[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FUTURE OF FEMA
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS,
RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 14, 2017 and FEBRUARY 28, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-3
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
26-397 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Mike Rogers, Alabama James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Filemon Vela, Texas
John Katko, New York Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Will Hurd, Texas Kathleen M. Rice, New York
Martha McSally, Arizona J. Luis Correa, California
John Ratcliffe, Texas Val Butler Demings, Florida
Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., New York Nanette Diaz Barragan, California
Mike Gallagher, Wisconsin
Clay Higgins, Louisiana
John H. Rutherford, Florida
Thomas A. Garrett, Jr., Virginia
Brian K. Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania
Brendan P. Shields, Staff Director
Joan V. O'Hara, General Counsel*
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS
Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., New York, Chairman
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Martha McSally, Arizona James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
John H. Rutherford, Florida Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Thomas A. Garrett, Jr., Virginia Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Michael T. McCaul, Texas (ex (ex officio)
officio)
Kerry A. Kinirons, Subcommittee Staff Director
Moira Bergin, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director
* Joan V. O'Hara served the committee through February 17, 2017
at which point Kathleen Crooks Flynn began service as Deputy
Chief Counsel.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2017
Statements
The Honorable Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., a Representative in
Congress From the State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee
on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 10
The Honorable Donald M. Payne, Jr., a Representative in Congress
From the State of New Jersey, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications:
Oral Statement................................................. 11
Prepared Statement............................................. 12
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Prepared Statement............................................. 12
Witnesses
Captain Chris A. Kelenske, Deputy State Director/Commander,
Emergency Management and Homeland Security, Michigan State
Police, Testifying on Behalf of the National Governors
Association:
Oral Statement................................................. 14
Prepared Statement............................................. 16
Chief John Sinclair, Fire Chief, Kittitas Valley Fire And Rescue
(WA), President and Chair of the Board, International
Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), Testifying on Behalf of the
International Association of Fire Chiefs:
Oral Statement................................................. 20
Prepared Statement............................................. 22
Mr. Richard F. Bland, J.D., M.T.S., National Director, Policy,
Advocacy, and Development, Save The Children:
Oral Statement................................................. 27
Prepared Statement............................................. 29
For the Record
The Honorable Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., a Representative in
Congress From the State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee
on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications:
Statement of Wendy Smith-Reeve, President, National Emergency
Management Association and National Director, Arizona
Department of Emergency and Military Affairs (DEMA) Emergency
Management Division, On Behalf of the National Emergency
Management Association....................................... 3
Statement of NAEMT............................................. 8
Statement of Lanita Lloyd, CEM President, International
Association of Emergency Managers............................ 9
Appendix
Questions From Chairman Daniel M. Donovan, Jr. for Chris A.
Kelenske....................................................... 41
Question From Ranking Member Donald M. Payne, Jr. for Chris A.
Kelenske....................................................... 42
Questions From Honorable James Langevin for Chris A. Kelenske.... 42
Questions From Chairman Daniel M. Donovan, Jr. for John Sinclair. 43
Question From Ranking Member Donald M. Payne, Jr. for John
Sinclair....................................................... 45
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2017
Statements
The Honorable Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., a Representative in
Congress From the State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee
on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications:
Oral Statement................................................. 47
Prepared Statement............................................. 48
The Honorable Donald M. Payne, Jr., a Representative in Congress
From the State of New Jersey, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications:
Oral Statement................................................. 49
Prepared Statement............................................. 50
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Prepared Statement............................................. 51
Witnesses
Mr. W. Craig Fugate, Former Administrator, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 52
Prepared Statement............................................. 54
Mr. Robert David Paulison, Former Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 58
Prepared Statement............................................. 59
Appendix
Questions From Ranking Member Harold M. Payne, Jr. for W. Craig
Fugate......................................................... 79
Questions From Honorable James R. Langevin for W. Craig Fugate... 79
Question From Ranking Member Donald M. Payne, Jr. for Robert
David Paulison................................................. 80
Questions From Honorable James R. Langevin for Robert David
Paulison....................................................... 80
THE FUTURE OF FEMA: STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NEXT
ADMINISTRATOR
----------
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response,
and Communications,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Daniel M. Donovan,
Jr. (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Donovan, Rutherford, Garrett,
Payne, Langevin, Watson Coleman, and Rice.
Also present: Representative Jackson Lee.
Mr. Donovan. The Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness,
Response, and Communications will come to order.
The subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on
the efforts necessary to ensure a strong Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement. Before I
do so, I would like to welcome a new Member, a Republican
Member joining our committee. Congressman John Rutherford
represents Florida's 4th Congressional District. He began his
career in law enforcement in 1974--John, that was the year I
graduated high school--most recently serving as sheriff of
Duval County, a position he has held for 12 years.
This hearing is the first in a series that the subcommittee
will hold to consider the future of FEMA. We will use what we
learn at these hearings along with the findings of past
subcommittee work to make recommendations for the next FEMA
administrator, a road map of success, of sorts.
I think Captain Kelenske may have said it best in his
submitted testimony that we must, ``recognize past progress at
FEMA, but embrace innovative approaches for future policy
development.'' That is why we are here today.
We want to hear from you, the practitioners, about what we
need to do to stay on the path of a strong FEMA. What are those
innovative approaches? What is going well at FEMA and should be
continued? What can be improved?
At the heart of issue is leadership. As I discussed with
Secretary Kelly last week, it is vital that the administration
move quickly to appoint a qualified FEMA administrator. We have
already had seven major disasters declared this year. There is
no doubt that FEMA has disaster-tested officials in place to
get the job done, but it is important to install permanent
leadership as soon as possible.
The job requires an experienced emergency manager capable
of navigating the National Preparedness System. For more than a
decade, billions have been invested across the United States to
enhance capabilities and achieve the National Preparedness
Goal. It is to FEMA's credit that such investments are making
the United States stronger and safer in the face of
emergencies. We have an obligation to keep this momentum going.
Hurricane Katrina's devastation in 2005 demonstrated the
significance of FEMA's mission and the failures that can occur
when FEMA is unable to execute it. The Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act of 2006, coupled with effective
leadership at FEMA, strengthened FEMA's capability to lead the
National emergency management efforts. These capabilities are
tested each time the National Response Coordination Center at
FEMA headquarters is activated.
My district in New York City saw first-hand in 2012 the
need for strong Federal, State, and local coordination when
Superstorm Sandy caused wide-spread destruction. It should be
noted that FEMA did make stark improvements from 2005 to 2012,
but challenges still remain. This subcommittee looks forward to
continuing its engagement with FEMA to support continued
progress.
According to the Committee on Homeland Security's Terror
Threat Snapshot, the terrorist threat environment worsened in
2016. The number of home-grown jihadist cases and lone-wolf
attacks continues to surge with attacks ranging from Ohio State
University to Orlando and San Bernardino. FEMA has awarded over
$40 billion in preparedness grants to States and localities
since 2001 to build, sustain, and enhance their capabilities to
protect the public from acts of terrorism and other hazards.
It is important that we ensure resources and training
remain accessible to communities across the country. The
critical importance of these programs and how to continue to
improve them is not lost on this subcommittee.
We truly are a resilient Nation. This is a testament to our
first responders, emergency managers, and community partners at
every level of government and their ability to continually
adapt to ever-changing threats and vulnerabilities. Together,
we can ensure our Nation's continued ability to prevent,
prepare for, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats
and hazards that we face.
Before I yield to the Ranking Member, I would like to ask
unanimous consent to include statements in the record from
stakeholder organizations, including the National Emergency
Management Association, the National Association of Emergency
Medical Technicians, and the International Association of
Emergency Managers.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
Statement of Wendy Smith-Reeve, President, National Emergency
Management Association and National Director, Arizona Department of
Emergency and Military Affairs (DEMA) Emergency Management Division, On
Behalf of the National Emergency Management Association
February 14, 2017
introduction
Thank you Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and distinguished
Members of the subcommittee for allowing me to submit this statement
for the record to discuss the future of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and recommendations for the next FEMA
administrator. My name is Wendy Smith-Reeve and I am the director of
the Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs (DEMA)
Division of Emergency Management and serve as the president of the
National Emergency Management Association (NEMA). NEMA represents the
State emergency management directors of the 50 States, territories, and
District of Columbia. NEMA's members, many of whom serve as Homeland
Security Advisors, are prepared to deal with an ever-changing and
increasingly complex set of challenges that test traditional approaches
to natural and man-made disasters.
As you heard former FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate say throughout
his tenure, emergency management is a ``whole community'' endeavor.
While preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation capabilities are
critical on the Federal level, it is important to emphasize that they
are only a part of the National capability and must supplement, not
supplant robust State and local capacity. The context and environment
in which our system must succeed is constantly evolving and
intersecting with other domains of public health, safety and security.
Climate adaptation, health threats, population migration, advanced
technologies, economic shifts, and many other trends and drivers are
all forcing the emergency management community to adjust, if not
reinvent, its business practices, resource requirements, and focus
areas like never before.
Even so, there remain some constant themes that NEMA cannot
overemphasize as a new administration assumes stewardship of the safety
of our Nation. The next FEMA administrator will have numerous
opportunities to:
build upon foundation of best practices that achieve efficient use of
taxpayer dollars and leverage investments made at all levels of
government
Emergency Management Performance Grants.--States and locals build
capacity and enhance their capability to respond to disasters when they
utilize the Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG). EMPG is the
only source of Federal funding directed to State and local governments
for planning, training, exercises, and key professional expertise for
all-hazards emergency preparedness. Recipients of this grant continue
demonstrating a strong commitment; for every dollar of Federal funds
invested, at least that much is matched by both grantees and sub-
grantees. In the absence of these funds, State and local governments
would struggle to maintain the capabilities necessary to build and
sustain an effective emergency management system. Fiscal year 2015
represented a range of hazards which required an unprecedented amount
of emergency management professionalism and preparedness:
30,275 events required State assets, but did not reach the
level of a gubernatorial declaration
19,415 local and Tribal events were supported using EMPG-
funded staff or assets without State or Federal support.
These numbers include only those incidents in which no Federal
assets were utilized during the response and there was not a
Presidential or emergency declaration. Without a strong and robust
emergency management system at the State, local, and Tribal levels,
many of the 49,690 State and local responses would falter or require
Federal support. Capabilities afforded through EMPG allow these events
to be managed without additional Federal expenditures. Ensuring robust
State and local emergency management programs is the best way to reduce
the Federal cost of disasters.
EMPG funding has remained level since fiscal year 2014, yet
emergency management is being asked to respond to a growing number of
non-traditional events such as the Ebola and Zika viruses,
unaccompanied minors crossing borders, active-shooter incidents, Avian
Flu (HPAI), drought, wildland fires, and water contamination
emergencies. Even for those events in which emergency management is not
the lead agency, their expertise is still required to coordinate the
various response entities. There is a critical need for additional EMPG
funding to ensure the State and local capabilities that have been built
are not only sustained, but are able to grow and adapt to meet the
emerging threats facing our Nation.
EMPG stands as the beacon of Congressional commitment to ensuring
communities and States are better equipped to prepare, mitigate,
respond, and recover from any number of emergencies and disasters.
Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC).--EMAC has played an
important role in facilitating collaboration among States and enabling
them to share resources and capabilities. Established by the States and
ratified by Congress in 1996 (Public Law 104-321), all 50 States, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
have enacted EMAC legislation. Through EMAC, States are able to share
resources with other States during Governor-declared emergencies and
disasters. Resolved upfront are key issues such as tort liability and
immunity, license reciprocity, workers' compensation, and
reimbursement.
State-to-State mutual aid often allows for more timely and cost
effective disaster response than the use of Federal resources. Further,
EMAC is evolving to include virtual missions that can be carried out by
personnel working in their home States rather than deploying into the
disaster area. Examples of virtual EMAC missions include GIS, cyber and
social media monitoring. Virtual mutual aid reduces mission costs
resulting in cost savings to Government. EMAC leverages Federal
emergency management and homeland security grant dollars invested in
State and local capabilities to conduct response and recovery
operations across the Nation. Because of these increased capabilities,
the vast majority of disasters are handled without Federal assistance
and when a State does become overwhelmed, EMAC is available to provide
supplemental support.
Recommendations:
The administration should recognize and continue to enhance
the value of EMAC and incentivize the use of inter-State mutual
aid as an efficient and cost-effective approach to disaster
response, as well as a cost savings to the Federal Government.
encourage investment in resiliency through mitigation and prioritize
risk reduction in all phases of emergency management
Mitigation activities can take many forms and the use of mitigation
programs often differ by region. What does not differ, however, is the
return on investment of these programs. FEMA's mitigation programs have
been effective in reducing the property damage, personal and commercial
hardship, as well as long-lasting monetary burdens. There is
opportunity to shift the business model from reactive to proactive.
Currently 94% of funds allocated to buy down risk happen post-disaster.
Between fiscal year 2011-2014, the Federal Government allocated roughly
$222 million for pre-disaster mitigation as compared to $3.2 billion
for post-disaster mitigation. Shifting away from the current spending
model and towards a system that emphasizes proactive pre-disaster
resilience activities is what demonstrates and promotes resiliency
Nation-wide.
Mitigation is the first and the last step in a jurisdiction's
overall readiness. While many communities have the desire to harden
their infrastructure, they lack the resources and technical ability
necessary to do so. If we are to truly ensure that we are prepared as a
Nation, we must increase our efforts to prepare our built environment
for future disasters by incentivizing and facilitating mitigation. The
best way to reduce the cost of disasters is to design and harden the
built environment to match the threat environment and create continued,
localized resilience. Hazard mitigation is a demonstrably cost-
effective effort with a documented return on investments. Federal
spending, however, does not reflect this priority.
From 2003-2013, FEMA spent $71.2 billion in Public Assistance and
Individual Assistance to help communities recover from disasters. In
that same time period, only $5.2 billion was spent on Hazard Mitigation
Grants to reduce the impact of future events. While the HMGP program is
essential as a component of recovery, mitigation efforts before the
disaster can reduce the physical damage and economic impact of an
event. In addition, Federal investments in mitigation through the Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Grant Program can encourage State and local
communities to make progress in the areas of mitigation planning. These
plans assure communities, large and small, are prepared for to address
risk and manage the influx of grant dollars designed to help rebuild
smarter and safer.
Recommendations:
FEMA, in concert with other critical Federal stakeholders,
must undertake a comprehensive review of Federal statutes,
regulations, and policies most likely to have an impact on
investments (before or after disaster), to identify programs
and grants that could be amended to better incentivize risk
reduction specific to infrastructure and housing.
streamline disaster operations to reduce costs across the federal
family and support efficient and sustainable response and recovery
efforts
Reducing the overall costs of disasters, at all levels of
government, is necessary for the continued economic and social
equilibrium of the Nation. While there continues to be concern from
Congress, OMB, DHS OIG, and others related to the rising number and
cost of disasters, careful study and data-driven action must focus on
the real drivers of cost increases. Simply reducing the total number of
disaster declarations made by the Federal Government may not
significantly bring down the total costs associated with Federally-
declared disasters. Based on data from a House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee hearing in May 2016 (Controlling the Rising
Cost of Federal Responses to Disaster): 25% of all disasters cost more
than $41.8 million and account for 93% of Federal disaster spending,
while 75% of all disasters cost less than $41.8 million and account for
7% of Federal disaster spending. In other words, a quarter of disasters
account for 93% of Federal disaster costs since 1989. This data makes
it clear that following the money and crafting solutions that target
actual cost drivers is paramount.
While the future of the current Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking related to a ``Disaster Deductible'' concept is uncertain,
NEMA has been working actively to assess the impact of the proposal and
identify alternatives that may achieve true cost reduction. National
efforts to reduce the costs of disasters through legislation or
rulemaking must:
Recognize that State, local, and Tribal governments already
handle the vast majority of disasters and emergencies on their
own and without Federal assistance;
Refrain from simply shifting costs from the Federal level to
State, local, and Tribal governments which does not achieve
meaningful disaster cost reduction;
Utilize the best available science and predictive analysis
tools to illustrate data-driven return on investment
calculations;
Provide for transparency and accountability without
increased complexity and administrative burden.
Identify and address the current challenges that exist to
speeding up disaster declarations and breaking down delays in
the request process. These delays cause increases in
administrative costs and can have long-term impacts on
strategic recovery. FEMA should incentivize the adoption of new
technologies, modeling techniques, and predictive analysis to
help get assistance to affected areas quicker.
Recognize and address the disjointed nature of disaster
recovery programs. The sequence of delivery of the numerous
disaster assistance programs across the Federal Government
(HUD, SBA, DOT, etc) can impact the efficiency and
effectiveness of those programs in assisting in long-term
recovery. When communities receive injects of funding from
Federal programs on different time tables, recovery can be
bifurcated and may actually increase costs over time due to
unnecessary delays.
As a Nation, we are currently limited in our ability to take
meaningful action to reduce costs because we lack a reliable awareness
of the total costs borne at all levels of government and across various
agencies in relation to disaster costs. FEMA is not the only agency
that funds disaster response and recovery activities. In 2016, GAO
released a report that says ``during fiscal years 2005 through 2014,
the Federal Government obligated at least $277.6 billion across 17
Federal departments and agencies for disaster assistance programs and
activities.
Recommendation:
The new administrator should, in concert with key Federal
leadership, initiate a study to determine the true costs of
disasters be conducted that captures not only those direct
financial costs borne by FEMA, but also those costs, both
direct and indirect that are paid by other Federal agencies,
State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector.
This should not only account for economic costs related to a
disaster, but the opportunity cost for economic activities that
were impacted by the disaster. Such a study will paint a much
clearer picture of what the true cost of natural and man-made
disasters is to the United States, and allow us to develop a
more comprehensive and ultimately successful program to reduce
those costs.
support practical budgeting solutions that sustain a viable disaster
relief fund (drf) and maintain a focus on state and local response and
recovery activities
The DRF is a no-year account that is used to fund response
activities and pay for on-going recovery programs resulting from
declared major disasters, emergencies, and Fire Management Assistance
Grants (FMAGs). The majority of its funding goes to pay for response to
and recovery from major disasters. The DRF is a critical source of
funding for State and local governments and when funding levels are
inadequate, community recovery can be delayed. Through the Budget
Control Act of 2011 (BCA, Pub. L. 112-25), caps were placed on
discretionary spending for the next 10 years, beginning with fiscal
year 2012. Special accommodations were made in the BCA to address the
unpredictable nature of disaster assistance while attempting to impose
discipline on the amount spent by the Federal Government on disasters.
The BCA created an allowable adjustment specifically to cover disaster
relief separate from emergency appropriations.
The limit established by the BCA on adjustments to the caps for
disaster relief is based on the average funding provided for disaster
relief over the previous 10 years, excluding the highest and lowest
annual amounts, calculated by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). If Congress spends less than that average on disaster relief in
a given fiscal year, the caps can be further adjusted upward by the
unspent amount in the following year. The existence of this ``allowable
adjustment'' for disaster relief has influenced the way that the DRF is
structured, allowing a larger overall funding stream to be provided in
annual appropriations without it counting against the bill's allocation
of discretionary spending.
The methodology used by OMB to calculate the allowable adjustment
may not capture the full range of disaster relief spending, and the
structure of the formula for calculating the average provides smaller
allowable adjustments in future years. The sizeable initial disaster
relief expenditures for Hurricane Katrina and the other 2005 storms
will begin to lose relevance in calculating the allowable adjustment
for disaster assistance for fiscal year 2016, and will no longer impact
calculations for the allowable adjustment in fiscal year 2017. Once
fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 rotate out, there will be a
corresponding drop in the allowable disaster assistance adjustment.
This could put FEMA in the position it often found itself in prior to
2011, waiting for a Congressional supplemental to fund response and
recovery operations for major disasters that exceeded the amount in the
DRF at that time.
In addition to the drop in the allowable adjustment, there is
another pending issue that impacts the DRF. Congress is considering
legislation that would allow other Federal agencies to utilize the
disaster allowable expense cap to pay for their response activities
such as wildfire suppression on Federal land. This could put further
stress on the amount of funding available before requiring a
Congressional supplemental in the event of a major disaster which could
ultimately delay community recovery efforts.
Recommendations:
FEMA must work with Congress and arm them with key data to
illustrate the impacts of the Budget Control Act on the long-
term health of DRF. Congress should consider changing the
formula for calculating the allowable adjustment for the DRF
under the BCA.
FEMA should continue to educate and inform Congress of the
impact of proposed changes to the process for funding Federal
agencies' disaster response efforts outside of the Stafford
Act. Congress should provide direct funding to Federal agencies
to support their emergency response activities rather than
allowing access to the DRF.
continue to support the implementation and evolution of ppd-8
Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-8: National Preparedness
recognizes that preparedness is a shared responsibility. At its core,
PPD-8 requires the involvement of everyone--not just the Government--in
a systematic effort to keep the Nation safe from harm and resilient
when struck by hazards, such as natural disasters, acts of terrorism
and pandemics.
The National Preparedness System (NPS) is a practical and effective
approach to building and sustaining capabilities. State and local
stakeholders were consulted extensively in its development and have
fully implemented into their planning efforts. As the foundation of the
NPS, the Threat Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA)
process informs emergency operations planning, mutual aid agreements,
and hazard mitigation planning. Key stakeholders at the State and local
level have been incorporated into the THIRA process to ensure the full
range of threats and hazards facing communities are addressed. While
not perfect, we believe THIRA and the larger NPS structure has provided
a baseline against which we can now measure progress towards a common
goal. Improvements and tweaks will always be needed to ensure the
process represents and incorporates the best available data and
measures key indicators that communicate the gaps that exist and
progress made over time.
Recommendations:
The administration should support and build upon the
existing National Preparedness Goal and its support components
as they become fully implemented by State and local
governments.
FEMA should engage stakeholders in future updates to ensure
the National Preparedness System is reflective of and supports
the whole community.
heavily engage with congress and the administration in pursuit of a
strong national flood insurance program
In order to address the most common disaster risk and continue to
support community awareness and action around flood risk, FEMA must
continue to review and reform the National Flood Insurance Program.
FEMA must engage Congress and other critical stakeholders to protect
and defend the intent of the NFIP while simultaneously recognizing the
need to explore innovative and unique solutions that complement a
broader strategy of risk reduction and incentives for individual and
community action. We as a Nation must redouble our efforts to design a
system that helps people evaluate their individual risk and plan
accordingly while simultaneously reducing our collective risk.
Without a strong insurance structure, uninsured risk could
skyrocket and the impact will reverberate across various industries
such as the housing market. Uninsured risk is a burden on communities
and stresses local, State, and Federal disaster recovery budgets.
Insurance payments are significantly higher than average Individual
Assistance payments and can help communities recover much faster.
Insurance is a key component of the recovery framework and the role of
insurance in bringing down overall disaster costs cannot be overstated.
The NFIP is in jeopardy of not being able to meet the needs of the
country in recovering from floods. The program is over $23 billion in
debt with no clear path towards solvency. Additionally, enrollment in
the program has declined by nearly 10% over the last several years as
rate changes designed to shore up the program have resulted in policy
holders dropping their coverage. This makes debt settlement even more
unlikely. The NFIP is up for reauthorization by Congress in 2017 and
the program's insolvency must be addressed.
Recommendations:
The administration and Congress should address affordability
and financial stability within the NFIP and work to subsidize
mitigation and risk-reduction activities, not insurance, to
promote safety and affordability.
Encourage participation of the private market without
limiting the success of the NFIP.
understand what works and build off success
A new administration and a new FEMA administrator will certainly
identify activities, reforms, and priorities they wish to pursue that
align with their overall strategic goals. Innovative ideas are always
needed to assure the emergency management community is always moving
forward and incorporating new strategies that best serve communities
around the country. While we still have work to do, FEMA has undertaken
efforts to improve many processes and programs and we hope the new
administrator builds off their success.
The Public Assistance Reengineering is an excellent example
of FEMA working to improve and maximize existing programs.
While it is still too early to determine the effectiveness of
the change, we are pleased with the effort and urge that
similar reforms be considered by other programs that impact our
ability to mitigate, prepare, and recover.
FEMA should continue to build trust and keep open lines of
communication between the State emergency management and
homeland security community and FEMA leadership through honest
dialogue and meaningful interaction and review. FEMA's
willingness to reach out early in the process of policy and
rule development has created a culture of engagement that we
look forward to continuing under a new administrator.
Through their strategic plan, FEMA has made it a priority to
build capability for catastrophic disasters. They have moved
the focus away from being singularly focused on Stafford Act
programs and instead looked at the Nation's resources to
recover. Through the National Disaster Recovery Framework, we
hope to see continued outreach across the Federal family to
leverage all disaster programs to achieve our unified goal of
meaningful recovery that serves the long-term goals of
communities across the country.
conclusion
It's important to acknowledge that increasing the Nation's
preparedness and response capabilities doesn't mean increasing FEMA's
capabilities. Going forward, FEMA should encourage and incentivize
greater investments as States work with one another to reduce the need
for Federal assistance, reduce Federal administrative costs, reduce
property damages, and most importantly save lives.
We appreciate the continued support of this subcommittee to the
emergency management community as we work together in forming new
policies and procedures aimed at making these disasters less impactful
on our communities and constituents. Thank you for the opportunity to
provide testimony for the record.
______
Statement of NAEMT
the importance of ems in preparedness planning
NAEMT believes that emergency medical services (EMS) has a vital
role in the response to all threats to our Nation and is a critical
element in every facet of preparedness planning. These threats include,
but are not limited to, natural disasters, health care crises,
accidental catastrophes, public health emergencies, and acts of
violence. EMS practitioners also serve as an invaluable source of
support to the public and an effective resource for building strong
community resilience. To eliminate the current gaps in our emergency
response network, the EMS community must be provided with:
Inclusion and integration as a primary partner in all
aspects of preparedness planning.
Equitable and stable funding comparable to other partners
within the emergency response network.
Resources and training opportunities to that are accessible
to all EMS providers and EMS organizations.
Background.--The Institute of Medicine (now the National Academies
of Medicine) has noted that EMS is one of five pillars of medical surge
response that are critical elements of a disaster system. EMS must be
well-integrated with the other four pillars, which include hospital
care, public health, out-of-hospital care, and emergency management and
public safety organizations, to create a unified disaster care response
system. An independent or poorly-integrated pillar may delay, deter, or
disrupt medical care delivery during a disaster.
Despite the acknowledgement that EMS is critical in preparedness
planning on all levels, the shortcomings to transform the current
framework into the system envisioned by the Institute of Medicine
remain glaring. The NASEMSO report of January 2015 on EMS domestic
preparedness notes that EMS receives a mere 4 percent of Federal
disaster preparedness funds from the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In
addition, there is no mandate of minimum funding of EMS required for
other organizational recipients of these grant programs. The paucity of
preparedness funding of EMS is a weak link that may result in the
collapse of our emergency response and health care systems during
disaster.
The outreach of EMS within and outside of the medical community and
beyond the confines of an ambulance has repeatedly demonstrated to be
beneficial to the public and to other response organizations. As allied
health care professionals, the evolving utility of the EMS community in
mass vaccination campaigns, rescue task forces, mobile integrated
health care, and other initiatives of prevention, mitigation, and
response serve as undeniable evidence that the pillar of EMS can no
longer be considered ancillary or ignored.
______
Statement of Lanita Lloyd, CEM President, International Association of
Emergency Managers
February 14, 2017
the future of fema: stakeholder recommendations for the next
administrator
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the 6,000 members of the International
Association of Emergency Managers USA, I want to thank you for the
opportunity to submit a statement for the record to help guide the
management and policy decisions of the next FEMA administrator.
Let me start by thanking you and your colleagues on the Homeland
Security Committee for working with IAEM and other stakeholder
organizations last year to incorporate our recommended savings clause
into the Defense Reauthorization legislation. The legislative language
was necessary to ensure the current protections of FEMA's authority to
manage disaster response will be applied to the joint task forces that
the Defense Authorization bill established. Following the disastrous
response to Hurricane Katrina, IAEM and our peer organizations worked
hard to ensure FEMA's responsibility, authority, and capability to
coordinate the Federal Government's response to disasters was restored
and protected from future dismantlement. By including the savings
clause in the Defense Authorization bill, this committee wisely
reaffirmed Congressional commitment to safeguarding these provisions
that have proven to be successful and have enabled FEMA to become the
effective emergency management leader that we all depend upon when
disaster strikes our States and communities.
Local emergency managers are the front line in the battle to
minimize the loss of life and the destruction of property when natural
and man-made disasters occur. We are responsible, day in and day out,
for the development of comprehensive, all-hazards emergency management
programs in our communities. This involves the development of
mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery programs for every
community across the country. However, even with all of the forethought
we put into preparing for crisis, the severity and costs continue to
escalate. We need and rely upon the support of the Federal Government
when our local ability to handle a disaster is overwhelmed by its
magnitude.
At IAEM, we work hard to improve emergency management coordination
at all levels of government, and we are proud of the improvements we
have made, working in conjunction with our Federal partners at FEMA, to
build and develop our emergency management capability and
infrastructure. There is always room for improvement, but we feel
Administrator Fugate--a professional emergency manager with
unquestioned credentials--did a phenomenal job turning the agency
around after Hurricane Katrina. The next administrator, as set forth in
the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, must also be a
professional emergency manager with unquestioned crisis management
credentials and should manage FEMA as a partner with State and local
stakeholders, just as his/her predecessor did.
From the lessons learned in the failed Hurricane Katrina response,
the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act implemented
legislative changes based on the following principles:
1. Consolidate emergency management authority, coordination, and
decision making with emergency management professionals in
FEMA, giving the FEMA administrator the authority to advise the
President directly in times of disaster.
2. Maintain an all-hazards focus on the complete disaster life
cycle--Preparedness, Response, Recovery, and Mitigation.
3. Strengthen and protect FEMA's core response capabilities and
authorities.
IAEM still strongly believes these principles are ironclad, and we
feel all decisions about the future of FEMA should start and end with a
commitment to maintaining the sanctity of all three of these
principles.
I also want to take a moment to briefly highlight a few of our key
policy positions for you to consider as the Homeland Security Committee
works to improve our Nation's emergency response system . . .
Congress should work with President Trump to reinstate the
administrator of FEMA as a designated member of the President's
Cabinet as provided for in Pub. L. 109-295.
The FEMA administrator must have the authority to coordinate
Federal Government disaster response on behalf of the
President, with the elevated role as principal advisor to the
President for emergency management. The authority is critical
for effective disaster management and coordination of the
entire Federal Government.
All functions of the emergency management cycle
(preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation) must remain
intact within FEMA. Duplicate offices should not be created in
other parts of DHS or other Federal agencies.
Congress should protect the use of the Disaster Relief Fund
(DRF) for its intended purpose of providing disaster response
and recovery assistance to State and local governments by
opposing efforts to amend the Stafford Act to allow redirection
of funds to other departments and agencies for Federal
activities.
Congress should continue to build emergency management
capability and infrastructure at the State and local levels by
increasing funding for the Emergency Management Performance
Grant (EMPG) for fiscal year 2018. EMPG, the backbone of local
government emergency management, has been appropriated $350
million annually since fiscal year 2014 and should be increased
as soon as it is feasible to do so. In addition, EMPG is and
should continue to be a separate grant program that should not
be combined with any other grant allocation or application
process.
Congress should increase funding for the Emergency
Management Institute (EMI) to deliver high-quality emergency
management training through EMI's academies. The pending
appropriation for EMI for fiscal year 2017 is $20.5 million,
the same amount as fiscal year 2016.
I thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the
record about the future of FEMA. We at IAEM look forward to working
with you throughout the 115th Congress to further build America's
systems for emergency response.
Mr. Donovan. I would also like to submit my formal
statement for the record.
[The statement of Chairman Donovan follows:]
Statement of Chairman Daniel M. Donovan, Jr.
February 14, 2017
This hearing is the first in a series the subcommittee will hold to
consider the future of FEMA. We will use what we learn at these
hearings, along with the findings from past subcommittee work, to make
recommendations for the next FEMA administrator--a roadmap for success
of sorts.
I think Captain Kelenske may have said it best when he stated in
his written testimony that we must ``recognize past progress [at FEMA],
but embrace innovative approaches for future policy development.''
That's why we're here today. We want to hear from you, the
practitioners, about what we need to do to stay on the path of a strong
FEMA. What are those innovative approaches? What is going well at FEMA
and should be continued? What can be improved?
At the heart of the issue is leadership. As I discussed with
Secretary Kelly last week, it is vital that the administration move
quickly to appoint a qualified FEMA administrator.
We have already had 7 major disaster declarations this year. There
is no doubt that FEMA has disaster-tested officials in place to get the
job done, but it is important to install permanent leadership as soon
as possible. The job requires an experienced emergency manager capable
of navigating the National Preparedness System.
For more than a decade, billions have been invested across the
United States to enhance capabilities and achieve the National
Preparedness Goal. It is to FEMA's credit that such investments are
making the United States stronger and safer in the face of emergencies.
We have an obligation to keep this momentum going.
Hurricane Katrina's devastation in 2005 demonstrated the
significance of FEMA's mission and the failures that can occur when
FEMA is unable to execute it. The Post-Katrina Emergency Management
Reform Act of 2006, coupled with effective leadership at FEMA,
strengthened FEMA's capability to lead National emergency management
efforts. These capabilities are tested each time the National Response
Coordination Center at FEMA headquarters is activated.
My district in New York City saw first-hand in 2012 the need for
strong Federal, State, and local coordination when Superstorm Sandy
caused wide-spread destruction. It should be noted that FEMA did make
stark improvements from 2005 to 2012, but challenges still remain. This
subcommittee looks forward to continuing its engagement with FEMA to
support continued progress.
According the Homeland Security Committee's Terror Threat Snapshot,
the terrorist threat environment worsened in 2016. The number of home-
grown jihadist cases and lone-wolf attacks continues to surge with
attacks ranging from Ohio State University to Orlando and San
Bernardino.
FEMA has awarded over $40 billion in preparedness grants to States
and localities since 2001 to build, sustain, and enhance their
capabilities to protect the public from acts of terrorism and other
hazards. It is important that we ensure resources and training remain
accessible to communities across the country. The critical importance
of these programs and how to continue to improve them is not lost on
this subcommittee.
We truly are a resilient Nation. This is a testament to our first
responders, emergency managers, and community partners at every level
of government and their ability to continually adapt to ever-changing
threats and vulnerabilities. Together, we can ensure our Nation's
continued ability to prevent, prepare for, mitigate, respond to, and
recover from the threats and hazards we face.
Mr. Donovan. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
New Jersey, Mr. Payne, for an opening statement that he may
have.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. Good morning. I would like to thank
Chairman Donovan for holding today's hearing. I look forward to
working with the Chairman to take the feedback we receive at
today's hearing as well as the follow-up hearing later this
month and use it to help FEMA better serve its State and local
partners and disaster survivors.
For the first time in 8 years, FEMA is in transition, and
we are awaiting the nomination of a new administrator. I have
no doubt that FEMA is in capable hands with the interim
administrator, but I am concerned that the Trump administration
has issued Executive Orders that affect the agency's activities
before permanent leadership has been put in place.
For example, Executive Order 13768 on public safety in the
interior of the United States directs DHS to make ineligible
for FEMA grants sanctuary jurisdictions except for law
enforcement purposes. The Executive Order was clearly drafted
without the advice of anyone who has to implement it.
Certainly, a permanent FEMA administrator would have sought
to clarify whether the President meant to block funding to
jurisdictions in need of resources from the Emergency
Management Performance Grant Program, the Assistance to Fire
Fighters Grant Program, the Post-Disaster Public Assistance
Grant Program, or the Post-Disaster Individual Assistance Grant
Program, among others.
In an era of evolving threats, increased weather events,
and stretched budgets, we cannot send our State and local
governments and our first-responder communities into a tailspin
as they try to figure out whether or not the Federal Government
will continue to help them build and maintain preparedness
capabilities.
I would be interested in understanding whether the Trump
administration conducted any outreach to the first-responder
community before or after issuing Executive Order 13768 and how
the uncertainty caused by President Trump's Executive Order is
affecting planning activities.
To keep America safe, prepared, and resilient, the
emergency response community must have a voice in informing the
administration's policies and priorities. I urge the Trump
administration to be inclusive in this regard and to continue
Administrator Fugate's whole-community emphasis on disaster
preparedness.
I invited Save the Children to testify today because too
often the special needs of children are overlooked in disaster
planning activities. Administrator Fugate designated an
individual at FEMA to be the National Advisor on Children and
Disasters to tackle that challenge, but that position has not
formally been authorized.
I am hopeful that the future FEMA administrator will
maintain this position. This period of transition is an
appropriate time to take inventory of the progress FEMA has
made over the past 8 years and to become a more capable
organization and to gather recommendations for the best path
forward.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The statement of Ranking Member Payne follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Donald M. Payne, Jr.
February 14, 2017
I look forward to working with the Chairman to take the feedback we
receive at today's hearing, as well as the follow-up hearing later this
month, and use it to help FEMA better serve its State and local
partners and disaster survivors. For the first time in 8 years, FEMA is
in transition and we are awaiting the nomination of a new
administrator.
I have no doubt that FEMA is in capable hands with the interim
administrator, but I am concerned that the Trump administration has
issued Executive Orders that affect the agency's activities before
permanent leadership has been put in place.
For example, Executive Order 13768 on Public Safety in the Interior
of the United States, directs DHS to make ineligible for FEMA grants
``sanctuary jurisdictions,'' except for ``law enforcement'' purposes.
The Executive Order was clearly drafted without the advice of anyone
who would have to implement it.
Certainly, a permanent FEMA administrator would have sought to
clarify whether the President meant to block funding to jurisdictions
in need of resources from the Emergency Management Performance Grant
program, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, the post-
disaster Public Assistance Grant program, or the post-disaster
Individual Assistance Grant program, among others.
In an era of evolving threats, increased weather events, and
stretched budgets, we cannot send our State and local governments and
first-responder communities into a tailspin as they try to figure out
whether or not the Federal Government will continue to help them build
and maintain preparedness capabilities.
I will be interested in understanding whether the Trump
administration conducted any outreach to the first-responder community
before or after issuing Executive Order 13768, and how the uncertainty
caused by President Trump's Executive Order is affecting planning
activities.
To keep America safe, prepared, and resilient, the emergency-
response community must have a voice in informing the administration's
policies and priorities. I urge the Trump administration to be
inclusive in this regard, and to continue Administrator Fugate's
``whole community'' emphasis on disaster preparedness.
I invited Save the Children to testify today because too often the
special needs of children are overlooked in disaster planning
activities. Administrator Fugate designated an individual at FEMA to be
National Advisor on Children and Disasters to tackle that challenge,
but that position has not been formally authorized. I am hopeful that
the future FEMA administrator will maintain that position.
This period of transition is an appropriate time to take inventory
of the progress FEMA has made over the past 8 years to become a more
capable organization and to gather recommendations for the best path
forward.
Mr. Donovan. The gentleman yields.
Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that opening
statements may be submitted for the record.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
Good morning. I would like to thank Chairman Donovan and Ranking
Member Payne for holding today's hearing.
I thank the witnesses for appearing today.
During the Obama administration, FEMA benefited from the steady
leadership of former Administrator Craig Fugate.
Although there is still work to be done to make FEMA the disaster
response agency that our country needs and our constituents deserve, I
can tell you with confidence that FEMA is a better place than it was 11
years ago when Hurricane Katrina pummeled the Gulf Coast.
While I credit Administrator Fugate with much of the progress FEMA
has made in becoming a more reliable disaster response partner to State
and local governments, I believe that rigorous oversight from this
committee--informed by the emergency response community--helped hold
FEMA accountable.
I can say with certainty that we will continue to hold FEMA's feet
to the fire to ensure that the Trump administration builds upon the
Obama administration's progress.
Although President Trump has not yet nominated a FEMA
administrator, the qualifications and criteria for the position
established by the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act should
provide the administration the guidance necessary to select an
individual equal to the task.
Nevertheless, the new administration has taken some actions whose
implications on first responders are not fully understood.
For example, Executive Order 13768 on Enhancing Public Safety in
the Interior of the United States directs the Department of Homeland
Security to ensure that ``sanctuary jurisdictions'' are ineligible for
Federal grants, except for ``law enforcement'' purposes.
Setting aside the fact that this Executive Order could make some of
our largest cities that are at greatest risk of terrorist attacks
ineligible for grant funds, the sloppy drafting of the Executive Order
also suggests emergency response activities, such as fire suppression,
may be ineligible.
I was a Member of Congress when terrorists struck the Twin Towers
and the Pentagon, and my district is in a State that was devastated by
Hurricane Katrina, so I can tell you with a great degree of confidence
that emergency response is too serious of an issue to be handled
haphazardly.
Additionally, the administration has made conflicting statements
about its plans for the countering violent extremism program, with some
suggesting that the word ``Islamic'' will be integrated into the title.
The rumored title change has reverberated throughout the country
with at least four groups that were awarded funds during the Obama
administration under the Countering Violent Extremism Program saying
they will not accept the grant awards because of the rumored title
change.
To date, the Trump administration has not provided clear answers
about how the implementation of the President's Executive Orders will
impact public safety grantees or its plans for how to refer to efforts
to counter violent extremism.
What is clear is that the Trump administration acted cavalierly and
failed to do outreach to anyone who would be impacted by its actions.
Moving forward, I would hope the Trump administration treats
emergency preparedness and response with the seriousness it deserves.
With that said, I look forward to hearing the witness' thoughts on
the confusion caused by the Executive Orders.
Mr. Payne. Mr. Chair? I ask unanimous consent that Sheila
Jackson Lee be permitted to participate in today's hearing.
Mr. Donovan. Yes, without objection.
Welcome.
We are pleased to have a very distinguished panel before us
today on this important topic. Captain Chris Kelenske serves as
the deputy state director of emergency management and homeland
security and deputy homeland security adviser for the State of
Michigan. As such, he is responsible for the State-wide
management and administration of emergency management and
homeland security programs as well as the supervision of the
division's employees. The captain chairs the Michigan Homeland
Security Advisory Council, the Homeland Security Preparedness
Committee, and the Michigan Citizen Community Emergency
Response Coordinating Council. He is testifying today on behalf
of the National Governors Association and the Governors
Homeland Security Advisers Council.
Welcome, Captain. Thank you for your service.
Chief John Sinclair serves as the fire chief of Kittitas
Valley--and I know I said that wrong, Chief, and they
phonetically spelled it for me--Valley Fire Rescue and
emergency manager for the city of Ellensburg, Washington. Chief
Sinclair represents the fire service on the National EMS
Advisory Council. Chief Sinclair is the president and chairman
of the board of the International Association of Fire Chiefs
and he is testifying in that capacity today.
Thank you for your service, and thank you for coming today,
Chief.
Mr. Richard Bland, who is a New Yorker, welcome, serves as
the national director of policy, advocacy, and development at
Save the Children. Prior to joining Save the Children, Mr.
Bland served in positions at the YMCA and with Senator Daniel
Patrick Moynihan.
Welcome.
The witnesses' full, recorded statements will appear in the
record. The Chair now recognizes Captain Kelenske for a 5-
minute opening statement.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN CHRIS A. KELENSKE, DEPUTY STATE DIRECTOR/
COMMANDER, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND HOMELAND SECURITY, MICHIGAN
STATE POLICE, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS
ASSOCIATION
Captain Kelenske. Good morning, Chairman Donovan, Ranking
Member Payne, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee. It
is my honor to appear before you today.
My name is Captain Chris Kelenske, and I serve as the
deputy state director of emergency management and homeland
security and deputy homeland security adviser to Michigan
Governor Rick Snyder.
I appear before you today on behalf of the Nation's
Governors and their homeland security advisers. My testimony
today will offer recommendations for how the next administrator
of FEMA can succeed in his or her role. Specifically, I am
going to focus on the State/Federal partnership in disaster
preparedness and response, the need for dedicated Federal
investments in homeland security and emergency management, and
issues on the horizon facing the next administrator.
I would like to summarize my remarks and ask that my full,
written testimony be submitted for the record.
Emergency management is a shared responsibility between
States, localities, and the Federal Government. Governors are
charged with the safety and security of the residents within
their borders, and the FEMA administrator plays a critical role
in shaping the direction of National emergency management
efforts.
The new FEMA administrator should establish a strong
relationship with Governors to honor this shared responsibility
and recognize the role of the State. This relationship may be
further developed through organizations, such as the National
Governors Association, NGA, and the Governors Homeland Security
Advisors Council.
Another way the new FEMA administrator may demonstrate
commitment to the State/Federal partnership is ensuring that
Federal grant programs for States remain fully funded. The
Homeland Security Grant Program, HSGP, and the Emergency
Management Performance Grant, EMPG, assists States and
localities in developing capabilities that have a shared
Federal benefit.
These capabilities have supported disaster response efforts
and thwarted potential terrorist attacks. Any reduction in
Federal funding for these programs could jeopardize the
effectiveness of our Nation's disaster preparedness and
response.
Grant reform is necessary to sustaining progress and
building capacity to address new threats. Governors continue to
support comprehensive grant reform and have developed
principles to help guide the new administrator and Congress in
developing those efforts. Governors believe that any reform
should create a program that is sustainable, flexible, and
risk-based.
As FEMA seeks to reduce costs for disasters, the next
administrator will determine how to proceed with the disaster
deductible concept. Governors share the Federal Government's
role of reducing costs of disasters. However, it is imperative
that the new deductible concept does not result in a cost shift
to the States. Governors are already investing in activities to
reduce the overall risk and costs of disasters. FEMA should
look to the States for innovative solutions.
Another challenge awaiting the next FEMA administrator is
the emerging threat of cybersecurity. The next administrator
should work with the Secretary of Homeland Security to clarify
FEMA's role in cyber incident response. Significant time and
effort have been made by State, local, and Federal officials to
establish solid frameworks that can serve as a guide in the
event of a cyber incident. The next FEMA administrator should
utilize these existing frameworks to ensure National emergency
management policies remain consistent.
Separately, Governors have dedicated significant time and
resources to combat this growing threat. For example, in 2011
Michigan Governor Rick Snyder introduced the Michigan Cyber
Initiative to encourage a State-wide effort among public and
private partners to defend Michigan's critical networks. Under
that initiative, Michigan created the Cyber Response Strategy
in 2013 and later implemented the Michigan Cyber Disruption
Plan in 2015.
Nation-wide, Governors are working to address this critical
issue. Under the leadership of Michigan Governor Rick Snyder
and former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, NGA created the
Resource Center for State Cybersecurity which has helped bring
this issue to the forefront across the Nation.
Governor Snyder's continued focus on cybersecurity from a
State, National, and international perspective, along with the
NGA chair and Resource Center co-chair, Virginia Governor Terry
McAuliffe's initiative, ``Meet the Threat: States Confront the
Cybersecurity Challenge,'' States have received increased
guidance on how to tackle cybersecurity challenges in numerous
areas to include emergency management.
As our Nation continues to face severe weather events and
other emerging threats, FEMA will need sound leadership at both
the National and regional level to oversee National emergency
management activities. Governors are vested in the success of
the FEMA administrator and look forward to working with
whomever assumes that role.
On behalf of the National Governors Association and the
Governors Homeland Security Advisers Council, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. I welcome any questions the
subcommittee Members may have.
[The prepared statement of Captain Kelenske follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris A. Kelenske
February 14, 2017
Thank you, Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee for allowing me to appear in
front of you today to discuss the future of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). My name is Captain Chris Kelenske and I serve
as the deputy State director of emergency management and homeland
security and deputy homeland security advisor for Michigan Governor
Rick Snyder. I am here today on behalf of the National Governors
Association (NGA) and the Governors Homeland Security Advisors Council
(GHSAC).
The NGA is the bipartisan organization of the Nation's Governors.
Through the NGA, Governors share best practices, speak with a
collective voice on National policy, and develop innovative solutions
that improve State government and support the principles of
Federalism.\1\ The GHSAC serves as a forum for Governors' principal
homeland security advisors from each State, commonwealth, and
territory. The GHSAC's mission is to provide a unified voice on
National homeland security policy, keep Governors abreast of the
current threat environment and Federal homeland security legislation,
and share best practices. My testimony today will focus on three goals
the next administrator of FEMA should strive to achieve. These goals
are maintaining strong State-Federal partnerships, supporting State and
local grant programs fully, and embracing innovative solutions to both
emerging and chronic emergency management challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``About,'' National Governors Association, accessed February 7,
2017, https://www.nga.org/cms/about.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency management has made significant improvements in the last
decade. Since Hurricane Katrina, the all-hazards, whole-community
approach to disasters resolved many of the devastating consequences
realized during the Hurricane Katrina response effort. Both States and
the Federal Government have committed vast resources to institute sound
preparedness, response, and recovery activities to minimize the impact
of disasters. Governors are committed to seeing these efforts continue
for years to come and believe the next FEMA administrator is
instrumental in achieving that goal.
Governors have a vested interest in having a strong FEMA
administrator who respects the role and authority of States in
disasters and recognizes past achievements. Equally important,
Governors want a FEMA administrator who encourages a collaborative
approach to emergency management and not one that imposes strict,
burdensome mandates on States.
The next administrator will set the direction of emergency
management for the next decade. Whomever inherits the role must sustain
momentum built to improve emergency management activities across all
levels of government. For the next administrator to be successful, he/
she should:
Embrace States as key partners in emergency management;
Align investments to better match current threats, hazards,
and capability gaps; and
Recognize past progress, but embrace innovative approaches
for future policy development.
embrace states as key partners
States are the linchpin for emergency management activities. The
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act places
the responsibility of requesting Federal assistance on the Governor, a
responsibility that underscores the essential role of the State.
Governors and their key advisors also serve as a connective node to
local government, Federal Government, nongovernmental, and private-
sector officials. FEMA can use this knowledge base and rely on the
State as a resource when working with communities.
Yet, FEMA has not reached out to States consistently in the past.
Instead FEMA has reached out to specific communities without consulting
the Governor or State emergency manager. Direct outreach to local
officials with limited or no State involvement can cause FEMA to miss
larger contextual issues. Local governments have the specific and
nuanced context for their individual communities, but Governors have an
enterprise-wide, holistic view of the State emergency management
operation. FEMA should consult with Governors to understand the broader
impact of Federal investments and the investments smaller communities
make on the overall State preparedness picture. Not engaging State
officials alongside local representatives can undermine emergency
response efforts and shift resources away from where they are needed
most. The next administrator needs to recognize that the State plays a
critically important intermediary role between the Federal and local
governments. FEMA must ensure that State officials are present in
disaster response and recovery activities so that they have maximum
effect for the State. Similarly, the next administrator should
understand the consequence of not working through the State is less
effective emergency management.
The partnership between FEMA and the States has improved
dramatically in the last decade. Not only with leadership at FEMA
headquarters but also with the regional offices. Governors want to see
this partnership continue to thrive under the new administrator. The
next FEMA administrator can accomplish this goal by continuing to
engage with Governors often and early. State stakeholder groups such as
the NGA and the GHSAC provide a platform for the administrator to use.
These forums allow the administrator to learn about State concerns and
provide consistent and timely responses. Additionally, this engagement
enables States to provide direct feedback on FEMA policy and planning
documents early in the process.
In the past, FEMA has not meaningfully engaged with States in
policy making and any engagement has occurred late in the process.
Recently, FEMA has actively solicited State feedback. Governors want to
see this outreach continue as it offers them the ability to provide
detailed and thoughtful analysis that FEMA may incorporate into their
policies. Ensuring that Governors' voices are reflected in FEMA's
policymaking process will demonstrate that the new administrator values
the State-Federal partnership and will actively work to support it.
align investments better to current threats, hazards, and capability
gaps
States, locals, and the Federal Government have spent billions of
dollars through the FEMA grant programs to ensure all levels of
government are prepared for any event. Those grants have helped States
and localities build capabilities such as emergency communication
networks and information-sharing networks like the National network of
fusion centers. State and local capabilities have a Nation-wide
benefit. They help build capacity and resources that the Federal
Government does not have to build itself but can rely on in the event
of a crisis. Because State and local capabilities are in place the
Federal Government may focus efforts on more critical gaps and
vulnerabilities.
Over the past several years, cuts to Federal grant programs for
States have made it difficult to sustain progress and build new
capabilities. Moreover, these cuts have come at a time of new, emerging
threats, such as home-grown violent extremism and cyber network
breaches. While Federal expectations of States have increased to
accommodate these new threats, there has been no increase in Federal
financial support, reflecting a lack of meaningful Federal assistance.
This dichotomy highlights foundational issues and inefficiencies within
the current grant structure. The homeland security grant program (HSGP)
is a prime example of this issue.
Created in the wake of the September 11 attacks to prevent a
similar attack from occurring, the HSGP has remained unchanged since
its inception. At its peak, the program consisted of almost 20
different grant programs intended to address a very narrow, specific
threat. While some consolidation of programs has occurred over time,
the HSGP remains an amalgamation of many different priorities. That
structure along with decreased funds and increased responsibilities
have stressed the program's limits and highlighted inefficiencies that
include burdensome administrative requirements and redundancies. In its
current form, States struggle to utilize the HSGP to sustain existing
capabilities and build new ones simultaneously. More importantly, the
funding restrictions on how and what grant recipients may use the funds
toward creates significant difficulty for States to adjust activities
to match the current threat environment.
Reform is necessary to ensure the long-term viability of the HSGP
and maintain the Nation's homeland security. The HSGP requires a more
flexible framework that is adaptable to a dynamic threat environment.
This will allow States to act more nimbly and focus on capabilities
that match current threats. The next administrator should work with
States and Congress to identify ways to reform the HSGP. Governors
support comprehensive grant reform and have developed principles to
help guide those efforts. As outlined in NGA's recommendations for the
new administration, any ``reform should focus on creating a sustainable
funding program that eliminates inefficiencies, provides greater
flexibility, streamlines administrative requirements and prioritizes
outcomes that reduce risk and improve overall preparedness, response,
and recovery.''\2\ Federal grants for homeland security and emergency
management activities are an efficient way to build capabilities
Nation-wide and reduce overall expenditures, which provides a return on
investment to the Federal Government. States and locals respond to
numerous disasters without Federal support. In 2016, States responded
to more than 30,000 disasters without requesting a Stafford Act
declaration.\3\ These capabilities are possible because the Federal
grant programs help States establish core functions to handle the less
extreme events so the Federal Government can focus on responding to the
catastrophic events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``We the States: Governors' Recommendations for President
Trump,'' National Governors Association, accessed February 7, 2017,
https://resources.nga.org/cms/wetheStates/hsps.html.
\3\ ``Recommendations for Strengthening National Emergency
Management Programs,'' National Emergency Management Association,
accessed February 7, 2017, https://www.nasemso.org/Projects/
DomesticPreparedness/documents/NEMA-Recommendations-for-Strengthening-
National-EM-Programs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions in Federal grant funding will further erode State and
local capabilities. Moreover, reductions in Federal funding jeopardize
State investments in emergency management activities. For example, the
Emergency Management Preparedness Grant Program requires States to
match Federal investments dollar for dollar. Similarly, the Emergency
Management Assistance Compact (EMAC)--the interstate agreement for
mutual aid--allows States to share resources among each other. EMAC
supports the notion of regional assets and capabilities, which allows
States to lean on each other rather than on the Federal Government.
Both these examples demonstrate State-owned resources such as
personnel, funding, and equipment to support emergency management
functions. Although FEMA supports these programs through yearly
appropriations, States bear the brunt of the responsibility for
implementation.
On-going, dedicated Federal support is crucial to ensure States and
localities have sufficient capacity to handle more routine disasters.
Governors and the Federal Government share the responsibility of
ensuring the safety and security of the citizens of the country. States
have continued to respond efficiently to disasters even with decreased
Federal support. However, States cannot maintain the status quo
indefinitely. The next FEMA administrator must ensure that States and
localities receive dedicated, on-going funding commensurate with the
level of Federal expectations and requirements. Without it, the
Nation's overall preparedness will suffer and progress made squandered.
recognize past progress, but embrace innovative approaches for future
policy development
FEMA's recent history serves as an important guide for the next
administrator. Following Hurricane Katrina, States, localities, and the
Federal Government implemented reforms to emergency management
activities to emphasize all-hazards planning among all levels of
government, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. FEMA
spent time, effort, and manpower to develop a new, comprehensive
emergency management foundation. These reforms have led to the creation
of standards for incident response that previously did not exist or
were executed inconsistently. For example, the National Incident
Management System (NIMS) provides the whole community with an approach
to manage the after-effects of disasters in a collaborative and
consistent way. Previously, no true standard existed. NIMS provides
that standard and helps identify what progress has been made and what
challenges remain.
The development of the National Preparedness Goal and the National
Preparedness System (NPS) has helped to deepen those efforts. Having a
vision for preparedness and defined Nation-wide capabilities necessary
to meet that goal helps to establish expectations. Improvements to the
NPS may be necessary, however States have spent considerable time and
effort to contribute and align policies to the NPS. States want to
continue those efforts, improve upon them, and ensure the NPS thrives
in the long-term. The next administrator should view items like the
NIMS and the NPS as foundational to FEMA and ensure the Secretary of
Homeland Security fully understands FEMA's capabilities and position
within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. A Federal commitment
to honor these programs will demonstrate to Governors that the
administrator recognizes past progress and wants to make further
advancements.
The existing emergency management system has made impressive
progress. However, more opportunities for improvement exist. For
example, the Threat Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (THIRA) and
State Preparedness Report (SPR) created under the NPS are still
evolving and require additional fine tuning. States need further
clarity on how THIRA and SPR inform FEMA's threat picture and what
effect, if any, that has on the allocation of financial resources and
other types of support to States.
Previous gains are at risk of regression or neglect. The next
administrator will have a profound role in steering the future course
of emergency management, which will require innovative approaches.
However, that must be balanced with the need for change to improve
outcomes versus the desire for change solely for the sake of change.
Several areas that will require innovative solutions from FEMA include:
Public Assistance Changes.--Proposed changes to the public
assistance program, specifically, the disaster deductible,
represent a cultural shift in emergency management. Governors
appreciate the goal of trying to reduce risk and overall costs.
Governors, like the Federal Government, want to be good
stewards of Federal investments. However, this concept will
require time for States to fully understand the intended and
potentially unintended adverse consequences. In the initial
rollout, Governors appreciated FEMA's outreach for feedback.
Governors also encouraged FEMA ``to maintain the current
threshold requirements without imposing additional financial
burdens on State and local governments through a
deductible.''\4\ Many questions remain about the proposal and
it is unclear whether the deductible can achieve its primary
goal to improve disaster outcomes. Therefore, the next
administrator should take careful consideration in moving
forward and consider how the concept will affect States in the
short and long term. NGA will review the revised notice and
provide additional feedback on behalf of the Nation's
Governors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Nixon, Jay and Hutchinson, Asa, FEMA Disaster Deductible
Concept, National Governors Association, https://www.nga.org/cms/home/
Federal-relations/nga-letters/homeland-security_public-safety/col2-
content/main-content-list/fema-disaster-deductible-concept.html (March
21, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cybersecurity.--The Nation's cyber networks are vulnerable
to attack from both State and non-State actors. States own a
great deal of personal identifiable information and have
witnessed the theft of those records in Utah and South
Carolina. Additionally, the increasing reliance on the internet
for everyday functions has created additional vulnerabilities
to essential industries, such as finance, health care, and
energy. Under the leadership of Michigan Governor Rick Snyder
and former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, NGA created the
Resource Center for State Cybersecurity, which has helped bring
this issue to the forefront across the Nation. Governor
Snyder's continued focus on cybersecurity from a State,
National, and international perspective, along with NGA Chair
and Resource Center co-chair Virginia Governor Terry
McAuliffe's initiative Meet the Threat: States Confront the
Cybersecurity Challenge, States have received increased
guidance on how to tackle cybersecurity challenges in numerous
areas to include emergency management. The possibility of a
cyber breach with significant physical and non-physical
consequences to States is real. What remains unclear is what
Federal support, if any, States would receive from FEMA if the
damage exceeds State capabilities. In addition to reforming the
HSGP to help States build the necessary capabilities to prepare
for cyber incidents, FEMA should clarify the use and
application of the Stafford Act for both disasters with
physical consequences and those without.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``We the States: Governors' Recommendations for President
Trump.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disaster Relief Fund.--The disaster relief fund (DRF) allows
FEMA to ``direct, coordinate, manage, and fund eligible
response and recovery efforts associated with domestic major
disasters and emergencies that overwhelm State resources'' as
allowed under the Stafford Act.\6\ This fund ensures FEMA can
provide adequate relief to States and localities affected by
disasters. However, recent attempts to make the fund available
for other purposes outside of its original scope, such as
wildfire suppression activities on Federal lands, threaten its
core mission and availability for emergencies. Any expansive
use of the DRF outside the scope of the Stafford Act may have
an adverse impact on disaster response by slowing down
activities and preventing States from accessing critical
resources. Governors believe in the importance of the DRF and
want to ensure it serves its intended purpose. The FEMA
administrator should work to preserve the fund for State and
local emergency management response and recovery as well as
encourage other agencies to work with Congress to identify
alternative resources to meet their needs to the fullest extent
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Disaster Relief Fund: Monthly Report,'' Federal Emergency
Management Agency, last updated January 25, 2017, https://www.fema.gov/
media-library/assets/documents/31789.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disaster Resiliency.--Disasters have increased in severity
and frequency in recent years, resulting in an increase in
disaster costs. Congress has charged FEMA with identifying ways
to reduce those costs. Simultaneously, States--who share in
disaster expenditures--are working to bolster resiliency, a
mission made more challenging because of the Nation's aging
infrastructure. Congress should include resiliency as a factor
in any proposals to improve the Nation's infrastructure to
ensure our vital structures can withstand future disasters.
FEMA should look to the States for innovative resiliency solutions.
For example, the Colorado Governor's Office of Recovery and Resiliency
has developed a resiliency framework that analyzes changing risks and
vulnerabilities and guides long-term resiliency investments. New Jersey
established an energy resilience bank (ERB) that supports the
development of distributed energy resources at critical facilities so
that they remain operational in future outages. The financing provided
in the ERB will help to incentivize the implementation of resiliency
solutions and minimize the impact of future major power outages caused
by severe weather or man-made events.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Reinert, Greg and Pellerin, Virginia, ``NJ Energy Resilience
Bank Now Accepting Applications,'' New Jersey Board of Public
Utilities, October 20, 2014, http://www.State.nj.us/bpu/newsroom/
announcements/pdf/20141020_erb_press.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency management is constantly evolving and must quickly adapt
to new threats and hazards. The next administrator will be responsible
for shaping our Nation's emergency management priorities. The Nation's
Governors are committed supporting that effort and stand ready to
assist.
I look forward to working with the next administrator and welcome
additional dialog with subcommittee Members concerning the importance
of maintaining a robust National emergency management system. Thank you
again for the opportunity to appear in front of you today. I welcome
any questions you may have.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you for your testimony, Captain.
The Chair now recognizes Chief Sinclair for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHIEF JOHN SINCLAIR, FIRE CHIEF, KITTITAS VALLEY
FIRE AND RESCUE (WA), PRESIDENT AND CHAIR OF THE BOARD,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS (IAFC), TESTIFYING ON
BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS
Chief Sinclair. Good morning, Chairman Donovan, Ranking
Member Payne, and Members of the subcommittee. I am John
Sinclair, fire chief of Kittitas Valley Fire and Rescue
Department in Ellensburg, Washington. I am also the president
and chairman of the board of the International Association of
Fire Chiefs. I thank you for the opportunity to testify today
about the future of FEMA. The Nation's fire and EMS departments
are FEMA's partners during National emergencies. We provide the
resources to help communities respond and recover. We also rely
upon FEMA's training and grant programs to respond to all
hazards.
The IAFC believes that the President should appoint an
experienced fire service leader or emergency manager as
administrator. As experienced leaders, both Dave Paulison and
Craig Fugate transformed FEMA into a more proactive
organization. We urge the President to appoint an experienced
FEMA leadership team soon. Included on this team would be a
U.S. fire administrator who can follow in Chief Ernie
Mitchell's exemplary recent service.
Across the Nation, local fire and EMS departments respond
to a multitude of threats. As a local fire chief, I must
prepare for fires, medical emergencies, earthquakes, wildland
fires, landslides, flooding, and the potential for a mass
casualty event. With limited budgets, fire and EMS departments
must prioritize training, equipment purchases, staffing, and
exercises to meet these missions.
The fire and emergency service needs FEMA's help in
identifying risks, prioritizing threats, and preparing to meet
them. FEMA must work with DHS, the FBI, and the intelligence
community to get vital threat information to local fire chiefs.
This information should be actionable, written with the local
fire chief in mind as an audience, and unclassified.
Programs like NCTC's Joint Counterterrorism Assessment Team
and the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis provide
essential information to local first responders. Also, FEMA's
grants fund intelligence fusion centers which must provide
critical information to local fire departments. In addition,
the U.S. Fire Administration can provide specific training to
help fire and EMS departments integrate intelligence into their
preparedness programs.
FEMA should continue to maintain the National Preparedness
Goal and the National Preparedness System. The IAFC is pleased
to see that fire management and suppression was added as a core
capability in a recent National Preparedness Goal revision.
In support of the NPG, FEMA must ensure a strong National
mutual aid system in the face of tight National budgets. A
robust mutual aid system is a cost-effective way to protect our
citizens' lives and property. However, local fire departments
bear the cost of these inter-State deployments until they are
reimbursed. FEMA must ensure that fire departments are
reimbursed in a timely manner.
FEMA can take other steps to maintain the National
Preparedness System. It should work with FirstNet and the DHS
Office of Emergency Communications to improve our public safety
communications capability. In addition, FEMA should support
efforts to build State-wide mutual aid systems that can
effectively complement the EMAC during National emergencies.
FEMA's grant programs are critical foundations of the
National Preparedness System. Federal grants like the UASI and
SHSGP program bring Federal, State, and local emergency
response organizations together to train and plan for potential
acts of terrorism.
FEMA grants also support a regional response framework that
can mobilize resources quickly and effectively during a
terrorist attack. We request that Congress reject cuts to these
programs for fiscal year 2017.
The IAFC is concerned about the effects of the President's
recent Executive Order regarding sanctuary jurisdictions. The
IAFC board has not adopted a position on this issue of
sanctuary cities; however, we are concerned that major
metropolitan fire and EMS departments might lose eligibility
for FEMA grants if they are in designated sanctuary
jurisdictions.
We recommend that the President and Congress extend the
current law enforcement exception to include all public safety
organizations. The fire and SAFER grants programs also support
National preparedness systems. These matching grant programs
directly help fire departments develop their baseline emergency
response capabilities. For example, I have used AFG grants to
replace old bunker gear and SCBAs. The fire and SAFER grant
programs face a statutory sunset next year. We urge Congress to
reauthorize these programs for an additional 5 years.
We would also ask Congress to reauthorize the U.S. Fire
Administration. This agency provides important leadership and
training for local fire departments. We request $44 million for
USFA in fiscal year 2017.
Finally, I would like to emphasize the IFCA's support for
an enhanced mitigation for FEMA. We ask Congress to pass
legislation that will bolster our Nation's pre-disaster and
post-disaster mitigation efforts. We want to work with this
committee, the administration to help make America safe. Thank
you very much.
[The prepared statement of Chief Sinclair follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Sinclair
February 14, 2017
Good morning, Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and Members
of the subcommittee. I am Chief John Sinclair, fire chief of the
Kittitas Valley Fire and Rescue department in Ellensburg, Washington
and president and chairman of the Board of the International
Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC). The IAFC represents approximately
12,000 leaders of the Nation's fire, rescue, and emergency services.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify about the future of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
From a stakeholder's perspective, FEMA faces a number of major
challenges. Overall, the costs and severity of disasters continues to
increase. Meanwhile, the variety of hazards that the Nation faces
continues to escalate. In my State, I have to prepare for earthquakes,
wildland fires, landslides, and flooding, and the risk of a mass
casualty event. FEMA has to address all of these issues--and more--in a
tight budgetary environment.
The Nation's fire and emergency services are important partners of
FEMA and consumers of critically important FEMA programs. The local
fire department is an all-hazards response force that must provide fire
suppression; Emergency medical response; hazardous materials response;
multi-casualty/civil unrest/terrorism response; urban search and
rescue; train derailment response; and technical, high-angle, swift
water, building collapse, confined space and deep trench rescue. Most
fire departments are tied closely to their communities. In some cases,
the local fire department serves as the closest thing to government
that provides service to them, their families, and their friends.
When States request mutual aid assistance, local fire departments
provide the fire apparatus, firefighters, paramedics (and an array of
other specialized resources) that arrive on scene. In addition, when an
incident occurs, the local fire department usually is the first agency
on scene and the last to leave during the recovery period.
From our perspective, FEMA must address a number of challenges in
the future. They can be addressed along the framework of improving
information sharing; strengthening the National Preparedness System;
supporting Federal efforts to improve public safety communications; and
supporting mitigation efforts.
First of all, the IAFC would like to see experienced leaders with
fire and emergency service leadership and emergency management
experience appointed to leadership positions at FEMA and the U.S. Fire
Administration. Both of the last two FEMA administrators, R. David
Paulison and W. Craig Fugate, were able to transform the agency based
on their experiences at the local and State levels. The Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act (Pub. L. 109-295) set specific
requirements for the FEMA administrator, including a ``demonstrated
ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland
security'' and at least 5 years of management experience. The IAFC
recommends that the FEMA administrator, the deputy administrator, any
assistant administrators, and the U.S. fire administrator all meet
these criteria. The FEMA leadership also should understand the roles of
State and local partners during National emergencies. It is important
to have experienced leaders who are ready to respond to the various
National challenges on Day 1.
information sharing
Local fire chiefs need help in deciding how to focus resources to
prepare for the most serious risks to their community. Effective
information sharing between Federal, State, Tribal/territorial and
local partners is a key component to this challenge. FEMA grants, such
as the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) and the State Homeland
Security Grant program (SHSGP), support funding for intelligence fusion
centers and planning and exercise efforts. These efforts play an
important role in addressing this dilemma, but much work remains to be
done.
Fire chiefs still struggle to get actionable intelligence from
their fusion centers. While there is a greater quantity of information
flowing among the different intelligence partners, it can be focused
more on quantity than quality. Information may be more law enforcement-
focused or include extraneous Classified information. Fire chiefs need
to receive information that is written from a fire and emergency
medical services (EMS) perspective and that only includes the tactics,
techniques, and procedures that they may face, so that the fire and
emergency service community can develop and implement the
countermeasures necessary to save lives. In addition, it would help to
have an estimated prioritization of the risk that the local
jurisdiction might face.
There are solutions to this dilemma. The U.S. Department of
Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) is more
focused today on working with local partners representing all of the
law enforcement and emergency response disciplines. The National
Counterterrorism Center's Joint Counterterrorism Assessment Team brings
local first responders to the Washington area as fellows to help
produce intelligence products targeted to local first responders as an
audience.
FEMA and the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) can work with I&A to
ensure that intelligence products meet the needs of local fire and EMS
responders. In addition, USFA can provide classes at the National Fire
Academy (NFA) to educate local fire and EMS personnel about the
intelligence community, how to handle Classified and Sensitive
information, and how to incorporate this information into planning,
training, and exercises. FEMA also should ensure that grantees are
meeting the funding requirements for fusion centers by ensuring that
fire and EMS personnel are represented at State and local fusion
centers.
Fire and EMS departments have important responsibilities as
information-sharing partners. They must take part in the ``See
Something, Say Something'' campaign and the Nation-wide Suspicious
Activity Reporting Initiative. They also must make sure that their
personnel are trained to report suspicious activity appropriately. Most
importantly, fire and EMS departments must start incorporating the
intelligence and information-sharing disciplines into their promotion
and career-track systems. Fire chiefs must ensure that their
departments are engaged and actively participating with their fusion
centers. Finally, fire and EMS departments should be using intelligence
and threat and risk information continuously to guide their planning,
training, and exercises.
the national preparedness system
The IAFC is very supportive of the National Preparedness Goal (NPG)
and its role in guiding the National Preparedness System. The Federal,
State, Tribal/territorial, and local agencies all have important roles
to play in the complex requirements to protect the American public. The
IAFC particularly was pleased to see that Fire Management and
Suppression was added recently as a Core Capability in the NPG.
As FEMA continues to develop and revise the NPG, it must begin to
explain how the NPG relates to local first responders. The Threat and
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) should help drive the
requirements of the NPG down to the State and local levels. Across the
Nation, fire and EMS departments are participating more in the THIRA
process.
Information sharing is a critical component of the THIRA process,
because Federal, State, and local intelligence assessments should be
driving how threats are prioritized and critical infrastructure is
identified. As States use THIRAs to identify risks and capabilities and
allocate resources, the THIRA's analysis should be transparent and easy
for local fire chiefs to comprehend. A fire chief should be able to
access his or her State's THIRA and understand how threats and risks
are prioritized and how resources are allocated to build capabilities
to address these threats and risks.
In order for the National Preparedness System to remain effective,
fire and EMS departments must be reimbursed in a timely manner for
inter-State mutual aid deployments. When a State requests fire and
rescue response through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact
(EMAC), local communities send their firefighters and apparatus to
respond. These costs are borne by the communities until they are
reimbursed. If a community has to wait years for reimbursement through
the complicated Federal/State process, local leaders will face fiscal
challenges requiring them to stretch budgets; raise taxes; or take on
debt until the community finally is reimbursed. FEMA should be directed
to review the reimbursement process for mutual aid deployments to
ensure that local communities are reimbursed in a timely manner.
An effective mutual aid system is essential to the National
Preparedness System. Every day, local communities use mutual aid
agreements between neighboring communities to provide emergency
response at incidents. These incidents can include large fires,
hazardous materials spills, major traffic accidents, or any other type
of emergency incident. Many major States, like Illinois and California,
have proven State-wide mutual aid systems. FEMA should continue to work
with the IAFC and the States to ensure that they have strong fire and
EMS mutual aid systems. These State-wide systems can help to provide
resources effectively as the States request and provide aid through
interState compacts or the EMAC system. Having strong mutual aid
systems in place is not only cost-effective, it is essential to the
preservation of life and property.
In addition, FEMA must continue to ensure that Federal, State, and
local response agencies continue to utilize the National Incident
Management System (NIMS). FEMA revised NIMS last year, and States are
now expected to develop an alternate set of protocols and training
curricula to align with the new National standards. The FEMA
administrator should ensure that these NIMS revisions remain consistent
with the Incident Command System, and that the State emergency
operations centers are able to interoperate with the first responders
in the field.
grants
In discussing the National Preparedness System, it is important to
discuss FEMA's grant programs. The Assistance to Firefighters Grant
(AFG) program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response
(SAFER) grant program provide matching grants to local jurisdictions
for equipment, training, and staffing, including the recruitment and
retention of volunteer firefighters. The Urban Areas Security
Initiative (UASI) helps States prepare for the threat of terrorism by
encouraging planning and exercises and funding intelligence fusion
centers. The State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) also helps
fund fusion centers and, in some States, funds State-wide mutual aid
systems.
Because local fire departments provide the response resources
during National deployments to address terrorist incidents and other
National emergencies, the AFG and SAFER programs are vital components
of the National Preparedness System. These programs bolster local fire
departments' baseline capabilities to respond to all hazards. While the
programs have been successful, there still is a lot of work to be done.
Please consider these examples from the National Fire Protection
Association's (NFPA) Fourth Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service:
Fifty percent of all departments (that answered the NFPA
survey) do not have enough portable radios to equip all
emergency responders on a shift.
Fifty-three percent of all departments (that answered the
NFPA survey) cannot equip all firefighters on a shift with
self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA).
An estimated 60 percent of all departments (that answered
the NFPA survey) provide hazmat response but have not formally
trained all of their personnel involved in hazmat response.
Almost three-quarters (72 percent) of departments (that
answered the NFPA survey) reported that some of their personal
protective clothing was at least 10 years old, which exceeds
the life cycle of the equipment.
As these statistics demonstrate, many fire departments still lack
the most basic requirements for a safe and effective response. In fire
departments around the Nation, firefighters still must share personal
protective equipment and gear. In addition, many fire departments
across the Nation are operating with severely outdated and sometimes
inoperable apparatus. A neighboring jurisdiction of mine has only one
fire engine that does not start. The AFG and SAFER programs help local
fire departments meet their direst needs.
In 2006 and 2007, my department received AFG funding in order to
purchase personal protective equipment and SCBAs. We used these grants
to replace 20-year-old turnout gear, which had far exceeded its 10-year
service life. In addition, the purchase of new SCBAs allowed us to
replace an old system with the current contemporary gear that
neighboring departments had. This equipment helped us to regionalize
our local fire and emergency service and provide more effective
emergency response to our communities.
The AFG and SAFER grant programs are authorized through the end of
fiscal year 2017. The IAFC requests that Congress consider and pass
legislation this year to reauthorize funding for these programs over
the next 5 fiscal years. In addition, we have concerns about the sunset
provision in each program's authorizing statute, which would eliminate
the programs in early January. We ask that Congress remove this sunset
date in order to ensure that the programs can continue to support the
Nation's fire departments.
The SHSGP and UASI grant funds play an important role in helping
communities plan for the response to acts of terrorism. One of the
benefits of the programs is that the Federal funds provide an incentive
for fire, EMS, law enforcement, public health and other Federal, State,
and local agencies to work together to plan and exercise for the
response to mass casualty incidents, acts of terrorism or chemical and
biological events. In addition, these grant funds are used to support
intelligence fusion centers and information sharing between Federal,
State, and local officials. The grant programs also support training
and equipment for specialized response such as the response to
chemical, biological, or radiological incidents.
For example, the IAFC endorsed the Medical Preparedness Allowable
Use Act (H.R. 437), which passed the House on January 30. This
legislation would allow grantees to develop a program using SHSGP and
UASI funds to provide home med-kits to first responders and their
families. These med-kits are important to provide the necessary
protection for first responders as they respond to biological or
chemical incidents.
We also have some concerns about the President's recent Executive
Order regarding immigration and sanctuary jurisdictions. The order
would authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate
sanctuary jurisdictions, which would prohibit them from eligibility for
FEMA grants. There is an exception to this requirement for law
enforcement, but not for other public safety disciplines. This language
threatens to cut off funding to local fire departments and deeply
affect their ability to plan for and respond to acts of terrorism. The
IAFC Board has not adopted a position on the issue of sanctuary
jurisdictions. However, my organization would recommend that the
Secretary and Congress use discretion to recognize a broader exception
for public safety purposes, when reviewing grant eligibility.
public safety communications
Public safety communications will remain an important issue
requiring FEMA's focus. After-action reports have determined that
problems with public safety communications operability and
interoperability plagued the responses at 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and
multiple incidents in the following years. The Middle Class Tax Relief
and Job Creation Act (Pub. L. 112-96) authorized the creation of the
First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) to establish a Nation-
wide, public safety broadband network. This year, we expect FirstNet to
announce its commercial partner, and begin to work with the States to
build the network. As State Governors contemplate opting out of
FirstNet, the IAFC recommends that the FEMA Administrator remind them
of the integral role that interoperable communications play in mutual
aid deployments during National emergencies.
It is important to point out that FirstNet initially will provide
mission-critical broadband data communications. Legacy mission-
critical, land-mobile radio systems will remain vital to the fire and
emergency service and public safety in general. The IAFC thanks the
committee for its continued support of the mission of the Office of
Emergency Communications (OEC). The OEC continually demonstrates its
value by training first responders through its Communications Unit
Leader training, which integrates communications into the command
structure during major disasters. The IAFC encourages the FEMA
Administrator to work with OEC to ensure that its recommendations are
included when localities use Federal funds to purchase communications
systems, and to ensure that OEC is involved in planning for major
disasters.
Since land-mobile radio will remain an important component of
public safety communications, Congress must address the requirement
that first responders return their spectrum in the T Band (470-512
MHz). Pub. L. 112-96 also required the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) to begin auctioning public safety T Band spectrum by
February 2021 and clear all public safety operations from the band
within 2 years. This spectrum hosts public safety communications in 11
major urban areas of the United States. These 11 urban areas are
Boston; Chicago; Dallas/Ft. Worth; Washington, DC. (including parts of
Virginia and Maryland); Houston; Los Angeles; Miami; New York City/
Northeast New Jersey; Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; and San Francisco/
Oakland. For example, Boston hosts its interoperable communications
channel on the T Band. It's estimated that it will cost $5.9 billion to
migrate these jurisdictions to other alternative spectrum, and, in some
cases, there is no spectrum to which to migrate. The IAFC recommends
that the FEMA administrator work with the FCC Chairman to resolve this
issue, and not jeopardize public safety communications operability and
interoperability for everyday use and major emergencies.
mitigation
Mitigation remains an important challenge for FEMA. Over the years,
we have seen a steady increase in the number of disaster declarations.
For example, the average number of disaster declarations issued from
1960 to 1969 was approximately 19 per year. This number of declarations
has skyrocketed to 56 per year from 2000 to 2009, with a record 99
major disaster declarations in 2011. The IAFC expects to see the
intensity and cost of National disasters and emergencies to continue to
increase. For example, the average Federal wildland fire suppression
cost from 2009 to 2012 was $1.25 million. For the following 4 years,
the number increased to $1.84 million, a 32 percent increase.
The IAFC encourages FEMA to promote mitigation efforts and
community preparedness planning to reduce the cost of National
disasters and emergencies. For example, the adoption of State-wide
building codes can help reduce the cost of disasters. The IAFC has
supported legislation in the last Congress, such as the Safe Building
Code Incentive Act (H.R. 1748) and the National Mitigation Investment
Act (H.R. 5177), which allows FEMA to incentivize the State-wide
adoption of consensus-based building codes, like the International
Residential Code. We also support FEMA's pre-disaster mitigation
programs, which help communities reduce the threat of wildland fire
with fuels reduction projects.
In my State, we have seen the importance of post-wildland fire
mitigation work to reduce landslides and post-wildland fire flooding.
We support legislation that was included in both the FEMA Disaster
Assistance Reform Act (H.R. 1471) and the Wildfire Prevention Act (H.R.
1009) in the last Congress that would allow States that receive Fire
Management Assistance Grants to also receive hazard mitigation funding.
FEMA-funded projects, such as the establishment of erosion barriers and
re-seeding burned land, will help communities recover more quickly from
wildland fires and prevent disasters as a consequence of major wildland
fires.
the u.s. fire administration
I would like to highlight the importance of the USFA as I conclude
my testimony. The United States still has an overall fire problem that
must be addressed. According to the NFPA, there were more than 1.3
million fires in our Nation in 2015. These fires resulted in more than
3,200 deaths, more than 15,000 injuries and approximately $14.3 billion
in property damage.
The USFA continues to lead efforts to combat this problem. It helps
local fire departments develop programs to educate the public about
fire prevention. USFA also administers the NFA, which has trained more
than 1.4 million students in emergency leadership issues and
specialized emergency response tactics since 1975. Most importantly,
NFA helps local fire chiefs to learn about how to integrate their
departments into the National Preparedness System through training
about NIMS. The USFA also hosts the National Fire Incident Reporting
System, which is one of the world's most comprehensive National fire
data systems. The U.S. Fire Administrator leads the USFA.
The IAFC requests that the President move quickly to appoint an
experienced fire and emergency service leader to the position of U.S.
Fire Administrator. In addition, the authorization for USFA expires at
the end of the fiscal year. The IAFC urges Congress to reauthorize the
USFA this year, so it can continue its important mission.
conclusion
I thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the future
of FEMA. The Nation's fire and emergency service faces an operating
environment that is changing at a rapid and alarming pace. The wide
variety of emergencies that we respond to are increasingly more
dangerous to our citizens and responders. The economic impacts of these
incidents to our Nation are escalating. The quality of the service
provided by firefighters and EMS providers influence the citizens'
feelings of safety and security, yet the ability to train
firefighters--from our volunteers in rural regions to all-career
firefighters in major cities--is a major challenge. The cost of
procuring vital firefighting apparatus, tools, and firefighter personal
protective equipment has increased well beyond the rate of inflation
and beyond communities' abilities to pay. The challenges require
experienced fire and emergency management leadership.
We urge the new administration to nominate an experienced leader in
the fire and emergency service or emergency management disciplines to
lead the agency. We also recommend that the other leadership of FEMA,
including the U.S. Fire Administrator, also be experienced leaders.
In addition, we urge the administration and the committee to work
together to help FEMA address the numerous challenges that the Nation
faces. It is important that Federal information sharing and public
safety communications programs continue to be funded and supported in
their missions. In order to ensure a strong National Preparedness
System, FEMA must review its mutual aid and reimbursement systems.
Also, FEMA should be given stronger authority to incentivize the State-
wide adoption of building codes and the implementation of community
efforts to mitigate the effects of disasters. In addition, the IAFC
recommends that Congress continue to support FEMA's grant programs, and
reauthorize the AFG and SAFER grant programs. We also recommend that
Congress reauthorize the USFA.
The new administration and the new Congress present an opportunity
to review FEMA's programs and policies. The IAFC continues to support
FEMA's mission and the National Preparedness System. We look forward to
working with the committee to ensure that the Nation is prepared to
respond to any of the potential threats that we face and keep America
safe.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you very much, Chief.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bland for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. BLAND, J.D., M.T.S., NATIONAL DIRECTOR,
POLICY, ADVOCACY, AND DEVELOPMENT, SAVE THE CHILDREN
Mr. Bland. Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and
esteemed Members of the Homeland Security Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to testify on the future of FEMA.
My name is Rich Bland, and I am the national director of
policy, advocacy, and development at Save the Children.
At Save the Children, we believe that every child deserves
a healthy start, the opportunity to learn, and protection from
harm. It is in this last vein, protection from harm, that I
want to talk to you today.
My hope is to cover three broad issues: First, the problem,
how Katrina and subsequent disasters have been a wake-up call
on children's needs. Second, the solutions, the role of the
National Commission on Children and Disasters and Save the
Children's 10 years later follow-up report, which you all have
with you today. Third, one action we can take today, one
concrete action, the importance of creating a permanent
children's needs advisor at FEMA.
Imagine where you were 12 years ago in the late summer of
2005 when you first heard about Hurricane Katrina. Remember how
shocked you were when the levees broke, when the death toll
began to mount, and when you saw the seemingly endless images
of people on rooftops, wading in water, struggling to survive?
It was a watershed moment, not just for our country, but also
for Save the Children.
You see, Save the Children has been responding to
emergencies around the world for nearly a century, but never
domestically. In war-torn and developing countries, yes. In the
United States, no. The thinking was the richest Nation in the
world had it covered, so no need to worry. But the reports
started coming in, the TV images, the cries for help, and no
shortage of children in need.
So just in case, we began to call responders along the Gulf
Coast, Government, agencies, nonprofits. We asked the heads of
shelters, how many children do you have and at which shelters?
The response was we have no idea--no idea.
Many more of our questions went unanswered in the days that
followed. As a result, Save the Children decided to deploy to
the Gulf Coast in its first major disaster response effort here
within the United States.
Since Katrina, we have deployed to every major disaster,
serving more than 1 million children, including 6 disasters in
2016 alone. As of yesterday, we deployed to California in the
Oroville area regarding the evacuation there.
Katrina was a shocking moment for all of us; yet today,
children are still facing many of the same risks from an
emergency as they did 12 years ago. Thus, my second issue,
solutions.
After Katrina, Congress and the President created the
National Commission on Children and Disasters. Save the
Children was honored to lead it along with an incredible group
of expert commissioners. The commission created a detailed road
map of needs and solutions with 11 chapters on 11 functional
areas related to the gaps, and then came up with 81
recommendations.
I am here to tell you today that nearly 80 percent of those
recommendations yet remain unfulfilled. Do we really want to
wait for the next Katrina-type event to get back to this work?
Now, to be fair, much progress has been made and much of it at
FEMA. But those steps are far from complete, and there is
nothing to guarantee any focus on children's needs in the
future. We need accountability. Our children deserve it.
The report you have in your hands is the first effort to
hold Government accountable for the recommendations of the
National commission. All levels of government have a role to
play. You will see 11 chapters and it says, where the
recommendations were not met, that is red, where they were met,
that is green, and then where they are underway, that is
yellow.
Yet the results are startling. Nearly 80 percent of the
recommendations have not been met. In addition, we now know
that less than one-tenth of 1 percent of all Federal
preparedness grants go to children's needs. Thankfully,
Congressman Payne, you have been a stalwart champion raising
attention to these needs. So thank you for that. Most recently,
your ability to pass H.R. 4509 will go a long way toward
connecting emergency management to children's needs
representatives at the State level. So thank you for that.
Thank you, Mr. Donovan, for cosponsoring the PREPARE Act
with Mr. Payne last Congress. This would indeed make the
children's needs coordinator permanent. So I look forward to
working with you on that.
As for what comes next, to this day when we deploy, Save
the Children is a witness to the fact that children are still
more an afterthought than a priority.
I would like to leave you with two facts. Recall that
children are 25 to 50 percent of the population, depending on
the community. This is no fringe group. Furthermore, as the
pediatricians remind us, children are not merely small adults.
Consider how unique their needs are, protection needs at
shelters, specialized supply needs and response efforts,
tailored medical needs and treatment. The list goes on.
So let's just take one of the recommendations that we think
we can make permanent and concrete, the permanent children's
needs advisor at FEMA. Of course, it is no one-size-fits-all
solution, but we have come here today to suggest that we take
that one big step. We believe each of these gap areas, be it
mental health, shelter standards, or preparedness, starts with
Government accountability and having someone at the highest
level of FEMA with the power to remind the administrator and
all the departments of FEMA about the unique needs of children
is vital.
While some administrators, including Mr. Fugate, have had a
stellar track record at prioritizing children's needs, and in
fact temporarily appointing a children's needs coordinator,
that position is not required and it could fade to obscurity.
That cannot and should not happen. So we are here today to ask
you to join with us in addressing these gaps and taking the
first step, which is to make the children's needs adviser at
FEMA permanent. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bland follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard F. Bland
February 14, 2017
Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and esteemed Members of the
Homeland Security Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
on the future of FEMA.
My name is Richard Bland and I am the national director of policy,
advocacy, and development at Save the Children.
At Save the Children, we believe that every child deserves a
healthy start, the opportunity to learn, and protection from harm. It
is in this last vein, protection from harm, that I want to talk to you
today.
Imagine where you were 12 years ago, in the late summer of 2005,
when you first heard about Hurricane Katrina. Remember how shocked you
were when the levees broke? When the death toll began to mount and when
you saw the seemingly endless images of people on rooftops and in boats
and wading in water struggling to survive? It was a watershed moment
not just for our country, but also for Save the Children.
You see, Save the Children has been responding to emergencies
around the world for nearly a century but NEVER domestically. The
thinking was the richest nation in the world had it covered, so no need
to worry. But then the reports started coming in. The TV images. The
cries for help. And no shortage of children in need. So just in case,
we began to call responders along the Gulf Coast. Government, agencies,
nonprofits. We asked the heads of the shelters how many children they
had and at which shelters. The response was, ``we have no idea.'' NO
IDEA.
Many more of our questions went unanswered in the days that
followed. And as a result Save the Children decided to deploy to the
Gulf Coast in its first major disaster response effort within the
United States.
Since Katrina, we have deployed to every major disaster (including
6 disasters in 2016 alone); while at the same time, we have also
advocated strongly with Federal and State officials to ensure children
are adequately prioritized in governmental planning, response, and
recovery.
Katrina was a shocking moment for all of us.
As many as 300,000 children were forced from their homes.
5,000 children were separated from their parents.
Did you know it took 7 months to reunite the last child with
her parents?
But the problem of reunification is not restricted to mass-scale
emergencies like Katrina. Today, children are still facing many of the
same risks from an emergency as they did 12 years ago.
Just remember: Every single day 70 million children are
separated from their parents. And disasters can strike anywhere
at any time.
Fortunately, we know how to address many of these risks--Congress
and the President created the National Commission on Children and
Disasters. And Save the Children was honored to lead it, along with an
incredible group of experts in disaster response and child protection
who served as commissioners. The Commission created a detailed roadmap.
But, as of today, nearly 80 percent of the recommendations
remain unfulfilled! Do we really want to wait for the next
Katrina-type event to get back to this work?
Now to be fair, much progress has been made. Child care and school
preparedness have come light years. Pediatric medical health saw
Federal legislation that included comprehensive requirements around
medical countermeasures and a medical advisory committee. At FEMA, we
saw Administrator Fugate make major efforts to integrate children's
needs into every FEMA regional administrator's job and appoint a
temporary children's needs coordinator. But those steps are far from
complete, and there's nothing to guarantee any focus on children's
needs in the future. We need accountability. Our children deserve it.
The Report you have in your hands (Still At Risk: U.S. Children 10
Years After Hurricane Katrina\1\) is the first effort to hold
Government accountable for the recommendations of the National
Commission. All levels of government have a role to play. Federal.
State. local. All Federal agencies. HHS. FEMA. Justice. ED. What you
have in front of you is that effort. And today, we are happy to focus
on FEMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Retained in the Committee files and available at: http://
www.savethechildren.org/atf/cf/%7B9def2ebe-10ae-432c-9bd0-
df91d2eba74a%7D/DISASTERREPORT_2015.PDF?v=5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the structure of the Report, you may recall that the National
Commission's Final Report arranged their recommendations in 11
functional areas, 11 chapters.
81 Recommendations and sub-recommendations.
This report is our effort, through an objective, third-party,
outside research firm, to assess how many of those recommendations have
been met (GREEN), how many are being addressed (YELLOW), and how many
have not been met at all (RED).
The results are startling.
Nearly 80 percent of recommendations have not been met.
That means 4 in 5 of the original recommendations has not
been met.
In addition, we now know less than 1/10 of 1 percent of all
Federal preparedness grants go to children's needs.
Put another way, less than 1 cent in every $10 spent on
preparedness goes to children's safety.
You may hear people say well, just addressing the recommendation is
good enough. Some agencies will say we cannot afford to single out
children as a priority or for funding, due to all of the other
priorities. We are here to say you must!! And we hope you will join us
in that effort. Thankfully, Congressman Payne, you have been a stalwart
champion in raising attention to these needs. So thank you for that!
Most recently, your ability to pass H.R. 4509 will go a long way to
connecting Emergency Management to Children's needs representatives at
the State level.
As for what comes next, let's think back to Katrina, or to Sandy,
or the Oklahoma tornadoes for that matter, time and time again when we
deploy, Save the Children is a witness to the fact that children are
still more an afterthought than a priority. And not just in response--
in planning too!
Let's not forget that Children are 25-50 percent of the
population depending on the community. This is no fringe group.
And furthermore, the experts remind us Children are NOT
merely small adults--consider how unique their needs are.
Safety needs in shelters. Specialized supply needs in response
efforts. Tailored medical needs in treatment. The list goes on!
Thankfully the commission took a comprehensive look at all of those
needs, 11 functional areas, and made detailed recommendations in each.
Let's get to work to see that more of them are met!
Fortunately, we are also not alone. Your interest in heartening,
and more importantly we are joined by organizations like the American
Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Child Care Aware (CCA), and the National
Center of Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) that spend each and
every day trying to address these gaps!
In addition the National Advisory Committee at FEMA, the ``NAC''
made three key recommendations to FEMA, and the administrator agreed!
He agreed to try to get all three done. But now we have a new
administration and you will be meeting with a new administrator. So we
are asking for you to have him or her follow-through on those promises.
Let's take just one: The need for a permanent Children's
Needs Technical Expert at FEMA.
Of course it is no one-size-fits-all solution, to all 11 chapters
of recommendations to address the gaps in children's needs. But we have
come here to today to suggest that we take that one big step.
We believe each of these gap areas, be it mental health, shelter
standards, or preparedness, starts with Governmental Accountability.
And having someone at the highest level of FEMA with the power to
remind the administrator and all departments of FEMA about the unique
needs of children is vital.
While some administrators including Mr. Fugate have had a stellar
track-record at prioritizing Children's Needs, and in fact temporarily
appointing a children's needs coordinator, that position is NOT
required and could fade to obscurity.
That CANNOT and SHOULD NOT happen, so we are here today to ask you
to join with us in addressing these gaps, and taking the first step,
which is to make the Children's Needs Technical Expert at FEMA
permanent.
Thank you.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you, Mr. Bland. I thank you all for your
testimony.
I recognize myself now for 5 minutes of questioning.
As I told all of you before we began, this committee, one
of the things I am proud of my good friend, Don Payne, and I
don't waste people's time. We don't hold committee hearings
every week just to have committee hearings. We hold them for a
purpose and then we take the information that is derived from
the hearing and put it to work. So your testimony today, your
suggestions, your answers to our questions will go into some
form of evaluation that we will give to the new administrator
as recommendations of what she or he should do.
With that in mind, and all of you have brought out various
concerns that you all have, the new administrator is going to
come in and have a lot of things before her or before him. In
each of your specific areas, what do you think is the first
thing the new FEMA administrator ought to address, something
that cannot wait, something that time is of the essence, for
each of you?
Captain Kelenske. Well, first and foremost, I believe the
interaction and engagement with the State's Governors and their
key officials, that is key right off the bat. Then to look to
the States to see what specific needs that they collectively
have that need to be addressed. Working through organizations,
such as the NGA and the Governors Homeland Security Adviser
Council, is also a good way to get that information. But I
think it is necessary to reach out to the States and find out
what those issues are.
Some of the ones that are out there are, what innovative
solutions, whether they are innovative solutions to grants or
technology or the intelligence and information sharing that is
going on, those are some key issues that need to be looked
into, as well as the grant reform concept that we talked about
earlier, sir.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you, Captain.
Chief.
Chief Sinclair. Yes. Chairman Donovan, thank you very much
for the question. It is incumbent that whoever comes into this
position knows and understands that it is a partnership, that
it is vital that they know that the first responders that are
out there, the law enforcement community, police, fire, EMS,
public health, the first receivers, the hospital systems are
all folks that are going to be on-scene long before the Federal
Government can begin to ramp up and begin to take action. So
everything that we can do to help that response community be
ready for an all-hazards environment is vital.
Some of that includes simple things like information
sharing through the fusion centers. I will give you one very
specific example. In Nice, France on Bastille Day, we had a
significant event where somebody took a big truck and ran it
through a bunch of people. We should have had somebody in the
fusion centers taking a look at that and providing information
out to every law enforcement and fire and EMS jurisdiction
across this Nation saying here is a new tactic, here are some
ideas on how to prepare for that.
But the big issue is recognizing that there is a
partnership and that it is a partnership all the way down to
the local level.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you, Chief.
Mr. Bland.
Mr. Bland. Thanks for the question. I think it is really
the children's needs advisor. The former administrator, Mr.
Fugate, just did a remarkable job, and he really personally
felt the priority of children's needs as a vulnerable
community. But as he himself would admit, that is not required.
It is not required by statute, and so it can't be personality-
driven by the administrator.
In addition, that role has this kind-of internal auditing
function where whatever they are going to roll out or whatever
new proposal they come across, to have this technical expert to
say, but how is it going to affect kids, have you thought about
that? They are not just small adults. In addition, we have got
a lot of momentum. So your bill, the PREPARE Act, endorsed this
idea and the National advisory committee, which is required by
PK-EMRA, actually this was their No. 1 recommendation on
children's needs.
So we have got some momentum. Mr. Fugate agreed with the
National advisory committee in his official response and said I
agree, but I am leaving. So I think for all of those reasons
and just on top of that, I guess I would say let us keep up the
momentum.
I don't mean to paint too stark a picture because we have
come a long way since Katrina. But there were 11 chapters and
there were 11 big gaps. This concrete step would be a good
first step. So I hope that is helpful.
Mr. Donovan. Wonderful. I thank all of you. I had 6 more
questions, but we will submit those in writing. My time is up.
The Chair now recognizes my friend from New Jersey, Mr.
Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate working
with you once again. I think your statement is absolutely
correct. We try not to waste people's time. The information
that we do receive at these hearings eventually turns into
legislation. So I want to thank you for your leadership.
Let me just ask--first of all, thank you for all being here
and your testimony.
You know, with FEMA being in transition, you know, a new
administrator, as I stated, has not been named, and the Trump
administration's priorities in the emergency management space
are unclear, has the Trump administration engaged you or your
organizations during this transition process?
Captain Kelenske. I know that there have been discussions
with other associations involved in this area, but I don't know
specifically. We would have to follow up later with that
answer, sir, from individual organizations.
Mr. Payne. OK. Chief.
Chief Sinclair. We met with both campaigns prior to the
election to give them our opinion about certain issues, certain
issues as it related to key positions within the Federal
Government. Subsequent to that, we have not had, I have not had
a meeting with them.
Mr. Payne. Mr. Bland.
Mr. Bland. Our organization, as you know, has kind-of
health priorities, education priorities, and protection
priorities. We met with both campaigns and went really and
focused on early childhood education priorities. We haven't
spoken to them about protection in emergencies yet.
Mr. Payne. OK, thank you. We will definitely make sure that
we encourage the administration to reach out to make sure that
you do have input in that area.
Let's see. Chief Sinclair, President Trump's sanctuary
cities Executive Order requires the Secretary of Homeland
Security to ensure that sanctuary jurisdictions are ineligible
for Federal grants except for law enforcement purposes. The
Executive Order makes no clear exception for public safety or
fire management.
Did the Trump administration contact the International
Association of Fire Chiefs to learn how losing access to these
Federal dollars would affect their ability to carry out their
mission?
Chief Sinclair. Ranking Member Payne, no, we have not been
contacted directly from the administration relative to that. We
would, as I stated in my testimony, request that the law
enforcement exception be extended to the entire public safety
community.
We do believe that because that the SHSGP and UASI grants
go to fund fusion centers, it is going to be very difficult to
isolate just the law enforcement component to that because they
are going to work with key pieces that affect all of public
safety. So we believe that a public safety exception is
certainly appropriate to do.
Mr. Payne. Sure. Especially in this new environment, you
know, the public safety community has come together in such a
great way that it would absolutely be difficult to separate
them. Thank you.
Chief Sinclair. Yes, sir.
Mr. Payne. Mr. Bland, in your testimony you talked about
the need for a permanent child's need technical expert at FEMA.
Can you talk about how Save the Children works with the current
children's needs technical expert?
Mr. Bland. Sure. The technical expert, as I mentioned,
serves as this kind of internal auditing function. So when
there is something, whether it be a response, like in
California right now, that expert actually can go and respond
and be the expert to people in the field.
So they come to us and we work with American Red Cross in
that deployment, but they come to us and we coordinate all the
resources. I mean, it is a nice, fluid function that says,
well, what does HHS, what does ACF, what does OCFR have to
offer?
So that without that kind of hub reaching out to us,
American Academy of Pediatrics, NCMEC, National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children, that would be a gap, that kind
of hub. Then also that then back when they are rolling out an
idea or an initiative, to come to us and other stakeholders and
say, but remember, how does this affect kids, what is your
input on that? So those are two critical functions that they
engage with us on.
Mr. Payne. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Bland. Thank you.
Mr. Payne. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Donovan. The gentleman yields back. The Chair will now
recognize other Members of the subcommittee for questions that
they may wish to ask of our witnesses. In accordance with
committee rules and practice, I plan to recognize Members who
were present at the start of the hearing by seniority on the
subcommittee. Those coming in later will be recognized in the
order of arrival.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, panel, for being here today really to help us
address this very important National issue.
One of the things that I would like to ask very quickly,
and I don't know the answer to this, but I would like to find
out. The National preparedness report that identifies the 32
core capabilities, those are not designated by law, correct? It
came out of policy. So I would like to ask you, Director Bland,
if we were to put child needs into a 33d preparedness goal,
wouldn't that be possible through the policy that already
exists?
Mr. Bland. As I understand it, that would be a great idea.
We would look to work with you on that. One idea that came up
is to have the children's needs coordinator report back to the
National advisory committee.
So instead of reporting to external groups, but also not
necessarily reporting in statute to the administrator, to have
this kind of accountability on, and say, on a 33d standard I
think is a great idea. But what has happened is you don't
really have a built-in accountability structure to say to each
administrator or each department, how are we doing on this gap?
So if that person could report to the NAC, which PK-EMRA--sorry
about the acronyms----
Mr. Rutherford. That is OK.
Mr. Bland [continuing]. I think that would be a great idea
and in addition, on the preparedness framework to work on that,
too. So thank you.
Mr. Rutherford. OK. Also, I would like to ask, Chief, has
IACP had any conversations with the leadership in sanctuary
cities to make clear to them the dangers that they have put
their constituents in by potential loss of Federal funding?
Chief Sinclair. Representative Rutherford, the IACP or the
IAFC?
Mr. Rutherford. I am sorry, IAFC.
Chief Sinclair. No, sir, we have not.
Mr. Rutherford. OK. You know, I think those would be
conversations worth having as well. Sanctuary cities, that is a
choice that those cities are making. There are consequences
that flow from all decisions, so I think it would be wise to
highlight for them exactly what that impact would be.
If I could ask the panel as a whole, one of the things we
continue to hear about, and, Chief, you actually touched on
this, is the inability to really get good, actionable
intelligence out of the fusion centers. We have the same issue
on the law enforcement side sometimes. That actually scores
low, cybersecurity and recovery capabilities of those systems
scores low almost every year Nationally.
Do you have any specific ideas on how we can better make
that happen?
Chief Sinclair. Thank you for the question. I think that
there are a couple of different things, having had the
opportunity to work with the DHS Office of Health Affairs as it
related to fusion centers, with the EMS issue and fire
department involvement.
I think one of the things is that the local community needs
to make sure that they have got that expertise in the fusion
center. That is going to then help make sure that when the raw
data comes in that they can take a look at it and make sure
that that application is there. So making sure that there are
people in the fusion center that come out of the disciplines of
the fire service, emergency medical services, public health,
and the impacts, I think, is going to be very helpful.
Some of the fusion centers have that capability, some
don't. But sort-of putting that into the culture of it is
something that is going to be very helpful.
Mr. Rutherford. I agree. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Donovan. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes
the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank our witnesses for your testimony here
today.
In 2006, Congress created the position of disability
coordinator at FEMA to provide guidance to both FEMA staff and
State and local partners on how to incorporate people with
disabilities into disaster planning.
So, Captain Kelenske and Chief Sinclair, how do you account
for people with disabilities in your disaster planning? Do you
find guidance from FEMA in this regard to be helpful at all?
Captain Kelenske. Thank you for the question, sir.
Absolutely, one of the great things about FEMA is that they
know how to work across multidisciplines. So when we have an
emergency or disaster, regardless of what the cause is, FEMA is
there to provide that technical assistance as well as the
overall management for these events.
Specifically in the disasters that I have handled, they
have provided an enormous amount of information and assistance
with access and functional needs and any disabilities, steps we
have to take, whether it is ensuring that things printed are
done with American Sign Language, and just every aspect that
typically we may not see at a State level as much.
But during these events it is critical to have them there
and to bring them on early with liaison officers before even a
declaration by the President has been received.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you.
Chief.
Chief Sinclair. Thank you very much for the question. The
State of Washington over the last 5 years has had a lot of
wildland events. We have also had flooding events. We work very
closely with FEMA Region 10 on these particular issues to make
sure that those communities that are going to be affected are
well-informed.
What we try to do is make sure that we have got information
out there. They work with us. They do a lot of work in getting
information out through the major media markets and information
all the way down to the local emergency manager at the city and
county level.
We also update our plan once every 5 years, and they give
overview, between FEMA Region 10 and our State emergency
management organization, on how to make sure that we are
dealing with the needs of that particular community. So it has
been very helpful.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you.
Mr. Bland. Congressman, and if I could just add that Save
the Children ran, since 2008, we have run a report card that
assesses the States on how they are doing on preparedness. One
of the factors, there are 4 criteria, and 1 is, how are you
doing on preparing for children with special needs, with access
and functional needs?
In 2008, only 4 States met our standards. Thanks to work
with Congressman Payne and others, by the end of 2017, all 50
States will meet all 4 of our standards. But it was a long way
coming.
One other small point is there is a fantastic disability
needs coordinator at FEMA. And Mr. Fugate, when we first
started talking to him about this, Marcie Roth, he said you all
should pattern yourself after the disability community because
that is what he did. He learned from them in more-inclusive
planning.
He will tell you, if you have an annex for the disabled, if
you have an annex for the children, if you have an annex for
pets, you are doing it wrong. You need to be more inclusive. So
we are trying to learn and Marcie Roth has been a great asset.
Unfortunately, because of personnel reasons and a snafu with
OPM, she is not there right now.
Mr. Langevin. Well, thank you for adding those comments in.
You know, I want to make sure that people with disabilities are
a forethought, not an afterthought. There is special planning
that needs to take place and better to do it ahead of time than
in the middle of a disaster. So thank you for the work you are
doing on that.
Captain Kelenske. for the last better part of a decade, I
have spent a great deal of time focusing on cybersecurity. It
has been one of my chief concerns here in Congress. In my
capacity as co-chair of the congressional Cybersecurity Caucus,
I have been impressed by your State's commitment to innovation
in combating cyber threat.
In your capacity testifying on behalf of the National
Governors Association, I also want to commend Chairman
McAuliffe for his dedication on this issue as well.
So in your experience, what is the maturity level with
respect to incorporating cybersecurity incident response into
all-hazards planning?
Captain Kelenske. I think it is different in every State.
Some States are further ahead than others. The nice thing is,
with organizations such as NGA, we are able to share that
information. In my testimony, I spoke to some of the things
that have been put in place and we are helping other States
along.
For our State, we are co-located. We have our cyber command
center, our computer crimes section, our fusion center, State
emergency operations center as well as emergency management and
homeland security division all co-located. That is just the way
one system operates.
Every State is a little bit different, but the cyber
disruption plans and the different items that have been put
through the resource center, that is what is going to help us
get to that point we all need to be individually as States,
because every State is going to probably look a little bit
different.
But those frameworks are in place and it is critical that
we just build on those existing frameworks, sir.
Mr. Langevin. Very good. Thank you, Captain. You know, this
is an issue that is not going to go away anytime soon,
especially the fact that now with, you know, in the past would
have been achieved through use of kinetic weapons, for example,
could be done with a few keystrokes. We need to do what we can
to be prepared for those incidents and then also have a
resiliency plan. So thank you for what you are doing in that
space.
I know my time expired. I have a few more questions on
cyber. I will submit those for the record and hope you can get
back to us on those.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Donovan. The gentleman yields back.
Before I recognize him, I would like to welcome Congressman
Tom Garrett to the committee. He represents Virginia's 5th
Congressional District. Prior to joining Congress, he served in
the Army as the Commonwealth's attorney and State senator of
Virginia's 22d District.
Welcome, Congressman, and I recognize you for 5 minutes for
questioning.
Mr. Garrett. I am curious, Chief Sinclair, you are
obviously a member of IFCA, also I presume IAFF. I want to
piggyback for a moment on Mr. Rutherford's questions.
Essentially, what you have testified to here this morning is
that you have not gone to the cities with sanctuary policies
and warned them of the potential of a loss of Federal funding.
Chief Sinclair. That is correct, sir. We have not.
Mr. Garrett. But you have come here and asked us not to act
to enforce Federal law.
Chief Sinclair. Sir, what we are asking for is that there
is an exclusion for law enforcement. What we are asking is that
that exclusion be broadened to the entire public safety
community because of the fact that the fusion centers that are
being funded are going to be giving information to not just law
enforcement, but we work very collaboratively at the local
level.
Mr. Garrett. Right. So among other things not included on
the brief resume that the Chairman shared was my membership on
the Commonwealth preparedness board and work with the Virginia
fusion center and my work as a Federal prosecutor as well as a
State prosecutor.
So these are some things that I am familiar with.
It just strikes me, and I make this by way of a suggestion,
that perhaps if you are going to suggest to us that we broaden
the exemption as it relates to groups that would continue to
receive Federal funding should localities intentionally choose
not to enforce Federal law, that you might also go back to
those localities and warn them of the potential impact on them,
the loss of resources, et cetera.
I would target this next question, and probably my choice
of words is poor, to Captain Kelenske.
Captain Kelenske. Kelenske, sir.
Mr. Garrett. Kelenske. Work with me.
Captain Kelenske. I will, sir.
Mr. Garrett. So I know you are not an attorney. I presume
you are not, but your work career is presumably with the State
police?
Captain Kelenske. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garrett. So you are familiar with the equal protection
clause of the Constitution?
Captain Kelenske. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garrett. OK. So help me here, because I have been
trying to wrap my brain around this for a long time. If an
individual is picked up on a Federal detainer, let's say for
identity theft, and they are a U.S. citizen, and a locality,
let's say San Francisco, holds them for Federal pick-up so that
that detainer can be executed and they can be tried for
identity theft, that is the execution of justice, right?
Captain Kelenske. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garrett. Now, if that same individual happens to be
here illegally and, therefore, that locality, San Francisco,
refuses to hold them, have we not violated the equal protection
clause under the 14th Amendment by virtue of creating a
different standard by which we apply justice to those who are
here legally versus illegally?
Captain Kelenske. Well, what I would say, sir, is that
States recognize that immigration is a Federal responsibility.
The Governors ask that the Federal Government continue to work
with States and localities as partners to address all the
different components of this very important issue.
Mr. Garrett. Right. But the equal protection clause
provides that no State shall deny any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. So if a locality
chooses to hold someone, a U.S. citizen charged with a
particular offense, but release someone who is not a citizen
charged with the exact same offense, does that not violate the
equal protection right of American-born criminal defendants?
Captain Kelenske. I don't know if I am prepared to answer
that question here, sir. I am more than willing to discuss and
follow up after the fact. Not being engaged with it on a day-
to-day basis, I would be very hesitant to opine.
Mr. Garrett. Well, you know what, and I will give you
something of an apology because you kind-of are the guy closest
to the guy I am looking for, who is not sitting on the dais
there. But thank you for what you do, all of you.
The final question, I think I have time, is to Mr. Bland.
You outlined your 4 standards or you mentioned your 4
standards. I was wondering if you could articulate what the 4
standards are that you are hoping that States and localities
will meet.
Mr. Bland. Sure. So if you will recall, the National
commission had those 11 chapters. They were kind-of functional
areas. Then our follow-up report tackled those 11 chapters. We
had to walk before we could run, so we took one chapter, which
was child care and school preparedness, and we said, OK, what
are the 4 standards that at a baseline States should uphold in
their regulations for schools and child care?
It was evacuation and relocation, a reunification plan, a
relocation site, those are all for child care, and then the
special needs, as I mentioned before, in child care, and then
the fourth is for schools, a multi-hazard plan to make sure
they are not just doing fire, they are doing lockdown drills
and also preparing for a natural emergency, like a tornado, so
a multi-hazard plan for schools.
Mr. Garrett. Thank you. I found it in your publication up
here thanks to my colleague, Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Bland. Yes.
Mr. Garrett. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would comment
that the thing that bothered me most from my time on the
Commonwealth preparedness board in Virginia was that we had
pretty good plans that none of the citizenry knew about. It is
hard to implement and execute a plan when there is no
information disseminated to the end-user, the citizens.
I yield back my negative 13 seconds.
Mr. Donovan. The gentleman's time has expired.
I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony.
My goal was to get you out of here in an hour and we achieved
that. I would like to thank my fellow Members of the committee
for their questions. The Members of the subcommittee may have
additional questions, as many of us do, for the witnesses. We
will ask that you respond to those in writing.
Pursuant to committee rule VII(D), the hearing record will
be held open for 10 days.
Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:01 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairman Daniel M. Donovan, Jr. for Chris A. Kelenske
Question 1. What role do you envision for FEMA's law enforcement
advisor?
Answer. Law enforcement plays a critically important role in
homeland security and emergency management operations. The FEMA law
enforcement advisor must create clear channels of communication to make
certain that State and local law enforcement officials are meaningfully
engaged in the Federal policy-making process. It is imperative that the
information received from State and local law enforcement officials be
communicated by the FEMA law enforcement advisor to FEMA leadership to
ensure there is a clear understanding of how Federal policies will
impact the law enforcement community Nation-wide.
Question 2. In order to buy down risk, we need to identify risk. As
the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA)
process matures, are you seeing States better incorporate the input of
local emergency response providers in their THIRAs?
Answer. The THIRA is a valuable tool that bolsters State
preparedness by increasing understanding of risks and ensuring
necessary investments are prioritized. In Michigan, State officials
engage with regional urban area coordinators each year to prepare the
State THIRA and Urban Area Security Initiative THIRA submissions.
Appropriate subject-matter experts account for known regional and local
capabilities during assessment meetings. Additionally, Michigan
officials have implemented a regional THIRA and ``Regional Preparedness
Report (RPR)'' process for local emergency response providers through
the creation of Regional Homeland Security Planning Boards. This
process was initiated in 2016 with formal rollouts in each of the
State's 7 regions held in early 2017.
In January 2017, the Michigan State Police Emergency Management and
Homeland Security Division (MSP/EMHSD) hosted the Texas A&M Engineering
Extension Service (TEEX) course ``Jurisdictional Threat and Hazard
Identification and Risk Assessment,'' MGT310, for stakeholders in
Michigan. The MSP/EMHSD hosted the course free of charge and paid
lodging expenses for local participants in an effort to attract as many
participants as possible to ensure an effective THIRA process in each
region. Following the course, the MSP/EMHSD staff traveled to each
region to explain the THIRA process to Regional Homeland Security
Planning Board members. At present, each region has completed or is in
the process of completing a regional-level THIRA that will be included
in the State's THIRA submission for 2017. The Regional THIRA and RPR
have allowed State officials to go a step further in incorporating
regional and local gaps in the State assessment.
Question 3. This month marks the fifth anniversary of the enactment
of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, which established
the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) with the
responsibility to develop and implement the Nation-wide public safety
broadband network. Are you satisfied with FirstNet's outreach to State
and local first responders to get a true sense of user needs for the
system?
Answer. Governors endeavor to partner with the Federal Government
to ensure the successful build-out and deployment of the public safety
broadband network. Governors share concerns, however, regarding the
mandated FirstNet State consultation process. NGA Center for Best
Practices Homeland Security and Public Safety Division Director Jeff
McLeod highlighted these concerns while appearing before the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on June 21, 2016, at
a hearing entitled ``FirstNet Oversight: An Update on the Status of the
Public Safety Broadband Network.''\1\ During his testimony, Director
McLeod explained that State officials have described FirstNet State
engagement as largely focused on satisfying the statutory consultation
requirement, rather than developing genuine partnerships. Further,
State officials remain concerned that they are viewed as mere customers
of an eventual National broadband network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Jeffrey S. McLeod, ``Testimony on FirstNet Oversight: An Update
on the Status of the Public Safety Broadband Network,'' (June 21,
2016), available at: https://www.nga.org/cms/home/federal-relations/
nga-testimony/hsps-testimony/col2-content/main-content-list/testimony--
firstnet.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meaningful collaboration between FirstNet and States is paramount
to ensuring the successful build-out of a Nation-wide network. NGA
representatives delivered a list of recommendations to FirstNet
officials last fall regarding ways to improve State engagement
efforts.\2\ NGA officials will continue to encourage FirstNet officials
to follow through on those recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Governors Association, ``Recommendations for Engaging
States as Full Partners,'' (November 7, 2016), available at: https://
www.nga.org/ems/home/federal-relations/nga-letters/homeland-security--
public-safety/col2-content/main-content-list/firstnet-
recommendations.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Michigan, over the past year, State officials have been pleased
to see a more concerted effort by FirstNet representatives to keep
States informed and engaged in the build-out process through
invitations to participate in State and association conferences, open
dialogue between key FirstNet personnel at SPOC meetings, assistance
with Tribal outreach and face-to-face consultation meetings with State
public safety leadership. Michigan officials look forward to prompt
action by FirstNet personnel following the recent court ruling to
finalize the FirstNet contract award and deliver the plan for
deployment of the Nation-wide Public Safety Broadband Network (NPSBN)
in Michigan.
Michigan officials are confident that the NPSBN for Michigan will
meet identified objectives; however, it is concerning that 5 years
following the enactment of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation
Act, the Federal Communications Commission and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration have not formally
published the qualifications, procedure, and time line for review of
the minimum technical interoperability requirements, and demonstrations
of comparable security, coverage, quality of service, and cost-
effectiveness of the State-owned Radio Access Network in accordance
with the Act in an opt-out scenario.
Question From Ranking Member Donald M. Payne, Jr. for Chris A. Kelenske
Question. Captain Kelenske, helping State and local governments
build and maintain interoperable communications capabilities has been
one of my biggest priorities since joining this subcommittee. The grant
program that used to support that capability no longer exists and, as
you noted, grant funding is not what it used to be. What can FEMA--
working with the Office of Emergency Communications at DHS--do to help
State and local first responders preserve and build upon the emergency
communications capabilities they have built?
Answer. Federal, State, and local governments have invested
billions of dollars in improving emergency communication networks for
first responders since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It is
imperative for FEMA to continue to provide State and local governments
the flexibility to allocate limited Federal grant funding to emergency
communications based on each States' unique needs. Moreover, as the
FirstNet Nation-wide Public Safety Broadband Network is implemented,
FEMA officials should remember that legacy land mobile radio systems
will remain the primary tool for mission-critical voice for the next
several years. The FirstNet Nation-wide build-out will not immediately
meet the needs of first responders. State officials must be given
flexibility to utilize Federal grant funding to maintain and update
existing radio systems, even as the public safety broadband network
build-out is finalized. Supporting State and local decisions to apply
Federal grant funding to existing radio systems will continue to ensure
seamless communications in the event of a disaster or emergency.
Questions From Honorable James Langevin for Chris A. Kelenske
Question 1. When incorporating cybersecurity incident response into
all-hazards planning, how do you currently work with FEMA?
What Federal partners beyond FEMA do you work with in these
efforts?
Answer. Cybersecurity incidents are integrated into Michigan's
Disaster-Specific Procedures within the Michigan Emergency Management
Plan (MEMP). This MEMP provides an organizational and operational
framework for Michigan officials to mitigate, prepare for, respond to,
and recover from emergencies, threats, or incidents that could
adversely impact the State. The MEMP is consistent and compliant with
the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and generally supports
recommendations by FEMA. While a cyber incident may be the cause of an
emergency or disaster, State officials work with FEMA personnel
regularly to plan for consequences from any event regardless of the
cause. FEMA personnel provide technical assistance and courses to
assist with these planning efforts to include development of continuity
planning for cyber incidents. The State also benefits from assistance
by FEMA personnel with the development of cyber incident exercises in
Michigan. These exercises allow State officials to practice Michigan's
cyber disruption plan with all stakeholders including interaction and
integration with Federal partners. Federal partners include, but are
not limited to, the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Department of Energy, Computer Emergency Readiness Team
(US-CERT), Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-
ISAC), Department of Defense and FEMA Region V.
Question 2. How has the National Cyber Incident Response Plan
changed your cybersecurity planning approach, if at all?
Answer. In drafting the next revision of Michigan's Cyber Emergency
Response Plan, State officials will craft it to align with the National
Cyber Incident Response Plan. State officials will also inform Security
Operations Center activities based on best practices in the National
Plan.
Questions From Chairman Daniel M. Donovan, Jr. for John Sinclair
Question 1. What expectations do you have for the U.S. Fire
Administration (USFA) over the next 10 years?
Answer. The USFA will face a number of challenges over the next 10
years, especially if it must contend with a declining budget, as is
expected. In addition, the environment facing the Nation's fire and
emergency service continues to change.
For the next 10 years, I would recommend the following goals:
Improve and Sustain the National Fire Incident Reporting
System (NFIRS).--The NFIRS plays an important role as a
National warehouse of fire data. However, it is an old system
and has trouble dealing with the DHS/FEMA IT architecture. In
addition, it can be hard to compare the data in my department
with data from a similarly-sized fire department. Also,
concerns have been raised about its ease-of-use.
As a 10-year goal, we would like to see NFIRS technology component
modernized, so it operates better within the DHS/FEMA IT system. We
also would like to see NFIRS develop a more intuitive system for
entering data and a better ability for comparative fire data to be
accessed from the system.
Develop New Courses at the National Fire Academy (NFA) to
Address Emerging Issues.--The NFA is the Nation's premier fire
service educational institution and its training is developing
a new generation of fire service leaders. As new issues emerge,
the NFA should teach courses to address these issues. For
example, my testimony highlighted the need for NFA to teach
courses about information sharing and how to integrate this new
discipline into a fire department's mission. In addition, NFA
could develop training to address other emerging issues,
including how to address firefighter mental health issues; how
to mitigate the threat of cancer; and how to foster a diverse
workforce to address the changing demographics within the
United States.
Address Emerging Fire and EMS Issues.--Over the next 10
years, the Nation's fire and emergency service will have to
address a number of important issues, where the USFA can
provide leadership and guidance. As fire departments link to
FirstNet, USFA can help fire chiefs and incident commanders
integrate the large flow of new data and information into their
standard operating procedures. As the population ages, USFA can
help fire departments plan to serve older communities through
new concepts in EMS, like community paramedicine. USFA also can
help fire departments address personnel issues, like an aging
population of volunteers, a more diverse workforce and group of
constituents, and the need to recruit new volunteers. In
addition, USFA will have to work with DHS and FEMA to develop
training and policy guidance to help fire departments respond
to emerging terror threats, much like it has developed guidance
on responding to active-shooter incidents.
Question 2. With respect to interoperable communications, your
testimony highlighted the importance of FEMA's engagement with the
Office of Emergency Communications (OEC). At this committee's urging
FEMA signed a memorandum of understanding with the Office of Emergency
Communications delineating roles and responsibilities for
communications and grant expenditures. To your knowledge, has this MOU
led to greater engagement of OEC by FEMA?
Answer. The MOU has led to greater coordination between OEC and
FEMA. However, there is currently no existing grant to specifically
fund emergency communications interoperability, which has led to
decreased investments in public safety communications. Communications
is now one of hundreds of eligible investments for a diminished number
of grants.
The Interoperable Emergency Communications Program was a stand-
alone grant that was authorized for $400 million a year and
appropriated at $50 million. It focused on only interoperable
communications. Having a dedicated grant for emergency communications
will allow public safety to continue to support communications
requirements. As you know, FirstNet, while providing public safety with
much needed mission-critical broadband data, will not provide mission-
critical voice communications. Land mobile radios will continue to be
used daily by the fire and EMS departments as well as law enforcement
for years to come. Section 6103 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act (Pub. L. 112-96) requires the FCC to reallocate public
safety's T-Band spectrum for commercial use, begin auctioning it by
February 2021, and clear public safety from the band within 2 years
after the auction closes. This will potentially create a homeland
security risk and negatively impact interoperable communications in
those metropolitan areas.
Question 3. This month marks the fifth anniversary of the enactment
of the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, which established
the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) with the
responsibility to develop and implement the Nation-wide public safety
broadband network. Are you satisfied with FirstNet's outreach to State
and local first responders to get a true sense of user needs for the
system?
Answer. As a veteran fire chief, and as a firefighter who has
responded to numerous large-scale events including natural disasters
and wildland fires, I know first-hand the benefits that the FirstNet
network stands to offer in terms of improving communications,
coordination, and situational awareness during public safety
operations. Just as smartphones have changed our personal lives,
FirstNet devices and applications ultimately will change the way public
safety operates. The ability for a single communications network to be
used to dispatch EMS personnel, a medical helicopter, fire personnel,
and other emergency responders from different jurisdictions all at the
same time, while enabling video, text, and data communications at
broadband speeds will save critical minutes when it matters most.
As circumstances and technology continue to make our world smaller,
situational awareness, real-time information, and data are critical to
the safety of America's fire and emergency service and the public we
are sworn to protect. In terms of daily operations, America's
firefighters deal with an increasingly complex environment that
requires ever-increasing amounts of information and data to keep
citizens and themselves safe. The FirstNet network will make it
possible to gain quick access to new tools and applications that
provide location data and other vital information for firefighting. It
will enable the exchange of real-time data and audio/video feeds on the
fireground to assist incident commanders with operational decision
making and maximize search-and-rescue and fire suppression
effectiveness.
FirstNet had an ambitious agenda in 2016 which included expanding
outreach to involve more local-level first responders; collecting
actionable information and feedback from Federal, State, and Tribal
agencies; and preparing decision makers for State plan delivery in
2017. In 2016, FirstNet connected with more than 40,000 stakeholders
through outreach activities, including meetings at the IAFC's annual
conference, Fire-Rescue International, and many IAFC division
conferences.
One of the results of FirstNet's efforts has been an increase in
public safety's awareness, understanding, and preparation for FirstNet.
FirstNet has seen the types of questions and topics evolve from the
basics--``What is FirstNet?''--to network operations and availability,
such as ``When will FirstNet be in my town?'' ``How will FirstNet
provide coverage in the rural parts of my State?'' ``How much will it
cost?'' and ``What types of devices and apps will I be able to use?''
It is reassuring to see so many State and local public safety officials
engaged in the process. Their input is invaluable as FirstNet moves
from planning to implementation and further defining the answers to
these questions. The Public Safety Advisory Committee (PSAC)--composed
of representatives from public safety and State, territorial, local,
and Tribal organizations--continues to provide FirstNet with expert
advice on key network issues.
This year will be critical for FirstNet. We are encouraged by the
progress and partnerships we have seen at all levels of Government to
prepare for full network deployment, which we expect to begin as soon
as 2018. The IAFC Board of Directors issued a position statement in
September, 2016, publicly endorsing and recognizing the importance of
FirstNet.
Questions From Ranking Member Donald M. Payne, Jr. for John Sinclair
Question 1. Chief Sinclair, helping State and local governments
build and maintain interoperable communications capabilities has been
one of my biggest priorities since joining this subcommittee. The grant
program that used to support that capability no longer exists and, as
you noted, grant funding is not what it used to be. What can FEMA--
working with the Office of Emergency Communications at DHS--do to help
State and local first responders preserve and build upon the emergency
communications capabilities they have built?
Answer. As I have stated, and as your question recognizes, there is
currently no existing grant to specifically fund emergency
communications interoperability. This has led to decreased investments
into public safety communications. Communications is now one of
hundreds of eligible investments for a diminished number of grants.
As you know, the Interoperable Emergency Communications Program was
a stand-alone grant that was authorized for $400 million a year and
appropriated at $50 million. Having a dedicated grant for emergency
communications will allow public safety to continue to support
communications requirements. A key point of which I believe many
Members in Congress may not be aware is that FirstNet--while providing
public safety much-needed mission-critical broadband data--will not
provide mission-critical voice communications. Land mobile radios will
continue to be used daily by the fire and emergency medical service as
well as law enforcement for years to come.
Both FEMA and OEC's budgets are stretched and not having a grant
program focused on interoperable communications makes the job that much
harder. Over the last 5 fiscal years, OEC's budget, for example, has
been cut from approximately $44 million a year to approximately $32
million a year. The Assuring a Safer America Through Effective Public
Safety Communications (SAFECOM) program, a bottom-up program between
public safety and OEC, has had its in-person meetings cut from 4 to 2
meetings per year. Also, a proposed reorganization last year of the
National Protection and Programs Directorate would have diminished OEC
in visibility and importance. Public safety opposed this proposed
diminution of the office. Everyone understands that there are other
highly important issues, but being able to have an effective OEC is
more critical than many recognize. As you know, while not perfect,
mission-critical interoperable voice communications worked well during
Hurricane Sandy as compared to wireless carriers' networks. The gains
that have been made over the years can easily be lost if a focus with
resources and funding is not maintained.
The OEC and FEMA can continue with their limited resources to be
sure the message gets out to emergency responders. Many local
responders are dealing with diminished budgets at the State, county,
and local levels. SAFECOM has worked the National Association of State-
wide Interoperability Coordinators, and coordinated with FEMA, to
provide local responders with information and key documents on
interoperability. Recently, for example, a SAFECOM presentation was
provided to help State and local responders educate local officials
about the budgeting needs for interoperable communications.
To assist States in improving emergency communications
capabilities, OEC, in partnership with the National Governors
Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices, awarded 5 States the
opportunity to participate in an NGA Policy Academy on Enhancing
Emergency Communications Interoperability. The 5 States invited to
participate were Alaska, Hawaii, Illinois, Utah, and West Virginia. The
NGA believed that interoperable emergency communications are essential
to effective public safety, response, and recovery operations in the
wake of disasters. As the emergency communications landscape continues
to evolve, first responders and public safety agencies are forced to
rely on systems and equipment that are often incompatible with each
other. With the continued use of Land Mobile Radio networks for the
foreseeable future, as well as the build-out of the FirstNet network
and development of Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG 9-1-1) systems, the need
for enhanced interoperability is more critical than ever.
Question 2. Chief Sinclair, FEMA administers both the Assistance to
Firefighters Grants and the SAFER Grants. Funding for these important
grant programs has been delayed repeatedly in past years because we
have not adhered to a regular budget and appropriations schedule.
Indeed, fiscal year 2017 money is on hold because we have not enacted
full year appropriations yet. Can you talk about how these funding
delays affect fire departments across the country?
Answer. Representative Payne, you raise an important issue. In the
mid-late 2000s, the AFG application period would start in the spring,
the SAFER application period would take place in the summer, and the
Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) grant application period would take
place in the fall. Now that the DHS appropriations bills seem to be
passing later in the fiscal year, it can be tough for FEMA to hold a
criteria development meeting; draft and get approval for the grant
guidance; hold the application process; hold the peer review and award
the grants within that fiscal year. For example, FEMA has yet to start
the application process for the fiscal year 2016 FP&S grants.
This delay in the grant application processes can be a problem for
local fire departments. They still have to meet their local budget
deadlines. If the application process is not predictable, it can be
tough for a fire department to budget for the local match required by
the AFG, SAFER, and FP&S grants. It would be better if Congress were
able to pass the DHS appropriations bills by October 1. Then FEMA could
go back to starting the AFG application process in the spring, the
SAFER application process in the summer, and the FP&S application
process in the fall.
THE FUTURE OF FEMA: RECOMMENDATIONS OF FORMER ADMINISTRATORS
----------
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response,
and Communications,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Daniel M. Donovan,
Jr. (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Donovan, Rutherford, Garrett,
Payne, Thompson, and Watson Coleman.
Mr. Donovan. The Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness,
Response, and Communications will come to order. The
subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on the
efforts necessary to ensure a strong and effective Federal
Emergency Management Agency. I now recognize myself for an
opening statement.
Today's hearing is the second in a series of hearings on
the future of FEMA and an effort to help set the next
administrator up for success. Earlier this month, the
subcommittee received testimony from FEMA's stakeholders to
hear first-hand about the critical relationship between FEMA
and first responders at the State and local level.
FEMA's success is directly related to the relationships the
agency has with State and local partners to promote a culture
of preparedness within communities. Part one of this series of
hearings reinforced the need for an experienced emergency
manager to lead FEMA.
Today's distinguished and weather-tested witnesses know
better than anyone the significant transformation FEMA has made
in achieving and maintaining National preparedness and response
capabilities over the past 12 years. Both administrators were
responsible for implementing about 350 individual requirements
enacted by Congress in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management
Reform Act.
With the tools Congress gave them, they took steps to
ensure FEMA developed and implemented the complex National
preparedness system made up of Federal, State, local, private,
and non-profit emergency management partners. Significant
resources have been invested at all levels of Government to
reach the current level of National preparedness.
As we move forward, those in positions of authority have an
obligation to build on the critical progress that has been
made. This subcommittee has consistently followed FEMA's
progress.
Without strong leadership in place, FEMA would not have
achieved the level of transformation currently in place. The
FEMA of 2005 is not the FEMA of 2017, and that is a very good
thing.
Looking to the future in working with FEMA, its
stakeholders, and our colleagues in Congress, it is this
subcommittee's intention to ensure the FEMA of 2017 is
continuing to make the United States safer and stronger.
Those watching this hearing know that the threats to the
United States continue to grow and evolve. Since our last
meeting the number of major disasters declarations that were
made this year have nearly doubled.
We must ensure that the investments we make today will work
to better address the threats and hazards we face tomorrow.
Whether it is ensuring first responders have the necessary
training to prevent a terrorist attack with mass casualties
like we saw in San Bernardino, or notifying communities to
prepare for the next Superstorm Sandy, FEMA must remain at the
top of its game.
We are fortunate to have Administrator Fugate and
Administrator Paulison here with us this afternoon. We look
forward to hearing their insights and lessons learned that can
be shared with the next leader of FEMA.
[The statement of Chairman Donovan follows:]
Statement of Chairman Daniel M. Donovan
February 28, 2017
Today's hearing is the second in a series of hearings on the future
of FEMA and an effort to help set the next administrator up for
success. Earlier this month, the subcommittee received testimony from
FEMA's stakeholders to hear first-hand about the critical relationship
between FEMA and first responders at the State and local level.
FEMA's success is directly related to the relationships the agency
has with State and local partners to promote a culture of preparedness
within communities. Part one of this series of hearings reinforced the
need for an experienced emergency manager to lead FEMA.
Today's distinguished and weather-tested witnesses know better than
anyone the significant transformation FEMA has made in achieving and
maintaining National preparedness and response capabilities over the
past 12 years. Both administrators were responsible for implementing
about 350 individual requirements enacted by Congress in the Post-
Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act. With the tools Congress gave
them, they took steps to ensure FEMA developed and implemented the
complex National Preparedness System made up of Federal, State, local,
private, and non-profit emergency management partners. Significant
resources have been invested at all levels of government to reach the
current level of National preparedness. As we move forward, those in
positions of authority have an obligation to build on the critical
progress that has been made.
This subcommittee has consistently followed FEMA's progress.
Without strong leadership in place, FEMA would not have achieved the
level of transformation currently in place. The FEMA of 2005 is not the
FEMA of 2017, and that is a very good thing.
Looking to the future, and working with FEMA, its stakeholders, and
our colleagues in Congress, it is this subcommittee's intention to
ensure the FEMA of 2027 is continuing to make the United States safer
and stronger.
Those watching this hearing know that the threats to the United
States continue to grow and evolve. Since our last hearing, the number
of major disaster declarations this year has nearly doubled. We must
ensure that the investments we make today will work to better address
the threats and hazards we face tomorrow. Whether it is ensuring first
responders have the necessary training to prevent a terrorist attack
with mass casualties, like we saw in San Bernardino, or notifying
communities to prepare for the next Superstorm Sandy, FEMA must remain
at the top of its game.
We are fortunate to have Administrator Fugate and Administrator
Paulison here with us this afternoon. We look forward to hearing their
insights and lessons learned that can be shared with the next leader of
FEMA.
Mr. Donovan. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
New Jersey, my friend, Mr. Payne, for an opening statement that
he may have.
Mr. Payne. Good afternoon. I would first like to thank
Chairman Donovan for holding today's hearing. I would also like
to thank former Administrator Paulison and former Administrator
Fugate for being here today, and I don't ever remember such
bigger smiles in our last few times in front of each other than
now. I wonder why. You know. Also for being here today and
subjecting themselves to a Congressional hearing even though
after leaving Government.
Earlier this month, the subcommittee asked various
stakeholders to provide their insights on what FEMA is doing
well and what issues the next FEMA administrator must address.
I was pleased that in general the stakeholder community had
positive things to say about how FEMA is carrying out its
emergency preparedness mission and the manner in which it
engages with its State, local, and non-Governmental partners
before, during and after disaster strikes. Every witness that
testified before the panel earlier this month identified FEMA's
continued engagement with the stakeholder community as its top
priority.
Although it is unclear to what degree, if at all, the new
administration has engaged with State, local, and non-
Governmental partners on issues related to disaster
preparedness and response, I am hopeful FEMA's outreach and
coordination will continue once the administration has named a
permanent FEMA administrator. I hope that the administration
will name a permanent administrator soon.
The witnesses also testified regarding the progress FEMA
has made encouraging State and local governments to ensure that
the unique needs of children and individuals with disabilities
are integrated into emergency planning, training, and
exercises.
Save the Children in particular lauded FEMA's efforts to
tackle the challenges involved in ensuring that emergency plans
are designed to accommodate children and express support for
making Children's Technical Expert a permanent position at
FEMA.
On the day of September 11 attacks, I was responsible for
student transportation, essentially ensuring that 10,000
children made it home from school safely each day. On that day,
my last student did not get home until 11:30 at night because
of the attack. Now, we have made a lot of progress integrating
children into disaster planning activities since then, but we
must do better.
As Save the Children pointed out earlier this month, 80
percent of the recommendations made by the National Commission
on Children and Disasters in 2010 remain open. I commend
Administrator Fugate for accepting the FEMA National Advisory
Council's recommendations to designate a children's technical
expert to ensure that children remain a priority in disaster
preparedness, response, and recovery planning.
I hope to work with members of this panel to formally
authorize FEMA's children's technical expert this Congress.
Once again, I want to thank both of you for being here today
and I look forward to your testimony.
With that, I yield back.
[The statement of Ranking Member Payne follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Donald M. Payne, Jr.
February 28, 2017
Good morning. I would like to thank Chairman Donovan for holding
today's hearing.
I would also like to thank former Administrator Paulison and former
Administrator Fugate for being here today--and subjecting themselves to
a Congressional hearing even after leaving Government.
Earlier this month, this subcommittee asked various stakeholders to
provide their insights on what FEMA is doing well and what issues the
next FEMA administrator must address.
I was pleased that, in general, the stakeholder community had
positive things to say about how FEMA, under the Obama administration,
carried out its emergency preparedness mission and engaged with its
State, local, and non-Government partners before, during, and after
disaster strikes.
Each witness that testified before the panel earlier this month
identified stakeholder engagement as a top priority for the incoming
administration.
I am hopeful that FEMA's outreach and coordination will continue
once a new administrator takes the helm at FEMA and that President
Trump will act swiftly to nominate a new person with the wealth of
experience that the past two administrators before us today had.
Over the past month, we have seen infrastructure failure compound
the impact of heavy rain at the Oroville Dam spillway and a spike in
vandalism Jewish Cemeteries and harassment at Jewish Community Centers.
At the same time, Federal support for emergency responders has
become uncertain in light of President Trump's politically-charged
Executive Order that could render communities ineligible for certain
DHS grants.
First responders and their community partners need a steady hand at
the helm of FEMA to provide guidance and clarity on how the
administration's policies will affect them.
And the administration needs the expertise of a FEMA administrator
who can ensure that any future infrastructure development proposals
include adequate resiliency measures.
I look forward to a new administrator carrying the torch on many of
the important issues the previous administrators made progress in
addressing.
In particular, earlier this month, Save the Children lauded FEMA's
efforts to tackle the challenges involved in ensuring that emergency
plans are designed to accommodate children and expressed support for
making the ``Children's Technical Expert'' a permanent position at
FEMA.
On the day of the September 11 attacks, I was responsible for
student transportation, essentially ensuring that 10,000 children made
it to and from school safely each day.
On that day, my last student did not get home until 11:30 at night
because of the attack.
We have made a lot of progress integrating children into disaster
planning activities since then, but we must do better.
As Save the Children pointed out earlier this month, 80 percent of
the recommendations made by the National Commission on Children and
Disasters in 2010 remain open.
I commend Administrator Fugate for designating a ``Children's
Technical Expert'' to ensure that children remain a priority in
disaster preparedness, response, and recovery planning.
I hope to work with Members of this panel to formally authorize
FEMA's Children's Technical Expert this Congress.
I thank both of you for being here today, and yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Donovan. The gentleman yields the remainder of his
time.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full
committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson for any
statement that he may have.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In the
interests of waiting to hear our two former FEMA directors'
comments, I will put my statement in the record and just let me
thank both of them for their years of service. I can tell from
their looks they are in a better place.
I yield back.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
February 28, 2017
Good morning. I appreciate Chairman Donovan and Ranking Member
Payne for holding today's hearing so the committee can continue to
examine FEMA.
I would also like to thank Former Administrator Paulison and Former
Administrator Fugate for being here today.
At the outset, I would like to acknowledge the important
contributions both Former Administrator Paulison and Former
Administrator Fugate made toward restoring FEMA's competence and
reputation.
I served as Ranking Member of the full committee when Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita devastated the Gulf Coast, and as Chairman as the
long, protracted recovery process began.
A little over a decade has passed, and I am proud to say that FEMA
is not the same agency it was in late summer 2005.
You both are to thank for that.
Since Hurricane Katrina, we have seen improvements in how we
integrate vulnerable populations into emergency plans, first responder
interoperable communications capabilities, and proactive disaster
response activities--from pre-positioning supplies to expedite disaster
response, to establishing recovery doctrine to ensure that roles and
responsibilities among Federal, State, local, and private-sector
partners are clear.
We reaped the benefit of the authorities set forth in the Post-
Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act following Hurricane Sandy in
2012, but the aftermath of this devastating storm illustrated that
challenges still remained.
Congress--working with FEMA--passed the Sandy Recovery Improvement
Act, which gave FEMA flexibility to expedite aide and hazard mitigation
to disaster survivors, among other things.
The important progress FEMA has made in carrying out its mission
since Hurricane Katrina demonstrates the good that can come of a
positive relationship between Congress and FEMA.
Despite the well-documented progress FEMA has made since 2006,
there are still challenges that undermine FEMA's ability to carry out
its mission.
FEMA's workforce morale problems are well-documented.
In the past, I have expressed concern regarding the state of FEMA's
disaster workforce with respect to both its training and size.
The last time Administrator Fugate testified before this
subcommittee in October 2015, I asked whether our reserve workforce was
as robust as it would need to be to respond to a disaster the scale of
Hurricane Katrina.
At the time, Administrator Fugate candidly told the subcommittee
that ``We're not there,'' because of changes to the disaster workforce
program, limited deployment and training opportunities, and limited
retention mechanisms.
I am interested in understanding what progress FEMA has made in
bolstering its disaster workforce since 2015 and how Congress can help
FEMA continue that progress.
I also share concerns Administrator Fugate has expressed in his
written testimony regarding the politicization of disasters and the
impact of the irregular budget and appropriations cycle.
As we speak, it is unclear who will be able to receive grant funds
under the President's ``sanctuary cities'' Executive Order, and the
Federal Government is operating under a continuing resolution until at
least April 28.
This kind of uncertainty and unpredictability undermine progress,
and I will be interested in hearing our witness' thoughts on how to
address these troubling issues.
Once again, I thank the witnesses for being here today, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Donovan. Sure. The gentleman yields back. Other Members
of the committee are reminded that opening statements may be
submitted for the record.
We are pleased to have very distinguished members of the
panel today before us on this very important topic. Craig
Fugate served as the administrator of FEMA from May 2009 to
January 2017.
Prior to leading FEMA he served as director of the Florida
Division of Emergency Management. During this time, he served
as the Florida State coordinating officer for 11
Presidentially-declared disasters, including the management of
$4.5 billion in Federal disaster assistance.
Administrator Fugate began his emergency management career
as a volunteer firefighter, paramedic, and a lieutenant with
the Alachua County Fire Rescue. Craig, they put it in phonetic
spelling for me.
David Paulison served as the administrator of FEMA from
September 2005 to January 2009. He served as administrator of
the United States Fire Administration from 2001 to 2005. During
this time he also served as the director of preparedness at
FEMA from 2003 to 2004.
Additionally, he spent 30 years in the fire service and 9
years as fire chief of Miami Dade County, Florida where his
responsibilities included the Office of Emergency Management
and the Urban Search and Rescue team.
The witnesses' full written statements will appear in the
record. I thank you both for attending today and for the input
you will have to further this agency to better protect our
country.
The Chair now recognizes Administrator Fugate for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF W. CRAIG FUGATE, FORMER ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Mr. Fugate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Members. I
always thought I was smiling at our hearings. I always thought
we had good conversations, even when I was in a bit of a hot
seat, but I always enjoyed it.
Mr. Chairman, you said I think something that is important.
What are the things that we are currently doing or not doing
that we need to codify in legislation? So I want to start off
with where we began with the Post-Katrina Emergency Management
Reform Act.
A lot of people define FEMA by the Stafford Act, and I
think that is short-sighted. The real authorization of FEMA
came out of the Homeland Security Act as amended, and first of
all, required that that FEMA administrator be a professional,
have that background. This is not a good job to do on-the-job-
training. It is too brutal and the citizens deserve better.
The second thing was it is all-hazards. Most people think
of FEMA when you get a declared disaster from the Stafford Act.
Yet in my time at FEMA, we supported the USAID's response to
Haiti. We supported border and custom protection with
unaccompanied children across the Southwest Border. We
supported the Center for Disease Control during the Ebola
outbreak.
These were all capabilities that were enabled and
authorized by that act that FEMA can serve as the crisis
manager for the Federal Government, not just in support to
States and local governments during disasters.
So that is one of the things we have learned is you have
invested a lot of money in the organization. We don't always
make utilization of it because we define it by natural hazards
instead of disasters and crisis management require certain
skill sets that unless you are doing it frequently, you are not
always proficient at it.
So in looking at some of the ways that FEMA was used to
support other agencies, this is not about putting FEMA in
charge. It is about FEMA and its support role to either a State
or a Tribal executive or to a lead Federal agency. Has a lot of
capabilities, and I think we, in times of cutting budgets and
looking at how to get better efficiencies, we should not
overlook the fact that FEMA should not be defined by the
Stafford Act.
It should be defined by the all-hazards mission as a
support agency to either the Governors or Tribal executives
when they request assistance, or Federal agencies who may have
a lead in a disaster, but may not always have the immediate
staffing required to manage that in the onset.
The second thing I wanted to--other than Post-Katrina
Reform Act--is what we were doing at FEMA, and I think you
kind-of mentioned it in looking at various constituency groups
was really emphasizing something we called the whole of
community, but it is short-hand for this.
We need to plan for the communities we live in, not what
fits our plan. If you have to write in the index because you
have elderly folks that you can't meet through your plan, if
you have children and you got to write in the index for the
children because you don't plan for children in your shelters,
if you have to write in the index for people with disabilities
because they cannot get your emergency communication because
you are not anticipating that there may be deaf or hard-of-
hearing or visually-impaired people, if you are assuming
everybody has got a car and can drive, then who did you really
plan for?
So we tried to change our doctrine, move to this idea that
we should be planning for the communities we live in, not what
fits our plan.
So Ranking Member Payne, I very strongly support and I have
talked to the, you know, the Save the Children. By practice we
have a child advocate because sometimes I think in FEMA you got
to shine a light on problems to keep visibility on it because
it is not something that is in the DNA yet. I would strongly
support moving that from something we were doing to something
that Congress agrees with and would direct.
But it really comes back to this idea that there are some
basic principles that get us in trouble. If you go back to
Hurricane Andrew, you go back to Katrina, you know, we always
like to talk about individuals. I don't think it was
individuals. Here is what really happened.
We as a Nation, State and local governments made a decision
to plan for what we were capable of doing or what we were
willing to spend money on, and then hope it was never any worse
and that our systems would scale up. And they don't.
You have to plan what can happen. That is not always going
to be based upon your history or your experiences. So we at
FEMA began changing the discussion to not what we are used to
doing or what we are capable of doing, but planning against
things that can happen.
Planning for the communities we live in, not what fits our
plan, and moving us out of our comfort zone. At that whole time
at FEMA, we didn't come to you and say we need new money. It
was about utilizing our resources against problems and
recognizing that Government-centric solutions may not always be
the answer.
You have to give a seat to the table for your NGO's and
volunteers, but also the private sector who too oftentimes are
kept at arm's length in our planning. In many cases we have
greater issues with bringing the private sector in than we do
with separation of church and State.
So basically we have to plan for what can happen, not what
we can afford. It doesn't always mean more Federal dollars. It
means more inclusion of all of our community resources. The
most important thing is we should never make our community fit
our plans. Our plans should be inclusive, not exclusive to the
citizens who we serve.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fugate follows:]
Prepared Statement of W. Craig Fugate
February 28, 2017
Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and distinguished Members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to appear before you
today as you continue your work to provide recommendations to the next
administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
I had the honor of being selected by President Obama to lead FEMA
and served as the Agency's administrator from May 19, 2009, until
January 20, 2017. Immediately before my time at FEMA, I served as
director of the State of Florida's division of emergency management for
former Governors Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist, from 2001 until 2009.
Prior to that, I served in various emergency management and first-
responder roles at the local and county government level in Florida.
Having watched your February 14 hearing with State, local, and non-
profit stakeholders providing their recommendations to the next
administrator, I generally agree with what the witnesses had to say.
My testimony today is going to focus on some larger issues that I
believe the incoming administrator must be aware of in order to
succeed: Protecting the Agency's authorities; ensuring adequate funding
for Federal disaster relief; preserving the commitment of the Federal
Government in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act to States and Tribes; and ensuring that the Federal
Government is properly investing in resilience and not subsidizing
risky behavior.
First and foremost, emergency management should never be partisan,
but disasters will always get politicized. As we have seen time and
again, disaster strikes regardless of political affiliation. It is the
job of emergency managers at all levels of government--State, local,
Tribal, territorial, and Federal--to work with the whole community to
successfully manage the consequences of any disaster or hazard event.
It's vitally important that the new leadership team at FEMA
understands the unique relationship of FEMA during times of crisis in
support of States and Tribes, at the direction of the President and per
the Stafford Act. Additionally, the FEMA administrator has a unique
operational relationsip among Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
components to report directly to the President during times of crisis,
as Congress mandated in the Homeland Security Act as amended by the
Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PK-EMRA, Pub. L. 109-
295).
Despite its primary responsibility to Governors and Tribal leaders
who can request Federal assistance from the President, the agency is
wholly reliant on the Congress for its authorities and appropriations.
I cannot speak for my predecessors, but FEMA was relatively effective
during my term as administrator when it came to Congressional
engagement and successful when there was a need for legislative action.
I'd encourage my successor and his or her leadership team to continue
that relationship with the Congress in good faith.
In my time at FEMA, there was not a single year when FEMA operated
under an on-time appropriation. That year-to-year instability--while
consistent--makes running the organization more challenging.
When Chief Paulison was tapped to lead the agency in 2005, it was
in the days immediately following Katrina's impact along the Gulf Coast
and there were clear failures at all levels of Government in the
response to that event. In the aftermath of Katrina, Congress conducted
vigorous oversight of the Federal Government's response to Katrina.
The outcome of this oversight was PKEMRA. It was landmark
legislation drafted, debated, and ultimately enacted, out of
frustration with FEMA's performance in response to Hurricane Katrina.
Congress designed PKEMRA to support and strengthen FEMA, and its
sweeping restructuring requirements benefited the agency greatly.
Today, FEMA has the authority and the autonomy it needs to assist
communities as they prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover
from, and mitigate against all potential hazards.
In 2005 when Katrina struck, FEMA was no longer an autonomous
agency. As a part of the 2-year-old Department of Homeland Security,
FEMA's programs were split apart. Most of its disaster assistance
activities were inside DHS' Emergency Preparedness and Response
Directorate (EP&R) while FEMA's other programs were siloed elsewhere
throughout the Department.
Congress used PKEMRA to permanently restructure FEMA's functions
back under a single operating component to improve the Federal function
of emergency management.
PKEMRA required FEMA to be a distinct entity and prohibited--by
statute--any future changes to FEMA's mission by the Department. The
law also returned the Preparedness Directorate to FEMA, including the
Fire Administration, and the programs under the Office of Grants and
Training.
Congress also made permanent changes to FEMA leadership. PKEMRA
mandates that to hold the position of FEMA Administrator, certain
qualifications and experience are necessary (6 U.S.C. 313(c)2). In
addition, PKEMRA ensures that the FEMA administrator is the principal
advisor to the President on all matters relating to emergency
management that the administrator is assured a seat in the Cabinet, as
required (6 U.S.C. 313(c)4 and 6 U.S.C. 313(c)5).
PKEMRA was enacted just 13 months after Katrina made landfall. It
was under Chief Paulison's leadership that the agency began the tasks
necessary to rebuild the agency.
Unfortunately, as recently as last year, there were attempts to
undermine the protections Congress provided FEMA in PKEMRA when the
full House Homeland Security Committee advanced ``Unity of Effort''
legislation with the intent of giving the Secretary of Homeland
Security more control over the various operating components of the
Department.
While some language was ultimately added to preserve the PKEMRA
protections in the language that was added to the National Defense
Authorization Act, future agency leadership should be aware that there
are still efforts in Congress and at the Department that would hinder
FEMA's abilities to effectively respond, especially to a catastrophic
event such as a Cascadia Subduction Zone or New Madrid earthquake.
The other great challenge that the agency faces in the coming years
is budgetary.
Following the enactment of the Budget Control Act (BCA), FEMA
became an extremely lean operation; outside of the Disaster Relief Fund
(DRF), there's not much fat left to trim. We took sequestration
seriously and looked at ways to maximize organizational efficiencies
without sacrificing the agency's mission essential functions.
As for the DRF, the BCA was actually a short-term boon. Prior to
BCA, the DRF had been inadequately funded through the regular
appropriations process. Instead, the agency relied on supplemental
appropriations bills to be quickly enacted in the wake of significant
events to replenish the DRF and fund recovery from emergencies and
disasters.
In 2011, as the agency was responding to Hurricanes Irene and Lee,
the balance in the DRF got so low that the agency implemented
``immediate needs funding'' (INF), meaning States and locals that were
expecting FEMA funds to pay for recovery work stopped receiving Federal
dollars. The agency had barely enough money to pay for on-going
response activities and had to stop funding recovery in communities all
across the Nation.
Appropriators knew that INF was a potential problem and the
situation led to a formula being included in the Budget Control Act
that would provide more stable and significant funding to the Agency
based on a rolling 10-year average of disaster response and recovery
costs.
This worked well for several years, but once the years that
included Katrina, Rita, and Wilma dropped off the formula's average,
the annual appropriation for the DRF ratcheted down.
At the end of fiscal year 2016, the agency successfully managed
response and recovery spending to the point that--even with Hurricane
Matthew bearing down on the southeastern United States--FEMA still had
adequate funds to get through the fiscal year appropriation under which
the Federal Government was operating without the need for a
supplemental appropriation expressly for the DRF.
At the close of fiscal year 2016, there was less than $100 million
in the portion of the DRF set aside for major disasters. To put that in
perspective, FEMA spent $1 billion in the first month following Sandy's
landfall, so $100 million would not have lasted long had there been
another significant disaster in addition to Matthew prior to the
expiration of the fiscal year.
In the Budget Control Act framework, Congress designed a fail-safe
for supplemental disaster spending that would count toward the DRF's
formula and then another fail-safe for ``emergency'' spending beyond
the disaster space that would not count toward the DRF formula, but the
subcommittee is likely very aware of the difficulty to pass any
appropriations measure in regular order.
Following Sandy, the 112th Congress adjourned after its disaster
supplemental attempt was blocked. It took the newly-installed 113th
Congress 3 weeks to pass a supplemental to replenish the DRF. While
FEMA had the resources needed to continue with response and recovery
operations, there were many Federal departments an agencies with
disaster-related recovery needs that were left unfinished while needed
funds were debated and ultimately appropriated by the Congress.
Congress must re-evaluate the formula that drives the DRF's annual
appropriation as well as the potential budgetary space beyond the
appropriation for disaster supplementals, and then the space for
``emergency'' supplementals beyond the disaster supplemental space.
This disaster supplemental space also became an area of contention
during the last few years as the House Natural Resources Committee
looked for ways to fund wildfire suppression on Federal lands for the
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of the Interior
(DOI).
Congress must not amend the Stafford Act to provide a Presidential
declaration for an event that would give a Federal department or agency
access to the Disaster Relief Fund or the disaster budget space to meet
their own mission. Congress established the Stafford Act framework of
Federal assistance expressly to support State, local, Tribal, and
territorial governments, not to serve as a backstop for legislative
gridlock preventing an appropriations and budgeting solution to
challenges that other Federal entities may face.
In November 2016, the Obama administration proposed a legislative
fix that would have solved the issues that USDA, DOI, and DHS/FEMA all
faced, but Congress did not act on the proposal given the reluctance to
amend the Budget Control Act.
It is imperative that this issue is dealt with soon, otherwise you
and your colleagues will again be forced to debate supplemental
disaster appropriations bills on a recurring basis, all while FEMA's
ability to respond and recover is hindered.
This leads to the issue of the Federal Government subsidizing risky
behavior that ultimately drives the need for increased spending for
disaster relief. It does so with significant Federal investment in
infrastructure that is not built with resilience in mind--the ability
for it to quickly recover from known and predictable hazards--and the
Congress enables it via the statutorily-mandated National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP).
Whether this administration and Congress want to chalk it up to
climate change or not, the Federal Government is spending billions of
dollars annually to deal with the effects of extreme weather and not
nearly enough to combat future risk. I've included for the record an
op-ed published in The Hill on January 30, 2017 which highlights a few
of the many significant examples.
The solution is easy: Factor in building for resilience on the
front-end of these Federal investments. There's a four-to-one benefit
cost to the taxpayer and the outcome is that disaster relief spending
should ultimately be reduced in the out years because it costs
significantly less to fund recovery for resilient construction
following a disaster.
As for the NFIP, the Congress tried to charge all policy holders
rates that reflect their true risk of flooding with the passage of
Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. It then repealed
those changes less than 2 years later when interest groups waged a
campaign alleging wide-spread premium increases of tens of thousands of
dollars.
While there were a handful of policy holders who may have
legitimately seen very high premiums, it was because their properties
were in extremely high-risk areas. The Federal Government has been
subsidizing that risk and incentivizing future risk in areas we know
will be impacted by extreme weather and sea-level rise.
Another difficult conversation that the Congress must have about
risk subsidization regards the affordability of the NFIP for its
policyholders. When the Congress established the NFIP, it did so to
create a risk backstop for the mortgage industry; it was not looking at
future development or the fact that the Federal Government was going to
be running an insurance company for a pool of high-risk policy holders.
While the NFIP has many policy holders who can afford to live in
high-risk areas in desirable coastal communities, there are many other
policy holders who live in or near floodplains because they are lower
income and that is where affordable housing is located inland.
The NFIP must be reauthorized by the end of fiscal year and I hope
that the committees with jurisdiction over the program will take into
consideration the findings of the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine--which Congress commissioned to study the
matter to better inform the Congress on premium affordability--ahead of
the next major reauthorization.
The FEMA team today is fully aware of past shortcomings, current
challenges, and is continually assessing itself and making
improvements.
The agency's mission is to support our citizens and first
responders to ensure that as a Nation we work together to build,
sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against,
respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards. That serves as a
guide to the entire staff on any given day and should also provide
focus to the next administrator.
Further, it's important that the incoming administrator not get
bogged down in bureaucracy. My parting advice for the FEMA team was to
continue going big, going early, going fast, and being smart about it.
The agency currently has the authorities and resources needed for
success, but they are both in jeopardy. It is vitally important for the
next administrator to continue building upon the strides the agency has
made since Katrina and working with Congress to ensure authority and
funding are not diminished.
Challenges in emergency management are a constant. Also, failure is
not an option and is not well-received by the American public; we've
seen time and again how failures related to Federal emergency
management contribute to or even establish a narrative of ineffective
leadership of a President. The next FEMA leadership team must continue
leaning forward, pushing the agency to improve outcomes for disaster
survivors, planning and training for the unimaginable, and enhancing
the capabilities of the whole community that is essential to
successfully accomplishing the emergency management mission.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you, Mr. Fugate.
Before I ask Mr. Paulison for his opening statement to let
you know this committee is not about wasting people's time. All
of the testimony that we gather here and what we gathered in
the first hearing will be compiled in some type of report that
we will give to the new administrator so that they are aware,
she or he are aware of your recommendations and give them a
starting point. So I thank you for your input.
The Chair now recognizes Administrator Paulison for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT DAVID PAULISON, FORMER ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Paulison. Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne and
the distinguished Members of the panel, I want to thank you for
holding this hearing. It is very important for us for the
future of FEMA, and so I thank you for the opportunity to allow
me just to share some of my ideas and hopefully assist in the
goals of this committee.
Some of my ideas may be controversial, but I wish this
panel would hear them out and consider those, because I have
over 40 years of experience dealing with natural disasters at
the Federal, State, and local levels. I have a very deep
appreciation of our tremendous service of our Nation's first
responders and our emergency management officials.
This has really given me a unique understanding of the
inherent problems of our Nation's disaster preparedness and
response system, how we can better positon FEMA to respond when
disaster strikes. This understanding is largely influenced by
my experience first-hand in the aftermath of multiple
catastrophic disasters. I clearly remember the devastation of
both Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
It is through this lens that I sit here today to tell you
that the United States must reform its disaster spending model
to save lives and property, and I think the first step we must
take is consolidating disaster spending under FEMA.
Following the Presidential disaster declaration, FEMA and a
vast array of other agencies are engaged to distribute Federal
relief funds. In the case of Hurricane Sandy, there were over
19 different agencies involved, and not only was this response
fragmented and confusing for the disaster-stricken communities
I work with, but it was also highly ineffective.
To fix this, my recommendation is to give the FEMA
administrator control over disaster response spending. FEMA now
uses the cost/benefit analysis, which is a strict numerical
assessment, to determine where the benefits of a project are
sufficient to justify the cost in implementing it.
If we consolidate the disaster spending through FEMA that
will significantly reduce our post-disaster waste. But I think
more importantly than that is stopping the damage and loss of
life in the first place.
Natural disasters are rapidly increasing in frequency and
severity. Between 1996 and 2005 there were on average only 39
disaster declarations a year. That number has more than tripled
now in the last two decades, and now we average over 121
declared disasters a year.
These disasters come at an enormous price tag. Since 1980,
the United States has been struck by over 200 natural disasters
that cost more than $1 billion a year each. The cost of these
events has now been over $1 trillion we have spent just since
1980. The taxpayers are on the hook for these expenses that we
repeatedly put more and more exorbitant disaster recovery
stuff.
As American lives continue to be put on the line and
Federal disaster spending skyrockets, United States needs to
assess what we can do before the disaster strikes. Adoption and
enforcement of model State-wide building codes is an essential
step in this process.
In fact, a study conducted by the LSU Hurricane Center
estimated that model codes would have reduced wind damage by
Hurricane Katrina by over 80 percent, as well as saved over $8
billion just by having model building codes in place.
So instead of spending money on the front end to improve
resiliency of structures, preventing the monumental damage I
witnessed during my career, the United States continues to
build insufficient codes that leave our communities vulnerable
to future disasters. This result is an unnecessary loss of life
and an incredible destruction. That is why I strongly believe
that the United States must balance its broken disaster
spending model.
I also believe that when you can begin leveraging our cost-
saving power or pre-disaster mitigation by shifting significant
Federal resources from post-disaster reactive and wasteful
spending to preventive mitigation that will bend the runaway
Federal cost curve for disasters.
The Federal level shift toward pre-disaster mitigation must
be supported by a corresponding shift at the State level. This
can be accomplished by creating a couple programs to
incentivize the States to do a better a job at their level.
We need to create a post-disaster hazard mitigation grant,
and I recommend that we give those States 4 extra percentage
points on the post-disaster side to put the model building
codes in place to better fortify their facilities.
I also believe that the 75 percent minimum cost share that
we use right now should be broken down into two parts. One to
giving 80 percent to those departments or those States to put
into model building codes and do the pre-disaster mitigation
efforts that FEMA recommends. The States that don't do that,
the States that don't put those model building codes in place
and don't prepare their States like they should, we reduce
their cost by 15 percent.
Now make it clear, I am not advocating we stop assisting
communities in following a disaster. That is a vital act of our
community and what we should be doing. However, we need to be
smarter about allocation of existing finite resources, and
these policy proposals will mitigate overall damage which will
lead to a decrease in loss of life and save the taxpayer
dollars at the same time.
As you work together with the Trump administration with our
new infrastructure package coming out, I urge you to look at
these recommendations very carefully. If we are going to
rebuild our country, we need to make sure we put these
proposals in place. Thank you for this opportunity and I will
be glad to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Paulison follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert David Paulison
February 28, 2017
Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and distinguished Members
of the committee, I would like to thank you for holding this important
hearing today regarding the future of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). I am grateful for the leadership of the Chairman and the
Ranking Member for the opportunity to share my expertise and assist
with the goals of this committee.
I have over 40 years of experience dealing with natural disasters
at the Federal, State, and local levels. During my career, I served as
administrator of FEMA from 2005 to 2009, administrator of the U.S. Fire
Administration from 2001 to 2005, director of preparedness at FEMA from
2003 to 2004, and fire chief of the Miami-Dade Fire and Rescue
Department from 1992 to 2001. I spent the 21 years prior to that rising
through the ranks of the Miami-Dade Fire Department, beginning my
career as a rescue firefighter in 1971. I have a deep appreciation for
the tremendous service of our Nation's first responders and emergency
management officials. I also have a unique understanding of the
inherent problems with our Nation's disaster preparedness and response
system and how we can better position FEMA to respond when a disaster
strikes.
This understanding was largely influenced by experiencing first-
hand the aftermath of multiple category 5 hurricanes. I remember the
devastation of both Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and Hurricane Katrina in
2005. One of the many things that stands out in my mind following these
experiences was walking down the street and finding that where once
stood a home was now only a concrete slab. This continued down the
street--slab after slab, on and on. It was only every now and then that
we would come across a home still standing.
It is through this lens that I sit here today to tell you that the
United States must reform its disaster spending model to save lives and
property. The first step we must take is:
1. consolidating disaster spending administration under fema
Following a Presidential Disaster Declaration, FEMA and a vast
array of other agencies are engaged to distribute Federal relief funds.
In the case of Hurricane Sandy, there were 19 different agencies
involved. Not only was this response fragmented and confusing for the
disaster-stricken communities I've worked with, it is also wasteful and
ineffective. To fix this, the United States should give FEMA
administrative control over all disaster response. FEMA uses a Cost-
Benefit Analysis (CBA), a strict numerical assessment to determine
whether the benefits of a project are sufficient to justify the cost of
implementing it. Consolidating disaster spending administration under
FEMA (thus requiring a BCA for all disaster spending) would
significantly reduce post-disaster waste.
Even more important is preventing the damage and loss of life in
the first place.
Natural disasters are rapidly increasing in frequency and severity.
Between 1976 and 1995, there were, on average, 39 major disaster
declarations annually. This number more than tripled over the next two
decades, rising to a startling annual average of 121 disasters.
And these disasters come with an enormous price tag. Since 1980,
the United States has been struck by 203 natural disasters costing more
than 1 billion dollars each. The total cost of these events is over
$1.1 trillion.
And taxpayers have been put on the hook to repeatedly foot more and
more of this exorbitant disaster recovery bill. The percentage of post-
disaster recovery paid by taxpayer dollars has increased from 5 percent
in 1955 to 50 percent in 2005 all the way to 80 percent in 2012.
As American lives continue to be put on the line and Federal
disaster spending skyrockets, the United States needs to assess what
the we can do before disasters strike.
Research has repeatedly demonstrated the life and cost-saving power
of pre-disaster mitigation. Studies have shown that every $1 invested
proactively pre-disaster saves $4 or more on post-disaster recovery.
Adoption and enforcement of model State-wide building codes is an
essential step in this process. In fact, a study conducted by the LSU
Hurricane Center estimated that model codes would have reduced wind
damage from Hurricane Katrina by 80 percent, saving countless lives as
well as $8 billion. Having witnessed the devastation from Hurricane
Katrina first-hand, this research hits home for me.
Today, FEMA has a program in place that leverages the power of pre-
disaster mitigation. FEMA's Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grant Program
helps States and communities fortify homes and structures before the
next disaster. However, the PDM is vastly underutilized. In fact, in
recent years, the United States has spent over $14 on post-disaster
mitigation for every dollar it invested in pre-disaster preparation.
Instead of spending money on the front end to improve resiliency in
structures, preventing the monumental damaged I witnessed during my
time as FEMA administrator, the United States continues to build to
insufficient codes that leave our communities vulnerable to future
natural disasters. This results in the unnecessary loss of life and
incredible destruction I witnessed during my time working in emergency
management. This is why I strongly believe that the United States must
balance its broken disaster spending model. Our Nation can accomplish
this via:
2. enhanced pre-disaster mitigation funding
Leveraging the cost-saving power of pre-disaster mitigation
(remember: $1 dollar in prevention saves $4 in losses) by shifting
significant Federal resources from post-disaster, reactive, and
wasteful spending to preventative mitigation spending that will bend
the runaway Federal cost curve on disasters. The FEMA PDM program would
receive a new, automatic funding formula enhancement via an automatic
mitigation surcharge from the Disaster Relief Fund to the Pre-Disaster
Mitigation grant program. There should also be explicit statutory
clarification in the PDM program of eligibility for building code
development and enforcement.
This Federal-level shift toward pre-disaster mitigation must be
supported by a corresponding shift at the State level. This can be
accomplished by:
3. creating two programs to incentivize states to invest pre-disaster
a. Establishing a Post-Disaster Mitigation Incentive.--Creating a Post-
Disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Federal incentive of 4
percent extra funding for States who have FEMA-qualified State-
wide building codes in place. There should also be explicit
statutory clarification in the HMGP program of eligibility for
building code development and enforcement.
b. Reforming the Federal Disaster Minimum Cost Share.--Instead of the
flat 75 percent minimum Federal cost share post-disaster, the
Federal Government should break post-disaster relief funding
into two tiers. In tier one should be States that implemented
FEMA-approved pre-disaster mitigation actions, including State-
wide model building code adoption and enforcement. These States
should be provided with an additional 5 percent in post-
disaster relief funding. In tier 2 should be States that left
their residents and structures vulnerable and failed to engage
in proactive activities. These States should receive 15 percent
less Federal funding post-disaster.
To be clear, I am not advocating that we stop assisting communities
in need following a disaster. It is a vital act of public service in
our country. However, we need to be smarter about the allocation of our
existing, finite resources. These policy proposals would mitigate
overall damage, which would lead to a decrease in loss of life and save
taxpayer dollars.
As the Trump administration and Congress embark on the critical
task of rebuilding America's infrastructure, taking steps to fix our
broken disaster spending model is more important than ever. While the
appropriate representatives work to create that plan, Congress should
insist on reforms to Federal disaster spending that put pre-disaster
mitigation at the forefront and position FEMA on the edge of the effort
to rebuild our infrastructure in a way that is fortified against
natural disasters.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here and testify before you
today.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you, Mr. Paulison. I am going to
recognize myself now for questions. Through the rules of the
committee, we will go back and forth according to seniority for
those who were in attendance at the start of the hearing, and
then continue with those who have come afterward.
We are a law-making body, and many times Congress will tell
the folks who have to implement what we pass what they need. I
was always a believer in asking you what it is that you need so
that we then can pass the legislation that makes your job
easier, more efficient, allows you to protect our citizens and
our lands better.
So what I would like to ask each of you, aside from your
testimony, is what would you have liked to have seen when you
were in office, when you were the administrator of FEMA? What
would you have liked Congress to have passed so that you could
accomplish the goals that you set out as your responsibility of
protecting our Nation from either terrorist attacks or natural
disasters?
Mr. Fugate. Well, Mr. Chairman, to be honest with you, much
of what, even what Dave proposed, is actually within the
administration's authority. The only thing that is not in the
authority would be to reduce the cost share below 75 percent in
the Stafford Act because the law says not less than 75 percent.
But in many ways the Post-Katrina Reform Act and then the
Sandy Recovery Improvement Act gives the administration broad
authorities to execute the mission. But I did have technical
issues. Again, this committee, the House was very supportive of
fixing some technical glitches with our USAR teams to get them
some authorities they needed.
One of the things I am still wrestling with was as I was
walking out the door was in our reserve work force. We run
about 5,000, usually less than that, permanent work force. The
majority of people that you see out in disasters are temporary
hires.
They are people that--no, it is not temporary hires. They
are called itinerant. But what they are is they are a reserve
to FEMA. They work when we have disasters. We bring them in, we
train them, we equip them. Then there is really no cycle other
than disaster work to get called up and deployed.
It turns out those people are oftentimes the most
experienced, best trained people we have. Yet when we go to
post a position, because they are not considered career, they
have no status. As we post these positions for permanent
positions, you would think this would be a very diverse, well-
educated, well-trained group to recruit from. In many cases
they don't even make the certification list when we hire.
So as one of the tools we were looking to enhance and
maintain recruitment of reservists in our core positions, the
non-permanent work force that is paid for out of the Stafford
Act. We had asked for similar provisions that Congress had
granted to the Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service
for their part-time and seasonal firefighters, that when you
had a positon posted, they would have status so that you could
post a position internally that they could apply for.
This isn't about being exclusionary, but it is about taking
advantage of the dollars that were already spent to train them.
They have already deployed on disasters. We know the caliber
and quality of their work. I think it would save money.
I understand there are concerns about screening out
veterans and others, but we try to apply veteran's preference
when we do our reservist hiring in the first place. I think
that if we put those on the reservists, our requirements on the
front end, that would further strengthen and diversify our work
force.
But it would be an additional enhancement and tool at very
low cost from what is already being spent as an incentive to
retain highly-qualified people knowing that when we did post
permanent positions, they would have an opportunity to apply
for that versus having to compete against the general
population for the same job.
Mr. Donovan. These are people that we have trained?
Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir.
Mr. Donovan. Correct?
Mr. Fugate. You have spent money----
Mr. Donovan. We have already invested in them?
Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir. They have their qualifications. Many
of them have deployed numerous times. Congressman Thompson
probably knows some of them on a first-name basis from the
floods and tornados in his State. A lot of times they are
people that start out locally and grow through the system.
The current acting administrator for FEMA, Bob Fenton,
started out in one of these part-time jobs. So we know there
are great people out there. This would make sure that we
maintain that relationship, but I think strengthened our
relationship with reservists by giving them status when we post
positions for internal hires.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you.
Mr. Paulison.
Mr. Paulison. Well, one, I would like to echo what
Administrator Fugate commented on because it is extremely
important. The disaster work force, particularly our temporary
employees, is a huge issue. It became a huge issue during
Katrina getting the right people in the right places, and the
amount of time they put in and oftentimes we can't get the same
people back again.
The other issue I want to, and I am not sure it is a
legislative issue, but I think still important, that, like I
mentioned earlier in my opening comments, we only have 16
States with State-wide building codes and that are enforceable.
We have to deal with that because I see the damage that we have
in a storm.
We build the houses back exactly the same way they were and
then they blow down exactly the same way they did before, and
we continue to do it over and over again. It is almost like
Groundhog Day. We have got to stop that because we are just
wasting our dollars by not putting in strong building codes and
build our homes and our businesses back like they should.
The third piece I think that is extremely important is the
fact that we have got to make sure that whatever we have to do
that we have the right people managing FEMA. We don't want to
go back to the way it was before I came in and Administrator
Fugate came in. The people that are managing FEMA have to have
the qualifications. Like Craig said, this is not an on-the-job-
training type of position.
We need to make sure we are bringing in qualified,
experienced people with years and years of dealing with
disasters. So I think those are the three issues that I would
point out that we need to really stop and look at as the next
administrator comes in.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you very much. My time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let us see here.
So Mr. Fugate, now in your testimony you note that budget
constraints have caused FEMA to become an extremely lean
operation. Given its limited budget, is FEMA sufficiently
resourced to nimbly respond to, you know, a major disaster or
terrorist attack?
Mr. Fugate. It is getting better. Some of the things we did
was we got rid of a lot of rental space. We went from 9
buildings that we were leasing here in the National Capital
region to everything is now at 500 and 400 C Street. We made a
decision it was more important to have people than to have
doors. So we went to an open floor plan and focused on that.
The second thing is we did something that I thought was
rather important. Turned out a lot of people at FEMA did not
have to deploy to a disaster. Did you know that, sir?
Mr. Payne. No.
Mr. Fugate. You would think that working at FEMA you were
deployable. But it turned out if it wasn't in their position
description, it wasn't enforceable. So we changed that. Every
employee now has to go through a 2-week orientation and begin
their emergency management training, and sign a statement
saying they understand that 24 hours a day, 7 days a week they
have to have an emergency function.
We did all that and reduced our cost, better utilizing our
resources. So I think we are close to where we need to be as
far as our day-to-day. I think there are still efficiencies
within the systems that we have to focus on.
But I would be concerned that, particularly as we start
talking about how to pay for FEMA's disaster response costs, a
lot of debate should that come out of the DRF or should that be
in the base cost? That is Congress' preference.
But it costs money to have deployable capabilities. It
costs money to have generators ready to go. It costs money to
have reservists to go. It is not cheap. So hold FEMA
accountable to make the maximum utilization of those resources,
but understand the days of us getting easy saves by cutting 10
percent to 15 percent without impacts on capabilities is over.
We are now having to make decisions about what capabilities
do we not need to maintain and to what quantity and time frames
we expect those resources to arrive in a disaster, because that
dictates what the costs are.
Mr. Payne. Yes. Now, and from your vantage point, could
FEMA absorb, you know, new wide-scale cuts as President Trump
has indicated may be proposed?
Mr. Fugate. Well, you know, in general, what I have found
the best way for FEMA to operate is for Congress to do a
budget, appropriate funds, and describe those activities that
we should be doing with those funds and hold us accountable.
When you say across-the-board cuts and other things, I
think the appropriations process has been to me the most
effective way. As an administrator I always liked to know what
Congress expected me to do and how much money they are
expecting me to do it with. Then I had a duty to tell you
whether that was possible or not, and you were there to hold me
accountable if I wasn't getting the job done because I wasn't
efficiently utilizing the resources.
Mr. Payne. Do you believe that FEMA was sufficiently
financially equipped while you were there as administrator?
Mr. Fugate. Yes. We dealt with a lot of challenges on the
financial side. We had one shut-down, but FEMA never furloughed
employees except at that shut-down. We cut a lot of travel, a
lot of other expenses to focus on our people. That was our
commitment. I think that is the greatest asset FEMA has is its
people. So that is where we made our decisions.
You know, it would be nice to be in a world where everybody
got everything they always wanted. I don't know where that
exists. I have never found it. So I think it is the job of the
administrator to make sure that they inform the appropriators
what cuts mean, make sure we all agree to what that results in.
But also take advantage of some of the flexibility that FEMA
had in how we did our mission to fit the budget.
But it is past the point where the largeness that was built
up after Katrina can continue to be whittled away. You are at
the point now where you are going to have to make decisions and
trade-offs.
If you want to reduce this funding, how much more time will
you allow for urban search-and-rescue teams to deploy? How much
longer will you wait for the first incident management team to
arrive on scene? How much longer will recovery take place
because we won't have adequate staff or the financial
management systems to manage that?
Those are things that you have to make informed decisions
about. I think it is the, you know, responsibility of the
administrator to give you that information to make those
choices.
Mr. Payne. Thank you.
Mr. Paulison, with, you know, the major natural disasters
increasing in frequency and severity, Federal Government has
spent more and more time on disaster relief. You mentioned the
importance of pre-hazardous mitigation in your testimony. Which
activities should the Federal Government invest in and promote
resiliency on State and local level? You have got 5 seconds.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Paulison. I think that, like I said in my written
testimony, that FEMA does have a pre-disaster mitigation
program in place. I think it needs to be enhanced. I think
there needs to be more money provided to the States to do that,
and if we do that, we will spend less money on the post-
disaster response side.
I think providing an incentive for the States to put State-
wide building codes in place to do pre-disaster mitigation
functions to make sure their States are ready to deal with a
disaster. We know what disasters we are going to have. Every
State knows what they are going to have. Yet time and time
again we fail to prepare for that, but we wait for the disaster
to happen and then we respond.
Now, we are going to have to do that anyway, but if our
buildings--we did it in south Florida, after Hurricane Andrew.
We saw the type of damage we had to our new housing stock. This
shouldn't have happened because we had the wrong building codes
in place. We are using a southern standard building code
instead of a building code designed for south Florida.
We changed our building codes. We changed how we put our
roofs on. We have changed how we tie them down. We changed the
type of materials. Now we don't have that type of damage. Every
new home has to have storm shutters. The roofs have to be
plywood, not pressboard. We don't allow that anymore. We don't
allow gable ends. It all has to be a hip roof.
All the things we learned, and we took that and it was
hard. It wasn't easy, believe me. We had a lot of people didn't
want to support this. A lot of the homebuilders fought it tooth
and nail, but we pushed it through.
But if we can do that across this country, when we do have
catastrophic events we are going to have less and less damage.
You are going to have less numbers of people have to be
sheltered somewhere else where they can stay in their own home.
So I think that is what I think this committee can help us
support to do, and to do that type of a look at our building
codes, our pre-disaster mitigation, giving the States an
incentive to do these type of things, I think that will make a
huge difference on our response side.
Mr. Payne. OK.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Donovan. It was amazing you did all that in 5 seconds,
Mr. Paulison. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Minority
Member of the full committee, the gentleman from Mississippi,
Mr. Thompson, for questions.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You know,
both these gentleman really demonstrate the quality of people
we have had running FEMA over the last few years, and I
compliment both of them. But I want to move into an area that
would help us.
I have been involved in a number of disasters, but one that
comes to mind is dealing with the Federal Flood Insurance
Program, and how I see insurance companies shifting the burden
and liability onto the backs of that program. Ultimately we end
up having to replenish that fund before the disaster is for the
most part resolved. Have you all looked at that and would you
care to offer your unbiased opinion?
Mr. Fugate. Congressman Thompson, thanks for that question.
We got to quit subsidizing risk below which behavior will
change, and the Flood Insurance Program is basically designed
at too low a point. I think, you know, former Administrator
Paulison is right on the money.
The question is: How do we drive better building codes and
better standards? What we have done with the Flood Insurance
Program is we are underwriting risk and we are growing the
risk, and we can't afford to grow that risk. At the same time
we have not provided the incentives for the private sector to
better manage risk.
I believe what Dave is talking about can be done if we went
back to really looking at what is insurable risk for the
private sector so that we don't continue to grow the Flood
Insurance Program, understanding we have got a built
environment that is not going to change. The private sector is
not going to be able to write those homes.
But why do we keep growing the risk? Why do we keep
insuring new construction? Why do we keep allowing risk to get
transferred to the taxpayer? Think about it. FEMA only pays for
uninsured losses.
Those billions and billions of dollars that you see going
out the door is because jurisdictions don't insure schools,
fire stations, community centers. People didn't have flood
insurance or didn't have enough insurance on their home. Some
people can't afford it, and I think that is where our programs
should be kicking in.
But we as a Nation have transferred so much of the risk of
disasters and the frequency of disasters to the taxpayers,
there has been very little incentive for State and local
governments to do what they should be doing, which is reducing
risk through the adoption of codes appropriate for the risk and
land use planning.
I think it is just time we stop subsidizing risk and really
look at and ask a very basic question. If the private sector
won't insure it, why are you building it the way you are
building it where you are building it? Why is the taxpayer
picking up the bill? Because the thresholds for disaster
declaration is so low.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, you know, as I was leaving we
were proposing a deductible similar to what Dave is, what are
the incentives to get State and local governments to take
greater ownership? My reaction was quit going back to the first
dollar. I mean how many people have car insurance with no
deductible?
Mr. Thompson. Not many.
Mr. Fugate. But the Disaster Relief Fund, you get a
disaster declaration, we go back to that first dollar. What if
we stopped going back to the first dollar and saying your
threshold is your deductible, and unless you have codes or
other things to buy down the risk, you know that State of
Florida is going to own that first $23 million to $24 million.
But if they have got a State-wide building code, which they do,
they ought to get credit for that, buy their deductible down.
But I agree with you, Congressman Thompson, we have got to
quit growing risk and quit providing more and more going back
on the taxpayers without looking at how do we quit transferring
risk when we are not seeing the benefit from it?
Mr. Thompson. I assume there is no disagreement?
Mr. Paulison. No, none whatsoever. Administrator Fugate is
right on target. Again, we keep building it back to the same
place in the same way, and we are going to flood again and
flood again, and just like our wind damage. We have to stop and
think what are we doing up front that we are not doing now? I
think that is the way to deal with it.
Mr. Thompson. You know, one of the comments is it doesn't
matter what area the disaster in, FEMA has created a reputation
that they will always be there for help. So State and locals
have kind-of passed that burden on to FEMA to deal with, and I
think at some point we are going to have to figure out a way at
least to share that burden in some equitable manner.
Apart from that, we will, Mr. Chairman, continue to
subsidize the disaster vehicle that we put in place to address.
But it is not a bottomless pit, and so I think we have to take
some of the advice of gentlemen like we have here that it is a
problem and one that this committee could choose to tackle in
some form of legislation or another.
One simple thing would be a uniform set of codes that if
you want to participate in the disaster offerings that we have,
you must have these on the books and enforced which would go a
long ways toward addressing that. So thank you, Mr. Chairman,
you have been very kind. I yield back.
Mr. Donovan. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair will now recognize the other Members of the
subcommittee for questions they may wish to ask the witnesses.
In accordance with the committee rules and practice, I plan to
recognize Members who were present at the start of the hearing
by seniority on the subcommittee. Those coming in late will be
recognized in the order of arrival.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
both of the panelists here. I know both of you started at local
and State levels and worked your way through this when the
country was really first dealing with this issue. You know,
first we were looking at sea-borne events and then it grew into
all-hazards. So I appreciate your service through all of that.
Let me ask this question. As you both know, recipients of
our Homeland Security grant programs, they are required to
complete that annual Threat and Hazard Identification of Risk
Assessment, the THIRA, and that is a way for them to identify
certain gaps in their capabilities that may exist.
But I hear a lot that localities are not really
sufficiently engaged in the State THIRA planning. I mean could
you respond to that and how you might make the THIRA program
more successful?
Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir. I will use Florida as an example
because we have some unique tools there. It is a common concern
from local governments that the States when they do the THIRAs
which, you know, and the contracts, the way it works is the
State is the recipient, then the local governments are the sub-
grantees.
So we see some variability how well that is done, and you
probably saw that, too, when you were sheriff with the Regional
Domestic Security Taskforces.
Mr. Rutherford. Right.
Mr. Fugate. Some seem to be more successful at getting
grant dollars than others, not always based upon who had the
best threats, but who told the best story.
So the THIRAs were really trying to get around people
saying it is bad, we need something, to what are, looking at a
series of threats, capabilities, and where the gaps occurred.
The tendency is for States to do that because it is aggregated
up at the State, and then we fund the State. The State really
works where it is going to go locally outside the urban
security area initiatives.
So that is something, again, for the next administration.
You got to do more than just talk to your State counterparts.
You got to engage. What we found is--and it is they are not
always happy, but at least we are willing to talk--National
Sheriff Association, Police Chiefs, International Association
of Fire Fighters, International Association of Fire Chiefs,
because a lot of times their members will have concerns.
That helps us go, well, maybe we didn't get what we wanted
to when talking to that State. But the overall fire is what is
setting the stage based upon State-wide gaps and capabilities.
So it tends to be State-centric because we are funding the
State to then make the decisions on where it is going locally,
unlike the urban security areas which are set-aside
specifically for those areas. But I hear it. I heard it when I
was at the State level. Again, it is part of it. You got to
keep the dialog and communication, and some days you agree to
disagree.
Mr. Rutherford. Yes.
Mr. Paulison.
Mr. Paulison. One thing we tend to forget sometimes is all
disasters are local. That is where----
Mr. Rutherford. Yes.
Mr. Paulison [continuing]. The first responder is.
Oftentimes we try to second-guess what the needs are at the
local level. Sometimes they will say we need this, and they
say, nah, you don't need that. I think that is an issue.
So I think the communities have to be involved with the
State in making the decisions of where those dollars are going
to go because it is when there are not a lot of dollars out
there when you divide it all up. So we have to make sure we
spend it wisely. But they have to listen to the people on the
ground at the local level of what they see their needs are.
Mr. Rutherford. Well, and, you know, that is why I agree
with you, Mr. Fugate, completely that, you know, you have to
plan for what can happen, not what resources you have. I have
seen that too often as well. Then you have these glaring gaps
in capability that nobody wants to really address.
Let me ask this because I thought Mr. Paulison came up with
a great idea on not just the, you know, forcing the building
codes by raising or lowering the 75 percent through statute,
but you could do the same thing if they were not meeting their
gaps, correct?
Mr. Paulison. My proposal was if they are not willing to
put State-wide building codes in effect, if the State is not
willing to do pre-disaster mitigation where they know they are
going to have issues, then they shouldn't get that percentage
on the response side.
Why should we, like Congressman Thompson just said, you
know, we are subsidizing the local when they should be doing--
or the States--when they should be doing some of the stuff
themselves? If we put the incentive out there, we are going to
give you the X, Y, Z if you do this, so that is the carrot, but
maybe there should be a little bit of a stick also if you don't
do it.
Mr. Rutherford. Yes. Yes. Well, I think it is a carrot
because they are getting the money from FEMA anyway.
Mr. Fugate, you want to add anything to that?
Mr. Fugate. No. As you go through the carrots and the
sticks some of that is, again, unintended consequences, but I
think if you drive it toward this idea that we know what the
science tells us how to build, we incentivise that. We also to
a certain degree using the THIRA to drive the grants is where
are the gaps in what we are seeing? I mean at some point, how
many more bomb robots does a jurisdiction need? But they don't
have more capabilities.
Mr. Rutherford. Right.
Mr. Fugate. So part of this was to get back to the things
that we know we have to build capacity for, but there hasn't
been, I think, sometimes always the perfect feedback of if they
are not doing that and they are prioritizing other things, how
do we penalize them more than just, you know, you are going to
get that allocation, this is what the priorities are?
So as much as we could steer funding, we try to steer it.
But it wasn't really about if you didn't do something, you
weren't going to get funding. It was more of we were trying to
incentivize good behavior.
Mr. Rutherford. If you do something you get money.
Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you both very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Donovan. The gentleman yields.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New Jersey,
Mrs. Watson Coleman.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good
afternoon, gentlemen. I am from New Jersey, and I would like to
talk to you a little bit about our experience with Sandy in
2012.
There are people that I come in contact with who say that
there are still families who have not been made whole, whose
properties had been devastated by Sandy, and it is 2017. I was
wondering if you can just give me some insight into why that
would be the case.
Mr. Fugate. Well, I think one of the things that Dave
Paulison pointed out, and this is one of the things that
Congressman Thompson will tell you. People think that when they
get a Presidential disaster declaration from FEMA, that we will
make people whole.
Our max grant for individual assistance is around I think
$34,000 now, and very few people max out. I think in New Jersey
we are probably averaging about $6,000 to $7,000 plus renter's
assistance.
Even the people with flood insurance, and we had a lot of
challenges there that still need to be addressed, because those
are capped out at a certain amount and their property was more
expensive than that, it was still hard to rebuild.
Then as Dave pointed out, there is a lot of other funding
that got appropriated, mainly through HUD and other type of
community block grant dollars. In many cases States have used
that to try to address the housing issues.
FEMA doesn't control that. In fact, most of our individual
assistance was pretty much done with in the first year of our
assistance and renter's assistance, and then the follow-on was
going to be other programs.
So one of Dave's, you know, Director Paulison's comments or
Administrator Paulison's comments was, you know, it is hard to
keep visibility on all those dollar streams, and then the State
and the survivors have now got to navigate various Federal
agencies to work through the recovery versus we start the
process. But it has really never been Congress' intention that
FEMA makes somebody whole. We are basically starting the
process. But it----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So let me ask you a question then
because I think what I heard is that there are a lot of
agencies that have a piece of the solution to a various
problem. Is there any coordinating entity, or is that driven
down to the State and the State decides how to parcel out? Is
that what happened in New Jersey that----
Mr. Fugate. States have, particularly with the HUD dollars,
the dollars go to the State and then the State will prioritize.
We have done a better job on the Federal side through the long-
term recovery frameworks that were required by Congress for the
Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, but it is still a
learning process when we are dealing with large disasters to
areas that haven't dealt with it before to get that translated
into outcomes. So----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So then does it become each department
that has its dollar in the pot, each department's
responsibility to monitor how well the State does with its
particular piece?
Mr. Fugate. Yes, ma'am, and it also means it comes with
that department's regulatory requirements and their grants
process, which tend to be different based upon how they are
authorized and what the intention of those programs are.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Let me just pick your brain for a
second, and Mr. Paulison, is there a need under circumstances
like this, like a Katrina, like a Sandy, where there is a
coordinating agent from the Federal Government that not only
coordinates what you all do and what each Department does, but
also has that monitoring, holistic monitoring responsibility
over the State? Because in my State we had several problems.
We had problems giving contracts to the wrong people. We
have problems with that administration giving contracts to
friends. So we had a lot of wasted money. So I would like to
know what would your recommendations be in situations like that
that would help to make it more efficient, easier for people
who are affected to get some resolution, and to ensure that
there is uniform accountability? Thank you.
Mr. Paulison. We had 19 different agencies providing
disaster relief in New Jersey, in your State. It was confusing
for the people who were receiving these different things. It
was like Administrator Fugate said. There are different
regulations for each department.
It was inefficient. There are still moneys that have not
been spent. So I think, yes, there should be an agency that all
the dollars flow through, or at least coordinate. I think it
should be FEMA. FEMA has a cost-benefit----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. I do, too.
Mr. Paulison [continuing]. Analysis system in place that it
is very good. Is this project worth rebuilding or is it not? I
know the other departments aren't going to like what I am
saying but I don't work here anymore so I can say it.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. That is why we have you
here.
Mr. Paulison. Yes. You know, I think it should be if not
the money flowing through each agency, at least the approval
and oversight of the projects going through one agency, and
FEMA is the one to do that. I know the new FEMA administrator
may not like it whenever they come in, but I think that we have
to do something. It was too uncoordinated, and you are seeing
it first-hand. You live there. You know. It needs to be fixed.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. My time is up; I appreciate
it. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Donovan. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want thank our
witnesses for being here today, and I want to thank you both
particularly for your many years of public service.
So I want to touch on a topic that is perhaps easy to
overlook but growing in importance, and that is dealing with
cyber. So in my role as co-chair of the Congressional Cyber
Security Caucus, I have encouraged emergency planners to
incorporate cybersecurity response into their disaster
planning.
For instance, in Rhode Island, I have worked with our
excellent Emergency Management Director Pete Gaynor to
incorporate cyber as part of the State's Hazard Identification
and Risk Assessment.
So planning is particularly important as NIST has
emphasized that our response recovery functions of
cybersecurity risk management are often underdeveloped. So in
your experience what is the maturity level with respect to
incorporating cybersecurity incident response into all-hazards
planning?
Mr. Fugate. Well, my experience is we deal with the
consequences of a cyber event, and when you start talking about
cyber, most people go to electricity and other systems. We deal
with power outages long-term and have some history there. The
areas of cyber that from an emergency management perspective
that I think we don't have a lot, because we don't really
respond in those areas, is threats to the financial system.
I was at the Cleveland Federal Reserve and I said what
happens if there is a run on the ATMs because people lose
confidence in their bank accounts because of a cyber attack?
They said we don't have enough cash. Financial systems, loss of
confidence in those systems and the collateral impacts are one
of the things that for an emergency manager, that is a lot
different than planning for a power outage.
The other things is our total dependence upon the public
switch network or the internet. We have found that we have
created single points of failure for our communications
systems. If you go to most dispatch centers, very few actually
talk to their radio by RF. It is all going through the phone
system.
So the thing that I found for emergency managers is they
tend to look at disruptions caused by natural hazards. When you
start asking about cyber, they don't know what they don't know.
They are not on the fixing side of this. They are on the
consequence side. But they need to understand the
vulnerabilities, that this will not be a geographically placed,
it could be occurring multiple places across the country
simultaneously. In some cases as a direct impact like power
going out, but it may be a loss of confidence in critical
infrastructure and people doing things that now become a crisis
of itself.
So I think from the emergency management standpoint, it is
part of the all-hazards, but I think the cyber community really
needs to get better information out to emergency managers. Not
so much on what has got to be fixed but what the
vulnerabilities are, what kind of systems can be affected, and
then begin exercising those consequences, because every
exercise I have been involved in cyber, they were always able
to fix the problem.
In my line of work, that is not what we plan for. We plan
for it didn't get fixed, it went bad, it went worse than
anybody thought. Now what does that do to our ability to manage
that crisis with our resources and understand that some of the
systems we depend upon may be under attack themselves?
Mr. Paulison. Thank you. I just came back from a cyber
conference in London. Countries from all over the world came
and a huge issue, and their thought process is just what
Administrator Fugate said. This is a critical infrastructure
issue, and I definitely think it should be part of our purview
inside of FEMA to help protect that system and put it back in
place when things go wrong.
We are definitely not the only country worried about it. It
is a world-wide issue. So we are talking about banking systems.
We are talking about security issues. We are talking about
power grids and our whole communication system. So it is a
system that can shut down and a problem that can shut down an
entire country.
So yes, I definitely think it is we really have to step
back and take a look at this and how are we going to protect
and how are we going to respond to it?
Mr. Langevin. Yes. I think it is important that we make it
a forethought, not an afterthought. I mean, we can do
mitigation planning and that can help forestall problems or cut
them off before they become more serious.
Let me switch you to another topic before my time expires.
Mr. Fugate, in our panel 2 weeks ago I asked stakeholders about
their experience incorporating people with disabilities into
planning up front. So the panel universally praised your work
in helping it ensure that the disabled were not an
afterthought, particularly through your efforts with the
disability coordinator and the Office of Disability Integration
and Coordination.
With that in mind, what recommendations do you have for
your successor in continuing to make improvements in this
space, and what role, if any, do you see for Congress in
promoting inclusive planning?
Mr. Fugate. Well, the first thing is the Americans with
Disabilities Act is a law. Some people still don't get that.
They think there are allowances during a crisis. That you
cannot meet reasonable expectations. So the first thing is
everybody has got to understand, the Americans with
Disabilities Act says that it is an inclusive process, not
exclusive.
Second thing is don't try to make your solutions fit your
population. We had a history of putting people with
disabilities into categories, going, this is a special needs
shelter or this is a special this.
So we started asking a different question. Why are we
putting barriers up because we may not have the luxury of
picking out which shelter we get to? We get to a shelter, why
isn't it accommodating to us? Why am I being told that I have
to take my stepdaughter to another location? Or I got to take
my father somewhere else because that shelter isn't inclusive.
It is an exclusive shelter. People with disabilities should not
go there.
Now a lot times people think, well, that is the way to
concentrate our resources and to provide for people with
disabilities. What I found and the history is it becomes
exclusionary. It is violating the law and the spirit of the
law. But more importantly, we are not prepared for the
communities we live in.
So I think the thing is you need to understand the law and
the requirements, but don't think that providing specialized
services is doing anybody a favor. Your systems should have
been inclusive on the front end because a lot people don't
identify with disabilities, a lot of people are in aging
communities.
If we are inclusive to everyone, we have gotten rid of the
barriers, because in a crisis the more complex our systems are,
the more likely they are going to fail our most vulnerable at
their time of need. We need to break this down into being an
inclusive, not exclusive, in how we deliver our services.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you. Well said. I know my time is
expired, but that was really how the world was before ADA, and
then after ADA, right? Before ADA if something was accessible,
it was accommodating, you were doing somebody a favor.
Now we see it as a civil right and that really needs to
kind-of carry through in disaster planning as a forethought,
not an afterthought. So thank you for your work in that space
and other work that you have done. Thank you both for your
testimony. I yield back.
Mr. Donovan. The gentleman yields.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Garrett.
Mr. Garrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
gentleman, for being here today. I want to try to ask questions
and not engage in soliloquy but there are a couple of
observations that I want to make from life experience having
survived some incidents that were interesting, a couple of
which were designated disasters and a couple which weren't.
That is my observation has been that the vast bulk of
disasters manifest themselves locally and the vast bulk of
responders are indeed locals, right? But it is tough to get on
the ground the number of people you need from a Federal entity
into an area that might be, in fact oftentimes is, very wide-
spread.
What are we doing to ensure communications with the bulk of
those first responders so that essentially they can know the
roles that they need to play on the ground as the literal first
folks on the scene?
I will start with Mr. Fugate.
Mr. Fugate. I would go further than that. The faster
response ain't the guys with the lights. It is your neighbor.
So that is the first reason why we really push preparedness. It
ain't about just being ready for you and your family, it is
being able to help your neighbors.
Second thing is, you know, FEMA gets, and Dave is a local
guy and then I work local and State, a lot of times think FEMA
is going to be able to reach down to the locals. We are
reaching down through the Governors.
What we are finding is it is the relationship between our
State and our local partners and how their interoperability and
how they communicate on a day-to-day basis, because that is
what is going to happen in a disaster. If there is friction or
bad communications day-to-day, it does not get better in a
disaster.
So part of this is building these relationships and getting
rid of these definitions of local, State, and Federal because
when it is really bad, you got to collapse and run as one team.
But the first ones there should not be the ones that get
bypassed. It is about building support for the locals through
the State, and then FEMA's job supporting the State as the
locals. But my observation has always been if they are not
talking before a disaster, it don't get better during a
disaster.
Mr. Garrett. Mr. Paulison, I am going to sort-of preempt
you, and I apologize, but so what we need to do then is create
a circumstance where the first time the sheriff's deputy sees
somebody from FEMA isn't the day after the hurricane or the
tornado?
Mr. Paulison. We have a saying that that is the worst time
to exchange business cards is in the middle of a disaster. You
should know these people up front, and it should be coordinated
together. In every disaster we have, even at the local level,
there are local people, there are State people, there are FEMA
people there from all the agencies are at the local command
post making sure we are sharing information. That is the only
way it is going to work.
Mr. Garrett. Is there a metric, and I am not trying to
interrupt you to be rude.
Mr. Paulison. I know, sir.
Mr. Garrett. Is there a metric by which you can measure the
performance of your people in the field because here is what I
know from life. There is a guy or a gal out there who knows all
the sheriffs and fire chiefs and, you know, in their area and
there is another one who, you know--but that is so important.
I had the honor of serving on the Virginia Commonwealth
Preparedness Board. We had great contingency plans that half
the end-users didn't know about, which meant we had no plans,
right? Is there a metric to measure the efficacy of individuals
and sort-of making that face-to-face that will be so valuable
on the deck, too?
Mr. Paulison. So that is really the role of the local
emergency manager is to make sure that all of those agencies
are talking to each other, exercising together. They all know
what the plan is.
We found that in Hurricane Andrew that did not happen at
the local level or the State level or the Federal level. There
was really poor communications in place. Our emergency
management system just totally collapsed during Andrew and it
fell on the different agencies, particularly the fire
department at the time, I think I was the fire chief 3 weeks--
--
Mr. Garrett. Yes.
Mr. Paulison [continuing]. To take on that task. So it
shouldn't have fallen on the fire department. It should have
been at the emergency management level. So that is the key
first--that is the kingpin for that local disaster response is
that local emergency manager. Then it is up to the State to
make sure that we are all these different counties are talking.
Craig Fugate when he was our State emergency manager did an
outstanding job of making sure that all 67 counties were
talking to each other. Even if part of the counties were not
affected directly, they would be by moving supplies in and out.
So he made sure that every day, twice a day, all 67 counties
were on a conference call sharing information.
Mr. Garrett. So you make an excellent point--I got about 40
seconds--and that is that if there are 67 counties and 30 are
impacted, the other 37 are very important because they have
resources that can be brought to bear and that communication
matters.
So then the next question I have, and this might be
ignorance on my part having been a prosecutor for a long time
and working closely with law enforcement, is what are we doing
to ensure coms interoperability across jurisdictional lines?
We always have a county contract for your 9-1-1 or your
radio coms or what have you. There were times where we couldn't
talk to State police from this county from--and is there
anything being done to sort-of get to a uniform standard where
everybody can actually literally talk to one another?
Mr. Paulison. Right now it is up to each individual State.
There is a program that actually you are funding called
FirstNet that is just putting together a State-wide--I mean,
excuse me, a Nation-wide emergency management communication
system. Now that is in its very infancy right now, but if this
plays like it should play out, we will have a communication
where somebody in New Jersey can talk to somebody in California
directly.
Mr. Garrett. Then we have just got to have some net
discipline.
Mr. Paulison. Yes, that is true. But right now it is just
like in the State of Florida, we have a State-wide
communication system that people can tag into to share
information around the State where law enforcement should be
talking to the fire department should be talking to EMS should
be talking to emergency management. I don't know if you want
to----
Mr. Garrett. Thank you. Well, I am want to yield back, my
negative 36 seconds.
Mr. Donovan. We will take them. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Garrett. Thank you.
Mr. Donovan. Before we end, there may have been things that
you wanted to express to us that weren't in your written
remarks and that we didn't ask you. As a last thought for the
next administrator, if that woman or man was sitting here, what
do you want to tell them?
Mr. Fugate. You have got a lot of great people that work at
FEMA, but like all organizations, they will do what will give
them greatest success for the least amount of risk. FEMA cannot
be an organization of people who won't take risk because we are
going to get it wrong from time to time.
But the problem is if you are not taking risk because you
can't wait for the all the facts and information to make
decisions in a crisis, action is your preferable strength, not
waiting for all the facts. But you will make mistakes.
The next administrator has to understand that they need to
empower their team to make quick and bold decisions in the
opening moments of a crisis when not all the facts are in. And
be prepared to take the arrows when things don't go well,
because what I found at FEMA, the more I demanded and pushed my
staff to do the things they didn't think were possible, the
better they got.
But that meant when things went wrong, I had to be prepared
to come here before you for the hearings and explain why, not
chuck people under the bus or allow staff to take the fall.
When we make mistakes for the right reason, you are going to
have a hearing. When you make mistakes for the wrong reason,
you fail our citizens and you should be fired.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you.
Administrator Paulison.
Mr. Paulison. You know, I just have to echo that, too. I
had something else I was going to say. But I think that is so
important, particularly for the morale inside the organization
itself. This goes through agency, but just we are talking about
FEMA, is people are going to do what they think is best based
on the information they have at the time.
During Katrina, and probably rightfully so, so I am not
saying that the media was terrible, but every little thing that
FEMA did wrong was on the front page of the Washington Post or
the Miami Herald or wherever you happened to be.
Sometimes they were decisions that were made for the right
reasons that may not have been--the outcome may not have come
out like it should have come out. I will give you an example.
We did a yeoman's job of housing 100,000 families. It was
the largest migration in the history of this country, most of
them in mobile homes and travel trailers. Then we found out we
had formaldehyde in them. You know, no fault of FEMA for this.
We were buying them off the lot like you would go buy one. But
we got thrown under the bus for that.
I took the heat for that. We surely did not blame the
people buying the mobile homes. So I think it is a matter of
letting people make the right decisions that they think at the
time. Then like Administrator Fugate said, you know, we will
come here and take the heat for it and not throw our employees
under the bus.
Now if they did something intentionally wrong, well, that
is a different issue. But when they are trying to make the
right decision based on in the heat of the moment, sometimes
they make mistakes. But we will handle that part and we will
take the heat for that and still support that employee because
that is a good lesson to learn.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you both for your valuable testimony and
for my fellow Members of the committee for their questions. The
Members of the committee may have some additional questions for
the witnesses, and we ask you to respond to those in writing.
Pursuant to the committee rule VII(D), the hearing record will
be held open for 10 days. Without objection, the subcommittee
stands adjourned. Thank you both.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Ranking Member Harold M. Payne, Jr. for W. Craig Fugate
Question 1. As you know, ``climate change'' have become dirty words
in Washington. But as you acknowledge, we are experiencing more
frequent, more severe, more costly weather events. How can we
depoliticize the cause so we can proactively address the challenges
ahead?
Answer. The conversation must shift from ``climate change'' to a
discussion about how we, as a Nation, manage risk.
Current practice has seen too much risk liability--which is
essentially a stealth tax--placed on the taxpayer. This burden is
realized through more frequent Stafford Act disaster declarations and
the associated Federal dollars that flow out of the Disaster Relief
Fund, as well as disaster-related CDBG dollars that come from HUD.
Additionally, in events that may not warrant a Stafford declaration,
there can still be National Flood Insurance Program claims or SBA loans
for impacted businesses. There are other departments and agencies that
bear costs for these liabilities, as well. From 2005-2014, the
Government Accountability Office found $277 billion in disaster
spending across the Federal Government (GAO 16-797).
The goal should be to move away from the taxpayer subsidizing the
risk, to the private insurance markets subsidizing the risks. If the
private sector cannot--or will not--provide affordable insurance, then
the Federal Government is effectively incentivizing building in the
wrong places or to the wrong codes and standards.
If we, as a Nation, decide to subsidize risk (i.e. 20% of existing
NFIP policy holders who have grandfathered or subsidized premium
rates), it should be done in the public interest and not just for the
benefit of a few.
Question 2. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am committed
to ensuring that addressing the unique needs of children before,
during, and after a disaster remains a priority at FEMA. Do you support
legislative efforts to formally authorize the Children's Needs
Technical Expert at FEMA to help ensure that children's needs are
accommodated during disaster response and recovery?
Answer. Yes, I support legislative efforts to authorize the
Children's Needs Technical Expert at FEMA. But, having led a Federal
agency for nearly 8 years, I would also caution you that it can be
difficult to implement Congress' intent when it comes to a specific
position within a large organization.
I embraced the requirements for functions that Congress established
to exist within FEMA when it passed the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act in 2006, and I would encourage you to work
closely with the agency to ensure that any legislation you are drafting
provides clear direction on expectations while also giving the agency
flexibility in managing its personnel.
Questions From Honorable James R. Langevin for W. Craig Fugate
Question 1. Cyber attacks can have physical effects that mimic
conventional disasters. How well-prepared are emergency managers to
ensure that malicious actors are cleaned off of networks to prevent
them from causing more chaos?
Put another way, is FEMA--and emergency managers more broadly--
prepared to treat the underlying cause of cyber incidents (e.g.,
malware) rather than just the symptoms (e.g., a power outage)?
Answer. Emergency management, in general--and FEMA, more
specifically--are not in a position to address the root causes of cyber
attacks. It is not a core competency of emergency managers. That said,
there is a need to train emergency managers on the potential impacts of
these threats in order to adjust emergency plans to address any
outcomes of a cyber attack that may or may not mimic other
infrastructure disruptions. Historically, emergency management has
focused on consequence management for all hazards. FEMA has very close
working relationships with sister organizations at DHS and other
entities both inside and outside the Federal Government that are
working at the National level to prevent cyber attacks from happening.
This ensures that if there is an incident that cannot be prevented,
Federal emergency management officials have already established needed
connections with appropriate officials. Further, non-Federal emergency
managers must have an understanding of the potential threats so that
they can plan for all consequences and communicate with their chief
executives about the need for resources to prepare for potential
consequences.
Question 2. What process would an emergency manager rely on to
determine a cyber physical attack had a cyber component at all,
particularly if manifestation was largely physical?
Answer. In my opinion, State, local, and Tribal emergency managers
are left out of the loop in most cyber events. While they may deal with
the disruptions resulting from a cyber attack, until facts are shared
with them by those Federal agencies who have the information that the
event is a cyber attack, State, local, and Tribal partners are more
likely to read about the fact that it is a cyber attack from open-
source news. Non-Federal emergency managers must have an understanding
of the potential threats in the cyber realm so that they can
effectively plan for all consequences and communicate with their chief
executives about the need for resources to prepare for potential
consequences.
Question 3. What role do you see for FEMA as part of the National
Cyber Incident Response Plan? The recently-released plan makes
reference to using FEMA infrastructure but does not seem to address
incorporating FEMA into planning directly.
Answer. There has been much resistance to clearly defining FEMA's
role and utilizing existing tools to manage cyber events. Other than
looking at the Stafford Act to fund cyber attack recovery and
mitigation costs, FEMA is not seen as part of the response team in the
cyber/virtual envronment. FEMA already has: (1) Relationships with the
States that few other Federal agencies have, and (2) a well-developed
crisis response capability. I proposed that FEMA support those lead
Federal agencies which have cyber attack roles under the National
Response Framework so that FEMA can bring to bear the tools and
capabilities that it already has--given its all-hazards mission--and
which have already been funded by the taxpayer.
Question From Ranking Member Donald M. Payne, Jr. for Robert David
Paulison
Question. As you know, ``climate change'' have become dirty words
in Washington. But as you acknowledge, we are experiencing more
frequent, more severe, more costly weather events. How can we
depoliticize the cause so we can proactively address the challenges
ahead?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Honorable James R. Langevin for Robert David Paulison
Question 1. Cyber attacks can have physical effects that mimic
conventional disasters. How well-prepared are emergency managers to
ensure that malicious actors are cleaned off of networks to prevent
them from causing more chaos?
Put another way, is FEMA--and emergency managers more broadly--
prepared to treat the underlying cause of cyber incidents (e.g.,
malware) rather than just the symptoms (e.g., a power outage)?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. What process would an emergency manager rely on to
determine a cyber physical attack had a cyber component at all,
particularly if manifestation was largely physical?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3. What role do you see for FEMA as part of the National
Cyber Incident Response Plan? The recently-released plan makes
reference to using FEMA infrastructure but does not seem to address
incorporating FEMA into planning directly.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
[all]