diff --git "a/data/CHRG-108/CHRG-108hhrg22588.txt" "b/data/CHRG-108/CHRG-108hhrg22588.txt"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/data/CHRG-108/CHRG-108hhrg22588.txt"
@@ -0,0 +1,3765 @@
+
+ - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE DIRECTORATE FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET
+
+[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
+[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
+
+
+
+ DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
+ EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
+ DIRECTORATE FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET
+
+=======================================================================
+
+ HEARING
+
+ of the
+
+ SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
+
+ before the
+
+ SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
+ HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
+
+ ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
+
+ SECOND SESSION
+
+ __________
+
+ MARCH 3, 2004
+
+ __________
+
+ Serial No. 108-38
+
+ __________
+
+ Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Homeland Security
+
+
+ Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
+ house
+
+ __________
+
+ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
+22-588 WASHINGTON : 2005
+_____________________________________________________________________________
+For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
+Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
+Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�0900012005
+
+
+ SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
+
+
+
+ Christopher Cox, California, Chairman
+
+Jennifer Dunn, Washington Jim Turner, Texas, Ranking Member
+C.W. Bill Young, Florida Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
+Don Young, Alaska Loretta Sanchez, California
+F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
+Wisconsin Norman D. Dicks, Washington
+W.J. (Billy) Tauzin, Louisiana Barney Frank, Massachusetts
+David Dreier, California Jane Harman, California
+Duncan Hunter, California Benjamin L. Cardin, Maryland
+Harold Rogers, Kentucky Louise McIntosh Slaughter, New
+Sherwood Boehlert, New York York
+Lamar S. Smith, Texas Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
+Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Nita M. Lowey, New York
+Christopher Shays, Connecticut Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
+Porter J. Goss, Florida Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
+Dave Camp, Michigan Columbia
+Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Florida Zoe Lofgren, California
+Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Karen McCarthy, Missouri
+Ernest J. Istook, Jr., Oklahoma Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas
+Peter T. King, New York Bill Pascrell, Jr., North Carolina
+John Linder, Georgia Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin
+John B. Shadegg, Arizona Islands
+Mark E. Souder, Indiana Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
+Mac Thornberry, Texas Ken Lucas, Kentucky
+Jim Gibbons, Nevada James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
+Kay Granger, Texas Kendrick B. Meek, Florida
+Pete Sessions, Texas
+John E. Sweeney, New York
+
+ John Gannon, Chief of Staff
+
+ Stephen DeVine, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
+
+ Thomas Dilenge, Chief Counsel and Policy Director
+
+ David H. Schanzer, Democrat Staff Director
+
+ Mark T. Magee, Democrat Deputy Staff Director
+
+ Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
+
+ ______
+
+ Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness and Response
+
+ John Shadegg, Arizona, Chairman
+
+Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania, Vice Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
+Chairman Jane Harman, California
+W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Benjamin L. Cardin, Maryland
+Christopher Shays, Connecticut Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
+Dave Camp, Michigan Nita M. Lowey, New York
+Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Florida Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
+Peter King, New York Columbia
+Mark Souder, Indiana Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
+Mac Thornberry, Texas Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin
+Jim Gibbons, Nevada Islands
+Kay Granger, Texas Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
+Pete Sessions, Texas Ken Lucas, Kentucky
+Christopher Cox, California, Ex Jim Turner, Texas, Ex Officio
+Officio
+
+ (ii)
+
+
+ C O N T E N T S
+
+ ----------
+ Page
+
+ STATEMENTS
+
+The Honorable John Shadegg, a Representative in Congress From the
+ State of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
+ Preparedness and Response
+ Oral Statement................................................. 1
+ Prepared Statement............................................. 3
+The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
+ From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
+ on Emergency Preparedness and Response......................... 4
+The Honorable Christopher Cox, a Representative in Congress From
+ the State of California, and Chairman, Select Committee on
+ Homeland Security
+ Oral Statement................................................. 8
+ Prepared Statement............................................. 10
+The Honorable Jim Turner, a Representative in Congress From the
+ State of Texas, Ranking Member, Select Committee on Homeland
+ Security
+ Oral Statement................................................. 5
+ Prepared Statement............................................. 7
+The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin, a Representative in Congress
+ From the State of Maryland..................................... 23
+The Honorable Donna M. Christensen, a Delegate in Congress From
+ the U.S. Virgin Islands........................................ 26
+The Honorable Bob Etheridge, a Representative in Congress From
+ the State of North Carolina.................................... 38
+The Honorable Jim Gibbons, a Representative in Congress From the
+ State of Nevada................................................ 32
+The Honorable Kay Granger, a Representative in Congress From the
+ State of Texas................................................. 22
+The Honorable Peter T. King, a Representative in Congress From
+ the State of New York.......................................... 36
+The Honorable Nita M. Lowey, a Representative in Congress From
+ the State of New York.......................................... 29
+The Honorable Christopher Shays, a Representative in Congress
+ From the State Connecticut..................................... 44
+
+ WITNESS
+
+The Honorable Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary for Emergency
+ Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security
+Oral Statement................................................... 11
+Prepared Statement............................................... 13
+
+ APPENDIX
+ Material Submitted for the Record
+
+Questions for the Record from The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson... 47
+Questions for the Record from The Honorable Jim Turner........... 55
+
+
+ DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
+ EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
+ DIRECTORATE FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET
+
+ ----------
+
+
+ Wednesday, March 3, 2004
+
+ House of Representatives,
+ Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness
+ and Response,
+ Select Committee on Homeland Security,
+ Washington, DC.
+ The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:34 a.m., in
+Room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shadegg
+[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
+ Present: Representatives Shadegg, Shays, Camp, King,
+Gibbons, Granger, Cox, Thompson, Cardin, Lowey, Norton,
+Christensen, Etheridge, Lucas of Kentucky, and Turner.
+ Mr. Shadegg. [Presiding.] Good morning.
+ The committee will come to order. Pursuant to a unanimous
+consent agreement, opening statements will be limited to the
+chairman, ranking member and the full committee chairman,
+assuming he makes it here, and the full committee ranking
+member.
+ Today, we will hear testimony from Under Secretary Michael
+Brown--welcome, Secretary Brown--on the Emergency Preparedness
+and Response Directorate fiscal year 2005 budget.
+ A key mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to
+assist the nation to prepare for, mitigate, respond to and
+recover from domestic disasters, including acts of terrorism.
+Specifically, the directorate has a responsibility to ensure
+effective emergency preparedness, build and standardize
+incident response, and aid recovery from terrorist attacks and
+other major disasters.
+ Again last year, Mother Nature wreaked havoc on our country
+through snowstorms, a major hurricane and mud slides.
+Unfortunately wild fires also devastated our forests in the
+West, including my own state of Arizona, although man and
+unsound environmental policies played a contributing role in
+those wildfires.
+ During the 56 major disasters and 19 emergencies, the EP &
+R Directorate was able to provide assistance to communities in
+need. It was also able to train over 290,000 first responders
+to better prepare them to mitigate and respond to disasters, to
+train and equip its urban search and rescue teams to handle
+events involving weapons of mass destruction, and provide over
+$650 million in grants to fire departments across the country.
+ As we look forward to fiscal year 2005, we see that the
+president has requested $5.58 billion for the EP & R
+Directorate, an increase of $956 million. It is important to
+note that a large portion of this increase is due to important
+funding for Project BioShield.
+ As you are aware, our subcommittee and the full Select
+Committee on Homeland Security took a leadership role by
+passing H.R. 2122, Project BioShield, which would encourage the
+development of medical countermeasures against weapons of mass
+destruction. Unfortunately, this legislation still remains in
+the U.S. Senate.
+ Nonetheless, I am very pleased to see that the directorate
+is proceeding to work with the private sector to develop
+vaccines and drugs to inoculate and treat Americans prior to
+and after terrorist attack.
+ However, we still need to act on H.R. 2122, and I join the
+president's call on the U.S. Senate to pass Project BioShield.
+ I also want to note the transfer of budget authority for
+the strategic national stockpile back to the Department of
+Health and Human Services.
+ HHS had much of the day-to-day responsibility for the
+stockpile, and this transfer makes sense. But it is important
+that the directorate have statutory ability to deploy the
+stockpile in the event of an attack.
+ I know that Under Secretary Brown will comment on
+additional highlights in the fiscal year 2005 budget. But I
+want to take time to sound a note of concern.
+ While I understand the need to respond to natural
+disasters, I am concerned that the directorate is increasingly
+viewed as the Emergency Response Directorate, not the Emergency
+Preparedness and Response Directorate.
+ DHS was created to integrate functions better to prepare
+our nation for acts of terrorism and to mitigate their
+consequences. The other directorates are working to do just
+that.
+ My fear, however, is that the EP & R Directorate is viewed
+at least by some in the department and some across the country
+as, ``Oh, those are just the response guys.'' I would like to
+know if, in fact, the EP & R Directorate intends to become just
+the ENR Directorate.
+ Based on what is happening in the department, the function
+for preparing for terrorists attacks appears to be shifting to
+the Office of State and Local Government Coordination. If so,
+the directorate is losing one of the important functions given
+to it by Congress, and one that I think is its most important
+function.
+ For example, it strikes me that the directorate should have
+a comprehensive inventory of all first responder prevention,
+preparedness and response equipment that exist in the state.
+But is the EP & R Directorate getting that information from the
+Office of Domestic Preparedness and the Office of State and
+Local Government Coordination? I do not know, but I would like
+to find out.
+ Congress has spent billions in taxpayer dollars since 9/11
+to improve on our nation's ability to prepare for terrorism,
+but I fear that there may a duplication of that effort and
+wasted dollars if there is not close collaboration with other
+agencies in the department in preparation for acts of terrorism
+and other emergencies.
+ Clearly the department has come along way over the past
+year. We are indeed much safer today than we were when the
+department was created roughly one year ago. But we must
+continue to improve.
+ I look forward to delving into these questions in greater
+detail with our witness.
+
+ Opening Statement John Shadegg, Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
+ Preparedness and Response
+
+ The Committee will come to order. Today we will hear testimony from
+Undersecretary Michael Brown on the Emergency Preparedness and Response
+Directorate's Fiscal Year 2005 Budget. A key mission of the Department
+of Homeland Security is to assist the nation to prepare for, mitigate,
+respond to, and recover from domestic disasters, including incidents of
+terrorism. Specifically, the Directorate has responsibility to:
+ - Ensure effective emergency preparedness
+ - Build and standardize incident response
+ - Aid recovery from terrorist attacks and major disasters
+ Again last year, Mother Nature wreaked havoc on our country in
+snowstorms, a major hurricane, and mudslides. Unfortunately, wildfires
+also devastated our forests in the West, including in Arizona, although
+man and unsound environmental policies played a contributing role.
+During the 56 major disasters and 19 emergencies, the EP & R
+Directorate was able to provide assistance to communities in need. It
+was also able to:
+ - Train over 290,000 first responders to better prepare them to
+ mitigate and respond to disasters;
+ - Train and equip its Urban Search and Rescue Teams to handle
+ Weapons of Mass Destruction events; and
+ - Provide over $650 million in grants to fire departments
+ across the country.
+ As we look forward to Fiscal Year 2005, we see that the President
+has requested $5.58 billion for the EP & R Directorate, an increase of
+$956 million. It is important to note that a large portion of the
+increase is due to important funding for Project Bioshield.
+ As you are aware, our Subcommittee and the Full Select Committee on
+Homeland Security took a leadership role by passing H.R. 2122, which
+would encourage the development of medical countermeasures against
+weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, this legislation is still
+stuck in the Senate.
+ Nevertheless, I am glad to see that the Directorate is proceeding
+to work with the private sector to develop vaccines and drugs to
+inoculate and treat Americans prior to and after terrorist attacks.
+However, we still need to act on H.R. 2122, and I join the President's
+call to the Senate to pass Project Bioshield.
+ I also want to note the transfer of budget authority for the
+Strategic National Stockpile back to the Department of Health and Human
+Services. HHS had much of the day-to-day responsibility for the
+Stockpile, and this transfer makes sense, but it is important that the
+Directorate does have statutory ability to deploy the Stockpile in the
+event of an attack.
+ I know that Undersecretary Brown will comment on additional
+highlights in the Fiscal Year 2005 budget, but I wanted to take time to
+sound a note of caution. While I understand the need to respond to
+natural disasters, I am concerned that the Directorate is increasingly
+viewed as the Emergency Response Directorate, not the Emergency
+Preparedness and Response Directorate.
+ DHS was created to integrate functions to better prepare our nation
+acts of terrorism and to mitigate their consequences. The other
+Directorates areworking to do just that. My fear, however, is that the
+EP & R Directorate is viewed as ``oh, those are just the response
+guys.'' I would like to know if in fact the EP & R Directorate intends
+to become the ER Directorate.
+ Based on what is happening in the Department, the function for
+preparing for terrorist attacks appears to be shifting to the Office of
+State and Local Government Coordination. If so, the Directorate is
+losing one of its important functions.
+ For example, it strikes me that the Directorate should have a
+comprehensive inventory of all first responder prevention,
+preparedness, and response equipment that exists in the States. But, is
+EP & R getting that information from the Office of Domestic
+Preparedness/Office of State and Local Government Coordination?
+ Congress has spent billions in taxpayer dollars since 9/11 to
+improve our nation's ability to prepare for terrorism, but I fear that
+there may be duplication of effort and wasted dollars if there is not
+close collaboration with other agencies in the Department in
+preparation for acts of terrorism and other emergencies.
+ Clearly, the Department has come a long way over the past year, but
+we must continue to improve. I look forward to delving into these
+issues in greater detail with our witness.
+
+ Now I would like to turn the ranking member of the
+subcommittee, Mr. Thompson, for any opening statement he would
+like to make.
+ But before I do, I want to let members and our witness and
+anyone in the audience know that we will have rotating chairmen
+in this position at times today. Chairman Cox and I both have
+an important markup downstairs in the Energy and Committee
+Commerce in which we expect votes and, as necessary, we will
+have to excuse ourselves from this hearing at times in order to
+make those votes in that hearing.
+ Now let me call upon the ranking member, Mr. Thompson, for
+his opening statement.
+ Mr. Thompson?
+ Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Good morning, Mr. Under Secretary.
+ Mr. Under Secretary, in June of last year, when you
+testified before the full committee, I stated that in its
+former life FEMA and EP & R Directorate was widely viewed as a
+success story by becoming more responsive to communities before
+and after major disasters and emergencies. And I wanted to be
+sure that EP & R could effectively perform its traditional
+disaster response and recovery mission, given DHS' primary
+focus on terrorism, prevention and preparedness. I wanted to be
+sure that we were ready for the next major earthquake or
+hurricane or, in my district, the next major flood.
+ In your written testimony, you stressed a continued
+commitment to all hazard emergency planning. But, Mr. Under
+Secretary, the president's budget ignores that commitment.
+ Let me highlight three examples from the president's budget
+that I believe prevents you and your employees from truly
+protecting this nation from all disasters and emergencies.
+ First, the budget transfers the Emergency Management
+Performance Grant Program to the Office of Domestic
+Preparedness and reduces the grant program by $10 million from
+fiscal year 2004 level.
+ In addition, the administration proposes that only 25
+percent of these grant funds will be able to support state and
+local emergency management personnel salary. This program is a
+principal source of funding for state and local emergency
+management agencies, your partners in all hazard preparedness.
+ A March 2002 survey by the National Emergency Management
+Association found that an additional 5,212 emergency management
+positions are needed, with 3,960 of those positions being full-
+time directors needed to manage the program.
+ How do you propose to respond to and recover from major
+disasters when your budget would eliminate many of these state
+and local partners?
+ Second, the president's fiscal 2005 budget request for the
+FIRE grant program represents a $250 million, or 33 percent,
+reduction from fiscal 2004 levels.
+ More troubling, however, is the fact that the budget
+proposes that priority be given to grant applications enhancing
+terrorism preparedness and limits the use of FIRE Grant funds
+to only four of the original 14 uses authorized by Congress.
+ The FIRE Grant program was created by Congress in order to
+meet basic critical needs of the firefighting community, which
+a December 2002 study by your U.S. Fire Administration and the
+National Fire Protection Association found to be significant.
+ Third, the president's budget eliminates the Metropolitan
+Medical Response System Program. The primary focus of the MMRS
+Program is to develop or enhance existing state and local
+preparedness systems to effectively respond to a public health
+crisis.
+ Again, how can we effectively respond to public health
+emergencies without effective planning and training at the
+state and local levels?
+ In our continuing efforts to prevent and prepare for acts
+of terrorism, we must not destroy the organizations and
+structures that have been created to prepare for, respond to
+and recover from floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and other
+disasters. Yet the president's request seems to ignore the
+critical role that these institutions play in our preparedness
+efforts.
+ There are elements in this budget request that are worthy
+of recognition.
+ The administration is again requesting $200 million from
+the Flood Map Modernization Initiative. This initiative is
+important to flood-prone states, such as Mississippi. I am glad
+to see an adequate and timely budget request for the disaster
+relief fund.
+ Last year we were experiencing major floods in Mississippi.
+You came very close to running out of money in the disaster
+relief fund, and nobody wants to go through that again this
+year.
+ Mississippi endured two federally declared disasters last
+year. We are grateful for and in continued need of FEMA's
+program and expertise. I look forward to your testimony and
+working with you to preserve the programs that protect our
+communities from all disasters.
+ Mr. Shadegg. Thank the gentlemen for his opening statement.
+ It is my understanding that Chairman Cox does, in fact,
+plan to attend and that he is en route, however he is not here.
+ I would propose that we call upon the ranking member, Mr.
+Turner, for his opening statement and would ask with unanimous
+consent that that be done without objection to Mr. Cox being
+able to give his opening statement when he arrives.
+ Is there any objection?
+ There being none, so ordered.
+ And I would call upon Mr. Turner, the ranking member of the
+full committee, for his opening statement.
+ Mr. Turner?
+ Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Secretary Brown, thank you for being here with us today. We
+all look forward to hearing your presentation regarding your
+directorate's 2005 budget request.
+ As I begin, I wanted to review just briefly the history of
+the principal component of your directorate, FEMA, and talk
+about the impact of some of the changes that have occurred, and
+suggest some of the things that hopefully can be done to
+continue of what was historically the very strong reputation,
+particularly among our states and locales, of FEMA.
+ You may remember back in the early 1990s, we went through a
+period of time when Congress was calling for the abolishment of
+FEMA. Senator Hollings called FEMA ``the sorriest bunch of
+bureaucrats I have ever known,'' in the wake of FEMA's much-
+criticized response to Hurricane Hugo in 1989.
+ Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland complained in 1992--
+she said, ``I am outraged by the federal government's pathetic,
+sluggish, ill-planned response to the devastating disaster
+wrought by Hurricane Andrew.''
+ And yet it seems that by the end of the 1990s, FEMA had
+turned around. There was a study conducted by George Mason
+University in March of 2000 that praised FEMA for its
+reinvention efforts, and held up the organization as a model of
+results-based management for both the public and the private
+sector.
+ It seems that FEMA had reinvented itself in a way that made
+it, in fact, one of the finest agencies of the federal
+government. FEMA employees seemed to be proud of their
+accomplishments and eager to work for that agency.
+ It is troubling when we saw the recent report of the
+Partnership for Public Service, published last November, that
+rated FEMA today as the worst agency for federal employees to
+work, ranking FEMA 28--last among all federal agencies.
+ It is difficult to understand what happened in FEMA to
+bring that about. I think it is very important for us to try to
+analyze why that change occurred and how we can be sure that we
+can turn this change around.
+ I also am beginning to hear from some of our state and
+local communities about their relationship with FEMA.
+ As we all know, our states and our communities depend very
+heavily on FEMA for resources and for expertise. And although
+our states have been very active in trying to increase their
+focus on terrorism preparedness, they still know that they must
+maintain the ability to cope with natural disasters.
+ It is troubling when I look at the budget request when I
+see that the administration proposes that we cut the FIRE
+grants by $246 million and cut Emergency Management Performance
+Grants by $9 million. This budget limits the ability of our
+states to get the job done.
+ With regard to the Emergency Management Performance
+Grants--the proposal that limits the use of funds our personnel
+has certainly been met with almost unanimous opposition by the
+National Emergency Management Association.
+ So when I see those proposals, it causes me grave concern
+that we may be moving back to a period--as I mentioned, similar
+to the early 1990s--where FEMA does not have the support of the
+Congress or the support of our states and local governments.
+And I think we need to be very careful.
+ We all understand the complexities of massive
+reorganization. And I know, Mr. Secretary, you have your hands
+full trying to get the job done.
+ But I do hope we can be very careful, particularly in these
+areas of funding--in the limitations on use of funds. As you
+know, the Emergency Management Performance Grants is a 50/50
+matching program, but to limit our states and their ability to
+use those funds for personnel, I am told is going to, in some
+cases, result in a 60 percent reduction in employees at the
+state level.
+ So those things concern me, combined with what I perceive
+to be some tension that would normally be expected with
+reorganizations.
+ But I know we have some fine career employees that have
+been with FEMA for many, many years, and I do hope that we can
+listen to them and be sure we maintain the strong standing and
+relationship between FEMA and our states and local governments.
+ And finally, I have also some concerns about our progress
+in trying to build our capabilities for public health and the
+public health preparedness sector, to deal with the threat of
+bioterrorism.
+ As you know, there was an exercise conducted not too long
+ago, the TOPOFF2 exercise, that raised the question, upon its
+completion, as to who had the real authority, the final
+authority to deploy the strategic national stockpile; was it
+DHS or HHS?
+ As I look at the interaction between those two agencies, it
+seems to me that we have to be very careful that we make a
+clear distinction as to what responsibilities the two agencies
+have, and who will make the decision regarding the issues which
+could be so critical in the event of a bioterrorist attack.
+ So by raising those two concerns, I hope you will be able
+to address them as you share your testimony today with the
+committee.
+ And again, I ask for your careful consideration of those
+two matters with full appreciation of the major task that you
+face, and the major responsibility that you have in
+reorganizing your portion of the new department.
+ Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+
+ Prepared Statement of The Honorable Jim Turner, a Representative in
+Congress From the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Select Committee
+ on Homeland Committee
+
+ Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Under Secretary Brown, thank you for appearing before the
+Subcommittee today, and I look forward to your testimony on the
+Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate's fiscal year 2005
+budget request.
+ First, though, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the
+history of your organization, and some changes that I believe are
+necessary to ensure your success in the future.
+ Back in the early 1990's, many in the Congress were calling for the
+abolishment of the principal component in your directorate, FEMA.
+Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina characterized FEMA as ``the
+sorriest bunch of bureaucrats I've ever known'' in the wake of FEMA's
+much- criticized response to Hurricane Hugo in 1989. Senator Barbara
+Mikulski of Maryland complained in 1992, ``I am outraged by the federal
+government's pathetically sluggish and ill- planned response to the
+devastating disaster wrought by Hurricane Andrew.''
+ Yet, by the end of the 1990's, FEMA had achieved a complete
+turnaround. A March 2000 study by George Mason University stated that
+FEMA won widespread praise for its reinvention efforts, and held the
+organization up as a model of results-based management for both the
+public and private sectors. A clear mission, needed changes in
+organizational structure, and a shift in the organization's culture to
+a focus on the customer all contributed to FEMA's success. In addition,
+FEMA employees became proud of their achievements and eager to work for
+the agency.
+ That is why I am very troubled, Under Secretary Brown, that in a
+November 2003 survey of the best places to work in the Federal
+government conducted by the Partnership for Public Service, FEMA was
+ranked 28th, or dead last, by its employees.
+ What has happened to FEMA in the past three years that has resulted
+in the remarkably negative change? How is this drop in morale impacting
+your ability to provide the highest level of service to individual
+citizens and state and local governments? I hope that you found this
+survey as troubling as I did, and that you will describe the measures
+you are implementing to address the needs of your employees.
+ The fact is that states and local communities look to FEMA to
+provide the resources and expertise they need to meet a wide range of
+challenges. While our states and local communities have increased their
+focus on preparing for terrorist attacks, at the same time we must
+maintain our ability to cope with natural disasters.
+ Yet, the Administration proposes to cut funding for Fire Grants by
+$246 million and Emergency Management Performance Grants by $9 million,
+and limits the ability of states to use these funds to meet the full
+range of their preparedness needs.
+ In addition, the President proposes to limit the amount of
+emergency management funds that can be spent on supporting state and
+local emergency planners. I recently spoke before the National
+Emergency Management Association, and their members strongly oppose
+this proposal. The President's budget would, by one estimate, lead to a
+60 percent cut of state and local emergency personnel, exactly at the
+time when we are asking state and local governments to take a more
+active role in emergency planning and response. This does not sound
+like the partnership described by Secretary Ridge and President Bush.
+ Finally, I am also interested in understanding the progress you are
+making in building enhanced public health and bioterrorism preparedness
+capabilities--such as the National Disaster Medical System--in
+partnership with the Department of Health and Human Services.
+ To win the war on terrorism, and to fully prepare our communities
+for any hazard, we must take full advantage of the demonstrated
+successes of our emergency management community I look forward to
+hearing your testimony, Mr. Under Secretary, and to working with you to
+preserve FEMA's all-hazards mission.
+
+ Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman.
+ The chair would now call on the full committee chairman,
+Mr. Cox, for his opening statement.
+ Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ I want to thank Chairman Shadegg and our ranking member,
+Mr. Thompson, for the leadership that you have shown on the
+Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness and Response.
+ And I want to welcome again Under Secretary Mike Brown.
+ Your directorate, Mr. Under Secretary, is where the
+homeland rubber meets the first responder road, and I look
+forward to your testimony.
+ This subcommittee and the full committee have held a
+combined total of 10 hearings and field visits to hear the
+concerns of our first responder community and to assess the
+nation's preparedness and response capabilities.
+ Last November, this subcommittee successfully marked up the
+Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act, which,
+with impressive bipartisan support, passed unanimously and is
+now before the full committee.
+ The continued leadership of this subcommittee will be
+vital, as the full committee moves to mark up H.R. 3266. The
+bill provides for a more threat-based and cost-effective
+approach to homeland security grants and allows high-threat
+regions, as well as states, to apply for these grants.
+ The full committee, by the way, will continue its efforts
+to control spending and focus on threat in two other bills this
+session--one on metrics for the Department of Homeland
+Security's performance and the other an authorization bill to
+help sharpen our spending practices.
+ Yesterday, the ranking member of the full committee and I
+were with the president to celebrate the one-year anniversary
+of the department. The president charged us to hold the
+government's feet to the fire. ``None of us,'' he said,
+``charged with defending this nation can rest. We must never
+forget the day when the terrorists left their mark of murder on
+our nation.''
+ Taking up the president's charge, we must recognize that
+the mission of the EP & R Directorate is central to the
+Homeland Security counterterrorism mission--to prevent, protect
+and respond.
+ Under Secretary Brown, we look forward to hearing the
+strides that your directorate has made over the past year in
+directing its capabilities towards the terrorist threat, while
+maintaining its focus on traditional all-hazard missions.
+ Creating the new EP & R Directorate for Congress meant that
+both preparedness and response were going to be incorporated in
+one place. Valuable lessons were learned from FEMA's experience
+in dealing heroically with major terrorist attacks in New York
+in 1993 and Oklahoma City in 1995.
+ After the Oklahoma City bombing, the GAO cited FEMA's need
+to cooperate more with law enforcement, to plan better for
+surges in resources demands, and to improve training and
+equipment to counter attacks involving WMD. Such challenges
+were even further magnified in the response to the second
+bombing of the World Trade Center in 2001.
+ An all-hazards approach to emergency management has worked
+effectively for non-terrorist missions in the past, but the
+terrorist threat requires more flexible and adaptive programs.
+We need to show that preparedness, not just response, is the
+mission of EP & R.
+ As you know, Mr. Under Secretary, Congress, the
+administration and the department have taken steps to improve
+our emergency response system. You have bolstered the
+department's response capabilities and you have developed plans
+to unify incident management.
+ Together, we have begun to reform the first responder
+grant-making process so that resources are better leveraged to
+provide essential capabilities to every state and locality.
+ In the president's fiscal year 2005 budget proposal, he has
+requested $20 million to support medical response, through the
+enhancement of medical surge and capacity--a crucial need in a
+WMD attack. We look forward to hearing more about this today.
+ The National Incident Management System will significantly
+enhance the ability of the EP & R Directorate to collaborate
+with state and local first responders in implementing the
+proposed national response plan. This will unify domestic
+incident management by providing an operational framework for
+responders at all levels of government.
+ The department released the Interim National Response Plan
+in October, and the National Incident Management System Plan
+was released last week.
+ We expect that you will tell us, Mr. Under Secretary, more
+about these initiatives this morning.
+ The committee recognizes, Under Secretary Brown, your
+leadership and the bold steps you have taken to integrate the
+EP & R Directorate into the Department of Homeland Security and
+both to clarify and strengthen its preparedness and response
+capabilities against terrorism.
+ I look forward to your testimony today.
+ And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+
+ Prepared Statement of The Honorable Christopher Cox, a Representative
+ in Congress From the State of California, and Chairman, Select
+ Committee on Homeland Security
+
+ I want to thank Chairman Shadegg and Ranking member Thompson for
+the leadership they have shown on the Subcommittee on Emergency
+Preparedness and Response and welcome again the Undersecretary Mike
+Brown. Your Directorate Mr. Undersecretary is where the homeland
+``rubber hits the first-responder road,'' and I look forward to your
+testimony.
+ This subcommittee and the full committee have held a combined total
+of ten hearings and field visits to hear the concerns of our first
+responder community and to assess the Nation's preparedness and
+response capabilities. Last November, this Subcommittee successfully
+marked up HR 3266 the `Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders
+Act' which, with impressive bipartisan support, passed unanimously and
+is now before the full committee. The continued leadership of this
+Subcommittee will be vital as the full committee moves to mark up HR
+3266, which provides for a more threat- based and cost-effective
+approach to Homeland Security grants, and which allows high- threat
+regions, as well as States, to apply for these grants. The full
+committee, by the way, will continue its efforts to control spending
+and focus on threat in two other bills this session, one on metrics for
+DHS performance and the other an authorization bill to help sharpen our
+spending practices.
+ Yesterday, the ranking member and I were with the President to
+celebrate the one year anniversary of the Department. The President
+charged us to hold our feet to the fire: ``none of us charged with
+defending this nation can rest'' he said. ``We must never forget the
+day when the terrorists left their mark of murder on our nation.''
+Taking up the President's charge we must recognize that the mission of
+the EP & R Directorate is central to the Homeland Security
+counterterrorism mission--to prevent, protect, and respond.
+ Undersecretary Brown, we look forward to hearing the strides that
+your Directorate has made over the past year, in directing its
+capabilities towards the terrorist threat while maintaining its focus
+on its traditional all-hazard missions.
+ Creating the new EP & R Directorate for Congress meant that both
+preparedness and response missions against terrorism would require new
+capabilities. Valuable lessons were learned from FEMA's experience in
+dealing heroically with major terrorist attacks in New York in 1993 and
+in Oklahoma City in 1995. After the Oklahoma City bombing the General
+Accounting Office cited FEMA's need to cooperate more with law
+enforcement, to plan better for surges in resource demands and to
+improve training and equipment to counter attacks involving weapons of
+mass destruction.
+ Such challenges were even further magnified in the response to the
+second bombing of the World Trade Center in 2001. An all-hazards
+approach to emergency management has worked effectively in the past.
+But the terrorist threat requires more flexible and adaptive programs.
+We need to show that preparedness not just response is the mission of
+EP & R.
+ As you know, Mr. Undersecretary, Congress, the Administration, and
+the Department have taken steps to improve our emergency response
+system--you have bolstered response capabilities and have developed
+plans to unify incident management. Together we have begun to reform
+the first responder grant- making process so that resources are better
+leveraged to provide essential capabilities to every state and
+locality.
+ In the fiscal year 2005 budget proposal, the President has
+requested $20 million to support medical response through the
+enhancement of medical surge capacity, a crucial need in a WMD attack.
+We look forward to hearing more about this today.
+ The National Incident Management System will significantly enhance
+the ability of the EP & R Directorate to collaborate with State and
+local first responders in implementing the proposed National Response
+Plan. This will unify domestic incident management by providing an
+operational framework for responders at all levels of government. The
+Department released the interim National Response Plan in October, and
+the National Incident Management System plan was released last week. We
+expect the Undersecretary to tell us more about these initiatives this
+morning.
+ Undersecretary Brown, the Committee recognizes and commends your
+leadership and the bold steps you have taken to integrate the EP & R
+Directorate into DHS and to both clarify and strengthen its
+preparedness and response capabilities against terrorism.
+ I look forward to receiving your testimony today.
+
+ Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman for his response.
+ Again, Mr. Secretary, welcome. We appreciate your being
+here.
+ I have a brief amount of time, I would like you to answer
+the first--I am sorry. I would like to get to my questions, but
+I guess we ought to give you a chance to make your statement.
+ [Laughter.]
+ See how anxious I am to start grilling you?
+ You are welcome to make an opening statement. We appreciate
+your being here.
+
+ STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL D. BROWN, UNDER SECRETARY
+FOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
+ SECURITY
+
+ Mr. Brown. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also want
+to express my appreciation for the very kind words and the
+things that you had to say in your opening remarks too.
+ But I know you are anxious to get to questions, so I will,
+with due haste, speed through this oral statement, so you can
+start grilling me pretty good, you bet.
+ My name is Michael Brown. I am the Under Secretary for the
+Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate of the
+Department of Homeland Security, which does include the Federal
+Emergency Management Agency.
+ I am truly honored to appear before you today to talk about
+FEMA's accomplishments of this past year since it became a part
+of the Department of Homeland Security.
+ But more importantly, I want to highlight our priorities
+for 2004 and why support of the president's budget request for
+2005 is critical to ensure that FEMA can continue to fulfill
+its mission.
+ On March 1st, FEMA celebrated its first full year as a part
+of the Department of Homeland Security. We are proud to be part
+of this historic effort and are more committed than ever to our
+duty as defenders of the homeland.
+ We have made significant strides in our first year as a
+component of the department, and we continue to see the
+advantage of and realize the benefits from being a part of this
+larger organization.
+ Since March 1st of last year, FEMA has worked to merge
+disaster-related public health programs from the Department of
+Health and Human Services into a unified national response
+capability.
+ These programs include the National Disaster Medical
+System, which is designed to provide a single integrated
+national medical response capability to augment the nation's
+emergency medical response capability.
+ Another important public health-related program, the
+strategic national stockpile, maintains large quantities of
+essential medical items that can be provided for the emergency
+health security of the U.S. in the event of a bioterrorist
+attack or other public health emergency.
+ FEMA has also successfully merged a multiplicity of other
+disaster response teams and assets from different departments
+and agencies to create a unified national response capability
+within the department.
+ FEMA has also been given operational control of the nuclear
+incident response teams in certain circumstances, including the
+event of an actual or even a threatened terrorist attack.
+ As we settle in to DHS, we continue to leverage the
+extensive experience and capabilities of the department's other
+components. We look forward to continuing and increasing such
+cooperation in the future.
+ This year, FEMA is supporting the department's efforts to
+put into place a National Incident Management System that will
+help improve coordination of disaster response at all levels.
+We will field enhanced response teams and resources, improve
+our response times, put plans into place for catastrophic
+events and improve our training program.
+ We want to elevate our operational response capabilities to
+a whole new level of proficiency, one that will further the
+principles of the National Response Plan and the National
+Incident Management System to better serve the American public.
+ We will enhance our current recovery capabilities and
+better position ourselves to recover from a catastrophic event
+by focusing on redesigning our public assistance program and
+developing a catastrophic incident housing recovery strategy.
+ Finally, we are ensuring that the FEMA national security
+program have adequately staffed, trained, equipped and exercise
+our continuity of operations and our continuity of government
+programs to guarantee the survival of enduring constitutional
+government.
+ Looking ahead to fiscal year 2005, the president's budget
+request is critical to ensuring that FEMA can continue to
+fulfill our mission.
+ The president's request continues implementation of Project
+BioShield, which encourages the development and the purchase of
+necessary medical countermeasures against weapons of mass
+destruction. During advance appropriation, $2.5 billion is made
+available, beginning in fiscal year 2005. These funds will be
+obligated through fiscal year 2008.
+ The president's request also includes $20 million in new
+budget authority for planning and exercises associated with
+increasing our medical surge capabilities. It includes $8
+million in new budget authority for four incident management
+teams to act as the core field-level response teams for major
+disasters, emergencies and acts of terrorism.
+ The budget includes $7 million in new budget authority for
+the development and implementation of the National Incident
+Management System.
+ In the coming year, FEMA will continue to work with other
+components of the department to develop the National Incident
+Management System and complete the National Response Plan.
+ These initiatives will ensure that all levels of
+government, across the nation, work together efficiently and
+effectively, employing a single national approach to domestic
+incident management.
+ In fiscal year 2005, FEMA's Office of National Security
+Coordination will continue to carry out its mandated mission to
+provide executive agent leadership to ensure continuity of
+national operations in order to guarantee the survival of an
+enduring constitutional government.
+ In sum, during the last year, FEMA has continued to carry
+out its traditional mission. Successful implementation of these
+new initiatives and the ongoing activities I discussed today
+will improve our national system of mitigating against,
+preparing for, responding to, recovering from disasters and
+emergencies caused by any kind of hazard.
+ In closing, I want to give a personal note of appreciation
+to all members of this committee for the incredible support
+that you have shown FEMA in the past. That does not go
+unnoticed by either myself, my leadership team or the employees
+of the agency, and we truly do appreciate it.
+ Mr. Chairman, with that, I will be happy to answer any
+questions.
+ [The statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
+
+Prepared Statement of The Honorable Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary,
+ Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security
+
+Introduction
+ Good Morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
+Michael Brown, Under Secretary for the Emergency Preparedness and
+Response Directorate (EP & R) of the Department of Homeland Security
+(DHS), which includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
+ I am honored to appear before you today to talk about FEMA's
+accomplishments of this past year since it has become part of the
+Department of Homeland Security. More importantly I want to highlight
+our priorities for fiscal year 2004 and why support of the President's
+Budget request for fiscal year 2005 is critical to insure that FEMA can
+continue to fulfill its traditional role of preparing for, mitigating
+against, responding to, and recovering from disasters and emergencies
+caused by all hazards.
+ FEMA has undergone significant changes since becoming part of DHS--
+both external and internal--but it has not changed its focus. As part
+of DHS, FEMA continues its tradition of responding to help disaster
+victims and those in need whenever disasters or emergencies strike.
+
+Transition into the Department of Homeland Security
+ On March 1st, FEMA celebrated its first full year as part of the
+Department of Homeland Security. We are proud to be part of this
+historic effort and are more committed than ever to our duty as
+defenders of the Homeland. We made significant strides in our first
+year as a component of the Department, and we continue to see the
+advantage of and realize benefits from being part of a larger
+organization. We believe that the Federal-wide consolidation of all-
+hazards preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery programs
+brings real benefit to the American public.
+ Since March 1st of last year, FEMA has worked to merge disaster-
+related public health programs from the Department of Health and Human
+Services (DHHS) into a comprehensive and unified national response
+capability. These programs include the National Disaster Medical System
+(NDMS), which is designed to provide a single, integrated, national
+medical response capability to augment the Nation's emergency medical
+response capability when needed for major disasters and Federally
+declared emergencies. Another important public health-related program,
+the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS), maintains large quantities of
+essential medical items that can be provided for the emergency health
+security of the U.S. in the event of a bioterrorist attack or other
+public health emergency and to support State and local communities
+during emergencies.
+ FEMA also successfully merged a multiplicity of other disaster
+response teams and assets from different departments and agencies to
+create a unified national response capability within the Department of
+Homeland Security. Among these teams and assets, now merged within
+FEMA's Response Division, are the:
+ - National Disaster Medical System,
+ - Domestic Emergency Support Team, and
+ - Strategic National Stockpile
+ FEMA has also been given operational control of the Nuclear
+Incident Response Team in certain circumstances, including the event of
+an actual or threatened terrorist attack.
+ As we settle into DHS, we continue to leverage the extensive
+experience and capabilities of the Department's other components. For
+example, in responding to Hurricane Isabel, we received aerial imaging
+and aviation support from our friends at the DHS Bureau of Immigration
+and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the U.S. Coast Guard. We are
+partnering with the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection
+Directorate to improve our damage prediction and resource placement
+decisions and to take advantage of their critical infrastructure
+resources and expertise. We look forward to continuing and increasing
+such cooperation in the future.
+
+Fiscal Year 2003 Accomplishments
+ In Fiscal Year 2003, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
+obligated nearly $2.9 billion in disaster funds to aid people and
+communities overwhelmed by disasters, including floods, ice and winter
+storms, wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, typhoons, and tropical
+storms. In addition, FEMA obligated $6.8 billion to fund projects
+associated with the September 11 response. Overall, FEMA responded to
+62 major disasters and 19 emergencies in 35 States, 4 U.S. Territories
+and the District of Columbia. These events included the record Midwest
+tornados, Super Typhoon Pongsona and Hurricanes Claudette and Isabel.
+The 19 emergencies declared in 2003 included the loss of the Space
+Shuttle Columbia, the President's Day snowstorm, and the Northeast
+power outages.
+ While the California fires in October left an indelible mark in our
+memories, the Nation's fire season in 2003 was not as busy, with
+exceptions, in Montana and Arizona. But in the areas impacted, the
+fires were devastating and severe. In Fiscal Year 2003, FEMA approved
+assistance for 34 fires in 11 States, compared with 83 fires in 19
+States in Fiscal Year 2002.
+ In fiscal year 2003, Congress supported the President's efforts to
+promote disaster mitigation, through the creation and funding of two
+important initiatives: the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program and
+the Flood Map Modernization Program. Great strides have been made in
+both of these areas in the last year. These two programs will
+ultimately result in the reduced loss of life and property throughout
+our Nation.
+ FEMA's Preparedness Division awarded more than $160 million in
+Emergency Management Performance Grants to the States to maintain and
+improve the national emergency management system. To date, the United
+States Fire Administration has awarded over $650 million in grants to
+fire departments across the nation as part of the Assistance to
+Firefighters Grant Program. Both of these programs are now requested in
+the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) portion of the Department's
+budget for fiscal year 2005 and we are working very closely with ODP on
+transferring these programs. FEMA also provided a total of 17
+interoperable communications equipment grants for $79.57 million, and
+the Emergency Management Institute, the National Fire Academy (NFA) and
+the Noble Training Center together trained more than 290,000 fire and
+emergency management and response personnel nationwide.
+ In our response to Hurricane Isabel, last September, we
+demonstrated a more forward-leaning and proactive response posture and
+made every effort to improve communication, coordination and timely
+delivery of critical disaster supplies. FEMA increased the frequency of
+daily video teleconferences with the impacted States and meteorological
+and river forecasting centers, jointly planned response actions with
+the States, pre-positioned materials, and opened multiple staging areas
+and mobilization centers in anticipation of response needs. These and
+other changes we have made allow us to continue to improve Federal
+disaster response efforts. We will continue to take advantage of the
+lessons learned and best practices from Isabel and other disasters, and
+apply them in our programs to change the impact of future events.
+ Also during fiscal year 2003, FEMA launched the Continuity of
+Operations Readiness Reporting System, a single automated system that
+allows Federal Executive Branch departments and agencies to report the
+state of their Continuity of Operations capabilities and readiness. The
+System has been tested and will be fielded this year. In addition to
+technology upgrades and improvements, FEMA's Office of National
+Security Coordination maintained a 24/7 operational readiness
+capability in support of National Security programs, including the
+initial planning and coordination for an interagency Continuity of
+Operations exercise, Exercise Forward Challenge 2004, to take place
+later this year.
+Fiscal Year 2004 Priorities
+ In Fiscal Year 2004, FEMA is focusing on its five major program
+areas: Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, Recovery, and National
+Security.
+ Our Mitigation efforts center on modernizing our Nation's flood
+maps, providing Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grants, and enhancing the
+National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). For Map Modernization over 300
+mapping projects, valued at approximately $85 million, were launched
+nationwide in fiscal year 2003 and we are working with State and local
+representatives to identify projects for fiscal year 2004. The PDM
+grants will again provide stable funding to assist State and local
+governments to reduce risks. The number of NFIP policies will be
+increased by five percent.
+ Our Preparedness Division will support the Department's efforts to
+put into place a National Incident Management System (NIMS) that will
+help improve coordination of disaster response at all levels. In
+addition, we will publish Mutual Aid System Development, Credentialing
+and Equipment Interoperability Standards. Our support for training and
+exercises continues to enhance the Nation's emergency management
+capabilities and increasing fire preparedness remains a central
+mission.
+ In 2004, our Response capabilities continue to grow. We will field
+enhanced response teams and resources, improve our response times, put
+plans into place for catastrophic events, and improve our training. We
+will continue to consolidate and integrate all of our different
+disaster response programs, teams, and assets; design new approaches;
+and implement new efficiencies that will result in a more unified,
+integrated, and comprehensive approach to all-hazards disaster
+response. We want to elevate our operational response capabilities to a
+whole new level of proficiency, one that will further the principles of
+the National Response Plan (NRP) and the National Incident Management
+System (NIMS) to better serve the American people.
+ For those impacted by disasters, FEMA continues to provide
+appropriate and effective disaster recovery assistance. Simultaneously,
+we continue to focus on re-designing our Public Assistance Program and
+developing a catastrophic incident housing recovery strategy. These
+efforts will enhance our current capabilities and better position us to
+recover from a catastrophic event.
+ Finally, we are ensuring that the FEMA National Security Program
+has adequately staffed, trained, equipped, and exercised Continuity of
+Operations (COOP) and Continuity of Government (COG) programs to
+guarantee the survival of Enduring Constitutional Government.
+
+Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Highlights
+The President's Fiscal Year 2005 Budget for FEMA:
+ - Assumes a $2.9 billion spending level for disaster relief--a
+ level consistent with the average non-terrorist disaster costs
+ over the past five years. This includes more than $2.1 billion
+ in new disaster funds, as well as funds expected to remain
+ available from prior years. This is over $300 million more than
+ the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
+ - Continues implementation of Project BioShield, which
+ encourages the development and purchase of necessary medical
+ countermeasures against weapons of mass destruction. Through an
+ advance appropriation, $2.5 billion is made available beginning
+ in fiscal year 2005. These funds will be obligated through
+ fiscal year 2008.
+ - Includes $20 million in new budget authority for planning and
+ exercises associated with improving medical surge capabilities.
+ - Includes $8 million in new budget authority for four Incident
+ Management Teams (IMTs) to act as the core, field-level
+ response teams for major disasters, emergencies, and acts of
+ terrorism.
+ - Includes $7 million in new budget authority for development
+ and implementation of the National Incident Management System
+ (NIMS), specially designed to provide a basic framework of
+ organization, terminology, resource identification and typing;
+ training and credentialing; and communications protocols to
+ deal effectively with incidents of all sizes and complexities
+ involving Federal, State, and local governments, Tribal
+ Nations, and citizens.
+ - Continues the President's Pre-Disaster Mitigation program,
+ which helps to minimize the devastation caused by natural
+ disasters through a competitive grant process that supports
+ well-designed mitigation projects. In fiscal year 2005, we will
+ initiate post-disaster evaluations to begin documenting losses
+ avoided and assessing program impact.
+ - Continues the replacement and modernization of the Nation's
+ Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
+ - Transfers the Strategic National Stockpile to DHHS. As a
+ result of the transfer, $400 million is moved to DHHS to
+ maintain the stockpile and strengthen its future capacity with
+ new and needed medical products as soon as they become
+ available.
+ - Transfers the Emergency Food and Shelter Program to the
+ Department of Housing and Urban Development.
+
+Mitigation
+ FEMA's mitigation programs are an essential part of the Department
+of Homeland Security's charge to protect the lives and property of
+Americans from the effects of disasters. Mitigation programs provide us
+the opportunity not only to develop plans to reduce risks, but more
+importantly, to implement those plans before disaster strikes.
+ In previous years, Congress supported the President's efforts to
+promote disaster mitigation by creating and funding two initiatives:
+ - Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants, and
+ - Flood Map Modernization.
+ The intent of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants is to provide a
+consistent source of funding to State, local, and Tribal governments
+for pre-disaster mitigation planning and projects that primarily
+address natural hazards. The plans and projects funded by this program
+reduce overall risks to the populations and structures, while reducing
+reliance on funds from Federal disaster declarations. The competitive
+nature of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program encourages communities to
+assess their risks, to evaluate their vulnerabilities, and to implement
+mitigation activities before a disaster strikes. This budget proposes
+support for both pre-disaster and post-disaster mitigation assistance.
+ The Flood Map Modernization Program provides the capability to
+broaden the scope of risk management. This enables more expansive use
+of the geospatial base data needed to develop the flood maps.
+Communities, lenders, insurance agents, and others use the maps and the
+flood data approximately 20 million times a year to make critical
+decisions on land development, community redevelopment, insurance
+coverage, and insurance premiums. As flood hazard data is updated, the
+current flood map inventory is being changed from a paper map system to
+a digital one. New technology will enhance the usefulness and
+availability of flood data to all customers. The new system also
+supports the development and distribution of geospatial data of all
+hazards, both natural and man-made.
+ The fiscal year 2005 budget will continue to update flood maps
+nationwide and increase State and local capability to manage flood
+hazard data. By the end of fiscal year 2005, digital GIS flood hazard
+data covering 50 percent of our nation's population will be available
+online.
+ The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has a significant
+impact on reducing and indemnifying this Nation's flood losses. Prior
+to the creation of the NFIP, floodplain management as a practice was
+not well established, and only a few states and several hundred
+communities actually regulated floodplain development. Flood insurance
+was not generally available. We are working diligently to refine and
+expand our all-hazards risk communication strategy to meet the goal of
+a 5 percent increase in NFIP policy ownership. This increase in
+insurance policy ownership will reduce reliance on the Disaster Relief
+Fund and will foster individual economic stability.
+
+Preparedness
+ FEMA's Preparedness Division helps ensure our Nation is prepared to
+respond to emergencies and disasters of all kinds. The Preparedness
+Division is responsible for Federal, State, local, and community
+emergency preparedness programs; assessments and exercises; grants
+administration; the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program and the
+Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program.
+ The U.S. Fire Administration works to prevent fire deaths and
+damage to property, and carries out its mission through leadership,
+advocacy, coordination, and support. The training programs offered at
+the National Fire Academy and the Emergency Management Institute
+promote the professional development of command level firefighters,
+emergency managers, and emergency responders, and are an important
+aspect of the U.S. Fire Administration's duties.
+ The Noble Training Center, located at Ft. McClellan, Alabama, is a
+new addition to FEMA. Transferred from DHHS in fiscal year 2003, the
+Noble Training Center is the only hospital facility in the U.S. devoted
+entirely to medical training for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). In
+Fiscal Year 2005, Noble will continue to train medical personnel for
+State and local hospitals, emergency medical services, and the National
+Disaster Medical System.
+ In Fiscal Year 2005, FEMA's Preparedness Division will work with
+other components of the Department to develop the National Incident
+Management System (NIMS) and the National Response Plan (NRP). These
+initiatives will ensure that all levels of government, across the
+Nation, work together efficiently and effectively, employing a single
+national approach to domestic incident management.
+ FEMA's Preparedness Division will continue to provide the States
+with technical assistance in their all-hazards planning. To avoid
+duplicative planning, our efforts will be closely coordinated with
+those of the Office for Domestic Preparedness to update State terrorism
+preparedness plans.
+ As part of our effort to prepare our citizens for all disasters,
+the Division will oversee the Community Emergency Response Teams, or
+CERT. This program, begun as a civilian training program by the Los
+Angeles Fire Department, has become a nationwide effort to train
+citizens in first aid and basic firefighting and emergency response
+techniques. CERT--trained citizens are able to provide those basic
+emergency services that would otherwise occupy the first responders.
+FEMA provides train-the-trainer programs to allow as many citizens as
+possible to receive this training across the country. The CERT program
+has grown from 170 teams in 28 States and Territories in March of 2002
+to over 900 teams in 51 States and Territories.
+
+Response
+ FEMA's Response Division is responsible for integrating national
+emergency response teams, systems and assets into a comprehensive and
+fully coordinated, national capability that supports States and
+communities in responding to all types of disasters, including acts of
+terrorism. This is accomplished by arranging the necessary and
+appropriate national assets, establishing a consolidated national
+incident response system, and effectively coordinating strategic
+resources in full partnership with Federal, State, local, and tribal
+governments, the private sector, volunteers, and citizen partners.
+
+The Fiscal Year 2005 Response Division budget proposes to
+ - Create four Incident Management Teams (IMTs) and formulate
+ plans for full implementation in Fiscal Year 2006; the IMT is a
+ highly responsive and flexible response team that will be able
+ to quickly establish a strong Federal leadership capability in
+ any disaster environment or high threat situation, including
+ acts of terrorism involving the use of WMD;
+ - Continue all-hazards catastrophic disaster response planning
+ for one additional US city, based on the pilot disaster
+ planning template developed for New Orleans, Louisiana. The
+ template will be used in the future as a basis for all-hazards
+ catastrophic planning for other high risk areas of the country;
+ and
+ - Continue efforts to develop the capability to provide
+ intermediate emergency housing aimed at meeting the needs of
+ large numbers of disaster victims displaced from their homes as
+ a result of large scale and catastrophic disasters
+ FEMA's Response Division will also continue to implement measures
+to reduce response times for its teams and delivery of disaster
+supplies.
+ Additional funding requested in fiscal year 2005 implements the
+National Incident Management System--NIMS. FEMA's goal for 2005 is to
+focus on the readiness of Federal response teams and the integration of
+Federal capabilities with that of State and local jurisdictions. We
+will conduct outreach to our Federal response partners and State and
+local counterparts to ensure connectivity and synchronization of
+response capabilities under NIMS, and will conduct NIMS and Incident
+Command System (ICS) training for Federal response teams. These
+activities will ensure we have the baseline skills for all teams to
+operate under NIMS and be fully integrated into the NIMS/ICS doctrine.
+ As highlighted previously, the President's fiscal year 2005 budget
+proposes an initiative to develop FEMA's medical surge capability.
+Under this initiative, FEMA will evaluate supplemental capabilities for
+both a fixed and mobile facility to demonstrate the utility of using
+alternate facilities to support medical surge activities, as well as
+the utility of having a surge capacity that can be mobilized,
+transported, and made operational within set timelines. The second part
+of this initiative is to implement the concept through two pilot
+projects.
+
+Recovery
+ FEMA's Recovery Division leads and coordinates the timely delivery
+of Federal disaster assistance to individuals and communities.
+ In Fiscal Year 2005, the Recovery Division will continue to provide
+assistance to individuals for temporary housing, damaged personal
+property, crisis counseling, disaster unemployment, and disaster legal
+services. FEMA responded to over 2.5 million calls last year, from
+people seeking to register for disaster assistance and to have their
+questions answered. The Recovery Division processed more than half a
+million individual disaster applications.
+ The Individual Assistance Programs that meet victims' most basic
+needs provide assistance for housing, personal property losses, and
+medical and funeral expenses. In each disaster we ask our customers,
+the disaster victims, what they think of the service we provided to
+them. I am pleased to tell you that we consistently earn very high
+marks from our customers when they are surveyed. In fiscal year 2005 we
+will continue to invest in technology that ensures we continue to meet
+our customers' expectations.
+ FEMA's Public Assistance Program, which accounts for the bulk of
+recovery expenditures out of the Disaster Relief Fund, is the primary
+means for community recovery. State and local governments and certain
+non-profit organizations can be reimbursed to repair facilities to
+their pre-disaster condition, as well as for costs associated with
+debris removal and emergency protective measures. FEMA is focusing on
+redesigning the Public Assistance Program to be more efficient and
+better prepared to meet the needs of a catastrophic or terrorist event
+by moving toward a web-based, user friendly, estimated based program,
+communities will be able to recover faster. In order to better prepare
+for the transition to a redesigned program, FEMA is establishing a
+methodology for estimating the total cost of large projects versus
+determining final costs after work is complete. Implementing the Public
+Assistance Program using cost estimates will allow State and local
+governments to better budget for recovery, improve our estimates of
+disaster expenditures, and reduce administrative costs and closeout
+timelines. In addition, we are working on proposed revisions to the
+Public Assistance Insurance Rule, which was last revised in 1991. The
+Stafford Act requires applicants for Public Assistance grants to
+``obtain and maintain'' insurance on a damaged facility as a condition
+of receiving assistance. In the past, there have been concerns about
+this rule imposing a pre-disaster insurance requirement for all
+hazards. The proposed rule will not require insurance before disaster
+strikes, except for flood insurance in identified flood hazard areas,
+as required by the Stafford Act. The purpose of the rule is to simply
+clarify issues not adequately addressed in the current rule, such as
+eligible deductibles.
+ The Fire Management Assistance Grant Program is another key
+resource for States and local governments to mitigate, manage, and
+control forest or grassland fires to prevent damages that may otherwise
+result in a major disaster declaration.
+ I assure you that President Bush appreciates the importance of
+Recovery. I had the honor of joining the President in touring Missouri
+last spring after the devastating tornadoes struck Pierce City. Even
+though it was pouring rain during our visit, the President got out of
+his car to go over and talk to a couple who were standing in front of
+their damaged store front. They also had damages to their home. Using
+FEMA's temporary housing, immediate needs assistance, their insurance,
+and SBA home and business loans, this couple is recovering.
+ The massive California Wildfires of 2003 scorched over 750,000
+acres and claimed 24 lives. During the response to the wildfires, the
+President and Secretary Ridge wanted me to be intimately involved in
+the coordination efforts between the Federal agencies doing work there.
+Through the formation of a pair of interagency bodies, the Washington-
+based California Fires Coordination Group and the field-level Multi-
+Agency Support Group, FEMA's Recovery Division was instrumental in
+assuring that each of our Federal partners was coming to the table with
+comprehensive plans that were complementary to each other, that
+minimized the sort of bureaucratic ``stove piping'' that results in
+duplication of efforts, and that continued to focus on the needs
+identified by the state and local communities as priorities. Our shared
+success is the natural result of FEMA's commitment to ``all-hazards''
+emergency management, and a focus on a scaled approach to meet the
+challenges of any kind of incident, from the floods, fires, and storms
+that happen all too often, to the catastrophic scenarios that we
+prepare for, but hope will never come to pass.
+ We take our mission to help communities and citizens recover very
+seriously. My goal is to continue to do the work we do now better and
+faster, and to build on our current recovery capabilities to be better
+prepared to face a catastrophic natural or terrorist event.
+
+National Security
+ In Fiscal Year 2005, FEMA's Office of National Security
+Coordination will continue to carry out its mandated mission to provide
+Executive Agent leadership to ensure continuity of national operations
+in response to all-hazard emergencies in order to guarantee the
+survival of an enduring constitutional government. Funding in fiscal
+year 2005 will be used to ensure that all Federal Executive Branch
+departments and agencies attain and maintain a fully operational
+Continuity of Operations (COOP) capability. FEMA will provide
+assistance to Federal departments and agencies to help them attain and
+maintain fully operational contingency capabilities. FEMA will develop
+and implement a test, training, and exercise program that culminates in
+a complete exercise of the Continuity of Government (COG) program. In
+addition, we will provide technical support and guidance to our
+interagency, regional, State and local stakeholders across the Nation.
+
+Conclusion
+ During the last year, FEMA has been busy but we continue to carry
+out our mission to prepare for, mitigate against, respond to, and
+recover from disasters and emergencies caused by all-hazards. The key
+to our continued improvement will be to take the lessons learned from
+previous disasters and incorporate them into our preparedness,
+planning, and procedures, so that we do an even better job of
+responding next time. We evaluate the lessons learned from each
+disaster and make plans to incorporate the new approaches and remedy
+problems. Hurricane Isabel provided such an opportunity, and it
+validated our priority to reduce disaster response times and improve
+our capability to gather information and effectively and efficiently
+manage the Federal Government's response to Presidentially - declared
+disasters.
+ Successful implementation of the new initiatives and the on-going
+activities I have discussed today will improve our national system of
+mitigating against, preparing for, responding to, recovering from
+disasters and emergencies caused by all hazards.
+ In closing, I want to thank the Members of the Subcommittee for
+their past support of FEMA and I appreciate the opportunity to testify
+before you today. I would now be pleased to answer any questions you
+may have.
+
+ Mr. Shadegg. And a fine statement it was.
+ Let me begin by letting you add to it.
+ We heard some discussion here already today about dramatic
+cuts. I think that it is important to put the funding levels in
+context. It seems to me that across the board, within the
+Department of Homeland Security, since its creation and since
+9/11, we have done radical plus-ups in funding.
+ In instance after instance, we have said, ``Wait a minute,
+we were doing nothing about this,'' or ``We were doing way too
+little about this in the past,'' so we were going to pump it up
+exponentially in a very short period of time.
+ I doubt if anyone would maintain, or certainly I do not
+think it is reasonable to maintain that kind of dramatic
+increase can persist over time.
+ My understanding, for example, is that with regard to
+emergency management grants, they were prior to the creation of
+the department roughly $130 million. They have been plussed-up
+to somewhere in the neighborhood of $179 million, a pretty
+dramatic increase--30 percent.
+ With regard to fire assistance grants, it is my
+understanding that they went from $100 million prior to the
+creation of the department to a request by the president of
+$500 million last year, which is repeating this year. So he is
+proposing still a rather significant plus-up.
+ And it is my understanding that it is accurate to say that
+this administration has done more than any administration in
+American history to assist local fire departments in their
+efforts to prepare and to do their jobs.
+ I guess I would like to begin by giving you an opportunity
+to comment on what is reasonable in terms of the immediate
+plus-up of funding and then where we go over the long haul.
+ Mr. Brown. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, your statement
+just now and question are exactly the points that I would make
+in terms of funding.
+ I would say, first of all, the president has absolutely
+recognized the problem we had last year with the DRF, the
+Disaster Relief Fund. The request now is such that it will give
+us plenty of room to do what we have historically done, about
+$2.9 billion over the average year, which is what we did last
+year.
+ So we feel very good that the president's request is at a
+level that will keep us from having to come back, barring any
+catastrophic event in the future, on bended knees and ask for
+money for the Disaster Relief Fund.
+ The points about first responders I think we cannot ignore.
+ You said it very eloquently, Mr. Chairman: This president
+has requested more and gotten more for first responders than
+any president in the history of this country.
+ When I came into FEMA, the requests for the firefighter
+grants was at about $100 million.
+ That was increased to $500 million--the exact same amount
+the president is requesting this year. So the president has not
+requested a cut in that amount that he requested at all.
+ The same is true with the EMPG program.
+ There was a dramatic increase in that request by the
+president last year. He has made the same request this year.
+ And so the cuts that you see or the difference between what
+the president has requested and at the end of the day what
+Congress actually ends up giving us, which is more.
+ So I think we are in very good shape.
+ On the firefighter grant program, the reason I think that
+is a reasonable request and a reasonable level to put out is
+that there is so much that the local fire departments at any
+one time can consume and take on.
+ The way this program is set up, it enables us to--I mean,
+forgive me here if I get on my soap box about the FIRE grant
+program, because I think it is truly one of the best grant
+programs in the federal government.
+ It has a peer review process. Those categories allow fire
+departments to come in, they review among themselves where the
+greatest need is and that is where those dollars go and they go
+directly to those fire departments.
+ And those fire departments know in advance what they have
+asked for. So when they have to meet that match, they have
+already gone to their city council, to their county
+commissioners, to their state legislature and said, ``We are
+going after this money and we need to be able to, if we get
+approved to move on that stuff, make those purchases and get
+that training, the equipment, whatever it is, into our local
+department.''
+ That request has not changed. And that request is still at
+such a historical level that I am certainly supportive of that.
+ Mr. Shadegg. I would be happy to let you go on, except my
+time is limited.
+ As you know from our private conversations, and as I
+expressed in my opening statement, I am concerned about
+preparedness. I understand the importance of response and I
+understand that many of my colleagues are concerned about
+response to natural disasters in their districts.
+ I am not proposing that you lose your focus on response,
+but I think there is a legitimate question presented by whether
+or not it should be preparedness and response combined in a
+single function, whether or not you think it should be or
+should we separate preparedness from response and, if so,
+should Congress be considering doing that? And if not, do you
+think you are getting the support to adequately focus on
+response?
+ And, for example, are you getting or should you be getting
+a list of, for example, the equipment that is purchased, so you
+understand the degree to which we are prepared for a terrorist
+attack?
+ Mr. Brown. Well, first of all, it is an old axiom in the
+military, and I think it is true whether you are a football
+coach or whether you are the director of FEMA or whatever, that
+you fight as you train and you train as you fight, and we must
+continue to do that.
+ We must figure out a way that, within the Department of
+Homeland Security--and I think we are doing a pretty good job
+of it now--of tying those two things together, knowing what is
+occurring on the preparedness side and knowing what is
+occurring on the response side.
+ And the details of that, Mr. Chairman, we get that
+information now. We know what fire departments purchase. We
+know because of our great relationship with state and local
+governments, particularly with the emergency management
+community, law enforcement--I think that has changed
+dramatically over the past several years--we know what their
+capacity is. We know what their abilities are.
+ We do assessments. We started doing in-depth critical
+assessments immediately following the September 11th attacks of
+what are the vulnerabilities at the state, what capacity they
+have. That is why we use our regional offices at all levels to
+find out what is going on in those states.
+ What can they do? What can't they do? So that when we have
+to respond, whether it is a wildfire in California or a flood
+in Mississippi, whatever it is, we know what that capacity is
+out there.
+ Mr. Shadegg. My time is expired, but I have a series of
+questions on crisis counseling grants, disaster medical
+assistance teams and emergency communication systems which I
+will submit to you in writing.
+ Mr. Brown. Great.
+ Mr. Shadegg. Now at this point, I would call on the ranking
+member, Mr. Thompson, for his questioning.
+ Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I guess your
+comment is where I can start from in my questions.
+ In June of last year, this committee sent some questions to
+you, Mr. Brown, and we never got an answer on those questions.
+If the chairman's comments of those questions go forward, can
+you assure us that this time we will get the answers, say,
+within two weeks?
+ Mr. Brown. Well, let me tell you, first of all,
+Congressman, that if you submitted questions and we did not
+respond to those then, one, I am appalled and I apologize, and
+heads will roll for that, because that is unacceptable to me. I
+will find out--.
+ Mr. Thompson. --you a copy of the letter that the committee
+sent.
+ Mr. Brown. Absolutely. That is unacceptable to me.
+ Mr. Thompson. Thank you. And I appreciate your support in
+getting the information to the committee.
+ One of the concerns I have is the FIRE program. You talked
+a little bit about it. Our authorization was up to $900
+million, and we came from $100 million up to $500 million, and
+Congress bumped it up to $750 million.
+ Now we are back to $500 million.
+ I do not want to get in a numbers game, but it appears that
+Congress is placing a higher value on that program by giving
+you more money every year, and we get requests asking for less.
+ Are we doing the wrong thing by giving you more money for
+the FIRE program?
+ I hope you understand where I am going.
+ Mr. Brown. I understand exactly where you are going,
+Congressman. And I think that we have shown our ability that
+whatever the funding levels are, we can get that money out the
+door and get it to those fire departments that need it.
+ We ramped up after 2001, where we went from $100 million to
+$500 million. We ramped up and got that out within that
+calendar year. We had that money obligated, out the door, in
+the hands of those fire departments.
+ So at whatever level it is funded, we assure you that we
+will get the money out the door. Whether that program is in
+FEMA or whether it is in ODP, we will do whatever to assist ODP
+to make sure that money gets out.
+ Mr. Thompson. For those individuals who live in
+metropolitan areas, can you explain the administration's or the
+department's rationale for doing away with the Metropolitan
+Medical Response System?
+ Mr. Brown. We are not actually doing away with it,
+Congressman. For the past several years, we have used the money
+that Congress has appropriated to use to get that program up to
+its baseline. And our object was to get it to the baseline, get
+certain capabilities there, and then let the localities take
+that over and continue that program.
+ We reached that baseline last year, and so there was no
+request for additional funding.
+ Mr. Thompson. So your testimony is that all the
+metropolitan communities in this country have met that
+baseline?
+ Mr. Brown. That is correct, 125 through fiscal year 2003.
+The goal was 125, and we reached that goal of 125 communities.
+ Mr. Thompson. Very good.
+ I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman.
+ Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman, and would call upon Ms.
+Granger for her questioning.
+ Ms. Granger. Yes, thank you very much.
+ Let me go back just a minute to something that was
+mentioned before.
+ In the last 10 years, my district has experienced
+tornadoes, floods, chemical releases, computer viruses that
+shut down everything.
+ The city of Fort Worth operates an emergency management
+program that is multi-jurisdictional, so it includes Tarrant
+County, which is one of the most populous counties in the
+nation, and 12 smaller cities.
+ The part of it that is so important is the ability to plan
+and respond to all types of disasters. The concern I have is
+the capping of that EMPG personnel fund at 25 percent.
+ And what I am saying, primarily as a former mayor, is this
+is local planning. So to give the local communities the
+flexibility to know how to spend their money, we can have all
+the equipment we need, if we do not have the people to plan and
+operate that equipment.
+ So where is that 25 percent cap coming from? And then
+listen to my concerns of letting the local communities decide
+where they need personnel, equipment, whatever.
+ Mr. Brown. Congressman Granger, first of all, let me talk
+about Tarrant County and the way they have integrated all their
+jurisdictions. I mean, they are doing an incredibly good job of
+that, and I really appreciate their efforts to not just be
+narrow-mindedly focused on just the county or whatever. They
+are doing it on a good regional basis.
+ Second of all, I want to emphasize to the entire committee
+how incredibly important state and local planning capabilities
+are for the success of FEMA when we have to respond to a
+disaster of any kind.
+ We must have a robust state and local emergency management
+capacity and we must understand what the capacity is when we go
+in to respond so that we are able to complement what it is that
+they are able to do. And what they are not able to do, we can
+go in and backfill in that regard.
+ So we think it is a very important component in how we
+operate under this national response plan in the federal
+system.
+ It is the position of the administration that the cap needs
+to be placed on so that more of the personnel costs are shifted
+to the state and locals so that we can therefore increase the
+amount of money that goes to state and locals for exercises and
+training as opposed to actual personnel costs.
+ Ms. Granger. Okay. I am not sure that I agree with it, but
+I understand the reason and thank you very much.
+ Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
+ Mr. Shadegg. The chair would call on the gentleman from
+Maryland, Mr. Cardin, and would advise him that he has eight
+minutes because he did not make an opening statement.
+ Mr. Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
+chair's generosity.
+ First, on a personal note, Secretary Brown, I want to thank
+you for the personal attention you paid to the people of
+Maryland during Hurricane Isabel. We very much appreciated your
+personal leadership.
+ And as we told you before, we want to express our thanks to
+all the FEMA personnel that came to Maryland. It was excellent.
+You were there before the hurricane struck, you were there when
+it struck and afterwards. And it was extremely helpful to the
+people of Maryland and we very much appreciate and now fully
+understand the capacity that we have at the federal level to
+respond to a disaster, and it is very impressive.
+ So only my compliments in that regard.
+ I do, though, want to follow up on some of the issues that
+have been brought up, because I do think it raises additional
+issues.
+ It is interesting that on ability to respond, we have built
+up capacity in regards to terrorism. And although I may
+disagree with you on the dollar amounts going to local
+responders--because I think we need to do a better job on local
+responders there--clearly, in response to disasters, though,
+there is a different capacity here.
+ We rely on our local governments to a large extent to
+respond to the issues surrounding disasters, and yet their
+capacities are nowhere near as strong as they need to be in
+that regard.
+ We are somewhat at a disadvantage because we have not
+enacted an authorization bill for homeland security. And I
+think if we had an authorization bill, Mr. Chairman, we would
+be able to talk about these issues in a more coordinated way
+from the congressional point of view.
+ But dealing with where we are today and looking at some of
+the issues in response to Congresswoman Granger's comment on
+the cap and trying to get more money into the training issues--
+but as I understand it, the total dollar amounts have been
+reduced.
+ So it is hard to understand how we are increasing local
+capacity in this program, when we are reducing the size of the
+pie going to local government. I think you may have a stronger
+point if we were increasing the size of the pie.
+ I look at a lot of other programs that are in this year's
+budget that deal with the ability for us to deal with
+mitigation. And the chairman mentioned this, mitigation and
+preparedness. It is an area that needs to be prioritized.
+ We need to do more to mitigate disasters and to prepare and
+train people for it, rather than just responding to the
+circumstances that are taking place.
+ For example, you have combined two of the mitigation
+programs for the national flood program and other areas and
+they have different funding sources. And we are concerned that
+in the budget process this may, in fact, weaken our capacity to
+deal with mitigation and to deal with training and
+preparedness.
+ So I am going to give you another chance to try to reassure
+this committee that you have the resources that you need, that
+we need to do, in my view, more to deal with the issues of
+local capacity, for mitigation, particularly in regards to
+natural disaster issues.
+ Because I tell you--in Maryland, as you know, you saw the
+homes--the homes that were properly built sustained very little
+damage; those that were not were wiped out.
+ Doing things to mitigate these issues are very important.
+ Mr. Brown. I think, first and foremost, the president's
+request to do both pre-disaster and post-disaster mitigation is
+a great step forward, because I believe very sincerely in both
+of those issues.
+ We were able to, on a competitive basis, go after the state
+and locals and say, ``Give us your best plan, show us on a
+competitive basis what you can do to minimize disasters before
+they occur.'' And we are in the process of awarding those
+grants now.
+ By the same token, I also know that, just like we saw in
+Hurricane Isabel, that there are lessons learned after a
+disaster and people are very interested after a disaster, like,
+``Oh, my gosh, I can't let this happen again.''
+ So by taking both tacks now, I think we are able to get the
+best of both worlds and help mitigate in that respect.
+ I am determined, Congressman, we are not going to lose
+either our mitigation or our preparedness efforts within FEMA
+because, again--I go back to that--some would say it is a trite
+saying, but I firmly believe it, that we fight as we train and
+we train as we fight, and we have to continue to do that.
+ Whatever reorganization occurs within DHS, we will continue
+to work with those parts of DHS that now has civil preparedness
+functions to make certain that we are getting from them what we
+need, and that they are indeed doing out in the field what we
+need to get done, so when we have to show up, we are not there
+for the first time and we are there all the time, from
+beginning to end, just like we are today.
+ Mr. Cardin. Let me then touch on the one specific issue,
+the Emergency Management Performance Grants Program, that you
+indicate by putting a cap on the personnel cost that we will
+cover at the national level, more dollars will get into the
+actual training.
+ But the local governments are going to have to pick up
+those personnel costs. They do not have the capacity to do it
+with these budgets, and you are putting a smaller amount of
+total dollars into the pot. How does this all add up?
+ Mr. Brown. Primarily because we do sincerely believe that
+this is a shared responsibility, that the state and local
+governments have a responsibility to absorb some of those
+personnel costs.
+ In exchange for absorbing some of those personnel costs, we
+will increase the amount of funding that goes to the state and
+locals for the training and exercises of that.
+ And so if they can reprioritize some of their monies to
+keep those personnel intact, then we will go out and train and
+exercise them and make sure they are still capable of doing
+what we need them to do when the responders show up.
+ Mr. Cardin. It does seem to be inconsistent with the other
+statement that we made that we want to give local governments
+flexibility. Seems to me that we have become so prescriptive,
+we take away some of the creativity that we are trying to
+create through the federalism concept.
+ I would just urge you to reconsider that Congress may very
+well have a view on this also that may be different than the
+administration's. But I would just urge that we look at this
+from a broader point of view than just the narrow purpose that
+we are trying to accomplish in the shared responsibility issue.
+ I want to touch upon one other point we have not really
+touched upon much, and that is the engagement of the private
+sector. That offers a lot of hope, promise. There is a lot
+creativity. There is a lot of will in the private sector in
+regards to the issues that come under your area.
+ Could you just give us some indication of what you have
+been doing in order to try to energize the private sector more
+and focus more toward the national game plan in responding and
+preparing for natural disasters or for terrorism attacks?
+ Mr. Brown. Well, I would say on the very broad scale,
+Congressman, through our private sector office in the
+Department of Homeland Security, we are reaching out to them
+every single day. We have people on the road everywhere trying
+to--we are actively engaging the private sector in all of our
+efforts. We are talking to them about mitigation efforts and
+what they can do. We are expanding the flood insurance program
+to get more and more agencies and companies involved.
+ I am going to Houston this week to speak to the Texas
+Hospital Association about what these private hospitals can do
+to more actively engage in mitigation preparedness because of
+our experience in Tropical Storm Allison.
+ So I think we are doing a really good outreach to them, and
+they are really beginning to wake up and understand they need
+to be a part of this entire response also.
+ Mr. Cardin. Well, I will just make just one general
+observation.
+ What you are saying here today is certainly very
+encouraging. I think, though, there is somewhat of a disconnect
+between the budget and some of the objectives that you are
+trying to accomplish. And I understand the position that you
+are in.
+ And, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we will have an
+opportunity to try to assist Secretary Brown in his work by the
+work that we do here on the budget and on the authorization
+bill, because I think we have the same priorities. It is a
+matter of how we get there.
+ Thank you very much for your appearance here today.
+ Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman.
+ Let me explain for the committee's understanding that we
+will call upon members who were here when the gavel fell in
+order of seniority, and they will each get eight minutes. And
+then we will call on those after the gavel fell. And under the
+rules of the committee, they will each get five minutes.
+ So the chair would now call on the gentlelady from the
+Virgin Islands, Ms. Christensen.
+ Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ And welcome, Under Secretary Brown. It is good to have you
+back with us.
+ I share all of the concerns that my other colleagues have
+raised, but I would like to also say that, as a person whose
+district has been prone to natural disasters and who has a
+longstanding relationship and a very good relationship with
+FEMA, I am also concerned that the directorate have sufficient
+resources to carry out its principal mission of assisting state
+and local governments in preparing and responding to terrorist
+attacks, major disasters and other emergencies, and also that
+we are not weakening that well-earned legacy of FEMA and its
+programs and the people that work there.
+ You mentioned that you were going to speak to the hospital
+association in Texas, so let me start out with a hospital
+question.
+ Because I note that $20 million is authorized for improving
+medical surge capabilities, which is something that has been
+raised as a great concern. Once the committee has gotten
+through--at least this committee--BioShield, that was our next
+focus.
+ But that seems like a very paltry sum, given that hospitals
+across the country, like mine in the territory, have a lot of
+work to do to just be in a basic state of readiness before they
+can even surge. And I wondered if you agree with that, and has
+an assessment been made of what funding is needed to meet that
+basic level of readiness. And, if so, what is the figure and
+how does that $20 million compare?
+ Mr. Brown. We have not done an assessment of what the total
+cost would be to get them to a baseline. What we are trying to
+do is to prudently use the taxpayers' dollars and say, for this
+initial study, to find out what we need to do to increase our
+medical surge capacity.
+ We need this $20 million to build the training, the
+exercises, the programmatic efforts, if you will, within the
+federal government, in partnership with state and local
+governments, to figure out where we need to go.
+ And once we do this $20 million and we have set up some
+different projects, so we know what that capacity is and how we
+can go about doing it, I am certain we will be back in future
+years asking for money to now take that to the next level.
+ This is something that we believe we need to just find out
+what it is going to cost to get us to a base line by doing
+these kinds of projects and build that initial capacity.
+ Mrs. Christensen. All right. Because, I mean, that is a lot
+of your first line of response is taking care of anyone that
+might be injured or in need of care. And if they cannot surge,
+we are going to have a problem.
+ I have another health-related question.
+ An emergency management official had said in an interview
+that--and this is something I agree with and I know all of my
+colleagues have heard me talk about this over and over again--
+this is a quote: ``There's a tremendous bias in the Department
+of Homeland Security towards law enforcement or making the
+question just a fire and hazmat issue. People there just do not
+understand the medical communities and public health industry
+points of view.''
+ So what can you tell me to convince me that that is not the
+case and can you explain what the--well, what can you do to
+help me understand that we are having--we talked about
+hospitals.
+ Now I am talking about the public health infrastructure
+which any assessment--and I have listened to experts talk about
+it. We have had several reports on it. It is not intact. Labs
+and emergency rooms are already overstretched by a significant
+amount.
+ Mr. Brown. I am always fascinated by those kinds of
+comments, because there is clearly a mission within the
+department to focus on law enforcement and the prevention of
+terrorism.
+ But when you get beyond that mission and you ask those law
+enforcement folks--whether they be the Border Transportation
+folks or anybody else within the department, Coast Guard,
+whomever--they understand how we, being FEMA, operate, how we
+prepare, what our incident and management systems are and they
+have fully integrated into that.
+ So while there is a bias because of what their job is,
+there is no bias in terms of what our preparedness capabilities
+are, the way we prepare or how we respond.
+ They understand that entirely. And they have not only
+expressed that understanding, but have integrated into that, as
+we have seen over the past year.
+ The wildfires in California--we relied heavily upon our
+partners in DHS.
+ The tornadoes--any disaster we responded to this past year,
+being within DHS, we have been able to turn to those other
+components and say, ``We need you to do X.'' Sometimes even
+before we have asked them, they have come and said, ``Can we
+help in any way?''
+ So I do not think that statement that you read is really
+indicative of a true bias that exists within the department.
+ Mrs. Christensen. Okay.
+ Just as in hospitals, the amount of funding that is
+available to get our public health system into some level of
+readiness, and given the fact that some of their other core
+programs are being cut, is of concern to me.
+ Mr. Brown. Well, next year I will come back to you and show
+you where this $20 million with these two demonstration or
+pilot projects, what we are able to do, and I bet you next year
+I am asking you for more money to extrapolate that across the
+country.
+ Mrs. Christensen. Okay. Great.
+ And you were talking also about where you fit into the
+response--when we went to Seattle as a committee and spoke with
+first responders and reviewed--I think the report of TOPOFF2
+had just come out--the complaint from the first responders was
+as an exercise took place, folks from DHS came in and tried to
+manage.
+ And you have been very clear on how that is supposed to
+happen, and I do not think--as I recall, FEMA was not
+immediately involved in that.
+ And I am really unclear still about how in an incident, is
+it the same model that you used for national disasters now that
+you are in homeland security? Or does now some other level of
+homeland security come in and try to run the program in a
+different manner? Where do you fit in? And how does that
+compare to what you used to do?
+ Mr. Brown. The proof of that is in the 62 disasters we
+responded to this past year and that our model continued to be
+utilized. We continue to do exactly what we do in the way that
+we have done it.
+ In TOPOFF, we necessarily tried to confuse the situation by
+creating all these different variables in so that we as a
+department could exercise and figure out what did not work so
+we could come back and fix it.
+ Mrs. Christensen. Okay.
+ I noticed that, if I am correct, that the management of the
+stockpiles was moved from the Department of Homeland Security
+to Health and Human Services. Can you tell me a little bit
+about the discussion that led that to happen? What was the
+rationale for that?
+ Mr. Brown. Well, the rationale was that the budget and
+operations really should be tied together, so by moving it back
+into HHS you do that. You tie the day-to-day management and
+operations to the day-to-day budget activities.
+ At the same time, though, we do not--being FEMA and the
+Department of Homeland Security--do not lose the capacity to
+utilize that and deploy that as we need it. We can still use
+the National Response Plan and the ESS structure we have within
+our response mechanisms to still deploy it and task HHS to send
+it out and utilize it.
+ Mrs. Christensen. One last question I think I have time
+for.
+ ODP, not being a part of or the same as EP & R, how are we
+assured that there is a seamless operation between the planning
+and the response and the granting given that that just seems
+not the way it should be set up and it seems a way to just
+create confusion, create gaps, have things fall through cracks?
+ Mr. Brown. I am going to make sure that works by detailing
+people, personnel, resources to ODP to support them in any
+possible way so that there is that type of--.
+ Mrs. Christensen. Don't you think it would be better if
+they were all in one, all together?
+ Mr. Brown. That issue is really above my pay grade. I take
+and implement whatever is given to me and make it work.
+ Mrs. Christensen. We know that from experience.
+ We thank you for the work that you have been doing.
+ Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentlelady for her questions and
+would call upon the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Lowey.
+ Mrs. Lowey. I knew that you--.
+ Mr. Shadegg. I just thought I would be nice and give Mr.
+Gibbons a little more time to get ready. And you have been here
+diligently.
+ Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And since I have to go
+to another hearing, I really appreciate that.
+ And I thank you, Mr. Under Secretary, for being here today.
+ If I may go back to the FIRE grants program for a moment,
+because it is an incredible program that has such support in my
+district. And none gets better reviews from state and local
+officials than the FIRE grant programs.
+ If the program is so successful--I have a few questions
+about it--what is the justification for moving it to the Office
+of Domestic Preparedness? And what is being done to ensure that
+the program does not lose its effectiveness at ODP?
+ Frankly, I am not sure that moving it was the right
+decision, but I certainly respect your experience being in the
+middle of it. And many of us are going to be watching very
+closely.
+ Another question, as you well know, Congress created the
+FIRE grant program to meet the basic critical needs of the
+fire-fighting community.
+ Study after study has shown that those needs are
+significant.
+ The needs of firefighters, both career and volunteer, are
+great and there simply is not enough funding to go around.
+Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2005 budget proposal calls for a
+33 percent cut in the program, $246 million less than last
+year's appropriation.
+ And to add insult to injury, this year's budget mandates
+that states give priority to terrorist preparedness, not that I
+do not think that is absolutely critical and that my
+constituents do not think it is critical, but it seems to be
+contrary to the original intent of the program.
+ So I wonder where will this policy leave a small-town
+volunteer fire department in my district and many others that
+does not even have enough masks to outfit the entire department
+or enough radios to ensure that firefighters can talk to each
+other?
+ How will the focus on terrorism preparedness, which
+ultimately guts the overall funding for this program, help fire
+departments respond to some of the basic gaps in preparedness
+that were outlined in FEMA's report, a needs assessment of the
+U.S. Fire Service?
+ And I ask this because I do not think any of us question
+the importance of terrorism preparedness. But as you know,
+there are many other categories for that. This program was so
+well received because it deals directly with the most basic
+needs of our fire departments.
+ Mr. Brown. I do not want to sound smart-alecky in my
+answer--.
+ Mrs. Lowey. Pardon me?
+ Mr. Brown. I do not want to sound smart-alecky in the
+answer that I am about to give you, but I sincerely believe
+this: Every single thing that we do to prepare any fire
+department in this country to do its basic job prepares it for
+a terrorist attack also.
+ It may not prepare it necessarily for a biological attack
+or a chemical attack, but to the extent we prepare every single
+fire department to do its job, it will help in the war on
+terrorism.
+ Why do I say that? I go back to 9/11.
+ On 9/11, we had departments responding from Connecticut and
+New Jersey, from everywhere. What we forget is, is that once
+those departments respond to that incident, somebody has to
+backfill them because at that point there is still another fire
+or something going on in New Jersey or something going on in
+Connecticut and they have to respond.
+ And not to take this to its absurd conclusion, but once
+they backfill, somebody has to backfill for them.
+ On 9/11, the rest of the firefighting community did not sit
+around with nothing to do. They had other things they had to do
+on 9/11, backfilling all over the country as departments would
+respond and do things.
+ Urban Search and Rescue teams--as Director Allbaugh
+dispatched almost all of the Urban Search and Rescue teams to
+either the Pentagon or the World Trade Center, those people
+were taken out of local fire departments. They then need to
+backfill so those local fire departments can still do what they
+need to do.
+ That is why I sincerely believe and will always believe
+that this all-hazard approach is the only way to effectively
+prepare this country for both terrorist attacks and manmade
+disasters, whether they are incidental or intentional.
+ Mrs. Lowey. Well, I think that makes a lot of sense, and
+the proof will be in the actual giving out of the grants and to
+see whether it is meeting the basic needs of our fire
+department.
+ If I may follow up on another area, you may remember way
+back in I think it was May 2003, many of us asked you questions
+about equipment interoperability standards.
+ Now, I live in New York. We are 30 minutes from the World
+Trade Center. If my fire departments and police were waiting
+for the standards to come from the federal government,
+constituents would be up in arms because it is taking so long.
+ There seems to be a number of DHS organizations working on
+these standards. If you could discuss with us the division of
+responsibility for developing standards among EP & R, the
+Science and Technology Directorate, the Office for Domestic
+Preparedness and any other DHS organizations involved in
+developing standards?
+ What equipment will you publish the standards for? When
+will the standards be published? Will they be actual standards
+or technical specifications as stated by the secretary last
+week?
+ And--I bet you want the answer to that one--who should,
+right now, state and local governments look to for definitive
+guidance on equipment standards?
+ Frankly, I find in my district we are so close, we are
+right in the middle of--God forbid any emergency would happen--
+we are right there. And most people feel that the department is
+just taking too long.
+ And frankly, I think our local police and firefighters and
+all those who have to coordinate with them should be reimbursed
+for what they bought, or you should put in place some kind of a
+buyback program. But it is over two years; how can they wait?
+ So maybe you can tell us when these standards are coming
+out, when they can expect to hear the word.
+ Mr. Brown. Well, we just announced this past week new
+standards for personal protective gear, so we are well on the
+way of putting those standards out. And that is?
+ Mrs. Lowey. Are you going to reimburse fire departments who
+could not wait for the gear that they already bought?
+ Mr. Brown. That is something we will have to take into
+consideration and look at.
+ Mrs. Lowey. I really think that is very important.
+ The chairman may remember that I had a chief come here from
+New Rochelle and he said, ``Look, folks, before you turn to
+code orange, you better provide for code green. Give us some
+money,'' because they have been getting ready.
+ Mr. Brown. We just announced those standards this week, and
+it is a great example, also, of the inner workings of the
+Department of Homeland Security.
+ I wish Congressman Cardin was here, because this is also in
+response to his question about the private sector.
+ That was a joint effort between FEMA and EP & R, Science
+and Technology, Office of Domestic Preparedness and the private
+sector. There must have been five or six different
+organizations representing the private sector at the
+presentation last week, all of whom were involved in the
+development of these standards for personal protective gear.
+ At the same time, FEMA has--do not quote me on this--but it
+seems like it is $25 million or $60 million, I forget which it
+is, of demonstration projects out in the field right now to
+bring to us the interoperability projects that we competed
+across the country, that will show us the best practices so
+that we do not mandate every department, ``You can do it this
+way or you do it this way.''
+ They bring us the best practices, we pick out the ones we
+think are the most effective around the country, and we will
+hold those up and say, ``Here's a way for you to do it.'' Those
+are due by the end of the year.
+ So I think we are making pretty good progress in getting
+those standards and projects out the door.
+ Mr. Shadegg. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
+ The chair would now call upon the gentleman from Nevada,
+Mr. Gibbons.
+ Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
+ And, Secretary Brown, I do apologize for my absence during
+your testimony. I have a series of other hearings that are
+going on at the same time.
+ Let me turn back, if I may, to an area that was briefly
+touched upon by my colleague, Ms. Granger from Texas, and that
+deals with the Emergency Management Performance Grants.
+ And as you know, that is the one way that many of our
+states have of employing individuals in the emergency
+management areas of individual states. And you are proposing a
+reduction down to 25 percent of the pre-existing funds.
+ Has the directorate at any time requested inputs in that
+decision from the states regarding how this decision will
+affect their operations?
+ And let me ask my second question--and you may address that
+as well: Considering states are presently dependent today on
+federal funds that come from this area for the salaries of
+their emergency management personnel, rather than having a
+dramatic impact by this 25 percent allocation this year, have
+you thought about instituting a less precipitous decline, in
+other words, a phased-in approach to weaning states into a more
+self-sufficiency in these cases, other than the approach you
+have taken today?
+ Mr. Brown. That is the first I have heard of the latter,
+Congressman, and that is something that I would certainly
+welcome and encourage us to look at.
+ As to your first question, once the budget hit the streets,
+we received a lot of information about the impact that this
+particular decision would have. And I have certainly taken that
+into consideration and I have read every bit of information
+that the states have provided to me about it.
+ Mr. Gibbons. Have you gone out directly and asked them or
+has this just been an informal, involuntary response to your
+operation?
+ Mr. Brown. It has been part of both.
+ Mr. Gibbons. And you have asked.
+ Mr. Brown. I have actually asked, talked to some of the
+folks at the National Emergency Management Association,
+including its president, and others about?
+ Mr. Gibbons. Have you talked to anyone in Nevada?
+ Mr. Brown. Not that I recall, I have not.
+ Mr. Gibbons. And when will you make a final determination
+as to the impact that these states or regions have with regard
+to your decision? When will you report on that effect?
+ Mr. Brown. I just received I think it was just in the past,
+say, 48 hours the complete breakdown from NEMA about what the
+impact is across all states and localities. And I have just
+started browsing through that yesterday.
+ Mr. Gibbons. So what you are saying to the committee is
+that the decision was made before all of the input, all of the
+data that you have now before you, you have made that decision.
+ Is there any review process, now that you have this
+additional information, with regard to the Emergency Management
+Performance Grants, rather than continuing down the road of a
+25 percent cap versus a phased-in approach, as suggested
+earlier?
+ Mr. Brown. I do not know if there is a review process
+within OMB or not, Congressman, but I will certainly sit with
+my finance folks and see if there is some way that we can do
+that.
+ Mr. Gibbons. Well, I think that was the one area that a lot
+of our emergency management personnel in the state of Nevada
+have expressed to me a great concern with.
+ They would like to see some adjustment to the policy or the
+practice that you have just established in this bill.
+ Mr. Brown. And I will let you know, Congressman, I share
+that concern.
+ Mr. Gibbons. With that, Mr. Chairman, I apologize to you
+for being tardy, and I will yield back the balance of my time.
+ Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman for his attendance.
+ Without objection, it is the chair's intention to offer
+those that remain a second round of questions. And I will begin
+that round.
+ Mr. Secretary, I remain somewhat confused about the issue
+of the ability to deploy the stockpile.
+ As I understood your answer to a question propounded by Ms.
+Christensen, it was that you believe you have the authority to
+turn to HHS and direct them to deploy the stockpile. That would
+have to arise through some form of executive authority or some
+form of internal department policy, not statute.
+ We are in the statute business down here on Capitol Hill.
+And I guess we are interested in where do you get that
+authority. Do we need to clarify that in fact you have such
+authority statutorily or do we need to resolve this issue?
+Because we would not want to be a position where there was any
+ambiguity on that type of any issue.
+ So let me begin with that question.
+ Mr. Brown. That is something I think we need to come back
+and give you more information on. But right now, if we were to
+have the disaster today, we would probably turn to HHS--we
+needed to deploy it--and task them through the ESF, through our
+operations center, to deploy and utilize it.
+ We are also currently working on--I do not think it is
+complete yet--an MOU with HHS by which we are defining under
+what circumstances we have agreed that we will deploy it and
+they will go do the things we ask them to do.
+ Mr. Shadegg. But you cannot say for me at the moment,
+specific, either executive order or statutory authority?
+ Mr. Brown. No.
+ Mr. Shadegg. Okay. Well, I agree with you. We need to get
+the clarification from you because that authority ought to be
+clarified.
+ I did not hear, in response to my earlier question, a
+definitive answer from you on the issue of preparedness versus
+response. It seemed to me that in your answers to some other
+questions I heard you say, ``Well, we work with the people
+doing preparedness elsewhere in the department and we are
+comfortable with that.''
+ In the absence of a specific grant of authority, and
+therefore responsibility, I worry, and I think Congress would
+worry about who to hold accountable on the preparedness issue.
+ So if in fact, as a practical matter, you are functioning
+with some of the preparedness functions or responsibilities
+shifted elsewhere as a working arrangement, again, that looks
+to me like it ought to be formalized.
+ And in the creation of new department, sometimes you find
+you have to fine tune the law to account for a reality on the
+ground and what actually works.
+ So let me ask it again: Do you see--and maybe the answer to
+this is already provided by what you are doing--a value
+investing the preparedness functions somewhere else as opposed
+to the response function?
+ Mr. Brown. And, Congressman, my answer is this: You must
+have a link between preparedness and response in order to be
+effective. If you do not have that link, then I am afraid that
+Congressman Turner is absolutely correct that FEMA will revert
+back to its early days of not being effective.
+ So my job, my goal is to make sure that that link is there
+wherever and however I can create it and make sure it exists.
+ Mr. Shadegg. And I think we ought to explore that further
+in conversations as we go forward to make sure we clarify it.
+ Let me ask you a couple of other questions that I had said
+I would submit in writing to see if we can get a couple of
+those done.
+ There are a number of private entities in the Phoenix area
+that have come together to form a disaster and medical
+assistance team. A long list of cities in the metro area are
+interested in participating and yet they have been told that no
+new teams are being recognized to date.
+ I realize you are trying to build a capacity of the
+existing teams over a several-year period. I would like to know
+what you have learned and when you think we will be able to get
+an answer on the creation of new teams?
+ Mr. Brown. I hate to speculate, because we are truly taking
+all of the NDMS teams now, doing a complete evaluation. It was
+started by HHS, but we are doing it kind of now with our
+personnel the way we do evaluations and assessments.
+ And I would hope that by the end of this calendar year we
+at least have an idea of the capacity of all those teams, their
+location, our ability to strategically deploy them and whether
+or not we need to increase the numbers.
+ It is much like the US & R teams. I do not go out and just
+willy-nilly create new teams until we know exactly what we have
+and what their capacity is.
+ Mr. Shadegg. So at this point, you do not have a date that
+you can bring--.
+ Mr. Brown. We have no date, sir.
+ Mr. Shadegg. Emergency communication systems, I think they
+are extremely important. As you know, the broadcasters have
+been propounding some idea of assisting along the line of the
+Amber Alert program.
+ Can you tell us where the directorate is with regard to
+those kinds of communications? Are you working with the
+broadcasters? How close are we to implementing an improved
+emergency communications system?
+ Mr. Brown. I do not know how close we are to coming to a
+final product, and I will certainly get that information to
+you.
+ I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, that we are working
+incredibly close with Partnership for Public Warning and the
+broadcasters and all of those groups out there right now to see
+what do they have and educating them on what we have and see
+what kind of link-ups we can make.
+ Mr. Shadegg. Last question I had.
+ There are many groups that are interested in participating
+in crisis counseling and getting crisis counseling grants. I
+happen to be in communication with NOVA, which is the National
+Organization of Victim Assistance programs. They would like
+their trained volunteers to be able to assist in that. And
+there are others that are interested in participating as well.
+ Can you tell me whether or not we are looking at expanding
+the participation in those crisis counseling grants?
+ Mr. Brown. We are, Congressman.
+ I meet probably at least once every couple of months with a
+private organization about the services they have to offer and
+how we can either through HHS or through FEMA and DHS itself
+reach out to some of those to perform programs for us that we
+think are worthwhile and are going to actually assist victims
+or communities after a disaster.
+ Mr. Shadegg. I thank you, and I look forward to working
+with you in the future.
+ The chair would now call upon Mr. Thompson.
+ Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Mr. Under Secretary, generally every time members of
+Congress come in contact with police departments or airport
+authorities, there is always the question of when the terror
+alert is elevated there are a number of costs that are
+associated with that.
+ This committee has looked at legislation creating a
+reimbursable fund or something of that nature. And I think
+since the elevated alert is something created by your
+department, in your opinion, does that make sense?
+ Mr. Brown. It is an idea I would have to look at,
+Congressman.
+ And I think what I would ask you to do is, as you look at
+that kind of legislation, work closely with us. Because I know
+that Secretary Ridge and others, particularly in the
+Information Analysis and the Infrastructure Protection Group,
+are looking at the alert system and how do we need to tweak it,
+refine it, fine tune it.
+ And so, I think if we work together, we could probably come
+up with some sort of idea that would help state and locals.
+ But I would hate to see us both just continue down some
+path without talking to each other.
+ Mr. Thompson. Well, but you do understand that there are
+costs associated with the heightened alerts that right now is a
+burden on the backs of local government, and the pressures that
+we feel from those units of government to do something.
+ Mr. Brown. Trust me, I understand and recognize what those
+concerns are.
+ Mr. Thompson. Look forward to working with you.
+ Mr. Shadegg. The chairman calls on the gentleman from New
+York, Mr. King, for five minutes.
+ Mr. King. Mr. Chairman, I actually arrived late, so
+actually I just have a question regarding the BioShield, unless
+you covered this in your testimony.
+ I am just wondering, how is the lack of Project BioShield
+authorization legislation affecting the department's efforts to
+encourage development of necessary medical countermeasures?
+ Mr. Brown. Congressman, I am one of those that understands
+the three branches of government. And I would encourage you and
+hope that we get some authorizing legislation.
+ But I am also a realist and recognize this war that we are
+fighting right now. And so the department is moving forward.
+And if we need to do certain things to utilize that funding, we
+may have to do that in the future. But I would feel much more
+comfortable if we had an authorizing legislation.
+ I think the president yesterday encouraged Congress to move
+on it and get that done.
+ Mr. King. Now, with that language not being there, how is
+the department working to encourage the pharmaceutical and
+biotechnology companies to develop and manufacture the new
+vaccines and other bioterror countermeasures?
+ Mr. Brown. We are working with some of the pharmaceuticals
+right now, Congressman, on some of additional new anthrax
+vaccines, and are fairly close to moving forward on it.
+ Mr. King. Can you define what you mean as far as
+``working,'' or you prefer not to at this time?
+ Mr. Brown. No, I would just say that we are talking about
+some of the new vaccines that we think we may need in the
+anthrax area. And we are actually in discussions with them
+about what we could utilize and how we could fund some of that
+production.
+ Mr. King. Thank you.
+ Mr. Shadegg. The chair would call on the gentlelady from
+the Virgin Islands, Ms. Christensen, for a second round.
+ Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ I have basically two questions. I would like to follow up
+on the BioShield because, just to ask basically, how does your
+directorate interact with the Department of Health and Human
+Services?
+ We had many hearings, and I am glad to hear that our delay
+in really doing the authorizing will not hold up anything that
+must be done.
+ But how does the Department of Health and Human Services
+work with you on that? How does that work?
+ Mr. Brown. Well, again, we go big picture. Department of
+Homeland Security understands what the threat is, based on the
+intelligence fusion that we do within the department, kind of
+where we need to be going in terms of preparing for bioterror
+attacks. The expertise of what kind of pharmaceuticals, what
+kind of medicines, what kind of antibiotics, that rests within
+HHS.
+ So, believe it or not, Congresswoman, there really is this
+incredible cooperation between the departments about: What do
+we need? How are we going to go get it? What do you recommend,
+you know, HHS, in terms of what kind of mediations? Here is the
+threat that we see and understand, now what are we going to do
+with the drug companies?
+ There is that kind of cooperation almost on a day-to-day
+basis.
+ Mrs. Christensen. Well, I am glad to hear that, but I am
+always concerned because sometimes it depends on the people
+that are in the office. And I am not sure that the
+infrastructure is there to ensure that that cooperation
+happens.
+ Mr. Brown. Of course, it is government, so it always boils
+down to people.
+ But I think what you have imposed on the people now within
+our bureaucracies and all these departments and agencies--at
+least I know it is true within FEMA and I have seen it within
+HHS--is this new-found feeling of urgency and necessity that we
+cooperate and do this.
+ We cannot be bureaucratic. We cannot be lazy about this
+stuff. We have to move expeditiously, cooperatively, and we
+have to forget about these stupid turf wars.
+ Mrs. Christensen. I agree.
+ In the budget, I guess, under Preparedness, you said--or it
+is written that in 2005, Preparedness will assess 10 percent of
+tribal nations, 5 percent of U.S. counties under EP & R's
+national emergency management baseline capability assessment
+program, so up by 2009, 50 percent of states, 20 percent of
+tribes and 25 percent of counties.
+ Am I to assume that under states, territories is included?
+ Mr. Brown. Yes. I am sorry, I was not sure--.
+ Mrs. Christensen. Just want to be sure.
+ Mr. Brown. Yes.
+ Mrs. Christensen. Because it specifically talks about
+counties--.
+ Mr. Brown. Yes.
+ Mrs. Christensen. So I can be assured that in that
+assessment--.
+ Mr. Brown. Absolutely.
+ Mrs. Christensen. --the territories are included.
+ I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
+ Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentlelady.
+ The chair would now call upon the gentleman from Nevada,
+Mr. Gibbons, for a second round of questions.
+ Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
+ And, Secretary Brown, I had just one area that I would like
+to question you on.
+ I did look back and read though your testimony. You talked
+a brief bit about the Disaster Relief Fund in your testimony
+and I appreciate that.
+ My curious thought is, is that looking back at the events
+of September 11, 2001, the overall cost to the taxpayers of
+this country that were put into assisting those people in that
+disaster seemed like a tremendous or an enormous amount of
+money that was placed out of the U.S. Treasury into helping
+those people, and probably rightly so.
+ My initial questions is, is the $2.1 billion proposal in
+the president's budget adequate when you consider the overall
+picture of multiple-city threats that we have had in the latest
+round of terrorist threat warnings? Do we believe today that
+what we are asking for is adequate to cover that?
+ And how much money do you project will remain unexpended in
+this budget from previous years' obligations with just this
+$2.1 billion request?
+ Mr. Brown. I would say, first of all, Congressman, that the
+overall request represents the president's recognition that we
+need to fully fund the DRF at our historical level of $2.9
+billion.
+ So that is great news for us. That puts us in a good
+position of not worrying about getting money out to victims, as
+we face disasters in the future.
+ We currently have about $1.8 billion that is unobligated in
+the DRF. Our monthly burn rate is about $300 million a month.
+ So based on our unobligated amount, our expected
+recoveries, we think this fully funds us for our historical
+average over the past five or 10 years.
+ Now, having said that, if we have another terrorist attack
+that involves multiple cities, or is something that none of can
+imagine, all bets are off. And I cannot sit here in good faith
+and say to you that $2.9 billion, which is a historical average
+in the DRF, is sufficient to allow us to respond to or to take
+care of victims in some unforeseen, catastrophic terrorist
+event.
+ Mr. Gibbons. So much like what the Department of Defense
+does, it is unable to project where an outbreak of demand or a
+military action will take place.
+ You would be looking then to come back to Congress under
+some sort of a supplemental then if it were necessary to fill
+this out?
+ Mr. Brown. Only if it were necessary, and I would say only
+in some sort of catastrophic event that causes us to completely
+deplete the DRF above and beyond what we normally do in a
+normal disaster year.
+ In our world, the term ``catastrophic'' is a term of art,
+so I am talking about a truly catastrophic event that affects
+literally tens of millions of people.
+ Mr. Gibbons. So the $2.9 billion is literally your best
+estimate of what you will need in not only future expectations
+in the coming year but also to cover your existing obligations
+from previous years' obligations?
+ Mr. Brown. That is correct. That gets us to our historical
+average over the past five to 10 years.
+ Mr. Gibbons. And I would agree: There is really no way to
+look into the crystal ball and foretell the future.
+ Mr. Brown. That is right.
+ Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Mr. Brown. Now the chair would call upon the gentleman from
+North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge, who was here at the outset of
+the hearing and waived his opening statement and is therefore
+entitled to eight minutes for questioning.
+ Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ And, Mr. Secretary, I apologize for having to step out. But
+as you know, some of us have two meetings going at the same
+time. Thank you.
+ And let me thank you for being in North Carolina last week
+in bad weather to listen to our first responders. I will not
+cover that area. I assume you have already covered that
+adequately. I am sure they explained to you the needs and
+challenges they face.
+ Let me go to a couple of other areas in my allotted time.
+ In the national response plan, states that, ``private
+business and industry play a significant role in helping to
+mitigate the physical effects and economic costs of domestic
+incidences.''
+ According to the plan, the Secretary of Homeland Security
+would urge business to identify their risk, develop contingency
+plans and to take actions to enhance their overall readiness.
+ That being stated, in your budget justification document,
+you mentioned the Business and Industry Preparedness and
+Response Partnership. Would you describe what this program is
+and what its goals are?
+ Mr. Brown. That is our attempt to reach out to businesses
+at the state and local level who need to do exactly what you
+just described. It is in their best economic interest to take
+care of their employees, take care of their business, just like
+we have continuity of operations plans, for them to do also.
+ So this is really an outreach effort to encourage them to
+do exactly the same thing.
+ Mr. Etheridge. That being said then, to what degree is the
+government relying on the private sector to take care of
+itself?
+ Mr. Brown. That is a great question, Congressman. I am not
+sure that I know the answer to that, but I will get back to you
+with an answer on that.
+ Mr. Etheridge. Okay. I think that is important as we, you
+know, develop this partnership.
+ Secondly, private sector representatives, were they
+involved in defining their roles in the emergency preparedness
+and response? And if so, how? And if not, why?
+ Mr. Brown. They were.
+ We have an incredibly good relationship because of having a
+private sector office within DHS. Al Martinez-Fonts is the
+director of that office, a former banker from New York and I
+think in Texas, who is doing outreach in conjunction, not just
+with FEMA, but all of the other directorates to bring the
+private sector to the table so we know what their concerns are
+and we can have this dialogue about what can they do, how can
+we help them and vice versa.
+ It is a great office and I am very thankful it is there.
+ Mr. Etheridge. That being said, then, how will you know if
+the business community and the people you are engaging do not
+follow your suggestions? And will it take a disaster or a major
+domestic incident to find out whether or not that is happening?
+ Mr. Brown. Well, the terse answer is yes. It will probably
+take a disaster to find out whether they have really done
+things or not. But I hope we do not rely on that. I hope that
+we do enough outreach and that we do enough discussions with
+them that we know what their capabilities are, because we are
+going to rely upon them in a disaster.
+ I go back to Hurricane Isabel. It is not the federal
+government's responsibility to turn on the power. We have to
+rely upon the utility companies to do that. So we have got to
+have a good working relationship with them to understand what
+their capacity is, understand what we can do to assist them, by
+clearing roads and doing things so they can get in to restring
+line.
+ Mr. Etheridge. Let me just make a suggestion in that
+regard. It seems to me some kind of mechanism for a trial run
+to sit down periodically for an update would be a great tool,
+rather than wait to find out--.
+ Mr. Brown. I agree. I agree, and I will go back to staff
+and talk to them about.
+ Mr. Etheridge. Please do.
+ Let me move to another, if I may.
+ In your description of the preparedness programs fiscal
+year 2005 goals, you referenced FEMA's intention to conduct
+terrorist-related training, as it relates to the increased risk
+in our nation's schools.
+ Would you share with us this training program or anything
+else FEMA is doing to make our schools safer? That is something
+of I think great interest to all of us, and me very
+particularly.
+ Mr. Brown. Two things. We are going to start an outreach
+program not only for businesses but for schools also.
+ Currently, the secretary has a great program that I will
+tout right now, Ready.gov and 1-800-BE-READY, where we reach
+out to individuals about what they can do to prepare
+themselves. We are getting ready to do the same outreach to
+businesses and schools.
+ And I wish I had brought with me today our training and
+exercise schedule for this upcoming month because there are
+literally hundreds of exercises that we do and we are
+encouraging at the local level for schools and other entities
+to be involved in some of those exercises.
+ Mr. Etheridge. Let me follow that up.
+ When you talk about schools being involved, are you talking
+about you are providing resources for them similar to what I
+assume the schools did in the 1950s and early 1960s with the
+whole issue of disaster being concerned about the nuclear
+issues? Or are we just telling them to be aware or what?
+ Mr. Brown. We have not reached that level, and I think
+right now we are just basically doing outreach to the schools
+and giving them information and encouraging them to be a part
+of anything that might be going on in the state and local
+governments.
+ We are not doing anything specific, exercising them, no
+``duck and cover'' exercises or anything like that.
+ Mr. Etheridge. Well, it seems to me that to be effective
+you really need them engaged on the front side rather than on
+the back side, because they have about all they want on their
+plate right now.
+ Mr. Brown. Congressman, we need everybody at the state and
+local level involved in this.
+ Mr. Etheridge. And that would be of great help.
+ Mr. Brown. Let me just touch one issue that I guess is now
+a couple years ago.
+ Congress passed a bill that I had introduced and a lot of
+my colleagues to sign on--I think most all of them here have--
+regarding the flood indexing system, similar to the Saffir-
+Simpson Scale on wind, to deal with on floods as related to the
+whole issue of mitigation.
+ And one of FEMA's stated goals is to develop and update
+existing public warning and communications guidance material
+for states and local jurisdictions.
+ Mr. Etheridge. And my question to you: Is the funding and
+development of this flood warning system included in this plan?
+ Mr. Brown. I do not know. And I am not familiar with that.
+I need to find out more about that.
+ Mr. Etheridge. Would you check the matter? Because it
+should be coordinated. NOAA, I know, is working on it. Got
+money appropriated last year and it ought to be a part of
+FEMA's deal.
+ Because the goal was to get an index so that if, you know,
+a hurricane is coming in and flood waters are moving, the way
+that this will let people know that ``you are not having a
+flash flood.'' What does that really mean?
+ Mr. Brown. Right.
+ Mr. Etheridge. Is it six inches or six feet?
+ Mr. Brown. I will find out more about that.
+ Mr. Etheridge. Thank you.
+ And finally--for my time is almost out--while we continue
+to focus on the immediate threats of homeland security and
+natural disasters, they still are the big issue that most state
+and local governments deal with.
+ I know in my home state, we sort of stick out there and,
+you know, we get hit with about every hurricane or tornado or
+flood, et cetera. And in the 2003 law that took effect, they
+changed the post-disaster Hazardous Mitigation Grant program
+from 15 to 7.5 percent of the disaster cost. This change has
+put major hurt on local governments and others.
+ How would you see that mitigation across the nation would
+improve if we restored that back to the 15 percent?
+ Mr. Brown. Well, if there are additional resources, we
+would certainly use those to just do more mitigation projects
+around the country.
+ But I think the president struck a pretty good balance of
+doing both pre-disaster and post-disaster, because I do not
+think we should really favor one over the other. We ought to
+convince people as much as possible to do as much pre-disaster
+mitigation as they can because in the end that will save the
+taxpayers money.
+ Mr. Etheridge. But if we do not do it, we are going to pay
+anyway.
+ Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Mr. Shadegg. The time of the gentleman has expired.
+ The chair would now call upon the chairman of the full
+Select Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from
+California, Mr. Cox.
+ Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Welcome again, Under Secretary Brown.
+ I just want to follow up on the chairman's questions in the
+discussion that the two of you had because, as you know, we are
+writing legislation to completely overhaul the way we do first
+responder grants.
+ And I want to get your sense of our legislation and in
+particular the role that your directorate plays or might play
+under our legislation in first responder grant making?
+ Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I would love to see this
+directorate play as significant a role as you and the president
+can work out, because I think that this particular directorate
+has the best relationship with the first responders. We
+understand what their needs are.
+ And I might add, when I talk about first responders, I am
+talking about not just the firefighters, but it goes all the
+way to the public health officials, the public works people,
+law enforcement, all of those folks that respond initially to a
+disaster of any kind, and that is who we have the relationships
+with, that is who we have to rely upon and work with every
+single day before a disaster occurs and after one occurs.
+ So to the extent possible, I would like to see us evolve as
+much as possible in that relationship, in that future
+relationship.
+ Mr. Cox. I am just getting a note about some of what was
+discussed while I was out of the room.
+ In our legislation, we are proceeding from the premise that
+before 9/11 there were priorities for first responders that
+haven't anything to do with terrorism and that post-9/11, those
+priorities are still there, that we had grant programs
+established for pre-9/11 programs and that we do not want to
+rob Peter to pay Paul in the post-9/11 environment.
+ So we want to protect those programs from being stretched
+to do double duty and rather make sure that we are focused in
+addition to those pre-9/11 missions on the new mission of
+homeland security, which ought to be threat-based, we ought to
+be matching our known vulnerabilities to the threats that our
+intelligence analysis within homeland security tells us we
+face, the known capabilities and intentions of our would-be
+terrorist enemies.
+ The discussion of an all-hazards approach tends to fudge
+this principle in the sense that what we are trying to do is
+make sure we can maintain an all-hazards approach by not
+shortchanging these pre-9/11 programs. And we have had a lot of
+favorable response from the first responder community for this
+reason.
+ What I hear coming from the department, on the other hand,
+is that in order to maintain an all-hazards approach, we have
+to mix all of these grant programs together. I wonder if you
+could help us by giving us your views on that?
+ Mr. Brown. I was trying to listen very closely to what you
+said. And the second way that you said it I thought really
+summed up at least my philosophy and that is that you must
+always have the all-hazards approach.
+ And what you are trying to find is, is this right mix such
+that the dual-headed things that are both a natural disaster or
+a nonterrorist incident that is still--you know, you can have a
+chemical attack or you can have a chemical incident that is not
+terrorism that is going to require the same kinds of things,
+whether it was--if it was terrorism.
+ You are going to have those same kinds of incidents where
+equipment crosses both boundaries, a natural disaster and a
+man-made intentional or nonintentional incident. And what you
+have to do is strike the balance such that you do not denigrate
+one or any of the above.
+ Mr. Cox. Well, let me be as precise as I can in asking it.
+ My concern is that we are going to lose the focus of the
+FIRE grant program and we are going to lose the focus of
+homeland security because we are spending money in ways that
+are so malleable and so fungible that there is no
+accountability.
+ If being prepared to respond to a chemical spill or a
+forest fire were the mission of the Homeland Security
+Department, I do not think I would have voted to create it
+because, to be honest with you, we already had that focus at
+FEMA. We already had a government that was prepared at the
+federal, state and local levels to deal with that.
+ What we need to do to make sure that--and you have heard it
+said many times that we do not want homeland security dollars
+to be buying people new fire trucks. We have talked about
+mutual aid in lots of ways to ensure against that. But we do,
+on the other hand, want people to have new fire trucks. We do
+want them to be prepared for fires and all the things that
+happened before 9/11.
+ So I am worried that we are going to get the worst of all
+possible worlds if we bastardize the FIRE grant program, just
+to use that as one example, and try and make it do double duty
+as a homeland security program and we do not have any program
+in the federal government that is focused on the mission of the
+Homeland Security Department, which is to prevent, prepare for
+and respond to acts of terrorism, acts of mass murder that are
+different from all these other, you know, all-hazards events.
+ Mr. Brown. But now I want you to come down here and sit in
+my chair, because that is exactly what I have to do, Mr.
+Chairman, is that I have to--FEMA has to be able to respond to
+all of the above.
+ Mr. Cox. And so do our first responders.
+ Mr. Brown. Right, they do.
+ Mr. Cox. And is there going to be a grant program that is
+focused on homeland security, or are grant programs going to be
+just focused all over the place--unfocused as it were--so that
+we do not have any accountability from reaching our homeland
+security objectives, which are measurably distinct from the
+pre-9/11 program?
+ Mr. Brown. I do not know. And I certainly do not want to
+tell you or even suggest how to do your business.
+ But it seems to me that there has got to be some mechanism
+by which you do not lose both of those objectives. And whether
+that is a formula, whether that is two separate grant programs,
+I do not know. That is something that all of you will have to
+decide.
+ But you cannot lose the basic capacity--and again, speaking
+with my FEMA hat on here, I cannot lose the ability to respond
+to the wildfires in California at the same time that I cannot
+lose my ability to respond to another 9/11 attack.
+ And so that is the dual hat that I wear, and so that is why
+I struggle when I hear about we can not lose either one. That
+is what I struggle with every day. I cannot lose either one of
+those capacities.
+ Mr. Cox. How does moving ODP into the Office of the
+Secretary help you do your job at EP & R?
+ Mr. Brown. Well, will make certain that whatever
+connectivity I need to create out of my portion of the
+department in ODP that I will create that connectivity so that
+I do not lose that tie between preparedness and response
+because I have to keep that.
+ Mr. Cox. I think this committee is very interested in
+making sure that the expertise within your directorate is added
+to the DHS grant-making process for homeland security. And one
+of the reasons we are taking the approach that we are taking in
+our legislation is to ensure that result.
+ Well, we will look forward to continuing to discuss the
+legislation specifically with you and also ways that we can
+achieve what you have been talking about here today, which is a
+focus on preparedness as well as on response, a focus on the
+entire role of the EP & R Directorate, not just the legacy FEMA
+part.
+ Mr. Brown. You know, Mr. Chairman, it does have to be both
+of those for us to be effective.
+ Mr. Cox. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Mr. Shadegg. I thank the gentleman for his questions.
+ As he knows from our personal conversations, I struggle
+with the issue that you raised in your questioning. I am having
+a hard time seeing the connection between the function of FEMA
+with regard to natural disasters fitting within the concept of
+homeland security. And I think this is an issue we ought to
+explore.
+ Of course, responding to natural disasters is an important
+function and one for which this Congress, as you can tell from
+the questioning today, wants to hold you accountable and wants
+you to do a great job for the people of America.
+ I continue to be worried, as I have expressed to you and I
+have expressed to the chairman of the full committee, about
+whether or not we are losing focus on the function of
+preparedness and response for terrorist attacks.
+ And as I have pointed out to you, there is at least one
+distinguishing characteristic between natural disasters and
+terrorist attacks, and that is you can do something to stop a
+terrorist attack within the realm of reason, where it is pretty
+difficult to do something to stop a hurricane within the realm
+of reason.
+ So I look forward to continuing to work with you on that
+point.
+ The chair would now call upon the author of the
+Congressional Accountability Act, the distinguished gentleman
+from Connecticut, Mr. Shays.
+ Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
+conducting this hearing and thank you to the staff for all its
+good work.
+ I first want to just have a sense from you, Mr. Brown, if
+you would, as head of the directorate for EP & R, you ARE not
+the FEMA director, but what are you?
+ Mr. Brown. I actually carry kind of a dual hat. I am the
+Under Secretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response and the
+Director of FEMA. FEMA is, in essence, what is in EP & R.
+ Mr. Shays. Okay. But is that 90 percent of what is in EP &
+R?
+ Mr. Brown. Well, it depends on how you want to make the
+analysis. If it is the numbers of personnel, yes, 90 percent of
+it is FEMA. If it is--well, actually, probably if you do it on
+any basis--personnel, money, whatever--it probably is FEMA.
+ Mr. Shays. Is the National Domestic Preparedness Office up
+and running within your organization?
+ Mr. Brown. Yes, that is what we inherited, NDPO, from the
+FBI, I believe.
+ Mr. Shays. And how many people do you have in that?
+ Mr. Brown. I do not think any people came with it. Nope, it
+came with no people.
+ [Laughter.]
+ Mr. Shays. So it is there but it is not there?
+ Mr. Brown. Well, it is there and I have taken folks in my
+Preparedness Office and given them those responsibilities, but
+it came with no people or money.
+ Mr. Shays. Why would people not have come with it? I mean,
+how many people were there when it was under the Department of
+Justice?
+ Mr. Brown. I would have to get that information for you,
+sir. I do not know.
+ Mr. Shays. Well, it would be something I would want to know
+if I were in your position.
+ Can you give me a sense of what I know you are wrestling
+with?
+ And first off, we have to cut a lot of slack to DHS and
+still keep pushing, because it is a mammoth task and I know we
+are getting safer every day.
+ But I have this gigantic concern that we are wasting
+resources and we do not know how to evaluate the resources we
+are spending.
+ For instance, I do not yet know what DHS is doing with the
+capability studies of communities. When is that going to be
+completed? When will you know their capabilities?
+ Mr. Brown. Well, FEMA has already done its--and we have
+done on an ongoing basis--our CARs, Capability Assessment
+Reviews, so we have in house our assessments from an all-
+hazards point of view.
+ And I will go back and ask the department what their--I
+mean there must be something else going on within ODP where
+they are doing--.
+ Mr. Shays. You see, what we do not have, and Mr. Cox has
+put it in his bill, we do not have from the Department of
+Homeland Security really a set of standards yet to evaluate
+what we are giving the first-line responders.
+ Mr. Brown. See, we have that within FEMA. I mean, FEMA has
+the ability to go back and find out what are our assessments of
+the states and locals, our assessment of did they use the money
+we gave them for the purposes for which we gave it, what kind
+of increasing capability did we get for that? We have that
+capacity within FEMA.
+ Mr. Shays. When you say you know what local--you cannot
+tell me what Kent, Connecticut, needs. You cannot tell me the
+capabilities of Kent, Connecticut, which is not in my
+district--I am using a small somewhat innocuous town.
+ But Kent, Connecticut, is getting money and being provided
+certain capabilities by DHS, which it simply may not need, but
+we are giving it to everybody because we do not have standards
+to know if New York--how do we determine what the threat is to
+New York and therefore New York City? Therefore, what is the
+threat to neighboring communities?
+ And so we may be giving per capita something to Kent,
+Connecticut, that we give to the same community in Westport,
+Connecticut, and yet we do not know if that is wise to do.
+ And I am just trying to figure out when we get that done.
+Are you saying that is outside your area of expertise and
+jurisdiction?
+ Mr. Brown. It is. But I am saying that we also have within
+our area of expertise the ability to do assessments of the
+states and locals to find out what their abilities are, at
+least from a natural hazards point of view. And I think that
+can be a model for what we do department-wide.
+ Mr. Shays. Well, this is my confusion, but it seems to me
+FEMA is in the best position to have initiated within the
+Department of Homeland Security what first-time responders
+need.
+ Mr. Brown. I think we do have the capacity, sir.
+ Mr. Shays. But we have not done it yet?
+ Mr. Brown. I think ODP and other parts of the department
+are doing their analysis of what they think they are, of what
+their capacity--.
+ Mr. Shays. Are they interfacing?
+ Mr. Brown. --based on a threat analysis.
+ Mr. Shays. Right. And how are they using your part of DHS
+to do that?
+ Mr. Brown. I will get back to you on that, Congressman.
+ Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Under Secretary, I want to thank you again
+for your hard work on behalf of the American people. I also
+want to thank you for your work in preparing for today's
+hearing and for your thoughtful answers to our questions.
+ It is highly likely that other members of the committee
+will have follow-up questions which will be submitted to you,
+and we look forward to a timely response to those.
+ For the record, let me announce that the hearing record
+will remain open for 30 days for the submission of additional
+questions by other members of the subcommittee.
+ And with that, the subcommittee will stand adjourned.
+ [Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
+
+
+ A P P E N D I X
+
+ ----------
+
+
+ Material Submitted for the Record
+
+Questions for the Record From The Hon. Bennie G. Thompson For The Hon.
+ Michael D. Brown
+
+ The Subcommittee remains concerned that multiple assessments of
+state and local capabilities are being conducted by multiple
+organizations within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The
+Subcommittee is unclear as to the purpose of these assessments and how
+this assessment information is being shared within DHS.
+
+Question 1: What assessments of state and local government capabilities
+have been conducted by the Emergency Preparedness and Response
+Directorate (EP & R)?
+Answer: EP & R sponsors or has sponsored several capability assessment
+initiatives at the State and/or local levels:
+ 1. The National Emergency Management Baseline Capability
+ Assessment Program (NEMB-CAP)
+ 2. Geospatial Preparedness Needs Assessment
+ 3. Needs Assessment of the U. S. Fires Service (prepared by the
+ National Fire Protection Association).
+
+Question 2: Please describe the purpose of these assessments, and
+provide the results of these assessments with the Subcommittee. If the
+content of these assessments is sensitive or classified, please
+schedule and provide the Subcommittee with a classified briefing on
+these assessments.
+Answer: 1. NEMB-CAP is a voluntary, multi-year effort to assess,
+analyze, evaluate, and collectively frame state emergency management
+capabilities against a common national standard. For this effort, FEMA
+is employing the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP)
+Standard and associated assessment methodology. The assessment
+methodology involves the State completing a comprehensive self-
+assessment, followed up with an on-site, week-long assessment visit by
+a team of trained, independent peer assessors. FEMA will analyze
+reports to identify individual and collective capability strengths and
+weaknesses, for the purpose of establishing a national capability
+baseline and helping the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to
+target homeland security and emergency management assistance strategies
+to areas of greatest common need. Actual assessments of state and
+state-level jurisdictions began in January 2003, and are projected to
+be complete by the end of 2005, at which time a final report will be
+prepared.
+ 2. The Geospatial Preparedness Needs Assessment (initiated by FEMA,
+subsequently transferred to the DHS/Office of the Chief Information
+Officer (OCIO)) was initiated to determine the current level of
+geospatial preparedness among State, local, and Tribal emergency
+management and first responders, based on information collected from a
+series of needs assessment workshops held within FEMA Regions. A final
+report has not been released.
+ As of June 14, 28 states/state-level jurisdictions have completed
+assessments. NEMB-CAP Progress Reports are prepared by FEMA at six-
+month intervals. The Progress Report for the first six-months of
+assessments was published in the fall of last year. The second Progress
+Report (reflecting the status of assessment findings through CY 2003)
+is currently being prepared and should be available in July. Attached
+is a copy of the progress report for the first six months of
+assessments.
+ 3. Needs Assessment of the U. S. Fires Service. PL 106-398, Section
+1701, Sec. 33 (b) required that the Director of FEMA conduct a study in
+conjunction with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to
+survey fire service personnel on their current roles, activities, and
+funding priorities. . This study was published in January 2003, and can
+be reviewed at the following link: (http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/
+pdf/publications/fa-240.pdf).
+
+Question 3: What other assessments of State and local government
+capabilities are being conducted by DHS? Does the EP & R Directorate
+have access to these assessments, and if so, please describe the
+mechanism for your access to these assessments.
+Answer: Multiple assessments are being conducted within DHS, in pursuit
+of functional area requirements. FEMA has or can gain access to these
+assessment reports, based on need.
+
+Question 4: What mechanism is utilized by DHS to ensure that the
+content of all state and local assessments is not duplicative, and how
+are the results of all assessments coordinated and shared within DHS to
+develop a comprehensive picture of state and local capabilities?
+Answer: DHS has developed an implementation strategy for HSPD-8, a key
+objective of which is the reconciliation of duplicate reporting
+requirements. The Office for Domestic Preparedness is leading that
+effort. EP & R will be establishing a single web-based compliance
+assurance mechanism under the National Incident Management System
+(NIMS) Integration Center. This tool, the National Incident Management
+Compliance Assurance Support Tool, will provide positive assurance that
+state and local jurisdictions are in compliance with the NIMS, and will
+include linkages to other assessment systems that support incident
+management preparedness.
+ The EP & R Directorate's FY 2005 budget eliminates funding ($50
+million) for the Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS), stating
+that the program largely duplicates activities funded by the Department
+of Health and Human Services. In response to questions about the MMRS
+program from the Subcommittee, you stated that EP & R had conducted an
+assessment of the progress of MMRS program participants, and that these
+participants had achieved their ``baseline capability.''
+
+ Question 5: What is the baseline capability of an MMRS participant,
+and how was this capability determined?
+Answer. The MMRS original jurisdictional contract requires a series of
+deliverables. These deliverables cover an array of capabilities
+considered essential to being able to respond to a mass casualty/
+weapons of mass destruction WMD event. Adequacy of the deliverables is
+assessed by the Regional Project Officers (POs) using an evaluation
+checklist. PO approval is required before the jurisdiction can voucher
+for payment. We utilize the 12 deliverables established between 1999-
+2001 that were put in place by the Department of Health and Human
+Services (DHHS).
+ Deliverable
+ 1. Meeting with Project Officer
+ 2. Development plan
+ 3. MMRS plan
+ 4. Forward movement of patients
+ 5. Plan for responding to a chemical, radiological, nuclear, or
+ explosive WMD event
+ 6. Plan for Metropolitan Medical Strike Team (MMST) if it is a
+ component of your MMRS
+ 7. Plan for managing the health consequences of a biological
+ WMD
+ 8. Local hospital and healthcare system plan
+ 9. Plan for identifying training requirements along with
+ training plan
+ 10. Provide a list of pharmaceuticals and equipment along with
+ maintenance plan and procurement timetable
+ 11. Progress reports
+ 12. Final report
+ Planning and preparedness efforts are ongoing and, by definition,
+are not complete. As of today, 77 out of 124 MMRS jurisdictions, or
+over 60 percent of all program localities, have completed their
+baseline capability development. All 124 MMRS jurisdictions however
+have active contracts that provide for approved deliverables. For some
+of these contracts the period of performance extends to December 19,
+2005. Fiscal Year 2004 MMRS funding for jurisdictions is being provided
+through grants, period of performance October 1, 2004 to March 31,
+2006. . Sustaining and enhancing these capabilities is within the scope
+of the Administration's budget request.
+
+Question 6: Please provide the Subcommittee with a copy of the results
+of the assessment report that determined that the MMRS participants
+have achieved their baseline capabilities. If the content of this
+assessment is sensitive or classified, please schedule and provide the
+Subcommittee with a classified briefing on this assessment.
+Answer. For each required deliverable, there are assessment criteria
+contained in the Contract Deliverable Evaluation Instrument to
+determine whether the MMRS jurisdiction has met the terms of the
+contract, addressing all the elements of each deliverable specified in
+the contract. The MMRS jurisdiction submits the deliverable to an
+assigned PO, who then evaluates it, ensuring the jurisdiction has
+complied with the contract. Upon evaluation, the PO may return the
+deliverable to the jurisdiction for further work, or submit it to the
+Program Manager for final approval. Attached is the 2002 Contract
+deliverable instrument for your review.
+ As you know, the Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG)
+Program is an important grant mechanism that supports the state and
+local emergency planners. The fiscal year 2005 President's Budget
+request reduces the funding level for this program from current levels,
+and places a 25 percent limit on what can be spent on personnel. In
+response to questions from the Subcommittee, you stated that EMPG
+resources not utilized for personnel would now be utilized for state
+and local training and exercises.
+
+Question 7: How does EP & R plan to increase state and local training
+and exercises while at the same time reducing the state and local
+personnel who would need to attend training and conduct exercises?
+Answer: The President's Budget does not propose any reduction in State
+and local personnel, as State and local public safety and emergency
+response staffing levels are not dictated or controlled by the Federal
+government. The President's Budget seeks to emphasize the importance of
+conducting training and exercises using Emergency Management
+Performance Grant (EMPG) funds, and as such places a limit on the
+percentage of funding that can be spent on direct support of personnel
+salaries. Ensuring that public safety and emergency response functions
+are appropriately staffed at the State and local levels continues to
+remain a fundamental State and local government responsibility. As
+outlined in HSPD--8, Federal grants should contribute to new
+capabilities, not just offset the cost of permanent state and local
+employees.
+
+Question 8: If the President's budget proposal is approved what are EP
+& R's plans for distribution of the EMPG funds to enhance state and
+local training and exercises?
+Answer: DHS plans to distribute the Fiscal Year 2005 EMPG as part of a
+single, integrated overall grant application process, providing simpler
+access to funding while preserving all key aspects of the program,
+including guidelines for how funding may be used. The integration of
+Citizen Corps grants into ODP's State grant application process in
+fiscal Year 2004 provides a successful model on which to base the EMPG
+transition. Funding distributed to States under the EMPG grants will
+support a range of activities, including enhancing State and local
+training and exercises, in support of each state's Homeland Security
+Strategy.
+ For the second year, the President's budget proposes to consolidate
+funding previously provided through the National Pre-Disaster
+Mitigation Fund and the National Flood Mitigation Fund (for the Flood
+Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program). The two funds are authorized in
+separate statutes, have separate regulations, have separate priorities,
+and are separately administered (although the programs are similar in
+several respects). The PDM program is supported by general revenue,
+while the FMA is supported by a fee assessed on flood insurance
+policies. The different sources make it important to keep the two
+programs separate, even for accounting purposes.
+
+Question 9: If the funds are consolidated as proposed, how will the
+Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maintain separate
+accountability to ensure that the National Flood Mitigation Funds are
+used only for activities that, as set forth in the National Flood
+Insurance Reform Act of 1994 are in the best interests of NFIP?
+Answer: For administrative ease the funding for Pre-Disaster Mitigation
+(PDM) and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) are combined for purposes
+of the appropriation. At the Agency level, they are separated into the
+two statutorily authorized Funds servicing the respective programs. If
+appropriations are consolidated as proposed, FEMA will continue to
+maintain separate accountability through distinct financial management
+program codes. This will ensure that the National Flood Mitigation Fund
+grants are for State and community flood mitigation plans and projects
+only as set forth in the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994.
+It will also ensure that the two funds will be accounted for
+separately.
+ Between 200 and 300 FEMA staff positions are supported (in whole or
+in part) by the National Flood Insurance Fund. This practice started in
+1990 and is an important but little-known aspect of the NFIP's claim to
+being self-supporting. However, it means that just 4.4 million citizens
+are paying for a significant number of federal employees. Those
+employees directly work on the NFIP, floodplain management, and flood
+hazard mitigation further the purposes of the NFIP, and are necessary
+to maintain and manage an effective National Flood Insurance Program
+and to further reduction of the impacts of flooding. At this time when
+a number of FEMA staff have been detailed to other functions, it is
+unclear how many positions are funded by the NFIP, what their functions
+are, and how they relate to the NFIP.
+
+ Question 10: How many FEMA staff positions are supported by income
+from the NFIP's 4.4 million policyholders in fiscal year 2004? How many
+FEMA staff positions are proposed to be supported by the NFIP's in
+fiscal year 2005?
+Answer: For fiscal year 2004, the National Flood Insurance Program
+(NFIP) funds 271 flood staff positions. Additionally, FEMA requested
+271 NFIP staff positions for fiscal year 2005.
+
+Question 11: Please provide the Subcommittee with a list that
+identifies these positions by location in FEMA's organizational
+structure, including regional offices, and by their functions as they
+relate to the NFIP. Please indicate if there are any staff that have
+been detailed to other FEMA or DHS functions, but continue to be funded
+by the NFIP.
+Answer: At FEMA Headquarters, there are 68 insurance employees and 66
+floodplain management employees for a total of 134. This number
+includes a staff position in the Office of General Counsel that focuses
+on NFIP legal issues and an employee detailed to FEMA's Office of Plans
+and Programs whose primary responsibility is to facilitate the
+preparation, review, and evaluation of the NFIP's budget and
+performance. Additionally, there are 137 floodplain management
+employees in FEMA's ten regional offices. These employees provide
+support and direction for floodplain management, flood hazard
+mitigation, and flood hazard identification activities with State and
+local governments. A breakdown by region is provided below.
+ Region I-11
+ Region II-13
+ Region III-15
+ Region IV-21
+ Region V-14
+ Region VI-20
+ Region VII-11
+ Region VIII-10
+ Region IX-13
+ Region X-9
+ Although we have increased our focus on the immediate threat of
+terrorism, natural disasters are the prevalent emergencies that state
+and local governments deal with daily. In February 2003, a law took
+effect changing the post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
+formula from 15 percent to 7.5 percent of disaster costs. This change
+has cut in half the opportunities to mitigate disasters, especially in
+areas that have experienced multiple federally-declared disasters. In
+response to questions for the Subcommittee, you state that the
+President's request to implement both pre- and post-disaster mitigation
+programs gave you the best of both worlds, and would help you to
+mitigate disaster damage. Using your budget estimates for the average
+annual cost of disaster and emergency declarations ($1.656 billion), an
+additional $124 million would be available for post disaster mitigation
+projects in fiscal year 2005 if the formula for this program was
+restored to 15 percent.
+
+Question 12: In what ways would mitigation across the nation improve by
+restoring the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program formula back to 15
+percent?
+Answer: The President's Fiscal Year 2005 budget provides the correct
+balance between pre- and post-disaster mitigation funding. Pre-disaster
+mitigation is available to all States on a competitive basis and allows
+mitigation projects to be completed prior to a disaster, thus lessening
+the loss of lives and property if a disaster strikes. In addition,
+States are able to address mitigation projects through the post-
+disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).
+ In response to a question from the Subcommittee, you state that
+FEMA continues to respond to disasters in exactly the way it has in the
+past.
+
+Question 13: In the future, as the National Response Plan becomes more
+fully implemented, will FEMA continue to respond exactly the way it has
+in the past? The National Response plan calls for the designation and
+integration of a Principal Federal Official (PFO), appointed by the
+Secretary of DHS, to lead the Department's efforts in response to a
+disaster. Have any PFO's been dispatched to represent DHS in federally
+declared disasters? What is the proposed relationship between the PFO
+and the Federal Coordinated Officer--who is appointed by the President?
+Answer: The Secretary has not designated a Principal Federal Official
+(PFO) for a Presidentially declared disaster or emergency to date.
+Federal Coordinating Officers (FCOs) have continued to be appointed as
+in the past. As stated in the Initial National Response Plan, for
+incidents of national significance, the Secretary may designate a
+Federal officer to serve as the PFO to act as his representative
+locally and to coordinate Federal activities. The roles and
+responsibilities of the PFO include:
+ Representing the Secretary of Homeland Security as the
+ senior Federal official on-scene to enable the Secretary to
+ carry out his role as the PFO for domestic incident management;
+ Ensuring overall coordination of Federal domestic
+ incident management activities and resource allocation on
+ scene, ensuring seamless integration of Federal incident
+ management activities in support of State, local and tribal
+ requirements;
+ Providing strategic guidance to Federal entities and
+ facilitating interagency conflict resolution as necessary to
+ enable timely Federal assistance to State, local, and Tribal
+ authorities;
+ Serving as a primary, although not exclusive, point of
+ contact for Federal interface with State, local, and Tribal
+ government officials, the media, and the private sector for
+ incident management;
+ Providing real-time incident information, through the
+ support of the Federal incident management structure on-scene,
+ to the Secretary of Homeland Security through the Homeland
+ Security Operations Center (HSOC) and the Interagency Incident
+ Management Group (IIMG), as required; and
+ Coordinating the overall Federal public communications
+ strategy at the State, local and Tribal levels and clearing
+ Federal interagency communications to the public regarding the
+ incident
+ The PFO is selected by the Secretary. The Secretary will provide
+formal notification of the appointment of the PFO to Governor(s) of
+affected State(s) and to Federal departments and agencies. A PFO can be
+pre-designated to support a specific jurisdiction, or a DHS Regional
+Director (DHS RD) may be tapped to serve as a PFO depending on the
+situation. It is most likely that a PFO will be appointed only for
+incidents or high visibility events with significant national or
+regional implications such as significant terrorist events causing
+considerable destruction, catastrophic natural disasters, and complex
+non-Stafford Act emergencies.
+ The PFO provides senior leadership, strategic guidance, and
+operations integration for catastrophic events, terrorist incidents,
+and other high visibility, multi-state, multi-jurisdiction events. The
+FCO, on the other hand, provides the leadership for managing Federal
+resource support in a multi-hazard context. When both a PFO and an FCO
+have been assigned to a specific incident, the FCO will coordinate with
+the PFO and work closely with representatives of other Federal
+agencies. In situations where a PFO has not been assigned, the FCO
+leads the Federal components of the Joint Field Office (JFO) and works
+in partnership with the State Coordinating Officer (SCO).
+
+Question 14: Recently (March 1, 2004), DHS announced that it had
+activated Homeland Security Task Force Southeast (HSTF-SE) to provide a
+single command and support structure to oversee increased operations in
+the Windward Pass and coastal South Florida as a precautionary response
+to the situation in Haiti. FEMA was identified as a participant in this
+task force and the ``normal'' disaster response structure that you
+believe FEMA still utilizes? Are these ``task forces'' identified in
+the National Response Plan, and if so, what is their role?
+Answer: FEMA is a full participant in the Caribbean mass migration
+contingency planning effort. Other components within DHS have primary
+responsibility and authority for response to such a contingency. This
+includes the Immigration and Nationality Act, as well as other
+authorities. FEMA supports the response of these other components and
+is prepared to act within the scope of its authorities in the event
+that contingencies arise that establish the necessary predicate for a
+Stafford Act declaration.
+ Homeland Security Task Force Southeast is part of contingency
+planning for a Caribbean mass migration. The essential role of the Task
+Force is to integrate the capabilities and activities of DHS components
+into a unified response effort with other entities that have relevant
+responsibilities for mass migration. Once the National Response Plan
+(NRP) is promulgated, other specific Federal interagency emergency or
+incident management plans will require modification to ensure full
+alignment with the NRP structure. Caribbean mass migration planning
+will be subject to this requirement for alignment.
+ The Subcommittee is concerned that the legacy FEMA people and
+programs are losing core areas of responsibility as DHS continues to
+grow. The National Response Plan and the National Incident Management
+System no longer retain a heavy emergency management focus, the first
+responder grant function has been moved to ODP, and the regular
+interaction between FEMA and state and local personnel has been, in
+part, taken over by other components.
+
+Question 15: Can you explain why FEMA, which was a very well performing
+agency before DHS, in not leading these efforts?
+Answer: Substantial effort is being made to consolidate and integrate
+all of the different disaster response programs, teams, and assets in
+DHS. FEMA is designing new approaches and implementing new efficiencies
+that will result in a more unified, integrated, and comprehensive
+approach to all-hazards disaster response. The improved coordination of
+all response programs and efforts to introduce a new response culture
+will make DHS better able to elevate operational disaster response
+capabilities to a whole new level of proficiency, one that will further
+the principles of the NRP and NIMS and better serve the American
+people.
+ Title V of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 makes the Under
+Secretary of the Emergency Preparedness & Response responsible for
+``helping to ensure the effectiveness of emergency response providers
+to terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies'' and for
+``building a comprehensive National Incident Management System [. . .
+for . . .] such attacks and disasters.'' The Act also requires FEMA to
+retain its functions and responsibilities under the Stafford Act.
+ FEMA continues to support all-hazards emergency preparedness,
+training, and exercises on the basis that the management of the
+consequences from any event has numerous essential elements that may
+need to be supplemented by special actions for some events.
+ Operational planning is a key Preparedness function, and FEMA has
+years of experience and accumulated expertise planning for, responding
+to and recovering from emergencies and disasters. Accordingly, FEMA was
+asked to lead a Departmental and interagency effort to develop the
+National Response Plan--Catastrophic Incident Annex (NRP-CIA).
+ FEMA is responsible for leading an intra-departmental and
+interagency effort to stand up the NIMS Integration Center and to
+promulgate NIMS across the Nation. FEMA played a large role in the
+development of the NIMS document. In addition, FEMA continues to work
+closely with ODP and the grants one-stop shop to support the
+programmatic efforts to administer these grants as intended by
+Congress.
+ In your prepared testimony, you stated that one of your fiscal year
+2004 priorities is to publish ``equipment interoperability standards.''
+There seem to be a number of DHS organizations working on these
+standards.
+
+Question 16: What is the division of responsibility for developing
+standards among EP & R, the Science and Technology Directorate, the
+Office of Domestic Preparedness, and any other DHS organizations
+involved in developing standards?
+ Answer: Several directorates within DHS will be addressing
+standards development and coordination between these directorates is
+vital.
+ The Science and Technology Directorate (S & T) will develop and
+coordinate the adoption of standards and appropriate evaluation methods
+to meet homeland security needs. S & T will work with EP & R and ODP to
+ensure appropriate standards are available for all first responder
+equipment needs.
+ EP & R will work closely with S & T to identify emergency
+management standards and determine critical gaps in standards that need
+to be addressed by the Department. EP & R will build upon existing
+research to identify critical standards by each discipline and function
+and gaps among those standards that impact the ability of emergency
+managers and responders to provide a consistent and uniform response to
+any incident. As part of its strategy, EP & R will develop a plan to
+address the gaps and shortfalls identified in order to provide a
+comprehensive analysis to S & T to ensure the Department uses a
+coordinated approach to address standards development in those areas.
+ EP & R in collaboration with relevant agencies and organizations
+responsible for the development of standards will develop interim
+``field standards'' and identify the responsible entity for
+implementing the required standard. This process will be integrated
+into the NIMS and the NIMS Integration Center (NIC). The NIC will
+coordinate the development of standards by facilitating the development
+and publication of national standards, guidelines, and protocols for
+the qualification and certification of emergency responder and incident
+management personnel as appropriate.
+
+Question 17: What is the role of the EP & R Directorate in the
+Department's interoperability communications plans? Specifically, how
+is your Directorate involved with the Secretary's announced plans to
+deploy interim technologies for patching different radio systems?
+Answer: The Science and Technology Directorate is leading the RapidCom
+initiative, under the auspices of the SAFECOM Program. This technical
+assistance effort will leverage existing technologies and funding in
+ten cities to reach an interim emergency-level communications
+interoperability capacity.
+ This effort is distinct from grants awarded by EP & R in 2003, in
+coordination with the Department of Justice COPS office and Project
+SAFECOM, to provide competitive funding to jurisdictions for
+demonstration projects to increase communications interoperability
+among the fire service, law enforcement, and emergency medical service
+communities. Thirty-one awards of up to $6,000,000 each were awarded to
+various jurisdictions. SAFECOM common grant guidance was incorporated
+in both the COPS and the FEMA programs. These projects are currently
+underway, with a scheduled completion by date of September 2004. The
+lessons learned will guide future communications equipment funding so
+that all purchases meet an interoperability performance standard. While
+none of the 17 FEMA grantees are part of part RapidCom, three of the 13
+COPS grantees are.
+
+Question 18: What equipment will EP & R publish standards for?
+Answer: EP & R is not publishing any standards for equipment. However,
+EP & R is working closely with the Science and Technology Directorate
+on its development of equipment standards for first responders.
+
+Question 19: When exactly will these standards be published? Will they
+be actual standards, or ``technical specifications'' as stated by the
+Secretary on February 23, 2004?
+Answer: EP & R is not publishing any standards for equipment. EP & R is
+working closely with the Science and Technology Directorate on its
+equipment standards for first responders.
+
+Question 20: Who should state and local governments look to within DHS
+for definitive guidance on equipment standards?
+Answer: S & T will provide definitive guidance on equipment standards,
+with significant input, guidance, and coordination on emergency
+management-related standards from EP & R.
+ DHS and EP & R Directorate do not appear to be taking an active
+role in preparing for the threat of bioterrorism. The Department of
+Health and Human Services is taking the lead in Project BioShield and
+the Strategic National Stockpile. DHS is eliminating the Metropolitan
+Medical Response System, by suggesting that ongoing programs at HHS
+will meet the goals of that program. But according to the ANSER
+Institute, ``there has been inadequate connection between DHS and HHS
+to prepare for and respond to biological terrorism.''
+
+Question 21: What formal mechanisms have been established between DHS
+and HHS (e.g., work groups, task forces) to coordinate the preparedness
+and response for bioterrorism incidents? Please provide the
+Subcommittee with any documents related to this coordination.
+Answer: The NRP identifies roles and responsibilities among key Federal
+agencies that participate in response to a disaster. The NRP includes
+formal mechanisms between DHS and HHS intended to coordinate the
+preparedness and response for bioterrorism incidents. HHS and DHS are
+currently working together on various aspects of the NRP, including
+Emergency Support Function #8--Health and Medical Services. In addition
+to collaboration on developing these mechanisms, the threat of
+bioterrorism is being addressed further by the two agencies via several
+national programs, such as MMRS, the National Disaster Medical System
+(NDMS), and the National Response Plan--Catastrophic Incident Annex
+(NRP-CIA). Additionally, a surge capacity working group has been formed
+with stakeholders from DHS, HHS, and various Federal agencies.
+
+ Question 22: Have DHS and HHS developed a work-plan to address the
+threat of bio-terrorism, including the distinct roles and
+responsibilities of the respective agencies? What mechanisms are in
+place to ensure there is no duplication of effort? For example, with
+respect to your proposal for enhancing medical surge capabilities, what
+work--if any--has already been completed by HHS, and how are you
+integrating that work into your proposal?
+Answer: DHS and HHS have collaborated on many elements of the NRP that
+establish the strategy for a coordinated national approach to a
+catastrophic event, including bioterrorism. Additionally, the
+coordination of bioterrorism funding through SLGCP ensures all
+available resources are leveraged for maximum efficiency.
+ A surge capacity working group has been formed with stakeholders
+from DHS; a variety of HHS entities including NDMS, the Health
+Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and the Substance Abuse
+and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSA); and various Federal
+partners, including the Department of Defense and the Department of
+Veterans Affairs. In addition to providing solutions to deal with surge
+capacity during a bioterror incident, this effort is currently being
+incorporated into the DHS-led National Response Plan--Catastrophic
+Incident Annex (NRP-CIA).
+ The National Response Plan states that ``private business and
+industry play a significant role in helping to mitigate the physical
+effects and economic costs of domestic incidents.'' According to the
+Plan, the Secretary of Homeland Security would urge businesses to
+identify their risks, develop contingency plans and to take actions to
+enhance their overall readiness.'' In response to questions from the
+Subcommittee, you stated that the Business and Industry Preparedness
+and Response Partnership was being used to reach out to the private
+sector.
+
+Question 23: At this point, can the Department offer private industry
+any risk identification guidelines? If so, please provide these
+guidelines to the Subcommittee.
+Answer: The Department through FEMA and many other public and private
+sector organizations developed the NFPA 1600 Standard on Disaster/
+Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs, 2004 edition and
+earlier editions. These guidelines are available on the web at
+www.nfpa.org., In addition the Department, through the Protective
+Security Division, has worked with various infrastructure sectors to
+identify appropriate vulnerability assessment tools for use by those
+sectors. In addition, FEMA has developed guidance with the private
+sector for risk identification through FEMA's Mitigation Division and
+specific Preparedness programs such as the Chemical Stockpile Emergency
+Preparedness Program and Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program.
+This guidance can be found at www.fema.gov.
+
+Question 24: How are private sector representatives involved in
+defining their roles in emergency preparedness and response?
+Answer: Private Sector representatives are involved in defining the
+roles by building relationships with each other and with government
+entities, by reviewing the Initial National Response Plan, the draft
+National Response Plan and their own business continuity plans.
+ The Flood Forecasting and Warning System Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-253)
+authorized the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
+through the United States Weather Research Program, to conduct research
+and development, training and outreach activities to improve inland
+flood forecasting.
+
+Question 25: To what extent has this act been implemented, and how has
+FEMA utilized information provided by NOAA to improve flood
+forecasting, and better prepare impacted populations for flood events?
+Answer: The NOAA National Weather Service (NWS) Advanced Hydrologic
+Prediction Service (AHPS) has been implemented at ten forecast
+locations in eastern North Carolina, and a web interface now provides
+access to AHPS products across the nation. Inundation maps showing 3-
+day flood forecasts for the Tar River basin in North Carolina were
+implemented prior to the landfall of Hurricane Isabel. A social
+scientist was contracted to work with North Carolina emergency managers
+to evaluate and suggest improvements to the existing NWS flood severity
+index. A grant was issued to North Carolina State University for a
+collaborative research project to assess long-term trends in the
+frequency and severity of inland flooding caused by tropical cyclones.
+ FEMA, through the National Hurricane Program, is currently
+incorporating the AHPS data into HURREVAC, a State and local emergency
+management decision assistance tool develop by FEMA and the United
+States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). All flood forecast points in
+North Carolina and Florida are now available in HURREVAC in much the
+same format as AHPS products (i.e., graphical hydrographs). The next
+step is to include Texas to Maine and the Virgin Islands and Puerto
+Rico in future releases of HURREVAC.
+ House report language directed FEMA to update and disseminate
+guidance on outdoor warning and mass notification systems, but this is
+several months overdue. Especially as we enter tornado and hurricane
+seasons, it is imperative that this guidance to state and local
+governments be completed.
+
+Question 26: Can you tell us where this guidance is, and what is the
+division of labor between EP & R and the IAIP Directorate?
+Answer: The guidance, a revision and update of Civil Preparedness Guide
+1-17, Outdoor Warning Systems Guide, first published March 1, 1980, is
+currently under an extensive fast-track DHS review, including a review
+by IAIP, and will soon be released for a review by other Federal
+agencies.
+
+Questions for the Record From The Hon. Jim Turner For The Hon. Michael
+ D. Brown
+
+ As you know, the Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG)
+Program is an enormously important grant mechanism that supports the
+state and local emergency planners, based on a 50 percent cost match.
+The fiscal 2005 President's Budget request reduces the funding level
+for this program from current levels, and places a 25 percent limit on
+what can be spent on personnel. According to the National Emergency
+Management Association this budget, if implemented, would lead to a
+loss of 60 percent of state emergency managers and even more at the
+local level. When I spoke to the National Emergency Management
+Association on February 12, they told me of their strong opposition to
+this proposal, and of the devastating impact it would have on their
+profession.
+
+ Question 27: Please describe DHS's rationale for capping the use of
+EMPG funds for personnel at 25 percent.
+Answer: The Administration's fiscal year 2005 request for the Emergency
+Management Performance Grants is $170 million, which is higher than any
+previous request for this program. The funds will be used to assist the
+development, maintenance, and improvement of State and local emergency
+management capabilities, which are key components of a comprehensive
+national emergency management system for disasters and emergencies that
+may result from natural disasters or accidental or man-caused events.
+ As you note, though, the request does cap the amount that States
+can use for salaries, thereby significantly increasing the amount of
+funds available for planning, training and exercises. As outlined in
+HSPD-9, the Administration believes that Federal preparedness grants
+should build new state and local capabilities, not just subsidize
+permanent state and local employees. Accordingly, the request shifts
+the emphasis to Federal support for planning while properly aligning
+responsibility for staffing and salaries with the States and local
+governments. The Administration and Department have consistently
+supported the idea that homeland security is a shared responsibility
+between Federal, State, and local governments. Additionally, it is
+important to remember that we are operating in a fiscal and security
+environment where we must ensure that maximum security benefits are
+derived from every security dollar. To do that, we must be able to take
+a new look at the way in which we allocate resources, including sharing
+financial responsibility with our State and local partners.
+
+Question 28: Based on the personnel reductions that will results from
+these cuts, how does EP & R intend to conduct effective response and
+recovery operations without professional partners at the state and
+local level?
+ Answer: While the EMPG program has traditionally supported
+comprehensive emergency management at the State and local levels,
+encouraging long-term improvements of mitigation, preparedness,
+response, and recovery capabilities for all hazards requires that
+states and localities assume responsibility for supporting long-term
+staff. The Administration has always framed improvements in emergency
+response and homeland security as a shared partnership, in which
+Federal funds should be an encouragement to greater state and local
+efforts, not simply a budget offset. Funds provided under the EMPG may,
+and should, be used to continue support activities that contribute to
+capability to prevent, to prepare for, and to recover from natural and
+man-made disasters. Given that this program is designed to address
+``all-hazards'' planning, including terrorism, it complements the
+allowable uses of funds in other ODP grant programs, including the
+State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) and the Urban Areas
+Security Initiative (UASI).
+ DHS does not appear to be taking an active role in preparing for
+the threat of bioterrorism. The Department of Health and Human Services
+is taking the lead in Project BioShield and the Strategic National
+Stockpile. DHS is eliminating the Metropolitan Medical Response System,
+by suggesting that ongoing programs at HHS will meet goals of that
+program. But according to the ANSER Institute, ``there has been
+inadequate connection between DHS and HHS to prepare for and respond to
+biological terrorism.'' These problems were apparent in the TOPOFF2
+exercise, when players in the exercise were unable to determine what
+federal agency had the final authority to approve the deployment of the
+Strategic National Stockpile.
+
+ Question 29: How is the Department retaining response capabilities
+to deal with a serious bioterrorism event or public health emergency?
+Who has the lead responsibility for planning and preparing for a major
+bio attack?
+Answer: The Homeland Security Act of 2002 and Homeland Security
+Presidential Directive-5 (HSPD-5) state that the Secretary of the
+Department of Homeland Security is the ``principal Federal official for
+domestic incident management'' with responsibility for ``coordinating
+Federal operations within the United States to prepare for, respond to,
+and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other
+emergencies.'' DHS/FEMA also has specific authority to provide for the
+needs of victims of public health emergencies through the National
+Disaster Medical System. The Department of Health and Human Services
+(HHS) also has a major role in planning and preparing for a major
+biological attack or public health emergency. Through our extensive
+partnerships with state, local and tribal governments and the private
+sector, as well as other Federal departments, we are working to ensure
+the highest level of protection, preparedness and response for the
+country and the citizens we serve.
+ DHS/FEMA maintains resources and capabilities that can be activated
+and deployed to support a mass-casualty incident, including:
+ - Disaster Medical Assistance Teams
+ - National Medical Response Teams
+ - Veterinary Medical Assistance Teams
+ - Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Teams
+ - Burn Specialty Teams
+ - Medical/Surgical Response Team
+ - Numerous additional specialized medical personnel
+ - Pre-Positioned Disaster Supplies to support mass care
+ operations
+ - Urban Search & Rescue task forces to support rescue
+ operations
+ - Mobile Emergency Response Support (MERS) capabilities to
+ support command/control/communications
+
+ Additionally, other DHS agencies provide capabilities for detecting
+and responding to a biological/public health emergency, such as:
+ - The Science and Technology Directorate maintains air-
+ monitoring equipment to detect airborne biological pathogens in
+ major cities throughout the country and is developing the
+ BioSense program.
+ - The Interagency Modeling and Atmospheric Analysis Center
+ (IMAAC) provides a single point for the coordination and
+ dissemination of federal dispersion modeling and hazard
+ prediction products that represent the federal position during
+ an incident of national significance.
+ HHS has the authority to deploy the Strategic National Stockpile.
+In addition, HHS is required to deploy the Stockpile ``as required by
+the Secretary of Homeland Security to respond to an actual or potential
+emergency.' Project BioShield, just enacted into law, is a
+collaborative program between DHS and HHS to develop countermeasures to
+biological and chemical agents that may be used in a terrorist attack.
+The products of the BioShield program will be stored in the Strategic
+National Stockpile.
+ Many on the Select Committee have supported Secretary's efforts to
+create a one-stop shop for grant information as a way to help the state
+and local applicants. We are concerned, however, that the real
+expertise in emergency preparedness and response resident in your
+Directorate is too far removed from the management of these grants.
+
+Question 30: What concrete mechanisms are in place to link your
+Directorate, including the regional offices, into the grant
+development, application, and evaluation process?
+ Answer: FEMA works closely with ODP on all grant programs that have
+transferred from FEMA to ODP. We hold bi-weekly meetings of the senior
+Fire Grant Program Staff, ODP, FEMA Financial Management, Information
+Technology and the Under Secretary's Policy office to discuss
+transition issues. There is also continuous email and phone dialogue.
+
+Question 31: EP & R would appear to be in the best position to
+determine the needs of the emergency management and fire communities.
+How is your Directorate involved in formulating the annual budgets for
+emergency management grant programs?
+ Answer: The needs of the emergency management and fire service
+communities are considered as part of the broader effort to allocate
+and coordinate grants for first responders and homeland security. FEMA
+works closely with ODP on all grant programs that have transferred from
+FEMA to ODP.
+
+Question 32: Will there be any difference between the way the FIRE
+Grants have been run in the past and how they will operate after the
+transfer to ODP? If there will be a change in any aspect of this
+program, please describe this change.
+ Answer: The transfer to ODP has maintained the essential features
+of the Assistance to Firefighters Program, such as peer review and
+direct funding for fire departments. The primary change has been to
+give greater attention to applications from fire departments seeking to
+improve their readiness for chemical, biological, radiological, or
+nuclear events (CBRNE), or other catastrophic events. The Department
+has also sought to increase the maximum award amount for larger
+jurisdictions to better reflect the needs of major cities. FEMA
+continues to work closely with ODP in the administration of this
+important program.
+
+
+
+