[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE MILITARY'S SUPPORT OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES DURING DISASTERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, PREPAREDNESS,
AND RESPONSE
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 25, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-28
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-564 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California, PETER T. KING, New York
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts LAMAR SMITH, Texas
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
JANE HARMAN, California MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon TOM DAVIS, Virginia
NITA M. LOWEY, New York DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
Columbia BOBBY JINDAL, Louisiana
ZOE LOFGREN, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, U.S. Virgin CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
Islands GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
AL GREEN, Texas
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
VACANCY
Jessica Herrera-Flanigan, Staff Director & General Counsel
Rosaline Cohen, Chief Counsel
Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Robert O'Connor, Minority Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas, Chairman
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
NITA M. LOWEY, New York MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of BOBBY JINDAL, Louisiana
Columbia DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, U.S. Virgin PETER T. KING, New York (Ex
Islands Officio)
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex
Officio)
Craig Sharman, Director
Nichole Francis, Counsel
Brian Turbyfill, Clerk
Heather Hogg, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Henry Cuellar, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Texas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness, and Response..................... 1
The Honorable Charles W. Dent, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Pennsylvania, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response........... 2
The Honorable Bob Etheridge, a Representative in Congress from
the State of North Carolina.................................... 35
Witnesses
Mr. Glenn Cannon, Assistant Administrator for Disaster
Operations, Federal Emergency Management Agency:
Oral Statement................................................. 17
Prepared Statement............................................. 19
Major General Timothy J. Lowenberg, Adjutant General, State of
Washington:
Oral Statement................................................. 7
Prepared Staement.............................................. 9
Major General Tony Pineda, National Commander, Civil Air Patrol:
Oral Statement................................................. 13
Prepared Statement............................................. 15
Major General Terry L. Scherling, Director of the Joint Staff,
National Guard Bureau:
Oral Statement................................................. 3
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
Mr. Mike Womack, Director, Mississippi Emergency Management
Agency:
Oral Statement................................................. 26
Prepared Statement............................................. 27
EXAMINING THE MILITARY'S SUPPORT OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES DURING DISASTERS
----------
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and
Response,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 1539, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Henry Cuellar
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Cuellar, Christensen, Etheridge
and Dent.
Mr. Cuellar. The subcommittee will come to order.
The hearing will be on Examining the Military's Support of
Civil Authorities during Disasters.
I think we are going to be having Mr. Reichert join us in a
few minutes, so I will ask for unanimous consent to allow the
gentleman from Washington, Mr. Reichert, when he does come in,
to sit here and question the witnesses at today's hearing.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Good morning. First of all, on behalf of the members of the
subcommittee and our ranking member, Mr. Dent, let me welcome
our panel. We are glad that you are here to discuss how the
National Guard and other organizations, such as the Civil Air
Patrol, can assist and coordinate with State and Federal
emergency management officials in the wake of disasters.
We are also going to look at the resources that these
organizations can provide to aid in response efforts. During
Hurricane Katrina, the work done by the National Guard saved
countless lives and can be held up as a real success story in
the wake of that enormous tragedy that we had.
However, stretched thin by the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the National Guard is less equipped now than it
has ever been to respond to a major terrorist attack or a
natural disaster. According to the National Guard, 88 percent
of the Army National Guard units and 45 percent of the Air
National Guard units that are not deployed overseas have severe
equipment shortages. In addition, on March 1, 2007, the
commission on the National Guard and Reserves issued its second
report to Congress. Arnold J. Punaro, the chairman of the
commission and a retired Marine Corps major general, said that
these shortages have reduced the Guard to its lowest readiness
level ever, and this poses an unacceptable risk to Americans.
This report also faulted the Department of Homeland Security
for failing to identify the domestic missions the National
Guard should be expected to perform. It also criticizes the
Defense Department for not equipping the National Guard
adequately for those missions. This hearing will allow us to
examine how inadequate equipping limits the National Guard's
emergency response potential.
I am also look forward to hearing from representatives of
the Civil Air Patrol on ways their organization believes it can
be better utilized during disaster. I know that Ranking Member
Dent has been a big proponent of this effort.
I am interested to see if State emergency managers and FEMA
have utilized CAP as an organization to bolster domestic
response capabilities and whether or not legislative changes
are required to support their involvement or whether they can
do it at this time under the existing framework.
I must also note that this is the first in a series of
hearings that the Homeland Security Committee will hold looking
at the role of military components in our Nation's homeland
security and emergency response efforts.
The Border Security Subcommittee, which I also sit on, will
soon examine Operation Jump Start and force multiplication for
the Border Patrol. This is an extremely important issue for
this committee, and we thank you for being here.
I once again thank all of the witnesses for being here with
us, and I thank them for their testimony. I look forward to a
productive discussion.
At this time, the chair will recognize the ranking member
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent,
for an opening statement.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Chairman Cuellar, and I thank you for
holding this hearing today. I truly appreciate everybody's
attendance.
As we are all aware, a terrorist attack or natural disaster
is, first and foremost, a local event. Because both State and
local resources may be quickly overwhelmed, Congress has
directed the Federal Government to stand ready to provide
assistance. This assistance may be in the form of additional
manpower, including law enforcement personnel, emergency
supplies, food and water, power generators, and backup
communications systems. We saw after Hurricane Katrina and,
more recently, after the tornadoes and heavy snow that occurred
earlier this year, that the military is often called upon to
assist in Federal or State emergency response efforts.
Today, we have with us both Federal and State officials to
discuss coordination between the military and civilian
emergency management officials. I look forward to discussing
with General Scherling how the National Guard prepares its
personnel and equipment to be deployed after a terrorist attack
or natural disaster. Also with us today is Major General Tony
Pineda, who is National Commander of the Civil Air Patrol.
During a trip to the border last summer in Laredo, Texas, with
Chairman Cuellar, I was disturbed and surprised to learn that
the Border Patrol does not have access to enough aviation
assets to adequately protect the border. Meanwhile, the Civil
Air Patrol has a force of approximately 55,000 members across
the country, and a fleet of over 500 aircraft ready to help the
Border Patrol secure the border. I look forward to discussing
with General Pineda how the Civil Air Patrol could assist the
Department of Homeland Security in securing the border, as well
as in emergency response activities, such as search and rescue,
which I know are currently ongoing.
I would also like to thank all of the witnesses again for
being with us here today, and again, I thank Chairman Cuellar
for holding this very important hearing and for the series of
upcoming hearings. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Dent.
Other members of the subcommittee are reminded that, under
the committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for
the record. At this time, I would like to welcome the panel of
witnesses.
Our first witness will be Major General Terry Scherling.
She is the Director of the Joint Staff of the National Guard
Bureau. Previously, General Scherling was the Deputy Director
for antiterrorists in the homeland defense and the Joint
Director for the military support operations of the Bureau
Joint Staff.
Our second witness is Major General Timothy Lowenberg, and
he has been the adjutant general for the State of Washington
since September 1999. As the adjutant general, he guides the
appropriations of the Washington Army and Air National Guard,
citizen soldiers and airmen and women to respond in times of
State or national emergency.
Our third witness is Major General Tony Pineda, who is the
National Commander of the Civil Air Patrol. CAP is a volunteer
organization that performs search-and-rescue missions as well
as aerospace education in-depth programs.
Our fourth witness is Glenn Cannon, who is FEMA's Assistant
Administrator for disaster operations. He is responsible for
coordinating the development and execution of interagency
plans, policies, procedures, and floor response operations
during disasters. He is the director of the division of the
State fire marshals in Florida.
Our final witness is Mike Womack, who is the Director of
the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency. He served for 2
years as the agency's deputy director and led them through
response and recovery efforts. Mr. Womack previously served for
29 years in the active and Reserve service. He retired in June
2001 as a lieutenant colonel with the Mississippi Army National
Guard.
Mr. Cuellar. We are pleased to have all of you present, and
without objection, members' and the witnesses' full statements
will be inserted in the record, and now I ask each witness to
summarize their statement in 5 minutes, beginning with General
Scherling.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF MAJGEN TERRY L. SCHERLING, DIRECTOR OF THE JOINT
STAFF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU
General Scherling. Thank you for the opportunity to speak
to you today as you examine the National Guard's military
support to civil authorities during disasters.
We meet at a trying time in history when our Army and Air
National Guard are partnered with our active component Army and
Air Force in combat operations. You can be proud that the
citizen soldiers and airmen of your Army and Air National Guard
are ready to answer this Nation's call to arms. The National
Guardsmen who are mobilized and deployed overseas are superbly
trained and equipped. They serve shoulder to shoulder with
active duty counterparts, all of them unquestionably the best
trained and best equipped American fighting force in history.
While our combat soldiers and airmen continue to be
superbly equipped when they arrive in the combat theater, the
equipment we bring there gets used up, blown up or left behind.
We have seen the readiness of our units here at home decline
over time to the point today where it severely limits our
ability to fulfill our homeland security mission, that of the
Department of Defense's first responders to a domestic
disaster. The good news is that the most challenging part of
our country's homeland security military response force is
already in place, and that is our personnel. We have the best
educated, best trained and most experienced population of
guardsmen in history.
Last week, the Army National Guard celebrated reaching an
end strength goal of more than 350,000 troops. The real
difficult problem, that of attracting quality recruits,
seasoning them and keeping them, has been solved. Now we need
to turn our attention to giving them the tools to train with
and to maintain their readiness to do their jobs both abroad
and at home.
I have with me today two of the brightest examples of our
Nation's treasure, and that is your National Guard members,
Master Sergeant Regina Stoltzfus of the Pennsylvania National
Guard and also Sergeant First Class William Edgar of the
Mississippi Army National Guard. They have served with
distinction in both the Federal and State missions of the
National Guard.
Master Sergeant Stoltzfus has been deployed to Balad, Iraq,
as a first sergeant of a communications squadron. She served
shoulder to shoulder in the combat zone with active Air Force
Airmen. We often hear that it is impossible to tell the
difference between Guardsmen and active duty troops while
serving together in combat, but we know that, occasionally, you
can tell the difference, and most often, Guardsmen often
perform better.
Sergeant Stoltzfus, for example, was recognized by the wing
commander as the top first sergeant in Iraq during her
deployment. This past winter when winter storms shut down three
major highways in Pennsylvania, Sergeant Stoltzfus answered the
emergency call to the Governor with the rest of her guard unit,
performing traffic control and rescuing stranded motorists in
extreme weather conditions.
Sergeant First Class William Edgar is employed full time by
the Mississippi National Guard Counterdrug Program, but he
still trained for his Federal mission and has deployed twice to
Afghanistan. He was awarded the Army's Bronze Star during his
last combat tour in Afghanistan. When back in Mississippi,
Sergeant Edgar has supported the local, State and Federal law
enforcement community in the United States in their fight
against illegal drugs and as an intel analyst detailed to the
Mississippi Office of the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency. He
is now at the Regional Counterdrug Training Academy as the
supply sergeant. This academy is one of four in the United
States and provides no-cost training to law enforcement
officers in military, specialty skills that later can be used
to leverage the fight against drugs.
The contributions of Sergeant Stoltzfus and Sergeant Edgar
to the security of our Nation both at home and overseas reflect
great credit upon our National Guard, and I am proud that they
could join me here today as representatives of the 460,000
National Guardsmen who stand ready to respond to America's call
both at home and abroad.
The biggest obstacle the National Guard faces in performing
our homeland security mission is critical shortages of
equipment. As documented in a GAO report, the Army National
Guard has on hand approximately 40 percent of its equipment.
And the Air National Guard has approximately 55 percent of its
equipment on hand, leaving us critically short of equipment to
do our combat missions.
Mr. Chairman, as Sergeant Stoltzfus and Sergeant Edgar ave
so proudly demonstrated, your National Guard is fully up to the
task of answering the call both at home and abroad.
I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before the
committee today, and I welcome your questions.
[The statement of General Scherling follows:]
Prepared Statement of MajGen Terry L. Scherling
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to speak to you today as you examine the
National Guard's military support to civil authorities during
disasters. We meet at a trying time in our history, when our Army and
Air National Guard are partnered with our active component Army and Air
Force in combat operations. You can be proud that the citizen-soldiers
and airmen of your Army and Air National Guard are ready to answer the
Nation's call to arms. The National Guardsmen who are mobilized and
deployed overseas are superbly trained and equipped. They serve
shoulder to shoulder with active duty counterparts; all of them
unquestionably the best trained and best equipped American fighting
force in history. But over the past four years, the pace of these
combat operations has been intense and not sustainable. The needs of
the war fight have driven us to raid the shelves of our garrison force.
While our combat soldiers continue to be superbly equipped when they
arrive in the combat theatre, the equipment we bring there gets used
up, blown up or left behind. We've seen the readiness of our units here
at home declined over time, to the point today were it severely limits
our ability to fill our homeland security mission, that of the
Department of Defense's first responders to a domestic disaster.
The good news is that the most challenging parts of our country's
homeland security military response force are already in place. In your
National Guard today we have the best educated, best trained, most
experienced population of Guardsmen in history. Last week the Army
National Guard celebrated reaching the end strength goal of 350,000
troops. The really difficult problems: that of attracting quality
recruits, seasoning them and keeping them, have been solved. Now we
need to turn our attention to giving them the tools they need to train
and stand ready to do the job we need them to do, at home and abroad.
I have with me today two of the brightest examples of the national
treasure that is your National Guard; Master Sergeant Regina Stoltzfus
of the Pennsylvania Air National Guard and Sergeant First Class William
Edgar of the Mississippi National Guard. They have served with
distinction in both the Federal and State missions of the National
Guard. Master Sergeant Stoltzfus, while deployed to Balad, Iraq as the
first sergeant of a communications squadron, served shoulder to
shoulder in the combat zone with active Air Force airmen. We often hear
that it is impossible to tell the difference between Guardsmen and
active troops serving together in combat but we know that force wide
you can tell the difference--Guardsmen often perform better. Sergeant
Stoltzfus, for example, was recognized as the top first sergeant in
Iraq during her deployment.
Sergeant First Class William Edgar is employed full time by the
Mississippi National Guard Counterdrug program. But he still trained
for his federal mission and has deployed twice to Afghanistan. During
his last tour, he was awarded the Army's Bronze Star during his last
combat tour in Afghanistan. When back in Mississippi, Sergeant Edgar
has supported the local, state and federal law enforcement community of
the U.S. in their fight against drugs as an intelligence analyst
detailed to the Mississippi office of the Federal Drug Enforcement
Agency, and now at the Regional Counterdrug Training Academy as the
supply sergeant. That school, one of four in the U.S., provides no cost
training to law enforcement officers in military specialty skills that
they later leverage in the fight against drugs.
The contributions of Sergeant Stoltzfus and Sergeant Edgar to the
security of our nation, both at home and overseas, reflect great credit
upon our National Guard and I'm am proud that they could join me here
today as representatives of the 460,000 National Guardsmen that stand
ready to respond to America's call at home and abroad.
Guard Homeland Security Capabilities
The National Guard's role as our premier homeland security military
responders is the product of a deliberate transformational effort. The
Guard has identified ten of our core group military skills that are
most applicable to our homeland security mission. I share with you now
each of those ten capabilities, which have, like Sergeant Stolzfus and
Sergeant Edgar, a dual application to both the overseas war fight and
the homeland security mission.
Joint Force Headquarters--Command and Control
The Guard has stood up a Joint Force Headquarters command and
control element in every state and territory to provide 24/7
connectivity to speed the response to domestic emergencies. The
deliberate planning skills of the military are integrated into each
state's emergency plans through frequent joint planning sessions and
exercises with our civilian emergency management and emergency response
officials. The Guard has built a capability to train military and civil
first responders for a variety of homeland disaster scenarios.
Civil Support Teams
Every state and territory also now has a full time 22 man WMD civil
support teams trained to detect, identify and assist the civil
emergency response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or
high yield explosive event. These teams train and respond every day in
communities throughout America. In the event of a more severe incident,
the Guard has twelve (soon to be seventeen) more robust CBRNE Enhanced
Response Force Packages; prepared to respond with specialized equipment
and technical rescue and decontamination skills that will save lives in
the aftermath of an attack or natural disaster.
Maintenance
The manpower intensive requirement to maintain and repair essential
emergency equipment is critical to a sustained emergency response. The
Border Patrol reports a 10% improvement in the utilization rate of
their vehicle fleet since Guard mechanics began to support their
operation.
Aviation
Guard aircraft bring mobility in the vertical dimension over
difficult terrain and speed of movement in the fourth dimension of time
in emergency response scenarios where time means lives.
Engineer
Heavy equipment and construction units of the Guard are currently
making infrastructure improvements along the Southwest border that will
improve the efficiency of the Border agents long after the Guard troops
have returned home.
Medical
The deployable emergency medical capability of the Air National
Guard is one of the most intuitive homeland security needs of our
nation. The Guard has a quick response, self sustaining medical
capability.
Communications
In addition to the self sufficient military communications
capability of our units, we've fielded a civil / military interoperable
communications capability in every state and territory that enables
civil responders to communicate with their military counterparts.
Transportation
As we saw in Hurricane Katrina, the military has the capability,
unique in the homeland, to move great quantities of people and
equipment.
Security
The National Guard leverages several specialized military skills to
the security needs of our nation. We have critical infrastructure
protection teams that are analyzing the vulnerabilities our civil,
military and cyber high value assets. Every US state and territory has
a reaction force trained and ready maintain civil security, in addition
to the military police and security forces resident in the Guard. The
Air Guard maintains fighter jets ready to respond on a moment's notice
to threats in the airspace over America. We present programs to reduce
the demand for drugs in our schools and communities and continue our
support of domestic law enforcement operations with our counterdrug
program. The counterdrug program supports law enforcement with
observation and analysis of criminal activity and training of law
enforcement officers. In June 2005, that effort became the model for
our support to the Border Patrol when we deployed 6000 Guardsmen for
Operation Jumpstart to the Southwest border. The Guard State
Partnership Program reaches outside America's borders to developing
countries and builds personal bridges that improved our security
situation at home.
Logistics
The military has a unique ability to sustain operations in an
austere environment. The military specialty of reception, staging,
onward movement and integration is employed in every major domestic
response scenario and is essential to get resources to the citizens in
need.
The National Guard's equipment needs
The biggest obstacle the Guard faces to performing the missions
described above is a critical shortage of equipment.
As documented in a GAO report, the Army National Guard has on-hand
only 40% on average of its equipment requirement across the nation.
This will slow our response to disasters and terrorist incidents in the
homeland, as equipment may need to be brought into an affected area
from further away.
Without this needed equipment, 88 percent of the Army Guard units
based in America, available to their Governors for an emergency, report
``not combat mission ready'' which can roughly be equated to the
ability to respond to a domestic emergency.
For the first time, domestic based Air National Guard units are now
reporting not combat ready as well. Because of flux in the structure of
the Air Guard, many units are in transition between their old and yet
to be defined future mission. The period of uncertainty leaves 45% of
Air Guard units lacking the gear needed to train for and perform their
combat mission.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, as Sergeant Stoltzfus and Sergeant Edgar have so
proudly demonstrated, your National Guard is fully up to the task of
answering the call to duty, both at home and abroad, if only given the
tools to do so.
I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before the committee
today and welcome your questions.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you very much, and I appreciate your
statement.
At this time, I would recognize General Lowenberg to
summarize your statement in 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MAJGEN TIMOTHY J. LOWENBERG, ADJUTANT GENERAL,
STATE OF WASHINGTON
General Lowenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of
the committee, for the opportunity to testify before you today
on behalf of Governor Christine Gregoire of the State of
Washington and the Washington State legislature and the
Adjutants General Association of the United States.
Although I am a U.S. Senate-confirmed general officer of
the Air Force, I want to stress that I am here today in State
status at State expense, and so nothing I have said in my
formal testimony or in these oral remarks has been previewed or
edited by the Department of Defense.
In a majority of the States and territories, the adjutant
general is responsible for managing all of the State's
emergency management functions in addition to command and
control of the National-Guard. We are responsible also for
developing and executing our State homeland security strategic
plan, so adjutants general have extensive experience in
responding to domestic emergencies.
In our State, for example, we have averaged more than one
presidential disaster declaration scale event in our State
every year for the past 40 years, and the Governor's control of
the National-Guard was particularly instrumental in restoring
order and assisting civil authorities during the World Trade
Organization riots in Seattle in November of 1999, something
that also happened on my watch.
So I draw upon these experiences in telling you the passage
of H.R. 869 is critical to restoring historic and appropriate
State-Federal relationships and in enabling States to carry out
their responsibilities under the U.S. Constitution for
maintaining civil order and protecting their citizens' property
and lives. There are many, many things I could address, given
the topic before the committee this morning, but very few of
them are more important than repealing the provisions in last
year's Defense Authorization Act that substantially expanded
the President's unilateral marshal law authority, something
that reversed well more than a century of well established and
carefully balanced State, Federal and civil military
relationships without calling a single witness, without
conducting a single hearing and without any public or private
acknowledgment of proponency or authorship of that change.
I suggest to you that, when changes are made to the law for
the better, there are many, many people who claim some measure
of responsibility for the passage of that provision. This is a
provision which has no DNA, no fingerprints, no one who is
claiming authorship, in fact, no one who will even acknowledge
having reviewed or having coordinated on the change before it
appeared in conference. And it was voted off the Floor of the
House on the same day the conference report was filed.
There were weaker provisions in section 511 of the
Housepassed version of the Defense Authorization Act
that were unanimously opposed by the Nation's Governors. I have
submitted with my formal testimony a copy of a letter signed by
all 50 Governors. There have only been two times in the history
of the National Governors Association in which every Governor
has signed on to correspondence to the Congress and to the
executive branch. Both occurred in the past 18 months. Both
involved National Guard issues. This is one of them. So this is
not a partisan issue. It is a State Federal issue of the
highest order. These conference amendments give the President
sweeping power to unilaterally take control of the National
Guard during a domestic incident without any notice, contact or
consultation with the Governor. It even permits the President
to take control of the National Guard in the middle of a
Governor-directed response-and-recovery operation. The U.S.
Northern Command has wasted very little time, Mr. Chairman, in
acting on these new powers.
Secretary Gates approved a final CONPLAN developed by
Northern Command on March 15, 2007. The plan explicitly assumes
that the Guard will be Federalized. When the President
unilaterally invokes the act, neither adjutants general nor
Governors were given any notice of the development of these
Federal operational plans nor have we had any opportunity to
present our concerns or to synchronize the Governors' approved
State plans with the Northern Command plan. To add insult to
injury, this plan requires the Joint Forces Headquarters of
every State to develop the very plans under which the President
would take control of our forces. One key planning assumption
is that the President will use this authority if he concludes
that local or State authorities lack the will to enforce the
laws.
It is a very highly subjective standard, again, developed
with no notice or consultation with the Governors of the
several States and territories. So the Adjutants General
Association of the United States joins the legislature of our
State--which passed a joint memorial resolution--the National
Governors Association, the National Lieutenant Governors
Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the
Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United
States, the National Emergency Management Association, the
National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of
Emergency Managers, and many, many other national associations
in urging members of this committee, if you have not already
done so, to please consider cosponsoring H.R. 869 and to work
for its swift passage. It is imperative that we have unity of
effort at all levels when responding to domestic emergencies.
Section 1076 of last year's Defense Authorization Act
openly invites disharmony, confusion and the fracturing of what
should be a united effort at the very time when States and
territories need Federal assistance, not a Federal takeover in
responding to State and local emergencies.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee, for allowing me on behalf of my State, my State
legislature, my Governor, and the adjutants general of the
United States to express our concerns. I look forward to your
questions.
[The statement of General Lowenberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of MajGen Timothy Lowenberg
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I want to
emphasize at the outset that I am testifying on behalf of the State of
Washington and the Adjutants General Association of the United States
(AGAUS). Although I am a federally recognized and U.S. Senate-confirmed
Air Force General Officer, I appear before you today as a state
official in pure state status and at state expense. My formal
testimony, oral statement and responses to your questions should
therefore be understood as independent expressions of states' sovereign
interests. Unlike other military panelists who typically appear before
you, nothing I am about to say has been previewed, edited or otherwise
approved by anyone in the Department of Defense.
The Role of Adjutants General in Support of Civil Authorities
During Disasters
In a majority of the states and territories, including the State of
Washington, the Adjutant General is responsible for all state emergency
management functions in addition to command and control of the state's
Army and Air National Guard forces. In addition, I am responsible for
Washington's statewide Enhanced 91 1 telecommunications system and for
developing and executing our statewide Homeland Security Strategic Plan
and administering all of our Homeland Security grant programs.
Washington has averaged more than one Robert T. Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (the Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 5121 Presidential Disaster
declaration a year for the past 40 years and our National Guard forces,
acting under the command and control of the Governor and the Adjutant
General, have been an indispensable response force in nearly every one
of these disasters. The Governor's use of the Washington National Guard
was especially instrumental in helping civil authorities restore public
order in Seattle during the World Trade Organization riots in November
1999.
I speak to you, therefore, as my state's senior official
responsible for military support to civil authorities during disasters.
I have experience as both a supported state commander (the WTO riots
referenced above) and supporting state commander (I deployed more than
1,000 National Guard soldiers and airmen to Gulf Coast states in 2005
in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita).
Five and one-half years after the terrorist attacks of September 1
1,2001, the federal government has unfortunately not come to grips with
how federally controlled military force will be used domestically or
how federal military forces will operate with regard to ongoing
National Guard response and recovery operations under the control of
the governors -the Commanders-in-Chief of the several States and
territories. In last year's Defense Authorization conference, language
was inserted that amends and substantially expands the President's
Martial Law powers notwithstanding the universal opposition of the
nation's governors. In doing so, the conference chairs reversed more
than 100 years of well-established and carefully balanced state-federal
and civil-military relationships. They did so without a single hearing,
without calling a single witness and without any public or private
acknowledgement of authorship of the change. HR 869 would repeal these
ill-advised provisions. Although there are many issues concerning
military support to civil authorities that I could address at this
hearing, none are more important than those raised by HR 869.
HR 869 (and S.513) is not an esoteric, ``academic'' or
``technical''subject for Governors and Adjutants General. Section 1076
of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 109-364;
hereafter referred to as the 2007 NDAA) has very negative and
destructive implications for the state, local and federal unity of
effort called for in Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD
5) and in the comprehensive emergency management plans of the several
states and territories. Under the U.S. Constitution, states retain the
primary responsibility and authority to provide for civil order and
protection of their citizens' lives and property. Passage of HR 869 is
critical to restoration of historic state-federal relationships and to
the states' ability to carry out their constitutional responsibilities.
Applicable Federal Statutes
The Posse Comitatus Act (8 U.S.C. 1385) punishes those who,
``except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the
Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully use any part of the Army or
the Air Force as a posse or otherwise to execute the laws. . .'' The
Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to the National Guard when in state
active duty or federal Title 32 service because the Guard is under the
command and control of the Governor and the Adjutant General in both
statuses. It does apply to the Guard when in Title 10 service, however,
because when the Guard is federalized under Title 10 it becomes an
indistinguishable part of the federal forces and is under federal as
opposed to state control.
The Robert T. Act (cited above) authorizes the President to make a
wide range of federal services available to states that are victims of
natural or human-caused disasters. The Act authorizes the use of
federal military forces for the widest possible range of domestic
disaster relief but not for maintaining law and order and not as an
exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. Some other independent authority
is required if federal military force is to be used to enforce the
laws.
The Insurrection Act (enacted in 1807) delegates authority to the
President to federalize and deploy the National Guard domestically in
response to an insurrection or civil disturbance (10 U.S.C. Sections
331-335). Section 331 authorizes the President to use federal military
forces to suppress an insurrection at the request of a state
government. Section 332 authorizes the President to use military forces
in such manner as he deems necessary to enforce the laws or suppress a
rebellion. Section 333 authorizes the President to use federal military
forces to protect individuals unlawful actions that obstruct the
execution of federal laws or which impede the course of justice under
federal laws. Section 333 was enacted to implement the Fourteenth
Amendment and does not require the request or consent of the governor
of the affected state.
Prior to the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act conference
amendments, therefore, there were carefully crafted statutes that
delegated authority to the President to federalize the National Guard
and to employ the Title 10 National Guard forces and other Title 10
active duty military forces for domestic purposes in response to
domestic emergencies (Stafford Act) violence (Insurrection Act). The
Insurrection Act's martial law authority has been used sparingly. In
fact, it has been invoked only 10 times in the past half-century. In
every instance in which it has been used in the past 40 years, the
President has acted at the request and with the concurrence of the
governor of the state whose National Guard forces were federalized.
The 2007 National Defense Authorization Act
Expands Federal Martial Law by Amending the Insurrection Act
The House-passed version of the 2007 National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA) proposed to expand the circumstances in which the President
could seize control of the National Guard ``federalize'' the Guard) for
domestic purposes. As noted above, the Act already permits the
President to use active duty military forces for emergency response
operations including debris removal and road clearance; search and
rescue; emergency medical care and shelter; provision of food, water
and other essential needs; dissemination of public information and
assistance regarding health and safety measures; and the provision of
technical advice to state and local governments on disaster management
and control. (See CRS Report Federal Act Disaster Assistance:
Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding). Since the
Act authority does not constitute an exception to the Posse Cornitatus
Act, however, active duty military forces cannot be used for law
enforcement purposes unless circumstances permit the President to
independently invoke the Insurrection Act. Similarly, the President
lacked authority to federalize the National Guard unless he was doing
so under the Insurrection Act to suppress an ``insurrection, domestic
violence, combination, or conspiracy. . .'' U.S.C. 333.
Section 511 of the House-passed version of the 2007 NDAA would have
delegated authority to the President to involuntarily seize control of
the National Guard in the event of any ``serious natural or disaster,
accident or catastrophe''. The effect of Section 511 would have been to
authorize the President to involuntarily take control of the Guard for
emergency response purposes but not for law enforcement operations
unless circumstances independently justified the President's invocation
of the Insurrection Act.
As the 2007 NDAA went to conference, the National Governors
Association (NGA) sent letters to the ranking majority and minority
members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives and to the
Secretary of Defense (see attached August 6 and 3 1,2006 letters)
protesting the provisions of Section 511. The governors noted that
Section 511 and similar provisions in the Senate bill would represent
``a dramatic expansion of federal authority during natural disasters
that could cause confusion in the command-and-control of the National
Guard and interfere with states' ability to respond to natural
disasters within their borders''. They reiterated that any such
fundamental change in law should be considered only in consultation and
coordination with the governors and ``The role of the Guard in the
states and to the nation as a whole is too important to have major
policy decisions made without full debate and input from the governors
throughout the policy process.''
In conference, the chairs dropped the House version (Section 511)
but substituted an even broader provision that simultaneously amended
the federal Insurrection Act and authorized the President to take
control of the Guard in response to any ``natural disaster, epidemic or
other serious public emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other
condition in any State or possession of the United States. . . .''
Because this was done under an expansion of the President's
Insurrection Act powers, military forces operating at the President's
direction in such circumstances are not subject to the Posse Comitatus
Act and can be used to force compliance with laws by any rules for use
of lethal force (RUF) or rules of engagement (ROE) authorized by the
President or those acting under his delegated authority.
The conference report was agreed to in the House on the same day as
its filing (September 29, 2006) and in the Senate the following day
(September 30,2006).
Without any hearing or consultation with the governors and without
any articulation or justification of need, Section 1076 of the 2007
NDAA changed more than 100 years of well-established and carefully
balanced state--federal and civil -military relationships. I
respectfully suggest that when laws are changed for the better,
everyone who supports the change claims credit for its passage. These
provisions, however, have no ``DNA'', and no acknowledged author. In
fact, state officials have been unable to identify anyone who will even
acknowledge having reviewed or coordinated on the changes before they
were inserted into the conference report.
As written, the Act does not require the President to contact,
confer or collaborate in any way with a governor before seizing control
of a state's National Guard forces. It requires only notice to Congress
that the President has taken the action but no explanation,
justification or consent of congress is required.
If these provisions had been in effect during the 2005 Hurricane
Katrina response, the President could have unilaterally seized control
of the National Guard forces of all 54 states, territories and the
District of Columbia as they were engaged in ongoing recovery
operations in the Gulf Coast states. He could have done so by a
unilateral determination that state authorities were incapable of
preventing public violence and maintaining public order. Ironically,
the President's unilateral assumption of control over the Guard might
well be the very act that would preclude a state from having the
resources to maintain or restore public order.
In the event of such a federal take-over, governors of supporting
state forces would be unable to withdraw their units or exercise any
control or influence over their personnel even if there was an
unexpected emergency in their home state.
The Adjutants General Association of the United States (AGAUS)
urges Congress to restore the historic balance of state and federal
interests by swiftly passing HR 869. AGAUS believes that, with the
exception of two circumstances noted below, governors should control
any and all domestic use of military force within their state
(regardless of whether the domestically employed forces are Active,
Reserve or National Guard forces) and should retain control over their
own National Guard forces wherever and whenever they are employed
within the United States or its territories or the District of
Columbia. The two exceptions are: (1) if National Guard lethal force is
required under the direction of national command authorities to repel
an attack or invasion against the United States or (2) if National
Guard units or personnel are being used in state status to resist a
order of the judicial, legislative or executive branches of the federal
government the school desegregation and civil rights cases of 1957-
1965).
Interference with Essential State Interests
The National Guard is the only organized, trained and equipped
military force a governor can call upon to restore or sustain public
safety in the event of a state or local emergency, including
enforcement of state declarations of martial law (see, for example, RCW
38.08.030, authorizing the governor's ``Proclamation of complete or
limited martial With the exception of the two circumstances noted
above, the domestic use of military force within any state without the
governor's consent, supervision and ultimate control and the imposition
of federal control over a state's National Guard units or personnel for
domestic purposes without the governor's prior knowledge and consent
are of state sovereignty and deprive states of the means of carrying
out the core of state government, including protection of a state's
citizens under the state's existing laws or as part of a state's
imposition and enforcement of its own martial law provisions.
Further, imposing Presidential control over the National Guard for
domestic purposes without notice to the governor and without the
governor's consent negates the unity of local-state-federal effort
needed in times of domestic peril and would undermine the speed and
efficiency with which the National Guard responds under the Governor's
control to in-state emergencies and in support of other states through
state-to-state mutual aid agreements such as the Emergency Management
Assistance Compact (EMAC)
Federal Plans for Implementing Expanded Martial Law Authority
US Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) has been engaged for some time in
deliberative planning for implementation of Section 1076 of the 2007
National Defense Authorization Act (the NDAA was effective October
17,2006). The formal NORTHCOM 2502-05 was approved by Secretary of
Defense Gates on March 15,2007. The final approved plan states ``This
document is classified UNCLASSIFIED to ensure ease of use by both
military and interagency organizations and personnel whose official
duties require specific knowledge of this plan, including those
required to develop supporting plans. Information in USNORTHCOM 2502
may be disseminated to all interagency, National Guard Bureau, federal,
tribal, state and local governments.''
Although the 2007 NDAA provisions could be used to compel National
Guard forces to engage in civil disturbance operations under federal
control, states have had no notice of the development of these federal
operational plans nor have governors or their Adjutants General had any
opportunity to present their concerns or to synchronize their state
plans during the development and coordination of the USNORTHCOM plan.
The UNCLASSIFIED plan I have seen says National Guard forces
conducting civil disturbance operations in the affected [both National
Guard forces from the affected or supported state and National Guard
forces from other supporting states operating therein] ``will likely be
federalized upon execution of the plan. Further, the plan requires each
state's National Guard Joint Forces Headquarters to develop the very
plans under which the federal government would assume control over the
state's National Guard forces.
One key USNORTHCOM planning assumption is that the President will
invoke the new Martial Law powers if he concludes state or local
authorities lack the capability or the will to maintain order. This
highly subjective operational standard has been developed without any
notice, consultation or collaboration with the governors of the several
states and territories.
All States and Territories and Numerous National Associations Urge
Congress to swiftly enact HR 869
The Adjutants General Association of the U.S. (AGAUS) joins the
following institutions and national organizations in urging Congress to
repeal Section 1076 of the 2007 NDAA through swift enactment of HR 869:
the Washington State Legislature, the National Governors Association
(NGA), the National Lieutenant Governors Association (NLGA), the
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), the Enlisted
Association of the National Guard of the United States (EANGUS), the
National Sheriffs Association (NSA), the National Emergency Management
Association (NEMA) and the International Association of Emergency
Managers (IAEM).
Conclusion
It is imperative that we have unity of effort at all levels--local,
state and federal--when responding to domestic emergencies and
disasters. Section 1076 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act
is a hastily conceived and ill-advised step backward. It openly invites
disharmony, confusion and the fracturing of what should be a united
effort at the very time when states and territories need federal
assistance--not a federal take over--in responding to state and local
emergencies.
Thank you for this opportunity to express the concerns of the State
of Washington, the Adjutants General Association of the United States
and the other national associations referenced herein.
Mr. Cuellar. Yes, sir.
Thank you, again, very much for your time.
At this time, I would recognize General Pineda to summarize
your statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MAJGEN TONY PINEDA, NATIONAL COMMANDER, CIVIL AIR
PATROL
General Pineda. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of
the committee. I am pleased to have this opportunity to testify
on behalf of the Civil Air Patrol on the use of the Civil Air
Patrol assets for humanitarian assistance, aerial
reconnaissance, search and rescue, and emergency services. I
would like to assure you that CAP is the perfect fit to support
this effort because of the skill, expertise and experience this
organization brings to the table.
It is important for you to understand how CAP is different
from other volunteer public service organizations. We started,
in World War II, flying antisubmarine missions with light
aircraft off the Atlantic coast when the military was unable to
do that mission. It was a dangerous and essential national
mission that we did well. We continued that tradition with
service to this very day. We have over 500 light aircraft and
professionally trained aircrews on alert and ready to respond.
The capability is supported by vast communications of command
network ground teams capable of conducting emergency missions
and thousands of trained professional volunteers.
These assets are located in hundreds of communities, towns
and cities in every single State. We utilize modern
technologies, including satellite-ransmitted aerial photos and
hyper-spectral imaging, and can quickly take on new
technologies. No other volunteer organization in the United
States can provide that kind of capability.
Mr. Chairman, the Civil Air Patrol is ready to help now.
Emergency services is our niche. Civil Air Patrol conducts 95
percent of all inland search and rescues in the United States
as tasked by the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center at
Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida and other agencies. All Air
Forceassigned missions are coordinated to the Civil Air
Patrol National Operations Center at Maxwell Air Force Base in
Alabama. Civil Air Patrol also provides disaster relief,
support to local, State and national disaster relief
organizations, which may include transporting
timesensitive medical materials, blood products and
body tissues. CAP is also equipped to provide near-realtime
damage assessment, light transport, communication support, and
low-altitude route surveys for the U.S. Air Force. We also
assist agencies in the war on drugs. Finally, we maintain the
most extensive emergency communications network in the Nation
with over 16,000 radios across the Nation.
The past few years have highlighted the phenomenal bravery,
sacrifice and patriotism of the Civil Air Patrol's everyday
heroes. Our rapid response to Hurricanes Katrina, Ophelia, Rita
and Wilma was the organization's most extensive ever. During
the relief efforts, Civil Air Patrol deployed 1,800 members
from 17 States who served over 50,000 volunteer hours; flew
over 1,000 air missions; and logged over 2,000 flight hours;
provided more than 2,000 timecritical aerial images of
the affected areas; distributed 30,000 pounds of relief
supplies; ground teams visited over 4,000 homes, contacting
over 8,500 residents.
CAP aviators and other members continue to support the
country by taking part in several vital exercises at the
request of the U.S. Air Force. As a result, Major General-Scott
Mayes, a former First Air Force commander, stated, ``CAP has
become an important partner in our homeland defense mission.
Because of the cooperation between CAP and NORAD, we are better
able to meet our Nation's requirements for rapid response to
any threat to our sovereignty.''
That same level of CAP commitment and cooperation continued
last summer. At the request of the Chief of Staff of the Air
Force, CAP commenced increased training in Arizona in the
anticipation of follow-on taskings. These mission rehearsals
began on the 17th of July and continued for about 21 days, and
the exercise was involving the reconnaissance and rescue of
citizens on the border in Arizona.
As CAP celebrates 65 years of service, it prepares for
challenges yet to come in an increasingly complicated world.
Whatever dangers or opportunities lay ahead, CAP's volunteers
are poised to heed the call with the same patriotic spirit that
has always distinguished CAP's missions for America. CAP is one
team with no borders, and the one goal is to serve our country.
Thank you, and I have some fact sheets of paper that I
would like to give to your clerk, detailing some information
about the Civil Air Patrol.
[The statement of General Pineda follows:]
Prepared Statement of MajGen Antonio J. Pineda
Good afternoon Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am pleased
to have this opportunity to testify on behalf of the Civil Air Patrol
(CAP) on the use of CAP assets for humanitarian assistance, aerial
reconnaissance, search and rescue, and emergency services. I would like
to assure you CAP is the perfect fit to support this effort because of
the skill, expertise, and experience this organization brings to the
table.
History
First, allow me to enlighten the rest of the members on who we are
and what we do. Civil Air Patrol was founded in December 1941, during a
time of uncertainty and danger one week before the Japanese attack on
Pearl Harbor that hurled America into global conflict. In America's
time of wartime need, CAP's fledgling organization of 150,000 volunteer
citizen aviators halted the deadly, destructive designs of Germany's
Nazi U-boats in America's coastal waters. Under the jurisdiction of the
Army Air Forces, CAP pilots flew more than one-half million hours, were
credited with sinking two enemy submarines and rescued hundreds of
crash survivors during World War II. On July 1, 1946, President Harry
Truman established CAP as a federally chartered benevolent civilian
corporation, and Congress passed Public Law 557 on May 26, 1948, making
CAP the auxiliary of the new U.S. Air Force. CAP was and is still today
charged with three primary missions--aerospace education, cadet
programs and emergency services. I will focus my comments today on the
emergency services mission.
It is important for you to understand why CAP is a different from
other volunteer public service organizations. We started in World War
II flying antisubmarine missions with light aircraft off the Atlantic
coast when the military was unable to do that mission. It was a
dangerous and essential national mission that we did well. We continue
that tradition of service to this very day. We have over 500 light
aircraft and professional, trained aircrews, on alert and ready to
respond. That capability is supported by a vast communications and
command network, ground teams capable of conducting emergency missions
and thousands of trained volunteers. These assets are located in
hundreds of communities, towns and cities in every state. We utilize
modern technologies including satellite transmitted aerial photos and
hyper-spectral imaging and can quickly take on new technologies. No
other volunteer organization in the United States can provide that kind
of capability. Mr. Chairman, we are ready to help now.
CAP operates as an all-volunteer civilian community asset and the
auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force with cover 55,000 members. It includes
eight geographic regions consisting of 52 wings, one in each of the 50
states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia for a total number of
units that exceeds 1,500. CAP operates one of the largest fleets of
single-engine piston aircraft in the world with 530 aircraft and our
volunteer members fly nearly 110,000 hours each year. Additionally, CAP
maintains a fleet of nearly 1,000 emergency services vehicles for
training and mission support.
Emergency Services is our niche. CAP conducts 95 percent of all
inland search and rescue in the United States, as tasked by the Air
Force Rescue Coordination Center at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia,
and other agencies. All Air Force-assigned missions are coordinated
through the CAP National Operations Center at Maxwell Air Force Base,
Alabama. We are called upon to perform aerial reconnaissance for
homeland security. CAP also provides disaster-relief support to local,
state, and national disaster relief organizations which may include
transporting time-sensitive medical materials, blood products, and body
tissues. CAP is also equipped to provide near real time damage
assessment, light transport, communications support, and low-altitude
route surveys for the U.S. Air Force. We also assist federal agencies
in the war on drugs. Finally, we maintain the most extensive emergency
communications network in the nation with over 16,000 radios.
As has been a tradition for over 65 years, CAP pilots and aircraft
are highly valued for their ability to fly low and slow making them the
ideal observation platform. Federal and state agencies have regularly
called on CAP pilots and observers to take vital damage assessment
photos or search for crash victims. CAP aircrews are an ideal resource
throughout the country because of their experience in search and rescue
and their ability to provide aerial imagery in a cost-effective manner.
Its customers, especially the U.S. military, pay a very small fee for
the outstanding service CAP provides. When the U.S. Air Force assigns a
mission to CAP, it generally costs less than $120 per flying hour.
The past few years have highlighted the phenomenal bravery,
sacrifice and patriotism of CAP's Everyday Heroes. Our rapid response
to Hurricanes Katrina, Ophelia, Rita and Wilma was the organization's
most extensive ever. During the relief efforts CAP deployed 1,800
members from 17 states who served over 50,000 volunteer hours; flew
over 1,000 air missions and logged over 2,000 flight hours; provided
more than 2,000 time-critical aerial images of the affected areas;
distributed 30,000 pounds of relief supplies; ground teams visited over
4,000 homes, contacting over 8,500 residents. CAP's great work didn't
stop with hurricane relief efforts. Additionally, members carried out
over 2,500 search and rescue missions and saved 73 lives. In
conjunction with many other organizations, CAP helped reduce illegal
drug activity by more than $637 million. Whether searching for a
missing hunter in Oregon, seeking missing or overdue helicopters in
Louisiana and Arkansas, providing flood relief in Pennsylvania or
assessing tornado damage in Kentucky, CAP members were there performing
missions for America.
CAP aviators and other members continue to support U.S. homeland
security taking part in several vital exercises at the request of the
U.S. Air Force. As a result, Maj. Gen. M. Scott Mayes, former 1st Air
Force Commander, stated, ``CAP has become an important partner in our
homeland defense mission. Because of the cooperation between CAP and
NORAD, we're better able to meet our nation's requirements for rapid
response to any threat to our air sovereignty. This kind of teamwork is
vital to our rapid-response capability. Together, when we're called
upon, we'll be ready to act, and act fast.''
The Arizona Border Mission
That same level of CAP commitment and cooperation continued last
summer. At the request of the CSAF, CAP commenced increased training in
Arizona in the anticipation of follow-on taskings. These mission
rehearsals began on 17 July of 2006. CAP is training in Search and
Rescue, Aerial Reconnaissance and Radio Relay. In the course of these
training missions, if CAP aircrew members observed individuals in
distress, appropriate authorities were notified. Concurrently, USAF
staff members are actively developing a Concept of Operations so that
we can smoothly transition to support of the Border Patrol, should the
Department of Defense receive a request for assistance. The bottom line
need was to protect lives along the border.
Conclusion
As CAP celebrates 65 years of service, it prepares for challenges
yet to come in an increasingly complicated world. Whatever dangers or
opportunities lay ahead, CAP's volunteers are poised to heed the call
with the same patriotic spirit that has always distinguished CAP's
missions for America. In that light, CAP is the right fit for this
mission and remains committed to assisting border security operations
if called upon to continue or expand its role. However, several issues
that may limit our effectiveness must be addressed. First, as various
federal, state, or local agencies come together to work on a mission
such as this one the overall effectiveness and results of the total
effort may be enhanced by placing one agency in a position of
overarching authority. This lead agency could then most efficiently and
effectively orchestrate and direct all operational and support activity
to accomplish the mission. Secondly, since CAP is a private non-profit
corporation and the Air Force Auxiliary, should ``Posse Comitatus''
apply to operations such as this one? CAP stands ready to address and
assist in resolving these and any other issues if you wish to continue
utilizing us in this role.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the members of this
committee for your strong and devoted support of Civil Air Patrol. As
National Commander of this outstanding group of citizen volunteers, I
encourage you to recognize the fact that CAP continues to provide an
irreplaceable, professional and highly cost-effective force multiplier
to America. Through the voluntary public service of more than 55,000
members, CAP makes a priceless and positive impact in communities by
performing disaster relief and search & rescue missions, and also by
providing aerospace education and cadet programs. CAP serves as a
guardian of the skies and a skilled resource on the ground, wherever
the call and whatever the mission.
Mr. Cuellar. Yes. Please, go ahead and submit that. Again,
thank you for your testimony.
At this time, I recognize Mr. Cannon, and if you could
summarize your testimony to 5 minutes, we would appreciate it,
and then we will go to Mr. Womack, and then we will go ahead
and open the hearing up for questions. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF GLENN CANNON, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR DISASTER
OPERATIONS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Mr. Cannon. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you
today. I look forward to working with this subcommittee and the
entire Congress to continue the improvements to enhance the
capabilities of the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA.
Based on our experiences and lessons learned over the
years, we are building a new FEMA and increasing our core
capabilities to lead our Nation's all-hazard preparedness,
protection, response, recovery and mitigation capabilities. We
are implementing recommendations from the post-Katrina reviews
and after-action reports and the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act of 2006.
A recurring recommendation is the need to more fully
integrate military capabilities into Federal disaster response
activities. As a result, we are coordinating more closely with
DOD and its components, the National Guard Bureau and the State
National Guards. This morning, I want to highlight some of the
joint activities we are talking with our military partners to
approve overall disaster response capabilities.
DOD plays a key role supporting FEMA by planning,
coordinating and integrating defense support to civil
authorities. This is the support provided by DOD in response to
requests for disaster assistance. Under the National Response
Plan, DOD supports all 15 emergency support functions. Such
support can include commodity distributions, search and rescue,
communications, evacuation, fuel distribution and power
generation. This support is typically provided through the
mission assignment process. Within DOD, NORTHCOM is responsible
for military operations to support disaster response. DOD
command and control elements are collocated at a disaster site
with the principal Federal officer and the Federal coordinating
officer.
FEMA coordinates with DOD and the assistant secretary of
defense for Homeland Defense level and with the Joint Staff
through the Joint Director of Military Support. Among the DOD
components we coordinate with, they are the following: U.S.
Northern Command, Defense Logistics Agency, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the
U.S. Transportation Command, the U.S. Pacific Command, the U.S.
Southern Command, the Marine Corps Assistance Command and the
National Guard Bureau.
Some examples of our coordination include assignment of DOD
liaison officers over at FEMA headquarters, assignment of
Defense coordinating officers and Defense coordinating elements
at our FEMA regions, details of DOD personnel to support FEMA's
activities and logistics, operations, transportation, and
communication. We have permanent FEMA personnel assigned to
staff at NORTHCOM and the joint development of 44 prescripted
mission assignments with DOD to provide functional disaster
response support such as airlift, transportation,
communications, debris removal, damage assessment, fuel
distribution, and operational staging area support. Because of
the success of this effort, we are developing additional
prescripted mission assignments with other Federal
agencies.
FEMA participates routinely in DOD-sponsored exercises at
the State and local and regional levels, such as NORTHCOM's
table talk exercise program, the vigilant shield catastrophic
disaster response exercises, the Ardent Sentry/Northern Edge 07
exercise, and exercise to test and validate communications
capabilities and interoperability. Similarly, DOD participates
in the DHS top officials exercise series with FEMA-sponsored
national and regional exercises and workshops, leveraging
specialized expertise from the Defense Logistics Agency, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Marine Corps systems
command and collaborating in the areas of training and
catastrophic planning and cross-border emergency preparedness
activities with Mexico and Canada.
The National Guard Bureau and the State National Guard
provide critical disaster response assistance to the States and
to FEMA. We coordinate closely with them to ensure the
synchronization of their capabilities with the disaster
response mission. Also, a full-time Joint director or military
support liaison officer with a National Guard background is
assigned to FEMA to support day-to-day operations and
coordination.
Our coordination with the National Guard takes place in the
field and at headquarters. FEMA's regional staff works closely
with the State National Guard. FEMA headquarters' staff works
closely with the National Guard Bureau. State requirements for
National Guard support are normally filled through the
Emergency Management Assistance Compact process. During the
response to Hurricane Katrina, more than 50,000 National Guard
troops were deployed through those EMAC requests.
Some examples of our coordination with the National Guard
include daily conference calls, the sharing of incident
reports, assessments of continuity of operations, and
participation in exercises and training. The Guard also
supports homeland defense-and-disaster response with a number
of their specialized capabilities.
The Coast Guard is another critical DHS component with
substantial disaster response capabilities as we saw during
Katrina, the Coast Guard is also called upon to support mission
assignments under the ten emergency support functions. To help
ensure coordination, there are two Coast Guard liaisons
assigned to FEMA headquarters who are there every day.
DHS and FEMA rely on and appreciate the support of the
Department of Defense, the National Guard Bureau and the State
National Guard. We look forward to our continued close
cooperation with and support from our military partners as we
lead the effort to build a more effective national emergency
management system to help protect the American public.
Thank you for your time today, and I look forward to
answering your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Cannon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Glenn M. Cannon
Introduction
Chairman Thompson, Subcommittee Chairman Cueller, Ranking Members
King and Dent, and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me
to appear before you today.
I am Glenn M. Cannon, Assistant Administrator, Disaster Operations
Directorate, FEMA. Let me start by saying that I look forward to
working with this Subcommittee and the entire Congress to continue the
improvements we are implementing to enhance the capabilities of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). Based on our experiences and lessons learned
over the years, we are working hard to reorganize and build a new FEMA
to further improve our Nation's all-hazards preparedness, protection,
response, recovery and mitigation systems and capabilities. We are
taking the first steps in what will be a multi-year effort to
significantly increase FEMA's core capabilities and capacity to better
serve and protect our Nation and its citizens.
FEMA learned significant lessons from the 2005 Hurricane Season.
Following Hurricane Katrina, the White House issued a report entitled,
``The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina Lessons Learned'' in which
several recommendations were included related to integrating the use of
military capabilities in catastrophic disaster response. The report
specifically stated that the Department of Defense (DOD) and DHS should
jointly plan for the DOD's support of Federal response activities. The
report also recommended that DOD and DHS plan and prepare for a
significant DOD supporting role during a catastrophic event. It further
stated that DOD's joint operational response doctrine is an integral
part of the national effort and must be fully integrated into the
national response at all levels of government and that DOD should have
a contingency role and a requirement to assist DHS with expertise in
logistics, planning, and total asset visibility. The White House Report
stated that the National Response Plan (NRP) and its Catastrophic
Incident Supplement (CIS) should specify the specific requirements for
DOD resources based on the magnitude and type of catastrophic incident.
More recently, the ``DHS Appropriations Act of 2007/Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006,'' (Post-Katrina Act)
articulated new expectations for FEMA, established new leadership
responsibilities, brought an expanded scope of missions, and called for
FEMA to undertake a broad range of activities involving preparedness,
protection, response, recovery and mitigation both before and after
terrorist events, natural and manmade disasters. The Post-Katrina Act
contains provisions that set out new law, amend the Homeland Security
Act (HSA), and amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act).
Among the specific responsibilities assigned to FEMA in the Post-
Katrina Act are:
leading the nation's comprehensive emergency
management efforts (including protection) for all hazards,
including catastrophic incidents;
partnering with non-Federal entities to build a
national emergency management system;
developing Federal response capabilities;
integrating FEMA's comprehensive emergency management
responsibilities;
building robust regional offices to address regional
priorities;
using DHS resources under the Secretary's leadership;
building non-Federal emergency management
capabilities, including those involving communications; and
developing and coordinating the implementation of a
risk-based all hazards preparedness strategy that addresses the
unique needs of certain incidents.
DOD has a key role supporting FEMA in many of these areas and in
overall planning, coordinating, and integrating Defense Support to
Civil Authorities (DSCA) with local, State, and Federal agencies. DSCA
is DOD?s support, provided by its Federal military forces, DOD
civilians, contract personnel, and DOD components, in response to
requests for assistance. The DOD focus in domestic disaster response is
on providing homeland defense, supporting civil operations, and
cooperating in theater security activities designed to protect the
American people and their way of life. FEMA?s partnership with DOD
continues to evolve and the disaster response support DOD and its
multiple components bring to FEMA is critical to enhancing our
comprehensive preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and
mitigation capabilities for dealing with all types of natural and man-
made hazards.
It is my pleasure to highlight the multiple facets of coordination
and cooperation between FEMA and its partners in DOD.
FEMA and DOD Coordination
DHS/FEMA coordinates with DOD through the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Homeland Defense (ASD/HD), and specifically coordinates
with the Joint Staff through the Joint Director of Military Support
(JDOMS). The support from the Secretary of Defense and the DOD in
preparing for all types of disasters is critical. Beneficial support is
provided by different DOD components including:
US Northern Command (USNORTHCOM)
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
U S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
National Guard Bureau (NGB)
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)
US Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM)
US Pacific Command (USPACOM)
US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM)
Marine Corps Systems Command
Collectively with DOD and the State National Guards, FEMA and its
partners have learned many lessons from the response to Hurricane
Katrina and many other disasters and are using these lessons to enhance
overall coordination and cooperation to improve future disaster
responses. Coordination has and continues to take place among all of
these organizations in many different forms and forums such as the
following:
DOD assignment of liaison officers to FEMA Headquarters to
represent JDOMS, USNORTHCOM, and the NGB. The liaisons help ensure
effective coordination of activities, provide advice, prepare reports,
and facilitate relationship building for more effective and timely
DSCA;
Two FEMA representatives are assigned permanently at USNORTHCOM to
facilitate exchange of information and provide advice on FEMA programs
and disaster response issues. FEMA and USNORTHCOM have been closely
coordinating and cooperating in a number of areas including:
Routine video-teleconferences to facilitate
development of pre-scripted mission assignments and exchange
information;
Direct exchange of operational information and reports
between USNORTHCOM's Command Center and FEMA's National
Response Coordination Center (NRCC);
Detail of USNORTHCOM and USTRANSCOM planning personnel
to augment FEMA's planning staff and capabilities;
Coordination of activities of USNORTHCOM, FEMA's
Operation Planning Unit, and the DHS Incident Management
Planning Team (IMPT) to more fully synchronize and integrate
DOD and DHS/FEMA planning and response activities. A DOD staff
member is assigned to the DHS IMPT;
FEMA and USNORTHCOM collaboration, with ASD/HD and JDOMS, to
develop Pre-Scripted Mission Assignments (PSMAs) to facilitate
DSCA for hurricanes and other disaster response. Thus far, 16
PSMAs have been pre-approved and coordinated between DOD and
FEMA with an additional 28 between FEMA and USACE. The PSMAs,
also to be incorporated into the 15 National Planning
Scenarios, include the following general support:
Rotary Wing Lift Support (Heavy and Medium
support)
Tactical and Strategic Transportation Support
Communications Support
First Responder Support
Emergency Route Clearance Support
Aerial Damage Assessment Support
Support in preparation of Temporary Housing
Sites
Mobilization Center Support
Operational Staging Area Support
Fuel Distribution Support
Rotary Wing Medical Evacuation Support
Temporary Medical Facilities Support
Support from USNORTHCOM in posting interagency data
elements by Emergency Support Functions on the DHS Homeland
Security Information Network (HSIN) to enhance the interagency
common operating picture. This facilitates preparation of
timely and authoritative information for the President and
senior officials;
FEMA and USNORTHCOM co-sponsorship of the annual
Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) ? Defense Coordinating
Officer (DCO) Conference designed to maintain and enhance
civilian-military interaction and support of planning and
disaster response activities within each FEMA Regional Office;
Planning support from the Joint Interagency
Coordination Group (JIACG), USNORTHCOM's primary interagency
forum. The JIACG consists of approximately 60 interagency
Combatant Command, service component, and staff representatives
that support planning efforts at all levels related to such key
issues as the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC),
private sector engagement, critical infrastructure protection,
pandemic influenza planning, and engagement on interagency
coordination of cross border major disaster events response
activities. The JIACG interagency representatives also provide
``reach-back'' capability to provide and receive information
from interagency partner organizations;
Participation by USNORTHCOM and its components in the
FEMA led New Madrid Seismic Zone Catastrophic Planning
Initiative and other catastrophic planning initiatives to
examine preparedness, response, and recovery measures at the
local, State and Federal levels;
Participation by USNORTHCOM in the Department of State
and FEMA-led interagency effort to develop an International
Assistance System Concept of Operations. This will establish,
within the National Response Plan framework, policies and
procedures to enhance management of international resources
provided to the US by concerned nations during disaster
response operations;
USNORTHCOM coordination with the National Emergency
Management Association (NEMA) and the EMAC representatives to
share information and gain a better understanding of planning
and operational response needs;
FEMA, EPA and USNORTHCOM coordination to implement an
interagency approach to Building Partnership Capacity in
emergency preparedness and response between the four US Border
States and six Mexican Border States and the Canadian border
provinces. These cross border preparedness efforts will
strengthen understanding and coordination of border municipal,
county and State response capabilities for hazardous materials,
natural disasters and potential man made events to protect our
citizens and support the trilateral Presidential Security and
Prosperity Partnership; and
Leadership visits, exercise cooperation, and exchange
of Operation Officers.
Close coordination between FEMA and USACE to facilitate USACE
support in conducting pre-and post-incident assessments of public works
and infrastructure; providing engineering expertise; managing
construction; and providing certain response commodities;
DOD component participation in FEMA's Senior Emergency
Support Function Leaders Group (ESFLG) Meetings, in which lead
Emergency Support Function (ESF) managers (and other
organizations with equities) convene to discuss roles and
responsibilities, update the National Response Plan, and
discuss disaster preparedness and response issues;
Maintenance of a list of DOD organizations that can
support FEMA in disaster response activities;
DOD assignment of Regional Defense Coordinating
Officers (DCOs) supported by Defense Coordinating Elements
(DCE) in FEMA's Regions to ensure military coordination at the
Regional level. All 10 FEMA Regions were staffed by Permanent
or Acting DCOs and support DCEs by June 1, 2006; and
DOD assignment of planners to support the FEMA
Headquarters in the areas of logistics, transportation,
medical, and communications and support the Gulf Coast Recovery
Office in the areas of logistics, transportation, medical,
communications, operations, and aviation during the 2006
Hurricane Season.
As the 2007 Hurricane Season approaches, FEMA's close
coordination of activities with DOD continues. Processes and
procedures continue to be reviewed and refined and there is
ongoing coordination of training, disaster response planning,
and exercise activities as well as ongoing joint coordination
with the States and staff exchanges.
National Guard and National Guard Bureau: Federal and State Military
Integration
The National Guard is the organized militia reserved to the States
by the Constitution. In peacetime, the National Guard is commanded by
the governor of each respective State or territory. When ordered to
Federal active duty for mobilization or for emergencies, units of the
National Guard are under the control of the appropriate service
secretary. The FY04 National Defense Authorization Act amended Title 32
to make it possible for a National Guard officer to be in command of
Federal (Active Duty) and State (National Guard Title 32 and State
Active Duty) forces simultaneously.
Generally, there are two levels of coordination between FEMA and
the National Guard. FEMA coordination with the National Guard at the
State level routinely takes place between FEMA Regional staff and State
officials. In fact, 14 of The Adjutant Generals (TAG), the leadership
of the National Guard are also State Emergency Management Officials
(SEMOs). At the national level, FEMA coordinates with the National
Guard Bureau (NGB) which routinely interacts with all States and
Territories on DSCA and Homeland Security matters to coordinate
providing national level support. FEMA can request the NGB to assess
National Guard capabilities but does not generally use the Mission
Assignment (MA) process to directly leverage National Guard
capabilities. To do so would require that DOD place the National Guard
under Title 10 status. State requirements for National Guard support
are normally filled under NEMA EMAC processes. Also, the NGB can assist
States in identifying National Guard capabilities available to meet
EMAC requirements. During Hurricane Katrina, EMAC requests for
assistance were executed using National Guardsmen.
FEMA continues to coordinate and cooperate with the various States'
TAGs, as well as with the NGB, in a number of disaster response-related
areas to include improving situational awareness, communications
planning, force package planning, and overall mission and disaster
response planning. In addition to a full-time JDOMS Liaison Officer
with a National Guard background, being assigned to FEMA's Disaster
Operations Directorate for day-to-day operations, during actual
disaster response operations response operations, FEMA engages closely
with both the State NGs and the NGB to ensure close coordination and
synchronization of disaster response activities.
At the State level, there are approximately 14 TAGs who serve as
SEMOs or act as the Director of Homeland Security within a given State.
Even if the TAGS are not SEMOs, FEMA coordinates routinely at the
regional level with the National Guard, under State control, to ensure
disaster response efforts are coordinated.
We have taken several actions to improve daily coordination between
FEMA and the NGB, including:
Convening daily conference calls to review current operational
activities between NRCC/Watch, NGB/Joint Operations Center (JOC), and
USNORTHCOM's Command Center;
Sharing daily informational reports between the NGB JOC and
FEMA's 24/7 Watch Team;
Routinely sharing Incident Reports and Executive Summaries
with the NGB;
Sharing special event planning information and situational
awareness for National Special Security Events (NSSE) and other special
events;
Sharing information on special capabilities like special
National Guard WMD capabilities, e.g., Weapons of Mass Destruction
Civil Support Teams and Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and
Explosives (CBRNE) Emergency Response Force Packages;
Participating with the NGB and TAGs in Hurricane Planning
Conferences, exercises, meetings, and other coordination activities;
More specifically, the NG can support homeland defense and disaster
response in several different ways:
National Guard Reaction Force (NGRF)
NGRFs are traditional units that are pre-designated for quick
response on a rotating basis. The goal is a trained and ready NG force
available to each State's governor on short notice, capable of
responding in support of local and State governments and, when
required, DOD.
Critical Infrastructure Program--Mission Assurance Assessment
Program designed to educate civilian agencies in basic force
protection and emergency response; develop relationships between first
responders, owners of critical infrastructure, and NG planners in the
States.
WMD Civil Support Teams (CST)
Highly skilled, full-time teams, established to provide specialized
expertise and technical assistance to an incident commander to assess,
assist, advise, and facilitate follow-on forces. State Governors,
through their respective TAGs, have operational command and control of
the teams. NGB provides logistical support, standardized operational
procedures, and operational coordination to facilitate the employment
of the teams.
CBRNE Enhanced Response Force Package (CERFP)
Designed to provide a regional capability to locate and extract
victims from a contaminated environment, perform medical triage and
treatment, and conduct personnel decontamination in response to a WMD
event. Each task force works in coordination with USNORTHCOM, USPACOM
and other military forces and commands as part of the overall national
response of local, State and Federal assets. Each CERFP has a regional
responsibility as well as the capability to respond to major CBRNE
incidents anywhere within the US or worldwide. This capability augments
the CST and provides a task force-oriented structure that will respond
to an incident on short notice.
NSSE
The NGB Joint Intelligence Division, in coordination with the Joint
Force Headquarters-State intelligence offices, provides support to each
NSSE. Support missions included traffic control-point operations, a
civil disturbance reaction force, aviation and medical evacuation,
chemical detection and crowd screening.
NG Joint Force Headquarters-State (JFHQ-State)
A JFHQ-State has been established in 54 States and territories to
provide command and control links for all NG forces. The JFHQ-State is
responsible for fielding one or more Joint Task Forces (JTF) command
elements that can assume tactical control of military units that are
ordered to respond to a contingency operation within a State and would
provide joint reception, staging, onward movement and integration of
inbound forces. If ordered to active duty, the JFHQ-State can act as a
subordinate command and control headquarters for USNORTHCOM or, in the
case of Hawaii or Guam, USPACOM.
JTF-State
A JTF-State may be formed under the JFHQ-State to maintain command
and control of NG forces. A JTF-State includes a JTF command element
that will work closely with the incident commander to determine if
additional NG or active duty DOD resources are required and assists in
their safe and effective employment. JTF-State Commanders receive
formal training which includes NIMS and Incident Command System
concepts.
The NGB is represented on USNORTHCOM's JIACG along with
representatives from other DOD components and non-DOD organizations to
help coordinate and refine disaster response roles and capabilities.
NGB works closely with USNORTHCOM to plan for, exercise, develop, and
refine capabilities to respond to a domestic incident. Both
organizations, as needed by the affected State, will work closely
together to integrate resources. Through mutual aid agreements,
National Guard forces can provide critical security work, support
civilian law enforcement, food, water, medicine, shelter,
transportation, vital communications, and all of the other emergency
support functions in support of FEMA.
Another example of the strong working relationship between FEMA and
NGB is the Memorandum of Understanding between the two organizations
that was signed October 1, 2006. This agreement allows FEMA to leverage
NGB capabilities to assist in Continuity of Operations Planning site
vulnerability assessments for emergency preparedness, contingency
operations planning, and situational awareness.
Training and Exercises:
FEMA and DOD jointly participate in a variety of training and
exercise activities with varying scenarios designed to improve disaster
response capabilities. Many of these take place at the State, local,
and regional levels. USNORTHCOM's Table Top Exercise Program hosts
Table Top Exercises (TTX) that FEMA participates in that specifically
relate to integration of USNORTHCOM and the NGB with the NRP/
Interagency efforts to facilitate domestic disaster response. A recent
TTX objective was to examine and lay the foundation for potential
deployment and employment of DOD Unmanned Aerial Systems in a DSCA
role.
In another example of joint exercise activity, FEMA and USNORTHCOM
exercised catastrophic disaster response during Vigilant Shield 07, an
exercise focusing on a nuclear weapons accident and a terrorist event.
FEMA is participating in DOD's upcoming Ardent Sentry-Northern Edge 07
Exercise featuring a hurricane and terrorism response scenario. FEMA
will also participate in DOD's Vigilant Shield 08 exercise. US Army
North (US ARNORTH) will participate in Exercise Ardent Sentry 2007 by
deploying their entire Operational Command Post in a hurricane response
exercise. The exercises are normally synchronized with local and State
responses, involve the interagency community and NG participation, and
demonstrate USNORTHCOM's participation and capabilities in overall
Federal disaster response. FEMA routinely coordinates with DOD in the
Top Officials Exercise series and in communications exercises such as
the Defense Interoperability Communications Exercise and Joint User
Interoperability Communications Exercises to test and validate
communications capabilities and interoperability between the different
levels of government and the emergency management community, including
DOD.
In the area of training, DOD trains Emergency Preparedness Liaisons
Officers (EPLO) in all of the DOD components in the NIMS/Incident
Command System. Also, FEMA and the US ARNORTH have refocused the DSCA
course to now include FCOs and DCOs to further strengthen the military
and civilian understanding of the important disaster response roles and
responsibilities. USNORTHCOM is continuing training to respond to
requests for assistance from the NRP Primary Agencies in preparation
for the 2007 Hurricane Season.
Another example of DOD education and training related to disaster
preparedness and response can be found at The Industrial College of the
Armed Forces (ICAF) at the National Defense University (NDU). ICAF
provides elective courses in emergency management response operations
and managing complex disaster response operations for future DOD
leaders.
In addition, the NDU Interagency Transformation, Education and
Analysis Program and the School for National Security Senior Executives
faculty members are developing domestic disaster management course
modules as part of the national security professional development
program. FEMA enrolls students in these classes and is often requested
to provide briefings and updates. FEMA also participates in disaster
response-related activities at the Army and Navy War Colleges.
Logistics Coordination and Support:
FEMA is working hard to develop a more highly disciplined, agile,
and sophisticated logistics organization and system to better support
disaster response operations. The new logistics organization will be
one that is more proactive and couples 21st century technology and a
professional workforce with strategic public and private partnerships.
Achieving total system integrity, visibility, and accountability over
select disaster resources will be emphasized. FEMA is coordinating
closely with DOD in many aspects of the development of an improved
national logistics system.
A key partner in this relationship is the DLA. The relationship
between DLA and FEMA is a strong one, founded on close collaboration
and a regular dialogue. The mechanisms that DLA has implemented to
support FEMA, including the ability to closely track materiel in-
transit to a disaster site, have been developed because of that close
collaboration and dialogue.
FEMA and DLA signed an Interagency Agreement (IAA) in March 2006.
This agreement helped streamline DLA support and increase DLA's close
supportive relationship to FEMA's logistics efforts. In the past year,
the relationship has evolved from support to disaster response, to
proactive logistical and planning support, both before an event occurs
and during the response efforts. DLA's efforts are focused primarily on
supporting food and bulk fuel requirements. FEMA is using the FEMA-DLA
IAA for vendor management/stockage of meals ready to eat (MRE) through
the Defense Supply Center in Philadelphia. DLA has also established
alternative commercial feeding options that FEMA can utilize in lieu of
MREs. Fuel support is being provided through the Defense Energy Support
Center (DESC). The DLA IAA can also be used for other DLA-managed
commodities if required.
Similarly, FEMA signed an IAA in July 2006 with the Marine Corps
Systems Command to support the Pre-positioned Equipment Program (PEP).
PEP consists of standardized equipment pods with equipment such as
personal protective, decontamination, detection, technical search and
rescue, law enforcement, medical, interoperable communications and
other emergency response equipment that can be deployed to support
State and local governments in responding to a major chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear, explosives or natural hazard event.
Logistical support in the IAA includes operational management of PEP,
including locations, equipment sets, and personnel.
DHS/US Coast Guard Role
The U.S. Coast Guard is one of the five armed services as outlined
in 14 U.S.C. Sec. 1 which states: ``The Coast Guard as established
January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed
forces of the United States at all times.'' The Coast Guard was placed
under the Department of Homeland Security DHSon February 25, 2003 where
it executes a variety of missions including search and rescue, maritime
law enforcement, and defense readiness. However, the Coast Guard also
shoulders substantial disaster response capabilities and an expanded
role in the NRP. Coast Guard support is provided directly to DHS and
FEMA during an emergency, with Coast Guard response and incident
management personnel integrating directly into the DHS/FEMA incident
management organization established for a specific incident. Under the
old Federal Response Plan, the Coast Guard generally played a role in
only two support functions; Emergency Support Function (ESF) 1 and ESF
10. However, with the broader approach under the NRP, and the
implementation of Pre-scripted Mission Assignments, the Coast Guard can
be called upon to provide support in 9 separate ESFs across 20 possible
Mission Assignments areas. To ensure close coordination of Coast Guard
and FEMA planning and disaster response operations, two Coast Guard
liaisons are assigned to FEMA Headquarters. In addition, the Coast
Guard has trained a number of Joint Field Office (JFO) Support Teams to
assist FEMA during an incident. These Coast Guard JFO teams perform the
dual responsibilities of representing Coast Guard interests during an
incident while providing support to the overall Federal response.
The creation of DHS brought Coast Guard and FEMA together for the
first time into the same department. This has led to steadily
increasing cooperation between the two agencies across a spectrum of
preparedness planning, exercise and training, response issues, in
identifying lessons learned, and in tracking and implementing remedial
actions at the national level. In this cross-pollination, both agencies
have been able to make a number of improvements to their respective
contingency plans.
For Hurricanes Katrina and Rita the Coast Guard performed work for
FEMA under the authority of the Stafford Act. The Coast Guard conducted
operations within the parameters established by FEMA's issued Mission
Assignments and Task Orders. In addition, both agencies partnered
extensively as key members of DHS's NIMS and NRP writing teams. The
combined efforts helped to guide the creation of a consistent
nationwide approach for all Federal, State, local and Tribal
governments to work effectively and efficiently together to prepare
for, prevent, respond to, and recover from domestic incidents,
regardless of cause, size or complexity.
The most significant adjustment in the Coast Guard role under the
NRP relates to one of their cornerstone traditional missions. Working
jointly, the US Coast Guard, NGB, and USNORTHCOM have helped coordinate
development of larger scale search and rescue operations and a Joint
Search and Rescue Center. ESF 9 is being revised to expand the
participation of other Federal entities including DOD and the US Coast
Guard.
NRP and Disaster Response
The NRP provides the structures and mechanism for national-level
policy and operational direction for domestic incident management. The
NRP is always in effect; however, the implementation of NRP
coordination mechanisms is flexible and scalable. The role of DOD in
disaster response is similarly flexible and scalable. FEMA routinely
coordinates with military components; however, many of DOD's resources
may be needed only in the most severe or catastrophic disasters.
The DOD has significant resources that may be made available to
support the Federal response to terrorist attacks, major disasters or
other emergencies. DOD is a supporting Agency for all 15 of the NRP's
ESFs. DOD's USACE is the coordinating/primary agency for ESF # 3,
Public Works and Engineering.
The Secretary of Defense authorizes DSCA for domestic incidents as
directed by the President or when consistent with military readiness
operations, appropriate under the circumstances and the law. DOD
resources are committed upon approval by the Secretary of Defense or
upon order of the President. In a major disaster or catastrophic
emergency, the coordination can grow to include the authorities of the
Defense Production Act. The Secretary of Defense retains command of
military forces providing civil support at all times.
Within DOD, USNORTHCOM has responsibility for military operations
within the continental United States in the event of a domestic
incident. For such a response, DOD is set up to be largely independent
in its operations; however, DOD resources still need to be coordinated
within the overall Federal response under the NRP. Disaster response
support required from DOD could range from commodity distribution to
assisting with:
search and rescue,
communications,
evacuation,
security,
housing operations,
fuel distribution,
debris clearance,
medical care and medical evacuation,
power generation,
air support can be provided for movement of FEMA teams
In most instances, DOD provides DSCA in response to ``Requests For
Assistance'' from a lead or primary NRP Department or Agency. DSCA is
typically provided on a reimbursable basis through MAs or PSMAs and is
normally provided when local, State, and Federal resources are
overwhelmed or need to be augmented and the requested support does not
interfere with the Department's military readiness or operations. The
supporting DOD combatant commander may deploy a JTF to command Federal
(Title 10) military activities in support of the incident. When a JTF
is established, consistent with operational requirements, its command
and control element will be co-located with the Principal Federal
Official (PFO) and FCO at a JFO. The collocation of the JTF command and
control element does not replace the requirement for a Defense
Coordination Officer and Defense Coordination Element (DCO/DCE) as part
of the JFO Coordination staff. Each FEMA Region now has a DCO/DCE
assigned to serve as the primary representative for FEMA to coordinate
with DOD at the crisis scene.
DHS and FEMA value the support of the Secretary of Defense and DOD
components to facilitate and support Federal, State and local disaster
response activities. In addition to direct support for disaster
response, DOD possesses specialized testing, evaluation, and education
facilities; training and exercise expertise; medical capabilities; and
technology programs that provide important support to all levels of
government in enhancing the Nation's disaster preparedness and response
capabilities.
Conclusion
Thank you for your time today, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Cannon, for your testimony.
At this time, I will recognize Mr. Womack and ask you to
please summarize your testimony to 5 minutes, and after that,
we will start off with the questions.
STATEMENT OF MIKE WOMACK, DIRECTOR, MISSISSIPPI EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY.
Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There are three key areas I would like to discuss. General
Lowenberg very eloquently voiced the one that is of most
concern to us today, and that deals with the authority to
maintain and control the National Guard and that it should be
restored to the Governors for their use during disasters and
civil emergencies. He laid out most of the facts. What I would
like to describe to you is the process we used for our response
in Katrina and how we feel that the National Guard should be
integrated in the overall unified command structure of a
disaster response.
The Governor, the adjutant general of the National Guard,
our commissioner of public safety, our Federal coordinating
officer, and my predecessor--the director of emergency
management--constituted our unified command structure.
The National Guard is the lead for ESF-3, which is the
public works, but they are the primary in support for many of
the emergency support functions. In that role, they were
working under the direction of public safety, coordinated with
local law enforcement when they performed their law enforcement
missions. In their mission to provide commodity support and
distribution, they were working with the civilian director of
finance and administration and other State agencies.
These remarks are not part of the written record. I am
deviating from it because of General Lowenberg's remarks. I
thought it would be beneficial to understand the way that it
worked in Mississippi.
The adjutant general initially commanded approximately
4,000 to 5,000 soldiers and airmen. Then under EMAC, another
15,000 to 20,000 troops and equipment were brought in. The
chain of command was purely from the adjutant general down to
other general officers through the EMAC forces, but in all
cases, General Cross worked with civilian responders in
coordinating their efforts, determining what the soldiers and
airmen were both best used for and then allowing those missions
that his troops could be used for to be performed.
This process of Federalizing National Guard troops would
make this extremely problematic. As soon as you Federalize the
troops, then it is unclear exactly who they work for. Is the
adjutant general then going to report to the NORTHCOM
commander? Is the NORTHCOM commander going to be part of our
unified command structure in the State of Mississippi? It was
clear the Federal troops, active duty troops such as the
Seabees and the airmen who are stationed down on the
Mississippi gulf coast as well as the Coast Guard, were all
integrated into this overall unified command structure.
So I will just emphasize what General Lowenberg said on the
issue of trying to restore the authority to the Governors. It
is absolutely critical because you cannot maintain situational
awareness from half a continent away. You have to have people
on the ground who are able to be there, who understand how to
deal with National Guard troops on a daily basis, who
understand how to deal with State and local governments on a
daily basis.
The second issue that I would like to discuss has to do
with EMAC. In order for us to deploy National Guard forces, we
have to absolutely have EMAC authority, and it has to be
funded. Right now, there is a shortfall in the fact that the
authorization for EMAC funding through FEMA has not been
provided. It is my understanding that there is $2.5 million in
the supplemental conference report on mutual aid. It is
absolutely critical. We could not have deployed the National
Guard forces that we did, not to mention the approximately
50,000 civilian mutual aid forces that were deployed during
Katrina, without the coordination of the EMAC responsibilities
that rest with NEMA, and that is funded through this $2.5
million. So it is absolutely critical.
The third thing I just would like to emphasize is the
importance of the equipment for the National Guard. The troops
cannot do their jobs if they do not have the equipment to do
it. You cannot do debris removal if your engineer equipment is
still in, you know, another country. So we have absolutely got
to restore the funding to the National Guard to purchase and
maintain the equipment to make sure they will be able to do
their jobs for the next disaster.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Womack follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mike Womack
Introduction
Thank you Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Dent, Full Committee
Chairman Thompson, and distinguished members of the Committee for
allowing me the opportunity to provide you with a statement for the
record on our nation's preparedness. I am Mike Womack, the Director of
the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency. In my statement, I am
representing the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA),
whose members are the state directors of emergency management in the
states, territories, and the District of Columbia. I bring more than 29
years of experience in active and reserve military service, retiring in
June 2001 as a Lieutenant Colonel from the Mississippi Army National
Guard with extensive operations management background. I have served in
numerous positions including Administrative Officer, Operations
Officer, Intelligence Officer, Civil Affairs Officer and Chief of Staff
of a 5,000-soldier armor brigade. My tenure with MEMA began in 2002 and
I have served as Director of Response and Recovery and Deputy Director,
leading up to my appointment as the Director in December 2006.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify before your
Committee today. The role of the military in disasters is a critical
component of emergency operations planning and execution. Strong
relationships and authorities are key ingredients to the success of any
disaster. In Mississippi, the key to our ability to respond to
Hurricane Katrina was the support role of the National Guard to come
and assist in the immediate aftermath of the storm. The Guard brought
self-sustaining and trained units with communications equipment, tools
for response, and expertise that helped Mississippi respond faster. Our
state is grateful for their assistance and their partnership with
emergency management.
There are several key areas that I wish to discuss with you today
that need to be resolved in order to secure our preparedness in
partnership with the National Guard to address disasters:
1. Authority to maintain and control the National Guard should
be restored to the Governors for their use during disasters and
other civil emergencies;
2. The National Guard's utilization of the Emergency Management
Assistance Compact (EMAC) during Hurricane Katrina worked well
and should continue to be a strong component of the nation's
mutual aid system; and
3. National Guard equipment should be maintained and updated to
ensure that the Guard can fulfill domestic missions.
Before I begin discussing those subjects, I want to highlight the
dual mission of the National Guard and the importance of their support
during emergencies and disasters to states. The National Guard are
citizen soldiers who are often first responders in their daily jobs and
know their states and towns. They know what needs to be done in times
of disasters and train and prepare alongside their emergency management
agencies. These solders are also the ones who are called to duty when
Governors need assistance with disasters, emergencies, supplemental law
enforcement or military support for airports and borders in homeland
security missions, and counter drug activities. These citizen solders
are also called to duty in Iraq and in other international hot spots to
assist with the defense mission of our country. The emergency
management community appreciates their partnership and strongly
supports efforts to restore appropriate authority and assistance to the
National Guard to support all of their important missions.
Restoring Governors' Control of the National Guard During Times of
Disaster
The value of the National Guard during emergencies has never proved
itself more than during the response phase of Hurricane Katrina. When
local police departments, fire departments and emergency services could
not respond because of destroyed equipment and severed communications
systems in Mississippi, the National Guard eagerly stepped in to
maintain control and assist victims with immediate response assistance.
These missions were always under control of the Governor, as the
Constitution provides.
Last year, the final conference report for the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 109-364) made changes to limit
the Governor's authority over the National Guard during times of
domestic emergencies or disasters. Section 1076 of the Act allows for
the President to take control of the National Guard during a natural
disaster or emergency without the consent of a Governor. This change
could cause confusion and complicate the chain of command for the
National Guard in response to emergency situations. Previously, the
``Insurrection Act'' provided for the Governor to maintain the control
over the National Guard and to allow the President to take control in
rare and exceptional circumstances. At the same time, the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Recovery and Relief Act places special authority with
each Governor for responding to and preparing for disasters and
accounts for utilization of the National Guard as a key asset to
fulfilling the mission. These new changes may place the safety and
welfare of citizens in jeopardy because of national missions, versus
state missions. Additionally, the change could confuse the Guard's
mission in a Title 32 status versus a Title 10 status. Posse commitatus
issues could be an issue as well if the President called the Guard up
to fulfill a domestic mission.
The current Defense Authorization language could confuse the issue
of who is in charge of commanding the Guard during a domestic
emergency. The bill, as signed into law by the President, does not
require the President to contact, confer or collaborate with a Governor
before taking control of a state's Guard forces. This language was
included by Congress and signed into law by the President despite the
opposition of Governors, NEMA, and others. The current law could
negatively impact the decision-making process and speed with which the
National Guard currently acts in consultation with Governors to respond
to an emergency either within or outside of the states through mutual
aid. Further, the amendment exacerbates the current manpower and
equipment shortages in all states because of demands in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Changes to restore the Governor's authority over the National Guard
are supported by NEMA, the National Governors' Association, the
Adjutants Generals Association of the United States, the International
Association of Emergency Managers, and the National Association of
Counties. H.R. 869 and S. 513 have been introduced by Congress to
repeal Section 1076 of the 2006 National Defense Authorization. NEMA
supports these bills and a vehicle to open up a dialogue between
Congress and the nation's Governors to best address how to enhance the
use of the National Guard in responding to domestic disasters and
emergencies.
Strengthening Mutual Aid Through EMAC
The mutual aid assistance provided during 2005 vividly exposes the
interdependencies of the nation's emergency management system. For
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Emergency Management Assistance
Compact (EMAC) fulfilled over 2,174 missions with 49 states, the
District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico providing
assistance in the form of 65,919 civilian and military personnel and
equipment assets to support the impacted states. The estimated costs of
this assistance may exceed $829 million. The National Guard sent in
support of the response mission were sent under Title 32 status, and
remained under the Governor's control at all times. EMAC allowed for
reimbursement, liability protection, worker's compensation protections,
and allowed the home state Governor to call back the units if needed in
their home state for another domestic emergency. All of the key Post-
Katrina After Action reports cited the nimble ability of EMAC to
respond based on the impacted states' requests. The nature of the
nation's mutual aid system demonstrates the need for all states to have
appropriate capabilities to respond to disasters of all types and
sizes. Every state needs to have strong National Guard and emergency
management cooperation. The increased reliance on mutual aid due to
catastrophic disasters means additional resources are needed to
continue to build and enhance the nation's mutual aid system through
EMAC.
NEMA is the administrator of the Emergency Management Assistance
Compact (EMAC), the state-to-state mutual aid system was referenced as
a key achievement and best practice to be built upon in many of the
reports on Hurricane Katrina. EMAC is not a perfect system and strives
to achieve continuous improvement. NEMA's members are proud of the
success of the system and support initiatives to bolster operational
response and elevate awareness of how EMAC works. NEMA is working to
enhance its online broadcast notification, information, and resource
management system, conducting outreach programs to share information on
EMAC with state and local government agencies and national
organizations representing various emergency response disciplines. NEMA
is also working on integrating EMAC into state training exercises;
enhancing EMAC's resource tracking system; updating the EMAC protocols
and guidelines to implement lessons learned; and developing additional
training materials and development of a cadre of trained EMAC personnel
to deliver the EMAC field courses aimed at educating both state and
local level emergency responders on the EMAC system.
While EMAC is a state-to-state compact, FEMA funded the program in
2003 with $2.1 million because of the national interests in mutual aid.
The EMAC grant will end on May 30, 2007. The Post-Katrina FEMA Reform
Act authorizes $4 million annually for the program; however, no funds
have yet been appropriated for FY 2007. We hope we can count on this
Committee, that included the initial language authorizing EMAC, to
support funding in the next budget cycle.
Adequate Funding for Maintaining and Restoring Equipment for the
National Guard'
As previously mentioned, our citizen soldiers can only be effective
with training and adequate equipment to do their jobs in both the
domestic and in the international theatre. Currently, National Guard
divisions returning from Iraq or other deployed missions are required
to leave behind key equipment that has dual use functions for domestic
emergencies such as personal protective equipment, fire suppression
equipment, and communications equipment. These are left behind to
continue the missions by other units, however National Guard units must
be reequipped in order to be ready and prepared to respond to domestic
missions when they return home. Equipment shortfalls must be identified
and necessary budget authority must be made available to ensure that
our National Guard forces are prepared for all disasters and
emergencies.
The National Guard is a force multiplier on the international scene
and at home for domestic emergencies. The dual-hatted missions must be
supported and adequately resourced. National security and homeland
security have changed over the last six years, as has the National
Guard's mission. Resources must meet the needs of the mission changes.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate Congress' increased attention and focus on disaster
preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation efforts. We must
ensure that Federal, State and local governments have adequate funding
for baseline emergency preparedness so exercises and training can
ensure that plans and systems are effective before a disaster.
Preparedness includes ensuring appropriate authority and funding for
the National Guard. I thank you for the opportunity to testify on
behalf of NEMA.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Womack, for your testimony.
I want to thank all of the witnesses for their testimony.
At this point, members now have an opportunity to ask our
witnesses questions. I will remind each member that he or she
has 5 minutes for each of their questions--or for their
questioning--and I will now recognize myself for the first set
of questions.
General Scherling, as you know, the full committee received
a briefing from General Blum a few months ago. At that
briefing, General Blum outlined some of the alarming facts
contrasting the Guard's equipment and readiness today compared
with the resources that were available on or before September
11, 2001. Can you, please, compare your current equipment level
with that of 5 years ago before we began the Global War on
Terror?
General Scherling. Mr. Chairman, what I can do today is
bring two graphic displays for you to demonstrate our equipment
situation. First of all, what I would like to do is call up
number 5 and bring your attention to the fact that this is a
reflection today of the Army National Guard equipment available
for Governors' use for homeland defense in ten different
mission areas, mission capability areas. Those areas include
aviation, command and control, communications, engineering,
logistics, maintenance, medical, security, transportation, and
our civil support teams in each State, and as you can see, we
are at 87 percent in our medical capability along with 77
percent in our security capability. However, the majority of
the percentages are much lower than that.
Very quickly, to move to graphic number 4, on equipment
readiness and shortfalls overall, sir, today, 80 percent of the
Army National Guard and 45 percent of the Air National Guard
here in the United States are not ready due to lack of
equipment and training. The impact that is felt is very
personal by members of our units just as Sergeant Edgar and
Sergeant Stoltzfus can experience day to day in their units
back home. If you do not have money to turn on lights and you
do not have trucks to go out and get into to practice your
critical mission essential tasks, it is pretty hard to be able
to go out and execute those tasks on a day-to-day basis, in the
State, on short notice. They also, as you would know, do not
have the equipment available at their fingertips in order to
perform those missions.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Cuellar. Do you have a copy of those?
General Scherling. Yes, we do.
Mr. Cuellar. Can you provide it to the committee? Thank
you. Thank you for your testimony.
At this time, General Pineda, as I understand it, the Civil
Air Patrol has had a rich history of being tasked to support
critical homeland security operations throughout the country.
Between July 1942 and April 1944, the Civil Air Patrol's
southern liaison patrol monitored the border between
Brownsville, Texas and Douglas, Arizona, and being from Laredo,
it is probably in the middle of those two points. Being from
Texas, I think we have got about 2,000 miles of U.S. Mexico
border. Can you please explain how CAP has evolved since the
days of the southern liaison air patrol and why this operation
has ended?
General Pineda. What happened was that, first, it was a
funding issue. When the chief gave us the order to go on
working in Arizona, we had to use our own funding for the
training and make it into a training mission because there was
some funding from the Air Force to take that particular
mission. So we did it for 21 days; it was very successful, but
we had to stop it. One, the funding for the training ran out,
and number 2, there were questions on the posse comitatus.
Now, you have got to keep in mind that the Civil Air Patrol
is a civilian organization. We are the Air Force auxiliary when
we do missions for the Air Force, but the reason for the posse
comitatus was that Congress gives the funding, our funding,
through the Air Force--we come under that particular statute--
but it all depends on who you ask for an opinion; the opinions
are different, but we need to do something to remove that so we
can help the local communities and the States to be able to
perform their missions, and if we get the funding, we can
patrol not only the southern border but also the northern
border.
I have met with the chief of staff of the Canadian Air
Force at a meeting that we had in Canada, and the chief told
me, ``whenever you are ready, we will do it together on the
northern part,'' but we are not even close to that yet, but we
can do it. I can have an aircraft 2 hours after we get the
call, and I can have one on each border right away while the
other ones are pending. As for the mission, we can do it, and
we can get it done. Absolutely.
Mr. Cuellar. Who tasked this? Again, going back in history,
who tasked this back in the 1940's?
General Pineda. In the 1940's, we were under the Department
of the Army-Air Force, so we were working directly for them--it
was easier--but as the years went by, different rules came into
play. Now we have to be tasked by the Air Force. So, if
Homeland Security wants us to do the homeland security
missions, they have to go to the Air Force and put in their
request. Sometimes it may happen. Sometimes it may not happen
depending on what kind of a mission it is.
Mr. Cuellar. Who can request CAP's missions right now,
today?
General Pineda. Right now, today, each one of the State's
emergency managements can request the CAP mission, but they
have to go through the Air Force.
Now, some of the States have an MOU which is with us. Not
all of the States have that. If it is a State mission, then the
emergency managements can go straight to the Civil Air Patrol
National Operations Center if they have an MOU, and the State
pays for that funding. The problem is that, if we do a State
mission like that, our professional volunteers are not covered
by Federal insurance at all.
Mr. Cuellar. Can a nonprofit or a local entity request your
mission or would that have to go through a State?
General Pineda. A nonprofit--well, let us say, for example,
that the sheriff's office requests--
Mr. Cuellar. Yes. Let us say, with regard to the Southwest
Sheriffs' Association, which Chairman Thompson and myself were
just meeting with a while ago, they are a nonprofit because all
of the sheriffs from Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California
have all gone in together.
Could that nonprofit request your assistance?
General Pineda. They could in two ways. If we have an MOU
with your State, we can do it as a State mission. Remember now,
there is no insurance for our volunteers. If you go and want a
Federal mission, you have to go through the Air Force, and then
it comes back to us.
Mr. Cuellar. OK.
General Pineda. But again, it may take hours or it may
never happen.
Mr. Cuellar. It may never happen?
General Pineda. Absolutely. We have some missions where, if
we have a question on the posse comitatus, it gets denied right
away, so then we go and argue and argue, and sometimes we can
change their minds or restrict the mission to certain
activities.
Mr. Cuellar. OK. I know Charlie is going to ask you
I mean Mr. Dent is going to ask you some
questions in a few minutes on this because I know he has been a
big proponent.
I like the idea, but I want to know what can we do within
the framework right now. In other words, have you been in
Texas, as an example? Charlie has been there, in Laredo, and
the aircraft that is available is not there. I think most of it
has been up there in Arizona, and I can understand that, but in
Texas, you have got 2,000 miles, and if you have ever been to
West Texas where you have got mountains, then in West Texas,
you know exactly what I am talking about. Have you done a
mission in Texas as an example?
General Pineda. We are doing missions in Texas right now,
and they are being paid by the State.
Mr. Cuellar. Where?
General Pineda. I am not familiar with the area, but it is
the entire Mexican border, and it is a mission that is being
paid by the State. So we are doing about three flights a day in
Texas, but it is not funded by the Federal Government at all.
Mr. Cuellar. OK. Can I follow up? Because I am from the
border, and I did not even know you were there.
General Pineda. Absolutely.
Mr. Cuellar. I lived there for most of my life.
Let me go ahead and give the other members some
opportunities.
At this time, I will recognize the ranking member of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent, for
questions.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Pineda, I do want to follow up on some of the
questions that Chairman Cuellar has asked.
Specifically, how does the State or the Federal Government
currently request assistance from you at the CAP? How do they
currently do that now through an MOU? Is it
always through an MOU from the State?
General Pineda. If we have an MOU, they can request it
directly. If it is a national disaster like with Katrina, it
has to come through the Air Force and then back to us.
Mr. Dent. Who makes that request?
General Pineda. The emergency management or the Governor
can make the request.
Mr. Dent. So the State emergency management office?
General Pineda. Yes. The adjutant general of the National
Guard can make that request, too.
Mr. Dent. OK. What was the cost of your operations during
Katrina? Do you have any idea what that was?
General Pineda. Oh, God. I can get you the answer, but one
of my--the executive director is sitting here, and I can get
you the figures later on. I do not have the figures.
Mr. Dent. Well, we can get that after the fact.
Who paid for the mission? Does that come out of your budget
or the Air Force's?
General Pineda. Well, originally, that one--before the
storm hit, Katrina, I put on standby all of the wings around
Mississippi and Louisiana. To be exactly--I got a phone call
from someone at the Air Force who said, ``We are not paying for
that. You cannot move anybody.'' So my response to that was
``these people are going to need help in the morning, and we
are moving in.''
It took a few hours to finally get the Federal mission
number to pay for the expenses, but we were able to do it. We
were there like the next morning after the hurricane, but right
after the hurricane, the Civil Air Patrol members in those
States went out and helped the victims, waiting for the other
1,700 members who were coming in to help them out. Those
missions at the beginning were paid from our budget, and later
on, we were reimbursed by FEMA and the Air Force.
Mr. Dent. OK. As you are aware, I have introduced
legislation, H.R. 1333--we call it the Civil Air Patrol
Homeland Security Support Act--which would encourage greater
use of the Civil Air Patrol to support both the border security
and emergency response missions of DHS.
Do you believe this legislation would help the CAP in the
Department of Homeland Security's missions?
General Pineda. Absolutely, sir.
What that is going to do for us is--right now, any Federal
agency that requests a Civil Air Patrol has to go through the
Air Force. By doing that MOU with the Department of Homeland
Security, we can work directly for them and with them in a
cooperation agreement, and there is no doubt about it that we
will expedite the response of what we can do for the country.
Mr. Dent. Just a quick follow-up question on that point.
Currently in my State, for example, we have had floods from
the Delaware River. I believe the Coast Guard has arrangements
with Civil Air Patrol, and you were providing photo
reconnaissance of the disaster areas.
Are you currently doing that now with the Coast Guard?
General Pineda. We are doing that. Plus, we also
participate with the task force in the Philadelphia--
Mr. Dent. Is that with or without an MOU?
General Pineda. Yes, without an MOU. The Coast Guard
requested us, and we are working directly for them in that
area, and that is a daily operation.
Mr. Dent. Chairman Cuellar just mentioned to me--I feel we
need to formalize this relationship through legislation. Do you
think we need legislation to accomplish this task or is this
something that can simply be done by some administrative
machanism between DHS and the Air Force?
General Pineda. No, sir. I think we need to put it in
stone, have it written in stone that this is what we can do.
Right now, if we leave it in the air, it could work today on a
handshake, but it may not work tomorrow or the delay may be
there. If we can work directly for the Federal agencies and the
State agencies without having to circumvent that, it will make
it a lot easier, and our volunteers can be deployed a lot
faster and a lot easier.
Mr. Dent. I would like to yield to the chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. Yes. I am sorry.
We want to work with the ranking member. We want to know
exactly--I want to know exactly--why we need this in
legislation. I mean you gave me the reason that it worked
better. Just convince us as to why we need it in legislation,
because it is a good idea, and we want to work with the ranking
member, but I am trying to figure out why we need it in
legislation. Why is it that the framework that we have right
now does not work? Why do we need to formalize it in statute?
If you can just answer that.
General Pineda. It would diminish the red tape and the
time, especially when time is required for us to be able to
deploy to help the local communities or Homeland Security. The
way it works right now, it may take days or it may not happen
to get that ``OK.''
By doing this legislation, it will put a direct line to us,
and it will authorize us to work with the other Federal
agencies and the States without having to have the
circumvention.
Mr. Cuellar. I will yield back and give you another minute
on your time since I took it.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just quickly, General Pineda. If we were to enter into this
relationship between the Air Force and DHS for the utilization
of the CAP on the border, would this have any impact, do you
think, on your working relationship with the States? You
already have one, for example, with Texas, I guess, where you
do have an MOU for some limited border security activity.
General Pineda. No, absolutely not. We still will be able
to continue those with no problem.
Mr. Dent. OK. That is good news.
I guess my other question then would be to General
Scherling. How do you see this legislation, and how do you see
the working relationship between CAP and the Guard or the Air
Guard?
General Scherling. Sir, I have actually worked with the
Civil Air Patrol on two occasions in previous positions--one
during the floods in North Dakota where we had a very robust
relationship with our Civil Air Patrol and were able to reach
out for their support on very short notice. Lastly, in my past
job with the joint director of military support, we were able
to reach out to Civil Air Patrol through DOD as we received
requests for assistance from various agencies or States, and
those requests typically come through the defense coordinating
officer at a disaster site directly into DOD, and at that
point, a decision is really made as to where the best place or
the best capability exists, whether it is with the Civil Air
Patrol or with another active component service at that point.
Mr. Dent. Do you have any objections to the legislation I
have introduced, H.R. 1333, on behalf of the National Guard?
Are there any objections to this?
General Scherling. Sir, I do not have any objections.
Mr. Dent. Do you support it then?
General Scherling. Sir, I would say that I believe that
procedures exist today to do exactly what the Civil Air Patrol
desires to do.
Mr. Dent. The Civil Air Patrol seems to think we need to
put this in statute, to put this ``in stone'' so to speak, and
I just would be curious to find out why you feel that we have
procedures in place that can formalize these relationships, and
if that is the case, then why hasn't it happened?
General Scherling. Sir, in my estimation, we do have
formalized relationships, especially with each of the States,
and I think General Lowenberg could probably speak to the
relationship within his State. I believe that the procedures
also exist within DOD at this time.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Dent.
The chair will now recognize other members for questions
they may wish to ask the witnesses. In accordance with our
committee rules and practices, I will recognize members who
were present at the start of the hearing, based on seniority on
the subcommittee, alternating between majority and minority.
Those members coming in later will be recognized in the order
of their arrival.
At this time, the chair recognizes for 5 minutes the
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am the only other
member here.
Mr. Cuellar. Yes, sir.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you. Let me thank you for calling this
meeting. I think it is important.
Historically, the National Guard has been one of the
pillars of disaster response in this country, and I was
dismayed, as I think many of the members of this committee
were, when receiving briefings on the shortage of equipment and
staffing facing our Guard units under certain conditions. The
2007 hurricane season is only about 36 days away.
With all of the shortages of equipment and personnel and
our ability to respond, General Lowenberg and Mr. Womack, we
saw with Hurricane Katrina that a wide array of resources--
local, State, Federal, and private--were brought to bear, and
even with all of these resources, we really were not able to
get our act together at the top.
I am from North Carolina, and North Carolina sort of sticks
out in the Atlantic, and if one comes up, we tend to get
hammered. We are in the danger zone. We are pretty well
prepared, I think, as, I think, Washington State probably is,
but you know, if we had a major hurricane, we would be
stretched pretty thin, would be my guess, as probably yours
would.
If your State's resources were exhausted or stretched thin
to the breaking point in a major disaster, who at the Federal
level would you turn to to bolster your ability to respond at
the State level? second, how confident are you that the
resources are there to be able to respond? third, if Federal
resources or the National Guard were to be brought in to help
out, are you concerned about difficulties that might arise with
communications, command and control, and what do you think can
be done to overcome these difficulties?
General Lowenberg. Thank you, Congressman.
To put the earlier testimony of General Scherling in
perspective, for my State, which would probably be not unlike
North Carolina--and by the way, our 81st brigade deployed to
Iraq with the brigade from North Carolina in the 2004-2005
rotation.
We only have about 55 percent of our Army National Guard
authorized equipment on hand. The dollar value of the shortfall
is $360 million for our State alone, and when you translate
that to the kinds of equipment that had dual use applications
for domestic operations, we are short 321 Humvees, 143 large
vehicles--the very things that we rely upon in every State for
responding to disasters of every magnitude. Frankly, that
handicaps every State in the Nation in responding to a
catastrophic-level domestic emergency, and I would not turn to
Federal officials first or to Federal resources first. I would
turn to the adjacent States, and I would turn to every other
State in the Nation under the Emergency Management Assistance
Compact. We would work hand in hand with the State emergency
management directors of all of the other States and the
adjutants general of every other State because we are all
dealing with the tyranny of time and distance, and there is a
very short decision point between the Governor and the adjutant
general in launching aircraft and in deploying personnel and
equipment in every State, and we saw that performed
magnificently, with no notice, in response to Hurricane
Katrina.
General Lowenberg. I would work with FEMA region 10 which
we host in Bothell, Washington. And that would be the entry
point for our looking for Federal resources. By the way, I
think the strides that have been made under Administrator
Polison's leadership in filling positions in FEMA based on
professional experience are showing big dividends early on, and
I applaud them for the quality of the appointments they have
made of late.
And that is where we would turn. And there would be
confusion. When Federal military resources began showing up in
our State it would be a chaotic situation.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you. Mr. Womack, anything you want to
add to that?
Mr. Womack. I totally agree with what he said about EMAC.
That is the first thing we would turn to. The active duty
forces need to come in as a support role as part of that
overall unified command concept. But absolutely, go with EMAC
resources.
Mr. Etheridge. General Scherling, one of the few positive
images most people got out of Hurricane Katrina was out of the
National Guard helicopters and the Coast Guard rescuing
citizens from the tops of their houses. Could the Guard repeat
that performance today? We in North Carolina have relied on our
Guard in times of disasters, especially in Hurricane Floyd when
we had to do the same thing in a major flood. Can we meet the
domestic needs? What would it take in terms of financial needs?
We have heard some of it already. It is the Guard's readiness
to aid homeland security in a disastrous situation. I have
always believed it is kind of hard to have homeland security
until you have hometown security.
General Scherling. Right now our aviation assets are in the
red. And we have 37 percent of our aviation assets on hand.
What I can tell you that we are doing to prepare for the
upcoming hurricane season is to look at our essential 10 types
of equipment and capabilities that we need. In looking at those
by State, we have been able to identify the shortages and to
prework EMAC agreements with neighboring states.
Mr. Etheridge. Within regions?
General Scherling. Within regions to fill those shortages.
I will tell you it is much like the fire department. If you
live in a community and you have a fire department and they
have to borrow a truck or a ladder from a neighboring community
and you have to wait for that to arrive your house might burn
down in the meantime. So right now we do have equipment
shortages that we could use some help on. And the National
Guard has a budget card which we have made available to you
that details those budget requirements, sir.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Etheridge.
The purpose of FEMA--this is to Mr. Cannon--the purpose of
the FEMA Reform Legislation Act of last fall was to strengthen
FEMA's organizational capacity for both preparedness and
response. Effective preparation and response requires the
affected partnerships with not only among the Federal agencies,
but also to include also Federal, other Federal, State and
local government's nonprofits, entities such as the Red Cross
in the private sector. Has FEMA clearly defined the roles, the
responsibilities, expected outcomes for each of its
organizational components as well as your partners under this
new organizational structure? What have we gotten from a piece
of legislation that has become law now?
Mr. Cannon. Probably the most significant change that had
to occur was the bringing back of the preparedness director
into FEMA along with its planning capabilities and experience
and training funding capabilities. And the preparedness that
has returned is very different than the preparedness that left
a few years ago. So it didn't come back just to be hung on the
side of FEMA, but actually totally integrated into our plan
operations and coordination.
Every component in FEMA has gone through a reorganization
that allows it to be more mission focused. And we strive every
day to maintain relationships with all of our partners, both in
the inner agency and in the states and local governments. We
have done an awful lot of work with strengthening our region so
they can strengthen the relationships with the states and the
locals. We are actually involved in an assessment right now
with our 11 hurricane prone states where we actually have FEMA
folks with state people in the states dealing with major urban
areas in large population centers in high risk areas developing
planning and contingency plans for that right now.
An example would be the staff we have in New York City. One
of the concerns this year is North Atlantic hurricanes coming
into part of the country not normally susceptible to
hurricanes. We were very fortunate last year, not one touched
the United States. We think this year may be a little bit
different.
So we work with NEMA very closely and with all the State
emergency management agencies. We have a nonprofit sector
office now in FEMA that coordinates with the DHS nonprofit
sector office. We have an organization dealing with
faithbased services now as part of our preparation. So
the strengthening and the lessons learned from Katrina have
been integrated into FEMA's operational planning elements.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Cannon.
Mr. Cannon. You are welcome, sir.
Mr. Cuellar. General Lowenberg, you talked about the
language that got changed last year and the lack of
transparency. Someone of us on the inside saw the lack of
transparency. Because you saw it the same way some of us did.
Are the governors are you all pushing to repeal the language
and put it back the way it was or are you saying look at the
current language and make some changes to it? Are you just
saying repeal it and go back to the previously existing
language?
General Lowenberg. It is the latter. And that is to repeal
those provisions which were frankly inserted the conference.
And many of the conferees didn't even see the language.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. Mr. Pineda, could you provide us,
and I still like what you all were doing, being on the southern
border, I like what you all were doing in the 1940's. Could you
provide us, if you don't have this information, sort of provide
this to the committee, tell us exactly what you are focusing on
the southern border. For example, we got the northern border. I
understand the northern border is important, I know the
southern border is important, I know the coastlines east and
west are important. But if you recall the last Congress last
year when they talked about putting a fence, for example, they
said put a study in the northern part of the border of the
United States, but in the southern border put a 700-mile fence,
which I disagree. I think we can use taxpayers dollars to
efficiently to patrol our borders. Can you tell us exactly what
you do in the southern borders, since most of the focus has
been on the southern border?
Mr. Pineda. Right now the air crews that we get, not only
in Arizona, but that we presently do in Texas, they--
Mr. Cuellar. And I do want to know exactly where you are
flying in Texas. I came from Texas.
Mr. Pineda. We will give you that information right after
the hearing. They do the patrolling. Probably about 3 flights a
day we were doing. If they see people in distress, and we have
to emphasize that, we call the border patrol agents on the
ground, we will give them the location, we will stay with those
people until the border patrol arrives there. We patrol about a
mile inside the United States. We don't across the border, we
stay on our side. We fly all along just watching and observing
the activity on the ground and reporting it to the time border
patrol on the ground which we have direct communication with.
Mr. Cuellar. Are you allowed to fly with let's say a local
law enforcement entity or individual that might know the ground
better than somebody coming in from another country? For
example, and I'm using the Southwest Sheriff's Association.
What would happen if you fly with local law enforcement? Are
they allowed to do that and provide you that information?
Mr. Pineda. Absolutely. They can fly with us. We can put
them in the plane with us. And we have done that in the past so
that is not a problem. Not only on the border. Anywhere. A law
enforcement official can ride in our aircraft, so they can be
the eyes too. And since they know that area better than anybody
else, we definitely want to use them even more. But yes, they
can fly with us.
Mr. Cuellar. I would love to, of course, work with Mr. Dent
and follow up after the meeting and want to know some specifics
on that. At this time, I will recognize Mr. Dent with any
follow-up questions.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to Mr. Cannon, I am
seeking some clarification on something General Scherling just
said, where she indicated the National Guard does have an
existing relationship and mechanisms in place to utilize the
Civil Air Patrol. And that relationship is DOD to DOD.
My concern is that the Civil Air Patrol may have a more
difficult time working with non-uniformed entities. So if the
Department of Homeland Security wanted to use a Civil Air
Patrol asset for some kind of emergency response or
surveillance flight, how would you do it? And would DHS provide
a similar indemnification provided say by the Air Force?
Mr. Cannon. We would actually, sir, use the--they would be
part of the Air Force when we utilized them. We would go to
what is called JDOMS, the Joint Director For Military Support.
And JDOMS would go to NORTHCOM and they would give it to the
Air Force and give them a mission assignment. If it was a FEMA
mission in that case, as you heard the General talk about, in
Katrina they would be reimbursed under the Stafford Act. They
would actually be deployed in our mission as part of their Air
Force responsibility. That is the mechanism General Scherling
was actually talking about that we have utilized.
Mr. Dent. If I understood General Scherling, I think I
understood what you were saying. That relationship is
formalized between the Air Force and the CAP. That is all
within DOD. And I guess I understand that you have that formal
relationship.
General Scherling. Typically, when the National Guard uses
CAP, it is done at the local level, at the State level. And so
those arrangements are handled from the Adjutant General
directly to CAP. Putting on my other hat as the former JDOMS,
when there is an inter agency partner that wishes to use the
Civil Air Patrol like FEMA, they submit a request for
assistance which goes into DOD. And that request for assistance
is then delegated to the Air Force to respond. And usually
there is a vetting process to determine which capability and
which service can best provide a resource. It may be Civil Air
Patrol, or it may be a resource from a different service. But
that vetting process takes place before the mission assignment
is given to the Air Force. And it is really based on what the
requirement is at the local level.
Mr. Dent. General Pineda, while the Civil Air Patrol and
the National Guard may be able to work together effectively,
how do you work directly with DHS? I want to hear from you on
your perspective. Is the issue perhaps homeland security
missions on a daily basis may require some kind of a direct
line of communication between Civil Air Patrol and DHS?
General Pineda. That definitely would help if we can have
that direct communications. As General Scherling stated, we
have no problem working with the local National Guard. That is
no problem whatsoever. The relationship is great. We can do it
at the State level. But when it comes to the Department of
Homeland Security, if they request us right now, we probably
won't be able to respond for a day or 2 days. By that time,
whatever they request for us they don't need us any more
because the time has gone by. If we have the direct
communication with them then we can respond to their request a
lot faster.
Mr. Dent. So you think it would be helpful then for
basically CAP to be able to go directly to a State agency in
many cases, to DHS?
Mr. Pineda. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Dent. No further questions at this time, so thank you
for your testimony.
Mr. Cuellar. For any of the panelists, in your opinion, do
you think that the Posse Comitatus Act must be amended in order
for the military or National Guard to provide support during a
disaster?
General Lowenberg. None whatsoever. Mr. Chair, first of
all, please recognize that when the National Guard is operating
in State status at State expense at the governor's direction,
Posse Comitatus does not apply. Equally important, when the
National Guard is operating in Federal status under Title 32 at
Federal expense for a pure Federal purpose or for a joint State
Federal purpose, as we are on border security with Operation
Jump Start, again Posse Comitatus does not apply. Because
ultimately, the National Guard, even when performing a Federal
mission for the benefit of the Federal Government, remains
under control of the governor of the supporting State.
Mr. Cuellar. Say that one more time. Because I know when
the guards were going down to the border, some of the local
folks were complaining about that, that it violated that. So
you are saying it doesn't because?
General Lowenberg. It doesn't because when the National
Guard performs even a Federal mission at Federal Government
request, as we have done on both the northern and southern
borders since 9/11, the Guard members remain under the command
and control of the supporting State. Therefore, Posse Comitatus
does not apply in any way. Quite frankly, we followed Posse
Comitatus testimony before the Senate and House Armed Services
Committee very carefully since 9/11 and there has never been a
witness to include former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
that has ever suggested that Posse Comitatus needs to be
changed. It serves very well for all the historic reasons, for
which it was enacted in 1807.
Mr. Womack. Which is another reason to put the law back the
way it was before last year. Is because as I understand it,
once you do Federalize these National Guard troops, then you
run into this Posse Comitatus issue, correct?
General Lowenberg. Yes. Mr. Chair, if I may add to that
response. The national defense authorization language that the
house resolution seeks to rescind simultaneously amended the
Posse Comitatus Act, because it is an amendment to the
Insurrection Act. They are all interrelated.
Mr. Womack. And there is historical precedence where the
President 30 years ago, 40 years ago did have to, in fact,
invoke the provisions of Federalizing the National Guard. It
happened in my State in the civil rights era. There were
provisions before last year's amendment to that Act. We just
need to put it back the way it was.
Mr. Cuellar. OK. Good. Mr. Cannon, criticism has been off
the levity against FEMA so that there is too much red tape and
bureaucracy involved. And in the event of a disaster, local
FEMA personnel who are on the ground are in the best position
to make the assessments and real time decision. What has FEMA
done to empower those local folks to make some of those
decisions since they are on the ground?
Mr. Cannon. One of the things we have done is to get those
folks on the ground quicker who have the ability to make those
decisions. But all of our events start locally some place. And
so what we have done is strengthen the roles of our regions to
get someone to the scene on the ground as quickly as possible
and then make sure they have the proper training and the proper
tools to be able to answer those responses from the citizens.
If we looked at the Christmas tornados in Florida, we were
there literally the next day when the sun came up. You had some
tornados in Texas yesterday. We are already in the Texas State
Emergency Operating Center right now as we are sitting here. So
FEMA is far more aggressive in getting its resources on the
ground and empowering those people to be able to make the right
decisions to bring support to people.
I think one of the major issues we have had is red tape.
One of the things we are constantly functioning with is to
eliminate that, get back directly to what the statute
authorizes us to be able to do, and that is get help in the
hands of people as soon as possible. And that is what FEMA is
about today.
Mr. Cuellar. So my county next to where I live, in Eagle
Pass, for example, run through the procedures that got you all
to be there in a timely basis.
Mr. Cannon. Effectively what happens is that there will be
FEMA is a system of emergency management in
our country that starts at the local level and comes on up. So
if Mississippi were to have an incident there would be a local
management manager. And that person would try to respond and
deal with those entities within their capability. If they could
not they would go to their next level, a county or a parish. If
they could not, they would go to their State level. If the
State can't, they will come to the FEMA region and then the
FEMA region will notify FEMA National and we will launch.
There are cases now that when we see an event that is so
significant, we know that that chain of occurrences are going
to happen, we don't wait, we begin to start to deploy and to
move. Now, we are very careful we will not step on the rights
and the toes of the States. But we also don't want to be
standing by with a life ring and then waiting until the State
says, OK, I have drowned enough now, throw it. So we want to be
closer and ready to be able to--so we move things and stage
them and we start to move people right there.
So essentially, what we would do in that local situation is
we would connect with the State Emergency Operation Center,
their liaison with a FEMA representative and get the people on
the ground together with the State. We are not doing anything,
but we are right there beside them, so that if they need
something, they turn to us and it is done. We don't have to
wait until their governor gets a formal requisition before we
get somebody on the ground to help them. And that is a
significant change in the way FEMA does business. And there is
no doubt it is a change after Katrina.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Cannon. Mr. Womack, do you
agree with Mr. Cannon?
Mr. Womack. I have seen some very positive changes in FEMA
in the last 18 months. The process is better as far as getting
the people on the ground quicker. It is better as far as the
overall situation of local awareness. Region 4 now puts out
briefings daily by e-mail to all the States as well as all of
their Federal partners that says these are the potential
situations, these are the things that have actually happened.
So that part of it, I think, is better.
We do have to be very guarded that FEMA does not ride in
there and is perceived as trying to take over from the local
government or from State government. We have got to be very
careful with that.
I think the biggest challenge for FEMA right now is post
Katrina and 9/11, there is so much of the senior leadership and
response that has left the Agency. FCOs that I worked with,
Bill Carlyle and Scott Wells, top notch individuals, they are
gone. The people that are being hired are good people. They
just don't have the experience level there. And the hiring
process, from what I can see of FEMA, because they are through
Homeland Security and the security clearances, for senior level
positions it takes 6 months to fill positions. So they are
having to use interims or they are having to use contractors to
try to fill in the gaps.
So I think the processes are better. I am concerned about,
quite frankly, the experience level of a lot of these key
response individuals.
Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Cannon, can you respond one more time and
we will move on. I think this gives us a good way to kind of
hear each other. That way we can digest the information and try
to help you do your job better.
Mr. Cannon. There is no question that a lot of extremely
talented people have left FEMA, some at the normal end of their
career. They have spent 30 years there and they have decided to
move on. Others have positions as State directors. Right next
to Mr. Womack in Alabama is a former FEMA employee who is the
director.
I think the key is that the Department of Homeland Security
is allowing Administrator Polison, to hire senior level
staffers with real world emergency management experience. I
have 40 years of experience, I hate to say that, 40 years of
experience in emergency management law enforcement, fire
service and emergency medical services and government at the
State, county and city level.
People like myself are what is being brought into FEMA now.
And we bring that real world on the street perspective about
what the people really need when this happens. We understand
that because we have been there and we have done it. And that
is what is going to make the difference. And it is making a
difference at FEMA. If we looked at the top 4 folks in FEMA in
terms of the response area there are over 200 years of
experience now in that category, so that is the difference.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Cannon and Mr. Womack. Let me
just ask one last one and I will pass it on to my colleague
here. The purpose of this meeting was to examine the military
support of civil authorities during disasters. And I want to
thank all the witnesses here. As you can see, part of our job
on this side of the table is to digest the information, analyze
what you have given us and then from there take some
appropriate action. I think some of you are very specific.
Repeal specific provisions.
But looking at what we have to look at, I would ask all the
witnesses if you have any other, now that you have listened to
each of you all, sometimes as you know we have a tendency of
just looking at our own world at a particular way, but
hopefully with the different witnesses here, you can see that
there are other things that we as legislators have to look at
and try to digest it and proceed as to what we think is the
best course of action to take.
I would ask each of the witnesses to please contact our
committee with any specific suggestions you might have, now
that you have had an opportunity to listen to each other,
because that would help us and our staff to digest and analyze
and then decide what course of action we can take together to
see how we can improve our roles and our responses.
So I would ask if you all could do that as quickly as
possible, because as you know, the process sometimes moves
slowly here and sometimes it moves fast. And I would ask you to
turn that over to us as soon as you have any specific
suggestions on that. At this time, Mr. Dent, any last
questions?
Mr. Dent. I will be pretty brief, but thank you again, Mr.
Chairman. General Pineda, if the Department of Homeland
Security could task you directly, would Posse Comitatus apply?
Mr. Pineda. That one I will have to let get an opinion from
the lawyers. I don't think it would be a problem. But right
now, let me say that on the flight that we are doing in Texas
OK, for example, if you see a car coming across the border we
can only follow the car for about 20 miles, then we have to
stop and we have to go on our way. All we can do is notify,
follow the vehicle for 20 miles and then we have to leave.
Mr. Dent. You are following by air?
Mr. Pineda. By aircraft.
Mr. Cuellar. I am sorry, going northbound, not across the
border?
Mr. Pineda. Going northbound from anywhere on the border.
We can follow them for 20 miles, but then we have to stop.
Whether the border patrol is there or not, we have to let it
go. If we see a group of individuals on our side of the border,
just a group sitting there and we fly over, all we can do is
report the sighting and we have to keep on going. We cannot go
around and wait there until the border patrol arrives. That is
the problem.
Mr. Dent. I guess the Posse Comitatus question to follow up
if DHS funded the mission, would Posse Comitatus apply, I guess
is the question?
Mr. Pineda. Do you know what? I am not sure if it will or
not because it is Federal money. And I have been told that if
we use Federal money it applies. But again, we are not a
military organization. So there is both sides of the argument.
Some say yes and some say no. Personally, I don't think it
applies because we are not a DOD military organization, we are
civilians.
Mr. Dent. Understood. And finally what can be done now to
increase the Civil Air Patrol's involvement in other homeland
security activities beyond disasters? I would be curious to
hear that you have to say what could be done to increase this
involvement in the long term.
Mr. Pineda. Working with the Department of Homeland
Security and sharing the assets that we have throughout the
United States, we have over 500 airplanes. 60 of them have very
sophisticated equipment inside that can help them when they are
not being used. So working with them directly will give them
probably about over 5,000 or 6,000 pilots with 500 airplanes.
And those are not being used at all. Not only that, but also
the ground personnel that we have throughout the United States
and the vast communication resources that we have. We have
55,000 eyes and ears in the whole country and they are willing
and able and trained to be able to help them out.
Mr. Dent. Thank you. And just finally to General Lowenberg
and Mr. Womack, can you just let me know quickly how the Civil
Air Patrol has assisted upon request in your respective States?
General Lowenberg. The Civil Air Patrol does perform
missions in support of the Navy in Washington, for example,
with surveillance and recognizance as subways come into
territorial waters and come to the Bangor Homeport. We also
request State-funded search-and-rescue mission assistance with
the Civil Air Patrol through our State Department of
Transportation as part of ESF under the State Comprehensive
Emergency Management Plan.
Mr. Womack. They are fully integrated. At the local level,
they work and train with local emergency management personnel
in their search and rescue. A lot people don't realize they
have a ground search and rescue mission as well. We have a
great relationship with them at the State level. We call on
them frequently for a variety of reasons. We do fund them using
State funds at that point. This is the first time I realized
that their insurance did not cover them so these volunteers are
putting themselves in great jeopardy because it is entirely
possible civilian insurance would not cover them if they had an
accident.
Mr. Dent. Which is why we have to formalize these
relationships to deal with indemnification issues.
Mr. Womack. I really do think if that would be the biggest
change in the law, if you could simply say if they are working
and directly funded by a State or local government, then the
insurance provisions still provide. I think that would fix a
lot of it.
General Lowenberg. If I could add to that. They are covered
in the Washington State law because I assigned them a search-
and-rescue mission number and that makes the State responsible
for that. In fact, I had paid for Civil Air Patrol aircrafts
destroyed in the past because of a crash. So that will vary
from State to State. As Mr. Womack said, if Congress could make
sure the Federal Tort Claims Act covered them while they are
performing these missions.
Mr. Womack. Washington has got a lot more money than
Mississippi. We can't afford it.
Mr. Dent. I thank you all for your answers. And Chairman
Cuellar, I thank you for holding this hearing. And I look
forward to working with you on the legislation to see if we
might be able to refine it based on some of the comments we
heard here this morning.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Dent. And I want to thank all
the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the members for
the questions. As you know, for all on the panel, some of the
members might have additional questions. And if you have
additional questions, I would ask you to submit that as soon as
possible to them and to the committee. And also as I mentioned
at the very end of the questions, if you all have any ideas now
that you listened to each other, we would like to get your
specific suggestion. So hearing no further business the hearing
stands adjourned. Thank you for being here with us.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]