assistance was needed to expedite the trafficking of
goods and services. Some border states had commercial venders who were
experiencing slowdowns because they could not receive parts and other
materials needed for production in a timely manner.
Another critical security need is the energy infrastructure--power
plants, refineries, and transmission and distribution networks--that is
vulnerable to risks associated with threats from terrorist attacks and
weapons of mass destruction. Managing and securing the energy
infrastructure, including oil and gas pipelines, is an essential
element of the nation's economic well-being, environmental protection,
and community safety. States will need additional resources to work
closely with federal agencies and the private sector in taking the
necessary measures to protect our critical energy infrastructure.
Another infrastructure in need of protection is the public drinking
water and wastewater systems. Nationwide, there are approximately
168,000 public drinking water systems. The nation's wastewater
infrastructure consists of approximately 16,000 publicly-owned
wastewater treatment plants, 100,000 major pumping stations, 600,000
miles of sanitary sewers, and another 200,000 miles of storm sewers.
Significant damage to this infrastructure could result in loss of life,
catastrophic environmental damage to rivers, lakes, and wetlands,
contamination of drinking water supplies, long-term public health
impacts, destruction of fish and shellfish production, and extreme
disruption to commerce and the economy. The best protection for the
water sector lies in common sense actions to increase security and
reduce threats from terrorism, including conducting vulnerability
assessments, enhancing physical and electronic security, and
implementing emergency response and recovery procedures. Because these
actions often take place at the state level, it is imperative that
Congress and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provide the
states with increased funding to implement them.
Likewise, food safety is a major challenge to the nation's overall
security in dealing with bioterrorism and the infrastructure, given the
possible use by terrorists of crop dusters for spreading defoliants or
other chemicals or biological agents on crops, livestock, and the
overall population. The introduction of diseases such as hoof-and-
mouth, anthrax, and brucellosis through livestock or plants to the
population at large would create a loss of confidence in the integrity
of food production systems that could send economic and financial
shockwaves across the country. The impact would be devastating and take
industry years to recover.
In February 2001, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that
during 1999, state food safety programs alone provided more than $301
million in resources to food safety and accounted for approximately two
million inspections utilizing more than 5,700 staff years. This
represents a tremendous state role in the food safety/public health
protection system, especially since states account for more than 80
percent of the food safety enforcement actions that are accomplished.
In order to deal with an attack on the food supply, sufficient
funding for laboratory and scientific capacity is needed in states.
This capacity is essential to trace potential food borne illness
outbreaks and for detecting food contamination and infectious animal
diseases.
Finally, protecting the infrastructure will be costly for first
responders, and states must coordinate and assist in meeting these
costs. According to a survey of first responders conducted by the
National Emergency Management Association (this organization represents
state directors of emergency management) approximately $2.1 billion is
needed to assist local first responders in building overall capacity
and capability to respond to disasters. The first responder community
must develop their emergency operating centers (EOCs) and
communications and warning capabilities to complement the proposed
alert system from the Office of Homeland Security. Also, more local
emergency management personnel are needed to perform the functions of
administration, planning, public education and awareness, exercises,
and training. Additional fulltime local directors of emergency
management and appropriate support staff could cost more than $140
million annually. And the total cost for establishing primary and
alternate local EOCs needed to provide coordinating facilities for
local response operation could cost more than $1.5 billion according to
the survey.
Other Issues of Concern to Governors
Mr. Chairman, there are a number of issues we would like to raise
for your consideration, including identification security,
intergovernmental intelligence sharing, and the duration and
reimbursement of federal assistance. Each has importance fiscal impacts
for states.
The nation's Governors are aware of several proposals regarding
citizen identification security, including a national identification
card, or requiring certain biometric markers or other identifiers on
drivers' licenses. While the Governors applaud these efforts to
consider options for enhancing security, Congress and the
Administration should approach this issue with caution. Moving to such
a system would be very costly for states, especially the driver's
license issue, and should be discussed more with Governors and
Secretaries of States. The technology and enforcement of significant
new responsibilities would have significant fiscal impacts. In
approaching the issue, very careful consideration must be given either
to providing full funding to implement such a system or allowing
maximum flexibility to states.
Another area that Governors, Congress and the Administration must
work together on is intelligence sharing. A method must be developed to
get critical information into the hands of first responders who can and
must act on it in order to protect the nation. Governors understand and
appreciate that there is information critical to the nation's security
that must be guarded at the highest levels. But it should be understood
that state and local officials and responders can facilitate efforts at
apprehending potential terrorists or others who pose a threat to the
nation if they have the necessary information. Agencies such as the FBI
and/or Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) would be required
to share information and data bases with state and local officials.
There will be a cost to state and local governments for additional
personnel to assist federal authorities in carrying out the security
mission. But human and fiscal savings would be achieved through
preventing potential terrorists from reaching their targets.
As states near or have adopted our budgets for next year, they have
raised the issues of reimbursement and whether we have the authority to
stretch federal funds beyond October 1, 2003. Issues like building
public health care infrastructure will require a long-term commitment,
but currently there is little certainty about what the federal role
will be from the fiscal perspective after fiscal year 2002 and 2003. We
believe your committee could help on both fronts by clarifying federal
intent on these important issues.
Conclusion
In conclusion Mr. Chairman, states have made a major commitment to
homeland security since September 11th. A few examples are:
--The Commonwealth of Kentucky anticipates spending $3 million alone
in overtime costs to guard airports. Improvements in the
state's communications system start at $60 million, and the
state has spent $1.6 million on purchasing new equipment such
as vehicles, laboratory equipment, secure communications and
other specialized gear.
--Municipalities in the State of Maine have incurred an estimated
$1.6 million in overtime and other costs for security and for
responding to hundreds of anthrax scares.
--The State of Michigan has spent $2.6 million for epidemiologists,
microbiologists, and laboratory personnel to bolster the
state's response capabilities for anthrax and other potential
types of bioterrorism.
--In West Virginia, National Guard troops have been called up, and
state employees have been asked to patrol and protect highways,
bridges, waterways, refineries, and public buildings at a cost
of more than $4 million.
Mr. Chairman, these and other states have been spending funds at a
time when States are facing budget shortfalls of at least $40 billion
overall, with an expectation that--notwithstanding national economic
recovery--this shortfall will increase to $50 billion this fiscal year.
Therefore, the Governors urge Congress to make support for state
and local government efforts a top priority. The federal government
should provide adequate federal funding, support, and information
sharing to ensure that homeland security needs are met. In addition to
significant initial federal investment, ensuring homeland security
requires yearly maintenance-of-effort by the federal government.
Finally Mr. Chairman, we understand the difficult task of
developing a homeland security strategy for the nation. The Governors
stand ready to work in partnership with the federal government to meet
these challenges, but we need your assistance to ensure that we have
the authority and funding to succeed.
Biographical Sketch of Governor Roy E. Barnes
Birth Date: March 11, 1948
Family: Married; three children
Religion: Methodist
Spouse: Marie
Party: Democrat
Elected: November 1998
Term Expires: January 2003
Roy E. Barnes was born in Mableton, Georgia. He attended the
University of Georgia, earning a bachelor's degree in history in 1969
and a law degree in 1972. After serving in the Cobb District Attorney's
office for two years, he was elected to the first of eight terms in the
state senate. After two terms, he was named chairman of the Judiciary
Committee. Barnes served as administration floor leader from 1982
through 1989. He also served on the Governor's Growth Strategies
Commission and was senate chairman of the Constitutional Revision
Committee. Returning to the legislature in 1993 after a run for
governor in 1990, he represented the 33rd house district. He served as
vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee and as a member of the
Rules and Banks and Banking Committees. He also was a senior partner in
the law firm of Barnes, Browning, Tanksley, and Casurella in Marietta,
Georgia.
Biographical Sketch of Governor John Engler
``Gov. John Engler has had more impact on the lives of Michiganians
over the past decade than any other single person, and his deep imprint
will be evident well into the new century.''----The Detroit News, April
9, 2001.
First elected in 1990 as Michigan's 46th governor, Governor John
Engler is now America's most senior governor. Engler was elected
chairman of the National Governors Association in August 2001.
A common sense Midwestern conservative who believes strongly that
every child should have the chance to succeed, Engler has made
improving education Michigan's number one priority. With boldness and
vision for the future, Governor Engler also cut taxes, reformed
welfare, right-sized government and implemented the biggest road repair
and rebuilding plan in state history. Under his watch, the quality of
Michigan's water, land and air resources has steadily improved.
In 1994, Engler led the fight to enact Proposal A--a ballot
proposal overwhelmingly approved by voters to fund schools fairly and
cut property taxes. Now, all children have a foundation grant that
follows them to the public schools of their choice, including more than
180 charter public schools. With funding issues resolved, high
standards and rigorous assessments have helped improve student
performance. To encourage academic achievement, Governor Engler created
the Michigan Merit Award--a $2,500 scholarship for college or
training--that is awarded to high school students who pass their
proficiency tests in reading, writing, science and math.
Governor Engler has signed 31 tax cuts into law, saving taxpayers
more than $25 billion. The state inheritance tax and capital gains
taxes have been eliminated. Personal exemptions for children, seniors
and the disabled have been increased. The personal income tax rate is
being reduced to 3.9 percent--the lowest level in a quarter century--
and Michigan's main tax on business is being phased out completely.
Engler's economic policies have helped to create more than 900,000
jobs in Michigan, cutting the state's unemployment rate from over 9
percent the year he took office to 3.4 percent in 2000--the lowest
annual level ever recorded. For an unprecedented four years in a row,
Michigan has won the prestigious Governor's Cup for the most new
factories and expansion projects in the nation. As part of the nation's
most forward-looking economic development strategy, $1 billion is being
invested in a ``Life Sciences Corridor'' from Ann Arbor to Grand
Rapids, and a high-tech cybercourt to hear business disputes is also in
the works.
Governor Engler has strengthened Michigan's role as guardian of the
Great Lakes, fought water diversions and invested more in clean water
than any governor. Thanks to reforms of environmental laws, Michigan
leads the nation in reclaiming contaminated brownfield sites while
preserving green space and farmland.
Other highlights of the Engler administration include:
--passing the $675 million Clean Michigan Initiative to reduce
pollution, fix up state parks, improve water quality and clean
up contaminated sites;
--trimming state government personnel by more than 20 percent
(excluding state troopers, prison guards and other public
safety workers);
--transforming the $1.8 billion deficit he inherited to a $1.3
billion surplus;
--restoring Michigan's AAA credit rating;
--helping nearly 300,000 families achieve independence from cash
welfare and reducing welfare rolls by nearly 70 percent;
--restructuring the regulation of energy and telecommunications
industries to increase consumer choice and reduce rates;
--investing a record-high $1.54 billion to fix our roads in 2001
alone--more than four times the amount spent in 1990;
--reducing violent crime by more than 25 percent;
--serving an additional 45,000 patients annually with mental health
services;
--giving Detroit's mayor authority to appoint the local school board
and speed up the pace of reform;
--increasing K-12 education spending by 84 percent; and,
--dramatically improving student reading and math test scores.
Engler, 53, is a graduate of Michigan State University with a
degree in agricultural economics and earned a law degree from the
Thomas M. Cooley Law School. He was recently elected to the Board of
Trustees of the Gerald R. Ford Foundation and named a Public Official
of the Year by Governing Magazine. Michigan's First Lady, Michelle
Engler, is also an attorney. They are parents of seven-year-old triplet
daughters--Margaret, Hannah, and Madeleine.
Chairman Byrd. Thank you for your statement. Governor
Barnes.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BARNES, GOVERNOR, STATE OF
GEORGIA
Governor Barnes. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Stevens and other members of the committee for giving me an
opportunity to come here this morning and talk about some of
the challenges we face and some of the things that we are doing
in Georgia--in the South--to protect the security of our
citizens. I also want to thank you for allowing us to share our
views on not only our problems, but something that has been
touched on by Governor Locke and Governor Engler, is how to
better coordinate the resources that exist between the State
government and the Federal Government.
We all know that the madmen who killed thousands of people
on September 11th, and those who contaminated our mail with
deadly anthrax, were not just targeting New York City or
Washington. They were attacking the United States of America.
The victims left loved ones in all 50 States, including the
State of Georgia. And now we realize everywhere that it could
happen anywhere.
And so as Americans, we are fighting side by side in this
war on terrorism. The fight, I suggest to you as you heard
earlier, will require planning for the possibility of future
attacks. And it will require, and if I can stress this even
more than what the other speakers have said to try to heighten
it, the sharing of information and the standardization of the
sharing of information.
And it also will require constant, real-time communication
between different agencies of the Federal Government, and also
different agencies of the State government. But most of all, it
will require a commitment of resources. Now we recognize there
is going to be some commitment of resources that have to come
from the States. And as Governor Engler talked about and
Governor Locke talked about, we are willing to do that.
But, we also need assistance from the Federal Government
because we also realize--and I think you do--State and local
governments are on the front lines of this war and we do not
have all the ammunition we need to fight it. And it will
require something else, and that is flexibility, because even
though we are all fighting the same war every State has unique
security priorities. I will just give you a couple of examples
in Georgia.
We have the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta,
Georgia. It is a major target from protesters to terrorists. I
mean, everybody is there that has a gripe with the United
States Government or particularly what they are doing. Or, and
during times of terrorism, of course they are the heartbeat for
the rest of the Nation. We have some specific and unique
circumstances to provide security there. We do that in the
State government for the CDC.
We also have two major seaports on the Atlantic coast. We
have 12 military bases, to which we are thankful, by the way.
And we also have the Nation's largest airport. In fact, on
September 11th when I was asked to evacuate the Atlanta Airport
we had over 20,000 people in the Atlanta Airport at that time.
Now like Governor Locke and Governor Engler, we also felt
particularly keenly the effects of the recession. Georgia will
take in less this fiscal year--$500 million less than what it
took in last year in taxes, which is the first time that has
occurred since 1953, because we have been a high-growth State.
But, we are willing to establish and have established the
priorities to make sure that we meet our responsibility in
providing the security for our people.
Let me give you a couple of things that we have done and
some of the problems that we see and how I think they can be
corrected. Shortly after September 11th we put together, as
most States did, a homeland security task force, which had
representatives of our law enforcement agencies, National Guard
and otherwise; and also a liaison to work hand in hand with our
Federal agencies. This task force includes the State agencies
responsible for public safety, emergency management, public
health, environmental protection, transportation and defense,
as well as local law enforcement officials and fire chiefs.
I asked them to come up with recommendations to us to
better provide the security for our people. And based upon
those recommendations we have included $6.3 million in this
year's budget. Now that is on top of the regular public safety
and public health increases, to try to put into some of the
specific suggestions that they had dealing with homeland
security.
Let me give you some of those that we are spending money
on. We have created the Georgia Information Sharing and
Analysis Center, which will gather intelligence on terrorism
threats and it will operate in tandem with the FBI's Joint
Terrorism Task Force in Georgia. In fact, this is a good
example of the Federal and State working together. The FBI
Joint Terrorism Task Force that is located in Atlanta will be
housed in a State facility--that houses this information
sharing facility and intelligence gathering.
But, also we are having the same problem about the
standardization of security clearances that Governor Locke
talked about. What clears security for one agency does not
clear security to another. In fact, on September 11th my
adjutant general came to me and he said I've got to get you to
fill out this security clearance so I can talk to you about
some of the threats that we may have. And since I hire and fire
him, I said that is an interesting thing, but I will fill it
out and I did so.
And I do not mind doing that, and I do not think anybody
else minds doing so, but there has to be among the agencies
that are cooperating so standardized way of clearing security
so that we can allow our State and our Federal agencies to work
together. Some of the other things we have done with the State
funds so far that we have appropriated, is to provide the
additional staff needed by existing agencies to handle
increased security responsibilities and to provide back up for
the CDC.
Our State lab, our Department of Human Resources
laboratory, public health laboratory, acts as the back up lab
for the CDC. When they are overburdened we undertake it. In the
anthrax scare we were covered up because CDC was covered up.
And we operated our public health lab 24 hours a day almost.
The FBI moved into our State laboratory, which was fine,
and we wanted them to do so. At one time we had over 2,000
pieces of mail in our State laboratory that we were doing for
the CDC to go through to test for anthrax. Now all of them
turned out to be negative, but you still have to go through
that process.
The reason I tell you that is we do not mind--the States--
do not mind providing the cooperative effort to keep our people
safe. And in exchange what we ask is a constancy of funding and
the flexibility to address some of those individual needs that
we have in our States. I will give you one more example in
Georgia. I am sure it is not unique, but it is of concern to
us.
We have 33 counties in Georgia out of 159--don't ask me why
we have so many counties--we have 33 counties out of 159 that
do not have a 9-1-1 emergency response system. And, of course,
9-1-1 is pretty well the very first level of emergency
response. We need the flexibility to be able to meet some of
those needs.
So, these are the things that we have done on a financial
basis. Most of us have also undertaken to introduce and pass
legislation to give our public health departments and directors
new comprehensive powers to deal with bioterrorism attacks,
something that Governors did not even consider less than 1 year
ago. This includes the ability to declare an immediate
quarantine and the power to require large scale vaccination and
compel medical examinations. And because the CDC is there, and
we are proud to have it there, it is also a concern to us to be
able to respond to any attack that may occur on the CDC and
anything that may come out of that.
We know, as President Bush has told us and that we all
realize, that this war against terror is not going to be won in
the immediate future. It is a long term fight and will require
a long term commitment, and that is what we are asking from
you. We are willing to commit long term because we are on the
front lines. We protect our people and we are going to protect
our people. We ask for Federal assistance and Federal
assistance on a long term basis rather than just one shot so
that we can do some planning around it.
We are doing our part and we ask the Federal Government to
do theirs. We need resources, yes, and the commitment to
resources over a multi-year period. But, we also need the
flexibility to do the things that are best suited for the
unique circumstances in each of our States. Georgia has
critical needs for equipment, supplies and technical support.
But the most critical need is for staff to establish and
maintain a bioterrorism preparedness and response program, for
the training to our counties and our cities and our State
officials that first respond.
We need to be able to hire staff, and in order to do that
we need an ongoing commitment of funds. And we need guidelines
that are consistent from one program to the next and as
standardized as possible to make sure that we are getting
results. We do not need micromanagement of our State agencies
and we are willing to be accountable for the results that are
required of us without micromanaging us.
In closing, I believe that a comprehensive State terrorism
strategy is the best and most appropriate framework for the
delivery of Federal programs and funding. All Federal
resources, programs and activities involving State and local
government should be coordinated through the Nation's Governors
and their appropriate State agencies so that we can make sure
that we do not duplicate our funding resources and that we do
not duplicate what is necessary and that we can coordinate into
one plan everything that is being done. I suggest to you that
bypassing the States would only lead to gaps or to wasteful
overlaps and redundancies, two things that we cannot afford in
this war that we are all fighting. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Byrd. Thank you, Governor Barnes. Dr. Carter, you
have already been introduced. Would you please proceed?
STATEMENT OF DR. ASHTON CARTER, FORD FOUNDATION
PROFESSOR OF SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL
AFFAIRS, KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT,
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Dr. Carter. Thank you, Senator and members of the committee
for having me before this committee, but above all for holding
this hearing because it emphasizes the need to give some
coherence to the homeland security investment program over all,
and that in fact is the theme of the brief comments I would
like to make. My statement, Mr. Chairman, is drawn from an
article that I published in ``International Security'' in the
winter issue, which has attracted some attention. And that is
going to be the basis for what I have to say. If I may I would
like to enter that in the record as my written statement.
Chairman Byrd. That will be included, without any
objection.
Dr. Carter. Thank you. The main purpose of the article,
which was written in November, was to define the Governor Ridge
job. How can this new position add value, and make a
contribution and to protect the Nation against terrorism, which
is a struggle which is going to be with us as far into the
future as we can see? The conclusion of the article was that to
make a contribution Governor Ridge should not try to be a
coordinator; should not be a czar; should not be an agency
head; certainly should not be a spokesman; but instead an
architect, an architect of the capabilities we do not now have
but urgently need to build. The architect of what we need to
build.
I will not describe why these other job descriptions which
I named would fail, but I want to concentrate on the architect
role. The main thing an architect would do is to create a
multi-year, multi-agency program plan--and those of you from
defense backgrounds like me know what a program plan is--which
is an investment plan to build new capabilities. To see what I
mean, think of a single piece of paper in which on the left
hand side you have the various agencies of the Federal
Government that play a role in this process.
You have the States and the localities, their important
roles. You have the private sector, which owns and operates
critical infrastructures that need to be protected. And along
the top of the piece of paper you have the various tasks that
need to be accomplished in a competent national effort to
combat terrorism.
My favorite way of arraying them is to think of a timeline
that goes from before an incident to after an incident. And
before an incident you need to worry about detection and
surveillance and intelligence and prevention and protection.
And then when an incident is imminent, about interdiction. And
after an incident, about consequence management, attribution
and forensics and learning from what has happened to you.
So imagine those tasks arrayed across the top of the paper,
and it looks like a little matrix. And in every box the
architect would fill in what capabilities need to be built in
each of those boxes so that the Nation overall has the set of
capabilities it needs, prescribing for each box what new money
and new organizations are needed to get the job done.
So that, in the simplest terms, producing that chart is the
job that would add value. That is the simplest description I
can give it. It is not rocket science or Werner von Braun, the
physicist. Werner von Braun said the job of the rocket
scientist--the goal of the rocket scientists at Pennemunde was
to make sure that it was more dangerous to be at the predicted
impact point than to be at the launch point. By that standard
of rocket science that is probably all we need to produce that
chart.
Now Governor Ridge, hypothetically if he took on this
definition of his job, would get the President to approve his
chart. The President would direct the agency heads at the
Federal level to reflect the contents of that chart in their
budget submission, and to provide the funding, the inducements
and the regulation which may be required so t