[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
DIRECTORATE FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
of the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
before the
SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 3, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-38
__________
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Homeland Security
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
22-588 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
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�0900012005
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
W.J. (Billy) Tauzin, Louisiana Barney Frank, Massachusetts
David Dreier, California Jane Harman, California
Duncan Hunter, California Benjamin L. Cardin, Maryland
Harold Rogers, Kentucky Louise McIntosh Slaughter, New
Sherwood Boehlert, New York 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., North Carolina
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
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, Vice Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Chairman Jane Harman, California
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Benjamin L. Cardin, Maryland
Christopher Shays, Connecticut Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Dave Camp, Michigan Nita M. Lowey, New York
Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Florida Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Peter King, New York Columbia
Mark Souder, Indiana Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
Mac Thornberry, Texas Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Islands
Kay Granger, Texas Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
Pete Sessions, Texas Ken Lucas, Kentucky
Christopher Cox, California, Ex Jim Turner, Texas, Ex Officio
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
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Emergency Preparedness and Response......................... 4
The Honorable Christopher Cox, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California, and Chairman, Select Committee on
Homeland Security
Oral Statement................................................. 8
Prepared Statement............................................. 10
The Honorable Jim Turner, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Texas, Ranking Member, Select Committee on Homeland
Security
Oral Statement................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Maryland..................................... 23
The Honorable Donna M. Christensen, a Delegate in Congress From
the U.S. Virgin Islands........................................ 26
The Honorable Bob Etheridge, a Representative in Congress From
the State of North Carolina.................................... 38
The Honorable Jim Gibbons, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Nevada................................................ 32
The Honorable Kay Granger, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Texas................................................. 22
The Honorable Peter T. King, a Representative in Congress From
the State of New York.......................................... 36
The Honorable Nita M. Lowey, a Representative in Congress From
the State of New York.......................................... 29
The Honorable Christopher Shays, a Representative in Congress
From the State Connecticut..................................... 44
WITNESS
The Honorable Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary for Emergency
Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security
Oral Statement................................................... 11
Prepared Statement............................................... 13
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Record
Questions for the Record from The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson... 47
Questions for the Record from The Honorable Jim Turner........... 55
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
DIRECTORATE FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET
----------
Wednesday, March 3, 2004
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness
and Response,
Select Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:34 a.m., in
Room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shadegg
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Shadegg, Shays, Camp, King,
Gibbons, Granger, Cox, Thompson, Cardin, Lowey, Norton,
Christensen, Etheridge, Lucas of Kentucky, and Turner.
Mr. Shadegg. [Presiding.] Good morning.
The committee will come to order. Pursuant to a unanimous
consent agreement, opening statements will be limited to the
chairman, ranking member and the full committee chairman,
assuming he makes it here, and the full committee ranking
member.
Today, we will hear testimony from Under Secretary Michael
Brown--welcome, Secretary Brown--on the Emergency Preparedness
and Response Directorate fiscal year 2005 budget.
A key mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to
assist the nation to prepare for, mitigate, respond to and
recover from domestic disasters, including acts of terrorism.
Specifically, the directorate has a responsibility to ensure
effective emergency preparedness, build and standardize
incident response, and aid recovery from terrorist attacks and
other major disasters.
Again last year, Mother Nature wreaked havoc on our country
through snowstorms, a major hurricane and mud slides.
Unfortunately wild fires also devastated our forests in the
West, including my own state of Arizona, although man and
unsound environmental policies played a contributing role in
those wildfires.
During the 56 major disasters and 19 emergencies, the EP &
R Directorate was able to provide assistance to communities in
need. It was also able to train over 290,000 first responders
to better prepare them to mitigate and respond to disasters, to
train and equip its urban search and rescue teams to handle
events involving weapons of mass destruction, and provide over
$650 million in grants to fire departments across the country.
As we look forward to fiscal year 2005, we see that the
president has requested $5.58 billion for the EP & R
Directorate, an increase of $956 million. It is important to
note that a large portion of this increase is due to important
funding for Project BioShield.
As you are aware, our subcommittee and the full Select
Committee on Homeland Security took a leadership role by
passing H.R. 2122, Project BioShield, which would encourage the
development of medical countermeasures against weapons of mass
destruction. Unfortunately, this legislation still remains in
the U.S. Senate.
Nonetheless, I am very pleased to see that the directorate
is proceeding to work with the private sector to develop
vaccines and drugs to inoculate and treat Americans prior to
and after terrorist attack.
However, we still need to act on H.R. 2122, and I join the
president's call on the U.S. Senate to pass Project BioShield.
I also want to note the transfer of budget authority for
the strategic national stockpile back to the Department of
Health and Human Services.
HHS had much of the day-to-day responsibility for the
stockpile, and this transfer makes sense. But it is important
that the directorate have statutory ability to deploy the
stockpile in the event of an attack.
I know that Under Secretary Brown will comment on
additional highlights in the fiscal year 2005 budget. But I
want to take time to sound a note of concern.
While I understand the need to respond to natural
disasters, I am concerned that the directorate is increasingly
viewed as the Emergency Response Directorate, not the Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate.
DHS was created to integrate functions better to prepare
our nation for acts of terrorism and to mitigate their
consequences. The other directorates are working to do just
that.
My fear, however, is that the EP & R Directorate is viewed
at least by some in the department and some across the country
as, ``Oh, those are just the response guys.'' I would like to
know if, in fact, the EP & R Directorate intends to become just
the ENR Directorate.
Based on what is happening in the department, the function
for preparing for terrorists attacks appears to be shifting to
the Office of State and Local Government Coordination. If so,
the directorate is losing one of the important functions given
to it by Congress, and one that I think is its most important
function.
For example, it strikes me that the directorate should have
a comprehensive inventory of all first responder prevention,
preparedness and response equipment that exist in the state.
But is the EP & R Directorate getting that information from the
Office of Domestic Preparedness and the Office of State and
Local Government Coordination? I do not know, but I would like
to find out.
Congress has spent billions in taxpayer dollars since 9/11
to improve on our nation's ability to prepare for terrorism,
but I fear that there may a duplication of that effort and
wasted dollars if there is not close collaboration with other
agencies in the department in preparation for acts of terrorism
and other emergencies.
Clearly the department has come along way over the past
year. We are indeed much safer today than we were when the
department was created roughly one year ago. But we must
continue to improve.
I look forward to delving into these questions in greater
detail with our witness.
Opening Statement John Shadegg, Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness and Response
The Committee will come to order. Today we will hear testimony from
Undersecretary Michael Brown on the Emergency Preparedness and Response
Directorate's Fiscal Year 2005 Budget. A key mission of the Department
of Homeland Security is to assist the nation to prepare for, mitigate,
respond to, and recover from domestic disasters, including incidents of
terrorism. Specifically, the Directorate has responsibility to:
- Ensure effective emergency preparedness
- Build and standardize incident response
- Aid recovery from terrorist attacks and major disasters
Again last year, Mother Nature wreaked havoc on our country in
snowstorms, a major hurricane, and mudslides. Unfortunately, wildfires
also devastated our forests in the West, including in Arizona, although
man and unsound environmental policies played a contributing role.
During the 56 major disasters and 19 emergencies, the EP & R
Directorate was able to provide assistance to communities in need. It
was also able to:
- Train over 290,000 first responders to better prepare them to
mitigate and respond to disasters;
- Train and equip its Urban Search and Rescue Teams to handle
Weapons of Mass Destruction events; and
- Provide over $650 million in grants to fire departments
across the country.
As we look forward to Fiscal Year 2005, we see that the President
has requested $5.58 billion for the EP & R Directorate, an increase of
$956 million. It is important to note that a large portion of the
increase is due to important funding for Project Bioshield.
As you are aware, our Subcommittee and the Full Select Committee on
Homeland Security took a leadership role by passing H.R. 2122, which
would encourage the development of medical countermeasures against
weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, this legislation is still
stuck in the Senate.
Nevertheless, I am glad to see that the Directorate is proceeding
to work with the private sector to develop vaccines and drugs to
inoculate and treat Americans prior to and after terrorist attacks.
However, we still need to act on H.R. 2122, and I join the President's
call to the Senate to pass Project Bioshield.
I also want to note the transfer of budget authority for the
Strategic National Stockpile back to the Department of Health and Human
Services. HHS had much of the day-to-day responsibility for the
Stockpile, and this transfer makes sense, but it is important that the
Directorate does have statutory ability to deploy the Stockpile in the
event of an attack.
I know that Undersecretary Brown will comment on additional
highlights in the Fiscal Year 2005 budget, but I wanted to take time to
sound a note of caution. While I understand the need to respond to
natural disasters, I am concerned that the Directorate is increasingly
viewed as the Emergency Response Directorate, not the Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate.
DHS was created to integrate functions to better prepare our nation
acts of terrorism and to mitigate their consequences. The other
Directorates areworking to do just that. My fear, however, is that the
EP & R Directorate is viewed as ``oh, those are just the response
guys.'' I would like to know if in fact the EP & R Directorate intends
to become the ER Directorate.
Based on what is happening in the Department, the function for
preparing for terrorist attacks appears to be shifting to the Office of
State and Local Government Coordination. If so, the Directorate is
losing one of its important functions.
For example, it strikes me that the Directorate should have a
comprehensive inventory of all first responder prevention,
preparedness, and response equipment that exists in the States. But, is
EP & R getting that information from the Office of Domestic
Preparedness/Office of State and Local Government Coordination?
Congress has spent billions in taxpayer dollars since 9/11 to
improve our nation's ability to prepare for terrorism, but I fear that
there may be duplication of effort and wasted dollars if there is not
close collaboration with other agencies in the Department in
preparation for acts of terrorism and other emergencies.
Clearly, the Department has come a long way over the past year, but
we must continue to improve. I look forward to delving into these
issues in greater detail with our witness.
Now I would like to turn the ranking member of the
subcommittee, Mr. Thompson, for any opening statement he would
like to make.
But before I do, I want to let members and our witness and
anyone in the audience know that we will have rotating chairmen
in this position at times today. Chairman Cox and I both have
an important markup downstairs in the Energy and Committee
Commerce in which we expect votes and, as necessary, we will
have to excuse ourselves from this hearing at times in order to
make those votes in that hearing.
Now let me call upon the ranking member, Mr. Thompson, for
his opening statement.
Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Under Secretary.
Mr. Under Secretary, in June of last year, when you
testified before the full committee, I stated that in its
former life FEMA and EP & R Directorate was widely viewed as a
success story by becoming more responsive to communities before
and after major disasters and emergencies. And I wanted to be
sure that EP & R could effectively perform its traditional
disaster response and recovery mission, given DHS' primary
focus on terrorism, prevention and preparedness. I wanted to be
sure that we were ready for the next major earthquake or
hurricane or, in my district, the next major flood.
In your written testimony, you stressed a continued
commitment to all hazard emergency planning. But, Mr. Under
Secretary, the president's budget ignores that commitment.
Let me highlight three examples from the president's budget
that I believe prevents you and your employees from truly
protecting this nation from all disasters and emergencies.
First, the budget transfers the Emergency Management
Performance Grant Program to the Office of Domestic
Preparedness and reduces the grant program by $10 million from
fiscal year 2004 level.
In addition, the administration proposes that only 25
percent of these grant funds will be able to support state and
local emergency management personnel salary. This program is a
principal source of funding for state and local emergency
management agencies, your partners in all hazard preparedness.
A March 2002 survey by the National Emergency Management
Association found that an additional 5,212 emergency management
positions are needed, with 3,960 of those positions being full-
time directors needed to manage the program.
How do you propose to respond to and recover from major
disasters when your budget would eliminate many of these state
and local partners?
Second, the president's fiscal 2005 budget request for the
FIRE grant program represents a $250 million, or 33 percent,
reduction from fiscal 2004 levels.
More troubling, however, is the fact that the budget
proposes that priority be given to grant applications enhancing
terrorism preparedness and limits the use of FIRE Grant funds
to only four of the original 14 uses authorized by Congress.
The FIRE Grant program was created by Congress in order to
meet basic critical needs of the firefighting community, which
a December 2002 study by your U.S. Fire Administration and the
National Fire Protection Association found to be significant.
Third, the president's budget eliminates the Metropolitan
Medical Response System Program. The primary focus of the MMRS
Program is to develop or enhance existing state and local
preparedness systems to effectively respond to a public health
crisis.
Again, how can we effectively respond to public health
emergencies without effective planning and training at the
state and local levels?
In our continuing efforts to prevent and prepare for acts
of terrorism, we must not destroy the organizations and
structures that have been created to prepare for, respond to
and recover from floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and other
disasters. Yet the president's request seems to ignore the
critical role that these institutions play in our preparedness
efforts.
There are elements in this budget request that are worthy
of recognition.
The administration is again requesting $200 million from
the Flood Map Modernization Initiative. This initiative is
important to flood-prone states, such as Mississippi. I am glad
to see an adequate and timely budget request for the disaster
relief fund.
Last year we were experiencing major floods in Mississippi.
You came very close to running out of money in the disaster
relief fund, and nobody wants to go through that again this
year.
Mississippi endured two federally declared disasters last
year. We are grateful for and in continued need of FEMA's
program and expertise. I look forward to your testimony and
working with you to preserve the programs that protect our
communities from all disasters.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank the gentlemen for his opening statement.
It is my understanding that Chairman Cox does, in fact,
plan to attend and that he is en route, however he is not here.
I would propose that we call upon the ranking member, Mr.
Turner, for his opening statement and would ask with unanimous
consent that that be done without objection to Mr. Cox being
able to give his opening statement when he arrives.
Is there any objection?
There being none, so ordered.
And I would call upon Mr. Turner, the ranking member of the
full committee, for his opening statement.
Mr. Turner?
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Brown, thank you for being here with us today. We
all look forward to hearing your presentation regarding your
directorate's 2005 budget request.
As I begin, I wanted to review just briefly the history of
the principal component of your directorate, FEMA, and talk
about the impact of some of the changes that have occurred, and
suggest some of the things that hopefully can be done to
continue of what was historically the very strong reputation,
particularly among our states and locales, of FEMA.
You may remember back in the early 1990s, we went through a
period of time when Congress was calling for the abolishment of
FEMA. Senator Hollings called FEMA ``the sorriest bunch of
bureaucrats I have ever known,'' in the wake of FEMA's much-
criticized response to Hurricane Hugo in 1989.
Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland complained in 1992--
she said, ``I am outraged by the federal government's pathetic,
sluggish, ill-planned response to the devastating disaster
wrought by Hurricane Andrew.''
And yet it seems that by the end of the 1990s, FEMA had
turned around. There was a study conducted by George Mason
University in March of 2000 that praised FEMA for its
reinvention efforts, and held up the organization as a model of
results-based management for both the public and the private
sector.
It seems that FEMA had reinvented itself in a way that made
it, in fact, one of the finest agencies of the federal
government. FEMA employees seemed to be proud of their
accomplishments and eager to work for that agency.
It is troubling when we saw the recent report of the
Partnership for Public Service, published last November, that
rated FEMA today as the worst agency for federal employees to
work, ranking FEMA 28--last among all federal agencies.
It is difficult to understand what happened in FEMA to
bring that about. I think it is very important for us to try to
analyze why that change occurred and how we can be sure that we
can turn this change around.
I also am beginning to hear from some of our state and
local communities about their relationship with FEMA.
As we all know, our states and our communities depend very
heavily on FEMA for resources and for expertise. And although
our states have been very active in trying to increase their
focus on terrorism preparedness, they still know that they must
maintain the ability to cope with natural disasters.
It is troubling when I look at the budget request when I
see that the administration proposes that we cut the FIRE
grants by $246 million and cut Emergency Management Performance
Grants by $9 million. This budget limits the ability of our
states to get the job done.
With regard to the Emergency Management Performance
Grants--the proposal that limits the use of funds our personnel
has certainly been met with almost unanimous opposition by the
National Emergency Management Association.
So when I see those proposals, it causes me grave concern
that we may be moving back to a period--as I mentioned, similar
to the early 1990s--where FEMA does not have the support of the
Congress or the support of our states and local governments.
And I think we need to be very careful.
We all understand the complexities of massive
reorganization. And I know, Mr. Secretary, you have your hands
full trying to get the job done.
But I do hope we can be very careful, particularly in these
areas of funding--in the limitations on use of funds. As you
know, the Emergency Management Performance Grants is a 50/50
matching program, but to limit our states and their ability to
use those funds for personnel, I am told is going to, in some
cases, result in a 60 percent reduction in employees at the
state level.
So those things concern me, combined with what I perceive
to be some tension that would normally be expected with
reorganizations.
But I know we have some fine career employees that have
been with FEMA for many, many years, and I do hope that we can
listen to them and be sure we maintain the strong standing and
relationship between FEMA and our states and local governments.
And finally, I have also some concerns about our progress
in trying to build our capabilities for public health and the
public health preparedness sector, to deal with the threat of
bioterrorism.
As you know, there was an exercise conducted not too long
ago, the TOPOFF2 exercise, that raised the question, upon its
completion, as to who had the real authority, the final
authority to deploy the strategic national stockpile; was it
DHS or HHS?
As I look at the interaction between those two agencies, it
seems to me that we have to be very careful that we make a
clear distinction as to what responsibilities the two agencies
have, and who will make the decision regarding the issues which
could be so critical in the event of a bioterrorist attack.
So by raising those two concerns, I hope you will be able
to address them as you share your testimony today with the
committee.
And again, I ask for your careful consideration of those
two matters with full appreciation of the major task that you
face, and the major responsibility that you have in
reorganizing your portion of the new department.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Jim Turner, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Select Committee
on Homeland Committee
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Under Secretary Brown, thank you for appearing before the
Subcommittee today, and I look forward to your testimony on the
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate's fiscal year 2005
budget request.
First, though, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the
history of your organization, and some changes that I believe are
necessary to ensure your success in the future.
Back in the early 1990's, many in the Congress were calling for the
abolishment of the principal component in your directorate, FEMA.
Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina characterized FEMA as ``the
sorriest bunch of bureaucrats I've ever known'' in the wake of FEMA's
much- criticized response to Hurricane Hugo in 1989. Senator Barbara
Mikulski of Maryland complained in 1992, ``I am outraged by the federal
government's pathetically sluggish and ill- planned response to the
devastating disaster wrought by Hurricane Andrew.''
Yet, by the end of the 1990's, FEMA had achieved a complete
turnaround. A March 2000 study by George Mason University stated that
FEMA won widespread praise for its reinvention efforts, and held the
organization up as a model of results-based management for both the
public and private sectors. A clear mission, needed changes in
organizational structure, and a shift in the organization's culture to
a focus on the customer all contributed to FEMA's success. In addition,
FEMA employees became proud of their achievements and eager to work for
the agency.
That is why I am very troubled, Under Secretary Brown, that in a
November 2003 survey of the best places to work in the Federal
government conducted by the Partnership for Public Service, FEMA was
ranked 28th, or dead last, by its employees.
What has happened to FEMA in the past three years that has resulted
in the remarkably negative change? How is this drop in morale impacting
your ability to provide the highest level of service to individual
citizens and state and local governments? I hope that you found this
survey as troubling as I did, and that you will describe the measures
you are implementing to address the needs of your employees.
The fact is that states and local communities look to FEMA to
provide the resources and expertise they need to meet a wide range of
challenges. While our states and local communities have increased their
focus on preparing for terrorist attacks, at the same time we must
maintain our ability to cope with natural disasters.
Yet, the Administration proposes to cut funding for Fire Grants by
$246 million and Emergency Management Performance Grants by $9 million,
and limits the ability of states to use these funds to meet the full
range of their preparedness needs.
In addition, the President proposes to limit the amount of
emergency management funds that can be spent on supporting state and
local emergency planners. I recently spoke before the National
Emergency Management Association, and their members strongly oppose
this proposal. The President's budget would, by one estimate, lead to a
60 percent cut of state and local emergency personnel, exactly at the
time when we are asking state and local governments to take a more
active role in emergency planning and response. This does not sound
like the partnership described by Secretary Ridge and President Bush.
Finally, I am also interested in understanding the progress you are
making in building enhanced public health and bioterrorism preparedness
capabilities--such as the National Disaster Medical System--in
partnership with the Department of Health and Human Services.
To win the war on terrorism, and to fully prepare our communities
for any hazard, we must take full advantage of the demonstrated
successes of our emergency management community I look forward to
hearing your testimony, Mr. Under Secretary, and to working with you to
preserve FEMA's all-hazards mission.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman.
The chair would now call on the full committee chairman,
Mr. Cox, for his opening statement.
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank Chairman Shadegg and our ranking member,
Mr. Thompson, for the leadership that you have shown on the
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness and Response.
And I want to welcome again Under Secretary Mike Brown.
Your directorate, Mr. Under Secretary, is where the
homeland rubber meets the first responder road, and I look
forward to your testimony.
This subcommittee and the full committee have held a
combined total of 10 hearings and field visits to hear the
concerns of our first responder community and to assess the
nation's preparedness and response capabilities.
Last November, this subcommittee successfully marked up the
Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act, which,
with impressive bipartisan support, passed unanimously and is
now before the full committee.
The continued leadership of this subcommittee will be
vital, as the full committee moves to mark up H.R. 3266. The
bill provides for a more threat-based and cost-effective
approach to homeland security grants and allows high-threat
regions, as well as states, to apply for these grants.
The full committee, by the way, will continue its efforts
to control spending and focus on threat in two other bills this
session--one on metrics for the Department of Homeland
Security's performance and the other an authorization bill to
help sharpen our spending practices.
Yesterday, the ranking member of the full committee and I
were with the president to celebrate the one-year anniversary
of the department. The president charged us to hold the
government's feet to the fire. ``None of us,'' he said,
``charged with defending this nation can rest. We must never
forget the day when the terrorists left their mark of murder on
our nation.''
Taking up the president's charge, we must recognize that
the mission of the EP & R Directorate is central to the
Homeland Security counterterrorism mission--to prevent, protect
and respond.
Under Secretary Brown, we look forward to hearing the
strides that your directorate has made over the past year in
directing its capabilities towards the terrorist threat, while
maintaining its focus on traditional all-hazard missions.
Creating the new EP & R Directorate for Congress meant that
both preparedness and response were going to be incorporated in
one place. Valuable lessons were learned from FEMA's experience
in dealing heroically with major terrorist attacks in New York
in 1993 and Oklahoma City in 1995.
After the Oklahoma City bombing, the GAO cited FEMA's need
to cooperate more with law enforcement, to plan better for
surges in resources demands, and to improve training and
equipment to counter attacks involving WMD. Such challenges
were even further magnified in the response to the second
bombing of the World Trade Center in 2001.
An all-hazards approach to emergency management has worked
effectively for non-terrorist missions in the past, but the
terrorist threat requires more flexible and adaptive programs.
We need to show that preparedness, not just response, is the
mission of EP & R.
As you know, Mr. Under Secretary, Congress, the
administration and the department have taken steps to improve
our emergency response system. You have bolstered the
department's response capabilities and you have developed plans
to unify incident management.
Together, we have begun to reform the first responder
grant-making process so that resources are better leveraged to
provide essential capabilities to every state and locality.
In the president's fiscal year 2005 budget proposal, he has
requested $20 million to support medical response, through the
enhancement of medical surge and capacity--a crucial need in a
WMD attack. We look forward to hearing more about this today.
The National Incident Management System will significantly
enhance the ability of the EP & R Directorate to collaborate
with state and local first responders in implementing the
proposed national response plan. This will unify domestic
incident management by providing an operational framework for
responders at all levels of government.
The department released the Interim National Response Plan
in October, and the National Incident Management System Plan
was released last week.
We expect that you will tell us, Mr. Under Secretary, more
about these initiatives this morning.
The committee recognizes, Under Secretary Brown, your
leadership and the bold steps you have taken to integrate the
EP & R Directorate into the Department of Homeland Security and
both to clarify and strengthen its preparedness and response
capabilities against terrorism.
I look forward to your testimony today.
And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Christopher Cox, a Representative
in Congress From the State of California, and Chairman, Select
Committee on Homeland Security
I want to thank Chairman Shadegg and Ranking member Thompson for
the leadership they have shown on the Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness and Response and welcome again the Undersecretary Mike
Brown. Your Directorate Mr. Undersecretary is where the homeland
``rubber hits the first-responder road,'' and I look forward to your
testimony.
This subcommittee and the full committee have held a combined total
of ten hearings and field visits to hear the concerns of our first
responder community and to assess the Nation's preparedness and
response capabilities. Last November, this Subcommittee successfully
marked up HR 3266 the `Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders
Act' which, with impressive bipartisan support, passed unanimously and
is now before the full committee. The continued leadership of this
Subcommittee will be vital as the full committee moves to mark up HR
3266, which provides for a more threat- based and cost-effective
approach to Homeland Security grants, and which allows high- threat
regions, as well as States, to apply for these grants. The full
committee, by the way, will continue its efforts to control spending
and focus on threat in two other bills this session, one on metrics for
DHS performance and the other an authorization bill to help sharpen our
spending practices.
Yesterday, the ranking member and I were with the President to
celebrate the one year anniversary of the Department. The President
charged us to hold our feet to the fire: ``none of us charged with
defending this nation can rest'' he said. ``We must never forget the
day when the terrorists left their mark of murder on our nation.''
Taking up the President's charge we must recognize that the mission of
the EP & R Directorate is central to the Homeland Security
counterterrorism mission--to prevent, protect, and respond.
Undersecretary Brown, we look forward to hearing the strides that
your Directorate has made over the past year, in directing its
capabilities towards the terrorist threat while maintaining its focus
on its traditional all-hazard missions.
Creating the new EP & R Directorate for Congress meant that both
preparedness and response missions against terrorism would require new
capabilities. Valuable lessons were learned from FEMA's experience in
dealing heroically with major terrorist attacks in New York in 1993 and
in Oklahoma City in 1995. After the Oklahoma City bombing the General
Accounting Office cited FEMA's need to cooperate more with law
enforcement, to plan better for surges in resource demands and to
improve training and equipment to counter attacks involving weapons of
mass destruction.
Such challenges were even further magnified in the response to the
second bombing of the World Trade Center in 2001. An all-hazards
approach to emergency management has worked effectively in the past.
But the terrorist threat requires more flexible and adaptive programs.
We need to show that preparedness not just response is the mission of
EP & R.
As you know, Mr. Undersecretary, Congress, the Administration, and
the Department have taken steps to improve our emergency response
system--you have bolstered response capabilities and have developed
plans to unify incident management. Together we have begun to reform
the first responder grant- making process so that resources are better
leveraged to provide essential capabilities to every state and
locality.
In the fiscal year 2005 budget proposal, the President has
requested $20 million to support medical response through the
enhancement of medical surge capacity, a crucial need in a WMD attack.
We look forward to hearing more about this today.
The National Incident Management System will significantly enhance
the ability of the EP & R Directorate to collaborate with State and
local first responders in implementing the proposed National Response
Plan. This will unify domestic incident management by providing an
operational framework for responders at all levels of government. The
Department released the interim National Response Plan in October, and
the National Incident Management System plan was released last week. We
expect the Undersecretary to tell us more about these initiatives this
morning.
Undersecretary Brown, the Committee recognizes and commends your
leadership and the bold steps you have taken to integrate the EP & R
Directorate into DHS and to both clarify and strengthen its
preparedness and response capabilities against terrorism.
I look forward to receiving your testimony today.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman for his response.
Again, Mr. Secretary, welcome. We appreciate your being
here.
I have a brief amount of time, I would like you to answer
the first--I am sorry. I would like to get to my questions, but
I guess we ought to give you a chance to make your statement.
[Laughter.]
See how anxious I am to start grilling you?
You are welcome to make an opening statement. We appreciate
your being here.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL D. BROWN, UNDER SECRETARY
FOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Mr. Brown. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also want
to express my appreciation for the very kind words and the
things that you had to say in your opening remarks too.
But I know you are anxious to get to questions, so I will,
with due haste, speed through this oral statement, so you can
start grilling me pretty good, you bet.
My name is Michael Brown. I am the Under Secretary for the
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate of the
Department of Homeland Security, which does include the Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
I am truly honored to appear before you today to talk about
FEMA's accomplishments of this past year since it became a part
of the Department of Homeland Security.
But more importantly, I want to highlight our priorities
for 2004 and why support of the president's budget request for
2005 is critical to ensure that FEMA can continue to fulfill
its mission.
On March 1st, FEMA celebrated its first full year as a part
of the Department of Homeland Security. We are proud to be part
of this historic effort and are more committed than ever to our
duty as defenders of the homeland.
We have made significant strides in our first year as a
component of the department, and we continue to see the
advantage of and realize the benefits from being a part of this
larger organization.
Since March 1st of last year, FEMA has worked to merge
disaster-related public health programs from the Department of
Health and Human Services into a unified national response
capability.
These programs include the National Disaster Medical
System, which is designed to provide a single integrated
national medical response capability to augment the nation's
emergency medical response capability.
Another important public health-related program, the
strategic national stockpile, maintains large quantities of
essential medical items that can be provided for the emergency
health security of the U.S. in the event of a bioterrorist
attack or other public health emergency.
FEMA has also successfully merged a multiplicity of other
disaster response teams and assets from different departments
and agencies to create a unified national response capability
within the department.
FEMA has also been given operational control of the nuclear
incident response teams in certain circumstances, including the
event of an actual or even a threatened terrorist attack.
As we settle in to DHS, we continue to leverage the
extensive experience and capabilities of the department's other
components. We look forward to continuing and increasing such
cooperation in the future.
This year, FEMA is supporting the department's efforts to
put into place a National Incident Management System that will
help improve coordination of disaster response at all levels.
We will field enhanced response teams and resources, improve
our response times, put plans into place for catastrophic
events and improve our training program.
We want to elevate our operational response capabilities to
a whole new level of proficiency, one that will further the
principles of the National Response Plan and the National
Incident Management System to better serve the American public.
We will enhance our current recovery capabilities and
better position ourselves to recover from a catastrophic event
by focusing on redesigning our public assistance program and
developing a catastrophic incident housing recovery strategy.
Finally, we are ensuring that the FEMA national security
program have adequately staffed, trained, equipped and exercise
our continuity of operations and our continuity of government
programs to guarantee the survival of enduring constitutional
government.
Looking ahead to fiscal year 2005, the president's budget
request is critical to ensuring that FEMA can continue to
fulfill our mission.
The president's request continues implementation of Project
BioShield, which encourages the development and the purchase of
necessary medical countermeasures against weapons of mass
destruction. During advance appropriation, $2.5 billion is made
available, beginning in fiscal year 2005. These funds will be
obligated through fiscal year 2008.
The president's request also includes $20 million in new
budget authority for planning and exercises associated with
increasing our medical surge capabilities. It includes $8
million in new budget authority for four incident management
teams to act as the core field-level response teams for major
disasters, emergencies and acts of terrorism.
The budget includes $7 million in new budget authority for
the development and implementation of the National Incident
Management System.
In the coming year, FEMA will continue to work with other
components of the department to develop the National Incident
Management System and complete the National Response Plan.
These initiatives will ensure that all levels of
government, across the nation, work together efficiently and
effectively, employing a single national approach to domestic
incident management.
In fiscal year 2005, FEMA's Office of National Security
Coordination will continue to carry out its mandated mission to
provide executive agent leadership to ensure continuity of
national operations in order to guarantee the survival of an
enduring constitutional government.
In sum, during the last year, FEMA has continued to carry
out its traditional mission. Successful implementation of these
new initiatives and the ongoing activities I discussed today
will improve our national system of mitigating against,
preparing for, responding to, recovering from disasters and
emergencies caused by any kind of hazard.
In closing, I want to give a personal note of appreciation
to all members of this committee for the incredible support
that you have shown FEMA in the past. That does not go
unnoticed by either myself, my leadership team or the employees
of the agency, and we truly do appreciate it.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I will be happy to answer any
questions.
[The statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary,
Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security
Introduction
Good Morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
Michael Brown, Under Secretary for the Emergency Preparedness and
Response Directorate (EP & R) of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), which includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
I am honored to appear before you today to talk about FEMA's
accomplishments of this past year since it has become part of the
Department of Homeland Security. More importantly I want to highlight
our priorities for fiscal year 2004 and why support of the President's
Budget request for fiscal year 2005 is critical to insure that FEMA can
continue to fulfill its traditional role of preparing for, mitigating
against, responding to, and recovering from disasters and emergencies
caused by all hazards.
FEMA has undergone significant changes since becoming part of DHS--
both external and internal--but it has not changed its focus. As part
of DHS, FEMA continues its tradition of responding to help disaster
victims and those in need whenever disasters or emergencies strike.
Transition into the Department of Homeland Security
On March 1st, FEMA celebrated its first full year as part of the
Department of Homeland Security. We are proud to be part of this
historic effort and are more committed than ever to our duty as
defenders of the Homeland. We made significant strides in our first
year as a component of the Department, and we continue to see the
advantage of and realize benefits from being part of a larger
organization. We believe that the Federal-wide consolidation of all-
hazards preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery programs
brings real benefit to the American public.
Since March 1st of last year, FEMA has worked to merge disaster-
related public health programs from the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) into a comprehensive and unified national response
capability. These programs include the National Disaster Medical System
(NDMS), which is designed to provide a single, integrated, national
medical response capability to augment the Nation's emergency medical
response capability when needed for major disasters and Federally
declared emergencies. Another important public health-related program,
the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS), maintains large quantities of
essential medical items that can be provided for the emergency health
security of the U.S. in the event of a bioterrorist attack or other
public health emergency and to support State and local communities
during emergencies.
FEMA also successfully merged a multiplicity of other disaster
response teams and assets from different departments and agencies to
create a unified national response capability within the Department of
Homeland Security. Among these teams and assets, now merged within
FEMA's Response Division, are the:
- National Disaster Medical System,
- Domestic Emergency Support Team, and
- Strategic National Stockpile
FEMA has also been given operational control of the Nuclear
Incident Response Team in certain circumstances, including the event of
an actual or threatened terrorist attack.
As we settle into DHS, we continue to leverage the extensive
experience and capabilities of the Department's other components. For
example, in responding to Hurricane Isabel, we received aerial imaging
and aviation support from our friends at the DHS Bureau of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the U.S. Coast Guard. We are
partnering with the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
Directorate to improve our damage prediction and resource placement
decisions and to take advantage of their critical infrastructure
resources and expertise. We look forward to continuing and increasing
such cooperation in the future.
Fiscal Year 2003 Accomplishments
In Fiscal Year 2003, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
obligated nearly $2.9 billion in disaster funds to aid people and
communities overwhelmed by disasters, including floods, ice and winter
storms, wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, typhoons, and tropical
storms. In addition, FEMA obligated $6.8 billion to fund projects
associated with the September 11 response. Overall, FEMA responded to
62 major disasters and 19 emergencies in 35 States, 4 U.S. Territories
and the District of Columbia. These events included the record Midwest
tornados, Super Typhoon Pongsona and Hurricanes Claudette and Isabel.
The 19 emergencies declared in 2003 included the loss of the Space
Shuttle Columbia, the President's Day snowstorm, and the Northeast
power outages.
While the California fires in October left an indelible mark in our
memories, the Nation's fire season in 2003 was not as busy, with
exceptions, in Montana and Arizona. But in the areas impacted, the
fires were devastating and severe. In Fiscal Year 2003, FEMA approved
assistance for 34 fires in 11 States, compared with 83 fires in 19
States in Fiscal Year 2002.
In fiscal year 2003, Congress supported the President's efforts to
promote disaster mitigation, through the creation and funding of two
important initiatives: the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program and
the Flood Map Modernization Program. Great strides have been made in
both of these areas in the last year. These two programs will
ultimately result in the reduced loss of life and property throughout
our Nation.
FEMA's Preparedness Division awarded more than $160 million in
Emergency Management Performance Grants to the States to maintain and
improve the national emergency management system. To date, the United
States Fire Administration has awarded over $650 million in grants to
fire departments across the nation as part of the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program. Both of these programs are now requested in
the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) portion of the Department's
budget for fiscal year 2005 and we are working very closely with ODP on
transferring these programs. FEMA also provided a total of 17
interoperable communications equipment grants for $79.57 million, and
the Emergency Management Institute, the National Fire Academy (NFA) and
the Noble Training Center together trained more than 290,000 fire and
emergency management and response personnel nationwide.
In our response to Hurricane Isabel, last September, we
demonstrated a more forward-leaning and proactive response posture and
made every effort to improve communication, coordination and timely
delivery of critical disaster supplies. FEMA increased the frequency of
daily video teleconferences with the impacted States and meteorological
and river forecasting centers, jointly planned response actions with
the States, pre-positioned materials, and opened multiple staging areas
and mobilization centers in anticipation of response needs. These and
other changes we have made allow us to continue to improve Federal
disaster response efforts. We will continue to take advantage of the
lessons learned and best practices from Isabel and other disasters, and
apply them in our programs to change the impact of future events.
Also during fiscal year 2003, FEMA launched the Continuity of
Operations Readiness Reporting System, a single automated system that
allows Federal Executive Branch departments and agencies to report the
state of their Continuity of Operations capabilities and readiness. The
System has been tested and will be fielded this year. In addition to
technology upgrades and improvements, FEMA's Office of National
Security Coordination maintained a 24/7 operational readiness
capability in support of National Security programs, including the
initial planning and coordination for an interagency Continuity of
Operations exercise, Exercise Forward Challenge 2004, to take place
later this year.
Fiscal Year 2004 Priorities
In Fiscal Year 2004, FEMA is focusing on its five major program
areas: Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, Recovery, and National
Security.
Our Mitigation efforts center on modernizing our Nation's flood
maps, providing Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grants, and enhancing the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). For Map Modernization over 300
mapping projects, valued at approximately $85 million, were launched
nationwide in fiscal year 2003 and we are working with State and local
representatives to identify projects for fiscal year 2004. The PDM
grants will again provide stable funding to assist State and local
governments to reduce risks. The number of NFIP policies will be
increased by five percent.
Our Preparedness Division will support the Department's efforts to
put into place a National Incident Management System (NIMS) that will
help improve coordination of disaster response at all levels. In
addition, we will publish Mutual Aid System Development, Credentialing
and Equipment Interoperability Standards. Our support for training and
exercises continues to enhance the Nation's emergency management
capabilities and increasing fire preparedness remains a central
mission.
In 2004, our Response capabilities continue to grow. We will field
enhanced response teams and resources, improve our response times, put
plans into place for catastrophic events, and improve our training. We
will continue to consolidate and integrate all of our different
disaster response programs, teams, and assets; design new approaches;
and implement new efficiencies that will result in a more unified,
integrated, and comprehensive approach to all-hazards disaster
response. We want to elevate our operational response capabilities to a
whole new level of proficiency, one that will further the principles of
the National Response Plan (NRP) and the National Incident Management
System (NIMS) to better serve the American people.
For those impacted by disasters, FEMA continues to provide
appropriate and effective disaster recovery assistance. Simultaneously,
we continue to focus on re-designing our Public Assistance Program and
developing a catastrophic incident housing recovery strategy. These
efforts will enhance our current capabilities and better position us to
recover from a catastrophic event.
Finally, we are ensuring that the FEMA National Security Program
has adequately staffed, trained, equipped, and exercised Continuity of
Operations (COOP) and Continuity of Government (COG) programs to
guarantee the survival of Enduring Constitutional Government.
Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Highlights
The President's Fiscal Year 2005 Budget for FEMA:
- Assumes a $2.9 billion spending level for disaster relief--a
level consistent with the average non-terrorist disaster costs
over the past five years. This includes more than $2.1 billion
in new disaster funds, as well as funds expected to remain
available from prior years. This is over $300 million more than
the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
- Continues implementation of Project BioShield, which
encourages the development and purchase of necessary medical
countermeasures against weapons of mass destruction. Through an
advance appropriation, $2.5 billion is made available beginning
in fiscal year 2005. These funds will be obligated through
fiscal year 2008.
- Includes $20 million in new budget authority for planning and
exercises associated with improving medical surge capabilities.
- Includes $8 million in new budget authority for four Incident
Management Teams (IMTs) to act as the core, field-level
response teams for major disasters, emergencies, and acts of
terrorism.
- Includes $7 million in new budget authority for development
and implementation of the National Incident Management System
(NIMS), specially designed to provide a basic framework of
organization, terminology, resource identification and typing;
training and credentialing; and communications protocols to
deal effectively with incidents of all sizes and complexities
involving Federal, State, and local governments, Tribal
Nations, and citizens.
- Continues the President's Pre-Disaster Mitigation program,
which helps to minimize the devastation caused by natural
disasters through a competitive grant process that supports
well-designed mitigation projects. In fiscal year 2005, we will
initiate post-disaster evaluations to begin documenting losses
avoided and assessing program impact.
- Continues the replacement and modernization of the Nation's
Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
- Transfers the Strategic National Stockpile to DHHS. As a
result of the transfer, $400 million is moved to DHHS to
maintain the stockpile and strengthen its future capacity with
new and needed medical products as soon as they become
available.
- Transfers the Emergency Food and Shelter Program to the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Mitigation
FEMA's mitigation programs are an essential part of the Department
of Homeland Security's charge to protect the lives and property of
Americans from the effects of disasters. Mitigation programs provide us
the opportunity not only to develop plans to reduce risks, but more
importantly, to implement those plans before disaster strikes.
In previous years, Congress supported the President's efforts to
promote disaster mitigation by creating and funding two initiatives:
- Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants, and
- Flood Map Modernization.
The intent of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants is to provide a
consistent source of funding to State, local, and Tribal governments
for pre-disaster mitigation planning and projects that primarily
address natural hazards. The plans and projects funded by this program
reduce overall risks to the populations and structures, while reducing
reliance on funds from Federal disaster declarations. The competitive
nature of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program encourages communities to
assess their risks, to evaluate their vulnerabilities, and to implement
mitigation activities before a disaster strikes. This budget proposes
support for both pre-disaster and post-disaster mitigation assistance.
The Flood Map Modernization Program provides the capability to
broaden the scope of risk management. This enables more expansive use
of the geospatial base data needed to develop the flood maps.
Communities, lenders, insurance agents, and others use the maps and the
flood data approximately 20 million times a year to make critical
decisions on land development, community redevelopment, insurance
coverage, and insurance premiums. As flood hazard data is updated, the
current flood map inventory is being changed from a paper map system to
a digital one. New technology will enhance the usefulness and
availability of flood data to all customers. The new system also
supports the development and distribution of geospatial data of all
hazards, both natural and man-made.
The fiscal year 2005 budget will continue to update flood maps
nationwide and increase State and local capability to manage flood
hazard data. By the end of fiscal year 2005, digital GIS flood hazard
data covering 50 percent of our nation's population will be available
online.
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has a significant
impact on reducing and indemnifying this Nation's flood losses. Prior
to the creation of the NFIP, floodplain management as a practice was
not well established, and only a few states and several hundred
communities actually regulated floodplain development. Flood insurance
was not generally available. We are working diligently to refine and
expand our all-hazards risk communication strategy to meet the goal of
a 5 percent increase in NFIP policy ownership. This increase in
insurance policy ownership will reduce reliance on the Disaster Relief
Fund and will foster individual economic stability.
Preparedness
FEMA's Preparedness Division helps ensure our Nation is prepared to
respond to emergencies and disasters of all kinds. The Preparedness
Division is responsible for Federal, State, local, and community
emergency preparedness programs; assessments and exercises; grants
administration; the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program and the
Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program.
The U.S. Fire Administration works to prevent fire deaths and
damage to property, and carries out its mission through leadership,
advocacy, coordination, and support. The training programs offered at
the National Fire Academy and the Emergency Management Institute
promote the professional development of command level firefighters,
emergency managers, and emergency responders, and are an important
aspect of the U.S. Fire Administration's duties.
The Noble Training Center, located at Ft. McClellan, Alabama, is a
new addition to FEMA. Transferred from DHHS in fiscal year 2003, the
Noble Training Center is the only hospital facility in the U.S. devoted
entirely to medical training for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). In
Fiscal Year 2005, Noble will continue to train medical personnel for
State and local hospitals, emergency medical services, and the National
Disaster Medical System.
In Fiscal Year 2005, FEMA's Preparedness Division will work with
other components of the Department to develop the National Incident
Management System (NIMS) and the National Response Plan (NRP). These
initiatives will ensure that all levels of government, across the
Nation, work together efficiently and effectively, employing a single
national approach to domestic incident management.
FEMA's Preparedness Division will continue to provide the States
with technical assistance in their all-hazards planning. To avoid
duplicative planning, our efforts will be closely coordinated with
those of the Office for Domestic Preparedness to update State terrorism
preparedness plans.
As part of our effort to prepare our citizens for all disasters,
the Division will oversee the Community Emergency Response Teams, or
CERT. This program, begun as a civilian training program by the Los
Angeles Fire Department, has become a nationwide effort to train
citizens in first aid and basic firefighting and emergency response
techniques. CERT--trained citizens are able to provide those basic
emergency services that would otherwise occupy the first responders.
FEMA provides train-the-trainer programs to allow as many citizens as
possible to receive this training across the country. The CERT program
has grown from 170 teams in 28 States and Territories in March of 2002
to over 900 teams in 51 States and Territories.
Response
FEMA's Response Division is responsible for integrating national
emergency response teams, systems and assets into a comprehensive and
fully coordinated, national capability that supports States and
communities in responding to all types of disasters, including acts of
terrorism. This is accomplished by arranging the necessary and
appropriate national assets, establishing a consolidated national
incident response system, and effectively coordinating strategic
resources in full partnership with Federal, State, local, and tribal
governments, the private sector, volunteers, and citizen partners.
The Fiscal Year 2005 Response Division budget proposes to
- Create four Incident Management Teams (IMTs) and formulate
plans for full implementation in Fiscal Year 2006; the IMT is a
highly responsive and flexible response team that will be able
to quickly establish a strong Federal leadership capability in
any disaster environment or high threat situation, including
acts of terrorism involving the use of WMD;
- Continue all-hazards catastrophic disaster response planning
for one additional US city, based on the pilot disaster
planning template developed for New Orleans, Louisiana. The
template will be used in the future as a basis for all-hazards
catastrophic planning for other high risk areas of the country;
and
- Continue efforts to develop the capability to provide
intermediate emergency housing aimed at meeting the needs of
large numbers of disaster victims displaced from their homes as
a result of large scale and catastrophic disasters
FEMA's Response Division will also continue to implement measures
to reduce response times for its teams and delivery of disaster
supplies.
Additional funding requested in fiscal year 2005 implements the
National Incident Management System--NIMS. FEMA's goal for 2005 is to
focus on the readiness of Federal response teams and the integration of
Federal capabilities with that of State and local jurisdictions. We
will conduct outreach to our Federal response partners and State and
local counterparts to ensure connectivity and synchronization of
response capabilities under NIMS, and will conduct NIMS and Incident
Command System (ICS) training for Federal response teams. These
activities will ensure we have the baseline skills for all teams to
operate under NIMS and be fully integrated into the NIMS/ICS doctrine.
As highlighted previously, the President's fiscal year 2005 budget
proposes an initiative to develop FEMA's medical surge capability.
Under this initiative, FEMA will evaluate supplemental capabilities for
both a fixed and mobile facility to demonstrate the utility of using
alternate facilities to support medical surge activities, as well as
the utility of having a surge capacity that can be mobilized,
transported, and made operational within set timelines. The second part
of this initiative is to implement the concept through two pilot
projects.
Recovery
FEMA's Recovery Division leads and coordinates the timely delivery
of Federal disaster assistance to individuals and communities.
In Fiscal Year 2005, the Recovery Division will continue to provide
assistance to individuals for temporary housing, damaged personal
property, crisis counseling, disaster unemployment, and disaster legal
services. FEMA responded to over 2.5 million calls last year, from
people seeking to register for disaster assistance and to have their
questions answered. The Recovery Division processed more than half a
million individual disaster applications.
The Individual Assistance Programs that meet victims' most basic
needs provide assistance for housing, personal property losses, and
medical and funeral expenses. In each disaster we ask our customers,
the disaster victims, what they think of the service we provided to
them. I am pleased to tell you that we consistently earn very high
marks from our customers when they are surveyed. In fiscal year 2005 we
will continue to invest in technology that ensures we continue to meet
our customers' expectations.
FEMA's Public Assistance Program, which accounts for the bulk of
recovery expenditures out of the Disaster Relief Fund, is the primary
means for community recovery. State and local governments and certain
non-profit organizations can be reimbursed to repair facilities to
their pre-disaster condition, as well as for costs associated with
debris removal and emergency protective measures. FEMA is focusing on
redesigning the Public Assistance Program to be more efficient and
better prepared to meet the needs of a catastrophic or terrorist event
by moving toward a web-based, user friendly, estimated based program,
communities will be able to recover faster. In order to better prepare
for the transition to a redesigned program, FEMA is establishing a
methodology for estimating the total cost of large projects versus
determining final costs after work is complete. Implementing the Public
Assistance Program using cost estimates will allow State and local
governments to better budget for recovery, improve our estimates of
disaster expenditures, and reduce administrative costs and closeout
timelines. In addition, we are working on proposed revisions to the
Public Assistance Insurance Rule, which was last revised in 1991. The
Stafford Act requires applicants for Public Assistance grants to
``obtain and maintain'' insurance on a damaged facility as a condition
of receiving assistance. In the past, there have been concerns about
this rule imposing a pre-disaster insurance requirement for all
hazards. The proposed rule will not require insurance before disaster
strikes, except for flood insurance in identified flood hazard areas,
as required by the Stafford Act. The purpose of the rule is to simply
clarify issues not adequately addressed in the current rule, such as
eligible deductibles.
The Fire Management Assistance Grant Program is another key
resource for States and local governments to mitigate, manage, and
control forest or grassland fires to prevent damages that may otherwise
result in a major disaster declaration.
I assure you that President Bush appreciates the importance of
Recovery. I had the honor of joining the President in touring Missouri
last spring after the devastating tornadoes struck Pierce City. Even
though it was pouring rain during our visit, the President got out of
his car to go over and talk to a couple who were standing in front of
their damaged store front. They also had damages to their home. Using
FEMA's temporary housing, immediate needs assistance, their insurance,
and SBA home and business loans, this couple is recovering.
The massive California Wildfires of 2003 scorched over 750,000
acres and claimed 24 lives. During the response to the wildfires, the
President and Secretary Ridge wanted me to be intimately involved in
the coordination efforts between the Federal agencies doing work there.
Through the formation of a pair of interagency bodies, the Washington-
based California Fires Coordination Group and the field-level Multi-
Agency Support Group, FEMA's Recovery Division was instrumental in
assuring that each of our Federal partners was coming to the table with
comprehensive plans that were complementary to each other, that
minimized the sort of bureaucratic ``stove piping'' that results in
duplication of efforts, and that continued to focus on the needs
identified by the state and local communities as priorities. Our shared
success is the natural result of FEMA's commitment to ``all-hazards''
emergency management, and a focus on a scaled approach to meet the
challenges of any kind of incident, from the floods, fires, and storms
that happen all too often, to the catastrophic scenarios that we
prepare for, but hope will never come to pass.
We take our mission to help communities and citizens recover very
seriously. My goal is to continue to do the work we do now better and
faster, and to build on our current recovery capabilities to be better
prepared to face a catastrophic natural or terrorist event.
National Security
In Fiscal Year 2005, FEMA's Office of National Security
Coordination will continue to carry out its mandated mission to provide
Executive Agent leadership to ensure continuity of national operations
in response to all-hazard emergencies in order to guarantee the
survival of an enduring constitutional government. Funding in fiscal
year 2005 will be used to ensure that all Federal Executive Branch
departments and agencies attain and maintain a fully operational
Continuity of Operations (COOP) capability. FEMA will provide
assistance to Federal departments and agencies to help them attain and
maintain fully operational contingency capabilities. FEMA will develop
and implement a test, training, and exercise program that culminates in
a complete exercise of the Continuity of Government (COG) program. In
addition, we will provide technical support and guidance to our
interagency, regional, State and local stakeholders across the Nation.
Conclusion
During the last year, FEMA has been busy but we continue to carry
out our mission to prepare for, mitigate against, respond to, and
recover from disasters and emergencies caused by all-hazards. The key
to our continued improvement will be to take the lessons learned from
previous disasters and incorporate them into our preparedness,
planning, and procedures, so that we do an even better job of
responding next time. We evaluate the lessons learned from each
disaster and make plans to incorporate the new approaches and remedy
problems. Hurricane Isabel provided such an opportunity, and it
validated our priority to reduce disaster response times and improve
our capability to gather information and effectively and efficiently
manage the Federal Government's response to Presidentially - declared
disasters.
Successful implementation of the new initiatives and the on-going
activities I have discussed today will improve our national system of
mitigating against, preparing for, responding to, recovering from
disasters and emergencies caused by all hazards.
In closing, I want to thank the Members of the Subcommittee for
their past support of FEMA and I appreciate the opportunity to testify
before you today. I would now be pleased to answer any questions you
may have.
Mr. Shadegg. And a fine statement it was.
Let me begin by letting you add to it.
We heard some discussion here already today about dramatic
cuts. I think that it is important to put the funding levels in
context. It seems to me that across the board, within the
Department of Homeland Security, since its creation and since
9/11, we have done radical plus-ups in funding.
In instance after instance, we have said, ``Wait a minute,
we were doing nothing about this,'' or ``We were doing way too
little about this in the past,'' so we were going to pump it up
exponentially in a very short period of time.
I doubt if anyone would maintain, or certainly I do not
think it is reasonable to maintain that kind of dramatic
increase can persist over time.
My understanding, for example, is that with regard to
emergency management grants, they were prior to the creation of
the department roughly $130 million. They have been plussed-up
to somewhere in the neighborhood of $179 million, a pretty
dramatic increase--30 percent.
With regard to fire assistance grants, it is my
understanding that they went from $100 million prior to the
creation of the department to a request by the president of
$500 million last year, which is repeating this year. So he is
proposing still a rather significant plus-up.
And it is my understanding that it is accurate to say that
this administration has done more than any administration in
American history to assist local fire departments in their
efforts to prepare and to do their jobs.
I guess I would like to begin by giving you an opportunity
to comment on what is reasonable in terms of the immediate
plus-up of funding and then where we go over the long haul.
Mr. Brown. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, your statement
just now and question are exactly the points that I would make
in terms of funding.
I would say, first of all, the president has absolutely
recognized the problem we had last year with the DRF, the
Disaster Relief Fund. The request now is such that it will give
us plenty of room to do what we have historically done, about
$2.9 billion over the average year, which is what we did last
year.
So we feel very good that the president's request is at a
level that will keep us from having to come back, barring any
catastrophic event in the future, on bended knees and ask for
money for the Disaster Relief Fund.
The points about first responders I think we cannot ignore.
You said it very eloquently, Mr. Chairman: This president
has requested more and gotten more for first responders than
any president in the history of this country.
When I came into FEMA, the requests for the firefighter
grants was at about $100 million.
That was increased to $500 million--the exact same amount
the president is requesting this year. So the president has not
requested a cut in that amount that he requested at all.
The same is true with the EMPG program.
There was a dramatic increase in that request by the
president last year. He has made the same request this year.
And so the cuts that you see or the difference between what
the president has requested and at the end of the day what
Congress actually ends up giving us, which is more.
So I think we are in very good shape.
On the firefighter grant program, the reason I think that
is a reasonable request and a reasonable level to put out is
that there is so much that the local fire departments at any
one time can consume and take on.
The way this program is set up, it enables us to--I mean,
forgive me here if I get on my soap box about the FIRE grant
program, because I think it is truly one of the best grant
programs in the federal government.
It has a peer review process. Those categories allow fire
departments to come in, they review among themselves where the
greatest need is and that is where those dollars go and they go
directly to those fire departments.
And those fire departments know in advance what they have
asked for. So when they have to meet that match, they have
already gone to their city council, to their county
commissioners, to their state legislature and said, ``We are
going after this money and we need to be able to, if we get
approved to move on that stuff, make those purchases and get
that training, the equipment, whatever it is, into our local
department.''
That request has not changed. And that request is still at
such a historical level that I am certainly supportive of that.
Mr. Shadegg. I would be happy to let you go on, except my
time is limited.
As you know from our private conversations, and as I
expressed in my opening statement, I am concerned about
preparedness. I understand the importance of response and I
understand that many of my colleagues are concerned about
response to natural disasters in their districts.
I am not proposing that you lose your focus on response,
but I think there is a legitimate question presented by whether
or not it should be preparedness and response combined in a
single function, whether or not you think it should be or
should we separate preparedness from response and, if so,
should Congress be considering doing that? And if not, do you
think you are getting the support to adequately focus on
response?
And, for example, are you getting or should you be getting
a list of, for example, the equipment that is purchased, so you
understand the degree to which we are prepared for a terrorist
attack?
Mr. Brown. Well, first of all, it is an old axiom in the
military, and I think it is true whether you are a football
coach or whether you are the director of FEMA or whatever, that
you fight as you train and you train as you fight, and we must
continue to do that.
We must figure out a way that, within the Department of
Homeland Security--and I think we are doing a pretty good job
of it now--of tying those two things together, knowing what is
occurring on the preparedness side and knowing what is
occurring on the response side.
And the details of that, Mr. Chairman, we get that
information now. We know what fire departments purchase. We
know because of our great relationship with state and local
governments, particularly with the emergency management
community, law enforcement--I think that has changed
dramatically over the past several years--we know what their
capacity is. We know what their abilities are.
We do assessments. We started doing in-depth critical
assessments immediately following the September 11th attacks of
what are the vulnerabilities at the state, what capacity they
have. That is why we use our regional offices at all levels to
find out what is going on in those states.
What can they do? What can't they do? So that when we have
to respond, whether it is a wildfire in California or a flood
in Mississippi, whatever it is, we know what that capacity is
out there.
Mr. Shadegg. My time is expired, but I have a series of
questions on crisis counseling grants, disaster medical
assistance teams and emergency communication systems which I
will submit to you in writing.
Mr. Brown. Great.
Mr. Shadegg. Now at this point, I would call on the ranking
member, Mr. Thompson, for his questioning.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I guess your
comment is where I can start from in my questions.
In June of last year, this committee sent some questions to
you, Mr. Brown, and we never got an answer on those questions.
If the chairman's comments of those questions go forward, can
you assure us that this time we will get the answers, say,
within two weeks?
Mr. Brown. Well, let me tell you, first of all,
Congressman, that if you submitted questions and we did not
respond to those then, one, I am appalled and I apologize, and
heads will roll for that, because that is unacceptable to me. I
will find out--.
Mr. Thompson. --you a copy of the letter that the committee
sent.
Mr. Brown. Absolutely. That is unacceptable to me.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you. And I appreciate your support in
getting the information to the committee.
One of the concerns I have is the FIRE program. You talked
a little bit about it. Our authorization was up to $900
million, and we came from $100 million up to $500 million, and
Congress bumped it up to $750 million.
Now we are back to $500 million.
I do not want to get in a numbers game, but it appears that
Congress is placing a higher value on that program by giving
you more money every year, and we get requests asking for less.
Are we doing the wrong thing by giving you more money for
the FIRE program?
I hope you understand where I am going.
Mr. Brown. I understand exactly where you are going,
Congressman. And I think that we have shown our ability that
whatever the funding levels are, we can get that money out the
door and get it to those fire departments that need it.
We ramped up after 2001, where we went from $100 million to
$500 million. We ramped up and got that out within that
calendar year. We had that money obligated, out the door, in
the hands of those fire departments.
So at whatever level it is funded, we assure you that we
will get the money out the door. Whether that program is in
FEMA or whether it is in ODP, we will do whatever to assist ODP
to make sure that money gets out.
Mr. Thompson. For those individuals who live in
metropolitan areas, can you explain the administration's or the
department's rationale for doing away with the Metropolitan
Medical Response System?
Mr. Brown. We are not actually doing away with it,
Congressman. For the past several years, we have used the money
that Congress has appropriated to use to get that program up to
its baseline. And our object was to get it to the baseline, get
certain capabilities there, and then let the localities take
that over and continue that program.
We reached that baseline last year, and so there was no
request for additional funding.
Mr. Thompson. So your testimony is that all the
metropolitan communities in this country have met that
baseline?
Mr. Brown. That is correct, 125 through fiscal year 2003.
The goal was 125, and we reached that goal of 125 communities.
Mr. Thompson. Very good.
I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman, and would call upon Ms.
Granger for her questioning.
Ms. Granger. Yes, thank you very much.
Let me go back just a minute to something that was
mentioned before.
In the last 10 years, my district has experienced
tornadoes, floods, chemical releases, computer viruses that
shut down everything.
The city of Fort Worth operates an emergency management
program that is multi-jurisdictional, so it includes Tarrant
County, which is one of the most populous counties in the
nation, and 12 smaller cities.
The part of it that is so important is the ability to plan
and respond to all types of disasters. The concern I have is
the capping of that EMPG personnel fund at 25 percent.
And what I am saying, primarily as a former mayor, is this
is local planning. So to give the local communities the
flexibility to know how to spend their money, we can have all
the equipment we need, if we do not have the people to plan and
operate that equipment.
So where is that 25 percent cap coming from? And then
listen to my concerns of letting the local communities decide
where they need personnel, equipment, whatever.
Mr. Brown. Congressman Granger, first of all, let me talk
about Tarrant County and the way they have integrated all their
jurisdictions. I mean, they are doing an incredibly good job of
that, and I really appreciate their efforts to not just be
narrow-mindedly focused on just the county or whatever. They
are doing it on a good regional basis.
Second of all, I want to emphasize to the entire committee
how incredibly important state and local planning capabilities
are for the success of FEMA when we have to respond to a
disaster of any kind.
We must have a robust state and local emergency management
capacity and we must understand what the capacity is when we go
in to respond so that we are able to complement what it is that
they are able to do. And what they are not able to do, we can
go in and backfill in that regard.
So we think it is a very important component in how we
operate under this national response plan in the federal
system.
It is the position of the administration that the cap needs
to be placed on so that more of the personnel costs are shifted
to the state and locals so that we can therefore increase the
amount of money that goes to state and locals for exercises and
training as opposed to actual personnel costs.
Ms. Granger. Okay. I am not sure that I agree with it, but
I understand the reason and thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
Mr. Shadegg. The chair would call on the gentleman from
Maryland, Mr. Cardin, and would advise him that he has eight
minutes because he did not make an opening statement.
Mr. Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
chair's generosity.
First, on a personal note, Secretary Brown, I want to thank
you for the personal attention you paid to the people of
Maryland during Hurricane Isabel. We very much appreciated your
personal leadership.
And as we told you before, we want to express our thanks to
all the FEMA personnel that came to Maryland. It was excellent.
You were there before the hurricane struck, you were there when
it struck and afterwards. And it was extremely helpful to the
people of Maryland and we very much appreciate and now fully
understand the capacity that we have at the federal level to
respond to a disaster, and it is very impressive.
So only my compliments in that regard.
I do, though, want to follow up on some of the issues that
have been brought up, because I do think it raises additional
issues.
It is interesting that on ability to respond, we have built
up capacity in regards to terrorism. And although I may
disagree with you on the dollar amounts going to local
responders--because I think we need to do a better job on local
responders there--clearly, in response to disasters, though,
there is a different capacity here.
We rely on our local governments to a large extent to
respond to the issues surrounding disasters, and yet their
capacities are nowhere near as strong as they need to be in
that regard.
We are somewhat at a disadvantage because we have not
enacted an authorization bill for homeland security. And I
think if we had an authorization bill, Mr. Chairman, we would
be able to talk about these issues in a more coordinated way
from the congressional point of view.
But dealing with where we are today and looking at some of
the issues in response to Congresswoman Granger's comment on
the cap and trying to get more money into the training issues--
but as I understand it, the total dollar amounts have been
reduced.
So it is hard to understand how we are increasing local
capacity in this program, when we are reducing the size of the
pie going to local government. I think you may have a stronger
point if we were increasing the size of the pie.
I look at a lot of other programs that are in this year's
budget that deal with the ability for us to deal with
mitigation. And the chairman mentioned this, mitigation and
preparedness. It is an area that needs to be prioritized.
We need to do more to mitigate disasters and to prepare and
train people for it, rather than just responding to the
circumstances that are taking place.
For example, you have combined two of the mitigation
programs for the national flood program and other areas and
they have different funding sources. And we are concerned that
in the budget process this may, in fact, weaken our capacity to
deal with mitigation and to deal with training and
preparedness.
So I am going to give you another chance to try to reassure
this committee that you have the resources that you need, that
we need to do, in my view, more to deal with the issues of
local capacity, for mitigation, particularly in regards to
natural disaster issues.
Because I tell you--in Maryland, as you know, you saw the
homes--the homes that were properly built sustained very little
damage; those that were not were wiped out.
Doing things to mitigate these issues are very important.
Mr. Brown. I think, first and foremost, the president's
request to do both pre-disaster and post-disaster mitigation is
a great step forward, because I believe very sincerely in both
of those issues.
We were able to, on a competitive basis, go after the state
and locals and say, ``Give us your best plan, show us on a
competitive basis what you can do to minimize disasters before
they occur.'' And we are in the process of awarding those
grants now.
By the same token, I also know that, just like we saw in
Hurricane Isabel, that there are lessons learned after a
disaster and people are very interested after a disaster, like,
``Oh, my gosh, I can't let this happen again.''
So by taking both tacks now, I think we are able to get the
best of both worlds and help mitigate in that respect.
I am determined, Congressman, we are not going to lose
either our mitigation or our preparedness efforts within FEMA
because, again--I go back to that--some would say it is a trite
saying, but I firmly believe it, that we fight as we train and
we train as we fight, and we have to continue to do that.
Whatever reorganization occurs within DHS, we will continue
to work with those parts of DHS that now has civil preparedness
functions to make certain that we are getting from them what we
need, and that they are indeed doing out in the field what we
need to get done, so when we have to show up, we are not there
for the first time and we are there all the time, from
beginning to end, just like we are today.
Mr. Cardin. Let me then touch on the one specific issue,
the Emergency Management Performance Grants Program, that you
indicate by putting a cap on the personnel cost that we will
cover at the national level, more dollars will get into the
actual training.
But the local governments are going to have to pick up
those personnel costs. They do not have the capacity to do it
with these budgets, and you are putting a smaller amount of
total dollars into the pot. How does this all add up?
Mr. Brown. Primarily because we do sincerely believe that
this is a shared responsibility, that the state and local
governments have a responsibility to absorb some of those
personnel costs.
In exchange for absorbing some of those personnel costs, we
will increase the amount of funding that goes to the state and
locals for the training and exercises of that.
And so if they can reprioritize some of their monies to
keep those personnel intact, then we will go out and train and
exercise them and make sure they are still capable of doing
what we need them to do when the responders show up.
Mr. Cardin. It does seem to be inconsistent with the other
statement that we made that we want to give local governments
flexibility. Seems to me that we have become so prescriptive,
we take away some of the creativity that we are trying to
create through the federalism concept.
I would just urge you to reconsider that Congress may very
well have a view on this also that may be different than the
administration's. But I would just urge that we look at this
from a broader point of view than just the narrow purpose that
we are trying to accomplish in the shared responsibility issue.
I want to touch upon one other point we have not really
touched upon much, and that is the engagement of the private
sector. That offers a lot of hope, promise. There is a lot
creativity. There is a lot of will in the private sector in
regards to the issues that come under your area.
Could you just give us some indication of what you have
been doing in order to try to energize the private sector more
and focus more toward the national game plan in responding and
preparing for natural disasters or for terrorism attacks?
Mr. Brown. Well, I would say on the very broad scale,
Congressman, through our private sector office in the
Department of Homeland Security, we are reaching out to them
every single day. We have people on the road everywhere trying
to--we are actively engaging the private sector in all of our
efforts. We are talking to them about mitigation efforts and
what they can do. We are expanding the flood insurance program
to get more and more agencies and companies involved.
I am going to Houston this week to speak to the Texas
Hospital Association about what these private hospitals can do
to more actively engage in mitigation preparedness because of
our experience in Tropical Storm Allison.
So I think we are doing a really good outreach to them, and
they are really beginning to wake up and understand they need
to be a part of this entire response also.
Mr. Cardin. Well, I will just make just one general
observation.
What you are saying here today is certainly very
encouraging. I think, though, there is somewhat of a disconnect
between the budget and some of the objectives that you are
trying to accomplish. And I understand the position that you
are in.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we will have an
opportunity to try to assist Secretary Brown in his work by the
work that we do here on the budget and on the authorization
bill, because I think we have the same priorities. It is a
matter of how we get there.
Thank you very much for your appearance here today.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman.
Let me explain for the committee's understanding that we
will call upon members who were here when the gavel fell in
order of seniority, and they will each get eight minutes. And
then we will call on those after the gavel fell. And under the
rules of the committee, they will each get five minutes.
So the chair would now call on the gentlelady from the
Virgin Islands, Ms. Christensen.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, Under Secretary Brown. It is good to have you
back with us.
I share all of the concerns that my other colleagues have
raised, but I would like to also say that, as a person whose
district has been prone to natural disasters and who has a
longstanding relationship and a very good relationship with
FEMA, I am also concerned that the directorate have sufficient
resources to carry out its principal mission of assisting state
and local governments in preparing and responding to terrorist
attacks, major disasters and other emergencies, and also that
we are not weakening that well-earned legacy of FEMA and its
programs and the people that work there.
You mentioned that you were going to speak to the hospital
association in Texas, so let me start out with a hospital
question.
Because I note that $20 million is authorized for improving
medical surge capabilities, which is something that has been
raised as a great concern. Once the committee has gotten
through--at least this committee--BioShield, that was our next
focus.
But that seems like a very paltry sum, given that hospitals
across the country, like mine in the territory, have a lot of
work to do to just be in a basic state of readiness before they
can even surge. And I wondered if you agree with that, and has
an assessment been made of what funding is needed to meet that
basic level of readiness. And, if so, what is the figure and
how does that $20 million compare?
Mr. Brown. We have not done an assessment of what the total
cost would be to get them to a baseline. What we are trying to
do is to prudently use the taxpayers' dollars and say, for this
initial study, to find out what we need to do to increase our
medical surge capacity.
We need this $20 million to build the training, the
exercises, the programmatic efforts, if you will, within the
federal government, in partnership with state and local
governments, to figure out where we need to go.
And once we do this $20 million and we have set up some
different projects, so we know what that capacity is and how we
can go about doing it, I am certain we will be back in future
years asking for money to now take that to the next level.
This is something that we believe we need to just find out
what it is going to cost to get us to a base line by doing
these kinds of projects and build that initial capacity.
Mrs. Christensen. All right. Because, I mean, that is a lot
of your first line of response is taking care of anyone that
might be injured or in need of care. And if they cannot surge,
we are going to have a problem.
I have another health-related question.
An emergency management official had said in an interview
that--and this is something I agree with and I know all of my
colleagues have heard me talk about this over and over again--
this is a quote: ``There's a tremendous bias in the Department
of Homeland Security towards law enforcement or making the
question just a fire and hazmat issue. People there just do not
understand the medical communities and public health industry
points of view.''
So what can you tell me to convince me that that is not the
case and can you explain what the--well, what can you do to
help me understand that we are having--we talked about
hospitals.
Now I am talking about the public health infrastructure
which any assessment--and I have listened to experts talk about
it. We have had several reports on it. It is not intact. Labs
and emergency rooms are already overstretched by a significant
amount.
Mr. Brown. I am always fascinated by those kinds of
comments, because there is clearly a mission within the
department to focus on law enforcement and the prevention of
terrorism.
But when you get beyond that mission and you ask those law
enforcement folks--whether they be the Border Transportation
folks or anybody else within the department, Coast Guard,
whomever--they understand how we, being FEMA, operate, how we
prepare, what our incident and management systems are and they
have fully integrated into that.
So while there is a bias because of what their job is,
there is no bias in terms of what our preparedness capabilities
are, the way we prepare or how we respond.
They understand that entirely. And they have not only
expressed that understanding, but have integrated into that, as
we have seen over the past year.
The wildfires in California--we relied heavily upon our
partners in DHS.
The tornadoes--any disaster we responded to this past year,
being within DHS, we have been able to turn to those other
components and say, ``We need you to do X.'' Sometimes even
before we have asked them, they have come and said, ``Can we
help in any way?''
So I do not think that statement that you read is really
indicative of a true bias that exists within the department.
Mrs. Christensen. Okay.
Just as in hospitals, the amount of funding that is
available to get our public health system into some level of
readiness, and given the fact that some of their other core
programs are being cut, is of concern to me.
Mr. Brown. Well, next year I will come back to you and show
you where this $20 million with these two demonstration or
pilot projects, what we are able to do, and I bet you next year
I am asking you for more money to extrapolate that across the
country.
Mrs. Christensen. Okay. Great.
And you were talking also about where you fit into the
response--when we went to Seattle as a committee and spoke with
first responders and reviewed--I think the report of TOPOFF2
had just come out--the complaint from the first responders was
as an exercise took place, folks from DHS came in and tried to
manage.
And you have been very clear on how that is supposed to
happen, and I do not think--as I recall, FEMA was not
immediately involved in that.
And I am really unclear still about how in an incident, is
it the same model that you used for national disasters now that
you are in homeland security? Or does now some other level of
homeland security come in and try to run the program in a
different manner? Where do you fit in? And how does that
compare to what you used to do?
Mr. Brown. The proof of that is in the 62 disasters we
responded to this past year and that our model continued to be
utilized. We continue to do exactly what we do in the way that
we have done it.
In TOPOFF, we necessarily tried to confuse the situation by
creating all these different variables in so that we as a
department could exercise and figure out what did not work so
we could come back and fix it.
Mrs. Christensen. Okay.
I noticed that, if I am correct, that the management of the
stockpiles was moved from the Department of Homeland Security
to Health and Human Services. Can you tell me a little bit
about the discussion that led that to happen? What was the
rationale for that?
Mr. Brown. Well, the rationale was that the budget and
operations really should be tied together, so by moving it back
into HHS you do that. You tie the day-to-day management and
operations to the day-to-day budget activities.
At the same time, though, we do not--being FEMA and the
Department of Homeland Security--do not lose the capacity to
utilize that and deploy that as we need it. We can still use
the National Response Plan and the ESS structure we have within
our response mechanisms to still deploy it and task HHS to send
it out and utilize it.
Mrs. Christensen. One last question I think I have time
for.
ODP, not being a part of or the same as EP & R, how are we
assured that there is a seamless operation between the planning
and the response and the granting given that that just seems
not the way it should be set up and it seems a way to just
create confusion, create gaps, have things fall through cracks?
Mr. Brown. I am going to make sure that works by detailing
people, personnel, resources to ODP to support them in any
possible way so that there is that type of--.
Mrs. Christensen. Don't you think it would be better if
they were all in one, all together?
Mr. Brown. That issue is really above my pay grade. I take
and implement whatever is given to me and make it work.
Mrs. Christensen. We know that from experience.
We thank you for the work that you have been doing.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentlelady for her questions and
would call upon the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. I knew that you--.
Mr. Shadegg. I just thought I would be nice and give Mr.
Gibbons a little more time to get ready. And you have been here
diligently.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And since I have to go
to another hearing, I really appreciate that.
And I thank you, Mr. Under Secretary, for being here today.
If I may go back to the FIRE grants program for a moment,
because it is an incredible program that has such support in my
district. And none gets better reviews from state and local
officials than the FIRE grant programs.
If the program is so successful--I have a few questions
about it--what is the justification for moving it to the Office
of Domestic Preparedness? And what is being done to ensure that
the program does not lose its effectiveness at ODP?
Frankly, I am not sure that moving it was the right
decision, but I certainly respect your experience being in the
middle of it. And many of us are going to be watching very
closely.
Another question, as you well know, Congress created the
FIRE grant program to meet the basic critical needs of the
fire-fighting community.
Study after study has shown that those needs are
significant.
The needs of firefighters, both career and volunteer, are
great and there simply is not enough funding to go around.
Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2005 budget proposal calls for a
33 percent cut in the program, $246 million less than last
year's appropriation.
And to add insult to injury, this year's budget mandates
that states give priority to terrorist preparedness, not that I
do not think that is absolutely critical and that my
constituents do not think it is critical, but it seems to be
contrary to the original intent of the program.
So I wonder where will this policy leave a small-town
volunteer fire department in my district and many others that
does not even have enough masks to outfit the entire department
or enough radios to ensure that firefighters can talk to each
other?
How will the focus on terrorism preparedness, which
ultimately guts the overall funding for this program, help fire
departments respond to some of the basic gaps in preparedness
that were outlined in FEMA's report, a needs assessment of the
U.S. Fire Service?
And I ask this because I do not think any of us question
the importance of terrorism preparedness. But as you know,
there are many other categories for that. This program was so
well received because it deals directly with the most basic
needs of our fire departments.
Mr. Brown. I do not want to sound smart-alecky in my
answer--.
Mrs. Lowey. Pardon me?
Mr. Brown. I do not want to sound smart-alecky in the
answer that I am about to give you, but I sincerely believe
this: Every single thing that we do to prepare any fire
department in this country to do its basic job prepares it for
a terrorist attack also.
It may not prepare it necessarily for a biological attack
or a chemical attack, but to the extent we prepare every single
fire department to do its job, it will help in the war on
terrorism.
Why do I say that? I go back to 9/11.
On 9/11, we had departments responding from Connecticut and
New Jersey, from everywhere. What we forget is, is that once
those departments respond to that incident, somebody has to
backfill them because at that point there is still another fire
or something going on in New Jersey or something going on in
Connecticut and they have to respond.
And not to take this to its absurd conclusion, but once
they backfill, somebody has to backfill for them.
On 9/11, the rest of the firefighting community did not sit
around with nothing to do. They had other things they had to do
on 9/11, backfilling all over the country as departments would
respond and do things.
Urban Search and Rescue teams--as Director Allbaugh
dispatched almost all of the Urban Search and Rescue teams to
either the Pentagon or the World Trade Center, those people
were taken out of local fire departments. They then need to
backfill so those local fire departments can still do what they
need to do.
That is why I sincerely believe and will always believe
that this all-hazard approach is the only way to effectively
prepare this country for both terrorist attacks and manmade
disasters, whether they are incidental or intentional.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, I think that makes a lot of sense, and
the proof will be in the actual giving out of the grants and to
see whether it is meeting the basic needs of our fire
department.
If I may follow up on another area, you may remember way
back in I think it was May 2003, many of us asked you questions
about equipment interoperability standards.
Now, I live in New York. We are 30 minutes from the World
Trade Center. If my fire departments and police were waiting
for the standards to come from the federal government,
constituents would be up in arms because it is taking so long.
There seems to be a number of DHS organizations working on
these standards. If you could discuss with us the division of
responsibility for developing standards among EP & R, the
Science and Technology Directorate, the Office for Domestic
Preparedness and any other DHS organizations involved in
developing standards?
What equipment will you publish the standards for? When
will the standards be published? Will they be actual standards
or technical specifications as stated by the secretary last
week?
And--I bet you want the answer to that one--who should,
right now, state and local governments look to for definitive
guidance on equipment standards?
Frankly, I find in my district we are so close, we are
right in the middle of--God forbid any emergency would happen--
we are right there. And most people feel that the department is
just taking too long.
And frankly, I think our local police and firefighters and
all those who have to coordinate with them should be reimbursed
for what they bought, or you should put in place some kind of a
buyback program. But it is over two years; how can they wait?
So maybe you can tell us when these standards are coming
out, when they can expect to hear the word.
Mr. Brown. Well, we just announced this past week new
standards for personal protective gear, so we are well on the
way of putting those standards out. And that is?
Mrs. Lowey. Are you going to reimburse fire departments who
could not wait for the gear that they already bought?
Mr. Brown. That is something we will have to take into
consideration and look at.
Mrs. Lowey. I really think that is very important.
The chairman may remember that I had a chief come here from
New Rochelle and he said, ``Look, folks, before you turn to
code orange, you better provide for code green. Give us some
money,'' because they have been getting ready.
Mr. Brown. We just announced those standards this week, and
it is a great example, also, of the inner workings of the
Department of Homeland Security.
I wish Congressman Cardin was here, because this is also in
response to his question about the private sector.
That was a joint effort between FEMA and EP & R, Science
and Technology, Office of Domestic Preparedness and the private
sector. There must have been five or six different
organizations representing the private sector at the
presentation last week, all of whom were involved in the
development of these standards for personal protective gear.
At the same time, FEMA has--do not quote me on this--but it
seems like it is $25 million or $60 million, I forget which it
is, of demonstration projects out in the field right now to
bring to us the interoperability projects that we competed
across the country, that will show us the best practices so
that we do not mandate every department, ``You can do it this
way or you do it this way.''
They bring us the best practices, we pick out the ones we
think are the most effective around the country, and we will
hold those up and say, ``Here's a way for you to do it.'' Those
are due by the end of the year.
So I think we are making pretty good progress in getting
those standards and projects out the door.
Mr. Shadegg. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
The chair would now call upon the gentleman from Nevada,
Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And, Secretary Brown, I do apologize for my absence during
your testimony. I have a series of other hearings that are
going on at the same time.
Let me turn back, if I may, to an area that was briefly
touched upon by my colleague, Ms. Granger from Texas, and that
deals with the Emergency Management Performance Grants.
And as you know, that is the one way that many of our
states have of employing individuals in the emergency
management areas of individual states. And you are proposing a
reduction down to 25 percent of the pre-existing funds.
Has the directorate at any time requested inputs in that
decision from the states regarding how this decision will
affect their operations?
And let me ask my second question--and you may address that
as well: Considering states are presently dependent today on
federal funds that come from this area for the salaries of
their emergency management personnel, rather than having a
dramatic impact by this 25 percent allocation this year, have
you thought about instituting a less precipitous decline, in
other words, a phased-in approach to weaning states into a more
self-sufficiency in these cases, other than the approach you
have taken today?
Mr. Brown. That is the first I have heard of the latter,
Congressman, and that is something that I would certainly
welcome and encourage us to look at.
As to your first question, once the budget hit the streets,
we received a lot of information about the impact that this
particular decision would have. And I have certainly taken that
into consideration and I have read every bit of information
that the states have provided to me about it.
Mr. Gibbons. Have you gone out directly and asked them or
has this just been an informal, involuntary response to your
operation?
Mr. Brown. It has been part of both.
Mr. Gibbons. And you have asked.
Mr. Brown. I have actually asked, talked to some of the
folks at the National Emergency Management Association,
including its president, and others about?
Mr. Gibbons. Have you talked to anyone in Nevada?
Mr. Brown. Not that I recall, I have not.
Mr. Gibbons. And when will you make a final determination
as to the impact that these states or regions have with regard
to your decision? When will you report on that effect?
Mr. Brown. I just received I think it was just in the past,
say, 48 hours the complete breakdown from NEMA about what the
impact is across all states and localities. And I have just
started browsing through that yesterday.
Mr. Gibbons. So what you are saying to the committee is
that the decision was made before all of the input, all of the
data that you have now before you, you have made that decision.
Is there any review process, now that you have this
additional information, with regard to the Emergency Management
Performance Grants, rather than continuing down the road of a
25 percent cap versus a phased-in approach, as suggested
earlier?
Mr. Brown. I do not know if there is a review process
within OMB or not, Congressman, but I will certainly sit with
my finance folks and see if there is some way that we can do
that.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, I think that was the one area that a lot
of our emergency management personnel in the state of Nevada
have expressed to me a great concern with.
They would like to see some adjustment to the policy or the
practice that you have just established in this bill.
Mr. Brown. And I will let you know, Congressman, I share
that concern.
Mr. Gibbons. With that, Mr. Chairman, I apologize to you
for being tardy, and I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman for his attendance.
Without objection, it is the chair's intention to offer
those that remain a second round of questions. And I will begin
that round.
Mr. Secretary, I remain somewhat confused about the issue
of the ability to deploy the stockpile.
As I understood your answer to a question propounded by Ms.
Christensen, it was that you believe you have the authority to
turn to HHS and direct them to deploy the stockpile. That would
have to arise through some form of executive authority or some
form of internal department policy, not statute.
We are in the statute business down here on Capitol Hill.
And I guess we are interested in where do you get that
authority. Do we need to clarify that in fact you have such
authority statutorily or do we need to resolve this issue?
Because we would not want to be a position where there was any
ambiguity on that type of any issue.
So let me begin with that question.
Mr. Brown. That is something I think we need to come back
and give you more information on. But right now, if we were to
have the disaster today, we would probably turn to HHS--we
needed to deploy it--and task them through the ESF, through our
operations center, to deploy and utilize it.
We are also currently working on--I do not think it is
complete yet--an MOU with HHS by which we are defining under
what circumstances we have agreed that we will deploy it and
they will go do the things we ask them to do.
Mr. Shadegg. But you cannot say for me at the moment,
specific, either executive order or statutory authority?
Mr. Brown. No.
Mr. Shadegg. Okay. Well, I agree with you. We need to get
the clarification from you because that authority ought to be
clarified.
I did not hear, in response to my earlier question, a
definitive answer from you on the issue of preparedness versus
response. It seemed to me that in your answers to some other
questions I heard you say, ``Well, we work with the people
doing preparedness elsewhere in the department and we are
comfortable with that.''
In the absence of a specific grant of authority, and
therefore responsibility, I worry, and I think Congress would
worry about who to hold accountable on the preparedness issue.
So if in fact, as a practical matter, you are functioning
with some of the preparedness functions or responsibilities
shifted elsewhere as a working arrangement, again, that looks
to me like it ought to be formalized.
And in the creation of new department, sometimes you find
you have to fine tune the law to account for a reality on the
ground and what actually works.
So let me ask it again: Do you see--and maybe the answer to
this is already provided by what you are doing--a value
investing the preparedness functions somewhere else as opposed
to the response function?
Mr. Brown. And, Congressman, my answer is this: You must
have a link between preparedness and response in order to be
effective. If you do not have that link, then I am afraid that
Congressman Turner is absolutely correct that FEMA will revert
back to its early days of not being effective.
So my job, my goal is to make sure that that link is there
wherever and however I can create it and make sure it exists.
Mr. Shadegg. And I think we ought to explore that further
in conversations as we go forward to make sure we clarify it.
Let me ask you a couple of other questions that I had said
I would submit in writing to see if we can get a couple of
those done.
There are a number of private entities in the Phoenix area
that have come together to form a disaster and medical
assistance team. A long list of cities in the metro area are
interested in participating and yet they have been told that no
new teams are being recognized to date.
I realize you are trying to build a capacity of the
existing teams over a several-year period. I would like to know
what you have learned and when you think we will be able to get
an answer on the creation of new teams?
Mr. Brown. I hate to speculate, because we are truly taking
all of the NDMS teams now, doing a complete evaluation. It was
started by HHS, but we are doing it kind of now with our
personnel the way we do evaluations and assessments.
And I would hope that by the end of this calendar year we
at least have an idea of the capacity of all those teams, their
location, our ability to strategically deploy them and whether
or not we need to increase the numbers.
It is much like the US & R teams. I do not go out and just
willy-nilly create new teams until we know exactly what we have
and what their capacity is.
Mr. Shadegg. So at this point, you do not have a date that
you can bring--.
Mr. Brown. We have no date, sir.
Mr. Shadegg. Emergency communication systems, I think they
are extremely important. As you know, the broadcasters have
been propounding some idea of assisting along the line of the
Amber Alert program.
Can you tell us where the directorate is with regard to
those kinds of communications? Are you working with the
broadcasters? How close are we to implementing an improved
emergency communications system?
Mr. Brown. I do not know how close we are to coming to a
final product, and I will certainly get that information to
you.
I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, that we are working
incredibly close with Partnership for Public Warning and the
broadcasters and all of those groups out there right now to see
what do they have and educating them on what we have and see
what kind of link-ups we can make.
Mr. Shadegg. Last question I had.
There are many groups that are interested in participating
in crisis counseling and getting crisis counseling grants. I
happen to be in communication with NOVA, which is the National
Organization of Victim Assistance programs. They would like
their trained volunteers to be able to assist in that. And
there are others that are interested in participating as well.
Can you tell me whether or not we are looking at expanding
the participation in those crisis counseling grants?
Mr. Brown. We are, Congressman.
I meet probably at least once every couple of months with a
private organization about the services they have to offer and
how we can either through HHS or through FEMA and DHS itself
reach out to some of those to perform programs for us that we
think are worthwhile and are going to actually assist victims
or communities after a disaster.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank you, and I look forward to working
with you in the future.
The chair would now call upon Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Under Secretary, generally every time members of
Congress come in contact with police departments or airport
authorities, there is always the question of when the terror
alert is elevated there are a number of costs that are
associated with that.
This committee has looked at legislation creating a
reimbursable fund or something of that nature. And I think
since the elevated alert is something created by your
department, in your opinion, does that make sense?
Mr. Brown. It is an idea I would have to look at,
Congressman.
And I think what I would ask you to do is, as you look at
that kind of legislation, work closely with us. Because I know
that Secretary Ridge and others, particularly in the
Information Analysis and the Infrastructure Protection Group,
are looking at the alert system and how do we need to tweak it,
refine it, fine tune it.
And so, I think if we work together, we could probably come
up with some sort of idea that would help state and locals.
But I would hate to see us both just continue down some
path without talking to each other.
Mr. Thompson. Well, but you do understand that there are
costs associated with the heightened alerts that right now is a
burden on the backs of local government, and the pressures that
we feel from those units of government to do something.
Mr. Brown. Trust me, I understand and recognize what those
concerns are.
Mr. Thompson. Look forward to working with you.
Mr. Shadegg. The chairman calls on the gentleman from New
York, Mr. King, for five minutes.
Mr. King. Mr. Chairman, I actually arrived late, so
actually I just have a question regarding the BioShield, unless
you covered this in your testimony.
I am just wondering, how is the lack of Project BioShield
authorization legislation affecting the department's efforts to
encourage development of necessary medical countermeasures?
Mr. Brown. Congressman, I am one of those that understands
the three branches of government. And I would encourage you and
hope that we get some authorizing legislation.
But I am also a realist and recognize this war that we are
fighting right now. And so the department is moving forward.
And if we need to do certain things to utilize that funding, we
may have to do that in the future. But I would feel much more
comfortable if we had an authorizing legislation.
I think the president yesterday encouraged Congress to move
on it and get that done.
Mr. King. Now, with that language not being there, how is
the department working to encourage the pharmaceutical and
biotechnology companies to develop and manufacture the new
vaccines and other bioterror countermeasures?
Mr. Brown. We are working with some of the pharmaceuticals
right now, Congressman, on some of additional new anthrax
vaccines, and are fairly close to moving forward on it.
Mr. King. Can you define what you mean as far as
``working,'' or you prefer not to at this time?
Mr. Brown. No, I would just say that we are talking about
some of the new vaccines that we think we may need in the
anthrax area. And we are actually in discussions with them
about what we could utilize and how we could fund some of that
production.
Mr. King. Thank you.
Mr. Shadegg. The chair would call on the gentlelady from
the Virgin Islands, Ms. Christensen, for a second round.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have basically two questions. I would like to follow up
on the BioShield because, just to ask basically, how does your
directorate interact with the Department of Health and Human
Services?
We had many hearings, and I am glad to hear that our delay
in really doing the authorizing will not hold up anything that
must be done.
But how does the Department of Health and Human Services
work with you on that? How does that work?
Mr. Brown. Well, again, we go big picture. Department of
Homeland Security understands what the threat is, based on the
intelligence fusion that we do within the department, kind of
where we need to be going in terms of preparing for bioterror
attacks. The expertise of what kind of pharmaceuticals, what
kind of medicines, what kind of antibiotics, that rests within
HHS.
So, believe it or not, Congresswoman, there really is this
incredible cooperation between the departments about: What do
we need? How are we going to go get it? What do you recommend,
you know, HHS, in terms of what kind of mediations? Here is the
threat that we see and understand, now what are we going to do
with the drug companies?
There is that kind of cooperation almost on a day-to-day
basis.
Mrs. Christensen. Well, I am glad to hear that, but I am
always concerned because sometimes it depends on the people
that are in the office. And I am not sure that the
infrastructure is there to ensure that that cooperation
happens.
Mr. Brown. Of course, it is government, so it always boils
down to people.
But I think what you have imposed on the people now within
our bureaucracies and all these departments and agencies--at
least I know it is true within FEMA and I have seen it within
HHS--is this new-found feeling of urgency and necessity that we
cooperate and do this.
We cannot be bureaucratic. We cannot be lazy about this
stuff. We have to move expeditiously, cooperatively, and we
have to forget about these stupid turf wars.
Mrs. Christensen. I agree.
In the budget, I guess, under Preparedness, you said--or it
is written that in 2005, Preparedness will assess 10 percent of
tribal nations, 5 percent of U.S. counties under EP & R's
national emergency management baseline capability assessment
program, so up by 2009, 50 percent of states, 20 percent of
tribes and 25 percent of counties.
Am I to assume that under states, territories is included?
Mr. Brown. Yes. I am sorry, I was not sure--.
Mrs. Christensen. Just want to be sure.
Mr. Brown. Yes.
Mrs. Christensen. Because it specifically talks about
counties--.
Mr. Brown. Yes.
Mrs. Christensen. So I can be assured that in that
assessment--.
Mr. Brown. Absolutely.
Mrs. Christensen. --the territories are included.
I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentlelady.
The chair would now call upon the gentleman from Nevada,
Mr. Gibbons, for a second round of questions.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And, Secretary Brown, I had just one area that I would like
to question you on.
I did look back and read though your testimony. You talked
a brief bit about the Disaster Relief Fund in your testimony
and I appreciate that.
My curious thought is, is that looking back at the events
of September 11, 2001, the overall cost to the taxpayers of
this country that were put into assisting those people in that
disaster seemed like a tremendous or an enormous amount of
money that was placed out of the U.S. Treasury into helping
those people, and probably rightly so.
My initial questions is, is the $2.1 billion proposal in
the president's budget adequate when you consider the overall
picture of multiple-city threats that we have had in the latest
round of terrorist threat warnings? Do we believe today that
what we are asking for is adequate to cover that?
And how much money do you project will remain unexpended in
this budget from previous years' obligations with just this
$2.1 billion request?
Mr. Brown. I would say, first of all, Congressman, that the
overall request represents the president's recognition that we
need to fully fund the DRF at our historical level of $2.9
billion.
So that is great news for us. That puts us in a good
position of not worrying about getting money out to victims, as
we face disasters in the future.
We currently have about $1.8 billion that is unobligated in
the DRF. Our monthly burn rate is about $300 million a month.
So based on our unobligated amount, our expected
recoveries, we think this fully funds us for our historical
average over the past five or 10 years.
Now, having said that, if we have another terrorist attack
that involves multiple cities, or is something that none of can
imagine, all bets are off. And I cannot sit here in good faith
and say to you that $2.9 billion, which is a historical average
in the DRF, is sufficient to allow us to respond to or to take
care of victims in some unforeseen, catastrophic terrorist
event.
Mr. Gibbons. So much like what the Department of Defense
does, it is unable to project where an outbreak of demand or a
military action will take place.
You would be looking then to come back to Congress under
some sort of a supplemental then if it were necessary to fill
this out?
Mr. Brown. Only if it were necessary, and I would say only
in some sort of catastrophic event that causes us to completely
deplete the DRF above and beyond what we normally do in a
normal disaster year.
In our world, the term ``catastrophic'' is a term of art,
so I am talking about a truly catastrophic event that affects
literally tens of millions of people.
Mr. Gibbons. So the $2.9 billion is literally your best
estimate of what you will need in not only future expectations
in the coming year but also to cover your existing obligations
from previous years' obligations?
Mr. Brown. That is correct. That gets us to our historical
average over the past five to 10 years.
Mr. Gibbons. And I would agree: There is really no way to
look into the crystal ball and foretell the future.
Mr. Brown. That is right.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Brown. Now the chair would call upon the gentleman from
North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge, who was here at the outset of
the hearing and waived his opening statement and is therefore
entitled to eight minutes for questioning.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, I apologize for having to step out. But
as you know, some of us have two meetings going at the same
time. Thank you.
And let me thank you for being in North Carolina last week
in bad weather to listen to our first responders. I will not
cover that area. I assume you have already covered that
adequately. I am sure they explained to you the needs and
challenges they face.
Let me go to a couple of other areas in my allotted time.
In the national response plan, states that, ``private
business and industry play a significant role in helping to
mitigate the physical effects and economic costs of domestic
incidences.''
According to the plan, the Secretary of Homeland Security
would urge business to identify their risk, develop contingency
plans and to take actions to enhance their overall readiness.
That being stated, in your budget justification document,
you mentioned the Business and Industry Preparedness and
Response Partnership. Would you describe what this program is
and what its goals are?
Mr. Brown. That is our attempt to reach out to businesses
at the state and local level who need to do exactly what you
just described. It is in their best economic interest to take
care of their employees, take care of their business, just like
we have continuity of operations plans, for them to do also.
So this is really an outreach effort to encourage them to
do exactly the same thing.
Mr. Etheridge. That being said then, to what degree is the
government relying on the private sector to take care of
itself?
Mr. Brown. That is a great question, Congressman. I am not
sure that I know the answer to that, but I will get back to you
with an answer on that.
Mr. Etheridge. Okay. I think that is important as we, you
know, develop this partnership.
Secondly, private sector representatives, were they
involved in defining their roles in the emergency preparedness
and response? And if so, how? And if not, why?
Mr. Brown. They were.
We have an incredibly good relationship because of having a
private sector office within DHS. Al Martinez-Fonts is the
director of that office, a former banker from New York and I
think in Texas, who is doing outreach in conjunction, not just
with FEMA, but all of the other directorates to bring the
private sector to the table so we know what their concerns are
and we can have this dialogue about what can they do, how can
we help them and vice versa.
It is a great office and I am very thankful it is there.
Mr. Etheridge. That being said, then, how will you know if
the business community and the people you are engaging do not
follow your suggestions? And will it take a disaster or a major
domestic incident to find out whether or not that is happening?
Mr. Brown. Well, the terse answer is yes. It will probably
take a disaster to find out whether they have really done
things or not. But I hope we do not rely on that. I hope that
we do enough outreach and that we do enough discussions with
them that we know what their capabilities are, because we are
going to rely upon them in a disaster.
I go back to Hurricane Isabel. It is not the federal
government's responsibility to turn on the power. We have to
rely upon the utility companies to do that. So we have got to
have a good working relationship with them to understand what
their capacity is, understand what we can do to assist them, by
clearing roads and doing things so they can get in to restring
line.
Mr. Etheridge. Let me just make a suggestion in that
regard. It seems to me some kind of mechanism for a trial run
to sit down periodically for an update would be a great tool,
rather than wait to find out--.
Mr. Brown. I agree. I agree, and I will go back to staff
and talk to them about.
Mr. Etheridge. Please do.
Let me move to another, if I may.
In your description of the preparedness programs fiscal
year 2005 goals, you referenced FEMA's intention to conduct
terrorist-related training, as it relates to the increased risk
in our nation's schools.
Would you share with us this training program or anything
else FEMA is doing to make our schools safer? That is something
of I think great interest to all of us, and me very
particularly.
Mr. Brown. Two things. We are going to start an outreach
program not only for businesses but for schools also.
Currently, the secretary has a great program that I will
tout right now, Ready.gov and 1-800-BE-READY, where we reach
out to individuals about what they can do to prepare
themselves. We are getting ready to do the same outreach to
businesses and schools.
And I wish I had brought with me today our training and
exercise schedule for this upcoming month because there are
literally hundreds of exercises that we do and we are
encouraging at the local level for schools and other entities
to be involved in some of those exercises.
Mr. Etheridge. Let me follow that up.
When you talk about schools being involved, are you talking
about you are providing resources for them similar to what I
assume the schools did in the 1950s and early 1960s with the
whole issue of disaster being concerned about the nuclear
issues? Or are we just telling them to be aware or what?
Mr. Brown. We have not reached that level, and I think
right now we are just basically doing outreach to the schools
and giving them information and encouraging them to be a part
of anything that might be going on in the state and local
governments.
We are not doing anything specific, exercising them, no
``duck and cover'' exercises or anything like that.
Mr. Etheridge. Well, it seems to me that to be effective
you really need them engaged on the front side rather than on
the back side, because they have about all they want on their
plate right now.
Mr. Brown. Congressman, we need everybody at the state and
local level involved in this.
Mr. Etheridge. And that would be of great help.
Mr. Brown. Let me just touch one issue that I guess is now
a couple years ago.
Congress passed a bill that I had introduced and a lot of
my colleagues to sign on--I think most all of them here have--
regarding the flood indexing system, similar to the Saffir-
Simpson Scale on wind, to deal with on floods as related to the
whole issue of mitigation.
And one of FEMA's stated goals is to develop and update
existing public warning and communications guidance material
for states and local jurisdictions.
Mr. Etheridge. And my question to you: Is the funding and
development of this flood warning system included in this plan?
Mr. Brown. I do not know. And I am not familiar with that.
I need to find out more about that.
Mr. Etheridge. Would you check the matter? Because it
should be coordinated. NOAA, I know, is working on it. Got
money appropriated last year and it ought to be a part of
FEMA's deal.
Because the goal was to get an index so that if, you know,
a hurricane is coming in and flood waters are moving, the way
that this will let people know that ``you are not having a
flash flood.'' What does that really mean?
Mr. Brown. Right.
Mr. Etheridge. Is it six inches or six feet?
Mr. Brown. I will find out more about that.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you.
And finally--for my time is almost out--while we continue
to focus on the immediate threats of homeland security and
natural disasters, they still are the big issue that most state
and local governments deal with.
I know in my home state, we sort of stick out there and,
you know, we get hit with about every hurricane or tornado or
flood, et cetera. And in the 2003 law that took effect, they
changed the post-disaster Hazardous Mitigation Grant program
from 15 to 7.5 percent of the disaster cost. This change has
put major hurt on local governments and others.
How would you see that mitigation across the nation would
improve if we restored that back to the 15 percent?
Mr. Brown. Well, if there are additional resources, we
would certainly use those to just do more mitigation projects
around the country.
But I think the president struck a pretty good balance of
doing both pre-disaster and post-disaster, because I do not
think we should really favor one over the other. We ought to
convince people as much as possible to do as much pre-disaster
mitigation as they can because in the end that will save the
taxpayers money.
Mr. Etheridge. But if we do not do it, we are going to pay
anyway.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shadegg. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The chair would now call upon the chairman of the full
Select Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from
California, Mr. Cox.
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome again, Under Secretary Brown.
I just want to follow up on the chairman's questions in the
discussion that the two of you had because, as you know, we are
writing legislation to completely overhaul the way we do first
responder grants.
And I want to get your sense of our legislation and in
particular the role that your directorate plays or might play
under our legislation in first responder grant making?
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I would love to see this
directorate play as significant a role as you and the president
can work out, because I think that this particular directorate
has the best relationship with the first responders. We
understand what their needs are.
And I might add, when I talk about first responders, I am
talking about not just the firefighters, but it goes all the
way to the public health officials, the public works people,
law enforcement, all of those folks that respond initially to a
disaster of any kind, and that is who we have the relationships
with, that is who we have to rely upon and work with every
single day before a disaster occurs and after one occurs.
So to the extent possible, I would like to see us evolve as
much as possible in that relationship, in that future
relationship.
Mr. Cox. I am just getting a note about some of what was
discussed while I was out of the room.
In our legislation, we are proceeding from the premise that
before 9/11 there were priorities for first responders that
haven't anything to do with terrorism and that post-9/11, those
priorities are still there, that we had grant programs
established for pre-9/11 programs and that we do not want to
rob Peter to pay Paul in the post-9/11 environment.
So we want to protect those programs from being stretched
to do double duty and rather make sure that we are focused in
addition to those pre-9/11 missions on the new mission of
homeland security, which ought to be threat-based, we ought to
be matching our known vulnerabilities to the threats that our
intelligence analysis within homeland security tells us we
face, the known capabilities and intentions of our would-be
terrorist enemies.
The discussion of an all-hazards approach tends to fudge
this principle in the sense that what we are trying to do is
make sure we can maintain an all-hazards approach by not
shortchanging these pre-9/11 programs. And we have had a lot of
favorable response from the first responder community for this
reason.
What I hear coming from the department, on the other hand,
is that in order to maintain an all-hazards approach, we have
to mix all of these grant programs together. I wonder if you
could help us by giving us your views on that?
Mr. Brown. I was trying to listen very closely to what you
said. And the second way that you said it I thought really
summed up at least my philosophy and that is that you must
always have the all-hazards approach.
And what you are trying to find is, is this right mix such
that the dual-headed things that are both a natural disaster or
a nonterrorist incident that is still--you know, you can have a
chemical attack or you can have a chemical incident that is not
terrorism that is going to require the same kinds of things,
whether it was--if it was terrorism.
You are going to have those same kinds of incidents where
equipment crosses both boundaries, a natural disaster and a
man-made intentional or nonintentional incident. And what you
have to do is strike the balance such that you do not denigrate
one or any of the above.
Mr. Cox. Well, let me be as precise as I can in asking it.
My concern is that we are going to lose the focus of the
FIRE grant program and we are going to lose the focus of
homeland security because we are spending money in ways that
are so malleable and so fungible that there is no
accountability.
If being prepared to respond to a chemical spill or a
forest fire were the mission of the Homeland Security
Department, I do not think I would have voted to create it
because, to be honest with you, we already had that focus at
FEMA. We already had a government that was prepared at the
federal, state and local levels to deal with that.
What we need to do to make sure that--and you have heard it
said many times that we do not want homeland security dollars
to be buying people new fire trucks. We have talked about
mutual aid in lots of ways to ensure against that. But we do,
on the other hand, want people to have new fire trucks. We do
want them to be prepared for fires and all the things that
happened before 9/11.
So I am worried that we are going to get the worst of all
possible worlds if we bastardize the FIRE grant program, just
to use that as one example, and try and make it do double duty
as a homeland security program and we do not have any program
in the federal government that is focused on the mission of the
Homeland Security Department, which is to prevent, prepare for
and respond to acts of terrorism, acts of mass murder that are
different from all these other, you know, all-hazards events.
Mr. Brown. But now I want you to come down here and sit in
my chair, because that is exactly what I have to do, Mr.
Chairman, is that I have to--FEMA has to be able to respond to
all of the above.
Mr. Cox. And so do our first responders.
Mr. Brown. Right, they do.
Mr. Cox. And is there going to be a grant program that is
focused on homeland security, or are grant programs going to be
just focused all over the place--unfocused as it were--so that
we do not have any accountability from reaching our homeland
security objectives, which are measurably distinct from the
pre-9/11 program?
Mr. Brown. I do not know. And I certainly do not want to
tell you or even suggest how to do your business.
But it seems to me that there has got to be some mechanism
by which you do not lose both of those objectives. And whether
that is a formula, whether that is two separate grant programs,
I do not know. That is something that all of you will have to
decide.
But you cannot lose the basic capacity--and again, speaking
with my FEMA hat on here, I cannot lose the ability to respond
to the wildfires in California at the same time that I cannot
lose my ability to respond to another 9/11 attack.
And so that is the dual hat that I wear, and so that is why
I struggle when I hear about we can not lose either one. That
is what I struggle with every day. I cannot lose either one of
those capacities.
Mr. Cox. How does moving ODP into the Office of the
Secretary help you do your job at EP & R?
Mr. Brown. Well, will make certain that whatever
connectivity I need to create out of my portion of the
department in ODP that I will create that connectivity so that
I do not lose that tie between preparedness and response
because I have to keep that.
Mr. Cox. I think this committee is very interested in
making sure that the expertise within your directorate is added
to the DHS grant-making process for homeland security. And one
of the reasons we are taking the approach that we are taking in
our legislation is to ensure that result.
Well, we will look forward to continuing to discuss the
legislation specifically with you and also ways that we can
achieve what you have been talking about here today, which is a
focus on preparedness as well as on response, a focus on the
entire role of the EP & R Directorate, not just the legacy FEMA
part.
Mr. Brown. You know, Mr. Chairman, it does have to be both
of those for us to be effective.
Mr. Cox. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman for his questions.
As he knows from our personal conversations, I struggle
with the issue that you raised in your questioning. I am having
a hard time seeing the connection between the function of FEMA
with regard to natural disasters fitting within the concept of
homeland security. And I think this is an issue we ought to
explore.
Of course, responding to natural disasters is an important
function and one for which this Congress, as you can tell from
the questioning today, wants to hold you accountable and wants
you to do a great job for the people of America.
I continue to be worried, as I have expressed to you and I
have expressed to the chairman of the full committee, about
whether or not we are losing focus on the function of
preparedness and response for terrorist attacks.
And as I have pointed out to you, there is at least one
distinguishing characteristic between natural disasters and
terrorist attacks, and that is you can do something to stop a
terrorist attack within the realm of reason, where it is pretty
difficult to do something to stop a hurricane within the realm
of reason.
So I look forward to continuing to work with you on that
point.
The chair would now call upon the author of the
Congressional Accountability Act, the distinguished gentleman
from Connecticut, Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
conducting this hearing and thank you to the staff for all its
good work.
I first want to just have a sense from you, Mr. Brown, if
you would, as head of the directorate for EP & R, you ARE not
the FEMA director, but what are you?
Mr. Brown. I actually carry kind of a dual hat. I am the
Under Secretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response and the
Director of FEMA. FEMA is, in essence, what is in EP & R.
Mr. Shays. Okay. But is that 90 percent of what is in EP &
R?
Mr. Brown. Well, it depends on how you want to make the
analysis. If it is the numbers of personnel, yes, 90 percent of
it is FEMA. If it is--well, actually, probably if you do it on
any basis--personnel, money, whatever--it probably is FEMA.
Mr. Shays. Is the National Domestic Preparedness Office up
and running within your organization?
Mr. Brown. Yes, that is what we inherited, NDPO, from the
FBI, I believe.
Mr. Shays. And how many people do you have in that?
Mr. Brown. I do not think any people came with it. Nope, it
came with no people.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Shays. So it is there but it is not there?
Mr. Brown. Well, it is there and I have taken folks in my
Preparedness Office and given them those responsibilities, but
it came with no people or money.
Mr. Shays. Why would people not have come with it? I mean,
how many people were there when it was under the Department of
Justice?
Mr. Brown. I would have to get that information for you,
sir. I do not know.
Mr. Shays. Well, it would be something I would want to know
if I were in your position.
Can you give me a sense of what I know you are wrestling
with?
And first off, we have to cut a lot of slack to DHS and
still keep pushing, because it is a mammoth task and I know we
are getting safer every day.
But I have this gigantic concern that we are wasting
resources and we do not know how to evaluate the resources we
are spending.
For instance, I do not yet know what DHS is doing with the
capability studies of communities. When is that going to be
completed? When will you know their capabilities?
Mr. Brown. Well, FEMA has already done its--and we have
done on an ongoing basis--our CARs, Capability Assessment
Reviews, so we have in house our assessments from an all-
hazards point of view.
And I will go back and ask the department what their--I
mean there must be something else going on within ODP where
they are doing--.
Mr. Shays. You see, what we do not have, and Mr. Cox has
put it in his bill, we do not have from the Department of
Homeland Security really a set of standards yet to evaluate
what we are giving the first-line responders.
Mr. Brown. See, we have that within FEMA. I mean, FEMA has
the ability to go back and find out what are our assessments of
the states and locals, our assessment of did they use the money
we gave them for the purposes for which we gave it, what kind
of increasing capability did we get for that? We have that
capacity within FEMA.
Mr. Shays. When you say you know what local--you cannot
tell me what Kent, Connecticut, needs. You cannot tell me the
capabilities of Kent, Connecticut, which is not in my
district--I am using a small somewhat innocuous town.
But Kent, Connecticut, is getting money and being provided
certain capabilities by DHS, which it simply may not need, but
we are giving it to everybody because we do not have standards
to know if New York--how do we determine what the threat is to
New York and therefore New York City? Therefore, what is the
threat to neighboring communities?
And so we may be giving per capita something to Kent,
Connecticut, that we give to the same community in Westport,
Connecticut, and yet we do not know if that is wise to do.
And I am just trying to figure out when we get that done.
Are you saying that is outside your area of expertise and
jurisdiction?
Mr. Brown. It is. But I am saying that we also have within
our area of expertise the ability to do assessments of the
states and locals to find out what their abilities are, at
least from a natural hazards point of view. And I think that
can be a model for what we do department-wide.
Mr. Shays. Well, this is my confusion, but it seems to me
FEMA is in the best position to have initiated within the
Department of Homeland Security what first-time responders
need.
Mr. Brown. I think we do have the capacity, sir.
Mr. Shays. But we have not done it yet?
Mr. Brown. I think ODP and other parts of the department
are doing their analysis of what they think they are, of what
their capacity--.
Mr. Shays. Are they interfacing?
Mr. Brown. --based on a threat analysis.
Mr. Shays. Right. And how are they using your part of DHS
to do that?
Mr. Brown. I will get back to you on that, Congressman.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Under Secretary, I want to thank you again
for your hard work on behalf of the American people. I also
want to thank you for your work in preparing for today's
hearing and for your thoughtful answers to our questions.
It is highly likely that other members of the committee
will have follow-up questions which will be submitted to you,
and we look forward to a timely response to those.
For the record, let me announce that the hearing record
will remain open for 30 days for the submission of additional
questions by other members of the subcommittee.
And with that, the subcommittee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
Questions for the Record From The Hon. Bennie G. Thompson For The Hon.
Michael D. Brown
The Subcommittee remains concerned that multiple assessments of
state and local capabilities are being conducted by multiple
organizations within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The
Subcommittee is unclear as to the purpose of these assessments and how
this assessment information is being shared within DHS.
Question 1: What assessments of state and local government capabilities
have been conducted by the Emergency Preparedness and Response
Directorate (EP & R)?
Answer: EP & R sponsors or has sponsored several capability assessment
initiatives at the State and/or local levels:
1. The National Emergency Management Baseline Capability
Assessment Program (NEMB-CAP)
2. Geospatial Preparedness Needs Assessment
3. Needs Assessment of the U. S. Fires Service (prepared by the
National Fire Protection Association).
Question 2: Please describe the purpose of these assessments, and
provide the results of these assessments with the Subcommittee. If the
content of these assessments is sensitive or classified, please
schedule and provide the Subcommittee with a classified briefing on
these assessments.
Answer: 1. NEMB-CAP is a voluntary, multi-year effort to assess,
analyze, evaluate, and collectively frame state emergency management
capabilities against a common national standard. For this effort, FEMA
is employing the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP)
Standard and associated assessment methodology. The assessment
methodology involves the State completing a comprehensive self-
assessment, followed up with an on-site, week-long assessment visit by
a team of trained, independent peer assessors. FEMA will analyze
reports to identify individual and collective capability strengths and
weaknesses, for the purpose of establishing a national capability
baseline and helping the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to
target homeland security and emergency management assistance strategies
to areas of greatest common need. Actual assessments of state and
state-level jurisdictions began in January 2003, and are projected to
be complete by the end of 2005, at which time a final report will be
prepared.
2. The Geospatial Preparedness Needs Assessment (initiated by FEMA,
subsequently transferred to the DHS/Office of the Chief Information
Officer (OCIO)) was initiated to determine the current level of
geospatial preparedness among State, local, and Tribal emergency
management and first responders, based on information collected from a
series of needs assessment workshops held within FEMA Regions. A final
report has not been released.
As of June 14, 28 states/state-level jurisdictions have completed
assessments. NEMB-CAP Progress Reports are prepared by FEMA at six-
month intervals. The Progress Report for the first six-months of
assessments was published in the fall of last year. The second Progress
Report (reflecting the status of assessment findings through CY 2003)
is currently being prepared and should be available in July. Attached
is a copy of the progress report for the first six months of
assessments.
3. Needs Assessment of the U. S. Fires Service. PL 106-398, Section
1701, Sec. 33 (b) required that the Director of FEMA conduct a study in
conjunction with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to
survey fire service personnel on their current roles, activities, and
funding priorities. . This study was published in January 2003, and can
be reviewed at the following link: (http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/
pdf/publications/fa-240.pdf).
Question 3: What other assessments of State and local government
capabilities are being conducted by DHS? Does the EP & R Directorate
have access to these assessments, and if so, please describe the
mechanism for your access to these assessments.
Answer: Multiple assessments are being conducted within DHS, in pursuit
of functional area requirements. FEMA has or can gain access to these
assessment reports, based on need.
Question 4: What mechanism is utilized by DHS to ensure that the
content of all state and local assessments is not duplicative, and how
are the results of all assessments coordinated and shared within DHS to
develop a comprehensive picture of state and local capabilities?
Answer: DHS has developed an implementation strategy for HSPD-8, a key
objective of which is the reconciliation of duplicate reporting
requirements. The Office for Domestic Preparedness is leading that
effort. EP & R will be establishing a single web-based compliance
assurance mechanism under the National Incident Management System
(NIMS) Integration Center. This tool, the National Incident Management
Compliance Assurance Support Tool, will provide positive assurance that
state and local jurisdictions are in compliance with the NIMS, and will
include linkages to other assessment systems that support incident
management preparedness.
The EP & R Directorate's FY 2005 budget eliminates funding ($50
million) for the Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS), stating
that the program largely duplicates activities funded by the Department
of Health and Human Services. In response to questions about the MMRS
program from the Subcommittee, you stated that EP & R had conducted an
assessment of the progress of MMRS program participants, and that these
participants had achieved their ``baseline capability.''
Question 5: What is the baseline capability of an MMRS participant,
and how was this capability determined?
Answer. The MMRS original jurisdictional contract requires a series of
deliverables. These deliverables cover an array of capabilities
considered essential to being able to respond to a mass casualty/
weapons of mass destruction WMD event. Adequacy of the deliverables is
assessed by the Regional Project Officers (POs) using an evaluation
checklist. PO approval is required before the jurisdiction can voucher
for payment. We utilize the 12 deliverables established between 1999-
2001 that were put in place by the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS).
Deliverable
1. Meeting with Project Officer
2. Development plan
3. MMRS plan
4. Forward movement of patients
5. Plan for responding to a chemical, radiological, nuclear, or
explosive WMD event
6. Plan for Metropolitan Medical Strike Team (MMST) if it is a
component of your MMRS
7. Plan for managing the health consequences of a biological
WMD
8. Local hospital and healthcare system plan
9. Plan for identifying training requirements along with
training plan
10. Provide a list of pharmaceuticals and equipment along with
maintenance plan and procurement timetable
11. Progress reports
12. Final report
Planning and preparedness efforts are ongoing and, by definition,
are not complete. As of today, 77 out of 124 MMRS jurisdictions, or
over 60 percent of all program localities, have completed their
baseline capability development. All 124 MMRS jurisdictions however
have active contracts that provide for approved deliverables. For some
of these contracts the period of performance extends to December 19,
2005. Fiscal Year 2004 MMRS funding for jurisdictions is being provided
through grants, period of performance October 1, 2004 to March 31,
2006. . Sustaining and enhancing these capabilities is within the scope
of the Administration's budget request.
Question 6: Please provide the Subcommittee with a copy of the results
of the assessment report that determined that the MMRS participants
have achieved their baseline capabilities. If the content of this
assessment is sensitive or classified, please schedule and provide the
Subcommittee with a classified briefing on this assessment.
Answer. For each required deliverable, there are assessment criteria
contained in the Contract Deliverable Evaluation Instrument to
determine whether the MMRS jurisdiction has met the terms of the
contract, addressing all the elements of each deliverable specified in
the contract. The MMRS jurisdiction submits the deliverable to an
assigned PO, who then evaluates it, ensuring the jurisdiction has
complied with the contract. Upon evaluation, the PO may return the
deliverable to the jurisdiction for further work, or submit it to the
Program Manager for final approval. Attached is the 2002 Contract
deliverable instrument for your review.
As you know, the Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG)
Program is an important grant mechanism that supports the state and
local emergency planners. The fiscal year 2005 President's Budget
request reduces the funding level for this program from current levels,
and places a 25 percent limit on what can be spent on personnel. In
response to questions from the Subcommittee, you stated that EMPG
resources not utilized for personnel would now be utilized for state
and local training and exercises.
Question 7: How does EP & R plan to increase state and local training
and exercises while at the same time reducing the state and local
personnel who would need to attend training and conduct exercises?
Answer: The President's Budget does not propose any reduction in State
and local personnel, as State and local public safety and emergency
response staffing levels are not dictated or controlled by the Federal
government. The President's Budget seeks to emphasize the importance of
conducting training and exercises using Emergency Management
Performance Grant (EMPG) funds, and as such places a limit on the
percentage of funding that can be spent on direct support of personnel
salaries. Ensuring that public safety and emergency response functions
are appropriately staffed at the State and local levels continues to
remain a fundamental State and local government responsibility. As
outlined in HSPD--8, Federal grants should contribute to new
capabilities, not just offset the cost of permanent state and local
employees.
Question 8: If the President's budget proposal is approved what are EP
& R's plans for distribution of the EMPG funds to enhance state and
local training and exercises?
Answer: DHS plans to distribute the Fiscal Year 2005 EMPG as part of a
single, integrated overall grant application process, providing simpler
access to funding while preserving all key aspects of the program,
including guidelines for how funding may be used. The integration of
Citizen Corps grants into ODP's State grant application process in
fiscal Year 2004 provides a successful model on which to base the EMPG
transition. Funding distributed to States under the EMPG grants will
support a range of activities, including enhancing State and local
training and exercises, in support of each state's Homeland Security
Strategy.
For the second year, the President's budget proposes to consolidate
funding previously provided through the National Pre-Disaster
Mitigation Fund and the National Flood Mitigation Fund (for the Flood
Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program). The two funds are authorized in
separate statutes, have separate regulations, have separate priorities,
and are separately administered (although the programs are similar in
several respects). The PDM program is supported by general revenue,
while the FMA is supported by a fee assessed on flood insurance
policies. The different sources make it important to keep the two
programs separate, even for accounting purposes.
Question 9: If the funds are consolidated as proposed, how will the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maintain separate
accountability to ensure that the National Flood Mitigation Funds are
used only for activities that, as set forth in the National Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 1994 are in the best interests of NFIP?
Answer: For administrative ease the funding for Pre-Disaster Mitigation
(PDM) and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) are combined for purposes
of the appropriation. At the Agency level, they are separated into the
two statutorily authorized Funds servicing the respective programs. If
appropriations are consolidated as proposed, FEMA will continue to
maintain separate accountability through distinct financial management
program codes. This will ensure that the National Flood Mitigation Fund
grants are for State and community flood mitigation plans and projects
only as set forth in the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994.
It will also ensure that the two funds will be accounted for
separately.
Between 200 and 300 FEMA staff positions are supported (in whole or
in part) by the National Flood Insurance Fund. This practice started in
1990 and is an important but little-known aspect of the NFIP's claim to
being self-supporting. However, it means that just 4.4 million citizens
are paying for a significant number of federal employees. Those
employees directly work on the NFIP, floodplain management, and flood
hazard mitigation further the purposes of the NFIP, and are necessary
to maintain and manage an effective National Flood Insurance Program
and to further reduction of the impacts of flooding. At this time when
a number of FEMA staff have been detailed to other functions, it is
unclear how many positions are funded by the NFIP, what their functions
are, and how they relate to the NFIP.
Question 10: How many FEMA staff positions are supported by income
from the NFIP's 4.4 million policyholders in fiscal year 2004? How many
FEMA staff positions are proposed to be supported by the NFIP's in
fiscal year 2005?
Answer: For fiscal year 2004, the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) funds 271 flood staff positions. Additionally, FEMA requested
271 NFIP staff positions for fiscal year 2005.
Question 11: Please provide the Subcommittee with a list that
identifies these positions by location in FEMA's organizational
structure, including regional offices, and by their functions as they
relate to the NFIP. Please indicate if there are any staff that have
been detailed to other FEMA or DHS functions, but continue to be funded
by the NFIP.
Answer: At FEMA Headquarters, there are 68 insurance employees and 66
floodplain management employees for a total of 134. This number
includes a staff position in the Office of General Counsel that focuses
on NFIP legal issues and an employee detailed to FEMA's Office of Plans
and Programs whose primary responsibility is to facilitate the
preparation, review, and evaluation of the NFIP's budget and
performance. Additionally, there are 137 floodplain management
employees in FEMA's ten regional offices. These employees provide
support and direction for floodplain management, flood hazard
mitigation, and flood hazard identification activities with State and
local governments. A breakdown by region is provided below.
Region I-11
Region II-13
Region III-15
Region IV-21
Region V-14
Region VI-20
Region VII-11
Region VIII-10
Region IX-13
Region X-9
Although we have increased our focus on the immediate threat of
terrorism, natural disasters are the prevalent emergencies that state
and local governments deal with daily. In February 2003, a law took
effect changing the post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
formula from 15 percent to 7.5 percent of disaster costs. This change
has cut in half the opportunities to mitigate disasters, especially in
areas that have experienced multiple federally-declared disasters. In
response to questions for the Subcommittee, you state that the
President's request to implement both pre- and post-disaster mitigation
programs gave you the best of both worlds, and would help you to
mitigate disaster damage. Using your budget estimates for the average
annual cost of disaster and emergency declarations ($1.656 billion), an
additional $124 million would be available for post disaster mitigation
projects in fiscal year 2005 if the formula for this program was
restored to 15 percent.
Question 12: In what ways would mitigation across the nation improve by
restoring the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program formula back to 15
percent?
Answer: The President's Fiscal Year 2005 budget provides the correct
balance between pre- and post-disaster mitigation funding. Pre-disaster
mitigation is available to all States on a competitive basis and allows
mitigation projects to be completed prior to a disaster, thus lessening
the loss of lives and property if a disaster strikes. In addition,
States are able to address mitigation projects through the post-
disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).
In response to a question from the Subcommittee, you state that
FEMA continues to respond to disasters in exactly the way it has in the
past.
Question 13: In the future, as the National Response Plan becomes more
fully implemented, will FEMA continue to respond exactly the way it has
in the past? The National Response plan calls for the designation and
integration of a Principal Federal Official (PFO), appointed by the
Secretary of DHS, to lead the Department's efforts in response to a
disaster. Have any PFO's been dispatched to represent DHS in federally
declared disasters? What is the proposed relationship between the PFO
and the Federal Coordinated Officer--who is appointed by the President?
Answer: The Secretary has not designated a Principal Federal Official
(PFO) for a Presidentially declared disaster or emergency to date.
Federal Coordinating Officers (FCOs) have continued to be appointed as
in the past. As stated in the Initial National Response Plan, for
incidents of national significance, the Secretary may designate a
Federal officer to serve as the PFO to act as his representative
locally and to coordinate Federal activities. The roles and
responsibilities of the PFO include:
Representing the Secretary of Homeland Security as the
senior Federal official on-scene to enable the Secretary to
carry out his role as the PFO for domestic incident management;
Ensuring overall coordination of Federal domestic
incident management activities and resource allocation on
scene, ensuring seamless integration of Federal incident
management activities in support of State, local and tribal
requirements;
Providing strategic guidance to Federal entities and
facilitating interagency conflict resolution as necessary to
enable timely Federal assistance to State, local, and Tribal
authorities;
Serving as a primary, although not exclusive, point of
contact for Federal interface with State, local, and Tribal
government officials, the media, and the private sector for
incident management;
Providing real-time incident information, through the
support of the Federal incident management structure on-scene,
to the Secretary of Homeland Security through the Homeland
Security Operations Center (HSOC) and the Interagency Incident
Management Group (IIMG), as required; and
Coordinating the overall Federal public communications
strategy at the State, local and Tribal levels and clearing
Federal interagency communications to the public regarding the
incident
The PFO is selected by the Secretary. The Secretary will provide
formal notification of the appointment of the PFO to Governor(s) of
affected State(s) and to Federal departments and agencies. A PFO can be
pre-designated to support a specific jurisdiction, or a DHS Regional
Director (DHS RD) may be tapped to serve as a PFO depending on the
situation. It is most likely that a PFO will be appointed only for
incidents or high visibility events with significant national or
regional implications such as significant terrorist events causing
considerable destruction, catastrophic natural disasters, and complex
non-Stafford Act emergencies.
The PFO provides senior leadership, strategic guidance, and
operations integration for catastrophic events, terrorist incidents,
and other high visibility, multi-state, multi-jurisdiction events. The
FCO, on the other hand, provides the leadership for managing Federal
resource support in a multi-hazard context. When both a PFO and an FCO
have been assigned to a specific incident, the FCO will coordinate with
the PFO and work closely with representatives of other Federal
agencies. In situations where a PFO has not been assigned, the FCO
leads the Federal components of the Joint Field Office (JFO) and works
in partnership with the State Coordinating Officer (SCO).
Question 14: Recently (March 1, 2004), DHS announced that it had
activated Homeland Security Task Force Southeast (HSTF-SE) to provide a
single command and support structure to oversee increased operations in
the Windward Pass and coastal South Florida as a precautionary response
to the situation in Haiti. FEMA was identified as a participant in this
task force and the ``normal'' disaster response structure that you
believe FEMA still utilizes? Are these ``task forces'' identified in
the National Response Plan, and if so, what is their role?
Answer: FEMA is a full participant in the Caribbean mass migration
contingency planning effort. Other components within DHS have primary
responsibility and authority for response to such a contingency. This
includes the Immigration and Nationality Act, as well as other
authorities. FEMA supports the response of these other components and
is prepared to act within the scope of its authorities in the event
that contingencies arise that establish the necessary predicate for a
Stafford Act declaration.
Homeland Security Task Force Southeast is part of contingency
planning for a Caribbean mass migration. The essential role of the Task
Force is to integrate the capabilities and activities of DHS components
into a unified response effort with other entities that have relevant
responsibilities for mass migration. Once the National Response Plan
(NRP) is promulgated, other specific Federal interagency emergency or
incident management plans will require modification to ensure full
alignment with the NRP structure. Caribbean mass migration planning
will be subject to this requirement for alignment.
The Subcommittee is concerned that the legacy FEMA people and
programs are losing core areas of responsibility as DHS continues to
grow. The National Response Plan and the National Incident Management
System no longer retain a heavy emergency management focus, the first
responder grant function has been moved to ODP, and the regular
interaction between FEMA and state and local personnel has been, in
part, taken over by other components.
Question 15: Can you explain why FEMA, which was a very well performing
agency before DHS, in not leading these efforts?
Answer: Substantial effort is being made to consolidate and integrate
all of the different disaster response programs, teams, and assets in
DHS. FEMA is designing new approaches and implementing new efficiencies
that will result in a more unified, integrated, and comprehensive
approach to all-hazards disaster response. The improved coordination of
all response programs and efforts to introduce a new response culture
will make DHS better able to elevate operational disaster response
capabilities to a whole new level of proficiency, one that will further
the principles of the NRP and NIMS and better serve the American
people.
Title V of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 makes the Under
Secretary of the Emergency Preparedness & Response responsible for
``helping to ensure the effectiveness of emergency response providers
to terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies'' and for
``building a comprehensive National Incident Management System [. . .
for . . .] such attacks and disasters.'' The Act also requires FEMA to
retain its functions and responsibilities under the Stafford Act.
FEMA continues to support all-hazards emergency preparedness,
training, and exercises on the basis that the management of the
consequences from any event has numerous essential elements that may
need to be supplemented by special actions for some events.
Operational planning is a key Preparedness function, and FEMA has
years of experience and accumulated expertise planning for, responding
to and recovering from emergencies and disasters. Accordingly, FEMA was
asked to lead a Departmental and interagency effort to develop the
National Response Plan--Catastrophic Incident Annex (NRP-CIA).
FEMA is responsible for leading an intra-departmental and
interagency effort to stand up the NIMS Integration Center and to
promulgate NIMS across the Nation. FEMA played a large role in the
development of the NIMS document. In addition, FEMA continues to work
closely with ODP and the grants one-stop shop to support the
programmatic efforts to administer these grants as intended by
Congress.
In your prepared testimony, you stated that one of your fiscal year
2004 priorities is to publish ``equipment interoperability standards.''
There seem to be a number of DHS organizations working on these
standards.
Question 16: What is the division of responsibility for developing
standards among EP & R, the Science and Technology Directorate, the
Office of Domestic Preparedness, and any other DHS organizations
involved in developing standards?
Answer: Several directorates within DHS will be addressing
standards development and coordination between these directorates is
vital.
The Science and Technology Directorate (S & T) will develop and
coordinate the adoption of standards and appropriate evaluation methods
to meet homeland security needs. S & T will work with EP & R and ODP to
ensure appropriate standards are available for all first responder
equipment needs.
EP & R will work closely with S & T to identify emergency
management standards and determine critical gaps in standards that need
to be addressed by the Department. EP & R will build upon existing
research to identify critical standards by each discipline and function
and gaps among those standards that impact the ability of emergency
managers and responders to provide a consistent and uniform response to
any incident. As part of its strategy, EP & R will develop a plan to
address the gaps and shortfalls identified in order to provide a
comprehensive analysis to S & T to ensure the Department uses a
coordinated approach to address standards development in those areas.
EP & R in collaboration with relevant agencies and organizations
responsible for the development of standards will develop interim
``field standards'' and identify the responsible entity for
implementing the required standard. This process will be integrated
into the NIMS and the NIMS Integration Center (NIC). The NIC will
coordinate the development of standards by facilitating the development
and publication of national standards, guidelines, and protocols for
the qualification and certification of emergency responder and incident
management personnel as appropriate.
Question 17: What is the role of the EP & R Directorate in the
Department's interoperability communications plans? Specifically, how
is your Directorate involved with the Secretary's announced plans to
deploy interim technologies for patching different radio systems?
Answer: The Science and Technology Directorate is leading the RapidCom
initiative, under the auspices of the SAFECOM Program. This technical
assistance effort will leverage existing technologies and funding in
ten cities to reach an interim emergency-level communications
interoperability capacity.
This effort is distinct from grants awarded by EP & R in 2003, in
coordination with the Department of Justice COPS office and Project
SAFECOM, to provide competitive funding to jurisdictions for
demonstration projects to increase communications interoperability
among the fire service, law enforcement, and emergency medical service
communities. Thirty-one awards of up to $6,000,000 each were awarded to
various jurisdictions. SAFECOM common grant guidance was incorporated
in both the COPS and the FEMA programs. These projects are currently
underway, with a scheduled completion by date of September 2004. The
lessons learned will guide future communications equipment funding so
that all purchases meet an interoperability performance standard. While
none of the 17 FEMA grantees are part of part RapidCom, three of the 13
COPS grantees are.
Question 18: What equipment will EP & R publish standards for?
Answer: EP & R is not publishing any standards for equipment. However,
EP & R is working closely with the Science and Technology Directorate
on its development of equipment standards for first responders.
Question 19: When exactly will these standards be published? Will they
be actual standards, or ``technical specifications'' as stated by the
Secretary on February 23, 2004?
Answer: EP & R is not publishing any standards for equipment. EP & R is
working closely with the Science and Technology Directorate on its
equipment standards for first responders.
Question 20: Who should state and local governments look to within DHS
for definitive guidance on equipment standards?
Answer: S & T will provide definitive guidance on equipment standards,
with significant input, guidance, and coordination on emergency
management-related standards from EP & R.
DHS and EP & R Directorate do not appear to be taking an active
role in preparing for the threat of bioterrorism. The Department of
Health and Human Services is taking the lead in Project BioShield and
the Strategic National Stockpile. DHS is eliminating the Metropolitan
Medical Response System, by suggesting that ongoing programs at HHS
will meet the goals of that program. But according to the ANSER
Institute, ``there has been inadequate connection between DHS and HHS
to prepare for and respond to biological terrorism.''
Question 21: What formal mechanisms have been established between DHS
and HHS (e.g., work groups, task forces) to coordinate the preparedness
and response for bioterrorism incidents? Please provide the
Subcommittee with any documents related to this coordination.
Answer: The NRP identifies roles and responsibilities among key Federal
agencies that participate in response to a disaster. The NRP includes
formal mechanisms between DHS and HHS intended to coordinate the
preparedness and response for bioterrorism incidents. HHS and DHS are
currently working together on various aspects of the NRP, including
Emergency Support Function #8--Health and Medical Services. In addition
to collaboration on developing these mechanisms, the threat of
bioterrorism is being addressed further by the two agencies via several
national programs, such as MMRS, the National Disaster Medical System
(NDMS), and the National Response Plan--Catastrophic Incident Annex
(NRP-CIA). Additionally, a surge capacity working group has been formed
with stakeholders from DHS, HHS, and various Federal agencies.
Question 22: Have DHS and HHS developed a work-plan to address the
threat of bio-terrorism, including the distinct roles and
responsibilities of the respective agencies? What mechanisms are in
place to ensure there is no duplication of effort? For example, with
respect to your proposal for enhancing medical surge capabilities, what
work--if any--has already been completed by HHS, and how are you
integrating that work into your proposal?
Answer: DHS and HHS have collaborated on many elements of the NRP that
establish the strategy for a coordinated national approach to a
catastrophic event, including bioterrorism. Additionally, the
coordination of bioterrorism funding through SLGCP ensures all
available resources are leveraged for maximum efficiency.
A surge capacity working group has been formed with stakeholders
from DHS; a variety of HHS entities including NDMS, the Health
Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSA); and various Federal
partners, including the Department of Defense and the Department of
Veterans Affairs. In addition to providing solutions to deal with surge
capacity during a bioterror incident, this effort is currently being
incorporated into the DHS-led National Response Plan--Catastrophic
Incident Annex (NRP-CIA).
The National Response Plan states that ``private business and
industry play a significant role in helping to mitigate the physical
effects and economic costs of domestic incidents.'' According to the
Plan, the Secretary of Homeland Security would urge businesses to
identify their risks, develop contingency plans and to take actions to
enhance their overall readiness.'' In response to questions from the
Subcommittee, you stated that the Business and Industry Preparedness
and Response Partnership was being used to reach out to the private
sector.
Question 23: At this point, can the Department offer private industry
any risk identification guidelines? If so, please provide these
guidelines to the Subcommittee.
Answer: The Department through FEMA and many other public and private
sector organizations developed the NFPA 1600 Standard on Disaster/
Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs, 2004 edition and
earlier editions. These guidelines are available on the web at
www.nfpa.org., In addition the Department, through the Protective
Security Division, has worked with various infrastructure sectors to
identify appropriate vulnerability assessment tools for use by those
sectors. In addition, FEMA has developed guidance with the private
sector for risk identification through FEMA's Mitigation Division and
specific Preparedness programs such as the Chemical Stockpile Emergency
Preparedness Program and Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program.
This guidance can be found at www.fema.gov.
Question 24: How are private sector representatives involved in
defining their roles in emergency preparedness and response?
Answer: Private Sector representatives are involved in defining the
roles by building relationships with each other and with government
entities, by reviewing the Initial National Response Plan, the draft
National Response Plan and their own business continuity plans.
The Flood Forecasting and Warning System Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-253)
authorized the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
through the United States Weather Research Program, to conduct research
and development, training and outreach activities to improve inland
flood forecasting.
Question 25: To what extent has this act been implemented, and how has
FEMA utilized information provided by NOAA to improve flood
forecasting, and better prepare impacted populations for flood events?
Answer: The NOAA National Weather Service (NWS) Advanced Hydrologic
Prediction Service (AHPS) has been implemented at ten forecast
locations in eastern North Carolina, and a web interface now provides
access to AHPS products across the nation. Inundation maps showing 3-
day flood forecasts for the Tar River basin in North Carolina were
implemented prior to the landfall of Hurricane Isabel. A social
scientist was contracted to work with North Carolina emergency managers
to evaluate and suggest improvements to the existing NWS flood severity
index. A grant was issued to North Carolina State University for a
collaborative research project to assess long-term trends in the
frequency and severity of inland flooding caused by tropical cyclones.
FEMA, through the National Hurricane Program, is currently
incorporating the AHPS data into HURREVAC, a State and local emergency
management decision assistance tool develop by FEMA and the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). All flood forecast points in
North Carolina and Florida are now available in HURREVAC in much the
same format as AHPS products (i.e., graphical hydrographs). The next
step is to include Texas to Maine and the Virgin Islands and Puerto
Rico in future releases of HURREVAC.
House report language directed FEMA to update and disseminate
guidance on outdoor warning and mass notification systems, but this is
several months overdue. Especially as we enter tornado and hurricane
seasons, it is imperative that this guidance to state and local
governments be completed.
Question 26: Can you tell us where this guidance is, and what is the
division of labor between EP & R and the IAIP Directorate?
Answer: The guidance, a revision and update of Civil Preparedness Guide
1-17, Outdoor Warning Systems Guide, first published March 1, 1980, is
currently under an extensive fast-track DHS review, including a review
by IAIP, and will soon be released for a review by other Federal
agencies.
Questions for the Record From The Hon. Jim Turner For The Hon. Michael
D. Brown
As you know, the Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG)
Program is an enormously important grant mechanism that supports the
state and local emergency planners, based on a 50 percent cost match.
The fiscal 2005 President's Budget request reduces the funding level
for this program from current levels, and places a 25 percent limit on
what can be spent on personnel. According to the National Emergency
Management Association this budget, if implemented, would lead to a
loss of 60 percent of state emergency managers and even more at the
local level. When I spoke to the National Emergency Management
Association on February 12, they told me of their strong opposition to
this proposal, and of the devastating impact it would have on their
profession.
Question 27: Please describe DHS's rationale for capping the use of
EMPG funds for personnel at 25 percent.
Answer: The Administration's fiscal year 2005 request for the Emergency
Management Performance Grants is $170 million, which is higher than any
previous request for this program. The funds will be used to assist the
development, maintenance, and improvement of State and local emergency
management capabilities, which are key components of a comprehensive
national emergency management system for disasters and emergencies that
may result from natural disasters or accidental or man-caused events.
As you note, though, the request does cap the amount that States
can use for salaries, thereby significantly increasing the amount of
funds available for planning, training and exercises. As outlined in
HSPD-9, the Administration believes that Federal preparedness grants
should build new state and local capabilities, not just subsidize
permanent state and local employees. Accordingly, the request shifts
the emphasis to Federal support for planning while properly aligning
responsibility for staffing and salaries with the States and local
governments. The Administration and Department have consistently
supported the idea that homeland security is a shared responsibility
between Federal, State, and local governments. Additionally, it is
important to remember that we are operating in a fiscal and security
environment where we must ensure that maximum security benefits are
derived from every security dollar. To do that, we must be able to take
a new look at the way in which we allocate resources, including sharing
financial responsibility with our State and local partners.
Question 28: Based on the personnel reductions that will results from
these cuts, how does EP & R intend to conduct effective response and
recovery operations without professional partners at the state and
local level?
Answer: While the EMPG program has traditionally supported
comprehensive emergency management at the State and local levels,
encouraging long-term improvements of mitigation, preparedness,
response, and recovery capabilities for all hazards requires that
states and localities assume responsibility for supporting long-term
staff. The Administration has always framed improvements in emergency
response and homeland security as a shared partnership, in which
Federal funds should be an encouragement to greater state and local
efforts, not simply a budget offset. Funds provided under the EMPG may,
and should, be used to continue support activities that contribute to
capability to prevent, to prepare for, and to recover from natural and
man-made disasters. Given that this program is designed to address
``all-hazards'' planning, including terrorism, it complements the
allowable uses of funds in other ODP grant programs, including the
State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) and the Urban Areas
Security Initiative (UASI).
DHS does not appear to be taking an active role in preparing for
the threat of bioterrorism. The Department of Health and Human Services
is taking the lead in Project BioShield and the Strategic National
Stockpile. DHS is eliminating the Metropolitan Medical Response System,
by suggesting that ongoing programs at HHS will meet goals of that
program. But according to the ANSER Institute, ``there has been
inadequate connection between DHS and HHS to prepare for and respond to
biological terrorism.'' These problems were apparent in the TOPOFF2
exercise, when players in the exercise were unable to determine what
federal agency had the final authority to approve the deployment of the
Strategic National Stockpile.
Question 29: How is the Department retaining response capabilities
to deal with a serious bioterrorism event or public health emergency?
Who has the lead responsibility for planning and preparing for a major
bio attack?
Answer: The Homeland Security Act of 2002 and Homeland Security
Presidential Directive-5 (HSPD-5) state that the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security is the ``principal Federal official for
domestic incident management'' with responsibility for ``coordinating
Federal operations within the United States to prepare for, respond to,
and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other
emergencies.'' DHS/FEMA also has specific authority to provide for the
needs of victims of public health emergencies through the National
Disaster Medical System. The Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) also has a major role in planning and preparing for a major
biological attack or public health emergency. Through our extensive
partnerships with state, local and tribal governments and the private
sector, as well as other Federal departments, we are working to ensure
the highest level of protection, preparedness and response for the
country and the citizens we serve.
DHS/FEMA maintains resources and capabilities that can be activated
and deployed to support a mass-casualty incident, including:
- Disaster Medical Assistance Teams
- National Medical Response Teams
- Veterinary Medical Assistance Teams
- Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Teams
- Burn Specialty Teams
- Medical/Surgical Response Team
- Numerous additional specialized medical personnel
- Pre-Positioned Disaster Supplies to support mass care
operations
- Urban Search & Rescue task forces to support rescue
operations
- Mobile Emergency Response Support (MERS) capabilities to
support command/control/communications
Additionally, other DHS agencies provide capabilities for detecting
and responding to a biological/public health emergency, such as:
- The Science and Technology Directorate maintains air-
monitoring equipment to detect airborne biological pathogens in
major cities throughout the country and is developing the
BioSense program.
- The Interagency Modeling and Atmospheric Analysis Center
(IMAAC) provides a single point for the coordination and
dissemination of federal dispersion modeling and hazard
prediction products that represent the federal position during
an incident of national significance.
HHS has the authority to deploy the Strategic National Stockpile.
In addition, HHS is required to deploy the Stockpile ``as required by
the Secretary of Homeland Security to respond to an actual or potential
emergency.' Project BioShield, just enacted into law, is a
collaborative program between DHS and HHS to develop countermeasures to
biological and chemical agents that may be used in a terrorist attack.
The products of the BioShield program will be stored in the Strategic
National Stockpile.
Many on the Select Committee have supported Secretary's efforts to
create a one-stop shop for grant information as a way to help the state
and local applicants. We are concerned, however, that the real
expertise in emergency preparedness and response resident in your
Directorate is too far removed from the management of these grants.
Question 30: What concrete mechanisms are in place to link your
Directorate, including the regional offices, into the grant
development, application, and evaluation process?
Answer: FEMA works closely with ODP on all grant programs that have
transferred from FEMA to ODP. We hold bi-weekly meetings of the senior
Fire Grant Program Staff, ODP, FEMA Financial Management, Information
Technology and the Under Secretary's Policy office to discuss
transition issues. There is also continuous email and phone dialogue.
Question 31: EP & R would appear to be in the best position to
determine the needs of the emergency management and fire communities.
How is your Directorate involved in formulating the annual budgets for
emergency management grant programs?
Answer: The needs of the emergency management and fire service
communities are considered as part of the broader effort to allocate
and coordinate grants for first responders and homeland security. FEMA
works closely with ODP on all grant programs that have transferred from
FEMA to ODP.
Question 32: Will there be any difference between the way the FIRE
Grants have been run in the past and how they will operate after the
transfer to ODP? If there will be a change in any aspect of this
program, please describe this change.
Answer: The transfer to ODP has maintained the essential features
of the Assistance to Firefighters Program, such as peer review and
direct funding for fire departments. The primary change has been to
give greater attention to applications from fire departments seeking to
improve their readiness for chemical, biological, radiological, or
nuclear events (CBRNE), or other catastrophic events. The Department
has also sought to increase the maximum award amount for larger
jurisdictions to better reflect the needs of major cities. FEMA
continues to work closely with ODP in the administration of this
important program.