[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM:
ENHANCING RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
of the
SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-59
__________
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Homeland Security
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
25-602 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�0900012006
SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Christopher Cox, California, Chairman
Jennifer Dunn, Washington Jim Turner, Texas, Ranking Member
C.W. Bill Young, Florida Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Don Young, Alaska Loretta Sanchez, California
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Wisconsin Norman D. Dicks, Washington
David Dreier, California Barney Frank, Massachusetts
Duncan Hunter, California Jane Harman, California
Harold Rogers, Kentucky Benjamin L. Cardin, Maryland
Sherwood Boehlert, New York Louise McIntosh Slaughter, New
Joe Barton, Texas York
Lamar S. Smith, Texas Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Nita M. Lowey, New York
Christopher Shays, Connecticut Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Porter J. Goss, Florida Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Dave Camp, Michigan Columbia
Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Florida Zoe Lofgren, California
Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Karen McCarthy, Missouri
Ernest J. Istook, Jr., Oklahoma Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas
Peter T. King, New York Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
John Linder, Georgia Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin
John B. Shadegg, Arizona Islands
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
Mac Thornberry, Texas Ken Lucas, Kentucky
Jim Gibbons, Nevada James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
Kay Granger, Texas Kendrick B. Meek, Florida
Pete Sessions, Texas Ben Chandler, Kentucky
John E. Sweeney, New York
John Gannon, Chief of Staff
Stephen DeVine, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
Thomas Dilenge, Chief Counsel and Policy Director
David H. Schanzer, Democrat Staff Director
Mark T. Magee, Democrat Deputy Staff Director
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
______
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness and Response
John Shadegg, Arizona, Chairman
Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania, Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Ranking Member
Christopher Shays, Connecticut Jane Harman, California
Dave Camp, Michigan Benjamin L. Cardin, Maryland
Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Florida Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Peter King, New York Nita M. Lowey, New York
Mark Souder, Indiana Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Mac Thornberry, Texas Columbia
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
Kay Granger, Texas Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin
Pete Sessions, Texas Islands
Christopher Cox, California, Ex Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
Officio Ken Lucas, Kentucky
Jim Turner, Texas, Ex Officio
(II)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable John Shadegg, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness and Response...................................... 1
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Emergency Preparedness and Response......................... 2
The Honorable Donna M. Christensen, a Delegate in Congress From
the U.S. Virgin Islands........................................ 33
The Honorable Nita M. Lowey, a Representative in Congress From
the State of New York.......................................... 30
WITNESSES
Mr. GiL Jamieson, Acting Director, NIMS Integration Center, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
Mr. P. Michael Freeman, Chief, Los Angeles County Fire
Department, California:
Oral Statement................................................. 13
Prepared Statement............................................. 15
Mr. Steve Lenkart, National Director of Legislative Affairs,
International Brotherhood of Police Officers:
Oral Statement................................................. 18
Prepared Statement............................................. 20
Dr. Jospeh Barbera, Co-Director, Institute for Crisis, Disaster,
and Risk Management, George Washington University:
Oral Statement................................................. 22
Prepared Statement............................................. 24
FOR THE RECORD
Questions Submitted by the Honorable Bennie G. Thompson:
Responses from Mr. Gil Jameison................................ 43
Responses from Dr. Joseph Barbera, Chief P. Michael Freeman,
and Steve Lenkart............................................ 44
THE NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM: ENHANCING RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS
----------
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
House of Representatives,
Select Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness and Response,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:20 a.m., in
Room 210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John B. Shadegg
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Shadegg, Granger, Thompson, Lowey,
Christensen and Etheridge.
Mr. Shadegg. The committee will come to order. First, let
me apologize. I was tied up with a vote in another committee. I
regret my delay in getting here. I express my sincere apology
for 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 to subcommittee and full committee
Chairman 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 governments 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 upon the adoption of an Incident Command System to
strengthen teamwork in a crisis, including a regional approach.
What does all of this talk about NIMS and incident command
mean for America's homeland security? It means that 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 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 flu, influenza, in the spring of 2002,
and the exotic Newcastle disease in 2003, and 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 of 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 job in a safe and effective manner.
To help us better understand the intricacies and the
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 what the
respective Federal agencies are doing to implement and
coordinate and maintain NIMS.
We will also assess the rate of integration of the NIMS
International 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 the response of the fire services, law enforcement
agencies and health disaster relief workers.
Mr. Shadegg. At this time I would like to recognize the
Ranking Member Mr. Thompson for his opening statement
Mr. 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 Select
Committee on Homeland Security 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
Select Committee on Homeland Security 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 Select
Committee on Homeland Security. 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 of certain 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 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 certain
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 anybody
ever contemplated 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 the 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 the 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 of Federal
response forces rather than State and local responders.
Increasing the preparedness of Federal response organizations
does not increase the preparedness of individual communities
who would be the first on the scene following a terrorist
attack.
According to the September 8 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 for 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 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 to
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 am 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 them 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. Thank
you.
Mr. 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
join us soon, we will 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 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. Dr. Joseph
Barbera is an associate professor of engineering, management
and clinical associate professor of emergency medicine at
George Washington University.
I would like to thank all the witnesses for being here. We
sincerely appreciate your testimony, which we have in written
form. Your full testimony will appear in the record. I would
invite you at this point in your opening statement to summarize
it as best you would like and make any particular points or
highlight any particular points that you have made in your
written testimony.
With that, Mr. Jamieson, would you like to begin? Please
press the button on your mike and get a light to come on, and
we will be able to hear you.
STATEMENT OF GIL JAMIESON, ACTING DIRECTOR, NIMS INTEGRATION
CENTER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Jamieson. Good morning, Chairman Shadegg and members of
the committee. My name is Gil Jamieson. I am the Acting
Director of the NIMS Integration Center in the Department of
Homeland Security. It is my pleasure to be here today to update
you on our efforts to implement the National Incident
Management System.
We all recognize that every day there are emergencies in
the United States that require action by our emergency
responders. Whether those responders come from different
departments of the same jurisdiction or from outside State and
Federal agencies, they need to be able to work together
effectively.
In the Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5, the
President directed the Homeland Security Secretary to develop
and administer a National Incident Management System. On March
1, 2004, after close collaboration with Federal, State and
local representatives, Secretary Ridge issued the NIMS to
provide a consistent nationwide approach for Federal, State,
tribal and local governments to work together and to provide
the framework to prepare for, prevent, respond to and recover
from domestic incidents regardless of cause, size or
complexity.
At the core of the National Incident Management System is
the Incident Command System, or ICS. The NIMS establishes ICS
as the standardized organizational structure for the management
of all incidents. ICS is interdisciplinary and organizationally
flexible to meet the needs of incidents of any size or level of
complexity. When DHS released the NIMS, Secretary Ridge and the
Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response
specifically highlighted compliance with ICS as being possible
in the short term. They recognized that in some cities and
areas of urban and wildland interface, first responders have
worked together using ICS for years.
ICS is at its core a management system designed to
integrate resources, both personnel and equipment, to
effectively attack a common problem. The system is not
exclusive to one discipline or set of circumstances, and its
hallmark is that it is flexible to accommodate all disciplines
in all circumstances.
The recommendations of the 9/11 Commission highlight the
importance of ICS. The Commission recommended national adoption
of ICS to enhance command, control and communication
capabilities. Earlier this month Secretary Ridge issued
guidance to address the phased implementation of NIMS at the
Federal, State and local levels. In a letter to the Governor,
Secretary Ridge highlighted the important features of NIMS
implementations that should receive special emphasis in fiscal
year 2005, including institutionalization of ICS.
Many of the NIMS requirements are specific to local
jurisdictions, and in order for NIMS to be implemented
successfully across the Nation, it is critical that States
provide support and leadership to tribal and local entities. To
the maximum extent possible, States, territories, tribes and
local entities are encouraged to achieve full NIMS
implementation and institutionalization across the entire
response spectrum during fiscal year 2005. By fiscal year 2007,
Federal preparedness assistance will be conditioned by full
compliance with the NIMS.
By December 31 of 2004, all Federal departments and
agencies with a primary or supporting role under the national
response plan must submit a NIMS implementation plan to the
Secretary and the President's homeland security advisor. The
implementation plans must reflect how the agency will
accomplish full NIMS implementation by September 30 of fiscal
year 2005, including modifications of their emergency
operations plans.
As I explained earlier, the ICS is at the core of NIMS, and
one of the first steps to becoming compliant with NIMS requires
State and local governments to institutionalize the use of NIMS
as taught by the Department of Homeland Security. ICS, as
taught by the Department, means that whatever ICS training a
jurisdiction receives, it must be consistent with concepts,
principles and characteristics of ICS training offered by the
various DHS training entities. It does not mean that ICS
training needs to be taught by a DHS employee or at a DHS
facility, although there are certainly a number of options that
are currently available to facilitate this training available
through the Department.
We recognize that there are a variety of training programs
that provide ICS training. The NIMS Integration Center will be
working with Federal, State, local and private training
providers to ensure that their ICS course offerings are
consistent with the NIMS.
The NIMS required the establishment of an integration
center to provide strategic direction for and oversight of the
NIMS, including the continuous refinement of the system and its
components over the long term. Secretary Ridge established the
Integration Center on May 8 of 2004. The Center Director
reports to Secretary Ridge, to the Under Secretary of Emergency
Preparedness and Response Michael Brown. Current Integration
Center activities include coordinating, training, and providing
guidance and tools to Federal, State, local and tribal entities
on understanding and implementing and complying with the NIMS,
and establishing an Integration Center advisory committee to
continue the collaborative partnership that has characterized
the development of the NIMS to date.
The Department recognizes that the overwhelming majority of
emergency incidents are handled successfully on a daily basis
by a single jurisdiction at the local level. It is, however,
critically important that all jurisdictions comply with NIMS
because the challenges we face as a Nation are far greater than
the capabilities of any one community or State. They are not,
however, greater than the sum of all of us working together
through mutual aid.
There will be instances in which successful domestic
incident management operations depend on the involvement of
emergency responders from multiple jurisdictions as well as
personnel and equipment from other States and the Federal
Government. These instances require effective and efficient
coordination across the broad spectrum of organizations and
activities. The success of the operation will depend on our
ability to mobilize and effectively utilize a host of outside
resources. They must come together in an organizational
framework that is understood by everyone, utilize a common
approach to planning as specified through the ICS process of
incident access planning, and order and receive resources in
conformance with a standard approach to resources typing and
mutual aid. It will only be possible if we unite, plan,
implement, exercise and respond using a common National
Incident Management System.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I would be pleased
to answer any questions, and I look forward to continuing to
work with the committee as we implement NIMS across the Nation.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you very much for your testimony.
[The statement of Mr. Jamieson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gil Jamieson
Introduction
Good morning, Chairman Shadegg and members of the Committee. My
name is Gil Jamieson and I am the Acting Director of the National
Incident Management System (NIMS) Integration Center in the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), within the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). It is my pleasure to be here with you today to update
you on our efforts to implement the NIMS.
Background
Everyday there are emergencies in the United States that require
action by emergency responders. Whether those responders come from
different parts of the same jurisdiction or from State and Federal
agencies, they need to be able to work together effectively. They need
to be able communicate with each other, and they need to be able to
depend on each other. In Homeland Security Presidential Directive
(HSPD)-5, Management of Domestic Incidents, the President directed the
Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and administer a NIMS to
accomplish the purpose of establishing standard incident management
processes, protocols, and procedures that will allow responders to work
together more effectively.
On March 1, 2004, after close collaboration with federal, state,
local, and private sector representatives, Secretary Ridge issued the
NIMS which provides a consistent nationwide framework for Federal,
state, tribal, and local governments to work together to prepare for,
prevent, respond to, and recover from domestic incidents, regardless of
cause, size, or complexity. The NIMS provides all of the Nation's
first-responders and authorities with the same foundation for incident
management for terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other
emergencies. The NIMS utilizes the Incident Command System (ICS) as a
standard incident management organization for the management of all
major incidents.
One of the hallmarks of the NIMS is the balance it strikes between
flexibility and standardization, reflected in its mechanisms for on-
going support and maintenance of the system. The NIMS provides a
consistent, flexible, and adjustable national framework within which
government and private entities at all levels can work together to
manage domestic incidents, regardless of their cause, size, location,
or complexity. This flexibility applies across all phases of incident
management: prevention, preparedness, response, recovery, and
mitigation.
The NIMS also provides a set of standardized organizational
structures--such as the ICS, multi-agency coordination systems, and
public information systems--as well as requirements for processes,
procedures, and systems to improve interoperability among jurisdictions
and disciplines in various areas.
The major components of the NIMS are:
Command and Management
Preparedness
Resource Management
Communications and Information Management
Supporting Technologies
Ongoing Management and Maintenance
I would like to briefly highlight the most important aspects of each
component of the NIMS.
Command and Management
There are three command structures in the NIMS: the Incident
Command System (ICS), Multiagency Coordination Systems, and Public
Information Systems. I will discuss ICS in greater detail shortly.
Multiagency Coordination Systems provide the architecture to support
and coordinate the resources that are needed to support the on-site
incident commander and include Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs),
procedures, facilities, and communications. Public Information is
coordinated in a Joint Information Center (JIC), which provides the
structure and protocols for communicating consistent, timely, and
accurate information to the public during a crisis or emergency
situation.
Preparedness
The NIMS addresses the specific measures and capabilities that
jurisdictions should develop and incorporate into their overall system
to enhance their operational preparedness. Preparedness is implemented
through a continuous cycle of Planning, Training, Equipping,
Exercising, Evaluating, and Corrective Action and Mitigation. NIMS
Preparedness also addresses mutual aid, personnel qualifications and
certification protocols, and guidelines for publications management.
NIMS Preparedness and the implementation of HSPD-8 National
Preparedness are closely linked. While the NIMS provides the core
concepts and principles of preparedness, HSPD-8 implementation, through
the National Preparedness Goal, will define the capacities and
capabilities that must be met at the State and local levels. HSPD-8
implementation will also help assess the resources needed to support
State and local jurisdictions in achieving the Preparedness Goal.
Resource Management
Resource management involves coordinating and overseeing the tools,
processes, and systems that provide incident managers with timely and
appropriate resources during an incident. NIMS resource management
provides a uniform method to identify, acquire, allocate, and track
resources and is enabled by the standardized classification of
resources, known as resource typing. It uses a credentialing system
tied to uniform training and certification standards to ensure that
resources can be successfully integrated into response operations, and
assigns responsibility for resource management to EOCs and/or other
multiagency coordination systems.
Communications and Information Management
Effective communications and information management during an
incident are dependant upon a common operating picture, accessible
across jurisdictions and functional agencies, and common communications
and data standards, to assure accessibility and interoperability. A
common operating picture allows incident managers at all levels to make
effective, consistent decisions expeditiously and ensures consistency
at all levels of incident management. Common communications and data
standards are fundamental to an effective NIMS. Much work is already
underway in this area, and the NIMS Integration Center will collaborate
with other offices working to address these issues, including the
SAFECOM program, the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility
(OIC), and the Disaster Management program.
For example, the Disaster Management program, an interagency
initiative led by FEMA since 2001, is a critical government-wide
initiative that directly improves the ability of our nation's first
responders to communicate and share information at all levels of
government.
Disaster Management provides three critical functions to first
responders and citizens. The first is one-stop access through the
disasterhelp.gov portal for all Federal disaster management-related
information, services, and planning and response tools making it easier
to find disaster assistance information. The second important function
is the development and promotion of standards to share emergency
response information across disparate third party software packages and
between organizations, regardless of the source or type of information.
The third capability provided through this initiative is an
interoperable disaster management tool to assist first responders in
preparing for and responding to a disaster. This tool promotes
information sharing among the public safety community and among local,
State, and Federal governments in order to better coordinate response
to an incident and ultimately save lives and property. There are
currently over 800 user groups in 49 states using this tool and it has
been used to respond to over 50 real-world incidents, including the
recent Hurricane Ivan, Hurricane Isabel in September 2003, and the
California wildfires. There are also over 36,000 registered users of
the Dhelp portal who look to the portal not only to get the latest
updates on incidents across the nation, but also for authoritative
sources of disaster preparation, mitigation, and recovery
information.''
Supporting Technologies
The ongoing development of science and technology is integral to
the improvement and refinement of the NIMS. The NIMS provides
mechanisms to integrate the incident management science and technology
needs into the national research and development (R&D) agenda.
Incident Command System (ICS) and the 9/11 Commission Recommendations
At the core of the NIMS is the Incident Command System (ICS). The
NIMS establishes ICS as the standardized incident organizational
structure for the management of all incidents. ICS integrates a
combination of facilities, equipment, personnel, procedures, and
communications operating within a common organizational structure. ICS
is interdisciplinary and organizationally flexible to meet the needs of
incidents of any size or level of complexity. ICS can be used at all
levels of the government and can be exported to the private sector. To
enhance coordination of effort, during incidents involving multiple
jurisdictions or agencies, the principle of unified command is
incorporated into the NIMS ICS organizational structure. Unified
command not only coordinates the efforts of multiple jurisdictions and
agencies, but also provides for and assures joint decisions on
objectives, strategies, plans, priorities, and public communications.
When the Department of Homeland Security released the NIMS on March
1, 2004, Secretary Ridge and the Under Secretary for Emergency
Preparedness and Response specifically highlighted compliance with the
ICS as being possible in the short term. They recognized that in some
cities, the fire and police departments have worked together using ICS
for years. HSPD-5, requires State and local adoption of NIMS as
condition for receiving federal preparedness funding, to the extent
permitted by law. ICS is at its core, a management system designed to
integrate resources to effectively attack a common problem. This system
is not exclusive to one discipline or set of circumstances; its
hallmark is its flexibility to accommodate all circumstances.
The recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
Upon the United States (the ``9/11 Commission'') highlight the
importance of the ICS. The Commission's recent report recommends
national adoption of the ICS to enhance command, control, and
communications capabilities. All federal, state, and local
jurisdictions will be required to adopt ICS in order to be compliant
with the NIMS.
Our success in implementing the NIMS will ensure, for the first
time, all of the nation's emergency responders will use a common
language, and a common set of procedures when working individually and
together to keep America safe. The NIMS ensures that they will have the
same preparation, the same goals and expectations, and most
importantly, they will be speaking the same language.
NIMS Implementation
Earlier this month, Secretary Ridge issued guidance to address the
phased implementation of the NIMS at the Federal, State, and local
levels. In a September 8, 2004 letter to the Governors, Secretary Ridge
highlighted the important features of NIMS implementation that should
receive special emphasis in FY 2005. Many of the NIMS requirements are
specific to local jurisdictions, and in order for NIMS to be
implemented successfully across the nation, it is critical that States
provide support and leadership to tribal and local entities. The
Department is looking to the Governors to coordinate with the State
agencies, tribal governments, and local jurisdictions to develop a
strategy to ensure statewide NIMS implementation.
At the State and Territory level, efforts to implement the NIMS in
FY 2005 must include the following:
Incorporating NIMS into existing training programs and
exercises
Ensuring that Federal preparedness funding (including the DHS
Homeland Security Grant Program and Urban Area Security Initiative
(UASI)) support NIMS implementation at the State and local levels (in
accordance with the eligibility and allowable uses of the grants)
Incorporating NIMS into Emergency Operations Plans (EOP)
Promotion of intrastate mutual aid agreements
Coordinating and providing technical assistance to local
entities regarding NIMS
Institutionalizing the use of the ICS
At the State, territorial, tribal, and local levels, jurisdictions
should support NIMS implementation in FY 2005 by:
Completing the NIMS Awareness Course: ``National Incident
Management System (NIMS), An Introduction'' IS 700
This independent study course, developed by the Emergency
Management Institute (EMI), explains the purpose, principles, key
components and benefits of NIMS. The course is available on-line on the
EMI web page at: http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/is700.asp.
Formally recognizing the NIMS and adopting the NIMS
principles and policies
States, territories, tribes, and local entities should establish
legislation, executive orders, resolutions, ordinances, or other formal
action to adopt the NIMS. The NIMS Integration Center (NIC) is
developing sample language and templates to assist jurisdictions in
formally adopting the NIMS through legislative and/or executive/
administrative means.
Establishing a NIMS baseline by determining which NIMS
requirements have already been met
We recognize that State, territorial, tribal, and local entities have
already implemented many of the concepts and protocols identified in
the NIMS. The NIC is developing the NIMS Capability Assessment Support
Tool (NIMCAST), a web-based self-assessment system that States,
territories, tribes, and local governments can use to evaluate their
incident response and management capabilities. This useful tool
identifies the requirements established within the NIMS and can assist
jurisdictions in determining the extent to which they are already
compliant, as well as identifying the NIMS requirements that they are
not being met. The NIC began a formal pilot test of the NIMCAST with a
limited number of States earlier this month. Upon completion of the
pilot and any necessary refinements to the system, the NIC will provide
all potential future users with voluntary access to the system.
Establishing a timeframe and developing a strategy for
full NIMS implementation
States should work with the tribal and local governments to develop a
strategy for statewide compliance with the NIMS.
Institutionalizing the use of the Incident Command System
(ICS)
If State, territorial, tribal, and federal grant recipients are not
already using ICS, they must institutionalize the use of ICS
(consistent with the concepts and principles taught by DHS) across the
entire response system.
To the maximum extent possible, States, territories, tribes, and
local entities are encouraged to achieve full NIMS implementation and
institutionalization across the entire response system during FY 2005.
Applicants will be required to certify as part of their FY 2006 grant
applications that they have met the FY 2005 NIMS requirements. To the
extent that full implementation is not possible during FY 2005, Federal
preparedness assistance will be leveraged to complete NIMS
implementation by FY 2006. By FY 2007, receipt of Federal preparedness
assistance will be conditioned upon full compliance with the NIMS.
NIMS Implementation at the Federal Level
The Secretary also recently issued guidance to address the
implementation of NIMS at the Federal level. The NIC is working with
Federal departments and agencies to ensure they develop a plan to adopt
NIMS and that all FY 2005 Federal preparedness assistance program
documents address State and local NIMS implementation. By December 31,
2004, all Federal Departments and Agencies with a primary or supporting
role under the National Response Plan (NRP) must submit a NIMS
Implementation Plan to DHS. The implementation plans must reflect full
NIMS implementation within the Department or Agency by September 30,
2005. The NIMS Integration Center is developing a template to assist in
the development of the NIMS implementation plans. In accordance with
the guidance that was issued to the Federal Departments and Agencies,
the Secretary also issued a memorandum to the DHS Directorates and
offices outlining the steps that DHS must take internally to implement
the NIMS. The DHS Headquarters Operational Integration Staff (I-STAFF)
will lead the overall development of the DHS NIMS Implementation Plan,
in cooperation with the DHS Directorates and offices.
For those Federal departments and agencies that do not have a role
under the NRP, the Secretary issued a separate letter, asking those
agencies to review the NIMS and assess the impact that it may have on
their programs and operations.
Training and other Tools to Support NIMS Implementation
The Emergency Management Institute has developed a NIMS Awareness
training course. This independent study course explains the purpose,
key components, and benefits of the NIMS, and as noted above, is
available on the FEMA training website. In addition, the paper-based
version of this NIMS awareness training was recently completed. The
paper-based version will allow for large groups to be trained together
during a conference or meeting.
As I explained earlier, the ICS is at the core of the NIMS and one
of the first steps for becoming compliant with the NIMS is for States
and local governments to institutionalize the use of ICS (as taught by
DHS) across the entire response system. ``ICS as taught by DHS'' means
that whatever ICS training a jurisdiction receives must be consistent
with the concepts, principles, and characteristics of the ICS training
offered by the various DHS training entities. It doesn't mean the ICS
training needs to be taught by a DHS employee or at a DHS facility,
although those are certainly available training options.
ICS training developed by FEMA is already available in the states.
This training includes: ICS-100, Introduction to ICS; ICS-200, Basic
ICS; ICS-300, Intermediate ICS; and ICS-400, Advanced ICS. The state
emergency management training offices can coordinate these training
programs for interested participants. FEMA's Emergency Management
Institute (EMI) and the National Fire Academy (NFA) also offer ICS
Train-the-Trainer classes at their facilities in Emmitsburg, Maryland.
At the local level, agencies may contact their fire departments for
information and training on ICS.
We recognize a variety of other training programs are available
which provide ICS training; the courses mentioned are just a start. The
NIC will be working with Federal and State training providers to ensure
their ICS course offerings are consistent with the NIMS.
During FY 2005, the NIC will continue to provide guidance and
technical assistance to Federal Departments and Agencies, as well as
State, territorial, tribal, and local governments on the FY 2005-2006
NIMS implementation requirements. This guidance will include a suite of
``How-To Implement NIMS'' manuals, addressing key components of NIMS,
such as mutual aid, credentialing, ICS, and resource management.
NIMS Integration Center (NIC)
The NIMS required the establishment of the NIC to provide strategic
direction for, and oversight of the NIMS, including continuous
refinement of the system and its components over the long term.
Secretary Ridge established the NIC on May 8, 2004. The NIC reports to
Secretary Ridge through the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness
and Response (EP&R), Michael Brown. The NIC is physically located
within FEMA headquarters in Washington, DC.
The NIC's organization and structure includes the Office of the NIC
Director and proposes five functional branches. The branches include:
Standards and Resources Branch; Training and Exercises Branch; the
System Evaluation and Compliance Branch. the Publications Management
Branch and the Technology/Research & Development Branch. Initial NIC
staff is comprised of detailees from DHS directorates and offices,
including the Emergency Preparedness and Response (EP&R) Directorate,
the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness
(OSLGCP), and the Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate. NIC
staffing will expand to include interagency detailees and state and
local government representatives.
The responsibilities of the NIC include: facilitating the
development of a national system of guidelines, protocols and standards
for NIMS implementation; defining national-level training standards and
assessment criteria for the various components of the NIMS; and
developing compliance requirements and timelines for federal, state,
local and tribal entities implementing the NIMS.
Currently, the NIC is focusing its efforts on several activities in
support of the NIMS and the overall mission of the Department of
Homeland Security. NIC activities include:
Receiving and brokering initial feedback and questions
on the NIMS;
Facilitating the development and delivery of NIMS
awareness training, education, and publications;
Coordinating training and providing initial guidance
and tools to Federal, State, local, and tribal entities on
understanding, implementing, and complying with the NIMS;
Identifying existing capabilities, initiatives, and
resources that support the NIMS and the NIC;
Identifying the process by which revisions to the NIMS
are recommended, approved, and posted;
Further defining the organizational structure,
collaborative processes, outreach mechanisms, and support
requirements of the full NIC;
Establishing a NIC Advisory Committee within the
existing Homeland Security Advisory Council structure to
continue the collaborative partnerships that have characterized
the development of the NIMS to date and to ensure all users and
stakeholders are given the opportunity to participate in
revisions and updates to the NIMS and participate in NIMS
guidance and directives.
Coordinating activities with other affected DHS
elements or offices as they relate to applicable statutes,
Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs) or other
relevant authorities.
The NIC will continue to evolve and work to accomplish its specific
tasks, as outlined in the NIMS,.and ensure that all efforts are
collaborative and inclusive.
I would like to take some time to provide you with a brief overview
of each of the NIC branches and their responsibilities. The NIC has
accomplished a significant amount in just a few short months and our
activities will continue to expand as we bring on additional staff and
as States and local jurisdictions work to implement the NIMS.
The Standards and Resources Branch is focusing on the development
of a national system of guidelines, protocols and standards for the
implementation of the NIMS system. The Standards and Resources Branch
will promote the compatibility between national-level standards for the
NIMS and those developed by other public, private, and/or professional
groups. The Standards and Resources branch will also begin to
facilitate the development and publication of national standards,
guidelines, and protocols for the qualification and certification of
emergency responder and incident management personnel, as appropriate.
One of the key responsibilities under this branch includes
facilitation of the development and issuance of national standards for
the typing of resources. Other important activities within this branch
will include the identification of performance standards, the
identification of an automated resource management system, and a
national credentialing system. Current initiatives within this branch
include:
Developing a matrix to describe all existing and on-going NIMS
related standards efforts, identifying areas where additional standards
work is needed, and developing a prioritized approach to addressing
gaps in standards, in partnership with the DHS Science and Technology
Directorate and existing Standards Development Organizations;
Enhancing mutual aid efforts nationwide by typing resources,
promoting inter--and intra-state mutual aid agreements;
Identifying a suitable national automated resource management
system for phased deployment and use by Federal, Tribal, State, and
Local responders, starting with the Federal departments and Agencies in
FY2005;
Establishing discipline specific working groups to analyze
existing qualification and credentialing initiatives, and develop
discipline specific standards for a nation-wide first responder
credentialing system.
Developing phased requirements for all jurisdictions to
achieve NIMS compliance.
The NIC, through the Standards and Resources Branch, will
incorporate and expand upon the work that FEMA, through its National
Mutual Aid and Resource Management Initiative, has already accomplished
in this area. This effort and the accomplishments of this working group
directly support the NIMS and the NIC, particularly in the areas of
mutual aid and resource management.
A national protocol for typing critical response resources has
already been developed. 120 resources, including equipment, teams and
personnel, have been typed and the definitions will be released by the
end of this month.
The Training and Exercises Branch is facilitating the definition of
NIMS training requirements and national-level training standards, and
NIMS-related course curricula. It will facilitate the development of
national standards, guidelines and protocols for incident management
training and exercises, including consideration of existing exercise
and training programs at all jurisdictional levels. This branch will
develop a national program for NIMS education and awareness, to include
specific instruction on the purpose and content of the NIMS document
and the NIMS in general. The online NIMS awareness training that I
described earlier is the first of many training modules.
The Training and Exercises Branch will consult and take into
consideration existing exercise and training programs at all
jurisdictional levels in the development of national standards,
guidelines, and protocols for incident management training and
exercises. The branch will develop criteria for training curricula and
classes, using the Planning Scenarios being developed by the Homeland
Security Council as a basis, develop complete exercise programs, and
methodologies for incident management, assist with performance
validation, assists with remediation, and assist with internal process
review. Current initiatives include:
Developing NIMS awareness training;
Identifying existing training that supports NIMS and
determining what additional training is needed to support NIMS
implementation; and
Developing criteria for NIMS training curricula and classes in
coordination with existing training entities.
The System Evaluation and Compliance Branch will oversee the
development of assessment criteria for the various components of the
NIMS. It will oversee compliance requirements and compliance timelines
for federal, state, local and tribal entities. It also will maintain a
repository and clearinghouse for reports and lessons learned from
actual incidents, training and exercises. Current initiatives include
developing the NIMS Capability Assessment Support Tool (NIMCAST), the
web-based self-assessment tool I mentioned earlier, that will assist
jurisdictions in evaluating their incident response and management
capabilities against NIMS requirements.
The Publications Management Branch would develop and publish
materials and standardized templates to support the implementation and
continuous refinement of the NIMS, as well as review in coordination
with appropriate entities, discipline-specific publication management
requirements submitted by professional organizations and associations.
Finally, the proposed Technology/R&D Branch, in coordination with
the Under Secretary for Science and Technology in DHS, would focus on
the integration of the incident management science and technology needs
of the various entities (departments, agencies, private and non-
governmental organizations) and the national R&D agenda.
The NIMS Integration Center has created a web page, www.fema.gov/
nims, to provide information about the NIMS, including NIMS-related
guidelines, tools and resources. The NIC has also set up a mailbox at
NIMS-Integration-Center@dhs.gov so that the incident response community
can ``Ask the NIC'' questions about NIMS implementation. The NIC will
continue to post up-to-date information on the progress and current
activities of its branches on the NIC web page.
Leveraging Existing Initiatives
The NIC was not designed to do all of the work necessary to
facilitate NIMS implementation. Just as the NIMS was developed by
incorporating existing best practices into a comprehensive, national
approach to domestic incident management, the NIC must leverage
existing efforts and initiatives to support NIMS implementation.
The area of NIMS-related standards provides a great example to
illustrate my point. There are so many facets to NIMS-related
standards, including equipment standards, communications standards,
information management standards, credentialing standards, and training
standards, to name just a few. Just as numerous as the areas requiring
standards, are offices and organizations both within and outside of DHS
working to develop these standards. The NIC cannot, and should not, be
in the business of developing standards in any of these areas. Instead,
like a true integration center, our job is to connect the dots between
all of these efforts, identify gaps where no one is addressing a
particular issue, serve as a proponent of that issue, and coordinate
with the appropriate office or standard development organization to
develop the standard.
Coordination both within and outside the department is key to the
NIC's mission and the successful implementation of the NIMS across the
nation. The NIC will continue to leverage existing initiatives and
efforts that relate to NIMS implementation, including the
implementation of HSPD-8 National Preparedness, the National Response
Plan (NRP), existing credentialing efforts at the State and discipline
levels, and the work of other DHS Directorates, like S&T, EP&R, and
OSLGCP. Because the NIC staff includes detailees from other DHS
offices, and will eventually include liaisons from other Federal,
State, and local organizations, the NIC is uniquely positioned to
leverage existing capabilities and efforts. In addition, the
establishment of the NIC Advisory Committee through the existing
Homeland Security Advisory Council structure will further enhance our
collaborative partnerships.
Conclusion
The Department recognizes that the overwhelming majority of
emergency incidents are handled on a daily basis by a single
jurisdiction at the local level. However, it is critically important
that all jurisdictions comply with the NIMS because the challenges we
face as a nation are far greater than the capabilities of any one
community or State; they are not, however, greater than the sum of all
of us working together through mutual support. There will be instances
in which successful domestic incident management operations depend on
the involvement of emergency responders from multiple jurisdictions, as
well as personnel and equipment from other States and the Federal
government. These instances require effective and efficient
coordination across the broad spectrum of organizations and activities.
The success of the operation will depend on our ability to mobilize and
effectively utilize a host of outside resources. They must come
together in an organizational framework that is understood by everyone
and they must utilize a common plan of attack, as specified through the
ICS process of incident action planning. This will only be possible if
we unite, plan, exercise, and respond using a common National Incident
Management System.
I look forward to continuing to work with the Committee as the
Department implements the NIMS across the entire nation.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Michael Freeman.
STATEMENT OF P. MICHAEL FREEMAN, CHIEF, LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE
DEPARTMENT, CALIFORNIA
Chief Freeman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. I am Michael Freeman, Fire Chief, Los Angeles
County, California, Fire Department. I serve also as Chair of
the Terrorism and Homeland Security Committee of the
International Association of Fire Chiefs and appear on the
Association's behalf today.
I am pleased to advise that the IAFC does indeed endorse
the National Incident Management System as an efficient and
effective way to bring resources together to respond to large-
scale incidents. I would look to commend the staff at the
Department of Homeland Security, who have worked diligently on
this task, and who have created a fine product. I would also
like to commend my colleagues in the Fire Service who
participated in the efforts.
This document is a strong document and a strong plan,
because actual practitioners were intimately involved in
drafting it. One aspect of NIMS that we fully endorse is the
Incident Command System. Much of Fire Service has been using
ICS for decades, and, in fact, just last Fall ICS was
indispensable in managing the California Fire Siege. This was
one of the most devastating wildland fire disasters in
California history. In the face of 14 wind-driven, fast-moving,
simultaneous fires, ICS allowed for the expansion of roles and
the effective use of resources as the complexity of the fire
siege grew. Local, State and Federal agencies used incident
command teams and ICS to manage these complex fire incidents.
Overall, ICS enabled us to manage in excess of 14,000
firefighters and thousands of firefighting resources during the
siege.
ICS clearly works on a large scale, in wild fires, major
flood, earthquakes and even terrorist attacks. But also
important is that ICS works on small day-to-day incidents as
well. It is, therefore, important that law enforcement, fire,
both paid and volunteer, health care workers, and, of course,
Federal agencies do embrace the Incident Command System. It
does work.
Mr. Chairman, as much as we approve of NIMS and are working
to incorporate it into the Fire Service response, I would like
to touch on five areas of concern that we have about its
implementation. First of all, we believe that fiscal year 2006
is really too soon to tie the receipt of Federal terrorism
response grant funding to NIMS implementation. There are over
518 measurable requirements, and implementing all of them
within the next year or so will be a Herculean if not
unreasonable task. Also there are two major areas, those of
credentialing and resource typing, where much more work is
needed before NIMS can be fully implemented.
We saw the need for credentialing of emergency responders
in the aftermath of the World Trade Center. There scores of
personnel with vastly different levels of training showed up
and went to work. The incident commander had no way to know or
to check on their level of training, their qualifications or
their credentials. A truly a safe and systematic approach
requires nationwide training standards and credentialing, and
this will take time.
NIMS also requires mutual aid resource typing. This is
important because each State and even different entities define
resources differently. For example, in Indiana if a fire chief
calls for a tanker, a large truck filled with water will
arrive. In California if I request a tanker, it will be an
airplane filled with fire-retardant agents. We understand that
DHS is resource typing in its project today, and we encourage
that effort and its prompt conclusion with input from State and
local practitioners. We suggest also that fire resource typing
draw from what is taught at the National Fire Academy.
Our second major concern about NIMS is its stress on mutual
aid without truly addressing local costs. We suggest that the
Federal Government do more to formalize mutual aid with
attention given to local costs, especially in regions that do
not qualify for the Urban Area Security Initiative grants.
Funding of mutual aid agreements really should be a part of
NIMS.
And in this vein I would like to commend Chairman Cox for
his work on H.R. 3266, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First
Responders Act, which will allow regions to apply for homeland
security grant funds.
Our third concern about NIMS is training. Literally
hundreds of thousands of responders must be trained in NIMS,
and that training should be performance-based and not reliant
simply upon time spent in the classroom. We encourage the
Department of Homeland Security to work with the practitioners
from all facets of the first responder community to create
training programs for each discipline. We also need to have
local and regional exercises that emergency responders can have
the opportunity through which to practice what they have
learned in the most realistic circumstances as possible.
Our fourth concern is about private sector response.
Clearly the private sector is a key element in the response to
any sort of local emergency. Much more needs to be done in the
outreach to the private sector, which really has not heard much
about NIMS to date.
And our final concern is with the communications
interoperability. The International Association of Fire Chiefs
has been advocating for interoperable communications for years.
It is truly the linchpin of command and control. The IAFC
supports the efforts that the Department of Homeland Security
has undertaken with SAFECOM, which is a practitioner-driven
program that is working.
Also, please bear in mind that large-scale solutions will
likely have large price tags. The IFC urges that the Federal
Government offer monetary relief to State and local entities to
whom upgrading communications equipment may be a hardship.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Members, I would like to thank
you again for holding this hearing. I would like to commend the
colleagues with me on this panel for their hard work on the
National Incident Management System. I would particularly like
to thank Mr. Gil Jamieson and the Department of Homeland
Security, and extend to him the IAFC's continued support as the
NIMS Integration Center proceeds with integration and the
maintenance phase. Truly much progress has been made. More work
lies ahead, but America is already better prepared as a result
of these efforts. Thank you very much.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you very much for your testimony. I
would note that by tradition I should have introduced you as
Chief Freeman. My apologies for that.
[The statement of Chief Freeman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chief P. Michael Freeman
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Michael Freeman,
Chief of the Los Angeles County (CA) Fire Department. I appear today on
behalf of the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), in my
role as chair of the IAFC's Terrorism and Homeland Security Committee.
I am also a member of the Emergency Response Senior Advisory Committee
to the Homeland Security Advisory Council, which is part of the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The IAFC represents the leaders and managers of America's fire and
emergency service. America's fire and emergency service reaches every
community across the nation, protecting urban, suburban, and rural
neighborhoods. Nearly 1.1 million men and women serve in more than
30,000 career, volunteer, and combination fire departments across the
United States. The fire service is the only entity that is locally
situated, staffed, and equipped to respond to all types of emergencies.
Members of the fire service respond to natural disasters such as
earthquakes, tornadoes, and floods as well as to man-made catastrophes,
both accidental and deliberate, such as hazardous materials incidents
and acts of terrorism. As such, America's fire service is an all-risk,
all-hazard response entity.
The IAFC Endorses the National Incident Management System
Mr. Chairman, in your invitation you asked witnesses to address the
National Incident Management System, commonly known as NIMS. The IAFC--
and particularly my colleague, Chief John Buckman of the German
Township (IN) Fire Department--have been involved in creating the NIMS
from the start. We endorse the NIMS as an efficient and effective way
to bring resources together to respond to large-scale incidents. I
would like to commend the staff at DHS who have worked diligently on
this task, and who have created a fine product. I would also like to
commend my colleagues in the fire service who participated in this
effort. The main reason this document is strong is that actual
practitioners were intimately involved in drafting it.
One aspect of the NIMS that we fully embrace is the Incident
Command System (ICS). The fire service has been using ICS for decades.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, the state of California was the first to create
and adopt an ICS system. It grew out of the devastating 1970 fire
season where California fire services were severely criticized for
failing to provide leadership in the areas of cooperation, command and
control, communications, and training.
ICS was indispensable in managing the California Fire Siege of
2003, when we had to fight fourteen fires--all major incidents--
simultaneously. This was one of the most devastating wildland fire
disasters in Southern California history--and in state history. ICS
allowed for the expansion of roles and resources as the complexity of
the siege grew. Local, state, and federal agencies used incident
command teams that managed complex fire incidents. Some served as area
command teams to supervise the multiple fires on behalf of agency
administrators.
During the Fire Siege, ICS helped commanders manage incident
complexity and resource depth. There were numerous large fires burning
concurrently, exceeding the span of control guidelines and involving
multiple jurisdictions. That meant overlapping responsibilities and
different agency policies. The fires were burning in both towns and
wilderness areas simultaneously. ICS allowed us to split larger
incidents in half, sometimes along jurisdictional boundaries. ICS also
allowed us to draw on the closest existing resources that were trained
and ready--with an overall count on our peak day of 14,000
firefighters, including 263 crews, 1,659 engines, 81 helicopters, 178
bulldozers and 2,207 overhead workers.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The term ``overhead workers'' includes personnel who are
assigned to supervisory positions such as incident commanders, command
staff, general staff, directors, supervisors, and unit leaders
(FIRESCOPE Field Operations Guide ICS 420-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have seen ICS work on a large-scale incident in California, and I
am confident that ICS is the best way to handle a potential large-scale
event such as a terrorist attack. It is important to note that ICS also
works on small day-to-day incidents, as well. I encourage all parties
involved in the NIMS--law enforcement officers, health care workers
and, of course, federal agencies--to embrace this system.
IAFC Concerns about Implementation
Mr. Chairman, as much as we approve of the NIMS and are working to
incorporate it into fire service response, we have a number of concerns
about its implementation. Specifically, we are concerned about: (1) the
imposed time limit for implementation, (2) the lack of funding for
mutual aid systems, (3) the types of training being offered, (4)
private sector response, and (5) requirements for communications
interoperability.
First, we believe that the start of Fiscal Year 2006 is too soon to
begin to tie the receipt of federal terrorism response grant funding to
NIMS implementation. We do believe that a financial incentive is
important, and we believe that it is wholly appropriate for DHS to use
federal grant funds as leverage. Our concern is with the timing. The
NIMS has 518 measurable requirements. It is unclear to us whether DHS
will require implementation of all 518, or whether a percentage will be
required, or whether there will be a ``top ten.'' Implementing all 518
requirements within the next year will be a Herculean--and perhaps
unreasonable--task.
At least two areas exist where we need more guidance from DHS. They
are credentialing and resource-typing. We saw the need for
credentialing of emergency responders in the aftermath of the World
Trade Center attacks, when scores of personnel who had not been
dispatched arrived on-scene as volunteers. The incident commander had
no way to check their credentials to see how they were trained and to
what levels, and if their training was current. We understand that the
U.S. Fire Administration (USFA), with the help of practitioners, has
completed a significant amount of work on credentialing; however, no
final product has been disseminated. We encourage the USFA to take
whatever steps may be necessary to implement the program.
The NIMS also requires mutual aid resource-typing. This is
important because each state defines its resources differently. For
example, if a chief in Indiana calls for a tanker, a big truck filled
with water will arrive. However, if a chief in California calls for a
tanker, he or she will get an airplane filled with fire-retardant
agents. In Indiana, a rescue company performs extrications; in
Maryland, a rescue company is an ambulance squad. We understand that
DHS's resource-typing project is in its final stages. We encourage DHS
to work toward its prompt completion, with input from state and local
practitioners.
Our second major concern about the NIMS is that it does not fund
mutual aid systems before an event occurs.\2\ As the mutual aid
coordinator for a five-county area in Southern California, I cannot
state strongly enough how important mutual aid systems are. They allow
regions to share manpower and equipment during a large-scale response.
Mutual aid systems also provide measurably improved command and control
communications across agencies and jurisdictions. These agreements are
not tacit, and they are not simply signed contracts. They are actual
systems that are given careful consideration by all involved parties.
It is not enough for one jurisdiction to say to another, ``we will help
you.'' The jurisdictions must decide exactly what form that help will
take, so that nothing is left to last-minute decisions or chance. We
have that in Southern California, and it was indispensable in managing
the 2003 Fire Siege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The federal government does fund mutual aid systems after
certain events, such as after a national declaration of disaster.
Another example is the Fire Management Assistance Grant program (FMAG)
administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FMAG
provides a 75% reimbursement to local entities that respond to a
wildland fire when lives are threatened and evacuation is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The federal government does recognize the need for mutual aid
agreements but it must do more to formalize that aid, especially in
regions that do not qualify for Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)
grants. Yes, local communities are first on the scene. But the
capabilities grow through ICS. DHS should help fund mutual aid
agreements as part of the NIMS. I would like to commend Chairman Cox
for his work on H.R. 3266, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First
Responders Act, which would allow regions to apply for homeland
security grant funds.
Our third concern about NIMS is the training that is--and is not--
available. Aside from a few online courses that teach NIMS awareness,
DHS has not yet formalized a training program. I must stress that all
participants must be trained in the NIMS. That training must be
performance-based and not reliant simply on time spent in a classroom.
We encourage DHS to work with practitioners from all facets of the
first responder community to create training programs for each
discipline. DHS should partner more with local practitioners to draft
these training programs. DHS should also utilize the expertise of local
practitioners to teach these courses. Practitioners should teach these
courses through the training systems and facilities that already exist
at the state level and in various response communities. Reinventing the
wheel is only going to take more time, and result in a potentially less
effective product. We also need to have exercises--perhaps modeled from
the highly successful TOPOFF exercises that DHS holds regularly--so
that emergency responders have the opportunity to practice what they
have learned in the most realistic situations possible.
Our fourth concern is private sector response. The NIMS requires
first responders to reach out to the private sector, but does not
define what shape that outreach should take. My colleague Chief Buckman
told me that he reached out recently to his local utility companies to
get them involved, and they had never even heard of the NIMS. DHS
should rectify this situation as soon as possible. The private sector
controls much of the infrastructure that could trigger a large-scale
incident--think natural gas, electricity, and nuclear power. First
responders must be able to work with them to craft response plans.
Our final concern is with communications interoperability. The IAFC
has been advocating for interoperable communications for years. It is
the lynchpin of command and control. That is why the IAFC supports the
efforts that DHS has undertaken with SAFECOM, which is a practitioner-
driven program that is working. The IAFC encourages DHS to use a
practitioner-driven approach to enhancing communications
interoperability through the NIMS.
Many local departments have found interim solutions. We in Los
Angeles County have a cache of radios for large-scale incidents. Anyone
who arrives on-scene goes through a staging area. We first try to
reprogram each person's radio to our frequency level. If that is not
possible, we lend them one of ours.
Of course, the issue still needs to be addressed comprehensively.
Keeping practitioners involved will help make sure that solutions are
agreed-upon and workable. Also, please bear in mind that large-scale
solutions will have large price tags. The IAFC urges DHS to offer some
monetary relief to state and local entities for whom upgrading
communications equipment may be a hardship.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you again for
holding this hearing. I would like to commend my colleagues who sit on
this panel with me for their hard work on the NIMS. I would
particularly like to thank Gil Jamieson, and to extend the IAFC's hand
as the NIMS Integration Center proceeds with the implementation and
maintenance phase.
I will be happy to answer any of your questions.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Steve Lenkart.
STATEMENT OF STEVE LENKART, NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE
AFFAIRS, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF POLICE OFFICERS
Mr. Lenkart. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Thompson and members of the subcommittee. My name is Steve
Lenkart. I am the National Director of Legislative Affairs for
the International Brotherhood of Police Officers. I am also a
former police officer from the Chicago area where I had the
pleasure of serving as a fire fighter and emergency medical
technician, all three providing me within an in-depth
understanding of each component and their individual needs and
responsibilities. In particular today I speak on behalf of law
enforcement, a very visible and crucial element vital to the
success of any Incident Command System and to the support of
infrastructures that surround it. Unfortunately, law
enforcement is sometimes overlooked or underestimated within
these systems often because of the unique function that they
perform within the community is not fully understood by others.
Today I would like to share with you three concerns of the
law enforcement community about the integration, implementation
of the National Incident Management System in an effort to
prevent unintended consequences during the initiation period of
NIMS for the benefit of all entities involved. They are in
brief, one, that law enforcement agencies traditionally have
not used large systems of incident command; two, that the role
of law enforcement at critical incidents has expanded in recent
years; and three, that police agencies widely lack many of the
resources that other first responders may have available to
them.
Continuing with my first point. Federal, State, local law
enforcement agencies have not historically participated in
large-scale systems of command or management among themselves,
and have even less commonly coordinated such efforts with other
government agencies because of the different responsibilities
that they are charged with heat at the scene of an incident.
However, with the increased probability of acts of terror
occurring domestically, we have entered into a new era that has
forever changed our perceptions of prevention, preparedness and
response to critical incidents.
Unrest in the world around us has created a need for more
comprehensive systems of coordination that must be flexible
enough to provide for the proper guidance to deal with the
control and resolution of a criminal element; whereas before
the involvement of a criminal element was less likely and, as a
result, large command systems were reserved primarily for use
by fire, EMS, environmental and health care providers.
My second point is now understanding that law enforcement
at all levels must play a more prominent role in incident
command systems, it is vital that the members of the Federal,
State, local law enforcement communities participate as major
players in the development of policy and procedure under NIMS.
This is to ensure that traditional boundaries that have kept
them separate from other public safety entities in the past are
minimized or defeated. In addition, incorporated into the
incident command systems must be the flexibility and leverage
for an agency to take a lead role at one point and then be able
to adjust its involvement to a secondary role spontaneously
without disrupting the command system in progress.
If you consider recent instances of mass acts of violence
and terrorism around the globe that were carefully planned and
executed by their assailants, throughout an ordeal of this kind
the responsibilities of each agency involved may change,
requiring the command structure to adjust. This kind of ground-
level flexibility can only be achieved with the full
integration of all entities to ensure smooth transition of
commands which are crucial to the success of a mission and the
safety of the rescuers and victims.
My third and last point is realizing that law enforcement
is generally not fluent with the practices of large-scale
incident command systems, and because there are less controls
in place that govern the standards and practices for law
enforcement and that of other first responders, special
considerations will have to be given to many State and local
police departments before they will be able to achieve parity
with other entities in terms of equipment, training and policy
adoption. I will cite a couple of examples.
Although police officers respond to the same incidents as
their counterparts in the Fire Service, they are seldom
equipped as well as firefighters with protective clothing,
breathing apparatus, safety devices and so on, leaving them to
fend for themselves with nothing more than a coarsely made
polyester uniform. Training for police officers is more
difficult than it is for their counterparts because of the
individual schedules and a lack of manpower to cover street
assignments while officers are taken out of service for drills
or classes. Legal issues also arise when a police officer
responds to another jurisdiction or State and acts as an
enforcer of foreign laws.
Departmental policies will have to be rewritten and in some
cases created entirely to adjust for compliance with new
Federal and State standards. Many of these issues have already
been addressed for years by non-law-enforcement entities,
leaving police behind the curve.
Considering the many areas that law enforcement agencies
will have to adjust, and considering the extra time and funding
it will take to get the police departments up to speed with
others under NIMS, the Federal Preparedness Grant System should
be expected to spend money on these deficiencies, perhaps
disproportionately, and allow extra time to incorporate the
principles of NIMS and ICS into their procedures.
It serves no purpose to allow police officers in a system
where they will be handicapped by a lower level of equipment
and training, backed up by deficient policies and lack of
funding. The police will carry a larger burden than others
initially, and they will carry this burden on already stressed
local budgets unless grants are issued in advance to help them
acclimate to the new Federal and State standards.
In conclusion, NIMS is a beneficial system that can play an
important role in the training, educating, equipping and
assisting of those responding to critical incidents, especially
acts of terrorism. But as I said on my opening remarks, law
enforcement has unique responsibilities that extend far beyond
the tertiary roles of directing traffic and crowd control. I
would like to see our Nation's police officers better equipped
and protected with the knowledge that can save lives, the lives
of citizens, the lives of other first responders so that they
can perform their jobs, and the lives of police officers
themselves. The NIMS system can provide this opportunity;
however, there is no doubt that this will take time, resources,
patience and a modernized thought process by all those involved
to fully integrate law enforcement into the system.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Thompson, members of
subcommittee, I appreciate your consideration of our Nation's
police officers under NIMS, and I look forward to working with
you to ensure that our officers get the resources that they
desperately need, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak
before you today.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank you very much for your testimony.
[The statement of Mr. Lenkart follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Lenkart
Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee.
My name is Steve Lenkart; I'm the National Director of Legislative
Affairs for the International Brotherhood of Police Officers. I'm a
former police officer from the Chicago, Illinois area where I also had
the pleasure of serving as a firefighter and emergency medical
technician, covering a 14-year period of service in law enforcement and
other emergency services. During those years, I had the rare but very
fulfilling opportunity to work in all three capacities with my
experiences ranging from the front line to supervisory and management
positions, providing me with an in-depth understanding of each
component, and their individual needs and responsibilities.
It is from these experiences, and also from my more recent years
representing our nation's first responders here in Washington, that I
speak before you today. In particular I speak on behalf of law
enforcement, a very visible and crucial element vital to the success of
any incident command system and to the supportive infrastructures that
surround it. Unfortunately, law enforcement is sometimes overlooked or
underestimated within these systems often because the unique function
that they perform within a community is not fully understood by others.
Today, I would like to share with you three concerns of the law
enforcement community about the integration and implementation of the
National Incident Management System (NIMS) in an effort to prevent
unintended consequences during the initiation period of NIMS for the
benefit of all entities involved. They are, in brief, (I.) that law
enforcement agencies traditionally have not used large systems of
incident commands, (II.) that the role of law enforcement at critical
incidents has expanded in recent years, and (III.) that police agencies
widely lack many of the resources that other first responders may have
available to them.
I. Traditional Use of Command Systems
Continuing on my first point: federal, state and local law
enforcement agencies have not historically participated in large scale
systems of command or management among themselves, and have even less
commonly coordinated such efforts with other kinds government agencies
because of the different responsibilities they are charged with at the
scene of an incident. However, with the increased probability of acts
of terror occurring domestically, we have entered into a new era that
has forever changed our perceptions of prevention, preparedness and
response to critical incidents. Unrest in the world around us has
created the need for more comprehensive systems of coordination that
must be flexible enough to provide for the proper guidance to deal with
the control and resolution of a criminal element; whereas before, the
involvement of a criminal element was less likely and as a result,
large command systems, such as one designed under NIMS, were reserved
primarily for use by fire, EMS, environmental and healthcare providers.
II. Law Enforcement's ``New'' Role
My second point is: now understanding that law enforcement at all
levels must play a more prominent role in incident command systems, it
is vital that members of the federal, state and local law enforcement
communities must participate as major players in the development of
policy and procedure under NIMS. This is to ensure that the traditional
boundaries that have kept them separate from other public safety
entities are minimized or defeated.
In addition, incorporated into the incident command system must be
the flexibility and leverage for an agency to take the lead role at one
point and then be able to adjust its involvement to a secondary role
spontaneously without disrupting the command system in progress.
If you consider the recent instances of mass acts of violence and
terrorism around the globe that were carefully planned and executed by
its assailants, throughout an ordeal of this kind the responsibilities
of each agency involved may change requiring the command structure to
adjust, such as the police yielding command to the medical services to
care for the wounded and then regaining command once the injured have
been cared for. This kind of ground-level flexibility can only be
achieved with the full integration of all entities to ensure smooth
transitions of command which are crucial to the success of the mission,
and the safety of the rescuers and victims.
III. The Lack of Resources for Police Agencies
My third and last point is realizing that law enforcement generally
is not fluent with the practices of large scale incident command
systems, and because there are less controls in place that govern the
standards and practices for law enforcement than that of other first
responders, special consideration will have to be given to many state
and local police departments before they will be able to achieve parity
with the other entities within NIMS in terms of equipment, training,
and policy adoption.
For example, although police officers respond to the same incidents
as their counterparts in the fire service, they are seldom equipped as
well as firefighters with protective clothing, breathing apparatus,
safety devices and so on, leaving them to fend for themselves often
with nothing more than coarsely-made polyester uniforms. Training for
police officers is more difficult than it is for their counterparts
because of their individual schedules and a lack of manpower to cover
street assignments while officers are taken out of service for drills
or classes. Legal issues also arise when a police officer responds to
another jurisdiction or state and acts as an enforcer of foreign laws.
Departmental policies will have to be rewritten, and in some cases
created, to adjust for compliance with new federal and state standards.
Many of these issues have already been addressed for years by non-law
enforcement entities leaving police behind the curve.
Considering the many areas that law enforcement agencies will have
to adjust, and considering the extra time and funding it will take to
get police departments up to speed with others under NIMS, the federal
preparedness grant system should expect to spend money on these
deficiencies, perhaps disproportionately to other entities, and allow
extra time to incorporate the principles of NIMS and ICS into their
procedures. It serves no purpose to involve police officers in a system
where they will be handicapped by a lower level of training and
equipment, backed up by deficient policies and a lack of funding. The
police will carry a larger burden than others initially, and they will
carry this burden on already stressed local budgets unless grants are
issued in advance to help them acclimate to new federal and state
standards.
In Conclusion
In conclusion, NIMS is a beneficial system that can play an
important role in training, educating, equipping and assisting those
responding to critical incidents, especially acts of terrorism. But as
I said in my opening remarks, law enforcement has unique
responsibilities that extend far beyond the tertiary roles of directing
traffic and crowd control. I would like to see our nation's police
officers better equipped and protected with the knowledge that can help
save lives; the lives of our citizens, the lives of other first
responders so that they can perform their duties, and the lives of
police officers, themselves. The NIMS system can provide this
opportunity, however there is no doubt that this will take time,
resources, patience and a modernized thought process by all of those
involved to fully integrate law enforcement into the system.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate your
consideration of our nation's police officers under the NIMS, and I
look forward to working with you to ensure that our officers get the
resources that they desperately need, and I thank you for the
opportunity to speak before you today.
Mr. Shadegg. Dr. Joseph Barbera.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH BARBERA, CODIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR CRISIS,
DISASTER, AND RISK MANAGEMENT, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Dr. Barbera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Thompson and
members of the subcommittee. I am Joseph Barbera. I am a
residency-trained, board-certified emergency physician who has
been involved in emergency response at the local, national, and
international levels since 1986.
While my primary employment is as a professor at George
Washington University, I have had the opportunity to become
extensively involved not just in response, but in the
development of emergency systems that include a component of
medical response.
Particularly I would like to say I have experienced
firsthand some of the difficulties of biological terrorism
response. I was the emergency physician on duty at George
Washington University Hospital the day of the infamous B'nai
B'rith bioterrorism hoax in 1997 that essentially shut down
much of Washington, D.C., and its notoriety is thought to have
spawned many of the bioterrorism hoaxes that occurred across
the United States.
I was a medical controller in the TOPOFF bioterrorism
exercise in Denver in 2000, an observer in the TOPOFF2
bioterrorism exercise in the Chicago area of Illinois last
year, and I was very heavily involved in the anthrax event in
2001 in the national capital area.
From all of that I can say that we need a very complex,
capable management structure in the health and medical arena in
order to manage those types of events. In fact, I think the
central failure in this region in the anthrax event of 2001 was
the absence of effective incident management systems at our
local, State and at the Federal health levels. So I think the
adoption of the National Incident Management System is
critical. I think if properly managed, it will address this
important gap for medical and public health preparedness.
We really need a functional, flexible incident management
system that is consistent across all response disciplines. And
that actually also leads me to some of the concerns of the
current writing of our National Incident Management System and
particularly how incident command is presented.
Since mass causality medical response in the United States
is performed primarily by private medical assets, we must be
sure that NIMS will effectively address this public-private
divide which has come up consistently as a problem in other
mass casualty incidents in the past. We must be sure that
financial regulatory management systems are in place for health
care to maximally surge immediately upon demand. In this
context, medical providers are clearly first responders and so
must be fully integrated into the first responder community.
This will only occur when NIMS has established common
management systems across all disciplines.
I applaud the Department of Homeland Security in its
expeditious manner that they developed and disseminated the
National Incident Management System. I have concerns, however,
that in the development process and in their understandable
push to develop it and put it out, that it was not as open to
the professional input of the health and medical community as
much as many of us would have preferred. It was particularly
unclear if we had full consideration of issues that could be
presented by the acute care medical and hospital professionals.
The NIMS incident command model, as presented in NIMS,
still retains much of the wildland fire base description. That
is not all wrong. It is just that it makes it very, very
difficult for medical professionals reading NIMS to understand
the language concepts and, most importantly, the inherent value
of using incident command. I learned this from professionals,
particularly in the urban search and rescue system from the
early 1990s to the current day, in my response for both urban
official rescue task forces and for the FEMA incident support
team.
I know that what is most important is the process in
incident command and not the boxes and who belongs in what
boxes. Yet when you read incident command, that is not
inherently obvious, or intuitively obvious or clearly obvious
for the novice who is picking this up for the first time, is a
health or medical practitioner or leader, and needs to go from
not understanding at all to being able to practice it when the
time comes.
All of these issues, I think, are very solvable with
appropriate attention to further development of the guidelines
and subsequent training. I think the challenge is to provide
guidance such that medical and health professionals can use the
flexibility inherent in incident management doctrine to adapt
truly useful systems, without straying from the central tenets
that make incident management effective across disciplines.
I think it is important, when we hear that ICS as taught by
the Department of Homeland Security is going to be the
requirement, that we have had a full hearing for the health and
medical professionals, and that ICS as taught by the Department
of Homeland Security will be a system that can accommodate
health and medical concerns. I am absolutely certain that this
can occur, but we have to pay careful attention to how we do it
so it does indeed occur.
I would like to conclude with one very positive remark. In
our many concerns about medical search capability and
capability in mass casualties in the United States, it is
important to emphasize in most parts of the United States, in
almost every community of any significant size, we have very
capable medical and health professionals. I do not have the
concern that, faced with one or two very sick or very injured
patients, that medical professionals can step up and take care
of them as appropriately as possible. My concern is that we
provide to them a management system and the support systems
that come with the good management systems so that when they
are faced with hundreds or thousands of potentially dying
patients, they can still perform to the best possible ability
there is, and that they can do it as safely as possible for
them, for their current patients in health care facilities and
for their communities.
So I think this concludes my prepared remarks. I applaud
the Department of Homeland Security for their moving forward
with the system that has made many in the health and medical
community recognize that we need a single consistent framework
for emergency response, and I look forward to my colleagues and
I being able to participate further in the development of
incident management as it can be understood by our community.
Thank you.
[The statement of Dr. Barbera follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Joseph A. Barbera
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Joseph A.
Barbera, a residency trained, board certified emergency physician who
has been involved with emergency response at the local, national, and
international levels since 1986. I am currently Co-Director of the
Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management at the George
Washington University, where I teach masters and doctoral emergency
management courses, and I provide research and consultation services to
hospitals, EMS, public health, emergency management and other emergency
response entities.
I have been asked to speak to you today about the subject of NIMS
and its importance/application for health and medical response to
large-scale incidents in the United States, particularly as it relates
to terrorist mass casualty events. I would like to state that I have no
remunerative relationship representing hospitals, hospital
associations, or commercial products in this regard.
I would like to begin by congratulating and thanking you for
focusing on this vitally important subject.
From the biography that I submitted to the subcommittee, you can
see that I have extensive experience in emergency response, and in the
development and implementation of response systems that are integrated
across disciplines at the local, state, and federal levels. In the
course of my professional pursuits, I have become very familiar with
the use of incident management.
Of particular note, I have been part of the Office of U.S. Foreign
Disaster Assistance/AID International Search & Rescue Team since 1988,
and was the lead medical consultant in the development of both that
team and the medical component of the FEMA National Urban Search &
Rescue System. I was a member of New York City's Task Force at its
inception, and have been a member of the Fairfax County (Virginia)
Urban Search & Rescue Task Force since I moved to the D.C. area in
1993. I am also a member of the FEMA Urban Search & Rescue Incident
Support Team, and in that capacity responded to the Oklahoma City
Bombing in 1995 and the Pentagon and World Trade Center attacks of 9-
11-2001. I have been involved with the National Disaster Medical System
for many years, participating in advisory and development activities,
large-scale exercises, and response. I have also been extensively
involved in medical planning for the National Capital Area and
specifically for Washington (D.C.) and Arlington County (Virginia). In
many of these activities, I have had the privilege to learn incident
management from true incident management professionals, and in the
process have developed a strong belief that it can be very effective in
managing public health and medical emergencies.
I have experienced firsthand the difficulties of biological
terrorism response. I was the emergency physician on duty at George
Washington University Hospital the day of the infamous B'nai B'rith
bioterrorism hoax in 1997. I was a medical controller for the TOPOFF
bioterrorism exercise in Denver in 2000 and an observer for DHHS for
the TOPOFF2 bioterrorism exercise in the Chicago area. I was heavily
involved in the 2001 anthrax dissemination incident here in the
National Capitol Region. In my role as chair of the emergency
preparedness committee for DC Hospital Association, I established and
moderated a daily conference call that became the basis for information
exchange between hospitals, acute care providers, and the multiple
public health authorities in the National Capitol Region.
Unfortunately, the anthrax incident demonstrated that the capabilities
to effectively manage a large-scale, complex, and rapidly moving health
event were lacking, especially compared with the management success at
an equally complex Pentagon response a month earlier. The central
feature in the failures of the 2001 anthrax incident in the National
Capital Area, in my professional opinion, was the absence of effective
incident management systems at the local, state and federal levels.
The adoption of the National Incident Management System, NIMS, if
properly managed, will address this important gap in medical and public
health preparedness. A functional, flexible, incident management system
that is consistent across all response disciplines is critical for
effective performance of medical assets such as hospitals and medical
providers, for coordinating medicine and public health, and for
integrating both acute care medicine and public health into the larger
emergency response community.
The medical care necessary for a mass casualty event must be
recognized as a public safety function, and therefore as a governmental
responsibility that is equal in importance to fire suppression,
emergency medical services, public works, and law enforcement. As we
face the specter of mass casualties from future incendiary, explosive,
chemical, biological, and other unusual attacks, it is abundantly clear
that the private medical systems must be fully prepared to fill this
critical public safety function in saving lives, reducing suffering,
and providing a visible competency for their communities. Demonstrating
adequate medical response will assist authorities in maintaining the
public trust and in reducing the intended psychological ``terror''
impact of terrorism. Since mass casualty medical response is performed
primarily by private medical assets, we must be sure that NIMS will
effectively address the public-private divide, that health care
facilities are treated as critical infrastructure in every community,
and that financial, regulatory, and management systems are in place for
healthcare to maximally surge immediately upon demand. In this context,
medical providers are clearly first responders, and so must be fully
integrated into the first responder community. This will occur only
when NIMS has established common management systems across all
disciplines.
The decision to establish a National Incident Management System
must be applauded. The development process used in creating the NIMS
document, however, was not as open to professional input as many of us
would have preferred. It is particularly unclear whether the NIMS
development process provided a full hearing for the concerns and issues
of acute care medical and hospital professionals. While I am sure that
public health representation, provided by DHHS, was included in the
development of NIMS, one cannot assume that public health professionals
represent all the concerns of acute care medicine and hospitals.
The NIMS incident command model, as described in NIMS Chapter II
and Appendix A, is very much based upon the description of ICS for
wildland fire incidents. A careful read finds evidence that changes
were made to address law enforcement and security/intelligence
concerns, but no indication that medical issues were similarly
addressed. This is not a power issue, but rather a concern that the
incident management model presented in NIMS must be maximally useful
for all emergency response disciplines. This is particularly important
because the model will be used for future training and for developing
operational systems in communities across the United States.
For many medical professionals reading NIMS, the language,
concepts, and inherent value are not intuitively obvious or clearly
presented. It is not easily understood, for example, how acute care
medicine will provide critical input into the management function of a
large-scale incident response. It is also not clear how one may
establish a Plans/Information Section that, for a biological incident
with very complex incident information needs, may be as complex as the
Operations Section with branches, divisions, groups, and task forces.
The rather vague presentation of how unified management functions in a
complex incident is also concerning, since this is a critical issue for
public health and acute care medical professionals. These are serious
concerns that must be addressed.
All of these issues are very solvable with appropriate attention to
further development of guidelines and subsequent training. The
challenge is to provide guidance such that medical and public health
professionals can use the flexibility inherent in incident management
doctrine to adapt truly useful systems, without straying from the
central tenets that make incident management effective across
disciplines. Carefully developed educational and training programs for
the medical and public health communities must become a priority in the
NIMS implementation process. Further delineation of the processes of
incident management should also be undertaken, with a multi-
disciplinary body that includes medical professionals experienced in
incident management.
I would like to conclude with one very positive remark, which
emphasizes the importance of what we are discussing today: In the
United States, we are fortunate to have a very competent level of
medical care in almost every community of any significant size. I am
not concerned as to whether medical, nursing, and other healthcare
professionals in the U.S. will be able to provide appropriate care when
faced with a very ill or injured patient. We have a very strong medical
foundation upon which to expand our mass casualty preparedness. My
concern is this: to the best of our ability, can we provide these
dedicated professionals with a management and support system they need,
so that when faced with hundreds or thousands of casualties, they can
continue to provide the best possible care, and do it safely? Assuring
that the incident management process and procedures of NIMS are further
developed so that they are easily understood, fully implemented and
trained upon, and ready for use when called upon by health
professionals, hospitals, and other healthcare resources will
significantly address this concern.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks. Again, I
appreciate the opportunity to express my views on this critically
important subject. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or
members of the Subcommittee may have.
Mr. Shadegg. I would like to thank all the witnesses for
their thoughtful testimony.
Let me begin the questioning with you, Mr. Jamieson. I want
to pick up on a point made by Dr. Barbera and, quite frankly,
points made by each of our other panelists by kind of beginning
with Dr. Barbera referred to the fact that in reviewing NIMS
documents, some of the terminology, some of the structure is
not completely understandable within the medical provision.
NIMS was developed within the Forest Fire Service, as I
understand it. You also heard, I think, thoughtful testimony by
Mr. Lenkart about how these concepts are somewhat foreign to
police officers, and I want to get into some detail on those
earlier points, but it seems to me it is important to begin
with the basics.
I guess I would ask you for my colleagues in Congress,
because I have asked a couple of them in the last few days what
do they know about NIMS, and I get blank stares, and also for
the American public, can you just synopsize in plain English
like I might have to do at a town hall meeting what NIMS is in
a way that would be understandable to a doctor or a police
officer that has never embraced these concepts, or, more
importantly, to an average American?
Mr. Jamieson. Mr. Chairman, I will do my best. I appreciate
the comments of my colleagues.
NIMS, as the doctor pointed out, is not a group of
organizational boxes. It is far more than that. It is a series
of processes that outline how we order resources, how we
operate through a common operations section. It is a bottom-up
approach from an incident commander establishing a very modest
organization, scales out to provide for State and Federal
support. It is fundamentally a system supported by a series of
forms and processes that takes on the resources that are
necessary to manage an incident. I guess in my simplest plain
English terms, that is my attempt.
Mr. Shadegg. And effectively implemented, it is a
coordination of all the first responders to best manage a
particular attack, a terrorism attack or some other type of
incident.
Mr. Jamieson. Yes, sir, that is exactly right.
Mr. Shadegg. My time is limited, but I want to give you an
opportunity to specifically respond to the three concerns that
the others have raised. First, I think Chief Freeman said
clearly that 2006 looks difficult, and I want to ask him a
question about that, but I want you to respond to the issue of
2006.
I think Mr. Lenkart made a very valid point that police
officers, for one, do not have the training time that other
agencies do to a certain degree, and in some ways this is not
suited to them, and he asked for special help including
financial assistance to get the police departments ready for
that.
And last, I think, Dr. Barbera's point about these concepts
being foreign to doctors who think about the care of a patient
now trying to be embracing a whole new concept of taking care
of mass casualties.
I would like you to briefly respond to those if you could.
Mr. Jamieson. Sure. Maybe the training piece first.
I would be happy to provide to the committee the full list
of training that is currently available.
Mr. Jamieson. There is some 26 courses that are available
now either through Web-based training or through distance
training, classroom training. We also have them prepared to go
out and train the trainer at the State and local level. Several
of those courses at ICS are customized to address the specific
disciplines that we will be using, so there is a course on
health and medical workers. There is a course on ICS for law
enforcement. There is a course on ICS for public works.
We are not teaching a different brand of ICS with those
courses, but what we are doing is using scenarios that are
applicable to law enforcement and Fire Service and what have
you. So I think we are well positioned now through courses that
are available through the Department to support some of this.
The other point on training that I would raise, Mr.
Chairman, for you and other members of the committee, quite
frankly, is that the Department has NIMS awareness training
that is available now; that we can log in on the Website, you
can look at it, taking maybe 45 minutes or something to get
through it. And it is a good awareness training. We have
already had 10,000 folks who have signed up and took that
training. So I think in terms of getting this process started,
that is a good way to start to get that general awareness on
what NIMS training is. But after we have that in place are a
variety of courses for EMS technicians, for law enforcement
that bring home ICS from their disciplines.
Mr. Shadegg. I am going to have to cut you off. Hopefully
we will get a second round. Before I finish my first round, in
case we do not get a second round, Chief, I would like to ask
you a question and give you a chance to respond to it.
The point you made about the 2006 deadline strikes well
with me because I think it is a tremendous amount, a vast
amount to try to accomplish in the time we have. At the same
time it seems to me it is like many other issues that present
themselves to the Homeland Security Committee. You are damned
if you do and damned if you don't. That is, do we set a
unrealistic deadline because the American people deserve to be
protected as quickly as possible, or do we not set that
deadline and take the criticism of not setting the deadline? I
am not sure where the balance strikes. I would like you to talk
to that point.
In my own mind, perhaps the best thing to do is to leave
the deadline there until the last minute to encourage everybody
to do as much as they can, and then, out of reality, to extend
it, but only extend it after you realize it cannot be achieved.
I would be happy to hear your response.
Chief Freeman. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. Again, the
training aspect of it is key, and much of the on-line training
that is proposed and is available is similar to trying to teach
someone to ride a bicycle on line. There has to be the hands-on
practicum associated with that. The system works; there is no
doubt about that.
What I would suggest is that with a deadline, and I think
we all feel the urgency, and we also sincerely applaud the
Department of Homeland Security for moving as quickly as they
have, perhaps using the phase-in years 2005, 2006, maybe using
a little more of the carrot and less of the stick from the
standpoint of trying to incentivize the training with some
grant money, or something of that nature, to move localities
forward. It is certainly doable. But that would be my
suggestion to move us toward that deadline because there is a
lot of work to be done.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank you all for your testimony.
The Chair would call on the Ranking Member Mr. Thompson for
your questions.
Mr. Jamieson. Mr. Chairman, if I may, just to address the
issue of the deadline. I think that, just for the record, we
are using fiscal year 2005, there is a 2-year time frame for
the deadline, fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006. These
negotiations of effecting the grant do not kick in until 2007.
And part of what we are doing there on the funding issue, if I
may, is not only is the Department of Homeland Security turning
its funding to implement NIMS, but as part of the Federal
department and agency compliance, all Federal preparedness
grant funding that is going out through any department and
agencies. We are working with them now to change their grant
guidance to reflect the fact that NIMS needs to be a component
of what they do under that grant funding. So we are leveraging
Federal funding across the board.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you.
Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have talked about the 2005 and 2006 periods during the
testimony today, and as the reference to the term ``certify,''
and I want to make sure we are all on the same page as to what
we are talking about when we say certify for different
departments.
Chief, if you would, tell me what do you--when they say
certify that you are NIMS-compliant, what does that mean in
your mind, or has anybody talked to you about what does that
mean?
Chief Freeman. I have had an opportunity to review a
document in another role that I have, where I have seen the
letter to the Governors, and, as I understand it, in that
context, which is narrow right now, is that the various
agencies need to gradually adopt certain elements of NIMS and
the ICS and moving forward from that point. As a fire chief, as
a practitioner, I haven't heard specifically what that means as
yet.
Mr. Thompson. So, do I detect from that a little urging on
your part to the Department that they need to be a little more
forthcoming with that information if the targets are to be met?
Chief Freeman. Well, I believe--I believe that what is the
plan of action is to roll this out through the States, and then
have the States roll it out to the local governmental entities.
And perhaps it would be good, as these rollouts are occurring,
if we could ask the Department to share it with local
governmental officials as well as the Governor and the State,
simultaneously where possible. I think it would help with the
information flow.
Mr. Thompson. One of the issues associated with this
command and control situation is how do police departments fit
in the mix, because that is a division of labor that is really
different for policemen in this situation. I heard your
testimony about your concern.
What would you say to DHS if the mandatory requirements
came down like they are, that you would like to see them take
into consideration?
Mr. Lenkart. Well, sir, my guess is--law enforcement,
having their unique responsibilities that they have, we have
been at the same incidents for years as other first responders.
We work well alongside each other, but we don't--typically
haven't worked well with each other.
In order to do that, you are reversing years and years and
years of traditional thinking. You have to teach a couple of
old dogs new tricks and build some policies that are--actually
integrate them and force them to be there, not just be present.
My asking of DHS to show to show a little bit more patience
with that type of thinking--it does take a little bit more time
to do that and try to get people to do this--and not hold up
grant monies if they come across a little bit of reluctance or
hesitance on the part of law enforcement to get on board. It is
going to take a bit more time than some other folks.
Mr. Thompson. Dr. Barbera, one thing that struck me about
your testimony is the reference to the private sector
involvement and incident command situations. Are we presently
providing, in your opinion, the private sector enough training
or involvement, or have we focused it primarily on State and
local government? And, if not, how do we bring the private
sector into this process?
Dr. Barbera. Well, thank you very much. That is a very good
question. There has been a--quite a bit of training available
to the private sector, medical providers, hospitals, health
practitioners. Much of it has been at the level of tactical
response, how do you do things, how do you do decontamination,
how do you physically manage mass casualties.
There hasn't been a lot of training at the level of
management of systems for mass casualties. And particularly, I
am not sure we have well defined for national understanding how
you integrate the concerned issues and opinions of acute care
medicine when you have a rapidly moving mass casualty event
where what command does for a decision has a lot to do with
what you need to do medically and how you can do it with the
time frame, et cetera. And I don't think it is just with
private medicine. I think there--we had issues with this after
9/11 in New York City with construction, deconstruction experts
and in other situations, too.
So I think that there--the processes are there. They are
just not very well defined. And I think this is an area, again,
that the NIMS Integration Center could take a close look at and
be very helpful.
We need to define the model better so that the training can
follow, and we really have to remember that in order for
training to be effective at the operational level, we first
have to have the systems in place so once you train, you can
turn around and operate the systems.
And I think we still need further guidance on management
systems that integrate hospitals with public health, acute care
medicine, and the rest of them are emergency response.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you. The time of the gentleman has
expired.
The Chair would call on the gentlelady from New York Mrs.
Lowey for questioning.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I seem impatient, it is 3 years after 9/11, and I have
been hearing for a long time we have get to get the systems in
place, and the right hand still doesn't know the left hand--
what the left hand is doing. And we get a briefing the other
day from the head of counterintelligence of the CIA, and he
doesn't know what is going on at TSA. So please forgive me if I
sound impatient. And I have several questions.
But in the time remaining, perhaps I should ask Mr.
Jamieson, we have heard over and over again for the last 3
years, I heard it from my police, my firefighters, all those
who went to the World Trade Center, that interoperability is
key. In fact, Chief Freeman referenced it today.
You know, if interoperability communications is a priority
or a requirement of NIMS, and if it is not a requirement, I
would like to know why not--my Federal responders need so much.
They need so much more. They are doing it on their own. We are
trying to fight for reimbursement. I introduced a bill that
looks like it is probably going nowhere, even though we all
worked very hard on the reauthorization of the homeland
security bill. But it doesn't seem to be even going to be
marked up here in this committee.
If you agree, Mr. Jamieson, that interoperability is
important, then why aren't we doing something about it? Are we
going to be debating this a year from now, 3 years from now?
And perhaps I will put in the same question, because it is
related.
My firefighters take all of this very seriously. They have
HAZMAT equipment, which I got them. They are working to prepare
for a possible incident. Yet we read in the New York Times that
120,000 hours of intelligence audiotape hasn't even been
analyzed by the FBI. I would just think the hole Department of
Homeland Security would revolt and say, how are we going to
prepare? How are we going to get the information down to our
firefighters, police, when we still have 12,000 hours of
audiotapes that haven't been translated? And we hear over and
over again that something is going to happen 12 to 15 days
before the election.
Perhaps you can calm me with some confidence that you are
all talking to each other, that you get as upset as I do, that
you are the person to whom you report, reports to the next
person and says, what do we tell our firefighters?
And let's just focus on New York for a minute, if we may.
What are we supposed to be telling our firefighters, policemen,
first responders when we don't even know the up-to-date
information?
But maybe start with interoperability.
Mr. Jamieson. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I appreciate your question. And let me answer straight away
that interoperability is very much at the key and the heart of
the National Incident Management System. It is one of the major
components of the system.
I think it is fair to say that there is no silver bullet
solution to the problem of communication interoperability. I
think my colleagues here would support that notion, but there
are some efforts under way with the Department to address the
issue.
Mrs. Lowey. Could I just ask you--
Mr. Jamieson. Yes.
Mrs. Lowey. --when you said there is no silver bullet, is
it because it is still too expensive, or because after 3 years
you still don't have the specific requirements, the
information, to be able to implement it?
Mr. Jamieson. Well, it is very much of a combination of
factors. Some of it is technological. Some of it is
establishing baseline requirements. But a lot has been done in
terms of figuring out what the root of the problem is and what
the solution should be.
Mrs. Lowey. Are we still going to be talking about this 3
years from now? How many years do you think it will take to
institute interoperability between our firefighters, police,
Congressmen, et cetera, et cetera?
Mr. Jamieson. Hopefully, Congresswoman, we will not be
talking about it to the degree we are now. I would respectfully
submit part of the problem with communication interoperability
can, quite frankly, be solved very easily, I believe the Chief
would support this, through having a communication plan in
place. It is not essential that all of us talk to one another
or that all of us talk to the incident commander. And I think
that defining and shaping the problem a little bit better than
we have is critical.
And I think that part of what we are trying to do under the
National Incident Management System is to establish that
communication planning so that interoperability will occur
better.
Mrs. Lowey. Can you give me an idea of the time frame?
Mr. Jamieson. Communication planning is something that is
occurring right now.
Mrs. Lowey. But how long will it take? I heard about a year
and a half, 2 years ago that they were going out with an RFP to
establishing standards. It still hasn't happened yet.
Mr. Jamieson. Well, you are speaking, I believe, of the
SAFECOM initiative in terms of what they are doing there. They
are going through a traditional requirements-gathering process.
There are pilot testing programs. There is the rapid
communication initiative where we are specifically going into
10 large communities, specifically L.A., to specifically look
at best practices, what they are doing there to establish an
immediate communication capability.
Mrs. Lowey. Would you comment on GAO's comments on SAFECOM?
Mr. Jamieson. Congresswoman, I am not familiar with GAO's
comments.
Mrs. Lowey. They just said it was ineffective. But this is
an example of the right hand not knowing the left hand. If you
are working on communications, then maybe someone three offices
down was working on the SAFECOM program, but shouldn't there be
a means for everybody to communicate? GAO said SAFECOM was
ineffective.
Mr. Jamieson. I think so, the Department has just recently
stood up a new Office of Interoperability and Compatibility,
where I think they are considering a variety of these
initiatives within the Department as well.
Mrs. Lowey. I don't know if my chiefs or those who are on
the front line would like to comment, but you are the ones that
have to deal with this and face the bureaucracy 3 years after
9/11. That still doesn't seem to be making progress.
Yes, sir.
Dr. Barbera. I would just like to point out, Congresswoman,
that I think if we have effective incident command implemented
across the country, that is a large part of the
interoperability. It is far more than having a radio where you
can talk to someone else. If you--if you can adjust and use
management structure to overcome radio problems, but, more
importantly, to overcome differences in how you normally
operate and pair people together.
I can give you one very quick example is that 9/11 at the
Pentagon, when mutual aid fire EMS resources were arriving
through Arlington County, their radios didn't talk to each
other. But I know that one of the things that Chief Schwartz
did was assign one of his firefighters, EMS personnel, to each
of those units. So they had interoperability that was far more
than just radios. It was how we operated. It is standard
operating procedures. It is where we reported all of those
things.
So that is an important part, I think, of communications
interoperability that we shouldn't--that we shouldn't miss when
we focus just on the technology component of it.
Mrs. Lowey. Let me just say, because I have about 30
seconds left, if I sound impatient, I am. And I know how hard
you are working. But I think we have real problems in this
country. And as a New Yorker who understands, as a mother, a
grandmother of seven, that supposedly, according to all the
warning systems, we are the target, I don't have another 3
years to wait for NIMS or some other acronym to get their act
together. My police and my firefighters are right there, and
they are working hard, and they are not getting what they need.
So let me thank you for your hard work, but we really have
to do something, in my judgment, about better coordination,
letting all the departments talk to each other. And I know
Secretary Ridge is working hard, but it is just not happening.
And I wish you would send that message up, that if you are
going to implement on the local level, they need to do
something about those 120,000 hours of audiotape that still
hasn't been translated. This is--it is really an embarrassment.
But perhaps I should close with this.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentlelady for her questions. Just
as a comment I would say her impatience on the topic of
interoperability and on the topic of coordination and on just
in the general sense of pushing the Department and all of those
with these responsibilities to move as quickly as possible
serves the Nation well, and I appreciate that.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shadegg. The Chair would call upon the gentlelady from
the Virgin Islands Mrs. Christensen for her questions.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize for having to step out to another committee
meeting, but I am back, and I hope I am not going to repeat any
of the questions.
I want to welcome our panelists. I want to particularly
welcome Dr. Barbera, who is from my alma mater, GW, and also
went to Notre Dame, and I went to St. Mary's.
I want to ask my first question to Mr. Jamieson. How long
have you been in your position at the Department?
Mr. Jamieson. I was appointed by Secretary Ridge in August
of this year.
Mrs. Christensen. August of this year. Okay. Well, you
know, this is a very important issue, because I understand that
the failure of the incident command system was cited at TOPOFF
and other major exercises as a major deficiency in our
exercises and preparedness. And as a Member who is from a
hurricane-prone area, who has worked with FEMA for many, many
years, I have a sense, you know, that FEMA expertise, at least
maybe until August, has not been fully utilized and
incorporated as it should be into our preparedness and response
at Homeland Security.
And having gone to Seattle after TOPOFF and talked to other
people around the country, there was also reportedly too much
Federal interference in the response, instead of letting local
leadership who knew the territory lead.
And I note that in the 2005 budget, most of the funding, if
not all of it, is going to the Federal agencies rather than to
local responders. Yet there being--they are being required to
come into full compliance with an IMS system. So the way the
funding is being perpetuated, aren't we perpetuating a mistake
that we learned from TOPOFF, too?
Mr. Jamieson. Congresswoman, respectfully, I don't think
so. There has been some $8.5 billion that has been put out by
the Department to State and local governments to basically
support the planning, training, equipping and exercising of our
first responders, and that will continue in fiscal year 2005,
and it is at really--that is the fuel that the Department is
putting forward in terms of providing the resources that are
needed for State and local governments to comply with NIMS.
But as I mentioned, prior to your coming in, there is also
a requirement for other Federal departments and agencies to
also support this initiative. So any stream of grant funding
that is going out through the Department of Health and Human
Services or anyone else that is going to building capability or
preparedness measures at State and local level, all of that
grant funding needs to be leveraged towards the implementation
of NIMS as well.
Mrs. Christensen. Just all through these last couple of
years, particularly the year that the committee has been in
existence, what we heard mostly from first responders and local
jurisdictions that they have not had enough funding to meet
even the basic needs for equipment and training. So to put the
burden on them again, to get up to speed on this National
Incident Management System, just seems to be defeating the
purpose.
Okay. Let me turn to Dr. Barbera, and I really appreciate
your testimony. I had a chance to look through it briefly when
I was over at the other meeting. The attention that you are
bringing to the importance of health care, the health care
community being part of the first responder system, EMS may be,
but physicians, nurses are not necessarily seen. That is one of
the things that we learned as we visited with communities
around the country and their exercises--and the importance of
including the private sector as well as the public health
sector, something that is been brought to my attention many,
many times.
You were a part of TOPOFF in Chicago. Could you just--I
don't know if you have said this already, but could you tell us
some of the major lessons that were learned in that Chicago
exercise?
Dr. Barbera. Well, I think that one of the lessons that was
learned was that many were surprised by the number of hospitals
that participated and the level with which they participated.
Those of us in the medical community weren't surprised at all.
I can tell you from both 9/11 here and in the District of
Columbia, the national capital area, and from the anthrax event
that followed, when there were sick or injured people and we
needed to do something, hospitals and medical providers step
up. And I don't just mean physicians, I mean physicians across
the board, and they step up in a very unselfish manner. And I
think the level of play in Chicago by hospitals, and northern
Illinois because it was well beyond Chicago, was reflective of
that same attitude.
So I think that--well, what I observed and I learned is
that we need to have clear management systems in place. We have
to have ways for hospitals and health care providers to
understand how they will participate in a major mass casualty
event. And that goes beyond just pure management. It also goes
to the regulatory aspects and everything else.
If, for instance, you are going to take care of many more
people than you usually do, in order to plan right, you have to
know that in a public health emergency, for instance, you are
allowed to take care of more critically ill patients than what
regulations allow you to do every day. Otherwise you can't plan
to that.
So we have to know what a public health emergency might
mean to release hospitals from some of their burdensome
regulations. We have to know that they will get paid so that
they can go away from all of the attention they have to do to
get paid on a regular basis and can use that man- or womanpower
to take care of patients as opposed to collect data.
It is those kinds of things, I think, that I saw also in
TOPOFF, too.
I think that Health and Human Services had developed a
Secretary's emergency response team structure that I think was
very helpful, and I think that they and DHS and the rest of the
Federal Government moved further along in defining how they
will define the expectations at a State and local level. I
think it will be very, very beneficial across the country.
So, one of my concerns is that we make sure that the ICS,
as presented in NIMS, is very understandable to all of these
different communities. But what some of the concerns that Mr.
Thompson expressed earlier, that others have expressed, about
ICS, I know from working in it, from working with
professionals, many of them from Chief Freeman's fire
department and others in California, that it works, and it is
not burdensome, and it is very, very valuable, and it takes
care of many of the issues we currently face in terms of how
you manage a response.
But I am not sure that the way the average person reads
what we have now can pick a lot of those things up, and that is
where I would encourage us to be able to move forward with our
health, medical, fire, police and other communities working
with DHS, maybe in a working group-type fashion, to rapidly be
sure we have got that language and concepts understood.
It is far better if we could pick up something, say, oh,
yes, this makes a lot of sense and is useful to me, rather than
for that to say, oh, yes, I have to read this three times and
just use it because someone says we won't get grants later. I
think that is critical.
I am fully behind incident command. I prefer to use
incident management, because it really is much more of that
than pure command. But I think if it is properly understood, it
will not be so onerous for people to pick up and adopt.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentlelady for her questions, and
I would advise her that the Chair is going to afford a second
round if you have the interest or time.
Let me begin a second round, just because we have such
expertise on this panel, and we have the time to do it.
I would like to begin by following up on some questioning
that Mrs. Lowey pursued on the issue of interoperability. It
occurs to me that to make all radio systems within the first
responder community interoperable is a very worthy goal, but
technically and financially a very, very challenging goal. It
will take us some time. You have departments and agencies that
I think had just, prior to 9/11, or even after 9/11, with the
commitment of resources, bought systems that were not, in fact,
interoperable.
At the same time, it seems to me when you first think about
incident management, Doctor--and I think you are right, that is
a better term--one could at first blush say, well, without
interoperability how could you have incident management between
and amongst different agencies? But at the same time it seems
to me that your testimony, Mr. Jamieson, suggested--and you
used a term which I would like you to define, a communication
plan--that, combined with other testimony, particularly Dr.
Barbera's testimony, that, in fact, a communication plan can,
in fact, overcome the lack of interoperability I think educates
me and I think would educate the public.
I guess I would like you to describe a communications plan
somewhat as the doctor did with regard to the incident at the
Pentagon, and explain how NIMS can help us get beyond the fact
that we cannot overnight get interoperability amongst all
communications equipment.
Mr. Jamieson. Sir, I would be happy to. Mr. Chairman, I
would be happy to try to do that.
A communication plan in its simplest form is just a
delineation of who needs to talk to who at the incident command
post, who within your organization--who within the operation
section needs to talk to who. There is technology out there now
where people who are on different frequencies, who are using
different equipment, can use ``bridging technology'' to
facilitate this on a technological basis, but it is a little
awkward. It is not viewed as the ideal solution. And my notion
of communication planning, I believe what Chief Schwartz at the
Pentagon proved out, is that we just need to decide who is
going to talk to--who is going to talk to who in terms of
responding to the incident.
But the other point that I think is key, and that is that
we are beginning to associate NIMS with ICS and ICS with boxes
and organizations, and I think that is wrong, and that is a
trend that we should not let develop.
In order to make this work, ICS is a series of forms in
terms of how to order resources. It is establishing a common
operational period. It is establishing an incident action plan
where we are deciding where law enforcement, Fire Service,
Public Works, the medical community are going to go within a
specific period of performance. And so once that is the basis
of our operations, and objectives are established in that
operational period, then the communication plan kicks in in
terms of who needs to make that happen.
Mr. Shadegg. Dr. Barbera, I am sorry--
Mr. Jamieson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shadegg. Dr. Barbera, just to expand on the point you
made, as I understand it, it can be as simple as the
designation of a liaison to an agency that doesn't have the
interoperable equipment where you communicate to that liaison,
and it is then repeated amongst that agency on its radio system
so that you have essentially two links of communication, one
with those with whom you do have interoperability and some
other mechanism to communicate to those that you don't. And
that, I think, can be a part of incident management; is that
correct?
Dr. Barbera. Absolutely. I look at incident management as a
tool for managers to be able to solve problems, and you would
like to solve those problems at the lowest possible level. If
they can't be, then they are moved up the chain.
Interoperability of communications is one of many problems
that we know is recurrent. So within incident management,
process and training, as I have learned and watched it
practiced, that is a key issue to be addressed up front as the
incident begins to be recognized and evolved. And you adjust to
it as you move forward. But I am quite sure that some days some
community might be given quite a bit of money and can have
everyone talk to anybody at any time, and we will have an
incident and will demonstrate definitively that is still not
communications.
Mr. Shadegg. Right.
Dr. Barbera. So communications really has to be the tool to
allow information, data, to become information, and information
to flow where it needs to be. And if we know where that is,
then this communication component follows.
Mr. Shadegg. I would like to conclude with a question to
Mr. Lenkart and Dr. Barbera, and also, Chief Freeman, to you. I
would like each of you to comment on it. Rather than asking Mr.
Jamieson to give his view, let me ask you to give your view.
Each of you expressed a concern about your ability to, in
the future, impact the NIMS guidelines that have already been
developed. I believe Dr. Barbera said to a certain degree there
wasn't enough input from the medical community. I believe Mr.
Lenkart pointed out this is a new concept for police and needs
to be adapted to police in a unique way. Chief Freeman, as a
Westerner who spent some time in Los Angeles County, I
appreciate your efforts, and I think it is important that you
be allowed--you are probably the most sophisticated at it
because it was in a way developed in a fire context.
I would like to ask each of to you comment on whether or
not you feel the Department is, in fact, open to input from you
as the process goes forward to implementing NIMS and refining
the guidelines so that it is, in fact, workable. Anyone. You
can begin, if you like.
Mr. Lenkart. I will start, Mr. Chairman. I haven't worked a
lot with NIMS or much within the Department of Homeland
Security in this regard very much. And a lot of--very few law
enforcement people have, including those of us who are engaged
in public policy here in D.C. It is just not--it is not
traditionally something that we have gotten involved in. Trying
to get someone to come to Capitol Hill and even work on these
subissues is very difficult also because they haven't quite
bought into the system yet.
What I would like to see is certainly more involvement from
the law enforcement side of it. Law enforcement is certainly
partly to blame for the lack of people coming forward to handle
these types of issues or integrate these kinds of issues in
international policing as well.
DHS may also be partially to blame as well for not reaching
out far enough to encourage law enforcement to come on board.
But as far as Washington goes, I am here, and I am ready to
help, and we will do what we can to move it forward.
Mr. Shadegg. From what I am convinced, you need to buy in,
and to some degree you already have. Its management when you
have done search and rescue--perhaps not in more traditional
law enforcement functions--but when you do urban search and
rescue, you look for somebody--or even manhunt circumstances,
it seems to me, you have similar issues.
Dr. Barbera.
Dr. Barbera. I think all of us have been involved with the
system in the Federal Government developing programs in the
past. We understand the crunch that the Department of Homeland
Security has been under to take on both NIMS and the national
response plan and to work through with very tight deadlines.
I do think that now that it is out, now that they have been
able to get more public comment, that it would be comforting to
see a process that allows more open input from across the
country. I think there is a good model for this in the past was
the development of the urban search and rescue system that FEMA
undertook in 1989, 1990, and it involved practitioners,
specialists in each of the disciplines of urban search and
rescue and balanced it geographically and by discipline. It was
a process that allowed open information to be brought in,
concerns to be expressed. It was moved very rapidly forward. It
went from start to end of the work group from July to January,
and they published the system.
It would be nice to see something like that, to have a go-
around to be sure that all of the different groups that are
critically important in adopting NIMS and operating together
have a chance to resolve their issues in that sort of open
format.
Mr. Shadegg. I appreciate that.
Chief Freeman.
Chief Freeman. Yes, sir. Thank you.
I believe that the Department of Homeland Security has
tried to be open; however, it is kind of like passing a message
to someone catching the subway, which I appreciate. While this
has taken a long time, it also has been quite rapid in many
respects, and I applaud that.
I do think that it would be helpful, and I think within the
Fire Service--while law enforcement--and Mr. Lenkart is
providing some very insightful information. There are many in
the Fire Service who also have similar concerns. Many think
that ICS is just a wetland force-type of incident system. In
fact, we have used it to plan incidents, to prepare for
incidents that never occur. There is just a lot of very
important applicable elements in that.
But I think if it is possible for the Department to pause
for a short period of time and to try to identify and bring in
representatives from the various disciplines to maybe have a 2
or 3-day symposium to talk about--let them break off, get their
concerns, bring them together, and to try to refine the
implementation plan, because I think it is important that we
hear from other people.
While I am very confident that the ICS system and NIMS in
general will work, is that I am somewhat discredited within my
own group because of the fact that a lot of fire departments
are not adept at using incident command like we have had to be.
So I think it is important to take a little bit of time, if
possible. I am not suggesting changing any deadlines at this
point, but just to consciously bring together the various
associations and representatives from the disciplines to come
in, including the private sector, so that maybe there is a
chance to hear at this stage of the game how we can make it
better and implement it sooner.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you.
For a second round, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you. A little interoperability problem.
Well, let me thank all of you for your testimony this
morning. A couple of issues that concern a district like mine,
my district is primarily rural. Most of the people involved in
any kind of situation would be volunteers. Good people, but
they don't possess the training models that paid departments
have. And I guess this is to the--Mr. Jamieson. How are we
proposing to implement this system with rural volunteer
departments?
Mr. Jamieson. Congressman, I think the first thing that
needs to be said is we probably don't want the Feds trying to
figure that one out. You know, there has got to be a great
reliance here in terms of relying on those mechanisms and the
orchestration on the part of the State to define where their
areas of risk are and how they are going to do this.
One of your questions in your opening comments was this
issue of certification. The Federal Government is just not
going to be able to get down there and--in your district at
that local level and say, you know, your district is compliant
with NIMS. We are going to have to go to some mechanism which
basically says the State as the recipient of grant is going to
have to conclude back to us that, taken as a whole, this State
complies with NIMS.
So that we are placing a premium on the States to develop
the infrastructure and the processes to ensure that they are
reaching down to every corner and level of the State. Our job
will be to provide the training to the States, distance
learning capabilities, workshops and the funding to the States
so that they can do that. But I would hate to think that myself
or others sitting here in Washington would be prescribing how
that might be accomplished.
Mr. Thompson. Well, it is nice for our government to
finally admit that they don't quite know everything. And I say
you are correct in that respect.
But the issue is many of those fine men and women will
respond to a situation, and, unless they are properly trained,
could potentially cause themselves significant harm. And that
is what we all would want to avoid, if at all possible.
Have you pretty much put that burden on the States to do
just that, what you said?
Mr. Jamieson. Well, yes, sir. I mean, you know, the States
are the recipients of all of the Homeland Security grant
funding that is going out there. It is their job to create a
strategic plan that takes into consideration the needs of local
governments or regional governments that are supported through
a mutual aid compact.
Mr. Thompson. Well, excuse me. Let me, if I could--my
question is if I came to you and I said that the Bolton
Volunteer Fire Department, which covers my home area--are you
requiring the State to provide the Bolton Volunteer Fire
Department with certain training for its volunteers? If so, are
you going to look and approve or certify that training as what
is required?
Mr. Jamieson. Sir, your question leads to the issue of
credentialing and whether or not as we begin to credential
emergency first responders, what training should they receive,
and who is certifying the training. Quite frankly, we haven't
worked all of that out quite yet. I don't think the Federal
Government will be in the position of making that
certification. We are going to have to draw on the discipline
specifics in terms of what the Fire Service is doing, what they
are doing at the State level, to train and accredit and satisfy
their individuals now. And we are going to have to think
heavily on what is going on there as opposed to creating some
new system at the Federal level to comply with NIMS.
Mr. Thompson. Well, then, Chief, do you have any comments
on that?
Chief Freeman. Actually, our experience in California is
that through the State, through the State Fire Marshal, their
training, their certification, there is a level of
credentialing already in place. I spent 25 years in the Fire
Service in Texas. I know that there is a State commission on
standards for firefighters and so forth. I would assume--I am
not familiar with where Texas is now, but I would assume that
an agency like that would be involved in this process.
Every State is going to be probably different, but I think
that is the model, as I understand it, and I think Mr. Jamieson
has made that clear, that it comes from the Federal Government
to the State, and then within the State there needs to be a
system in place to deliver the training and to do whatever
certification and credentialing is appropriate.
Mr. Thompson. Well, Mr. Jamieson, if I will--so, I would
approve the State's plan; am I correct?
Mr. Jamieson. We would--in these early years, sir, we would
be asking as part of the grant that the State would be
certifying to us that they have met the requirements under
NIMS. And if they make that certification, we would provide the
grant funding.
There is no--there is no specific plan at the State or
local level at this particular point that they are required to
prepare in order to comply with NIMS. There is a planning
requirement for the other Federal departments and agencies,
and, yes, we would be approving that. But at the State level,
as opposed to standing up yet another planning requirement, we
are trying to--we are trying to concert all of those planning
efforts under the planning effort that the Department has now.
Mr. Thompson. So they what; as the Chairman just said, they
self-certify?
Mr. Jamieson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. To what standard?
Mr. Jamieson. Well, the standards issue is a good question.
I mean, part of the challenge that we confront with
implementing NIMS is developing some of those standards. You
know, as the Chief said, there are some 513 different
requirements in the NIMS document, and part of it is just kind
of a checklist. Did you do it; did you not do it. When you get
into the credentialing issue, which by no means we have walked
through at this particular point, there are going to have to be
standards in place by which we credential our first responders.
And in some instances in the Fire Service, we have a baseline
standard, NFPA 1600. In the medical community, it is extremely
vexing with the standards and privileging issues that are out
there.
So I don't mean to use your time--but let me just say that
the Secretary has made it perfectly clear to me that on the
subject of doctrine and where we go next and implementation and
credentialing, my number one priority is ensuring that we are
getting the centers of gravity from all of these different
disciplines in a room and shutting a door and telling us how we
need to figure it out.
We are clearly--I was over with Governor Romney, who chairs
the Homeland Security Advisory Council, just last week, saying,
you tell us what work groups you want, who should populate
those working groups, because the Secretary has made it as
clear as a bell to me that we need to continue this
collaboration, and we need to make sure that we are not doing
anything wrongheaded here in Washington, but we are listening
to our first responders in terms of what they want us to do.
So we are not going to--going to sit back and arbitrarily
develop some standards apart from our partners out there, and
the mechanism is in place to do it. Is it done? No, sir, not at
this particular part, but it is clearly part of our planning
process for involving them in every step of the way.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Mr. Shadegg. Mrs. Christensen.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There we go.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shadegg. Maybe if we get our own hearing room someday,
we will be able to operate the buttons instead of having to go
room to room like transients.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
I think this hearing has been very helpful and even in the
interaction between the panelists. I did have some concern
about how that collaboration that you, Mr. Jamieson, mentioned
in your testimony, the issue that--developed an issue in ICS.
But the discussion, I think, has gone to where it needs to be
refined by bringing everyone together, and I think that is
helpful as well as making sure that we incorporate health and
all of its aspects more fully into the process.
But I am still a bit concerned about the training and the
local agencies being certified by the end of 2005. And I wanted
to ask the chief, Chief Freeman, Mr. Lenkart and Dr. Barbera,
because our understanding is that you are to use your current
funding, homeland security or otherwise, to become certified,
and I wanted to know if you felt that that was adequate
funding, or does it come down as an unfunded mandate to you to
prepare for that certification?
Chief Freeman. Well, thank you. Specifically for our
department, we have been using the Incident Command System, and
I believe we would probably measure up very quickly. So it is
not quite the same issue for us.
But--again, if I might just speak on behalf of the Fire
Service at large in our country, much of which is volunteer,
there is a wide variety of readiness levels within the Fire
Service. The training component, which is really more than just
a classroom, depends on the level an individual would
participate at the ICS level. It requires some hands on, it
requires some practical and training experience, and I don't
believe that there is money across the board to do that.
I know that training in general has been an issue, because
firefighters also have to go to training, rather than
necessarily training in place, as has been pointed out for law
enforcement as well. And there has been very limited funding
for over time to cover the training costs, very little funding
for personnel-related costs. There is certainly money for the
class, things of that nature. But that is an issue that I think
does need some more attention.
Mr. Lenkart. Congresswoman, my comments concur with Chief
Freeman's entirely. Law enforcement is far away, I think, from
the certification, from completing a certification process,
even more so than the Fire Service, because we haven't used
these types of systems before.
The Chief is absolutely correct when he says that even
since September 11, we have made certain adjustments to how we
respond and equip ourself, but we have a long ways to go with
our equipment, procedures. There have been heavy issues with
overtime. There is overextended local economies that are
putting extra burdens on local governments.
We have a long way to go before law enforcement will be
ready even to talk about certification, and there is going to
be--there is definitely a need for some money to be put up
front, forward funding, to even get us to a position where you
can start preparing for certification.
Dr. Barbera. I concur with those remarks. I would just like
to spotlight one thing that Chief Freeman sort of brushed over.
There are various levels of training, and the two we have
talked most about is awareness and operational levels.
In order to be operationally trained, you have to be
trained on a system that you then have. And that is a big
problem with much of the training that has gone on in the last
7 to 8 years under Lugar, Domenici and others. We trained
people to do decontamination on systems that they don't own. We
don't train them how to develop, implement and maintain that
system. So it is actually a very expensive awareness training,
not only operational training.
I think make sure as we move forward with a national ICS
that we have training that allows people responsible for
systems to develop and implement and maintain very usable,
flexible management systems. I think that then makes the
training more realistic. It makes it much longer-lived. It is
more likely to do, as Chief Freeman said--to use it on a
regular basis, because you understand the value of it.
But unless we address that type of training also, we are
going to be in a problem. And I will just point out, you know,
as I do to my students, that DOD never trains its soldiers on
guns they don't have or tanks they are not going to be having
shortly, and yet we don't pay attention to that concept on the
civilian side. So whenever we are looking at someone who says,
I am going to do training for you, we need to have them define
the systems they are going to train you to and figure out
whether or not we already have that system, and if not, does
the training help you plan, implement and maintain it. And
those are some of the issues we would like to bring forward
with our DHS colleagues and make sure are addressed.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentlelady.
I would concur with her remarks that the testimony has been
very helpful and the interchange between panelists, I think,
has been an education for them. I would like to thank all the
witnesses for their testimony.
The hearing record will remain open for 10 days. We may
have additional questions for you as witnesses that are
submitted in writing by Members who couldn't be here today, and
your cooperation in responding to those would be greatly
appreciated.
[The information follows:]
Submitted for the Record
Questions for Gil Jameison, from the Hon. Bennie G. Thompson
1. For fiscal year 2005, you requested $7 million in new budget
authority for development and implementation of the NIMS. Your budget
documents show that the funds will be used to ensure readiness of
federal response teams and their integration into state and local
training programs. Notably, the principal uses for these funds are
directed towards federal response entities, rather than state and local
governments.
Isn't it true that in most cases, that vast majority
of response activities are undertaken by local and state
governments, rather than the federal government? If so, why is
the fiscal year 2005 program focused on providing NIMS training
and education to federal agencies, rather than state and local
agencies?
What is your anticipated fiscal year 2005 budget for
state and local training and education on the NIMS system? How
many state and local personnel will receive NIMS training in
fiscal year 2005?
2. The fiscal year 2005 House Appropriations Committee Report on
Homeland Security appropriations directed you to review the benefits of
establishing regional centers to assist in the deployment of NIMS
training, education, and publications, and to provide a report on your
findings no later than November 1, 2004.
What is the status of this report, and can you tell
the Committee what geographic regions or institutions are under
consideration for the establishment of such a training center?
Will the report be completed by the November 1, 2004,
deadline, and once it is completed, will you provide a copy of
this report to this Subcommittee?
3. Your September 8, 2004, letter to the Governors regarding NIMS
implementation identified the minimum NIMS compliance requirements that
states and localities must adopt during fiscal year 2005, and also
noted that full compliance with the NIMS is not required for States to
receive fiscal year 2005 grant funds. However, during fiscal year 2005,
DHS expects the states to: (1) incorporate NIMS into their emergency
operations plans; (2) coordinate and provide technical assistance to
local entities regarding NIMS; and (3) institutionalize the use of the
Incident Command System.
Do you have a cost estimate for NIMS implementation at
the state and local level? Won't State and local governments
need additional funding to train personnel on the NIMS, and
funding to revise and publish new emergency operations plans
that are consistent with NIMS?
Will DHS provide new or some additional grant funds to
state and local governments to help them achieve these goals in
fiscal year 2005, or is this an unfunded mandate? Do you expect
the states to ``leverage'' general ODP grant funds for this
purpose, and choose between implementing NIMS and other,
equally pressing needs like specialized equipment, training,
terrorism exercises, and enhanced security at critical
infrastructure sites?
4. In fiscal year 2006, grant applicants will be required to
``certify'' that they have met the fiscal year 2005 NIMS implementation
requirements in order to receive federal preparedness grant funding.
When, how, and in what manner will the DHS measure and
certify NIMS compliance? As noted, for fiscal years 2005 and
2006, DHS will allow ``self certification,'' but state and
local governments are concerned about when and how this process
will change, and how it may impact future state and local
funding.
5. During the initial development of NIMS, DHS was severely
criticized for not working closely with state and local governments,
first responders, and first responder associations to develop a system
that would be useful to and accepted by the entirety of the first
responder community. I am concerned that DHS is following a similar
path in the implementation and adoption phase of NIMS.
Does DHS intend to publish a NIMS implementation plan
to be utilized by state and local governments? If not, why not?
Will DHS convene state and local working groups,
representing all first responder disciplines, in order to
either: (a) ensure the successful implementation of NIMS by
state and local governments; or (b) develop a NIMS
implementation plan, as noted above?
6. With the implementation of NIMS, the Department has undertaken a
nationwide effort to ``re-train'' and ``re-certify'' hundreds of
thousands of emergency response personnel.
How will DHS assure the compatibility of all grantee
training and credentialing programs, including NIMS training,
to assure we have an accurate and updated picture of our first
responders' training and readiness levels?
Does DHS intend to develop a national integrated
management and tracking system for training, assessment, and
readiness? Does DHS have any plans to track NIMS compliance and
training, as well as other important training programs in a
consolidated database, similar to the training databases used
by our armed forces? If not, how will we measure progress in
implementing NIMS?
7. The Incident Command System and unified command existed long
before anyone ever contemplated creating the Department of Homeland
Security, and these systems have always been ``bottoms-up''
organizational structures, focused on addressing the unique needs of an
incident site by maintaining the flexibility to modify response
strategies and facilitating the integration of state and federal
resources, if required.
Is the NIMS so heavily focused on the top-down
response structure--i.e., command and control--that we might
lose the ability and flexibility to effectively respond to
disaster and emergencies?
In addition, because the NIMS is concentrated on
increasing the preparedness of response forces, particularly
federal response forces, as is noted in the fiscal year 2005
budget request, aren't we focusing on the preparedness of
federal response organizations rather than building the
preparedness of individual communities?
Questions for Dr. Joseph Barbera, Chief P. Michael Freeman, and Steve
Lenkart from the Hon. Bennie G. Thompson
8. Based on the DHS requirements for NIMS implementation in fiscal
year 2005 and beyond:
In your opinion, what does ``NIMS implementation''
mean? Does it mean that all state and local personnel should
receive NIMS training? Or does it mean that all standard
operating procedures must be revised and re-published to
reflect the NIMS doctrine?
How many personnel could be trained on NIMS on an
annual basis?
How do you anticipate that practitioners in the law
enforcement, public health, or fire communities will be trained
on the NIMS? Would you anticipate any major changes to the
course content at police or fire academies, or do you believe
that all NIMS training should be provided by the federal
government?
Do you have any cost estimates for NIMS implementation
at the state and local level?
9. In fiscal year 2006, grant applicants will be required to
``certify'' that they have met the fiscal year 2005 NIMS implementation
requirements in order to receive federal preparedness grant funding.
Have you or anyone in your professions been provided
with any guidance on how to ``certify'' that you are NIMS
compliant? Are you aware of any DHS plans to involve state and
local officials in the development of this certification
process?
(for Dr. Barbera) What do you think ``certification''
means to the public health and hospital community? Has the
Department of Health and Human Services, which provides the
vast majority of preparedness grants to these communities,
provided any guidance on certification?
10. The Incident Command System and unified command existed long
before anyone ever contemplated creating the Department of Homeland
Security, and these systems have always been ``bottoms-up''
organizational structures, focused on addressing the unique needs of an
incident site by maintaining the flexibility to modify response
strategies and facilitating the integration of state and federal
resources, if required.
Is the NIMS so heavily focused on the top-down
response structure--i.e., command and control--that we might
lose the ability and flexibility to effectively respond to
disaster and emergencies?
In addition, because the NIMS is concentrated on
increasing the preparedness of response forces, particularly
federal response forces, as is noted in the fiscal year 2005
budget request, aren't we focusing on the preparedness of
federal response organizations rather than building the
preparedness of individual communities?
Mr. Shadegg. With that, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]