Order Code RL32920
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Federal Counter-Terrorism Training:
Issues for Congressional Oversight
May 16, 2005
Shawn Reese
Coordinator
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Federal Counter-Terrorism Training:
Issues for Congressional Oversight
Summary
Federal counter-terrorism training programs are varied and are provided by
numerous federal agencies and departments. Some of these departments and
agencies include the Departments of Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), Homeland
Security (DHS), Health and Human Services (HHS), Justice (DOJ), and
Transportation (DOT), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Each
department and agency provides specific counter-terrorism training targeted to given
categories of recipients. Training recipients include federal, state, and local
government personnel, emergency responders, and private and public critical
infrastructure personnel.
The programs train individuals to prepare for, respond to, and recover from
terrorist attacks. Most of these federal departments and agencies provide training in
conjunction with private and public educational institutions, federal laboratories, and
federal research and development centers.
The mission of DHS to secure the nation from terrorist attacks gives it primary
federal responsibility for providing counter-terrorism training to federal, state, and
local emergency responders. Other departments and agencies provide counter-
terrorism training, but these programs focus either on specific critical infrastructure
sectors, such as energy and transportation, or on specific emergency responders, such
as HHS training for medical personnel and DOJ training for law enforcement
personnel. DHS provides training to a wide range of critical infrastructure personnel,
law enforcement and other emergency responders, government (federal, state, and
local) personnel, and medical personnel.
This report is an overview of the major training activities and facilities of the
federal departments and agencies that provide counter-terrorism training. It identifies
some of the issues associated with the training. The issues include:
! possible duplication of federal counter-terrorism training programs;
! determination of Department of Homeland Security counter-
terrorism training priorities; and
! possible redundancy and coordination of DHS counter-terrorism
training programs.
The report will be updated as congressional actions warrant.

Contents
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Department of Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Department of Health and Human Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Department of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Department of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Duplication of Counter-Terrorism Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Allocation of Counter-Terrorism Training Funding and
Prioritizing Attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Possible Redundancy and Consolidation of Department of
Homeland Security Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
CRS Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Federal Counter-Terrorism Training:
Issues for Congressional Oversight
Overview
Federal counter-terrorism training programs are varied and are provided by
numerous federal agencies and departments. Some of these departments and
agencies include the Departments of Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Health
and Human Services, Justice, and Transportation, and the Environmental Protection
Agency. Each department and agency provides specific counter-terrorism training
targeted to a given categories of recipients. Training recipients include federal, state,
and local government personnel, emergency responders, and private and public
critical infrastructure personnel.
The programs train individuals to prepare for, respond to, and recover from
terrorist attacks. Some of the training programs, such as those of the Departments
of Transportation (DOT) and Energy (DOE), and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), are designed for personnel working in critical infrastructure sectors.
Other programs, such as those of the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Homeland
Security (DHS), are intended for personnel who are not identified with specific
critical infrastructure. Instead, DOD and DHS provide training for government
personnel, emergency responders, and medical professionals who would respond to
a terrorist attack, regardless of location or target. The Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) provides training specifically to medical personnel, but this
training is not targeted to specific critical infrastructure. Instead, HHS provides
training that prepares medical personnel to respond to any disaster, but especially to
terrorist attacks using biological, chemical, and radiological weapons of mass
destruction (WMD). The Department of Justice (DOJ) provides training specifically
for federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel. Most of these federal
departments and agencies provide training in conjunction with private and public
educational institutions, federal laboratories, and federal research and development
centers.
The mission of DHS to secure the nation from terrorist attacks gives it primary
federal responsibility for providing counter-terrorism training to federal, state, and
local emergency responders. Other departments and agencies provide counter-
terrorism training, but their programs focus either on specific critical infrastructure
sectors, such as energy and transportation, or on specific emergency responders, such
as HHS training for medical personnel and DOJ training for law enforcement
personnel. DHS provides training to a wide range of critical infrastructure personnel,
law enforcement and other emergency responders, government (federal, state, and
local) personnel, and medical personnel.

CRS-2
This report provides an overview of the major training activities and facilities
of the federal departments and agencies that provide counter-terrorism training. It
identifies some of the issues associated with that training. The issues include:
! possible duplication of federal counter-terrorism training programs;
! determination of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) counter-
terrorism training priorities; and
! possible redundancy and coordination of DHS counter-terrorism
training programs.
Department of Homeland Security. DHS comprises numerous agencies,
offices, institutes, and partners1 that provide counter-terrorism training for federal,
state, and local government personnel. DHS training is provided at such facilities as
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), National Fire Academy
(NFA), and Emergency Management Institute (EMI). FLETC is an interagency law
enforcement center that provides training for federal law enforcement agencies. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers EMI and NFA
training activities. NFA trains fire and emergency response personnel to enhance
their abilities to respond to fires and related emergencies. EMI is a training program
consisting of resident and non-resident courses aimed at enhancing emergency
management practices.2
Office for Domestic Preparedness. The Office for Domestic Preparedness
(ODP), which has the primary responsibility within DHS for preparing for potential
terrorist attacks against the United States,3 is the principal DHS agency providing
counter-terrorism and WMD training to states and localities. ODP provides terrorism
and WMD training through DHS training institutions and partners. ODP training
partners include the Training and Data Exchange Group (TRADE), the National
Domestic Preparedness Consortium (NDPC), federal departments, and private and
professional organizations.4
ODP training is designed to meet the varying needs of its training audiences.
It includes reaching multiple emergency responder disciplines through training at the
awareness, performance, planning, and management levels. ODP uses a variety of
approaches that include traditional classroom methods, train-the-trainer, Web-based
training, and video tele-conferencing.5
TRADE. TRADE is a federal interagency group that provides training to state
and local emergency responders and reviews member courses for consistency,
1 See the list later in the report.
2 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Working with DHS,” available at
[http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=82], visited Oct. 27, 2004.
3 P.L. 107-296 (Homeland Security Act of 2002), Sec. 430(d).
4 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, “Training
Overview,” available at [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/training.htm], visited Oct. 27, 2004.
5 Ibid.

CRS-3
avoidance of training duplication, and the use of up-to-date training methods.
TRADE members include the following:
! United States Fire Administration’s (USFDA) National Fire
Academy (NFA);
! Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);
! Department of Justice (DOJ);
! Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA);
! Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
! Department of Energy (DOE);
! Department of Health and Human Services (HHS);
! Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC);
! Emergency Management Institute (EMI); and
! Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).6
National Domestic Preparedness Consortium. NDPC is composed of
federal training facilities and academic institutions which provide training to
emergency responders in different locations in the United States. NDPC members
include:
! Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP), at Anniston, Alabama;
! Academy of Counter-Terrorist Education (ACE), at Louisiana State
University (LSU);
! National Emergency Response and Rescue Training Center
(NERRTC), at the Texas Engineering Extension Service (TEEX),
Texas A&M University (TAMU);
! Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC), at New
Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMIMT); and
! National Center for Exercise Excellence (NCEE), at Nevada Test
Site (NTS).7
Center for Domestic Preparedness. CDP, administered by ODP, provides
specialized training to state and local emergency responders in the management and
mitigation of domestic terrorism incidents, specifically those incidents involving
chemical agents and other toxic substances.8
Academy for Counter-Terrorism Education. ACE, administered by LSU,
provides training to emergency responders on the detection, prevention, and response
to terrorist incidents involving WMD. The training ranges from basic firefighting
to advanced technical training in rescue and hazardous materials.9
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, “ODP Fact
Sheet: Center for Domestic Preparedness,” available at [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/
docs/fs-cdp.htm], visited Oct. 27, 2004.
9 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, “ODP Fact
(continued...)

CRS-4
National Emergency Response and Rescue Training Center. NERRTC
was established by the Texas Engineering Extension Service at Texas A&M
University and provides counter-terrorism training for federal, state, and local
officials (including emergency responders). The center includes a mock city, an
explosives area, and a weapons range for emergency response training.10
Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center. Under a cooperative
agreement with ODP, EMRTC, administered by the New Mexico Institute of Mining
and Technology, provides explosive and incendiary training to state and local
emergency responders. The training focuses on WMD incident operations and
awareness.11
National Exercise, Test, and Training Center. NETTC, administered by
DOE’s Nevada Test Site, provides radiological and nuclear WMD training to federal,
state, and local emergency responders. The center’s training includes courses on
radiation and nuclear agents and WMD exercise design.12
Office for Domestic Preparedness Training Partners. In addition to
TRADE and NDPC, ODP has cooperative agreements with other federal agencies,
private industry, academic institutions, and professional organizations that provide
training to federal, state, and local emergency responders. These partners include the
following:
! Community Research Associates;
! U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground;
! International Association of Fire Fighters;
! U.S. Navy’s Naval Postgraduate School;
! National Sheriff’s Association;
! General Physics Corporation at Pine Bluff Arsenal;
! Science Applications International Corporation;
! George Washington University;
! Michigan State University;
! International Association of Campus Law Enforcement
Administrators ; and
9 (...continued)
Sheet: Academy of Counter-Terrorist Education,” available at [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/
odp/docs/fs-lsu.htm], visited Oct. 27, 2004.
10 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, “ODP Fact
Sheet: National Emergency Response and Rescue Training Center,” available at
[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/fs-teex.htm], visited Oct. 27, 2004.
11 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, “ODP Fact
Sheet: Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center,” available at
[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/fs-nmt.htm], visited Oct. 27, 2004.
12 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, “ODP Fact
sheet: National Exercise, Test, and Training Center,” available at [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/
odp/fs-nts.htm], visited Oct. 27, 2004.

CRS-5
! International Association of Chiefs of Police.13
Department of Defense.14 The majority of the Department of Defense’s
(DOD) terrorism-related training courses are dedicated to military personnel. DOD’s
expertise and range of training facilities related to chemical, biological, radiological,
and nuclear (CBRN) weapons, however, offer a limited selection of training
programs that are available to non-DOD personnel. Most of these programs are
intended for medical and technical personnel who could be called upon to respond
and treat casualties following an incident involving CBRN weapons. Several of the
training courses are provided with the joint sponsorship of the American Red Cross.
DOD provides counter-terrorism training to non-DOD personnel at the following:
! U.S. Army Medical Research Institutes for Chemical and Infectious
Diseases, Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, and Dugway
Proving Ground in Utah;
! Clara Barton Center for Domestic Preparedness,15 U.S. Army Pine
Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas;
! Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, in Bethesda,
Maryland; and
! Joint Interagency Training Center, in San Diego, California.
Department of Energy.16 The Department of Energy (DOE) provides
technical assistance and training to states for public safety officials of appropriate
units of local government and Indian tribes through whose jurisdictions DOE plans
to transport spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste.17 DOE’s Office of
Environmental Management trains emergency responders for shipments to the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), and also provides training through the Transportation
Emergency Preparedness Program (TEPP). Twenty-three states18 have received
approximately $30 million in training since 1988 to prepare for radioactive waste
shipments to the WIPP near Carlsbad, New Mexico. The TEPP has provided
technical assistance and training to emergency responders in 34 states19 in the past
two years. In FY2002, DOE provided $5.8 million for training to the states along its
13 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, “Training
Overview,” available at [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/training.htm], visited Oct. 27, 2004.
14 Information provided by Steve Bowman, Specialist in National Defense, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division.
15 Administered by the American Red Cross and funded through the Department of Defense.
16 Information provided by Anthony Andrews, Specialist in Industrial Engineering and
Infrastructure Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
17 Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 10101.
18 AL, AZ, CA, CO, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, MI, NE, NV, NM, OH, OR, SC, TN, TX,
UT, WA, WY.
19 AL, AR, AZ, CA, CT, DE, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, MD, MI, MO, NE, NV, NJ, NM,
NH, NY, NC, OH, OR, PA, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV, WY.

CRS-6
major transportation corridors. DOE estimates that it has trained 16,200 responders
since FY1999.20
Environmental Protection Agency.21 Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 7 (HPSD-7) affirmed EPA as the lead federal agency for coordinating the
protection of the nation’s critical infrastructure for the water sector. To carry out its
water sector responsibilities, EPA has established a Water Security Division within
the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. This division works with drinking
water and wastewater utilities, states, tribes, and other stakeholders to improve the
security of these utilities and improve their ability to respond to security threats and
breaches. Among its responsibilities and activities, the Water Security Division
provides security and antiterrorism-related technical assistance and training to the
water sector.
EPA’s Water Security Division generally does not perform the training itself;
it delivers training at locations across the country through stakeholder organizations
and other federal partners.22 EPA has sponsored training on a variety of security
topics, including courses to help community water systems prepare vulnerability
assessments and emergency response plans, as required by the Bioterrorism Act (P.L.
107-188).23 EPA has entered into an interagency agreement with the Office of
Domestic Preparedness (ODP) within DHS, under which ODP has provided
emergency response training for medium and large drinking water utilities, first
responders, and local elected officials.24 To assist smaller drinking water utilities not
covered by the Bioterrorism Act, EPA has provided funding to the National Rural
Water Association to deliver security training.
EPA continues to support vulnerability assessment training for wastewater
utilities. For example, during 2005, vulnerability assessment and emergency response
20 U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of National Transportation, Corrine Macaluso,
“Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management,” memorandum, Feb. 5, 2004.
21 Information provided by Linda Jo Schierow and Mary Tiemann, Specialists in
Environmental Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
22 Organizations that provide security training include professional associations, such as the
American Water Works Association (AWWA), the Water Environment Federation (WEF),
and the National Rural Water Association (NRWA). Congress has provided some grant
funds to these organizations, through EPA, to support their water security training activities.
23 Title IV of the Bioterrorism Act (42 U.S.C. 300i) amended the Safe Drinking Water Act
to require each community water system serving more than 3,300 individuals to conduct an
assessment of the system’s vulnerability to terrorist attacks or other intentional acts to
disrupt the provision of a safe and reliable drinking water supply. These drinking water
systems must submit a copy of the assessment to EPA. The act also requires these systems
to prepare emergency response plans incorporating the results of the vulnerability
assessments no later than six months after completing the assessments. All utilities covered
by the act were to have completed vulnerability assessments by June 30, 2004. The last
statutory deadline for systems to complete emergency response plans was December 31,
2004.
24 Because most water and wastewater utilities are municipally owned, EPA has made an
effort to involve locally elected officials in first responder training courses.

CRS-7
training is being offered through the Water Environment Federation to roughly 600
medium and small wastewater utilities. EPA also is providing money to training
centers that provide technical assistance to very small wastewater utilities and is
funding ODP to provide emergency response table-top exercise training to large
wastewater utilities. Other security-related training activities sponsored by the Water
Security Division have included train-the-trainer workshops, and training on
emergency responses to threats of intentional contamination of water supplies.
During this year, the Water Security Division plans to continue providing tools and
technical assistance to help utilities address identified risks, as well as training on
emergency response and best security practices.
Homeland Security Presidential Directives require federal agencies to provide
full and prompt cooperation, resources, and support, consistent with their
responsibilities under law, to DHS in the event of a terrorist threat or attack. EPA
has responsibilities under the Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund) for responding to substantial releases of
hazardous chemicals when they affect inland (i.e., non-marine) environments. The
EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation’s Environmental
Response Team responds to thousands of such releases annually. The Environmental
Response Training Program shares EPA’s expertise in recognizing, evaluating, and
controlling releases of hazardous chemicals through four courses for federal
employees and contractors and for first responders at the state and local levels of
government. A new course in air monitoring for emergency responders is soon to be
offered. The other three courses predate the terrorist acts of 2001, but they have been
modified somewhat to incorporate information relevant to terrorism. All four courses
are offered at various locations within the 10 EPA Regions.
Department of Health and Human Services.25 Counter-terrorism training
programs supported by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are
aimed at a variety of public health and healthcare providers, individuals who provide
ancillary health services such as laboratory testing, and researchers who study health
effects from, or countermeasures to, biological, chemical and radiological agents.
Training programs have a variety of intended purposes, including assuring the ability
to recognize and treat victims of terrorist events, protecting workers and others from
infection or contamination while care is rendered, protecting critical healthcare assets
and maintaining electronic and other lines of communication during catastrophic
events, assuring competent laboratory services, and assuring that certain assets such
as radioactive materials or biological organisms are secured against potential misuse.
All of the HHS agencies listed below have responsibility for funding and
administering specific training programs and assets. Rather than listing hundreds of
courses and publications, the following sections will instead focus on the
infrastructure for developing and delivering training in each of these agencies. In
some cases, federal, state and local agencies have funded course development and
delivery through academic institutions. In other cases, agencies have expanded their
25 Information provided by Sarah Lister, Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology,
Domestic Social Policy Division.

CRS-8
training sites, laboratories, information technology infrastructure for distance
learning, and training workforces.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC is the agency
primarily responsible for the public health response to terrorism and other public
health emergencies. Most extramural training programs at CDC have been
coordinated across centers and offices by the CDC Public Health Practice Program
Office (PHPPO). CDC also supports intramural training of public health
professionals through its Epidemiology Program Office (EPO). According to a
reorganization called the CDC Futures Initiative, existing PHPPO and EPO training
activities are redistributed to several new organizational units within CDC.26 CDC-
funded training programs are developed and delivered in a variety of ways. CDC is
entirely responsible for some programs. Others are developed and delivered in
conjunction with state and local health departments and academic centers, although
some are developed by these entities with CDC funding but little direct input
otherwise. Other CDC training centers, networks, and projects include:
! Public Health Training Network;
! National Laboratory Training Network;
! Centers for Public Health Preparedness;
! Public Health Ready; and
! Public Health Law Program.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) develops and disseminates evidence-based
information and guidance to healthcare and public health providers in planning for
and responding to bioterrorism.27 AHRQ programs and products include:
! online training modules on bioterrorism;
! preparedness assessment tools, including hospital disaster drills; and
! computer simulation models for response planning.
Health Resources Services Administration. The Health Resources and
Services Administration (HRSA), through its Bureau of Health Professions, provides
support for training and placement of healthcare and public health workers in order
to alleviate shortages and maldistributions of these workers.
HRSA also administers the National Bioterrorism Hospital Preparedness
Program, a program of grants to states to prepare hospitals and supporting health care
systems to deliver coordinated and effective care to victims of terrorism and other
public health emergencies. As part of their application for funding, states must
26 See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Futures Initiative Home Page, at [http://www.cdc.gov/futures/default.htm].
27 See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality, “Responding to Bioterrorism,” available at [http://www.ahrq.gov/research/
bioterr.htm], visited Apr. 28, 2005.

CRS-9
include a written proposal for providing relevant training for hospital and healthcare
personnel to assure readiness in their states.28
Following the terrorrist attacks of 2001, HRSA has provided annual grants to
academic institutions through a new Bioterrorism Training and Curriculum
Development Program for training in recognition and treatment of diseases related
to bioterrorism for health care providers in training and on the job.
Food and Drug Administration. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
assures the safety and efficacy of human drugs and vaccines, medical devices, and
animal drugs, and the safety of certain foods and cosmetics.
FDA provides training for its own employees and for state, local, and tribal
regulatory personnel at no cost through its Office of Regulatory Affairs “ORA
University.”29 Relevant training courses for terrorism preparedness include those
geared toward implementation of new regulations for food and drug safety in the
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002,
P.L. 107-188. Formats include Web-based and classroom instruction, video tele-
conferences, and a library of training materials.
National Institutes of Health. The National Institutes of Health provide
training fellowships for graduate and post-doctoral education in biomedical research,
either in NIH facilities or in non-federal academic institutions. Some of the research
supported by NIH is targeted toward terrorism preparedness and response, including
the study of diseases caused by bioterrorism agents, and the development of new
tests, drugs, and vaccines to diagnose and treat these diseases. Bioterrorism research
activities at NIH are led by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
(NIAID).30 Other NIH institutes, alone or in collaboration, also fund relevant
research. Examples include grants for disaster mental health research capacity and
informatics for disaster management.31
Department of Justice.32 The Department of Justice (DOJ) enforces the law
to help ensure public safety against foreign and domestic terrorist threats, by
conducting federal investigations and prosecutions of persons suspected of unlawful
activities. DOJ also sponsors and provides assistance to state and local law
28 For more information on education and training components of the HRSA National
Bioterrorism Hospital Preparedness Program, see presentation of Teri Spear before the
meeting of the HHS Secretary’s Council on Public Health Preparedness, May 3-4, 2004,
available at [http://www.hhs.gov/asphep/presentation/040503presentationlist.html].
29 See FDA, ORAU Home Page at [http://www.fda.gov/ora/training/course_ora.html].
30 See NIH, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Biodefense Research Home
Page at [http://www2.niaid.nih.gov/biodefense/].
31 For more information, see NIH Office for Extramural Research Home Page at
[http://grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm].
32 Information provided by William Krouse, Analyst in Social Legislation, Domestic Social
Policy Division.

CRS-10
enforcement agencies. Listed below are several of these programs.33 While some of
these programs are not directly related to counter-terrorism, they are listed because
they may convey the knowledge and skills to law enforcement personnel that could
advance investigations of terrorist activities and responses to terrorist incidents.
Among the programs are those related to special weapons and tactics, criminal
intelligence, money laundering, computer crime, and crisis response and
management. Some programs are provided directly by DOJ entities — the Federal
Bureau of Investigation; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives;
and the National White Collar Crime Center. Others are sponsored by DOJ, through
the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and provided by nonprofit law enforcement
organizations.34 DOJ training includes:
! State and Local Anti-Terrorism Training;
! WMD Hazardous Material Evidence Collection;
! Crisis Management;
! Crisis Negotiation;
! Law Enforcement Response to Terrorism;
! Multi-Agency Incident Management for Law Enforcement and Fire
Service;
! Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Terrorists;
! Terrorism and Explosive Seminars;
! Criminal Intelligence Systems;
! Foundations of Intelligence Analysis;
! White Collar Crime and Terrorism;
! Cyber and Computer Crime; and
! Basic LAN and Advanced Internet Investigations.
Department of Transportation. Rail and bus transit systems are identified
as critical infrastructure because they provide transportation for many Americans in
densely populated urban areas and serve key economic, financial, and governmental
centers of the nation. They move over 14 million passengers daily, and in one month
they transport more passengers than U.S. airlines move in a year. Since these
systems are operated in an open environment, they are high-risk, high-consequence
targets for terrorists. Rail transit subways travel under key government buildings,
business centers, and harbors.35 Rail and bus transit systems travel along fixed routes
with frequent scheduled stops, and aviation-type passenger screening procedures may
not be practical because of the large volume of daily passengers.
33 Short descriptions of these programs and courses are available on a Web-accessible “law
enforcement training database” and search engine maintained by the Bureau of Justice
Assistance. See [http://bjatraining.aspensys.com].
34 The nonprofit law enforcement organizations include the Institute for Intergovernmental
Research, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Oklahoma Regional
Community Policing Institute, and SEARCH (a multi-state consortium dedicated to
improving criminal justice record systems).
35 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, “Safety and Security:
FTA Transit Security,” available at [http://transit-safety.volpe.dot.gov/Security/Default.asp],
visited Nov. 18, 2004.

CRS-11
Federal Transit Administration. Within the Department of Transportation,
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is responsible for providing counter-
terrorism and homeland security training to transit system personnel. FTA provides
security guidance to transit system operators, and it has instituted a five-point security
initiative to assist transit systems in preparing for and responding to terrorist attacks.
In addition to training, FTA provides assistance to transit system agencies with on-
site readiness assessments, technical assistance, regional forums for emergency
responders, and grants for terrorism drills.36
FTA is also working with the transit industry to identify critical, high-risk assets
and operations and to develop security strategies for these critical assets. The
strategies will address training, technical assistance, sharing best practices, and
testing new security technology.37 FTA’s counter-terrorism training courses are
available to transit system administrators, operators, managers, and emergency
responders.
Issues
The primary stakeholders in responding to terrorist attacks, and thus the
recipients of counter-terrorism training, are federal, state, and local governments;
private and public medical systems; and critical infrastructure administrators. In the
evolution of counter-terrorism training, a number of issues have arisen, among which
are possible duplication of training programs, allocation of DHS training funding,
prioritizing attendance, potential redundancy, and consolidation of DHS training
programs. These issues and possible oversight approaches available to Congress are
discussed below. CRS takes no position with respect to any of the possible
approaches listed.
Duplication of Counter-Terrorism Training. Because of the rapid
evolution of counter-terrorism training programs offered by different federal
departments and agencies, there may be a duplication of certain types of training
provided to federal, state, and local government personnel, emergency responders,
and critical infrastructure facility personnel. For example, DHS, HHS, and EPA all
offer training related to responding to hazardous material incidents.
It is possible that training provided by DHS, DOD, DOJ, DOT, EPA, and HHS
to first responders is not coordinated, and that a federal effort should be made to
ensure these federal entities provide coordinated, non-duplicative training. Possible
oversight approaches could include:
Status Quo. Congress might decide that federal counter-terrorism training
programs for federal, state, and local emergency responders do not warrant
congressional oversight at this time. Arguably, this option could leave Congress with
limited systematic information about the extent of any duplication and the potential
need for interagency coordination of training.
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid.

CRS-12
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Evaluation of Programs.
Congress could ask GAO to undertake an evaluation of all federal counter-terrorism
training programs. GAO could be asked to review individual courses, training
curricula, training audiences, and training facilities. After conducting a review of
these courses, GAO might be able to identify any duplication of training and possible
alternatives for consolidating or coordinating this training. This option would require
Congress to work with GAO to set a mutually acceptable scope and time for the
evaluation.
Interagency Task Force. Congress might direct, through statutory and
conference language, the federal departments and agencies that provide counter-
terrorism training to establish an interagency task force to review their counter-
terrorism programs. Because of the lead role DHS provides in counter-terrorism
training, Congress could consider directing DHS to chair the task force. Once the
training has been reviewed, the task force could be directed to coordinate and
consolidate the training as necessary. This option, however, could result in “turf”
disputes and federal departments and agencies attempting to protect training
programs and the funding associated with them.
Allocation of Counter-Terrorism Training Funding and Prioritizing
Attendance. State and local governments receive counter-terrorism training
funding through the DHS Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP).38 Two sub-
grants within HSGP, the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) and the
Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), provide funds to be used for counter-terrorism
and homeland security training of first responders, state and local government
personnel, and emergency managers.
In the conference report (H.Rept. 108-774) accompanying the FY2005 DHS
appropriations (P.L. 108-334), Congress directed DHS to allocate FY2005 funding
for SHSGP in the same manner as the FY2004 allocations. These state allocations
are based on the formula of 0.75% of total appropriations guaranteed to each state,
and 0.25% of total appropriations guaranteed to each U.S. territory.39 In the absence
of statutes or congressional guidance, DHS decided to allocate the remaining
appropriations in direct proportion to the ratio of the state’s population to the total
national population.40 UASI discretionary allocations are distributed using credible
threat, presence of critical infrastructure, vulnerability, population, population
density, law enforcement investigative and enforcement activity, and the existence
of formal mutual aid agreements as funding factors.41
38 For more information on DHS’s Homeland Security Grant Program, see CRS Report
RL32696, Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: State Allocations and
Issues for Congressional Oversight,
by Shawn Reese.
39 P.L. 107-56 (USA PATRIOT Act), Sec. 1014.
40 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, Fiscal Year
2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and Application Kit,
p. 1.
41 Ibid.

CRS-13
Critics of the present funding distribution method, including some Members of
Congress and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,
have stated that the funding distribution methods used to provide federal homeland
security assistance to states and localities are inadequate and unfair.42
The issue of allocation of DHS counter-terrorism training funding is part of a
larger issue: the distribution of federal homeland security funding to states and
localities.43 The allocation of counter-terrorism training funding, however, presents
some policy questions that can be addressed separately from the issue of federal
homeland security assistance distribution.
It could be argued that every state should receive a minimum amount of
homeland security funding, but that not every state and locality can receive priority
in counter-terrorism training. Terrorism intelligence may identify one state or
locality at a greater risk of attacks, whereas other locations may not be at the same
risk. Some states and localities may have a greater risk of terrorist attacks due to
their population density or critical infrastructure. Additionally, it could be argued
that a state or locality should not receive training funding that would allow first
responders, government officials, and emergency managers to attend counter-
terrorism training that would not enhance their preparedness, because the state or
locality does not face a terrorist threat, have critical infrastructure, or possess threat-
specific counter-terrorism equipment.
These arguments, however, may not address the need for baseline counter-
terrorism training. It could be argued that every state should receive the same
training, due to the unpredictable nature of terrorism. Some may argue that neither
the absence of critical infrastructure nor relatively low population density protects a
state or locality from terrorist attacks. From that perspective, every state and locality
can be seen as needing some, if not an equal amount, of counter-terrorism training.
Possible approaches include:
Status Quo. Congress could determine that the present amount of training and
funding that states and localities receive is adequate. In support of this position, it
might be argued that the current allocation of training funding and priority of training
is necessary to ensure that every state and locality is provided a baseline amount of
counter-terrorism training. This option, however, does not address the argument that
some states and localities are at a greater risk of terrorist attacks and may need more
training or funding than those states or localities at a lesser risk.
42 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Democratic Members of the House Select
Committee on Homeland Security, America at Risk: The State of Homeland Security, Initial
Findings,
108th Cong., 2nd sess., Jan. 13, 2004. See also National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report (Washington: GPO, July 22,
2004), p. 396.
43 For more discussion of DHS’s distribution of federal homeland security assistance to
states and localities, see CRS Report RL32696, Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant
Program: State Allocations and Issues for Congressional Oversight,
by Shawn Reese.

CRS-14
Establishing Training Attendance Priority. If Congress were to decide
that the present counter-terrorism training provided by DHS is not fully meeting the
needs of states and localities at a greater risk of terrorist attacks, it could direct DHS,
specifically ODP, through statutory or conference language, to establish a priority
attendance list of states and localities. This list could give training priority to states
and localities that are determined to be at a greater risk of or vulnerability to terrorist
attacks. ODP, with access to intelligence concerning the national terrorist threat,
might be designated to determine which states and localities appear to have a greater
need for training. This option, however, might result in some states or localities
receiving reduced training due to the limited space in and availability of the training
programs; and it could be argued that this would not ensure adequate security for
some states and localities.
Increasing Funding for Specific States or Localities. Congress could
direct ODP to increase funding to specific states or localities based on terrorist threat
information. Since Congress, through the USA PATRIOT Act, directed only that a
minimum of 0.75% of total appropriations be allocated to states for homeland
security, it could through statutory or conference language require ODP to provide
additional funding to specific states and localities for counter-terrorism training. This
option could increase preparedness of states and localities at greater risk of terrorist
attacks as determined by threat information. This option, however, would require
ODP to coordinate terrorist threat information with its allocation of SHSGP funding,
which it presently does not do. Supporters of this position would be likely to argue
that since ODP coordinates terrorist threat information with its allocation of UASI
funding, it could do this for SHSGP allocations.
Possible Redundancy and Consolidation of Department of
Homeland Security Training. Within DHS, ODP and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) administer training programs at the state and local
levels, and at national training institutes. At the national level, FEMA administers
the Emergency Management Institute (EMI) and the National Fire Academy (NFA).
ODP does not directly administer any training institute; however, it provides
guidance and funding to training institutes that are part of the National Domestic
Preparedness Consortium (NDPC), described earlier in this report.
Some training programs offered by EMI and NFA have similar subject matter
in training provided by NDPC training institutes, such as incident management,
homeland security planning, hazardous material incident response, emergency
operations, and WMD response. Because of a the possible similarity of these
training programs for state and local first responders, it could be argued that there is
a need to consolidate or coordinate training offered by these two separate DHS
agencies.
FEMA’s firefighting training provided by the NFA, however, focuses primarily
on the needs of local fire departments, whereas NDPC provides some training
primarily focusing on law enforcement. Some of the training that is tailored to a
specific profession such as law enforcement or firefighting would not seem to be
redundant. Basic or introductory training such as incident management or WMD
response, however, may not be specifically tailored for a single profession or type of
first responder. This possible redundancy of training and the potential consolidation

CRS-15
of training may be policy questions that Congress may choose to address through
oversight of DHS’s role in providing assistance to states and localities. Possible
approaches include:
Status Quo. If Congress were to determine that there was no redundancy or
a need to consolidate DHS training programs, it could allow DHS to continue to
provide first responder training through two separate agencies. This would allow
emergency managers, law enforcement personnel, firefighters, and emergency
medical personnel to apply for and receive training from the two agencies and the
training institutes they administer. This option, however, appears to leave unresolved
the claims of possible redundancy of training or the possibility that these training
programs are not coordinated.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Evaluation of Programs.
Congress could ask GAO to undertake an evaluation of DHS counter-terrorism
training programs. The evaluation could review ODP and FEMA training curricula,
individual courses, intended and actual trainees, and training facilities. After
conducting a review of these courses, GAO might be able to identify any duplication
of training and possible options for consolidating or coordinating this training. This
option would give the committee additional tools for oversight of these programs.
H.R. 1544 (as reported), Section 6, proposes this evaluation. This option, however,
would require the committee to work with GAO to set a mutually acceptable scope
and time for the study.
Coordination of Department of Homeland Security Training. If
Congress were to find undesirable redundancy in training programs, it could direct
DHS to be more attentive to coordinating the counter-terrorism training programs
administered by ODP and FEMA. DHS could possibly establish a board to review
the ODP and FEMA training programs, and to recommend coordination or other
steps to reduce duplication.
Consolidation of Department of Homeland Security Training. If
Congress were to determine that there is a need to consolidate DHS training
programs, it could direct DHS, through statutory or conference language, to conduct
a review of its training programs and develop a plan to consolidate its training. This
consolidation might involve the removal of similar programs provided by ODP and
FEMA to ensure there is no redundancy. If Congress did not consider this
consolidation adequate to ensure against redundant or uncoordinated DHS training,
it could also direct DHS to consolidate all counter-terrorism training under one
agency. ODP might be directed to assume the responsibility of administering not
only its training, but also the training FEMA provides first responders through EMI
and NFA. Some would argue this is a logical choice since ODP is responsible for
administering the funding to states and localities that assist them in receiving this
training. This option, however, might be seen as impractical due to the specific
training EMI provides state and local emergency managers that is specific to natural
disasters, and the specific training NFA provides firefighters. FEMA historically has
administered training programs for emergency managers and firefighters, whereas
ODP has administered law enforcement focused training.

CRS-16
CRS Contacts. For further information about federal departments and
agencies that provide counter-terrorism training, please contact the following CRS
analysts:
! Department of Homeland Security — Shawn Reese, 7-0635;
! Department of Defense — Steve Bowman, 7-7613;
! Department of Energy — Anthony Andrews, 7-6843;
! Environmental Protection Agency — Linda Jo Schierow, 7-7279,
and Mary Tiemann, 7-5937;
! Department of Health and Human Services — Sarah Lister, 7-7320;
! Department of Justice — Celinda Franco, 7-7360; and
! Department of Transportation — Paul Rothberg, 7-7012.