U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SHADEGG (R-AZ) HOLDS HEARING ON RESPONSE TO TERRORISM.

Original Source: Political Transcript Wire

.STX (PLEASE NOTE: GIL JAMIESON IS WITHOUT A FUNCTIONAL MICROPHONE THROUGHOUT)

HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY: SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE HOLDS A HEARING ON RESPONSE TO TERRORISM

SEPTEMBER 29, 2004

SPEAKERS: U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SHADEGG (R-AZ)

CHAIRMAN U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CURT WELDON (R-PA)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE W.J. "BILLY" TAUZIN (R-LA)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER SHAYS (R-CT)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DAVE CAMP (R-MI) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (R-FL) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PETER KING (R-NY) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MARK SOUDER (R-IN)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MAC THORNBERRY (R-TX)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JIM GIBBONS (R-NV) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE KAY GRANGER (R-TX) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PETE SESSIONS (R-TX) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER COX (R-CA)

EX OFFICIO

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BENNIE G. THOMPSON (D-MS)

RANKING MEMBER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JANE HARMAN (D-CA)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BENJAMIN L. CARDIN (D-MD)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PETER A. DEFAZIO (D-OR) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE NITA M. LOWEY (D-NY) U.S. DELEGATE ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON (D-DC) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BILL PASCRELL, JR. (D-NJ) U.S. DELEGATE DONNA M. CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN (D-VI) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BOB ETHERIDGE (D-NC)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE KEN LUCAS (D-KY) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JIM TURNER (D-TX) EX OFFICIO

WITNESSES:

GIL JAMIESON DIRECTOR NIMS INTEGRATION CENTER DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

P. MICHAEL FREEMAN CHIEF Los ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT

STEVE LENKART DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES/INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF POLICE OFFICERS

JOSEPH BARBERA CO-DIRECTOR INSTITUTE FOR CRISIS, DISASTER AND RISK MANAGEMENT GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

[*] SHADEGG: The committee will come to order. First, let me extend my personal apology. I was tied up with a vote in another committee, and I regret my delay in getting here. I express sincerely my apologies to the members and the witnesses who were waiting, and my regret that that occurred.

I would begin by asking unanimous consent that opening statements be limited by subcommittee and full committee chairmen and ranking members. Without objection, so ordered. On March 1, 2004, the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, acting on Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 announced the approval of the National Incident Management System, or NIMS. This is a particularly important announcement for our nation's homeland security, as NIMS is the nation's first standardized management system, unifying the actions of all levels of government during a large-scale emergency response.

The creation and implementation of NIMS also comports with the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Specifically, the commission recommended making homeland security funding contingent on the adoption of an incident command system to strengthen teamwork in a crisis, including a regional approach.

What does all this talk about NIMS and Incident Command mean for America's homeland security? It means for the first time, at all levels of government, be it federal, state or local, they will be reading from the same playbook and speaking the same language when they respond to an emergency, ranging from a flood or a fire to a terrorist attack.

NIMS is designed to provide a controlled, organized and unified command structure and to respond efficiently and effectively to all major events across the country. The National Incident Management System has many distinct advantages. As mentioned earlier, it ensures the coordination of all levels of government across city, state and county lines during an emergency. It also provides a basis for standardized communications and a more efficient and effective way to relay information, both essential components for the safe and effective management of a disaster scene or a terrorist attack.

Incident management teams have been operating successfully since the 1970s in the management of forest fires. More recently, we have seen the success of NIMS in managing the breakout of the avian influenza in the spring of 2002 and the exotic Newcastle disease in 2003 and in the search and recovery efforts during the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster.

In all of these instances, we saw how successful communication, coordination and cooperation can save lives. NIMS also assures the same level of preparedness for all agencies at all levels of government across the country. It provides for the same training, certification and planning exercises to ensure standardized responses consistent with mutually agreed-upon doctrine.

A key to responding successfully to an incident is simply keeping calm and letting logic and the best practices prevail. Educating the public furthers this goal by helping to prevent confusion and chaos. This allows the trained professionals, whether fire, police or health officials, or National Guard, to do their jobs in a safe and effective manner.

To help us better understand the intricacies and importance of the National Incident Management System, we will be hearing from both federal and county officials. We are particularly interested in what they have to say about the respective federal agencies are doing to implement and coordinate and maintain NIMS.

We'll also assess the rate of integration of NIMS in the national emergency response protocol and if the deadlines for federal grant monies are appropriate and realistic. Finally, we will evaluate how effective NIMS will be in enhancing their response, of the fire services, law enforcement agencies and health disaster relief workers.

At this time, I would like to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Thompson, for his opening statement.

THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join the chairman in welcoming our witnesses to this hearing, and I look forward to hearing the testimony on the National Incident Management System, which has significant implications for our first-responder community. However, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the priorities of the Homeland Security Committee also.

This week, at least a half-dozen House committees will debate and mark up the Republican leadership's legislation to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. But the Homeland Security Committee will not be one of those committees. According to the press reports, Chairman Cox's staff has stated that we cannot mark up the 9/11 legislation because we are too busy focusing all our attention on completing the report regarding the future of the Homeland Security Committee.

And although we are too busy to weigh in and mark up what may be the most important intelligence and homeland security reform legislation this year, we do appear to have the time to hold a hearing on a National Incident Management System.

Let me suggest that we are not too busy to exercise our jurisdiction, assert the authority of this committee and mark up the 9/11 Commission legislation. By taking this action, we will demonstrate through our work, rather than through the report of the House (ph), that our committee should be permanent. Therefore, I hope the chairman of the full committee will reconsider his decision, and that he will schedule a markup before the week's end.

Now, with respect to the National Incident Management System, or NIMS. There are some aspects of this program that should be carefully examined. As a former volunteer firefighter, I understand the importance of a clear command and control structure and the benefits that such a structure provides during incident response.

But I think the witnesses will agree with me when I say that the Incident Command System and unified command existed long before anyone every complicated the Department of Homeland Security. These systems have always been bottom-up organizational structures focused on addressing the unique needs of different types of disasters and emergencies by first maintaining the flexibility to modify response strategies, and, second, simplifying the integration of additional state and federal resources, if required.

However, the current version of NIMS is heavily focused on the top-down response structure, almost to a point that we may find that we lose ability and flexibility to effectively respond.

In addition the fiscal 2005 budget request for NIMS is solely devoted to increasing the preparedness for federal response forces, rather than state and local responses. Increasing the preparedness of federal response organizations does not increase the preparedness of individual communities, who will be the first on the scene following a terrorist attack.

According to the September 8th letter from Secretary Ridge to the governors, in the fiscal 2006 year, the administration will require state and local governments to adopt NIMS in order to be eligible or federal preparedness grant assistance. It is not clear to the states and localities which grant funds will be impacted by this requirement, nor is it clear what these governments will need to certify that they have to adopt NIMS. I would I ask our DHS witness to provide some more details on this matter.

This same letter also outlines the secretary's requirements for the states in fiscal year 2005. Among other tasks, DHS expects the states to incorporate NIMS into the emergency operation plan, coordinate and provide technical assistance for local entities regarding NIMS and institutionalize the use of the Incident Command System.

I am concerned that DHS is not providing additional grant funds to achieve these goals, and they are an unfunded mandate. For example, I'm not aware of any additional funding for state and local governments to train personnel in NIMS, nor am I aware of any funding to revise and publish new emergency operation plans that are consistent with NIMS.

It appears that DHS expects the states to leverage these general ODP grant funds for the purpose and choose between implementing NIMS and other equally pressing needs like specialized equipment training, terrorism exercise and enhanced security at critical infrastructure sites.

This concern applies in particular to the law enforcement community, which does not traditionally run its response operating using the Incident Command System. How does DHS expect the states to train and certify the thousands of law enforcement personnel who will soon be required to adopt NIMS.

I hope that the witnesses can provide us with a perspective on these questions, and I look forward to their testimony.

SHADEGG: The chair would note that neither the chairman of the full committee nor the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Cox or Mr. Turner are here at the moment, so they will not be able to make their opening statements. If they should join us soon, we'll at least offer them that opportunity.

At this point, I would like to introduce our panel of witnesses. Mr. Gil Jamieson is the director of NIMS Integration Center for the Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Michael Freeman is the fire chief of the Los Angeles County Fire Department; Mr. Steve Lenkart is the director of legislative affairs for the National Association of Government Employees, International Brotherhood of Police Officers; and Dr. Joseph Barbera is an associate professor of engineering management and clinical associate professor of emergency medicine at George Washington University.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for …