[Senate Hearing 109-747]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-747
ONE YEAR LATER: ARE WE PREPARED?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
SEPTEMBER 7, 2006--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
31-329 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
__________
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TOM HARKIN, Iowa
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
CONRAD BURNS, Montana HARRY REID, Nevada
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire PATTY MURRAY, Washington
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
Bruce Evans, Staff Director
Terrence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Homeland Security
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
TED STEVENS, Alaska DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho PATTY MURRAY, Washington
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HARRY REID, Nevada
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
Professional Staff
Rebecca Davies
Carol Cribbs
Shannon O'Keefe
Nancy Perkins
Mark Van de Water
Charles Kieffer (Minority)
Chip Walgren (Minority)
Scott Nance (Minority)
Drenan E. Dudley (Minority)
Administrative Support
Christa Thompson
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening Statement of Senator Judd Gregg.......................... 1
Statement of Hon. R. David Paulison, Director, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security............. 2
Preparedness Efforts at the Federal and Local Levels............. 3
Prepared Statement of R. David Paulison.......................... 4
Improved Command, Control, Coordination and Situational Awareness 5
Extensive Communications Enhancements............................ 8
Timely and Effective Service to Disaster Victims................. 10
Improved Logistics............................................... 11
Debris Removal Process Enhancements.............................. 12
Personal Preparedness............................................ 12
Statement of Senator Robert C. Byrd.............................. 13
Statement of Hon. George W. Foresman, Under Secretary for
Preparedness, Department of Homeland Security.................. 14
Prevention, Protection, Response and Recovery.................... 14
Preparedness Efforts at the Federal and Local Level.............. 15
Prevention, Protection, Response and Recovery.................... 16
Prepared Statement of George W. Foresman......................... 17
Statement of Admiral Thad W. Allen, Commandant, United States
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security................... 21
Prepared Statement of........................................ 22
Is DHS Ready for Another Category 3, 4, or 5 Hurricane........... 26
To What Extent Should the Military be Used as a First Response... 28
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard C. Shelby.................. 29
Communications................................................... 30
Preparedness and Response Missions............................... 32
Port Security and Preparedness................................... 33
West Virginia's Involvement in Mass Evacuation Planning.......... 34
First Responder Training......................................... 35
Technology Used for Remapping Flood Zones........................ 36
North Command.................................................... 36
Federal Coordination............................................. 37
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu................... 38
Flooding in New Mexico........................................... 41
Harmony in Working Together...................................... 42
Statement of Bruce Baughman, President, National Emergency
Management Association......................................... 44
Prepared Statement of........................................ 47
Statement of Ellis M. Stanley, Sr., Certified Emergency Manager,
General Manager, Emergency Preparedness Department, City of Los
Angeles........................................................ 54
Prepared Statement of........................................ 56
Additional Committee Questions................................... 64
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby................. 64
USCG Preparedness and Response Capability........................ 64
Ports and Coastal Waters......................................... 64
Intelligence Information......................................... 65
Avian Influenza.................................................. 66
Communication With State and Local Level......................... 66
DHS Standards on Environmental Threats........................... 67
Urban Area Security Initiative................................... 67
Operations Centers............................................... 68
Education and Outreach Efforts................................... 69
Disbursement of Aid to Communities............................... 70
FEMA Reimbursement............................................... 71
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd.................... 72
Splitting Preparedness and Response.............................. 72
Measuring Preparedness........................................... 72
Medical Preparedness............................................. 74
ONE YEAR LATER: ARE WE PREPARED?
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Homeland Security,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:59 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gregg, Cochran, Domenici, Shelby, Allard,
and Byrd.
Also present: Senator Landrieu.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JUDD GREGG
Senator Gregg. We will begin the hearing. It is a little
bit early, but I understand Senator Byrd is going to be a
little late. When he gets here, as a courtesy we may interrupt
the statements of the witnesses so that Senator Byrd can make a
statement if he wishes to make one.
The purpose of this hearing is to review where we stand
relative to our preparedness a year after Katrina and 5 years
after 9/11. Obviously the American people want to know, they
expect to know, and, more importantly, they expect that their
government is ready to deal with catastrophic events, whether
they are manmade or brought to us by the weather. We know that
the potential for those events is around the corner,
regrettably. We cannot predict exactly when they may occur, but
unfortunately we do know that they probably will occur.
Obviously, Katrina showed some very significant problems in
our response capability; the question is have we learned
lessons and are we ready to deal with an event, hopefully not
of that level of catastrophe, but an event of that nature,
especially with hurricane season bearing down on us. In fact,
we are right in the middle of it. I guess we are up to the
letter ``F'' already.
In addition, there is the question of, as a result of 9/11,
what have we learned, and how much have we been able to
integrate the preparedness effort between the Federal
Government, the State and the local communities, which is an
element of critical concern obviously to everyone.
I greatly appreciate the members of this panel
participating and those of our second panel. We obviously have
the leadership here of the government relative to dealing with
dramatic events and national disasters. We have Mr. Paulison,
who is the acting head of FEMA, and we have Mr. Foresman, who
is the head of the Office of Preparedness, and of course
Admiral Allen, who is the head of the Coast Guard.
Your agencies have been charged with protecting the
American people and making sure that if events occur, which
harm our people, that there is somebody on the ground helping
them out and giving them every form of assistance that we can
humanly deliver. So we would like to hear from you as to where
we stand and are we ready, and if we are not ready, what do we
need to do to get ready?
We will start with you, Mr. Paulison.
STATEMENT OF HON. R. DAVID PAULISON, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Paulison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I speak for
all three of us and we appreciate the opportunity to come here.
We appreciate the invitation and obviously when we finish we
would like to answer any questions you might have.
This 2005 hurricane season obviously challenged the entire
country and challenged the Nation. 90,000 square miles of land
impacted; 118 million cubic yards of debris, more than
Hurricane Andrew and the Twin Towers combined; 2.1 million
people evacuated for Hurricane Katrina alone; 1.7 million
registrations; and FEMA assisted over 900,000 households during
this period of time.
Despite everyone recognizing the enormity of the disaster,
FEMA could not, and did not live up to this country's
expectations. The true test of this Nation and FEMA is, how we
respond to the challenge of rebuilding our emergency management
response capability. This Nation responded with generosity and
unprecedented outpouring of support through financial and
volunteer assistance. The President responded by committing to
doing what it takes to support the recovery and rebuilding of
the gulf coast, and this Congress and the taxpayers responded
by providing over $110 billion for the Gulf Coast recovery.
Now it is up to FEMA to respond also. We have done so. We
have responded with leadership. The President and Secretary
Chertoff have provided strong leadership in setting direction
for FEMA and so too has Congress and, quite frankly, including
this committee also.
We at FEMA have built a strong team of leaders, each of
whom brings decades of emergency management experience. The
President nominated and the Senate confirmed me for this
position. I too bring a lot of experience to the table, and I
am very thankful for your confirmation.
We have staffed the key leadership roles at FEMA
headquarters, at our regional and field offices with good
people, leaders who have experience. They are seasoned and
knowledgeable about their respective areas of expertise.
We have also responded by building strong partnerships. We
are working closer with our departmental partners, the Coast
Guard, Preparedness, and our Operations Directorate, so we can
now operate as an integrated and focused team to meet the needs
of the States and our citizens; particularly those who have
been victims of disaster.
We have forged stronger bonds with our Federal partners,
the Department of Defense, NORTHCOM, the Corps of Engineers,
Department of Transportation, the National Guard Bureau, HHS,
and GSA, to make sure we can clarify our disaster roles in
prescript mission assignments so they know what we are going to
do.
PREPAREDNESS EFFORTS AT THE FEDERAL AND LOCAL LEVELS
We have worked actively to strengthen our relationship with
our local and State partners. I have met with almost every
governor and State emergency manager from Texas to Maine to
make sure we can clarify roles, find out what the issues are in
advance of hurricane preparedness.
We must be better focused and better prepared than we have
been in the past. We, FEMA, are intent on becoming the Nation's
preeminent national emergency management agency, leading and
supporting an efficient and effective response, an all-hazards
response, to any disaster that may confront the American
people. We have improved in every area of capability to be
prepared for this hurricane season.
What we did was take all the reports that came out of
Congress, the White House, GAO, and the Inspector General's
office, and focus on those very clearly. We also took a
practice that we have used in the first responder world,
primarily what I have used in my community, of reassessing
disaster response and how we responded, whether it is a mass
migration, floods, civil disturbances, hurricanes like Andrew,
or airplane crashes like Value Jet; to do after-action reports
that look very carefully at those things that worked well and
did not work well.
I have broken it down into several areas. The first piece
is, communications, where I saw the biggest flaw. Major
breakdown in communications between State and local government,
between State and Federal Government, and quite frankly inside
the Federal Government. We have worked over the last several
months very diligently to put a communications system in place
that does not just involve equipment, but mostly protocols
dealing with our concept of operations of how we are going to
share information; enforcing a unified command system so
regardless of where information comes into the system, whether
it comes in from a constituent to you, to the President, or it
comes in from the first responder or from our teams in the
field, that that information is shared to everyone in the
system, using better use of our satellite imagery, upgrading
our radio system, and making sure that we are ready in advance,
ready to go on day one.
The second piece is the logistics, having the right things
at the right place at the right time. We have broken that into
several pieces. One, making sure we have enough supplies. We
have tripled and quadrupled our supplies of water, food, blue
tarps, ice, medicines, all those things that we supply, and
pre-staged those supplies, and also have the flexibility of
predeploying those. I think Hurricane Ernesto exemplified our
flexibility in being able to move those supplies around. The
hurricane was first destined to go into Texas and it moved to
Louisiana, then Mississippi, Alabama and even into Florida. In
fact, I sent my wife home to put our shutters up. The hurricane
ended up ending in North Carolina, moving up through the
Northeast Atlantic States.
We were able to move those supplies through a new tracking
system that we have, with a very sophisticated GPS system where
we have total asset visibility. We were able to move those
supplies and to track that hurricane through the entire system.
We have also developed a strategic partnership with the
Defense Logistics Agency to make sure we have backup. As we
move our supplies out of our warehouses, they will be behind us
moving those things back in.
We have looked at our debris contracts. We have put over
500 debris contractors on our website that are preregistered.
That allows small businesses to get involved in the disaster
response, but also allows the local communities the flexibility
of deciding how they are going to move debris from their
community.
We have also put dozens of prescripted mission assignments
in place with different agencies throughout the Federal
Government and also put contingency contracts in place so we do
not end up doing contracts, sole source contracts and no-bid
contracts, at the last minute, that are sloppily written and
difficult to enforce. So, we have these things in place to
avoid delays. People know exactly what the responsibilities are
and we know what their capabilities are as we go into the
system.
We have looked at our victim registration piece. We now
have the capability of registering over 200,000 people a day,
not just by telephone but also online. Also we are going to be
putting people in shelters to register them as they come into
the shelters. Now we have a new mobile capability, because one
of the lessons we learned in Katrina was that people sometimes
could not get to our registration centers. So we have the
capability of going out to them and registering them out in the
field. We also now have the capability of doing over 20,000
house inspections a day to make the system go much more
smoothly and also cut down on our waste, fraud, and abuse.
I know the challenges are great. We know they are great.
But so is our determination to make this the premier agency;
not only to meet, but exceed the expectations of this Congress
and also the American public.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity of speaking
here today and I will obviously be happy to answer any
questions you might have. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of R. David Paulison
Good morning Chairman Gregg, Ranking Member Byrd, and Members of
the Committee. I am R. David Paulison, the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). On behalf of FEMA and the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), I am honored to appear before
you today to discuss FEMA's commitment to incorporate the lessons
learned following last year's catastrophic disasters. We must employ
the lessons learned so when the next disaster strikes we are better
prepared to protect lives, prevent suffering, reduce property loss and
respond more effectively.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita--Changing the Face of Emergency Management
As we all know too well, Hurricane Katrina was the single worst
disaster in American history, and it struck during the single worst
hurricane season on record, with 27 named storms. Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita were two of the most intense hurricanes ever recorded during
an Atlantic hurricane season. FEMA delivered more commodities,
activated more response teams, housed more victims, and distributed
more money in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita than for any
other disaster in the history of this country. The agency supported the
largest evacuation in U.S. history through FEMA's Urban Search & Rescue
teams and assisted other first responders such as the U.S. Coast Guard
in the rescue of 36,000 individuals.
Despite these extraordinary and historic efforts, there were
shortcomings at all levels of government in planning, coordination,
communication and response to Hurricane Katrina. It is clear that the
Federal Government can no longer work within the traditional emergency
management approach that ``waits for State or local governments to be
overwhelmed.'' Rather, I submit that FEMA and the entire Federal
Government must be a partner with State and local governments
throughout the disaster preparedness, planning and recovery phase to
ensure an effective, aligned and integrated response and recovery.
Personal preparedness also plays a critical role. One of the most
important lessons coming out of Hurricane Katrina is the necessity for
changing how America looks at emergency management.
Immediately following Hurricane Katrina, FEMA and its partners in
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began compiling and
evaluating the lessons learned to identify the core functional areas
needing improvement. FEMA and DHS also reviewed after-action reports
and recommendations from Congress, the White House report entitled, The
Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned, the DHS
Inspector General's Report and relevant reports from other
organizations to best capture lessons learned and the core changes
needed. As a result of these intensive collaborative post-Katrina
analyses of response and recovery programs, FEMA has taken steps to
become a more agile organization and maximize performance for all types
of disasters regardless of size, cause, or complexity.
We do not take these steps forward in a haphazard way. We are
working purposefully toward reshaping FEMA in a coordinated fashion, on
all levels, to transform the agency to become the Nation's Preeminent
Emergency Management Agency. By strengthening our core competencies,
employing advanced technologies and taking a business approach to our
supporting management processes, we intend to be a leader and model
agency in developing emergency management capabilities at all levels of
government. It is our goal and our mission to be ready and capable of
supporting all-hazards, incident management, recovery, mitigation, and
continuity programs. We will take these actions in partnership with our
Departmental colleagues such as the Preparedness Directorate,
Operations Branch and the Coast Guard. As well, we will nurture and
expand on our relationships with the Federal family, State and local
government, the private sector and not-for-profit entities.
FEMA's current approach is to lean forward aggressively and be
ready to respond during the current hurricane season. We are confident
in our people, our experience, and the improvements we have made since
Hurricane Katrina. Innovative and effective techniques and technologies
employed in the response to Hurricanes Rita and Wilma have been
institutionalized. Numerous key initiatives are in place that have
improved FEMA's capabilities for the 2006 Hurricane Season. Just as
important, however, is the applicability of these new techniques and
technologies to any disaster, whether caused by Mother Nature or
terrorists.
2006 Hurricane Season Improvements
Since Hurricane Katrina, FEMA has made significant improvements in
core operational competencies: command and control coordination and
situational awareness, communications, disaster victim basic services,
logistics, pre-scripted mission assignments, and debris removal. We
also have been aggressively working to improve our internal operations
by adopting and fostering a business approach to emergency management.
This is supported by pursuing increased staffing and upgraded equipment
and support services for the Agency. Secretary Chertoff, other members
of the Department's leadership team, and I have been meeting with
senior elected officials in hurricane prone States as part of a broad
outreach effort to highlight the Department's commitment to improved
emergency preparedness, readiness for the hurricane season, and
incident management. Our goal is to develop a more effective national
response and instill public confidence. By supplementing State and
local response capabilities at the appropriate point during a disaster,
and capitalizing on partnerships, we will improve disaster response and
recovery.
improved command, control, coordination and situational awareness
DHS/FEMA has established communications and operation systems that
will ensure ``unity of effort, unity of command'' through rigorous
adherence to the principles of the National Incident Management System
(NIMS). Improved coordination procedures, protocols, and reporting
processes have also been implemented for more effective operation of
the National Response Coordination Center (NRCC) as a component of the
National Operations Center (NOC).
Upgraded Emergency Operations Centers.--FEMA's NRCC has improved
its disaster response and coordination capabilities. The facility has
been upgraded and new equipment, video capabilities, and software have
been installed to improve the interface, coordination, and exchange of
information with the NOC, other Federal Departments and Agencies, and
State and local emergency managers. The improved capabilities includes
the new DHS common operating picture (COP) that resides on the Homeland
Security Information Network (HSIN). Although the COP is in its initial
stages of development, its use during last week's Tropical Storm
Ernesto provided the way ahead for a unifying effort and improved
situational awareness. Training to support the HSIN/COP system is
initially focused on Departments and Agencies providing support during
hurricane season, the NRCC, the FEMA Regions, DHS Components, Joint
Field Offices, the National Infrastructure Coordinating Center, and the
NOC. In addition to the improvements to the NRCC's information
technology systems, audio-visual equipment, and Video Tele-Conference
(VTC) capabilities, upgrades are being made to the FEMA Region IV
(Atlanta) and Region VI (Denton) Regional Response Coordination Centers
(RRCC) to improve their disaster response operational coordination and
information exchange capabilities.
Pre-designated Disaster Leadership.--Secretary Chertoff and I have
already pre-designated five leadership teams to ensure better
coordination of the Federal Government's response and recovery efforts
in support of our State and local partners. The five teams draw upon
the expertise of 27 Federal officials designated as Principal Federal
Officials (PFO), Deputy PFOs (DPFO), and Federal Coordinating Officers
(FCO) and are assigned to the Gulf Coast Region, Florida, the Northeast
region, the Mid-Atlantic region, and Texas. The PFOs and DPFOs serve as
the Secretary's representatives on the ground and primary point of
contact for State and local officials within their area of authority.
All of these Federal Government representatives will support impacted
State and local governments and will improve FEMA's and the
Department's ability to respond quickly and delineate roles more
effectively.
Emergency Response Teams.--FEMA's Emergency Response Teams (ERT)
will be deployed with satellite phone capability to State emergency
operations centers to establish unified incident command at key local
emergency operations centers and to coordinate with local officials and
be able to report information rapidly from the local level. This
concept was successfully used in the responses to Hurricanes Rita and
Wilma and will be continued in this year's hurricane season.
Department Situation Awareness Teams.--DHS's capabilities will be
further enhanced with the introduction of the DHS Situational Awareness
Teams (DSATs) and their interoperable communications assets. The DSATs
are designed to provide the DHS Secretary and the Principal Federal
Official (PFO) with situational awareness and real time disaster
activity information early on in the disaster when chaos and fog are
common place. The DSATs capabilities include ICE Agents with a variety
of communications gear ranging from radios to satellite video as well
as an accompanying DHS Public Affairs team.
Federal Incident Support Teams.--FEMA has created two new Federal
Incident Response Support Teams (FIRST), which are now operational.
Federal Incident Support Teams and equipment are designed to provide
DHS/FEMA with the capability to directly support State, local, and
tribal government disaster operations on scene as well as provide
communications support and situational awareness to the State and
Federal decision makers. The teams are small, can be rapidly deployed,
can provide technical advice and situational awareness, can facilitate
alternative communications, and can assist in requesting and employing
lifesaving Federal assets.
To enhance support for the DSAT and FIRSTs, survivable and
interoperable communications capabilities are being augmented and
greater emphasis is being placed on the types and availability of
communications equipment, frequency management, and cross-coordination
of operational support capability. The ultimate goal is for the
information gathered by the DSAT and the FIRSTs to be shared and
coordinated among all levels. The DSAT role upon direction of the PFO
is to fill specific gaps in situational awareness when other resources
are not available or appropriate
Search and Rescue Coordination.--Efforts have been taken to better
blend the capabilities of Coast Guard, Federal military, State National
Guard, local police and fire departments, and other assets to improve
search and rescue capabilities. Our 28 Federal Urban Search and Rescue
Task Forces and 108 National Disaster Medical System teams are ready
for deployment to support the needs of disaster victims and first
responders where needed. As an example of our efforts to enhance
response capabilities, FEMA's Urban Search and Rescue staff is working
with DHS components, such as the U.S. Coast Guard, and other Federal
agencies, including the Department of the Interior (Park Service), and
the Department of Defense, to define roles, responsibilities and
available resources for expanding search and rescue scope and
capabilities to include water and wilderness capabilities. The intent
is to expand the search and rescue capabilities of the Federal
Government and to ensure they will be more fully integrated with those
of State and local governments.
Department of Defense Coordination.--To ensure better
synchronization, coordination, and readiness with the active duty
military, whose personnel and capabilities can be critical in a major
disaster response, the Department of Defense (DOD) is placing a Defense
Coordinating Officer (DCO)--typically deployed as lead field
coordinator for the employment of DOD resources during an incident--
permanently in each of FEMA's ten regional offices for ongoing
preparedness and response coordination in disasters. This will improve
Federal coordination in the immediate response and smooth out and
expedite the provision of DOD support. FEMA is also streamlining the
way it seeks assistance from the DOD by pre-scripting mission
assignments in advance of the hurricane season so that time is not lost
during the critical response period. There are 16 pre-scripted Mission
Assignments involving such functions as airlift, transportation,
communications, imagery, route clearance, housing and feeding, fuel
distribution, staging and establishing mobilization centers, and
medical treatment support that have been prepared and approved. In
addition, the Regions maintain close coordination with the Regional
Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officer staff.
Experienced Disaster Staffing Increased
A larger number of disaster workers means FEMA will be able to
respond more quickly to the needs of victims over a greater area in the
event of a large or catastrophic disaster and will provide a more rapid
and focused response to smaller incidents. However, I simply will not
bring anyone to FEMA leadership who does not extensive relevant
experience. FEMA now has seasoned emergency professionals to lead our
core areas such as our Response and Recovery Divisions, as well as
filling positions such as the Regional Directors and Deputy Directors.
Many of our employees, including myself, have personal experience as
hurricane or disaster victims.
On the staff level, FEMA has approximately 2,000 full time career
employees--it is the size of a high school in a metropolitan area. Most
of FEMA's employees are Disaster Assistance Employees (DAE) or Cadre on
call Response Employees (CORE). Immediately following Hurricane
Katrina, FEMA increased the size of FEMA's Disaster Assistance
employees (DAE) cadre by 100 percent (approximately 4,000 pre-Katrina;
approximately 8,000 today). In addition, FEMA is currently filling more
than 700 2-year Cadre on call Response Employees (CORE) positions for
Hurricane Katrina in FEMA Headquarters and Regional offices. FEMA also
has approximately 2,500 2-year CORE positions in four Transitional
Recovery offices (TROs) in the Gulf Coast region.
Of the 8,000 DAEs FEMA has trained 3,000 disaster ``generalist''
surge cadre employees for ready deployment during the height of the
2006 hurricane season and has increased its capacity to deploy and
communicate with these disaster employees. These generalist surge
employees have been trained across a number of basic functions
including Community Relations, Individual Assistance, Public
Assistance, and Logistics. They can quickly canvas areas immediately
following a disaster to inform the public of FEMA's programs, assessing
the communities' needs, and serving as strike team members for shelter
or hotel populations. These generalists will free up FEMA's more
specialized and experienced workers to address more complex specific
issues.
Within the National Processing Service Center FEMA is converting
more than 4,000 disaster temporary employee positions to 2-year CORE
term positions to improve retention and increase surge capacity.
National Incident Management System (NIMS) Integration Center (NIC)
The NIMS Integration Center is working with other FEMA and DHS
components as well as the interagency community to ensure operational
readiness for disasters of all kinds, regardless of cause. The NIC also
will coordinate and broker agency and interagency planning initiatives
in support of operational response and recovery objectives for the
NIMS.
NIMS Incident Command System (ICS) Train the Trainer courses are
being conducted in all States and Territories. Over 3 million first
responders and disaster workers have completed the NIMS training. The
NIC will also be offering several new training programs in support of
disaster response.
The NIC will provide the central activity to ensure the NIMS is a
continuously improving system of response that unites all responders in
the United States through common organizational structures, common
terminology for resources, and interoperable equipment and
communications. These activities will be constantly evaluated and
improved based on lessons learned and on the evolution of technology
and protocols as directed in HSPD-5. The NIC is developing a national
mutual aid and resource management system that includes first responder
and emergency worker credentialing based on national standards,
supports the NIMS, and will ultimately allow Federal, State, and local
governments to order and track response resources more quickly and
effectively.
Following consultation with our State and Federal partners, the
NIMS guidance document will be updated based on lessons learned from
Hurricane Katrina. In addition, the fiscal year 2007 NIMS Compliance
Requirements will be released by October 1, 2006. Currently, the NIC is
working with DHS' Preparedness Directorate's Office of Grants and
Training to monitor the States' NIMS compliance for the fiscal year
2005 State Homeland Security Grant Program. fiscal year 2006 NIMS
Compliance will be monitored in fiscal year 2007 by the NIC in
partnership with the DHS Office of Grants & Training, and will focus on
23 specific compliance activities
Continuity of Operations (COOP)
To support its continuity of operations or COOP lead agent
responsibilities, FEMA has developed a national COOP outreach program
focused on assisting Federal, State and local jurisdictions in their
continuity preparedness. To support this effort, continuity of
operations working groups (CWG) have been established in the National
Capital Region and in many of our largest cities across the country.
FEMA's goal is to establish these working groups in all 50 States and
territories by fiscal year 2008. The CWGs established with the Federal
Executive Boards in New Orleans, Houston, and Miami prior to the
hurricanes of 2005, for example, and the many COOP training and
exercise activities conducted by these organizations prior to the
hurricanes, were instrumental in facilitating the Federal Government's
timely recovery and reconstitution efforts following Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.
EXTENSIVE COMMUNICATIONS ENHANCEMENTS
An overarching problem during Katrina was the fact our
communications system broke down. It was broken between the local
community and the State, between the State and the Federal Government,
and quite frankly, inside the Federal Government itself. Recognizing
this shortfall, DHS/FEMA, in conjunction with the National
Communications System (NCS) which is responsible for Emergency Support
Function #2--Communications, has implemented a wide range of
enhancements.
In addition, FEMA Public Affairs has been working with the DHS
Public Affairs on improvements to external and public affairs processes
during an incident to ensure the delivery of a coordinated message.
Emergency Communications Working Group.--To plan for the most
comprehensive strategy possible for communications, DHS is leading the
Emergency Communications Working Group (ECWG). FEMA and the NCS are
members of this group. FEMA's Chief Information Officer and Mobile
Emergency Response Support (MERS) Program Manager are working hand in
hand with NCS to improve disaster communications capabilities.
Interoperability Exercises.--FEMA continues to participate in
communications interoperability exercises and tests that began before
the June 1, 2006, Hurricane Season. These exercises have been used to
validate interoperability among Federal, State and local emergency
management officials. Some of the exercises included DICE (Defense
Interoperability Exercise/Testing) conducted in February and March
2006;, 2006; Grecian Firebolt 2006 (Joint Secure Communications
exercise) conducted from June 12-24, 2006; and JUICE 2006 (Joint User
Interoperability Communications Exercise) conducted in August of 2006.
FEMA MERS also periodically tests its readiness in a series of
readiness capability (REDCAP) exercises. The REDCAP exercises have been
conducted in October 2005 and July 2006. All of these exercises and
other measures have improved the ability of disaster responders at all
levels to communicate with each other during disaster responses. In the
event of a hurricane, communication resources will be pre-deployed to
staging areas surrounding the expected landfall area. These resources
will then be promptly dispatched to an effected area when requested.
These communications plans will support command and control,
evacuation, search and rescue, and other response activities.
New Communications Initiatives Recently Funded.--Congress approved
$5 million in supplemental funding in September 2005 and an additional
$70 million in supplemental funds in June 2006, for FEMA's Office of
National Security Coordination (ONSC). With this funding ONSC is
implementing the following initiatives:
The Mobile Radio Station (MRS).--Will be used to communicate
official news and information to disaster area residents and officials
when local radio broadcast capabilities have been disrupted by a major
disaster. The MRS will be a rapidly deployable, AM and FM radio
transmitter system that can be tuned to the frequencies of disrupted FM
and most AM radio stations. The MRS will have an integral radio studio
and can also use satellite communications for linking remote broadcast
studio facilities. The MRS will be housed in a trailer capable of being
transported to the disaster region by truck or air transport.
Emergency Alert System (EAS) Primary Entry Point (PEP) Radio
Station Improvements.--FEMA is upgrading several Gulf region PEP radio
stations to be able to operate through hurricanes. The Federal
Government provides PEP radio stations with fuel, generators and other
capabilities that allow them to stay on the air in times of disasters.
For example, the WWL station in New Orleans had on-site fuel and backup
power generators provided by FEMA that enabled this station to continue
operations throughout Hurricane Katrina.
FEMA National Radio (FNARS).--FNARS will provide for continuation
of Phase I of the FNARS high-frequency (HF) radio system modernization
to the Katrina affected States. The modernization will help to replace
logistically unsupportable equipment and will add new capabilities such
as secure e-mail and user-friendly operator interfaces. The FNARS is
designed to back up landline based systems and ensure continued
connectivity between the Federal, State, and territorial governments in
times of commercial telecommunications infrastructure outage.
National Warning System (NAWAS) Satellite Capability.--FEMA will
develop a satellite-based NAWAS capability for the Katrina-affected
States. The current NAWAS is a private line telephone system used to
convey warnings and other information to Federal, State, and local
governments. To improve the security, reliability, and survivability of
the NAWAS system, independent satellite paths will be used for
connectivity within the network and will provide a collaborative
environment with text, voice, video, and data services that can operate
through floods and other hazardous conditions.
Emergency Cellular and Land Mobile Radio Relay Vans.--During
Hurricane Katrina, 1,477 cell towers were disrupted and both cellular
and land mobile radio relays were flooded or damaged throughout a
multi-State region. To respond to such conditions in the future, FEMA
is purchasing contingency cell telephone Switch on Wheels (SOWs) with
mobile cell towers and land mobile radio relay capabilities. These SOWs
can receive E911 calls from the public and first responders, will help
to locate people in distress, and will provide a satellite based
backhaul into the public telephone and cellular networks. The SOWs will
also enable the government to send out broadcast text alert messages to
selected cell phones in a disaster area. The end result will be an
assured cellular network for government and first responders that is
also helpful to the public. Each SOW will include phones and will also
integrate VHF, UHF, and SHF land mobile radio (LMR) interoperable radio
relay capabilities.
Public Address Bulletin Boards & Voice Systems.--During Hurricane
Katrina, there was a lack of situational awareness and alerting for the
displaced public, especially in shelters and during evacuation. FEMA
will provide trailers with roadside electronic bulletin board
capabilities as well as public address systems to improve situational
awareness in large public shelters.
Deploy the Geo-Targeted Alerting System (GTAS) to the Katrina-
affected States.--During disasters, the Federal Government does not
have a geo-targeted alerting capability to warn the public via
telephones or cellular phones that they are in harms way. GTAS is a
joint DHS and NOAA program to help warn the public in specific danger
zones, whether the zone covers an entire city or is focused on a
particular building or neighborhood. The GTAS will integrate near-real-
time weather and hazard predictions with collaborative alert zone
determinations. The GTAS will provide Federal, State, and local
officials a capability to precisely target alerts to those who are most
at risk. Funds will help to deploy an initial GTAS capability to the
Katrina affected States.
Deploy Digital EAS Capabilities to the Katrina Affected States.--
The Digital EAS (DEAS) enables the government to use public
television's digital broadcasts to send out text, voice, and video
alerts. These alerts can be sent to public shelters, roadside signs,
and numerous other devices that have a capability to either directly
receive these broadcasts or that can receive DEAS alert messages
through approved relay sites. This effort funds the deployment of a
mobile DEAS transmitter van for use in an area where the public TV
station is disrupted and also helps with the DEAS provisioning of
public television affiliates in the Katrina affected States.
Deploy DHS Internet-based Alerting for the Katrina Affected
States.--The DHS Web Alert and Relay Network (WARN) will provide the
Federal Government with a capability to alert the public through an
opt-in web based alerting service and other web based services. The DHS
WARN will provide the public with warning information based on location
(such as a zip code) and type of event (flood, tornado, explosion,
etc.).
Mobile Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS)
Coordination Centers.--Three IPAWS Coordination Centers will provide
mobile facilities with collaborative alert and warning displays and
will help to coordinate Federal, State, and local warnings over other
public warning systems (such as the EAS, GTAS, DHS WARN, SOWs, and DEAS
networks described above). In addition, these IPAWS Coordination
Centers will provide connectivity to the National Operations Center and
the FEMA Operations Center.
TIMELY AND EFFECTIVE SERVICE TO DISASTER VICTIMS
FEMA's top priority when facing any disaster is to provide timely
and effective assistance to disaster victims. Many of FEMA's processes
that have worked well in the past for smaller disasters were no match
for a Katina-size event. FEMA is always looking for ways to improve its
delivery of services. For the catastrophic Katrina, we sought through
trial and error new and innovative ways of service delivery in an
effort to speed much-needed assistance into the hands of individual
victims and State and local governments. Some of the more immediate
tangible FEMA initiatives are described below.
Planning for Medical Needs.--FEMA is undertaking a coordinated
emergency preparedness planning effort in partnership with the Office
of Equal Rights and State and local officials to develop plans for
immediate and adequate sheltering and housing of people with
disabilities; and to develop accessible resources to provide
information about FEMA programs and assistance, as well as about
available disability support organizations. Additional responsibilities
include developing processes for quickly restoring assistive and
adaptive implements, planning which enables reconnection with medical
facilities and pharmacies for ongoing medical needs, and developing
plans which facilitate restoration of the support system which enables
people with disabilities to resume their normal functions as quickly as
possible.
Preparedness for people with disabilities is integrated into both
program guidance and specific training for State and local Emergency
Management Agencies and for service and advocacy agencies and
organizations that work with them. These organizations cooperated with
FEMA's Training Division and Office of Equal Rights in developing
public information and education materials, and in developing training
and guidance for emergency management system disability support
personnel at all levels.
Medical evacuations are also a particular concern for special needs
populations. The National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) is a statutory
Federal partnership to supplement State and local medical resources
during disasters, major emergencies or military contingencies. The NDMS
Federal Partners are the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS), Health
and Human Services (HHS), Defense (DOD) and Veterans Affairs (VA). Each
of the NDMS Federal Partners has a specific role in the mission. The
Department of Defense is responsible for coordinating/facilitating
patient movement. NDMS patient movement begins at an Aeromedical
Staging facility co-located with an airfield. Patients arrive at the
NDMS site via personal or local transportation assets for evaluation
and treatment. Patients arrive at the NDMS site via personal or local
transportation assets. Patients that require care beyond the local
capacity may be regulated to an NDMS receiving facility outside the
local area. Patients would be transferred via NDMS DOD assets to an
NDMS DOD or VA Federal Coordinating Center (FCC). The FCC would re-
regulate the patient to an NDMS participating civilian facility and
coordinate the transport to the NDMS participating facility. All
movement by ground, helicopter or other local assets is coordinated by
the local EMS. NDMS is not configured to perform patient extraction or
local transportation.
Improving Shelter Population Management.--FEMA is working with the
American Red Cross, the nation's largest operator of major congregate
care shelters during disasters, to develop and improve methods to
better identify and more quickly assist those who have evacuated to a
congregate care shelter. Immediately following a Presidentially
declared disaster, this tracking capability will assist FEMA and the
Red Cross in further developing and implementing methods for quickly
identifying and reunifying missing and separated children and family
members during a disaster.
Increasing Registration Capacity.--During the days and weeks
following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA surpassed 100,000
registrations a day, shattering all previous records of intake. While
call center capacity was at its highest levels ever, FEMA is pursuing
even more robust contract and contingency surge capabilities that will
allow for rapid expansion to a registration intake capacity of up to
200,000 per day. FEMA's Internet-based and telephone 800# registration
capability have been increased, allowing us to handle more
registrations than ever before. This increased capability will help
reduce registration wait times, allow more people to apply for
assistance more quickly, and make Helpline agents available immediately
to provide callers follow-up information on their applications.
Deterring Fraud, Waste and Abuse.--While FEMA's primary concern is
always helping the disaster victim, we are also committed to being a
good steward of taxpayer dollars. FEMA now conducts real-time identity
and address verification during the registration process, for both
internet and phone applications, providing another--but expedient--
layer of verification to minimize waste, fraud and abuse. This identity
and occupancy verification is accomplished with systems interface with
the databases designed to assist us catch errors and prevent fraud. Our
system now also identifies types of property to prevent registrations
from invalid addresses such as post office boxes, vacant lots and
commercial properties. FEMA has also instituted changes to the
expedited assistance program, which is the most susceptible to fraud
and abuse, by requiring additional verifications and placing a $500 cap
on this immediate, short-term assistance. We have also put a hold on
our debit card program until enhanced security measures can be put in
place. FEMA has worked with our volunteer organization partners to
create an authorization program for extended stays in hotels that may
result from a catastrophic incident. This program will prevent the
abuses seen when the program transitioned from Section 403 (Public
Assistance) to Section 408 (Individual Assistance) following Hurricane
Katrina. These measures will help protect the government from fraud,
waste and abuse while still providing assistance to disaster victims in
the most expeditious manner possible. Almost $115 million in FEMA-
provided assistance has been approved for recoupment; to date we have
recovered over $3 million.
Piloting Deployable Mobile Registration Intake Centers (MRICs).--
Recognizing that many disaster victims may be stranded or in congregate
care shelters with no power and/or communications, and unable to
register for assistance, FEMA is piloting a new program in the 2006
hurricane season that uses Mobile Registrations Intake Centers. The
MRICs will immediately deploy to large congregate care shelters and
other areas with large numbers of individuals displaced in the
aftermath of a disaster and provide an on-site capability to quickly
register for FEMA assistance. Both laptops and cell phones will be made
available with the MRICs for people to register online or call our
800#.
Expanding Home Inspections Capacity.--For many applicants, moving
forward in the recovery process does not begin until they are able to
get back into their homes. FEMA's Individual and Household Assistance
program provides disaster victims the financial resources to begin
their recovery. Except for Expedited Assistance, these funds become
available only after we have physically inspected the applicant's home
and recorded eligible losses. In the next few months, FEMA will award
new inspection contracts that will nearly triple the current daily home
inspection capacity from 15,000 per day to 40,000 per day. This added
capacity will increase the speed of delivering grant assistance to the
applicants.
Disaster Assistance Policy Review.--Based on this past year's
experience we are developing new policies and updating others to
minimize confusion and maximize the timeliness of providing help to
disaster victims. We have clarified appropriate use and authorization
of Stafford Act emergency sheltering funds (Section 403 assistance)
versus disaster housing assistance funds (Section 408 assistance) for
disaster victims. These new and revised policies will clarify State and
local roles, improve communications with disaster victims, and
facilitate the transition from sheltering to temporary housing.
IMPROVED LOGISTICS
FEMA is working hard to develop a sophisticated, efficient, agile
national logistics supply system capable of meeting emergent needs,
responsive to trends, and anticipatory of long-term requirements. We
want to ensure that the right commodities such as food, water and ice,
can be provided at the right time and at the right place to meet victim
needs.
Increased Supplies for Surge Needs.--FEMA has improved its
logistics and commodity distribution capabilities by replenishing and
restocking essential disaster commodities at logistics and staging
facilities. Compared to last year, FEMA's stockpiles of disaster
commodities, namely food, water and ice, have been greatly increased.
Last year, we had 180 truckloads of Meals-Ready-to-Eat (MREs) (10,000
people served per day per truck) compared to 770 today. Also, we've
increased our water and ice supplies by 150 and 300 percent,
respectively, to serve up to one million people in a single week. FEMA
headquarters signed an agreement in March with the Defense Logistics
Agency to ensure procurement, delivery, and vendor managed inventories
so that stockpiles of emergency meals, water, and plastic sheeting, as
well as medical supplies and pharmaceuticals to assist FEMA's National
Disaster Medical System and Urban Search and Rescue Task Forces, are
available. For this year's hurricane season, there will be greater
emphasis on providing commercial type meals with packaging similar to
that used for MREs but that are better matched to the general
population's nutritional and caloric requirements. In addition to
replenishing and restocking essential disaster commodities such as
water, ice, fuel, generators and tarps that FEMA has on hand at
logistics and staging areas across the United States, FEMA will
continue working with vendors to have a ready supply of needed
commodities and assets for surge capability beyond FEMA's ``on hand''
capacity.
New 21st Century Tracking System.--FEMA has implemented a new 21st
Century tracking system, which includes a Global Positioning Systems
program that will improve our visibility of disaster assets and
commodities from requisition to delivery of disaster commodities within
States, thus enhancing logistics management. This new capability, the
Total Asset Visibility Project: Phase I, will provide FEMA with an
improved ability to manage its inventory of certain commodities and to
track the location of trailers carrying commodities such as water, ice,
emergency meals, plastic sheeting, tarps, generators, cots, blankets,
Joint Field Office kits, and material handling equipment distributed
from the FEMA Logistics Centers in FEMA Region IV (Atlanta) and Region
VI (Fort Worth). This tracking will provide real time status to FEMA
and the States being assisted by this supplemental Federal assistance
and will result in more effective and efficient delivery of relief
supplies to disaster victims. FEMA will continue its efforts to expand
this tracking system to encompass other centers. We plan to expand this
capability nationwide.
Leaning Forward Pre-Positioning of Commodities.--Building on a
strong system of strategic pre-positioning of Federal commodities
developed in the last 2 years for quick deployment of assets to
hurricane-prone States, FEMA has been closely coordinating with the
States to improve commodity delivery. States have been providing
detailed information to FEMA regarding precise staging areas and points
of distribution to the most valuable pre-determined locations to best
reach populations in need. States will take ownership of Federal
commodities and are charged with their distribution to individual
citizens. While assets have been pre-positioned based on the needs of
each State, the presence of goods (MREs, helicopters, ice, etc.) in one
State does not mean that those assets are assigned exclusively to that
State.
DEBRIS REMOVAL PROCESS ENHANCEMENTS
The expeditious removal of debris is critical to the affected
State's and local ability to quickly recover from disaster. In
Hurricane Katrina, the debris volume was unprecedented. FEMA's Recovery
Division is developing Debris Removal Process Enhancements to ensure
that policies are applied consistently for cost-sharing for Federal
contracting through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and local
government contracting. Further, FEMA has established a Debris
Contractor Registry website where debris removal contractors licensed
in particular States can post their contact information. State and
local governments can access this database for information about
contractors whom they may pre-select for projects associated with
disasters in their State or county. In addition, FEMA has developed
various other guidance documents on debris removal for local
governments. We also provide training on debris management, including
contracting and monitoring to State and local governments. These
initiatives reduce the confusion surrounding debris removal contractors
and debris removal eligibility and allow debris removal operations to
move ahead more quickly and with greater financial integrity.
PERSONAL PREPAREDNESS
Although I am saving this for last, it is one of the most important
aspects of readiness. While FEMA and other government organizations
work to bolster capabilities and readiness for disasters, it has become
increasingly essential for individuals and families to be prepared.
Personal preparedness, regardless of Federal or local government
capabilities, is always the best preparedness. Preparing for 72 hours
after a disaster is not only recommended, it is expected. Hurricane
Katrina has taught us all that first responders are often unable to
enter a disaster site to perform rescue and life-saving activities due
to dangerous conditions. All able-bodied people must assume greater
responsibility for their safety and that of their loved ones and pets,
especially during the hours immediately after a disaster. The more
citizens can take care of themselves and their families during
disasters, the more emergency managers will be able to develop plans
and allocate resources to those who need them most. Individuals,
employees, and families should go to Ready.gov or FEMA.gov to learn how
to prepare their disaster kits and evacuation plans.
Conclusion
As FEMA moves towards the 21st Century, we are working towards
achieving an important goal, which is to make FEMA the preeminent
emergency management agency. However, preparation for improved
emergency management must be a continuous process, and I, my leadership
team, and the men and women of FEMA are committed to continuous
improvement. FEMA is dedicated to making additional significant
enhancements beyond this hurricane season to further strengthen the
Nation's preparedness and ability to respond and recover from
disasters, whatever their cause. We look forward to continuing our
partnerships with the States, tribal and local governments, as well as
the private sector, community and faith-based organizations and
individuals in strengthening our mitigation, preparedness, response and
recovery for disasters.
Going forward, FEMA will provide service of value by developing and
improving our operational competencies and fostering a business
approach to our operations, never losing sight of those we are
committed to serving, the American public, in a compassionate way.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking member, and Members of the Committee, thank
you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, and we will have some questions.
Mr. Paulison. I am sure.
Senator Gregg. But before we turn to our next witness, I
would ask if Senator Byrd wishes to make an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD
Senator Byrd. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It has been 5 years since the attacks on September 11. It
has been 3\1/2\ years since the President and Congress created
the Department of Homeland Security. It has been 1 year since
the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. So the question before us
today is this: Are we prepared? We know that we will be tested.
It might be another hurricane. It might be an earthquake. It
might be a pandemic influenza or a terrorist attack. No matter
what it is, we will be tested. When disaster strikes, whether
it is a natural disaster or a terrorist attack, our citizens
will expect to get help from their government in their time of
need.
Just last year, the President designated 155 Federal
disasters. Not a corner of our Nation has been left untouched
by some disaster. More than 6,500 lives have been lost to
disasters in the United States since 1979. Hurricane Katrina by
itself was responsible for more than 1,300 deaths. When the
Northridge earthquake hit California, FEMA was ready. When the
Midwest had devastating floods, FEMA was ready. When domestic
terrorists detonated a bomb in Oklahoma City, FEMA was ready.
When foreign terrorists struck on 9/11, FEMA was ready. When
anthrax spores from an unknown source brought death and fear to
our country, FEMA and other Federal agencies were ready.
Regrettably, 2\1/2\ years after the creation of the
Department, when Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, FEMA
was no longer up to the task. The administration allowed FEMA
to wither on the vine. The White House's report on lessons
learned from Hurricane Katrina indicated that we need a
preparedness vision and that we must create a culture of
preparedness. The White House can use all kinds of catch
phrases, but what we really need is to be ready. Ready to
fortify structures to mitigate the loss of life and property,
ready to deploy in advance of disasters, ready to respond,
ready to help those affected by a disaster to recover.
Prepare, mitigate, respond, and recover; one cannot be done
without the other. I simply do not understand why the
administration has broken FEMA into pieces, separated the
preparedness and response missions, and failed to provide the
agency with effective leadership.
When Congress debated the law that created the Department
of Homeland Security, I said this: ``Homeland security is a
serious and dangerous matter involving the lives and
livelihoods of millions of Americans.'' Well, that is as true
today as it was then. I am frustrated with how long it has
taken to build a coherent homeland security system. In the past
year, the Department has taken many steps to improve our
preparation and response capabilities, including hiring
experienced leaders. However, I fear that we have not done
enough. I fear that we are so focused on figuring out how best
to respond to the last disaster that we are not preparing for
the next potential disaster, no matter what it might be or
where.
So, I know your jobs are difficult. I look forward to
hearing from you. I commend Chairman Gregg for calling this
hearing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that
statement.
We will now turn to the Office of Preparedness, Mr.
Foresman.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE W. FORESMAN, UNDER SECRETARY
FOR PREPAREDNESS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Mr. Foresman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Byrd, and members of the committee. Thank you all for the
opportunity to appear before you.
PREVENTION, PROTECTION, RESPONSE AND RECOVERY
We are here, as both you and Senator Byrd have said, to
talk about the important work to strengthen the Nation's level
of preparedness as it relates to the broad mission of
prevention, protection, response, and recovery. Mr. Chairman,
we are especially pleased that you are holding this important
hearing today during September, which is National Preparedness
Month. Today's hearing provides the backdrop to discuss the
roles and progress of all levels of government to strengthen
America's preparedness, clearly with a focus on the Department
of Homeland Security. It is also a chance to reinforce the
American public--to the American public that the
responsibilities for our safety and security transcend
government, the private sector, and the nonprofit sectors.
Americans have a critical role for their own safety and
security.
Accordingly, with more than 1,100 partner organizations
nationwide, we continue to work to educate citizens about the
importance of personal preparedness while at the same time we
are working across government and with the private sector to
meet our obligations. One example of our outreach efforts came
just yesterday as the Department announced a partnership with
the American Association of Retired Persons, the American Red
Cross, the National Organization on Disability, and the
National Fire Protection Association. This joint effort allows
us to broaden our message to older and disabled Americans, two
particularly vulnerable populations, among many, that may bear
the worst effects of any emergency or disaster.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this past June a
study conducted by the Ad Council on behalf of the Department's
Ready Campaign recorded positive increases in preparedness
behaviors by individual Americans. It found that from 2005 to
2006 the proportion of Americans who said that they had taken
any steps to prepare for an emergency increased from 45 percent
to 55 percent. The number who have taken steps to develop a
personal disaster kit has risen 10 percent to 54 percent. And
there has been a 7 percent increase, up to 39 percent, in the
number of families who have sat down together and developed a
family disaster plan.
These numbers, while promising, are against the backdrop of
91 percent of all respondents who say that it is very or
somewhat important for all Americans to be prepared for
emergencies and disasters. Clearly, those who know that they
need to prepare are not fully prepared.
There is more work to be done in government, the private
sector, and with our citizens. But Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee, we are seeing improvements in each of the
categories: government, the private sector, nonprofits, and
with the American public.
PREPAREDNESS EFFORTS AT THE FEDERAL AND LOCAL LEVEL
Accordingly, let me first briefly discuss our preparedness
efforts at the Federal level, as Director Paulison has done and
as Admiral Allen will do, and then I will offer some State and
local snapshots. I want to note for the committee that, while
we are focusing on today's discussions on the hurricane threat,
the steps we are taking will have a direct impact on a wide
range of efforts to prevent, protect, respond, and recover
against the full range of hazards and threats that form
America's risk environment.
Since Katrina one of the most fundamental things that we
have done with the White House, Senate, and House of
Representatives after-action reports is to take the combined
224 recommendations from those three reports and a host of
others and identify those critical actions that had to be
accomplished in advance of the upcoming hurricane season and
those that will require more time. We are not simply
documenting lessons. We are implementing the lessons.
Secretary Chertoff and President Bush have made the
accomplishment of these top priorities and are holding people
accountable for progress. But I will note that our talented men
and women in the Department are holding themselves accountable
as well. We are here to meet the needs of our fellow citizens
and we do this so that when they are in the face of adversity
we are there to meet their needs. But we are also doing this
through our support to local and State partners, who are the
primary responders to any community that is in crisis.
Secretary Chertoff's direction for the updates to the
national response plan was very clear: to marginalize
bureaucracy, streamline decisionmaking, and to make sure that
the plan is responsive and robust. This will ensure that the
national response plan will remain flexible enough to deal with
the full range of unexpected events, including those like
Katrina that are of a catastrophic nature.
We also now, as Director Paulison said, have a common
picture in place, with tools to make sure that the
decisionmakers across the Federal Government, in coordination
with our State and local partners, have the information needed
to make mutually supportive decisions on a timely basis;
information that will be critical in preparing for, responding
to, and recovering from any emergency or disaster.
PREVENTION, PROTECTION, RESPONSE AND RECOVERY
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the nation-wide plan
review was requested by this Congress and the President and it
showed that we are not where we need to be as a Nation with
regard to our shared responsibility to manage our readiness for
catastrophic events. However, let me be very clear with the
committee today. The findings of the nationwide plan review
should not be construed in any way to reflect a lack of
dedication or effort by individual States and communities.
Rather, the survey and review reflects the lack of a shared
national vision for how prepared we really need to be, both
individually and collectively, in the absence of a
comprehensive national approach to preparedness that has been
present for more than two decades that I have been in this
business.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would offer that
I have been in this business for nearly a quarter of a century,
and until the development and release of the national response
plan in conjunction with the national preparedness goal, in
conjunction with the 15 planning scenarios, and in conjunction
with the target capabilities list, America did not have a
shared vision of what constituted preparedness among all
relevant stakeholders. We do now, and we are building on this
each and every day, the same way a home is built, piece by
piece using blueprints.
This new and unified integrated approach allows
communities, States, and the private sector and the Federal
inter-agency to be focused on the same destination; a shared
culture of preparedness. Preparedness cannot simply be a name
on an organizational chart or a step in a continuum of actions.
It must be a culture that drives by its very nature what we do
to integrate the various actions we must take as a Nation to
manage risk.
Mr. Chairman, in closing let me say that there is a new
paradigm of leadership inside of the Department of Homeland
Security. Sitting before you today represents 90 years of
leadership in crisis management, from search and rescue to
firefighting, to disaster response to dealing with terrorist
attacks. The leadership team that is before you at this table
is representative of the experienced team that Secretary
Chertoff has assembled at the Department of Homeland Security.
At the end of the day, the American people care less about
plans and processes and more about success and action. Success
and action depend on good strong quality leadership. The
President has led by example, as evident not only in the number
of visits to the gulf coast region, but in the number of
meetings that he has had with Secretary Chertoff and the
Department to ensure that the Nation's preparedness,
particularly for this hurricane season, is where it needs to
be.
We are being held accountable. We look forward to
continuing to be held accountable as we seek to strengthen
America's readiness.
Thank you once again for providing me the opportunity to
speak with you today and for your continued support to the
Department in our broad-range missions to prevent, protect,
respond, and recover. I along with my colleagues, Director
Paulison and Admiral Allen, look forward to the questions that
you will have for us.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of George W. Foresman
Introduction
Good morning Chairman Gregg and Senator Byrd. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before this Committee to discuss the important
issue of our Nation's level of preparedness as it relates to
prevention, protection, response, and recovery.
While much focus has been placed on hurricanes in light of Katrina,
the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to ensure that we
pursue a broader national preparedness agenda that focuses on an all-
hazards risk management approach. Our focus is not simply one of
looking to the last emergency or disaster to identify enhancements
needed. The Department now has a sustained process that unites lessons
from crises past and current and increases our understanding of those
that loom on the horizon and beyond. It is an effort that cuts across
all threats and hazards. Key to this effort is the understanding that
national preparedness actions must complement and not conflict with
State and local activities, and that these actions require sustained
commitment among Congress, Federal agencies, local and State
governments, the private sector, and the American people.
We have made considerable progress as a Department in strengthening
and uniting the pieces that collectively encompass what must become a
``culture of preparedness.'' To many, preparedness is simply a name on
an organizational chart, or a step in the cycle of emergency
management. It must be more. Secretary Chertoff said in announcing the
Second Stage Review that in the broadest sense, preparedness has a role
in enhancing the full range of capabilities in the Department of
Homeland Security. This guides our efforts working every day to
internally connect the full capabilities of the Department better,
including with our external partners. But there is more to be done. For
starters, individual responsibility is a big piece to this big picture.
The Department approaches individual responsibility from the ground
up and the top down. The Citizen Corps program, established under the
USA Freedom Corps initiative shortly after 9/11, operates in every
State and all 6 U.S. territories at the community level to empower
every American to take responsibility for his or her safety and
security--as well as that of their neighbors. This is important. A
better prepared America will be achieved when government, the private
sector, and the American people each do their part.
One of Citizens Corps more successful efforts has been the
establishment of Citizens Emergency Response Teams, or CERTs. These
teams, made of ordinary citizens, are trained in such topics as; Fire
Safety, Search and Rescue, and Disaster Medical Operations. After
completing training, these teams act to support their local communities
by assisting the various emergency agencies that prepare for and
respond to disasters.
In 2003 the Department of Homeland Security and the Advertising
Council launched Ready, a national public service advertising campaign
designed to educate and empower Americans to prepare for and respond to
emergencies including natural disasters and potential terrorist
attacks. The goal of the campaign is to get the public involved and
ultimately to increase the level of basic preparedness across the
Nation. We understand that government is expected to act decisively in
the face of adversity. The American people must as well.
September is National Preparedness Month. To highlight this, the
Department has engaged local, State and Federal officials as well as
community, business, and nonprofit partners to join us in our effort to
educate Americans about emergency preparedness and encourage them to
make their own ``individual'' plans. As an example, the Department
recently announced a partnership with AARP, the American Red Cross, the
National Organization on Disability, and the National Fire Protection
Association. This joint effort allows us to broaden our message to
older and disabled Americans, two of many particularly vulnerable
populations that may bear the worst effects of any disaster.
Additionally, Citizen Corps Councils and its Program Partners and
Affiliates across the country have organized outreach efforts, training
opportunities, and exercises on all-hazards preparedness to bring
National Preparedness Month home. As of August 30:
--674 events are registered on the Citizen Corps calendar, including
19 national events.
--All 50 States and three out of six territories have registered
events.
This past June, a study conducted by the Ad Council on behalf of
the Department's Ready Campaign recorded significant positive increases
in preparedness behaviors by individual Americans. It found:
--From 2005 to 2006, the proportion of Americans who said they have
taken any steps to prepare for an emergency rose 10 points,
from 45 percent to 55 percent
--91 percent of respondents said it is ``very'' or ``somewhat''
important for all Americans to be prepared for emergencies
--There were also several notable increases in key preparedness
behaviors from 2004 to 2006:
--Put together an emergency kit: 44 percent in 2004 to 54 percent
in 2006
--Created a family emergency plan: 32 percent in 2004 to 39 percent
in 2006
--Searched for info about preparedness: 28 percent in 2004 to 40
percent in 2006
While there is still a long way to go to ensure that all Americans
have taken steps to prepare, there are strong indications of progress.
Mr. Chairman, as buoyed as we are with the progress we have made among
the American people, we recognize that our Nation's preparedness is a
shared national responsibility.
Accordingly, let me first discuss what we are doing at the Federal
level, then offer State and local snapshots before my esteemed
colleagues Admiral Thad Allen, Commandant of the United States Coast
Guard and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Director Dave
Paulison, discuss in further detail, specific hurricane preparedness
activities related to their components.
Implementation of Katrina's Lessons: Federal Perspective
Despite advances made after 9/11, Hurricane Katrina demonstrated
that as a Nation we are not truly ready to respond to a catastrophic
event. Since Katrina, one of the most fundamental things we have done
with the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives After Action
Reports, is to take the combined number of recommendations (224) from
the three reports and identify the critical actions that had to be
accomplished in advance of the upcoming hurricane season--above all
else. Secretary Chertoff and President Bush have made the
accomplishment of these actions top priorities and are holding people
accountable for progress.
Forty two percent of the recommendations included in the White
House, Senate, and House of Representatives Hurricane Katrina After
Action Reports centered on the need for improved planning--an area
which has not traditionally been the top funding priority for States.
As the After Action Reports' recommendations indicate, States need to
increasingly focus their resources on planning activities. The
Department is furthering its emphasis to better target Federal
resources on planning modernization.
I would also like to acknowledge that we have made critical changes
to the National Response Plan identified by the Administration and
Congressional reports. Secretary Chertoff's direction was clear--to
marginalize bureaucracy and streamline decision-making, and to make
sure that the plan is responsive and robust--and able to deal with the
full range of expected events including those that are catastrophic.
DHS and its partner agencies have also further clarified the
concept of the Principal Federal Official (PFO) and the Joint Field
Office (JFO). When a declared Incident of National Significance (INS)
overwhelms a single jurisdiction or has region-wide impact, effective
response hinges on combined action and a centralized coordination
structure. We have taken the initiative to better co-locate local,
State, and Federal authorities into one Joint Field Office (JFO) to
better integrate command, streamline communication and situational
awareness and improve coordination. Admiral Allen will talk about these
important organizational modifications in greater detail.
We also now have a Common Operating Picture (COP) in place with
tools to make sure that the decision makers across the Federal
Government in coordination with our State and local partners have the
information they need to make mutually-supportive decisions on a timely
basis. Everyone must have access to the best information possible as
quickly as possible.
It's important to note that at the Assistant Secretary level, the
Deputy Secretary level, and at the Cabinet Secretary level, a series of
table top exercises have been conducted over the past four months to
ensure our ability to integrate across the Federal interagency a
comprehensive Federal response to a national hurricane threat. The
progress made by Dave Paulison and his team at FEMA, in logistics
management enhancements, and the work of Admiral Allen and his team at
the U.S. Coast Guard on search and rescue coordination represent just
two examples of how lessons learned from Katrina are translating into
departmental action. It is not just FEMA preparing for hurricane
season--it's the entire Department of Homeland Security and the Federal
Government.
State and Local Coordination for Preparedness
States and communities in America do an exceptional job every day
in dealing with the vast majority of emergencies. In the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina, the Nationwide Plan Review requested by this
Congress and the President showed that we are not where we need to be
as a Nation with regard to our shared responsibility to manage
catastrophic events. However, that shortfall should not be construed in
any way to reflect a lack of dedication or effort by individual States
and communities. Rather it reflects the lack of a shared vision for how
prepared we really need to be--individually and collectively--and a
shared system for comprehensive national approach to preparedness to
focus our efforts and provide the standard tools and processes we need
to get us there.
In an evaluation of whether States' basic plans outlined a general
sequence of actions before, during, and after a catastrophic incident,
only 41 percent of States were rated as ``Sufficient,'' 54 percent were
considered ``Partially Sufficient,'' and 5 percent were rated ``Not
Sufficient.'' The Nationwide Plan Review serves as an important
baseline assessment of current capabilities for catastrophic events
nationwide. This information will help us target resources such as
Federal grants, technical assistance, training, and exercises with our
local, State, and private sector partners.
An Integrated Approach
Until the promulgation of the National Response Plan in conjunction
with the Interim National Preparedness Goal, 15 National Planning
Scenarios, and the Target Capabilities List, we did not have a shared
national vision of preparedness so that communities, States, the
private sector and the Federal interagency community could all be
focused on the same goal, a shared culture of preparedness.
Another key change being made at the department is an integrated
Federal agency, and an intra-Departmental approach to preparedness.
Just several weeks ago in the midst of a major terrorist threat to
America, the focus of the Department was making sure that we were
working with both our Federal inter-agency and our State and local
partners to put in place stringent measures necessary to prepare for a
possible terrorist attack. While the Transportation Security
Administration was implementing measures to protect and prevent, FEMA
was developing contingency plans for response and recovery. FEMA would
have played a role in coordinating Federal response in support of State
and local authorities had the plot not been thwarted.
Preparedness is not simply about getting ready for disasters.
Preparedness is about uniting all of our tools of national power to
manage risk. As Admiral Allen will discuss in greater detail in the
context of specific U.S. Coast Guard initiatives, interagency
coordination and outreach are critical activities for our success in
advancing a national culture of preparedness.
We have a collective vision now. We are beginning to see improved
coordination of like missions and assignments across a multitude of DHS
entities that are responsible for prevention and protection and
response and recovery--whether it's FEMA, TSA, Infrastructure
Protection, Customs and Border Protection or other components. We are
targeting our Federal operational readiness, risk management,
information flow, and grant programs with State and local and private
sector partners in a manner that fosters coordination and cooperation.
Keeping American safe and secure requires interdependence, not
independence.
One example of this intersection is the collaboration that is
happening in the Southwest border States. The Office of Grants and
Training, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs
Enforcement are offering critical support to State and local
governments so that they can support our efforts to secure the Nation's
borders.
Another example is the ability to leverage satellite technology.
This technology will help Admiral Allen in the case of an oil spill off
the coast of America. It will help Director Paulison be better able to
define the parameters of a major natural disaster and will also give us
the tools to understand the vulnerabilities if we become aware of
terrorist a plot targeting a specific facility.
A Risk Based Approach to Providing Grants
The Department, prior to Katrina, recognized the need for a more
risk-based approach in delivering Federal resources to cities and
States. Therefore, we have incorporated a system of assessing risk as a
large factor in determining how to better target limited resources to
address the most pressing threats throughout the Nation. Risk analysis
is a dynamic process. Our data collection and analysis methods are
designed to inform grant decision making in the face of an evolving and
complex 21st Century risk environment.
In this same vein we have targeted funding to much of the Gulf
Coast this hurricane season in recognition of the greater
vulnerabilities and vacillating infrastructure there. The Federal
Government has provided more than $110 billion in resources to the Gulf
Region. This funding is helping fulfill vital needs, including
relocation, rental assistance, infrastructure repair, flood insurance
payments, education, and debris removal. Over $77 billion of the $110
billion (or 70 percent) either has been dispensed or is available for
States to draw from.
This is critical because our ability to help restore the Gulf Coast
infrastructure will increase their resiliency and ability to prepare
for another hurricane.
Improved Coordination with the Private Sector
We are taking a collective integrated approach to a vision of
``national preparedness'' through our collaborative effort with the
private sector. Last month our cyber security experts worked quietly
with their counterparts at Microsoft to address a critical software
vulnerability. In the interim between identification of the
vulnerability and development of the solution, the Department was
closely monitoring Internet activity for additional exploitation of the
vulnerability. Once a patch was available, the Department's U.S.
Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) coordinated an alert with
Microsoft. DHS issued an alert through the National Cyber Alert System
urging the public, private industry, as well as Federal users to apply
the security patch in order to protect their systems. Overshadowed in
the news media by the successful foiling of the U.K. terror threat,
this collaboration is typical of the kind of behind-the-scenes, day-to-
day public-private activity taking place in cyber security and many
other areas of preparedness.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, based on my nearly 25 years of professional
involvement in preparedness, I have never seen the Federal Government
in a stronger posture: more institutionally and organizationally
integrated; more forward leaning; more capable of leveraging the
comprehensive tools of national power; and finally, more prepared to
initiate, anticipate, and respond to the threat continuum. We get
better each and every day.
There is a new paradigm of leadership inside the Department of
Homeland Security. Sitting before you today represents 90 years of
leadership in crisis management. From search and rescue to fire
fighting to disaster response, to dealing with terrorist attacks, the
leadership team that is before you at this table is an archetype of the
phenomenal leadership that Secretary Chertoff has assembled at the
Department of Homeland Security.
At the end of the day, the American people care less about plans
and process and more about success and action. Success and action
depend on good, strong, quality leadership. The President has led by
example as evident in not only the number of visits to the Gulf Coast
region but also in the number of meetings he has had with Secretary
Chertoff to address the Nation's preparedness, particularly on
hurricane preparedness. President Bush is holding the Department
accountable by setting high expectations, and we are working hard to
meet those expectations.
In addition to ensuring the safety of the American people, and
regaining their trust, we are making significant progress towards
transitioning Americans away from preparing for the challenges of next
week, and instead preparing for the challenges of the next decade.
Thank you once again for providing me the opportunity to speak with
you today and for your continued support to the Department. I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
Senator Gregg. Thank you. I appreciate that presentation.
We now turn to Admiral Allen. Before you speak, Admiral,
let me just say that obviously the Federal Government deserved
and received a significant amount of criticism for the way
Katrina was handled. But the one shining light in the whole
effort was the Coast Guard. Specifically, your personal
leadership of the Coast Guard and your stepping in to actually
personally lead the efforts in Katrina recovery. The country is
very lucky to have you in service and we are very fortunate to
have the Coast Guard as a resource.
Admiral Allen.
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL THAD W. ALLEN, COMMANDANT, UNITED
STATES COAST GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Admiral Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to
be here today. Senator Byrd, thank you for the opportunity.
I prepared a written statement. With your permission, sir,
I will submit that for the record and make a very brief oral
statement.
The Coast Guard is unique within the Federal community of
responders in that disaster response is just a higher tempo,
more complex variant of what really our day to day missions
are. We plan and prepare and respond under operational doctrine
and we continually revise that based on operations and lessons
learned, which we have since Katrina and other operations.
Our historical and institutionalized relationships at the
sector and district levels across all of our missions and,
quite frankly, all of our stakeholders are a force multiplier
for us. They significantly enhance communication and
coordination during an event and they create interoperability,
especially where we have created joint harbor operations
centers.
We are able to create an adaptive force package to each
event that takes the particular hazard, incident, or threat and
be able to counter that with a Coast Guard asset or capability
that is equal to the challenge. As we speak, we have a force
package sortieing to Wake Island to survey damage in the wake
of the passage of Typhoon Ioki. In this case we diverted a
high-endurance cutter that was under way in the area. They went
to Kwajalein Atoll. They rendezvoused with a C-130 launched out
of Barber's Point carrying extra boats and hazardous team
response personnel. As a result, we were able to mount a
response 2,000 miles from Hawaii within a matter of hours of
the passage of the storm. I would also add that this was
executed under a request for forces from the U.S. Pacific
Command to the Department of Homeland Security and underscores
our coordination and interoperability with the Department of
Defense.
Finally, I would say that we have learned through our
experience, starting with the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, our
response operations in 9/11, our recovery operations in the
hurricane season of 2005, and the recent oil spill down in Lake
Charles, Louisiana, that our preparedness planning must also
include the restoration of the maritime transportation system
so that a natural or manmade disaster does not become an
economic disaster that would be caused by a port closure.
Finally, regarding the Coast Guard's role in the Department
of Homeland Security: Sitting beside the leadership team with
me here today, working with Dave Paulison in FEMA, my
colleagues in Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, we have never been more united closely
with this leadership team and worked more closely in my career
in the Coast Guard. We are in the right Department with the
right team.
Thank you, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Admiral Thad Allen
Good morning Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
Committee. It is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the
preparedness of the Coast Guard today compared to 1 year ago.
Introduction
Over the course of its celebrated history, a number of significant
events have shaped the missions and structure of the United States
Coast Guard. For example, when steam engine technology dominated
maritime commerce in the mid-19th century, a series of horrific steam
accidents in the unregulated industry led to the passage of the
Steamboat Act of 1852 and a precursor to today's Coast Guard marine
safety missions. Similarly, the tragic sinking of the HMS Titanic in
1912 provided the impetus for the Coast Guard's ice patrol duties in
the North Atlantic, a mission that is still executed today. However,
the events of September 11, 2001, brought the Coast Guard to face its
greatest operational challenges and potential for change in its role as
the Nation's premier maritime guardian. While in the throes of
adjusting its roles to focus on threats from global terrorism, the
Coast Guard was again faced with scrutinizing its missions and
capabilities after the passing of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. One year
later, the Coast Guard, as part of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), is working closer than ever with our Federal, State and local
partners to better prepare to respond and recover from any major
disaster, with clear lines of command and control that have bolstered
our protection of America. The Coast Guard's continued improvement in
emergency preparedness can be summarized under three important and
related areas: (1) changes in its organizational structure, (2)
refinements in its planning processes and products, and most
importantly, (3) substantial progress towards fostering interagency
cooperation.
Winds of Change
The Coast Guard has traditionally been described as ``the small
service with the big job.'' This is an understatement considering the
disparate missions that the Coast Guard tackles on a daily basis:
marine safety; aids-to-navigation (ATON) maintenance; search and rescue
(SAR); living marine resources (fisheries law enforcement); ice
operations; environmental protection; ports, waterways and coastal
security; drug interdiction; migrant interdiction; other law
enforcement; and defense readiness. As the events of 9/11 and Hurricane
Katrina showed, many of the Coast Guard's traditional missions can be
significantly stretched or modified during catastrophic events. For
example, the entire aids to navigation system in a particular waterway
may be destroyed in a major hurricane, thereby inhibiting the recovery
of maritime traffic flow. Not only will the Coast Guard have to replace
this critical infrastructure, but it may also be called upon to assist
the Army Corps of Engineers in removing a staggering amount of waterway
debris. Major incidents may require the Coast Guard to simultaneously
perform an increased number of rescues, shuttle vital supplies to
devastated areas, and enforce safety and security zones to protect life
and critical infrastructure.
Today, the Coast Guard is preparing to respond to threats ranging
from waterborne terrorism to a possible avian influenza pandemic by
adopting new strategies for enhancing its effectiveness. As a member of
the Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard recognizes that
these additional responsibilities dictate that it must perform its
missions in coordination with other agencies, and in a management
framework that is different from its previous model of separate
operational and marine safety divisions. Now more than ever, effective
communications, properly trained personnel, and ``state of the art''
equipment/platforms are vital to the Coast Guard to optimize its
contributions with other agencies in responding to a major emergency.
Organizational Modifications
Adhering to the spirit of the National Response Plan (NRP), the
Coast Guard typically manages maritime incidents at the lowest level
possible. Consequently, the Coast Guard relies on a port-centric
approach to address its responsibilities under the NRP. This approach
incorporates three layers of leadership and coordination: a field
level, a regional level, and a national level. The field level bears
the primary responsibility for managing an incident, while the regional
and national components provide resource and policy support as
requested or recognized. As an incident grows in complexity, or during
a catastrophic event, the Coast Guard responds by activating a number
of additional mechanisms in each of the three command layers.
This multi-tiered approach ensures that the Coast Guard can deliver
its best response to an incident, and address the myriad of issues that
will affect municipal, State, and Federal interests. During a major
event, such as an Incident of National Significance, disciplined and
well-staffed participation in all three layers coordinates a number of
priorities, such as:
--Ensuring field units receive the resources and support needed to
confront the incident;
--Collecting the most up-to-date and accurate information possible
between the field and the top leadership elements of the Coast
Guard and DHS; and
--Maintaining full cooperation and partnership with other
governmental and non-governmental organizations involved in the
emergency.
One of the most important organizational changes that the Coast
Guard has pursued in its three-tiered prevention and response structure
has been the creation of Sectors. First envisioned in 2004, the Sector
concept was adopted to consolidate the Coast Guard's operational
resources and missions under a single command umbrella for a particular
portion of the United States. The major thrust of this reorganization
is at the field level. In describing the Sector Model for an article in
Coast Guard Magazine, Mr. Michael Shumaker writes:
The new Sector organizational construct represents a transformation
from a Coast Guard traditionally organized around its operational
programs to one organized around core operational service delivery
processes. It focuses the coordinated efforts of all assigned
operational capabilities to accomplish Coast Guard mission objectives.
It recognizes that in a broad sense, all Coast Guard operational
activities focus on prevention of an incident or illegal event, or on
response to an emergency where prompt action mitigates loss of life or
property, or adverse impact.
The Coast Guard has nearly completed its implementation of the
Sector construct across the country. By the end of calendar year 2006,
40 Marine Safety Offices, 39 Group Commands, 3 Activity Commands, 9
Vessel Traffic Service Commands, and a few Air Stations will be
consolidated into 34 distinct Sector Commands. Within ports, the
Sectors will offer ``one-stop shopping'' for all Coast Guard interests
and needs presented by other agencies and the public. The regional and
national command tiers of the Coast Guard have also changed to better
align with this Sector construct. In January 2006, Coast Guard
Headquarters undertook a major reorganization of its offices and formed
three primary directorates to support the Sectors: Response,
Prevention, and Policy. Finally, Coast Guard Auxiliary sub-regions are
also aligning their geographic and organizational boundaries to better
facilitate communications and support to the Coast Guard commands.
In the past year, the Coast Guard implemented another important
organizational modification. Based on the lessons learned from
Hurricane Katrina, DHS and its member agencies solidified the concept
of the Principal Federal Official (PFO) and the Joint Field Office
(JFO). During a major incident response, these two entities provide the
vital coordination and communication between all affected stakeholders.
Hence, they are cornerstones of the Coast Guard's emergency management
at the regional command level during a major hurricane or other
disaster. Designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security, the PFO
does not become the Incident Commander, nor does the PFO have direct
authority over the Senior Federal Law Enforcement Officer (SFLEO),
Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO), or other Federal and State
officials. Rather, the PFO is tasked with the following
responsibilities:
--Ensure that incident management efforts are maximized through
effective and efficient coordination;
--Serve as a primary point of contact and situational awareness
locally for the DHS Secretary; and
--Serve as a channel for media and public communications and as an
interface with appropriate jurisdictional officials.
The PFO is an established tool in emergency response. The Coast
Guard has been asked to assume the role for five of the six nation's
pre-designated PFOs for the 2006 hurricane season. As part of the
ongoing efforts to enhance this new leadership concept, PFOs from both
the Coast Guard and FEMA have engaged in integrated training to better
define the position's roles and responsibilities.
The PFO is supported by the JFO. The JFO is the interagency office
established with the PFO to support Federal and State response and
recovery operations. Consequently, Coast Guard personnel will provide
staff support to this entity, alongside other State and Federal
representatives, to address the various Emergency Support Functions
(ESFs) involved in an incident under the NRP. In shouldering its share
of responsibilities for the JFO concept, the Coast Guard identified its
primary JFO team members throughout the country and delivered the
nationwide JFO training during the summer of 2006.
Based primarily on the realities of resource needs resulting from
9/11 and Katrina, the Coast Guard continues to review and expand its
Auxiliary and Reserve force deployment organization and policies as
well. Reserve and Auxiliary personnel were absolutely critical for
carrying out the Coast Guard's responsibilities after Katrina. Over 680
Reservists mobilized in support of the storm's response operations.
Regular-duty Coast Guard personnel assigned across Louisiana were
devastated by the effects of the hurricane. The rapid activation of
Coast Guard Reserve personnel allowed the affected members time to
attend to their personal hardships while the Coast Guard continued to
carry out its missions. In another example of continuous improvement
and to fully capitalize on the capabilities of all members of the Coast
Guard family, Coast Guard Auxiliarists are now included in the Coast
Guard's formal Contingency Planner schools, where they can bring a
unique out-of-service perspective in the development of the Coast
Guard's policies and directives.
Planning and Training Initiatives
The Indian diplomat Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit \1\ (viji'u lak'shme
pun'dit) once stated, ``The more we sweat in peace, the less we bleed
in war.'' Echoing this concept, the Coast Guard continues to institute
new and refine existing mechanisms for emergency response planning and
training. Events in the past five years have starkly shown the
importance of developing a coordinated and rehearsed response structure
in all levels of government. Taking its cue from the NRP, the Coast
Guard is developing a number of initiatives and is supporting a range
of interagency contingencies to support a robust national emergency
management structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pandit, Vijiaya Lakshmi (vijiu lak'shme pun'dit) [key], 1900-
1990, Indian diplomat, sister of Jawaharlal Nehru. She was leader of
the Indian delegation to the United Nations (1946-51), ambassador to
the Soviet Union (1947-49) and to the United States (1949-51),
president of the UN General Assembly (1953-54), and India's high
commissioner to the United Kingdom (1955-61).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For over a decade, the Coast Guard has been dedicated to
integrating the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and Incident
Command System (ICS) within the foundation of its business plan. The
efforts bore fruit, and today the Coast Guard is recognized as a
leading component in DHS in its understanding and implementation of the
ICS concept. All Coast Guard personnel are now required to complete ICS
Level 100 and 200 training, as well as a familiarization with the NRP.
This training has expanded to include all elements of the Coast Guard
family; the Coast Guard Auxiliary has increased the number of its ICS
100/200 trained members by over 125 percent in the last year alone.
In addition to implementing ICS service-wide, the Coast Guard is
addressing its planning and training responsibilities in other specific
areas. The massive rescue efforts conducted in the aftermath of Katrina
underscored the need for emergency planners to re-examine the mass
evacuation and rescue annexes of the NRP. Consequently, the Coast Guard
is working closely with FEMA and other agency planners in expanding the
scope and language of Emergency Support Function (ESF) #9, which
currently addresses only Urban Search and Rescue. Coast Guard members
participating in these ESF #9 Working Groups and Hurricane Evacuation
Working Groups are developing new policies and increasing awareness
concerning coordinated search and rescue, and evacuation initiatives.
These new changes will be reflected in the upcoming update of the NRP.
As for new projects being implemented, the Coast Guard is working
closely with DHS, DOD and other agencies to ensure Coast Guard's
contingency capabilities and readiness architecture are aligned with
and integrated into the national preparedness goals of aligning Federal
capabilities with State and local level needs in disaster preparedness.
Key areas of emphasis include development of a detailed catalogue of
tasks the Coast Guard performs in support of specific missions (Mission
Essential Task List (METLs)), and a larger catalogue of all tasks we
perform across all mission areas (Universal Task List).
Other Coast Guard planning components continue to focus on the
importance of protecting the Nation's critical infrastructure and
operations during a major emergency. The Coast Guard continues to be a
major player in the Marine Transportation System (MTS) where the
service has established MTS Recovery/Surge Units to address post-event
issues related to infrastructure assessment and recovery. In expanding
the awareness of this topic, the Coast Guard organized an August 2006
MTS Recovery Symposium involving a variety of agency and industry
partners. The Coast Guard is also actively involved in five DHS work
groups addressing a potential future pandemic influenza. In this area,
the Coast Guard has been diligently working to address two important
concepts: (1) supporting Federal quarantine policies and procedures,
and (2) protecting the operational readiness of all Coast Guard
personnel. The Coast Guard is working to allocate over $3 million of
supplemental appropriations earmarked by DHS to develop pandemic
influenza policies, resource allocation, and training and exercise
support.
Coast Guard Sectors continue to develop planning and preparedness
initiatives related to the historic events of the past 5 years.
Planning elements in the Sectors continue to work through Local
Emergency Planning Committees, Area Planning Committees, Area Maritime
Security Committees, Harbor Safety Committees, Joint Terrorism Task
Force Offices, Regional Response Teams and other venues to develop and
strengthen partnerships with Federal, State, local, and tribal
responders. Through these collaborative efforts, the Coast Guard is
able to develop and refine contingency plans, exercises, and policies
that are tailored to address local political, geographical, and
logistical needs. These planning committees are a vital component in
keeping the Coast Guard ready for any type of emergency in any U.S.
location.
Internal and external training exercises continue to be the bedrock
for the Coast Guard's emergency preparedness posture. For example, in
an effort to better prepare the East and Gulf Coast regions for this
year's hurricane season, the Coast Guard partnered with other agencies
in a series of exercises held from May through June 2006. Sponsored by
DHS, the Coast Guard participated in table top exercises held in six
different FEMA regions, a full-scale exercise in Louisiana, and a
Catastrophic Assessment Task Force Exercise held in Washington, D.C.
These exercises addressed key lessons contained in reports released
after Katrina by the White House, Congress and the Government
Accountability Office (GAO). Focusing on the integration and
coordination of different response disciplines like fire, public works,
private industry, and emergency management, PFOs and senior State
officials benefited from an environment of frank candor. Other
preparedness exercises continue to focus on many of the Coast Guard's
long-standing responsibilities. The Coast Guard is one of the primary
facilitators of the New Madrid 2007 Spill of National Significance
(SONS) Exercise. This will be the first SONS exercise focused on the
Nation's inland waters and will support an awareness of the disaster
preparedness issues related to the seismically vulnerable New Madrid
region in the Nation's heartland.
Interagency Coordination and Outreach
Over the past year, interagency cooperation has risen to the
forefront of critical issues related to national emergency
preparedness. Information exchange and mission familiarity are vital
concepts to all organizations working together to resolve major
emergencies. In this realm, the Coast Guard has also made a number of
changes to best carry out its responsibilities. Coordination and
outreach is one of the most important initiatives that the Coast Guard
is pursuing.
One of the most valuable intra departmental relationships fostered
in DHS is the partnership that continues to evolve between the Coast
Guard and FEMA. Coast Guard/FEMA cooperation has increased in intensity
and scope during exercises, in identifying lessons learned, and in
tracking and implementing remedial actions at the national level. As a
result of this cross-pollination, both components have been able to
make a number of improvements to their respective contingency plans,
such as the joint creation of Pre-Scripted Mission Assignments (PSMAs).
FEMA and the Coast Guard developed 22 PSMAs relating to ten of the ESFs
outlined under the NRP. These PSMAs developed at the national level,
and currently being finalized by FEMA, will allow the Coast Guard to
more easily perform those missions within Coast Guard capability, but
outside its normal operational scope. Cooperative successes, such as
these at the national level, will strengthen the Coast Guard's ability
to operate at the regional and field levels.
The Coast Guard has also made a significant number of contributions
to and benefited from the Nation's joint intelligence picture. Relying
on new initiatives from different components in its intelligence
architecture, the Coast Guard continues to strengthen its ability to
collect and share intelligence related to the maritime domain. For
example, the Coast Guard Intelligence Coordination Center (ICC) works
closely with a number of agencies, such as the National
Counterterrorism Center, Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of
Transportation (DOT), and the Department of Defense (DOD) to process a
number of issues related to vessels, crews, passengers, cargo, and
ports of departure and arrival. The interagency cooperation maintained
through the ICC continues to be important for monitoring potentially
dangerous operations, such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) vessel
movements and intermodal container transfers. Recently, persistence and
close cooperation by the Coast Guard's intelligence offices with the
DEA and elements of DOJ and DHS resulted in the ship-board capture of
Javier Arellano-Felix, a leader of one of North America's most violent
drug cartels.
The Coast Guard has taken a leadership role within the DHS to
ensure that intelligence products generated by the Coast Guard are
shared rapidly and accurately throughout the Federal Government. Threat
information and reports of suspicious activities from the maritime
industry and other maritime stakeholders are shared with appropriate
members of the intelligence community, appropriate offices within DHS,
and the National Response Center (NRC). Additionally, the Coast Guard
and Navy continue to build an effective joint intelligence partnership
to enhance Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA).
Finally, the presence of Coast Guard liaisons in a number of
agencies and countries continues to strengthen the service's
functionality and awareness. For example, in the past month we have
prepared to deploy emergency oil spill response personnel and equipment
to both Lebanon and the Philippines in support of State Department
initiatives in both those regions. The Coast Guard has dedicated
liaisons assigned to both DHS and FEMA to perform a variety of
important functions such as maintaining open lines of communication and
developing novel solutions to intra departmental problems and
questions, ranging from the air transport for FEMA's new First Response
Teams to policies associated with mass evacuations and rescues of
coastal communities. On the world stage, the Coast Guard maintains a
network of Coast Guard International Port Security Liaison Officers to
help coordinate assessments of the maritime anti-terrorism measures
established in ports that trade with the United States. The Coast Guard
also participates in the Defense Attache Program. These initiatives
enable Coast Guard officers to provide valuable information in foreign
nations where Coast Guard efforts are particularly focused.
Conclusions
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita altered the traditional response
paradigms for a number of agencies including the Coast Guard. One year
later, the service readily recognizes the unique communication and
mission challenges that a large-scale catastrophic disaster can
suddenly pose. The Coast Guard's ability to respond to major
catastrophes is partly attributable to the flexible, multi-mission
nature of its forces. Perhaps the most important factor contributing to
the Coast Guard's effectiveness is the fact that its forces are engaged
in related missions on a daily basis. The Coast Guard will continue to
be a leading component of the Federal emergency management structure.
Your continuing support is vital to the service's enduring excellence
as our Nation's maritime first responder--maintaining its flexible
organizational structure, seeking out opportunities to partner with
other governmental and non-governmental agencies, empowering planning
and preparedness initiatives, and realistically acknowledging its own
capabilities and limitations.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I will
be happy to answer any questions you may have.
IS DHS READY FOR ANOTHER CATEGORY 3, 4, OR 5 HURRICANE
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Admiral.
Let me begin with a question which I think the American
people want to know, and I will ask each of you individually.
Is your area of responsibility ready to deal with a category 3,
4, or even potentially 5 hurricane hitting the American coast?
Mr. Paulison. Yes, sir, we are. As I said in my statement,
my oral statement and also my written statement that we
submitted, we have broken down and taken very seriously the
after-action reports that came out of this Congress, the White
House, GAO, the IG's reports, and everybody else. We have a
basketful of reports. But we are taking it very seriously.
First of all, we learned personally and we broke it down
into several categories: communications, logistics, dealing
with victim registration, how to better house people. We have
retooled this organization. I think primarily one of the most
important things along with the communication piece is the type
of people that I am bringing in to run the organization. Every
person we are bringing in at the leadership level has at least
30 years of emergency management, fire, police, or EMS
background, people who have been there and done that. That is
what I am filling the leadership of this organization with and
that is going to help us get into this next phase, next
hurricane season.
I think Ernesto showed our adaptability, our ability to
respond, our logistics supply system with our ability to track
our supplies now that we did not have before. This hurricane
was originally scheduled to go into Texas and as it moved
around the country, finally through Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, then predicting in Florida, and finally landed in
North Carolina and going up to the Northeast; we were able to
adapt to that with our supplies, with our personnel, and follow
that hurricane all the way around. We were ready to respond
regardless of where it made landfall.
I was very pleased with that. I was very, very pleased with
our unified command system we set up and how we were able to
share information with the States, with the local communities,
inside of Homeland Security and outside of Homeland Security.
That piece we worked on very hard and it worked very well, and
I am comfortable that we are going to be able to respond.
Senator Gregg. Mr. Foresman.
Mr. Foresman. Mr. Chairman, I think I would address it this
way. I think there are varying stages of readiness among a
national system of preparedness when you look at it in the
context of local, State, and Federal and when you look at it in
the context of government, private sector and the American
people. Historically, one of the things that was abundantly
clear as a result of the nationwide plan review is States and
communities in America have done an exceptional job of dealing
with emergencies and disasters of the scope, scale, and
magnitude which were kind of the benchmarks prior to Katrina.
But I think it underscores that; you mentioned a category 3
or 4 and I think we would do well. States and communities have
traditionally done well in that arena. The Federal Government
has traditionally done well in that arena. But when you get one
on the scale and scope of a Katrina, a catastrophic event, I
think there is significant work that needs to be done, not only
across the Federal Government, but with our State and local
partners, because we saw significant challenges. The Nation's
governors really stepped up to the plate and made sure that we
were able to find places to house thousands, tens of thousands
of Hurricane Katrina evacuees. But could we repeat that if it
were an earthquake scenario in the L.A. Basin? Could we repeat
that in an earthquake scenario with no notice on the New Madrid
Fault? Clearly there is more work that needs to be done.
Admiral Allen. I would agree with Under Secretary Foresman
and add in the larger context of an all-hazards, all-threat
environment,I think as it relates to hurricane preparedness we
are much better off this year than we were last year. I think
there has been extensive steps taken; advanced training. The
predesignated principal Federal officials and the Federal
coordinating officers have been trained together and an
extensive amount of time put into it. We of the Coast Guard
have prescripted mission assignments with FEMA.
I am very comfortable where we sit going into the hurricane
season. But as Under Secretary Foresman said, I think you need
to look at the all-hazards, all-threat environment across the
spectrum and, depending on the incident you are going to
encounter and where it is at, there is still work to be done.
This coming year the Coast Guard is going to conduct a
drill in the central Mississippi basin that is going to
simulate a massive oil spill and hazmat release related to an
earthquake on the New Madrid Fault. That is the type of thing
we need to do for continued preparedness against all hazards,
all threats.
But as it relates to the hurricane season this year, we are
much better off than we were last year, sir.
TO WHAT EXTENT SHOULD THE MILITARY BE USED AS A FIRST RESPONSE
Senator Gregg. One of the things we learned in Katrina was
that the Coast Guard was a coherent and cohesive force for
responding to an event of that size and that nature. Hopefully
we will never have another event of that nature, but clearly it
is possible. An earthquake could certainly replicate it, or
even an attack from a terrorist event.
To what extent should the military be used as one of the
primary responders, and specifically not the National Guard but
the Federal military force as controlled by the President?
Mr. Foresman. Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can address
this in two component pieces. First, in the post-9/11
environment we very much underscore that the Nation faces an
asymmetric threat from those who would seek to do us harm. As
we saw after 9/11, we had to project military forces to defend
America both at home and overseas.
One of the issues that we have continued to deal with over
20 years is an overreliance on the military to be able to do
disaster relief missions, at the expense of preparing State and
local governments, the Federal civilian community, to be able
to do this. There is clearly a support role for the military.
They have provided value added to everything that we are doing
from a preparedness standpoint. But when we talk about it in
the context of America, if we think about it we have 15 million
State and local officials out there; public health, fire, law
enforcement, a variety of things. One of the great successes
out of Katrina was the emergency management assistance compact
is the ability to use inter-state mutual aid to provide
civilian responders from one State that is not impacted by an
event to another State that is impacted by an event.
As we are looking forward from this strategically, we are
building the Department of Defense into that clear support role
for emergencies and disasters, but we are not doing it at their
expense of being able to do their primary national security
mission. We have invested $18 billion in State and local
governments and our capabilities and capacities in communities
across America is dramatically improved from where it was 5
years ago. When you start applying mutual aid and a layered
approach to how we put resources to an emergency and disaster,
we are very confident that we are on the right track.
Let me be very clear. Secretary Rumsfeld, Assistant
Secretary McHale have been phenomenally supportive of all of
our efforts inside of the Department and working with our State
and local partners.
Senator Gregg. Mr. Paulison?
Mr. Paulison. I think Under Secretary Foresman is right on
target. The military has a major role in support. We have
signed dozens of prescripted mission assignments with them so
they know exactly what their role is going to be, we know what
their capabilities are and what they are willing to do. That is
good. That is helping us a lot. The involvement with NORTHCOM
and the Department of Defense in this last hurricane as far as
being with us on all of our video conferences, making sure that
if we had any needs they were there to assist us, is important.
They are one of our partners, but they are in a support
role.
Senator Gregg. Admiral Allen?
Admiral Allen. Mr. Chairman, I would just add one comment
to the comments that were made, in regards to the Federal
response. Under Secretary Foresman focused on the need to
create capability at the State and local level. One of the
things we are trying to do inside the Coast Guard and the
Department, and it relates back to my earlier comment, is to
create what I would call adaptive force packages, where we more
effectively apply the assets of the Coast Guard, the assets
inside the Department of Homeland Security and the other
agencies.
To the extent you can do that and you become more effective
at it, you in effect raise the bar when you would have to call
DOD in. I think we have a responsibility to do that.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
Senator Shelby has arrived.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an opening
statement that I would like to be made part of the record in
its entirety if I could.
Senator Gregg. Without objection, it will be inserted in
the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard C. Shelby
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing today.
Admiral Allen, Under Secretary Foresman and Under Secretary Paulison
your presence is essential because the Senate needs to hear directly
from each of you about your agency's needs and the challenges you
anticipate facing in the future.
Hurricane Katrina was one of the most destructive natural disasters
to ever hit our Nation. People's lives were shattered, families broken
apart, and homes destroyed. In my own State, whole communities were
devastated by this terrible tragedy.
But that devastation pales in comparison to our neighboring Gulf
States where they suffered immensely and are in fact, still trying to
recover today.
Alabamians and the entire Gulf community have an amazing resolve
and they are working to restore the strong economic engines that
existed in the region prior to Katrina. They could not have made it
where they are today without the assistance of our Chairman.
On behalf of the people of Alabama, I would like to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for your support of the recovery of the Gulf Coast.
In addition to the panel before us now, we will also hear from
Bruce Baughman and Stanley Ellis. These gentlemen represent the
interests of State and local emergency managers. As Alabama's Director
of Emergency Management, Mr. Baughman was intricately involved in
Hurricane Katrina preparation and recovery. His leadership helped
Alabama move quickly down the road to recovery. His decades of
experience at both the Federal and local level will provide the
committee some valuable insights into disaster management and
preparedness.
As we move forward we must look carefully at the progress that has
been made since Hurricane Katrina but we must also carefully examine
the failures--both in terms of response and recovery. It is critical
that we, as a Nation, are better prepared to respond to all disasters
whether they are acts of God or acts of man. While the risk of another
terrorist attack is just as real today as it was 5 years ago, we must
also recognize the impact that loss of life, property, and employment
from natural disasters can have on our communities.
I hope to hear more today about how the Department is balancing the
risks, the needs, requirements, tasks and jurisdictions of its roughly
20 agencies to prepare for the next event--whatever it may be.
The Senate has a responsibility to make sure the Department is
adequately funded so that it may carry out the planned response to
future disasters, but it would be imprudent for us to go about this
blindly. We want to make sure that you are better organized and that
you have learned from the mistakes of the past. The government's
response to Katrina could have been better and I look forward to
learning about the steps that have been taken to eliminate the response
shortfalls and what steps remain.
A plan without proper execution is merely words on paper. Proper
execution can only occur with well-trained, properly equipped first-
responders. Whether it is a FEMA recovery team, a State emergency
management group, or a volunteer search and rescue squad, we must do
everything in our power to ensure that those responsible for executing
the plan are well equipped, fully trained and prepared to execute the
plan appropriately in order to save lives and property from further
destruction.
Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that the individuals appearing before us
today will provide the Committee with a better understanding of the
remaining needs in all facets of preparedness, response and recovery.
I am particularly interested in hearing about the Department's
efforts to effectively train the men and women that are willing to put
themselves in harm's way when duty calls.
Again this is a critical hearing and I applaud the Chairman for
holding it today. It is always important to look back and learn if we
are to move forward.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
COMMUNICATIONS
Senator Shelby. Just following up on Senator Byrd and
Senator Gregg's initial statement, I believe we are better off
than we were a year ago as far as being prepared. You will
certainly be tested sooner or later. We hope it is later and
not sooner. We wish it would never be. But do you have, still
have problems with communication at all levels? You had that
before, you know, the local level all the way up. If you are,
what are you doing about it and how can we help?
Mr. Paulison. We have been working for the last several
months on dealing with that particular issue, Senator, that you
brought up. You are right on target. There was a major
communication breakdown. We cannot allow that to happen
because, as far as I am concerned, I saw that as one of the
biggest flaws in responding to Katrina. It does not give you
good visibility of what is happening on the ground. You cannot
share information.
So we have been working very hard to repair that. We have
done tabletop exercises. We have put a system together where we
know exactly what the communications system is going to be. We
are strongly enforcing a unified command, where we have a place
where information is shared and how we are going to share that,
not only inside the Federal Government but with the States and
with the local communities.
We had the opportunity to--although Ernesto was not a big
storm, we still approached it like it was going to be a big
storm, because the Hurricane Center was predicting it could be
a category 3 or 4. The system worked very well. We still have
work to do, but I was very pleased with how we were able to
share the communications, how the whole system worked, and how
that information came in.
Senator Shelby. Are you responding to a year ago, how it
worked then, or how it would work now?
Mr. Paulison. No, I am talking about how it is working now.
Back then it did not work, is what I am saying.
Senator Shelby. It did not work at all, did it?
Mr. Paulison. Yes, sir. We had a major breakdown in
communications and we recognize that very clearly. I perceive
that as one of the biggest flaws. So that is what we have been
focusing on for the last 3 or 4 months, putting a system
together, testing that system, making sure, regardless of where
that information comes in, whether it comes in from a
constituent to you, to the President, whether it comes in from
the first responders, whether it comes in from our field teams,
regardless of where it comes in, that information is shared up
and down, so we know who is responsible for a particular action
and who is going to be held accountable to make it happen.
Senator Shelby. But if you cannot talk to each other from
your standpoint all the way down to the local level, whether it
be in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, then you have got a real
problem of carrying out whatever plan you have to deal with the
disaster; is that correct?
Mr. Paulison. That is partially correct. That is an issue
we have. We have purchased a lot of equipment to allow us to do
that. The National Guard in particular, your State
particularly, has a very robust communication capability. We
are working with them to preassign those, prescript those, move
them in quickly along with our communications system that we
purchased, so we can do that, so we can talk to the locals.
We do have the ability to connect people on different radio
systems. Not perfect, but we can communicate and we can make
sure that we put people----
Senator Shelby. How much has it improved since a year ago?
Mr. Paulison. It is significantly improved since last year.
Part of it is because of protocols, making sure that we have
people located in the State emergency management office,
talking to the governor, talking to the State emergency
manager, making sure we have people at the local EOCs where we
know what is going on, and also putting reconnaissance teams
down on the field. We now have the capability of not only voice
communications, but video communications, directly from our
people in the field, back to our headquarters and to the joint
field office.
Senator Shelby. Are equipment standards still an issue?
Mr. Paulison. I think radio, handheld radio issues, are
still an issue, particularly at the local level; for them to be
able to talk to each other, police and fire, across
jurisdictions. That is an issue that has to be dealt with and
it has not been totally resolved yet. There are quick fixes for
that, but not the right fixes.
Senator Shelby. It is not quick, but it has got to be done.
Mr. Paulison. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Secretary Foresman, domestic preparedness.
The Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP) is the cornerstone
of our Nation's emergency responder training facilities and it
is the only civilian live agent training facility in the
Nation, as you know. The CDP is one of the first of several
facilities where we train, we are training our Nation's first
responders in a variety of disciplines.
This year it is expected that the CDP will train 60,000
people through on-site, mobile, and the other training
programs. How do we expand this model and ensure that we
continue to train first responders in general all-hazards
capabilities and specific specialties, such as chemical agents
and emergency management?
Mr. Foresman. Senator, CDP continues to, as you note,
provide a value added, and probably one of the most successful
components of the CDP training program is our ability to export
that training through the communities. Clearly, the ability to
be able to bring in State and local officials from across
America to that facility is without parallel anywhere in the
country.
But as we go forward, we also realize we are never going to
get to the point on bringing everybody to one spot. We have got
to get it out to them. So we continue to focus on pushing the
training out. But we are also looking at places like CDP and
the Noble training facility to expand their mission. We found,
those created in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 were very much
focused in a narrow area. We want to make sure we do not have
any, if you will, down time associated with those facilities.
So whether it is cybersecurity or weapons of mass destruction
training, that we continue to utilize, and get full utilization
out of those facilities.
But we would not expect to do anything but increase the
amount of capacity and capability we have through those
existing training activities.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Senator Byrd.
PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE MISSIONS
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the
administration's decision to divide the preparedness and
response missions. The fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security
appropriations conference report directs FEMA to develop
coordinated guidelines for State and local governments as they
develop mass evacuation plans. The Preparedness Directorate
recently published a nationwide plan review that found, quote:
``The majority of the Nation's emergency operations plans and
planning processes are not fully adequate, feasible, or
acceptable. Basic plans do not adequately address catastrophic
events. The most common deficiency of the plans is the absence
of a clearly defined command structure.''
It is disturbing that the Department's assessment has just
recently been completed. The Department has been around for
3\1/2\ years. It is even more disturbing to find that we are
not prepared as a Nation to evacuate or receive mass numbers of
people in our local communities.
Director Paulison, I would have thought that the terrorist
attacks of 9/11 might have been the wakeup call that we needed
to prepare for a catastrophic event. You have been at FEMA for
5 years. Why do you think it took Hurricane Katrina to get the
Department to take this issue seriously?
Mr. Paulison. I think the administration and the Department
has taken it very seriously. There was obviously some very
serious flaws in FEMA's capability as far as responding to an
event the size of a Katrina. Yes, I have been in FEMA for 5
years, but as the U.S. Fire Administrator, and I think I did a
great job of putting that organization back on track and
bringing it up to the speed where it needed to be.
I have been at FEMA as far as the head of FEMA for 9
months, 10 months now, and have taken those lessons learned
very clearly to understand that FEMA does need to be ready to
respond to a catastrophic event the size of a Katrina, and I am
making sure that this organization does that. I think Under
Secretary Foresman can probably address the evacuation planning
for the rest of this country.
Senator Byrd. Preparedness measures recently touted by the
Department in a press release include the prepositioning of
supplies, improved asset tracking, and enhanced customer
service by FEMA. I am concerned that we are preparing for the
last disaster and not preparing for different kinds of
disasters, like a dirty bomb, pandemic flu, a biological
attack, or an earthquake.
While it is a relief to know that 1 year after Katrina we
are finally taking steps to deal with a major hurricane, how do
these touted reforms contribute to successful preparedness and
response to other potential disasters?
Mr. Foresman. I think you adequately, clearly pointed out
what we are trying to do; what we have done since Katrina.
However, we are not preparing for Katrina; we are preparing for
the next disaster. All the things that we are doing inside of
FEMA that you mentioned as far as prepositioning supplies,
prepositioning people, prepositioning equipment, those things
are transportable regardless of what type of disaster we have.
Now, granted it is much easier when you have a notice event
like a hurricane. But even in a no-notice event, making this
agency much more nimble, much more flexible than it has been in
the past will serve us and this country well; regardless of
what type of disaster.
PORT SECURITY AND PREPAREDNESS
Senator Byrd. Admiral Allen, the House of Representatives
recently passed a bill to strengthen port security by a vote of
421 to 2. That bill included $400 million in fiscal year 2007
for port security grants. The Senate is expected to debate port
security legislation that also authorized $400 million for port
security grants. In July, my port security amendment to the
Homeland Security appropriations bill was approved by the
Senate to fully fund the $400 million for port security grants.
It also includes $184 million for the Coast Guard Deepwater
program to fill critical short-term mission gaps and $23
million to improve security inspections at foreign and domestic
ports.
How would the additional funding for port security improve
our preparedness for a potential terrorist attack on our ports?
Admiral Allen. Senator, there is a direct linkage between
port security and preparedness as it relates to a potential
event in a port. As previously provided to the committee, and
we can continue to provide that for the record if you like, the
funds identified in the port security amendment would allow us
to increase the frequency of inspection at our U.S. ports, but
also allow us to go to a 2-year cycle on those foreign ports
that ship to the United States. In our view that would
significantly enhance the port security efforts of the Coast
Guard, not only in our U.S. ports but in our foreign ports. We
would be happy to provide you any additional information that
you might want for the record, sir.
WEST VIRGINIA'S INVOLVEMENT IN MASS EVACUATION PLANNING
Senator Byrd. West Virginia University did a study
regarding the potential for a mass evacuation of the National
Capital Region. 800 people were randomly polled in select
counties in Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia, and
preliminary results of the study concluded that planning for a
large-scale chaotic evacuation into rural areas and States
close to the D.C. metro area warrants serious consideration.
Furthermore, many Federal agencies will relocate to
facilities in West Virginia during an incident. Despite this
information, I understand that West Virginia has not been
included in mass evacuation planning for a potential evacuation
of the National Capital Region. How about that?
Mr. Foresman. Senator, I will take that question. There are
two elements to that. One, as you know, Secretary Spears, the
Secretary of Public Safety in West Virginia, hosted a session
just a month ago where we had six States together to talk about
the whole issue of National Capital Region issues. In my
previous job, when I was the homeland security adviser in
Virginia, we were dealing with Secretary Spears on it, and we
have two rounds of perspectives on how great the number is that
might spontaneously evacuate.
Irrespective of that--this goes back to your earlier
question about the necessity of catastrophic planning. There
has not been over the last two decades a shared national vision
for how we should go about preparedness, to include mass
evacuations. As we work with our State and local partners, we
will continue to address the issue of West Virginia. We will
continue to address multi-state coordination.
The one thing that is promising is this; one example of
where States and communities are getting together, pooling
their resources, pooling the resources of $18 billion that this
Congress has provided to them over the last 5 years for
preparedness, and working through a number of these issues. We
are heavily involved with them in that effort in terms of the
Federal inter-agency coordination, but we are not driving it.
We are working with them as they drive it themselves.
But I will tell you, Senator, we do not want to be in a
situation where we have a mass chaotic evacuation. We want to
be in a situation where we have the public reacting in a
reasonable manner to protective action guidelines, some of
which may be evacuation, some of which may be to shelter in
place or to shield in place. So we want to look at this in a
much broader scope and scale.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, this can be answered with a yes
or no. Will you include West Virginia in your mass evacuation
planning for the National Capital Region?
Mr. Foresman. Senator, we continue to work with Virginia,
Maryland, and District of Columbia as the primary statutorily
designated States of the National Capital Region, but we will
continue to work with those three State homeland security
advisers as well as Secretary Spears to make sure that we have
a fully integrated approach.
Senator Byrd. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Senator Allard.
FIRST RESPONDER TRAINING
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a couple of questions dealing with training of first
responders, which we all recognize is vital. But one part that
we seem to not be mentioning in the discussion is rail, trains
and mass transit. Do the training programs that you have been
discussing have a facility dedicated solely to training first
responders in the rail and mass transit environment?
Mr. Foresman. No, sir, but the training programs that are
provided through the Department, the training programs that are
provided at the State and local level, the vast majority of our
approach is to get the training out to the communities rather
than to bring the communities to a facility, with the exception
of some specialized activities. But all of our training
programs, all of our funding for our competitive grant training
programs, are targeted to making sure that a law enforcement
officer who is a transit officer, who is trained to identify
suspicious activity gets the same level and type of training
that the law enforcement officer who is out doing street
patrol. When we talk about incident command and incident
management, they are both getting that same level of training
so that they can operate in a unified function.
I will tell you that we continue to push transit and rail
grants out the door. I know of the continuing concern that we
have from an intelligence standpoint, that the stakeholder
community has as an operator standpoint. So when we talk about
training, we do not talk about it by mode; we talk about it by
function.
Senator Allard. Can you see a need for a specialized
training facility in those special circumstances that you
mentioned, where you can set up a system, a situational
situation for training?
Mr. Foresman. Senator, let me offer two things. One, for
instance, the Metro here in the National Capital Region does
have training facility for that type of thing. I would be more
than happy to go back and sit down with our Transportation
Security Administration folks, grants and training team, and
our infrastructure protection team and maybe provide you some
input back on that.
The clear thing is, we know we need to train as we fight,
and we need to fight as we have been trained.
TECHNOLOGY USED FOR REMAPPING FLOOD ZONES
Senator Allard. Mr. Paulison, to what extent is FEMA using
current technology, as opposed to simply digitizing old ones,
to create more accurate flood maps?
Mr. Paulison. As we digitize the flood maps, we are also
going back and remapping. We are trying to do the whole
country, to remap, and not just change the old flood maps to
digital, but also to remap to make sure we are at the right
level.
Senator Allard. Are you using current technology on your
remapping?
Mr. Paulison. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. To what extent?
Mr. Paulison. Pardon?
Senator Allard. Do you want to explain that, and to what
extent?
Mr. Paulison. Well, the fact is we are trying to do the
whole country to make sure that our flood maps are as accurate
as possible.
Senator Allard. Are you using aviation photography and GPS
to help assure those accuracies?
Mr. Paulison. Yes, sir. We are using different types. We
are using some of the satellite, some aviation, different types
of technology. I can bring our expert in to really explain it
to you more clearly and have him sit down with you; but we are
using the newest technology we can to redo the flood maps, to
make sure that they are as accurate as possible, because that
has a big impact on a community.
Senator Allard. Well, my concern is that our flood map
program ought to have been done a long time ago. They are still
being drug out.
Mr. Paulison. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. We have new technology that I think is less
expensive than what you have been doing in the past, where you
have surveyors go out on foot, particularly in rural areas. You
could do aerial photography, GPS, and get things accomplished
so much quicker.
Mr. Paulison. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. And for the life of me, I do not understand
why those are not progressing along faster than what they are.
Mr. Paulison. If you do not mind then, I will have my staff
get hold of yours to sit down and discuss that.
Senator Allard. We have been visiting with them. We are
going to continue to visit with them on that, sir.
Mr. Paulison. Yes, sir.
NORTH COMMAND
Senator Allard. Admiral, you are in a new Department, the
Department of Homeland Security. You also have another new
branch of the military that you have to deal with, that is
North Command. So I am curious how you are getting along with
North Command, if you are comfortable with your relationship
there, if there are things that could be done better in your
relationship with North Command?
Admiral Allen. Senator, I am very comfortable with our
relationship with North Command. My personal relationship
started actually on 9/11 when I was the Atlantic area commander
for our own 9/11 response. I immediately teamed up with General
Kernan at Joint Forces Command and General Eberhart, who was at
NORAD at the time. That ultimately turned into the genesis of
the work team that actually set up the Northern Command that
was established in Colorado Springs.
I made significant visits out there tactically after 9/11
to coordinate what we were doing between the maritime side and
where General Eberhart was going. We actually put about 10 or
12 Coast Guard people into the team that actually stood up
NORTHCOM and we have over 20 people assigned out there now. I
visit routinely. I am in touch with Admiral Keating and
Lieutenant General Inge. We participate in conferences
together. In fact, I was doing a maritime domain awareness
conference in Colorado Springs as the response to Katrina was
starting, not knowing that a week later I would be calling
Admiral Keating and actually working with him.
So I can tell you that the relationship is very solid, not
only between the Coast Guard and U.S. Northern Command, but
between the Department and U.S. Northern Command. A recently
selected flag officer, who was an O-6 at NORTHCOM, is now the
military adviser to the Secretary and adds to that liaison and
that relationship, sir.
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired.
Thank you.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
Senator Landrieu.
FEDERAL COORDINATION
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank both you
and the ranking member for allowing me to participate, as I am
not a regular member of this committee. This, obviously, is a
very important topic for the State that I represent and for the
entire gulf coast.
So let me just begin by joining you in your compliments of
Admiral Allen. I wanted to come personally, Admiral, and thank
you for your leadership--to say, for the record, that the Coast
Guard was an example of excellence in the middle of a great
tragedy. I think the Admiral would acknowledge great help from
the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, which also
had a small flotilla out there saving people as well. Together
I believe these two groups helped save thousands of lives.
But because your agency performed so well, can you focus
with us for a minute on the communications system that you must
have had differently, embellished or improved upon relative to
the other agencies. My question is, if you did, what was it?
What have you done to improve what you had, and what is your
recommendation, because that remains still an elusive target,
to get a communications system that can actually execute the
plans that we are setting out.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Thank you Chairman Gregg and Ranking Member Byrd for holding this
hearing on national emergency preparedness. Let me also thank the both
of you for recognizing the importance of this topic to the State of
Louisiana in allowing me to participate in this important hearing. As
you both well know, there was a tremendous amount of criticism of the
Federal Government's response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita last year.
Things are better now and the region is slowly recovering. We marked
the first anniversary of Katrina last month and are set to mark the
anniversary of Rita later this month. These two important
anniversaries, along with the fact that we are well into another
hurricane season, reminds us that we must be sure that if we have
another disaster, the Federal and State response will be better this
time around. Agencies at every level of government must be better
organized, more efficient, and more responsive in order to avoid the
problems, the delays, mismanagement, and the seeming incompetence that
occurred last year.
I note that Admiral Thad Allen is testifying today and would like
to thank him for his hard work in coordinating the response and
recovery operations in the aftermaths of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I
would also like to thank the other witnesses for their participation
today, especially U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Under
Secretary for Preparedness George W. Foresman and U.S. Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Director David Paulison.
In the numerous Congressional and Federal government
investigations/reports on the problems that resulted from Federal
response to Katrina and Rita, three factors are consistently mentioned:
lack of adequate logistical/personnel preparedness, breakdowns in
Federal/State coordination, and an initial lack of necessary
communications equipment. I agree with those general assessments, and
will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
address those systemic problems. I would also like to see some specific
recommendations enacted from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs report ``Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still
Unprepared.'' In particular, this bi-partisan report recommends
incorporating comprehensive coastal protection as part of the Nation's
hurricane protection plan. I believe without an integrated, world-class
flood control system with strong levees and wetlands restoration, the
people of the Gulf Coast will never be secure. That is why it has been
one of my top priorities since I came to the Congress to secure a long-
term Federal revenue stream from offshore oil and natural gas
production to protect our coasts. This report also recommends requiring
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop a comprehensive emergency
plan to anticipate levee breaches with real-time monitoring and
awareness of where potential problems may exist. Such a plan is not
just important for responding to hurricanes, but would also ward
against potential terrorist attacks. Lastly, I also support
recommendations to strengthen State and local planning. It is essential
to support our State and local authorities because, as we saw following
Katrina, Federal disaster agencies cannot do it alone and need local
partners following disasters.
Katrina was a catastrophic natural disaster but the failure of
leadership to implement sound preparedness policies to respond to a
disaster on the scale of Katrina was a manmade disaster much worse than
Katrina because it can be prevented. I am encouraged by steps taken by
the Federal Government to prepare for the 2006 Atlantic Hurricane
season but much more needs to be done to be not repeat mistakes
following Katrina. For example, we all know the list of Federal
agencies that struggled following Katrina, including of course FEMA.
Just a few weeks ago, for example, we learned that FEMA-issued travel
trailers had a limited number of lock designs in them meaning one key
could possibly open other trailers. FEMA responded quickly to this
revelation but it was the latest in a string of post-Katrina
bureaucratic missteps for the agency. I recognize that FEMA Director
Paulison came into a tough situation but I have found him to be open to
making necessary changes at FEMA to address post-Katrina problems like
this. However, I must say that the problems FEMA and the other agencies
faced, in most cases can and should be prevented with proper
accountability and pre-planning.
On the other hand, the U.S. Coast Guard is an example of an agency
that had sufficient planning ahead of time and was effective post-
Katrina. According to a recent U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO) report, the Coast Guard was more effective post-Katrina because
it had contingency plans for technology and personnel. Contingency
plans led to a pre-placement of communication equipment before Katrina
which avoided some of the communication problems other Federal/State
agencies faced and literally saved thousands of lives. Katrina was the
largest search and rescue mission in history, with almost 6,000 Coast
Guard personnel deployed and about one-third of the Coast Guard's
entire fleet was dedicated to rescue efforts in the Gulf Coast.
According to the White House Homeland Security Council's report on
Katrina, the Coast Guard retrieved more than 33,000 people along the
Gulf Coast: 12,000 by air, 11,000 by surface, and an additional 9,403
evacuated from hospitals. In these operations, the Coast Guard also
worked hand-in-hand with personnel from the Louisiana Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries, so provided not only a good example of pre-
planning but also in how to coordinate with State officials.
In closing, let me say that it is indeed important to utilize
better planning, coordination, and technology to ensure that problems
following Katrina are not repeated after future disasters. However, I
believe that Congress and the Federal government should make the hard
decisions now, including restructuring FEMA and DHS. I look forward to
working with this subcommittee, as well as the agencies and groups
present here today, to implement necessary reforms and provide badly
needed funds to ensure the Nation is truly prepared for any possible
disaster.
I thank the Chairman and ask that my full statement be submitted
for the record.
Admiral Allen. Senator, that is an excellent question. If I
can respond to maybe a couple other questions as an add-on,
when you talk about communications there are really two
dimensions of that. One is an organizational perspective and
how we interact individually, how we are collocated together,
how we jointly execute doctrine and plans that have been tested
and understood by everybody. Then there is the actual movement
of the electrons and how we talk to each other, and you have to
talk about both of those.
As Senator Shelby indicated earlier, we have done a very,
very good job on the coordination, the alignment of where we
are going to be at the emergency centers, what our principal
Federal officials are going to do, what the Federal
coordinating officer is going to do with them.
The significant challenge that remains is land-mobile and
maritime-mobile communications and what frequency we are
talking on, and how do we interoperate at that level. Now, with
regard to both of those in the Coast Guard operations, we
operate under a principle of on-scene initiative in the Coast
Guard that if you are cut off from actually being able to talk
to the organization our folks know what to do and are empowered
to act. So the organizational piece of that, even if there is a
gap or something that needs to be bridged, our people are
prepared to act and they did.
But even we experienced communications outages down there.
We operate in maritime-mobile radio communications whereas the
other first responders operate on land-mobile radio
communications. We are currently recapitalizing the Coast Guard
VHF-FM system for the entire country in our Rescue 21
acquisition. That is going to improve our ability to
interoperate on spectrum, in frequency, with the first
responders and we need to take care of that.
As the PFO and I recommended it to Dave Paulison he has
already taken it for action. When we deploy to the FEMA folks
they need to have land-mobile communications in their merged
units, which they are moving to do now, because that capability
did not exist when we were down there. So you have to create
not only the doctrine, the structure and how you are going to
act together, but you have to be able to talk across the
airwaves together. We are better this year than we were last
year in both of those areas. We were able to deploy emergency
antennas down at Sulphur and we were able to re-establish
communications in the lower Mississippi River within a matter
of days after the event, and that is the type of equipment we
are buying through this Rescue 21 contract. But we need to
build that out.
Senator Landrieu. Is the equipment that you are purchasing
the same as what Homeland Security is purchasing, and obviously
FEMA would be purchasing, as well as the same that local
sheriffs, law enforcement, first responders, health care
responders? How is that being coordinated? I ask this because I
am sure other Senators are in the same position. I have a
steady stream of people coming into my office saying they have
the best equipment, that their equipment can do x, y, and z,
and about 20 of them show up every week. I am concerned that
this system of ``catch as catch can'' is going to catch us all
where we were last year. That is with maybe some good plans in
place, except for, Mr. Chairman, the ambulance drivers could
not talk to the bus drivers, and the bus drivers could not talk
to the doctors in the emergency room to find out whether they
had 20 patients that had to be evacuated, whether they were on
ventilators or not, and what kind of equipment to show up.
Unless we get this fixed, I can just sit here and see this
scenario happening again, with good plans in place except
nobody can talk to anyone.
Admiral Allen. Yes, ma'am. I will give you the first part.
I think Under Secretary Foresman would like to address the
second. In relation to Federal interoperability, in the 3 years
that the Department has been established, one of the real
progressive things we have done is through the Joint
Requirements Council taken a look at all of our wireless
requirements. Those are all managed out of the Wireless
Management Office in the CIO's shop at the departmental level.
The solution for the Federal response is going to be the
interagency wireless network, which is the land-mobile radio
solution for Federal responders. We are working on that to make
sure that works at the Federal level. The local solution that
has been developed heretofore is the SAFECOM solution and the
issue is how does the SAFECOM solution interact with inter-
agency wireless network, and I will let Under Secretary
Foresman follow up.
Senator Landrieu. Please.
Mr. Foresman. Senator, of the $18 billion that has gone
down to State and local governments, about $2.1 billion has
been used for interoperability solutions. You get 20 people a
week who say they have got the solution; I get 40.
I would just offer to you, Senator, that we are pushing
through the grants process very aggressive parameters for
States and local governments to use, because the Federal
Government cannot mandate what the State and local governments
will or will not do on their communication, but we can
incentivize it through the way that we administer the Federal
grants as they go down.
One of the big pieces that I would offer to you, and this
goes back to your focus on planning: We went into last
hurricane season without a basic communications plan in this
country and, frankly, when I started in this business back in
the 1980s there was a basic communications plan, but it had
been allowed to deteriorate over time. We actually sent teams
down at the tactical level and at the strategic level to
understand what the frequencies were, what the existing
capabilities were, whether we are talking about Dave and his
team, Admiral Allen and his team, whether we are talking about
the State of Louisiana or the city of New Orleans, and we went
into this hurricane season with an intuitive understanding of
who has what.
So as we have looked at technological solutions we have
made sure that, whether it is through the grant programs in
SAFECOM or whether it is through the programs that Dave has
been administering on disaster recovery, that we are shooting
for that interoperability.
Senator Gregg. Senator, we are going to have to move on.
Senator Landrieu. Go ahead. I am sorry.
Senator Gregg. Senator Domenici has been very patient.
Senator Domenici. Well, thank you very much.
I came today for two reasons----
Senator Gregg. You have got to turn the mike on.
Senator Domenici. Thank you. I do not get charged for time
that they do not hear, right?
Senator Gregg. The time is yours, Senator.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
FLOODING IN NEW MEXICO
I just wanted to say I came for two reasons, the first of
which is to compliment you, Mr. Chairman, because I believe in
the last 18 months this subcommittee under your leadership has
done the country a real service. While everybody has been
arguing and talking about who is going to do what and whose
bill is going to govern border security, you have produced
through the appropriation process the kind of assets that our
borders needed and assets that those who are in charge of our
borders were crying out for, and you have put our operational
entities on the border in a far better position than they ever
were in terms of manpower, in terms of training, and in terms
of equipment.
It is just something to watch. While everyone is still
arguing about whose rules govern where, we have funded in the
last three appropriation bills, including one supplemental--if
you can fund border activities any better, any quicker than
that, I would like to see it. So I commend you for it and I am
glad to be on the subcommittee to help you with that, and I
hope you know that.
I think we ought to get our bill done. If nobody else wants
to get theirs done on the floor, we ought to get this done.
This is a big problem for America, but it is also terribly
difficult for those who are called upon to take action under
the new laws that we put together. They are complicated and
they require that these people have a management skill that we
have not asked of any entities before.
I am very pleased to see the witnesses here with smiles on
their faces and it appears that you are really willing to go to
work. With that I am terribly pleased. I just wish you would
take care of New Mexico as well as your smile appears your
readiness to take care of the country. My little State has had
a freak situation, I say to you, Mr. Secretary. New Mexico went
from a drought State to a flood State in a period of 30 days.
We are in a flood situation, if you can imagine.
Senator Byrd, if you went to New Mexico today you would not
recognize it as the same State that you have visited three or
four times in your life. It is green pastures everywhere
because we have had over a month in which we have had rain
every other day. Everything is green. The problem is that with
that has come tremendous floods.
I just want you people in charge to know that this Senator
is very worried about how effective you are going to be in
responding to New Mexico, because we have a very peculiar
problem. I am going to put the question to you and just ask you
to talk with me a minute about how you do this. We have not had
one downpour that just racked up the city of Alamagordo. We had
a series, one following on another with time in between. At any
particular time it was not a disaster, but when you start
looking at the cumulative effect of five or six huge rainfalls
they have a disaster situation in my home State.
We have filed for disaster relief and I would like to just
find out from you, in evaluating requests for Federal
assistance from the State of New Mexico that relate to these
summer floods, will FEMA consider that the rainfall did not
cease for weeks on end and consider the cumulative effect of
these intense storms, and what additional information should we
provide to you, if any, so that we can get maximum exposure of
our problems to you so that you can take care of what you are
obligated to do, no favors asked?
Mr. Paulison. No, sir. In fact, the State has applied for
two declarations. The first was denied and the State has
appealed. The second one, for the floods that you are talking
about, we approved everything the State asked for, individual
assistance and public assistance. But we are still working with
the State because I know there is maybe another county they
want to add to that, looking at that very carefully.
We are working with the State very closely. We know very
clearly that you have a lot of issues there and we want to make
sure that we can give you everything that is legally due. But
we are in contact with the State, making sure we work with
them, making sure that if there is more information needed they
know what it is. We want to approve everything we can possibly
approve. This is not one of those issues where we do not want
to approve it. We want to give them everything that we possibly
can.
When the last declaration came in I signed off on it and
sent it over to the President and the President approved
everything the governor asked for.
Senator Domenici. I understand that, in spite of your
having other big problems, New Mexico is going to be looked at
from the standpoint of what it is actually entitled to?
Mr. Paulison. Absolutely, sir, absolutely.
Senator Domenici. All right.
HARMONY IN WORKING TOGETHER
My last question is again an observation. Maybe I could
just ask going down from you, Admiral, down the line. In terms
of cooperating and working together in all respects, have we
got--have things been put in the position that there is harmony
and working together at every level in your opinion, Admiral?
Admiral Allen. I think Under Secretary Foresman stated in
his comments we have what I would call the Chertoff team in
place. All the senior leadership in the Department have all
been picked under Secretary Chertoff's tenure as the Secretary.
We meet regularly. The operating components, which we call the
gang of seven, meet on a weekly basis unless there is some
reason for us not to. We are exchanging information, and I just
signed an MOU with Ralph Basham of Customs and Border
Protection about interoperability and how the Coast Guard and
CBP are going to work together, sir. I think things are going
fine in that regard.
Mr. Foresman. Senator, I would echo what Admiral Allen has
had to say in the context of inside of the Department and,
frankly, across the Federal inter-agency. The series of
exercises that we did from the Cabinet on down through the
assistant secretary level, the level of cooperation between the
Federal inter-agency is from my perspective as someone who has
been in the business and spent a lot of time in Washington
dealing with the Federal family before I came to this position
much better than it has ever been before.
We still have more work to do to strengthen our
partnerships with the State and local governments and with our
private sector partners out there, but I would just remind the
committee, 4 weeks ago we managed to turn on a dime in response
to the British airline plot. The one thing I will tell you is
we were finally able to tell our State and local partners a
critical piece of information before they saw it on the news
media.
So our system is getting better. The components inside the
Department from Admiral Allen to Kip Hawley at TSA to Dave
Paulison, with very short order the issue was put in front of
them, the contingencies needed to be developed and they needed
to be implemented, and we did that in the space of about 8 or
10 hours. You do not do that unless you have got phenomenal
levels of cooperation inside the Department and across the
Federal inter-agency.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
Mr. Paulison. Yes, I have to echo that also. When I was
asked to take this job I knew I needed support from the
Secretary and the President, but I also needed support from my
fellow managers inside of Homeland Security. If I did not think
I would have gotten that, I would not have taken the job. It
has been a phenomenal amount of support that I have personally
received, not only as a professional, but also we develop
friendships.
What you see here, we are not here by accident. We work
together. We visit each other's offices. We meet on a regular
basis several times a week usually to make sure that we are on
the same page and we are all supporting each other. It is
coming together, especially since Hurricane Katrina, better
than I have ever seen. I am just very appreciative of the
support that I personally get out of this organization.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your
kind comments, but really what this committee has done is a
reflection of the membership of the committee and especially
your leadership, especially on border issues, has been the
essence of the exercise and critical to it. Of course, Senator
Byrd has been extraordinary in his support of the efforts to
try to get the Homeland Security Department fired up in the
right direction, especially on border issues.
We appreciate the panel's attention today. We do have a
second panel and I do not want to hold you guys up from what is
a very important job, and since I see there is another
hurricane in the Caribbean we want to get you out there and
make sure you can get ready for it. Thank you very much. We
appreciate your testimony and appreciate your hard work, your
service.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, can I just say thank you
also?
Senator Gregg. We are joined by the chairman of the
committee. Did you want to--did you have any questions?
Senator Cochran. I just wanted to commend them for the good
work they are doing. Thank you for cooperating with our
committee. You have done a great job on the gulf coast of
Mississippi and we appreciate it.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
We are going to move now to our second group of
professionals. These are the folks who are on truly the front
lines. They manage the first responder effort of our Nation in
various areas. Our first witness will be Bruce Baughman,
President of the National Emergency Management Association, who
is currently the Director of Alabama's Emergency Management
Agency; and our second witness will be Ellis Stanley, a
certified emergency manager, who is the principal manager for
the City of Los Angeles Emergency Preparedness Department.
We appreciate you gentlemen taking the time to come here
today. Obviously what we are interested in is hearing your
thoughts as to how you are interfacing with and how well you
think the Federal Government is doing in giving you the
resources and support you need to deal with a major catastrophe
since you folks are on the front line and are the people who
are going to have your individuals who work for you be the
first responders at the event.
We will start with you, Mr. Baughman.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE BAUGHMAN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
Mr. Baughman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, Ranking Member Byrd and members of the committee.
What I want to do this morning is to provide you with a
statement on kind of a record of our Nation's status of
preparedness from my perspective. In my statement I am
representing the National Emergency Management Association. As
you mentioned before, I am currently the president of that
association and director of the State of Alabama's emergency
management organization. However, prior to that I did spend 30
years with FEMA and did have the opportunity to respond to over
100 major disasters, to include the Oklahoma City bombing, the
World Trade Center, and Northridge earthquake.
There are a couple of areas I would like to make some
suggestions on today that need to be resolved to enhance our
Nation's preparedness in several areas. One is addressing
funding gaps that exist in State and local emergency
preparedness. Second is strengthening and empowering FEMA
through strong reform and clear organizational structures; and
third is developing a consistent and timely method for State
and local emergency management to provide input into DHS and to
FEMA on policy and emergency management issues.
Let me start off by talking about funding. One of the most
important, critical components in strengthening our national
preparedness response capability to natural disasters. The
primary funding mechanism for that is the emergency management
performance grant. The emergency management performance grant,
however, has suffered from lack of attention in the last 10
years. It is the only funding source--and I want to emphasize
that, the only funding source--for natural disaster
preparedness that State and local government has.
Last year that was funded at $185 million. The current
House mark is I think at $187 million, an increase of a couple
million dollars over last year. The Senate mark--and we
appreciate this--is somewhere around $220 million, which is a
substantial down payment in making some advances in that area.
I want to use this as an example to show the disparity
between funding for terrorism preparedness, and we have plunked
billions of dollars, as this committee knows, into terrorism
preparedness for State and local government in the last few
years. In the State of Alabama we get $22 million to prepare
ourselves for terrorists. We get $25 million to prepare
ourselves for the chemical stockpile in Anniston, Alabama. We
get less than $3 million to prepare ourselves for natural
disasters. Yet 31 times in the last 10 years our State has been
hit by natural disasters. Something is wrong with the funding
formula.
A couple other things I need to mention is that EMPG, so
many things are coming out of that pot right now that it was
not intended to do. Some new mandates this year: the States had
to revise State and local plans to comply with the national
response plan. They had to adopt a National Incident Management
System. They had to implement the national preparedness goal
and target capabilities list. They had to update their
evacuation plans and they had to participate in the national
plans review, again with no increased level of funding, as a
matter of fact in some cases reduced levels of funding.
One of the things that State and local government does with
an emergency management performance grant, which is the
backbone for emergency management organizations--there have
been a lot of complaints that emergency management only funds
personnel. They fund the personnel to develop the plans, the
exercises, the corrective action. They educate the public. They
maintain our Nation's emergency response network at the State
and local level.
Right now these plans are being used to create and update
plans for receiving distribution of commodities. In Hurricane
Katrina that did not get done by the Federal Government. That
was done by State and local governments. Debris removal plans,
evacuation plans, sheltering plans, search and rescue plans,
emergency medical plans, all of which are done by State and
local government.
It also funds the emergency management assistance compact.
There were 65--it was a success story coming out of Hurricane
Katrina--over 66,000 State and local personnel responded to
Louisiana and the other affected States under that compact.
Those personnel, the civilian personnel on those teams, were in
fact trained under the emergency management performance grants.
Right now, EMAC was funded at a level of $201 million in
2003. I actually did that while I was still at FEMA. That grant
runs out November of this year. We need additional moneys to
help keep that compact going. NEMA is the custodian of that
compact. Again, the response under that compact agreement far
exceeded what the Federal Government provided.
Reform of FEMA. Let me just cut to the chase and recommend
three things. First, our opinion is that FEMA is really the
right agency with the right authorities and the right
relationships with the State and local government and with the
other Federal agencies to coordinate disaster response.
However, some of the things that need to be strengthened within
FEMA and some roles that need to be clarified are as follows.
One, the Federal Coordinating Officer. I have been a
Federal Coordinating Officer out in the field. In the last
couple of years, since FEMA has been put under the Department
of Homeland Security, the ability of that Federal Coordinating
Officer to make a timely decision in the field has been
curtailed. As an FCO I did not have to do ``mother, may I''
with the Secretary to make a decision in the field. The FCOs
now currently have to do that. I know our governor, Governor
Bob Reilly, in testimony has said time and again: Put a person
in the field that is empowered to make a decision and let them
get on with it.
We also strongly oppose the position of primary Federal--
Principal Federal Official. We feel that that adds a layer of
bureaucracy that was not there before and in fact slows down
the decision-making process.
Director of FEMA. Director of FEMA needs to have a direct
reporting relationship with the President. That does not mean
it has to come out from under the Department itself, but, as
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has the direct reporting
relationship with the President in times of war, so should the
director of FEMA. As an emergency manager in the State and a
member of the Governor's cabinet, I report directly to the
Governor and that works out great. I think that the Director of
FEMA ought to have the same relationship. Also, we feel that
there should be some recommended knowledge base established for
the director of FEMA as well.
Connecting preparedness with response and recovery. We feel
it was a mistake and we went on record, we sent a letter to
Congress and talked with Secretary Chertoff, that pulling
preparedness out of FEMA was a wrong move. Preparedness as it
relates to response and recovery to a disaster belongs in FEMA.
You cannot have different people writing plans and then turn to
FEMA and expect them to execute those plans when a disaster
occurs.
We feel that all-hazards funding to support that
preparedness function also needs to be returned to FEMA. FEMA
needs to have that direct relationship with State and local
government. Right now, the way it stands, the only time I see
FEMA is in the middle of a disaster. They have no preparedness
function with State and local government, so we are there
exchanging business cards in the middle of a disaster. It is
not a way to run a railroad.
The other thing that we feel is there should be a firewall
put around FEMA, the way it is with the Coast Guard and with
Secret Service. What has been the problem with FEMA is
continual dickering with the structure of FEMA itself. The time
has come for that to cease. Put it back together. Allow it to
function the way it was designed to function.
Let me talk a little bit about the State and local
government. State and local governments are real players when
it comes to the establishment of a national response system. We
talk about a national response plan, which appears to be going
back to a Federal response plan. There is little or no input
from State and local government into that process.
For example, the national response plan was just changed
without any significant input or meaningful input on the part
of State and local governments. We need to have a forum that
promotes the input of first responders and State and local
governments into any changes to the national response plan.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that disaster
preparedness begins with State and local governments, and
assistance to enhance that preparedness is in dire need of
Federal financial assistance. Long before the Federal
Government shows up for a disaster, State and local government
is shouldering the burden of emergency response. The better
prepared State and local governments are to carry out that
function, the less the burden on the Federal Government.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bruce Baughman
Introduction
Thank you Chairman Gregg, Ranking Member Byrd, 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
Bruce Baughman, the Director of the Alabama 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. Currently, I am the President of NEMA and prior to my
appointment in Alabama, I served in various positions at the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for almost 30 years. This includes
service as the Director of the now dissolved Office for National
Preparedness and as Director of Operations on over 100 disasters
including Oklahoma City, the Pentagon, and World Trade Center in 2001.
I also worked on the development of the initial Federal Response Plan,
which is the precursor to the new National Response Plan, and the U.S.
Government Interagency Domestic Terrorism Concept of Operation Plan
(CONPlan) during my tenure at FEMA. I bring over 32 years of experience
in emergency management and I understand how emergency management is
intended to work.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify before your
Committee today. This is the first time in 5 years that State and local
emergency management leaders have been invited to publicly testify
before the Appropriations Committee and we welcome this as a chance to
share with you the preparedness priorities of State and local
governments. There are several key areas that I wish to discuss with
you today that need to be resolved in order to secure our preparedness:
--Addressing the funding gaps that exist for State and local
emergency management;
--Strengthening and empowering FEMA through strong reform and clear
organizational structures; and
--Developing an outlet for consistent and timely input to Federal
partners on Federal policy and interpretation on emergency
management issues.
Before I begin discussing those subjects, I want to note the
efforts that Under Secretary Foresman and Under Secretary Paulison have
made sure to work together to ensure that preparedness is closely
linked with response and recovery within the Department of Homeland
Security. However, we must continue to look at ways to prevent
separation of emergency management functions and join preparedness with
response, recovery, and mitigation to re-link the cycle of emergency
management.
Funding for Emergency Management--A National Priority Issue
One of the most important and critical components for strengthening
our national preparedness and response to disasters is Federal funding.
While multi-billion dollar investments have been made in securing our
homeland and preparing for acts of terrorism, funding for natural
hazard preparedness has suffered. The current fiscal year 2007 proposed
funding level for the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) is
only $170 million, though the Senate approved amount is $220 million.
After modest increases, EMPG's growth rate has not kept pace with
inflation or increased Federal requirements. Some of these mandates
include: updating State and local plans to reflect the new National
Response Plan, adoption of and training on the new National Incident
Management System (NIMS), requirements to implement the National
Preparedness Goal and Target Capabilities List, updates of emergency
evacuation plans, and participation in National Plan Reviews as
mandated by Congress. This year, of all years, the Administration is
proposing to cut EMPG by $13.1 million, despite the $260 million
shortfall identified by NEMA in a 2004 study. NEMA just completed the
2006 NEMA Biennial Report, which will be published at the end of
September, and new survey numbers are available. Now, the shortfall has
reached $287 million, which means another 10.3 percent more is needed
for the program.
While the House of Representatives proposed to address this year's
EMPG funds with a $3 million increase over the fiscal year 2006 level,
significant resources must be allocated to this vital program to ensure
our nation's preparedness levels and we believe that the Senate
approved amount makes a serious down payment to address the shortfall.
NEMA is appreciative of Congress' recognition of the EMPG program, but
this year we respectfully ask that Congress aggressively address the
programs shortfalls with any additional funding possible.
Natural disasters are certain and often anticipated. While Federal
support to State and local governments is critical in disasters, we
must be investing more resources to improve State and local capability.
All disasters are local. Improving local emergency management
capability will decrease the need for a comprehensive Federal response.
The Federal Government, by its nature, is bureaucratic and cumbersome.
Every State must be able to plan for disasters as well as build and
sustain the capability to respond. EMPG is the only source of funding
to assist State and local governments with planning and preparedness/
readiness activities associated with natural disasters. EMPG is the
backbone of the Nation's all-hazards emergency management system and
the only source of direct Federal funding to State and local
governments for emergency management capacity building. EMPG is used
for personnel, planning, training, and exercises at both the State and
local levels. EMPG is primarily used to support State and local
emergency management personnel who are responsible for writing plans,
conducting training, exercises and corrective action, educating the
public on disaster readiness and maintaining the Nation's emergency
response system. EMPG is being used to help States create and update
plans for receiving and distribution plans for commodities and ice
after a disaster, debris removal plans, and plans for receiving or
evacuating people--all of these critical issues identified in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
The State and local government partnership with the Federal
Government to ensure preparedness, dates back to the civil defense era
of the 1950s, yet increased responsibilities over the last decade have
fallen on State and local governments without increased EMPG funding.
NEMA completed a Quick Response Survey in March 2006 to assess the
impacts of the proposed cut to the EMPG program. Of the 42 States
responding, 90 percent of the States will have to cut staff ranging
from one person to more than 50 positions. If the cut is included in
the budget: 20 States will have to cut between 1-10 positions; 10
States will have to cut between 11-30 positions; 4 will have to cut
between 31-50 positions; and 4 will have to cut more than 50 positions.
In the same Quick Response Survey, 83 percent of responding States
report that the majority of EMPG funds go to local grants, so the
impact of the cut would be greatest on local governments.
State and Local Match
EMPG is the only program in the Preparedness account within the
Department of Homeland Security that requires a match at the State and
local level. The match is evidence of the commitment by State and local
governments to address the urgent need for all- hazards emergency
planning, to include terrorism. EMPG requires a match of 50 percent
from the State or local governments. According to the NEMA 2004
Biennial Report, budgets for State emergency management agencies
nationally were reduced by an average of 23 percent in fiscal year
2004, yet at the same time States were continuing to over match the
Federal Government's commitment to national security protection through
EMPG by $96 million in fiscal year 2004, which is a 80 percent State
and 20 percent Federal contribution.
Appropriate Support Needed to Strengthen Program
Clearly, Congress wants to understand what is being built with
these investments, especially in tight fiscal conditions. The 2006
Quick Response Survey found that if States were to each receive an
additional $1 million in EMPG funding for fiscal year 2007, States
would use the following percentages for the following activities: 88
percent of States responding would use the funding to update plans
including evacuation, sheltering, emergency operations, catastrophic
disasters and others; 83 percent would provide more training
opportunities for State and local emergency preparedness and response;
88 percent would provide additional preparedness grants to local
jurisdictions; 69 percent would conduct more State and local exercises;
and 61 percent would use funding for State and local NIMS compliance.
All-Hazards Approach
The Federal Government must continue its commitment to ensuring
national security though all-hazard preparedness. Without adequate
numbers of State and local personnel to operate the all-hazards
emergency management system, the infrastructure used to prevent,
prepare for, respond to, and recover from all disasters will collapse.
Unfortunately, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita illustrated the need for
adequate emergency management systems from the ground up. Instead of
making unbalanced investments towards terrorism preparedness, we must
maintain an all-hazards approach and shore up the foundation of our
response system for all disasters regardless of cause. We strongly
encourage Congress to ensure predictable and adequate funding levels
for the EMPG in fiscal year 2007 and beyond.
Mutual Aid
Mutual aid is another key area that is supported by EMPG funds. 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) has currently 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. Many of the
civilians sent to provide assistance were supported by the EMPG
program. 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. EMPG allows States and local
governments to build this capacity both for their own use and to share
through EMAC. 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, referenced as a
key achievement and best practice to be built upon in many of the
reports on Hurricane Katrina, 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.
In 2006 after Hurricane Katrina and Rita operations slowed, NEMA
began the After Action Review for the 2005 Hurricane Season. In
January, key State staff that were deployed or assisting from their
home State as part of requests from impacted States were brought
together in a focus group to begin identification of issues. In March,
State and local staff deployed including representatives of a variety
of national emergency response organizations including the National
Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Fire Chiefs,
and many others, participated in a meeting to further cultivate the
issues that went well and the issues for improvement for the 2006
season. The final After-Action Report is anticipated later this year,
however NEMA has already identified issues for immediate action
including: revision and adaptation of the Requisition A to an online
format; development of outreach programs to share information on EMAC
with State and local government agencies and national organizations
representing various emergency response disciplines; integrating EMAC
into State training exercises; enhancing EMAC's resource tracking
system; updates to the EMAC protocols and guidelines to implement
lessons learned; and development of 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 November 30, 2006 and no additional funds
have been committed at this time. We call on this Committee to urge
DHS/FEMA to continue to fund EMAC, especially to implement the lessons
learned from Hurricane Katrina.
Interoperability Remains a Problem
Hurricane Katrina revealed that the issue of interoperability--the
ability of various emergency responders to talk to each other through
both voice and data systems--still has not been resolved. Over a 5-year
period, DHS invested an estimated $11 billion in grants to improve
communications systems. Larger cities were able to take advantage of
Urban Area Security Initiative Program (UASI) grants to enhance their
systems. However, less populous States or those with smaller to mid-
size communities that didn't qualify for these programs, faced a
distinct disadvantage.
Comprehensive interoperable communication is expensive and requires
long-term financial investments. According to the 2006 NEMA Biennial
Report, States estimate that it will require more than $7 billion to
either achieve state-wide interoperability or reach levels required in
each State's homeland security strategy. Of those States providing a
dollar figure, this total averages in excess of $160 million per State.
Emergency Operation Centers
During emergencies and disasters, emergency operations centers
(EOCs) serve as the nerve center for State and local coordination.
Federal agencies as well use these facilities as a central point for
communication during response and recovery phases. After the 2001
terrorist attacks, Congress provided some funding to States to update
their EOCs. However, it only allowed for limited planning and a needs-
assessment.
States continue to require more monies to enhance State primary and
alternate EOCs. New data in the 2006 NEMA Biennial Report, it is
estimated that almost $393 million would be needed to build, retrofit
and upgrade the facilities. For local EOCs, that number increases to
$1.1 billion, for a total of almost $1.5 billion. This includes the
costs to upgrade equipment and software, train personnel, and conduct
operations during emergency and non-emergency situations.
Ensuring Appropriate Reform for FEMA
Unfortunately, the Administration, Congress, and all of us have
stood by and watched as FEMA has become a shell of its former self. We
are at the same point as the Nation was after Hurricane Andrew in 1992,
questioning organizational structures, leadership, the roles of
Federal, State, and local government, and even citizen preparedness.
No Federal agency is more qualified structurally and statutorily
than FEMA to help our Nation respond to and recover from disasters.
FEMA has the direct relationships with State and local governments
because of the grant programs and the disaster relief programs
authorized through the Stafford Act. FEMA is the only Federal agency
authorized under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Relief Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) to carry out duties on behalf of
the President. The 1978 Reorganization Plan 3, which created FEMA, also
gives FEMA the responsibility for all of the functions of emergency
preparedness and response. The plan states:
This reorganization rests on several fundamental principles. First,
Federal authorities to anticipate, prepare for, and respond to major
civil emergencies should be supervised by one official responsible to
the President and given attention by other officials at the highest
levels. The new agency would be in this position.
FEMA is and should be the agency of choice to coordinate the
functions of the Federal Government in response to disasters,
regardless of their cause.
FEMA has the ability to tap into the emergency responder community
to build relationships through training and exercises. FEMA also has
the skills to work cooperatively with State and local elected and
appointed officials to work towards comprehensive recovery. FEMA has
the coordinating function in the Federal Government and should have the
ability to tap all the resources at the Federal level to respond to a
disaster. However, all these areas need to be strengthened with an all-
hazards focus to ensure that Federal, State, and local governments are
building relationships before a disaster and understand how to work
together cohesively. Leadership is not a matter of one person in the
agency, but requires systematic understanding and vision on how to
assist State and local governments to undertake the recovery process.
The time to stop the cycle of degradation of emergency management
functions by reorganization after reorganization is now and we must
systematically improve our Nation's emergency response system through
verified lessons learned and not reactionary decisions. We hope that as
we surpass the 1 year Anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the coming
close of the 109th Congress that action will be taken to strengthen
FEMA that is thoughtful and immediate, but not merely action for the
sake of action. NEMA must play a significant role in any compromise
that is sought on FEMA reorganization.
Clarity in the Role of the Federal Coordinating Officer
The Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) must have the authority in
the field to carry out the responsibilities of the position. The FCO's
authority and responsibilities are clearly delineated in the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Relief Act (41 U.S.C. 5143
Section 302). The statute outlines the functions and appointment of the
FCO and the NRP must follow the Stafford Act authorities that empower
the FCO to serve on behalf of the President in a declared disaster
area;
NEMA strongly supports eliminating the role of the Principle
Federal Official (PFO). In NEMA's view, the position is duplicative.
NEMA opposed the creation of this position in the drafting process for
the NRP. Initially, the PFO was included in the NRP to address an
incident prior to a formal disaster or emergency declaration. The PFO
role adds additional bureaucracy and confusion to any disaster. The PFO
position should be eliminated, consistent with the Senate report on
Hurricane Katrina.
FEMA Director Criteria and Roles
In any organization, leadership is a critical ingredient for
success. However, when we are talking about FEMA, several reforms must
be made to ensure that the FEMA Director is successful. Regardless of
where FEMA is located, NEMA recommends that the FEMA Director has a
direct reporting relationship to the President of the United States.
The relationship could be structured like that of the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff reporting to the President in times of war or
crisis. Criteria and a recommended knowledge base should be established
for the FEMA Director position, to include:
--Emergency management or similar related career at the Federal,
State or local government level;
--Executive level management experience, governmental administration
and budgeting;
--Understanding of fundamental principles of population protection,
disaster preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery, and
command and control;
--Understanding of the legislative process; and
--Demonstrated leadership including the ability to exert authority
and execute decisions in crisis situations.
The President should continue to nominate and the Senate should
continue to confirm the Director of FEMA, but more Congressional
consideration and scrutiny should be given to the nomination to ensure
the appointed official meets established criteria. Further, a fixed
term appointment for not less than 5 years should be considered, so the
nomination is not political. This would be similar to the model for the
FBI Director. Finally, a vetting process should be established that
includes a role for input by emergency management constituency groups
similar to the American Bar Association role in judicial nominations.
In order to attract candidates who can meet these criteria, salary
levels must be adjusted, as the Second Stage Review changes made
modifications reducing the FEMA Director salary.
Most importantly, consideration needs to also be given to the
connectivity between FEMA and the Preparedness Directorate within DHS,
since all FEMA's preparedness functions were moved out into this new
Directorate. When the Second Stage Review proposal was announced, NEMA
articulated grave concern in a July 27, 2005 letter to the Department
of Homeland Security regarding the Second Stage Review (2SR) creating a
Preparedness Directorate that would be primarily focused on terrorism.
The letter to Congress highlighted the lack of the Department's focus
on natural-hazards preparedness and the inability to connect response
and recovery operations to preparedness functions, as any unnecessary
separation of these functions could result in a disjointed response and
adversely impact the effectiveness of Departmental operations.
Nevertheless, we are working to find ways to connect the new
Preparedness Directorate with FEMA. Yet, confusion exists with the
proposed National Preparedness Integration Program/Preparedness Task
Force and regional preparedness officers roles in the FEMA regional
offices. States are dealing with FEMA, the Preparedness Directorate,
FEMA Regional Offices, Federal Preparedness Officers, and Protective
Security Advisors, and it is all very confusing and we don't know who
is in charge.
In recent months, some of States that face regular hurricanes have
looks at reorganizing their own functions within the State to ensure
the proximity of emergency management functions to the Governor. Both
Florida and Louisiana have made structural changes to their emergency
management divisions to have the State emergency manager report
directly to the Governor. It is my belief that Federal structures
should mirror this organizational reporting chain and States should
also take this into consideration for their own composition.
Further, I personally believe that true all-hazards grants related
to preparing for, responding to, and recovering from disasters belong
back within FEMA in order to ensure the programmatic mission of the
organization and maintenance of relationships at the State and local
levels. Restoring these grants will also ensure that FEMA can
effectively measure State and local government capabilities so they
better understand where the Federal Government needs to play a role.
Roles of Federal, State, and Local Governments
Preparedness is a continuum that must include buy-in from Federal,
State, and local governments, and the private sector. A larger role
must be developed for State and local governments to provide input on
preparedness issues. In the past year, Congressional requirements with
no funding were placed on DHS and State and local governments to
complete the National Plan Reviews. Further, changes were made to the
National Response Plan that did not even consult State and local
governments who are players and have critical roles in a national plan.
We have been told that we will have the opportunity to provide input
later in the fall when DHS undertakes a full rewrite; however we remain
concerned that our input will not be taken seriously. Finally, policy
directives coming from DHS are often coming with very little advance
notice, or with a very short time for State and local governments to
provide input, this making it impossible to impact the process or
provide meaningful input if there is disagreement with the policy
decisions. We strongly urge this Committee and the Congress to look at
strong stakeholder input vehicles that allow for the State and local
governments who have to abide by new requirements to honestly be
consulted in a serious way.
The Federal Government must never become a first responder, but
should remain focused on providing stronger funding for preparedness,
emergency response, maintaining capabilities, and extraordinary
resources that can be drawn on in a catastrophic event. The Federal
role is a support and coordination function that assists with
resources, expertise, and response capabilities when State and local
governments are overwhelmed or do not have the resources to respond.
Federal efforts should only augment State and local operations and
never supersede the authorities given to the Governor in the Stafford
Act.
State and local governments should develop the capabilities to
respond through strong emergency operations plans and tying the use of
Federal funds to established standards. For example, in Alabama as we
allocate EMPG funding locally, we require local governments to tie
their funding to building performance capabilities in the Emergency
Management Accreditation Program and if local governments don't perform
with the funds given, we don't continue the funding streams and
implement corrective actions. With this approach, we are looking
broadly at the risks we face and not just at the last disaster. State
and local governments must have the capacity to develop their own plans
and execute these plans when it comes to distribution of resources and
emergency supplies. State and local governments understand the unique
needs of their communities and the threats they face. One of the things
we ask our locals to do with EMPG funding is to create plans for
receiving and distribution of ice, water, food, and other commodities
from the Federal Government in the event of a disaster. In addition,
emergency contracts should continue to be permitted, since State and
local governments know who best can meet their needs after a disaster.
Issues for Federal Improvement
While the House, Senate, and the White House have completed reports
outlining the Lessons Learned and recommendations for improvement for
Federal response to disasters, I feel it is important to articulate the
issues that I saw as most important in those reports and the Federal
Government's response to these issues relative to Hurricane Katrina.
Federal Logistics Planning
One thing that impacted States learned during Hurricane Katrina is
that the Federal supply system did not and could not meet the State and
local burn rates for commodities such as food, water, ice and other
immediate needs. Recognizing this shortfall, the Federal Government has
undertaken a massive effort to repair this system. My concern is that
States recognized this Federal failure and have undertaken many efforts
on their own to fix these logistical shortfalls. While this work is
taking place at the national level, there is no clear understanding of
what to expect from the Federal Government and how it will be
integrated into State and local logistical plans.
Regional Hurricane Exercises
In the spring, DHS/FEMA announced their sponsorship of regional
hurricane exercises to prepare the upcoming season. While this would
appear to be a tremendous opportunity, the manner in which the Federal
Government proposed to complete these exercises limited participation
and could have adverse effects on a comprehensive objective assessment
of our Nation's capability. First, the Federal Government proposed
hosting these exercises in Atlanta or Miami with key State and local
officials traveling to these central locations for tabletop exercises.
We should ``train as we would fight'' with State and local governments
activating and operating Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs) just as we
would do in a real event. This approach would allow all of the State
and local government representatives to test continuity of operations
plans (COOP), communications systems, message flow and equipment and
commodity tracking and other critical components of our response
system. While we understand the need to test these vital systems, the
last thing State and local governments need less than 2 weeks from the
start of hurricane season is to travel out of State for the purpose of
conducting a hurricane exercise in a cosmetic environment and under
unrealistic conditions that do not reflect or test true capabilities.
FIRST Teams
This spring, some of my fellow State emergency managers had the
opportunity to participate in a briefing in Baltimore, MD on new FEMA
FIRST Teams. These teams, first on the ground during a disaster to
provide the Secretary of Homeland Security with situational awareness,
have the potential to provide improved coordination and unity of
effort, similar to what led to the successes during Katrina in
Mississippi. The concept is good but the pre-deployment coordination
and reporting protocol raises some issues. Teams should never be
deployed directly to a local jurisdiction; rather deployment should be
requested and coordinated by the State EOC based on a State's
operational capability and magnitude of the event. The teams should
also work with existing ERT-A and ERT-N as part of the unified command
system, and never outside that system. We recommended that through
existing video teleconference capabilities that deployment of these
teams be discussed and coordinated well before deployment and only at
the State's request.
The plan also calls for Federal law enforcement officers to be on
the ground before the FIRST teams and that these officers would report
back to the Secretary directly. States expressed their non-support for
this initiative. While these individuals could be a valuable asset to
the first team concept, operating outside the unified command concept
(local, State, Federal-PFO, FCO, Emergency Response Teams, and National
Response Plan), as it is proposed will undermine the unified command
structure and breed an environment of mistrust between local, State and
Federal partners.
State representatives also urged FEMA to integrate the FIRST teams
and any associated element of this concept into the existing unified
command structure. Any other approach will only undermine the local-
State-Federal partnership and mutual respect and trust that is critical
to the success in any joint effort.
Conclusion
We appreciate Congress' increased attention and focus on disaster
preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation efforts. We ask that
Congress look at ways to immediately influx the system with resources
and innovation in order to face the challenges of the day. We cannot
afford to repeat history and turn around to face the very same issues
we faced with Hurricane Andrew as we did with Hurricane Katrina in
2006, or in the next decade. We must face these issues now and resolve
ourselves to 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. I thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of NEMA.
Senator Gregg. Thank you. There is a lot of good thoughts.
We appreciate that.
Mr. Stanley.
STATEMENT OF ELLIS M. STANLEY, SR., CERTIFIED EMERGENCY
MANAGER, GENERAL MANAGER, EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS DEPARTMENT, CITY OF LOS
ANGELES
Mr. Stanley. Chairman Gregg, Ranking Member Byrd, and
members of the committee: Thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to be here today to talk with you about emergency
preparedness. My name is Ellis Stanley. I am the General
Manager of Emergency Management for the City of Los Angeles. I
am also here today as a representative of the International
Association of Emergency Managers, of which I am a past
president and formerly and currently the vice chair of the
governmental affairs committee. I have over 32 years of
emergency management in my career, from rural, medium, and
large jurisdictions, over North Carolina, Georgia, and
California.
I said that to indicate that, no matter where you are, what
size organization you are in, emergency preparedness is a key
component and it deserves all the support that we can give,
both local, Federal, and State. As stated, the most important
and critical component in strengthening the Nation's response
to disasters is Federal funding. Los Angeles has focused a
significant amount of Federal funds that it has received
through the urban areas security initiative into planning and
prevention.
While these funds are generally more focused on the threat
of terrorism, it is not lost on us that much of the equipment,
the training and exercises that we use the urban areas security
initiative to finance have a dual use to assist in our
preparedness against threats from natural hazards as well.
Emergency management performance grants, as you just heard
about their funding, is singly the most effective use of
Federal funds in providing emergency management capacity to
State and local government. As was mentioned, thank you for
including the $220 million for EMPG in the Senate version of
the DHS appropriation bill. The International Association
certainly hopes that the Senate will prevail in the conference
with the House. This funding is vital for improving
preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation, the entire
emergency management process.
It also supports people who have had added responsibility
of administering homeland security funding programs and
additional planning efforts since 2001. Some of the additional
mandates you heard Mr. Baughman talk about with the NEMS, the
national preparedness goal, target capabilities, et cetera.
At the Federal level, it is time to begin building on what
we have rather than continuing to reinvent the process. We are
pleased that Chairman Collins' bill was amended to maintain the
FEMA name. FEMA, which has many dedicated and hardworking
employees, was once one of the most respected agencies in
government and with strong leadership, given appropriate
authority and the help of Congress, it can be again.
Preparedness is what emergency managers do every day and in
the process we are constantly working to improve. It is an
integral part of that integrated system and we are pleased that
the legislation which passed the Senate rejoins preparedness
under FEMA as a critical element of this system. There are key
steps that could be taken to improve the integrated emergency
management process at the Department of Homeland Security and
that would increase the level of partnership between those at
the Federal, State, and local government responsible for the
day to day emergency management processes.
State and local emergency managers must be provided the
opportunity to have significant continual and meaningful
participation in the policy development process. The
involvement of key stakeholders in the decisionmaking process
leads to greater buy-in on decisions and better decisions
overall.
The Director of FEMA needs the maximum amount of access to
the White House possible, especially in times of a disaster.
FEMA should clearly be responsible for the coordination of
Federal response to disasters. To be successful, FEMA needs to
be given the authority to do the job. Adequate funding,
resources, and personnel need to be provided for FEMA in such
fashion that they cannot be reallocated without legislative
action. A level of protection that is similar to that provided
for the U.S. Coast Guard needs to be provided for FEMA within
the Department of Homeland Security.
All the key leadership positions in FEMA need to be filled
with experienced, qualified, knowledgeable personnel. Officials
within FEMA should have the maximum level of autonomy possible
in order to take appropriate independent actions necessary
during the response and recovery from a disaster.
The Principal Federal Official, officer, position should be
abolished, as was stated earlier.
The FEMA regions should be strengthened. We are concerned
about the role of the recently created regional preparedness
offices. They seem to be operating independently from the FEMA
regional directors. We believe these offices should be fully
integrated into the existing regional process.
There are a number of successful recent emergency
management ventures. Director Baughman talked about the
emergency management assistant compacts. They also include the
Emergency Management Accreditation program, the Certified
Emergency Program. For the first time we have a way to provide
a metric for assessing preparedness in our country. We have
only to look at the State of Florida, one of the first States
in the Nation to receive emergency management accreditation, as
a great example of a successful emergency management program.
There have also been great strides in public-private
preparedness initiatives around the country. Organizations such
as the Business Executives for National Security, Business and
Industry Council on Emergency Planning and Preparedness, DRI
International, Emergency Management Accreditation Program,
Global Partners in Preparedness, and more are recognizing the
absolute necessity to incorporate the private sector into the
planning, the training, and exercising process within our
communities.
It is time to look at creating a private sector assistance
compact similar to the emergency management assistance compact.
It is under consideration and we need to support that. It
deserves our merit.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to
testify today and I will be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ellis M. Stanley
Chairman Gregg, Ranking Member Byrd, and distinguished members of
the Committee. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to provide
testimony on the subject of emergency preparedness.
My name is Ellis Stanley and I am the Vice-Chair of the Government
Affairs Committee of the International Association of Emergency
Managers (IAEM). I am also the General Manager of the city of Los
Angeles' Emergency Preparedness Department. My 32 years of experience
in emergency management cover jurisdictions from Brunswick County and
Durham (city and county), North Carolina to Atlanta/Fulton County,
Georgia to the second largest city in our Nation--Los Angeles,
California. My experiences have covered emergency management from rural
counties to metropolitan cities.
The most important and critical component for strengthening our
national preparedness and response to disasters is Federal funding. As
the tragedies of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina well illustrated,
weaknesses in preparedness can undermine even the best resourced
responses to disaster. These lessons echo what we have learned in Los
Angeles through experience with earthquakes, floods, and fires. That is
why Los Angeles has focused a significant amount of Federal funds that
it has received through UASI into planning and prevention. And while
these funds are generally more focused on the threat of terrorism, it
is not lost on us that much of the equipment, training, and exercises
that we use UASI to finance have a dual-use--to assist in our
preparedness against threats from natural hazards as well.
The city of Los Angeles conducts over thirty (30) exercises
annually and even more training sessions not only for the city
departments but for our mutual aid/urban area partners as well, to
include private sector and non-governmental organizations. We've
developed an ERT Challenge program for our CERT (Community Emergency
Response Team) program that helps to keep trained community responder
skills sharp. We've conducted Emergency Management workshops for all of
the Los Angeles Urban Area partners as well as develop an Urban Area
Response Plan. For this reason, the City of Los Angeles strongly
supports continued funding for the UASI program for fiscal year 2007.
In representing IAEM's Government Affairs Committee as well as the
City of Los Angeles, I am committed to provide information spanning the
concerns of our association's membership--which are primarily, although
not exclusively--the city and county emergency managers across our
great Nation.
Let's tackle directly the issue of how prepared we are. I think the
statement best summarizing our position on this topic comes from my
colleague in Maine and Chairman of the IAEM Government Affairs
Committee, Bob Bohlmann who said, ``We are better equipped than we have
been in the past, but we may not be better prepared.''
Mr. Bohlmann was making reference to the fact that we have
successfully concentrated on the need to provide equipment to better
prepare our Nation for response to disasters. Now, however, we need to
turn our attention to the equally important task of re-establishing an
effective emergency management system which links Federal, State and
local partners in the integrated emergency management process--
consisting of mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery.
Funding Issues
We would like to personally thank you for including $220 million
for Emergency Management Performance Grants ( EMPG) in the Senate
version of HR. 5441, the bill making Appropriations for the Department
of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2007. IAEM certainly hopes that
the Senate will prevail in the conference with the House. This funding
is vital for improving mitigation, preparedness, response and
recovery--the entire emergency management process.
This funding is the single most effective use of Federal funds in
providing emergency management capacity to State and local governments.
No other source of homeland security funding is based on a consensus
building process determining outcomes and specific deliverables
backstopped by a quarterly accountability process. This program, which
is cost shared, provides the funding for the emergency managers who
perform the role of the ``honest broker'' at the State and local level
and who establish the framework for preparedness, response, recovery
and mitigation. EMPG is used for personnel, planning, training, and
exercises at both the State and local levels. It also supports the
people who have had the added responsibility of administering homeland
security funding programs and additional planning efforts since 2001.
Some of the additional mandates include: updating our local plans to
reflect the new National Response Plan, training and adoption of the
new National Incident Management System (NIMS), requirements in the
National Preparedness Goal and Target Capabilities List, updates of
emergency evacuation plans, and participation in National Plan Reviews
as mandated by Congress.
Functional Issues
At the Federal level, it is time to begin building on what we have
rather than continuing to reinvent the process. We are pleased that
Chairman Collins' bill was amended to maintain the FEMA name. FEMA,
which has many dedicated and hardworking employees, was once one of the
most respected agencies in government and with leadership and the help
of Congress it can be again.
Preparedness is what emergency managers do every day and is a
process we are constantly working to improve. It is an integral part of
an integrated system and we are pleased that the legislation which
passed the Senate rejoins preparedness under FEMA as a critical element
of this system.
There are nine broad steps that could be taken to improve the
integrated emergency management process at the Department of Homeland
Security--and that would increase the level of partnership between
those at the Federal Government, State governments and local
governments responsible for the day-to-day emergency management
processes.
The Director of FEMA needs the maximum amount of access to the
White House possible--especially in times of disaster.
IAEM firmly believes in the need to retain the FEMA name and
identity in conjunction with the Senate-proposed structure.
FEMA should clearly be responsible for coordination of the Federal
response to disasters.
To be successful, FEMA needs to be given the authority to do its
job. Many of us applauded how well the Coast Guard performed in
Katrina--they were an agency with a mission and were given the
authority to perform it. FEMA should be given the same.
Failure to provide a clear and direct line to Federal resources and
expertise in a disaster will lead to critical confusion and delays.
This increases the potential for a response that isn't adequate to the
disaster. We've seen a definite withering of the relationships between
the Federal Government and State and Local Governments that has been
helped along by unclear and ambiguous relationships. These need to be
crystal clear and they need to originate with and pass through FEMA.
Adequate funding, resources and personnel need to be provided for
FEMA in such fashion that they cannot be reallocated without
legislative action.
A level of protection similar to that provided for the U.S. Coast
Guard needs to be provided for FEMA within the Department of Homeland
Security.
All of the key leadership positions in FEMA need to be filled with
experienced, qualified and knowledgeable personnel.
A culture of empowerment established and maintained within FEMA
that promotes the maximum level of autonomy and supports the
independent actions necessary to deal with the consequences of a
disaster.
State and local emergency managers have great difficulty dealing
with policies as ``moving targets'' during the response to and recovery
from a disaster. In order to be credible representatives of the Federal
Government, officials within FEMA should have the maximum level of
autonomy possible in order to take appropriate independent actions
necessary during the response to and recovery from a disaster.
The Principal Federal Officer (PFO) position should be abolished,
as it leads to confusion and contributes to the difficulties I have
mentioned above.
The role of the PFO remains unclear in comparison with the Federal
Coordinating Official (FCO). We agree with both the House and Senate
Committees that this position should be abolished.
The FEMA regions should be strengthened.
There continues to be discussion of creating a new DHS regional
structure. FEMA has an existing regional structure and the resources
required in creating and maintaining a duplicate DHS regional structure
should instead be devoted to strengthening and integrating the
emergency management process in the existing structure. As an example
of the need for greater integration, the recently created regional
Preparedness Officers seem to be operating independently from the
current FEMA regional directors. Our members are already experiencing
confusion and uncertainty as a result of this. We believe these
officers should be fully integrated into the existing FEMA regional
structure. Or, in the alternative, the duties of the Preparedness
Officer should be incorporated into existing FEMA regional personnel--
for example, the FEMA Regional Director.
State and Local emergency managers must be provided the opportunity
to have significant, continual, and meaningful participation in the
policy development process.
The involvement of key stakeholders in the decision-making process
leads to greater ``buy in'' on decisions, and better decisions overall.
All levels of government are partners in the operation of integrated
emergency management. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to make
sure that those who have responsibility for day-to-day emergency
management operations in our cities, counties and States are consulted
on matters of policy, its implementation, and operations. This means
more than consulting with Law Enforcement, Fire, and Emergency Medical
Services--they are important, but they do not represent the entire
emergency management picture. Actual day-to-day emergency managers--
responsible for mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery during
a disaster--have yet to be adequately represented in Department of
Homeland Security decisions. The emergency managers we're describing
are those responsible for the entire integrated emergency management
processes in our local jurisdictions during a disaster. Please notice
that the complete spectrum of emergency management activities is
represented in this system--and that preparedness is not artificially
divorced from the rest of the emergency management process.
Another great example of the need to involve genuine local
emergency managers in decision-making processes was the National Plans
Review. Had all the stakeholders--including local emergency managers--
been involved in the review of this decision, there would have been
more opportunity to discuss some of the assumptions underlying the
National Plans Review (NPR). The assumption implicit in the NPR that
every jurisdiction in the United States needs to create a jurisdiction-
wide evacuation plan is simply unwarranted and not based in reality.
Inclusion of local emergency management stakeholders in this discussion
would have brought this to light immediately. As my colleague in
Johnson County, Kansas and IAEM President Elect Mike Selves points out,
``One size does not fit all.'' Therefore, it is not only necessary to
include day-to-day emergency managers in the review of these decisions,
but to make sure those emergency managers represent both small rural
jurisdictions as well as urban jurisdictions.
Successful Preparedness Initiatives
In response to interest expressed regarding improved preparedness,
I would like to share with you some positive developments in the
emergency management community.
There are a number of successful recent emergency management
ventures. These include the Emergency Management Accreditation Program
(EMAP), the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), and the
Certified Emergency Manager credential (CEM).
For the first time we have a way to provide a metric for assessing
emergency preparedness in our country. We have only to look at the
State of Florida, one of the first States in the Nation to receive an
Emergency Management Accreditation, as a great example of a successful
emergency management program.
The preparedness of our communities for natural and human-caused
disasters is of vital and growing importance to public health and
safety, to the environment and to the economy. State and local
emergency management programs--the entities responsible for planning
and coordinating disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness,
response and recovery--play a crucial role in creating safer
communities and in reducing losses to residents, businesses, and
important infrastructures. In an effort to assure that State and local
emergency management capabilities are as strong as they can be, a dozen
national organizations have worked together to create an accreditation
process for emergency management programs: the Emergency Management
Accreditation Program, or EMAP.
The goal of EMAP is to provide a meaningful, voluntary
accreditation process for State, territorial, and local programs that
have the responsibility of preparing for and responding to disasters.
By offering consistent standards and a process through which emergency
management programs can demonstrate compliance, EMAP will strengthen
communities' capabilities in responding to all types of hazards, from
tornadoes and earthquakes to school violence and bioterrorism.
Accreditation is voluntary. Its intent is to encourage examination of
strengths and weaknesses, pursuit of corrective measures, and
communication and planning among different sectors of government and
the community.
The CEM or Certified Emergency Manager program is a certification
program for individuals and EMAP assesses organizations/programs. CEM
is administered by IAEM with the objective of producing professional
emergency managers who can effectively accomplish the goals and
objectives of any emergency management program in all environments with
little or no additional training or orientation.
EMAC, the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, is a
congressionally ratified organization that provides form and structure
to interstate mutual aid.
Through EMAC, a disaster impacted State can request and receive
assistance from other member States quickly and efficiently, resolving
two key issues upfront: liability and reimbursement.
There have also been great strides in the Public-Private
preparedness initiative around the country. Organizations such as BENS
(Business Executives for National Security), BICEPP (Business and
Industry Council on Emergency Planning and Preparedness), DRII, and
EMAP, GPP (Global Partners for Preparedness) and more are recognizing
the absolute necessity to incorporate the private sector into the
planning, training, and exercising process within our communities.
Creating a Private Sector Assistance Compact similar to the
Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) is under consideration
and merits our support. There are many reasons why the government
should be invested in engaging the private sector in its strategy for
homeland security.
More than 80 percent of information systems are owned by the
private sector. Approximately 90 percent of critical infrastructure is
owned by the private sector, including banking, finance,
transportation, and intelligence systems, utilities and water supplies,
and communication networks. Some of the most valuable institutions, and
therefore the most desirable targets, are owned by the private sector.
There are equally great reasons why the Private Sector should also
invest. The private sector should be invested and engaged in domestic
preparedness programs for reasons stemming from obligation to self-
interest.
The clearest reason for private sector involvement in emergency
preparedness is to ensure employee safety. After September 11, senior
executives and boards recognized a ``heightened sense of
responsibility'' for the safety of their people and consequently
addressed the ``human factor'' of business. Many businesses realized
that their greatest asset was their people, and that the greatest loss
to the company was not the loss of revenues, but the loss of human
life.
Preparedness is an ongoing process. All across the country local
and State emergency management offices are taking numerous steps to
improve their ability to respond and recover from all hazards.
Los Angeles has many examples of successful emergency management
programs to include creating a community preparedness section that
works directly with the neighborhoods to assure a strong and
coordinated emergency management effort. We are developing a Special
Needs Assistance Program that assists in our preparedness, response and
recovery process.
The creation of Emergency Network Los Angeles to coordinate and
work directly with our community based organizations has proven very
successful.
Another example would be the great improvements that the
Mississippi Emergency Management Agency made in their evacuation
efforts in coordination with their local emergency managers following
their experience in Ivan in 2004. Significant problems were identified
and corrected. Three major evacuation routes I 0959, US 49 and US 98
all converge in Hattiesburg. The new planning corrected the traffic
flow around the city. Local emergency managers also worked with the
State on details such as determining which exits needed to be open for
fuel, which needed to be open for shelters so that small communities
lacking in resources would not be overwhelmed, where wreckers should be
positioned. Efforts were coordinated with the Red Cross to try to have
the shelters opening early as far north as possible so that some space
would be left nearer the coast for later evacuees. These and other
changes greatly improved their evacuation for Katrina. However, there
are more lessons learned from Katrina and additional issues to address
such as accommodating emergency vehicles during contra flow of the
interstate highways.
In order to capitalize on the numerous successful initiatives by
State and local emergency managers we are willing and anxious to
partner with the Federal Government in reestablishing a truly
coordinated, integrated, and collaborative national emergency
management system.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today. I will be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Stanley.
I was interested in the overlap between your
recommendations and Mr. Baughman. You must have negotiated
that.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much again
for organizing this hearing and inviting these witnesses to
come before the committee. I know we learn a lot each time we
have an opportunity to listen to those who have personal
experiences in natural disasters on how we can respond in a
more effective way at the Federal level organizationally and
through financial opportunities through the appropriations
process. We want to learn from this hearing, as we have from
others.
I was interested in Mr. Baughman's comments about the
ability of the coordinating officers at the local level to be
able ought make decisions. What are some examples of
impediments to the decisionmaking process that exist now that
did not exist before?
Mr. Baughman. It used to be that a Federal Coordinating
Officer could make decisions on, funding decisions in the
field, as far as eligibility for the public assistance program,
for the individual assistance program, to add counties on to a
disaster declaration. Normally what happens is, like in
Hurricane Ivan in our State, we started out with about 30
counties that were added on and then each one of those had to
be on it. So we finally got 67 counties designated in the
disaster area.
Each and every time, it used to be as a Federal
Coordinating Officer I could make those decisions in the field.
Now it has to be run up to headquarters, in some cases to the
Secretary's office, before a decision is made. In the mean
time, the rare occasions that did happen, it would be back to
you in probably a day's time with a decision. Now it is taking
weeks for a decision to be made and counties to be added. So
that is delaying assistance.
In the State of Mississippi, I know during Katrina that
there were counties that needed to be added on that took
sometime, a couple of weeks, before those were added on.
Senator Cochran. I think one of the surprises from people
around the country was how many counties in our State of
Mississippi were affected by Katrina.
Mr. Baughman. Right.
Senator Cochran. People just assumed it was the coastal
area that was the area that was really suffering the major
damage. But there were even damages occurring up on the
Tennessee line.
Mr. Baughman. Yes, sir. We had the same thing in Hurricane
Ivan in the State of Alabama. What is causing delays in the
process is the FCO has to go to the PFO, who has to go to the
director of FEMA, who has to go to the Secretary, before a
decision is made. It used to be those kinds of decisions were
made in the field.
Senator Cochran. What do you recommend that we do? Try to
put language in our appropriations bill or establish a new
rulemaking process and change the rule?
Mr. Baughman. I think that there has to be something that
either deletes the role of the PFO or limits that to being what
it was originally intended to do, and that was being a
spokesman for the Secretary in the field and providing
information to the Secretary on situational awareness. Right
now that is evolving daily into an operational position which
is an impediment to decisionmaking in the field.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Stanley, when you began your testimony
I could not help but have a flashback to Los Angeles and the
earthquake that occurred several years ago out there. Were you
in Los Angeles when that occurred or had responsibilities for
recovery and response?
Mr. Stanley. Actually, Senator, I was in Atlanta as the
director in Atlanta, Fulton County. However, I have had some
recovery situations as a result of the Northridge earthquake.
Senator Cochran. That was a terrible event, unbelievable
seeing the images on television and all the rest.
Mr. Baughman. Senator, I did work that disaster.
Senator Cochran. Did you really? Bad luck follows you
around, does it not?
Senator Cochran. What were some of your learning
experiences from that in terms of sharing of Federal and local
and State responsibilities?
Mr. Baughman. The response operations in Northridge really
were handled quite adequately by State and local government,
primarily because the California Office of Emergency Services
and Los Angeles has always had strong programs. However, had
that been catastrophic in nature along the lines of Katrina, I
think that there has been some workshops--like everybody talks
about Hurricane Pam. There was actually a workshop held in
California for a scenario in the L.A. Basin and some of the
same issues, as Ellis knows, were identified for search and
rescue and other things.
If he had the money those things would be taken care of,
because plans need to be developed. How do you get search and
rescue teams in if you have got debris blocking the roads? And
I do not talk about trees, where you can saw it up with chain
saws. I am talking about structural collapse debris. How do you
get search and rescue into those areas? That is one of the
areas that I know California and Los Angeles have been working
on.
But again, I do not think that there is adequate plans in
place or there is need for additional funding for that level of
planning.
Mr. Stanley. We have had some learnings obviously from
Northridge. When we look at our critical infrastructure, we
have had to change the law to reinforce the need for
retrofitting of our hospitals. That would be the levies as a
corollary if we had our catastrophic event, the loss of
hospitals. So we are looking at how we can reinforce those
hospitals.
At the same time, we are looking at surge capacity, being
able to work with the public hospitals, the private hospitals,
and our private partners around there to create a system for
surge, to be able to deal with field hospitals if necessary and
other components.
We have learned that the citizens emergency preparedness
program, something started in the Los Angeles area to get
citizens trained, was something that was definitely needed.
Public education. We see a need now nationally for public
education standards, so that whether we are in Mississippi or
whether we are in California we are all speaking the same
language as relates to public education.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much for your assistance to
our committee.
Senator Gregg. Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. The Department of Homeland Security says,
quote: ``The Emergency Management Performance Grant program
funding request for fiscal year 2007 is sufficient for States
to continue to develop intra- and interstate emergency
management systems that encourage partnerships among
government, business, volunteer and community organizations.''
Yet, the Department's nationwide plan review found, and I
quote: ``The majority of the Nation's emergency operations
plans and planning processes are not fully adequate, feasible,
or acceptable. Basic plans do not adequately address
catastrophic events. The most common deficiency is the absence
of a clearly defined command structure.''
Well, do you agree, Mr. Baughman, that the administration's
proposed level of $170 million, a $13 million cut from fiscal
year 2006, is adequate?
Mr. Baughman. No, sir. And as I said in my testimony, our
statistics at NEMA show that as of this year we are looking at
a need of $287 million in EMPG. So no, it is not adequate. I
think that the lack of preparedness is reflected in the plans
review. I mean, the plans review, frankly I think it was an
honest assessment. They came to my State. It was an honest
assessment of the capabilities and I think it shows the
deficiencies in State and local government.
You do not get better planning by cutting money. Not only
that, but the emergency management performance grant is
supposed to be a 50-50 matching cost share on that. Right now
local governments are putting in an average of about 80 percent
to that. In Ellis's case in the city of Los Angeles, it
probably constitutes less than 10 percent of his budget. So it
is probably the best grant program in town. The other homeland
security grants are at 100 percent; there is no State and local
contribution. For EMPG there is. So for every dollar that is
spent you probably get $3, $4 in return from local governments
in the preparedness arena.
So no, it is not adequate, in answer to your question.
Senator Byrd. Well, what do you consider to be adequate?
Mr. Baughman. Our figures have said that $287 million is
what we feel that we need to address the shortfall.
Senator Byrd. Will you say that again?
Mr. Baughman. $287 million I think is the figure that--and
let me doublecheck my figures there--on top of $183.1 million.
It is an additional $287 million. Obviously, we do not expect
that overnight, but an incremental down payment. I think what
the Senate has done by having a mark of $220 million gives us a
down payment. So I think that over time as we build up, I
think--and frankly, when I was with FEMA I was head of the
Office of National Preparedness. We had worked with Congress in
2002 to get a $48 million bump-up in EMPG and the intent at
that time was to continue to increase funding until we got to
what we thought we would need to address the shortfall.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Stanley, what preparedness benefits have
you seen from the EMPG program in a large urban area like
yours?
Mr. Stanley. Senator, as Mr. Baughman indicated, EMPG
represents less than 10 percent in my budget. But what we are
seeing is that I am not in this thing alone. I have to work
with all the jurisdictions. We have 88 cities within Los
Angeles County. Obviously the city of Los Angeles is the
largest. But it is critical that the 88th city has a program,
that they have somebody that we can point to to coordinate that
response, to be able to talk about mutual aid. If that
jurisdiction has no capability to have those representatives or
individual or that is a third responsibility for some other
function, it lessens the capability.
The same thing in rural America and other cities. That
position is critically important. EMPG is one of the only ones
that will allow you to hire people, to put bodies in the seats,
as it were, to be able to do the necessary planning,
preparedness, exercising, training, mitigation.
Senator Byrd. What benefits have you seen?
Mr. Stanley. Well, we have seen the increased planning. We
have seen better trained individuals. We have seen the citizens
be able to have a direct impact, bringing them to the table and
getting them trained, letting them understand what their roles
and responsibilities are, letting them be able to be part of
that process.
We have seen that element being able to incorporate the
private sector locally so that you build that whole level up as
you go up to the State and the Federal opportunities. We have
seen in rural communities that before EMPG they did not have
anyone, we have seen programs being developed. So there has
been tremendous benefit with EMPG.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I commend you for restoring the
President's proposed cuts in the EMPG program. I commend you.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
Senator Byrd. It is not always so easy to do, but you do
it. Thank you for that.
Senator Gregg. I appreciate that, Senator, and I appreciate
your support in that effort and we will try to hold that in
conference or maybe improve on it a little if we are
successful.
This has been excellent testimony. I regrettably have a
meeting I have to be at with the leader. But you both have made
essentially the same points about how we should be reorganizing
FEMA. You talked about giving the Federal Coordinating Officer
more authority and reducing the role of the Federal principal
officer and giving a direct line of authority to the President
from the FEMA director and basically walling off FEMA in the
way that the Secret Service is and a variety of other
initiatives.
There is presently floating around here, rather
aggressively, a FEMA reorganization plan. You both represent
very important elements of the entire preparedness effort and
represent the national community in this area. It would be
useful to this committee if you could have your organizations
give us a critique of the proposal that is coming out of the
oversight committee, because--our bill may end up being the
vehicle that carries the authorizing language. At least there
is some representation that that may occur. If that does occur,
then I would like to get your critique and language that you
think should be part of it to address those areas that you have
highlighted for us. Is that possible?
Mr. Stanley. Yes, sir.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Gregg. If you could get that to our staff that
would be very useful.
We thank you very much. It has been very informative. We
appreciate your time, appreciate your coming here. We
appreciate your service and appreciate what you do out there on
the front lines.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
USCG PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE CAPABILITY
Question. The Coast Guard, like many Federal agencies after
September 11, have seen a dramatic increase in their already expansive
core responsibilities.
Admiral, when you look at Coast Guard assets and the Deepwater
program do you believe the Coast Guard is well placed to have an
effective preparedness and response capability?
Answer. As envisioned, the Deepwater program ensures that we will
be able to meet our core responsibilities in a post September 11
environment.
The Integrated Deepwater System is absolutely critical to building
a more ready and capable 21st-century Coast Guard; one equal to the
challenging tasks we face today and anticipate tomorrow. The fiscal
year 2007 Deepwater program request reflects the Administration's
continued commitment to the recapitalization of the Coast Guard's
aircraft and ships and the network linking them together in an
integrated system. More capable and reliable cutters, boats, aircraft
and associated systems will enhance safety and security in U.S. ports
by improving the Coast Guard's ability to perform all missions.
The Coast Guard is committed to maintaining a proper balance
between its ``traditional'' and post 9/11 homeland security duties.
Full funding of the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request, as
well as on-going support for the Deepwater project, are essential to
maintain Coast Guard traditional roles and its ability to act as lead
Federal agency for maritime homeland security.
Question. What are your shortfalls? Do you have the funding,
manpower, and equipment required to fill all of the responsibilities of
the Coast Guard?
Answer. If properly funded, the $24 billion/25-year Deepwater
sustainment, modernization, conversion and recapitalization project
will equip Deepwater cutters and aircraft with systems and capabilities
that will enhance successful execution of all mission areas in the more
challenging post-9/11 threat environment. While recapitalization does
result in modest near-term operational hour shortfalls for patrol boats
and maritime patrol aircraft, it should lead to long-term gains in
operational capability and capacity as new Deepwater assets enter
service. The Coast Guard is pursuing patrol boat design and
construction options to advance asset delivery dates and has revised
the Deepwater implementation plan, keeping HC-130H aircraft in service
longer while accelerating the purchase of CASA Maritime Patrol
Aircraft, to try and mitigate these operational hour gaps.
PORTS AND COASTAL WATERS
Question. I have recently been made aware that foreign vessels
servicing offshore oil and gas facilities in the Gulf of Mexico are not
required to register with Customs or the Coast Guard. Nor do they
report on their activities and whereabouts while they are in the Gulf.
Do you see this as a security threat to our Nation's ports and
coastal waters?
Answer. The Coast Guard employs threat-based, risk-managed
decision-making in conducting all of its missions. Risk includes
Threat, Vulnerability, and Consequences. While vulnerabilities exist in
the given scenario, the Threat and Consequences are currently ranked as
relatively low. Since the Coast Guard resources are limited, we employ
a system of layered security which includes coordination and
partnership with the oil and gas industry to create and oversee an
effective maritime security regime. The Coast Guard also meets with
representatives from the Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA) and
other smaller groups to address offshore industry issues. This
coordination, along with Coast Guard activities to lead and conduct
effective maritime security and response operations (boardings,
inspections, etc.), allows the Coast Guard to identify and mitigate
potential threats long before they increase the overall risk to
maritime critical infrastructure and key resources (MCI/KR).
Question. What is the Coast Guard doing to contain this possible
threat?
Answer. Currently the Nation addresses the risk to vessels and
facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), by requiring certain
vessels and facilities to comply with the security regulations found in
33 CFR 104 (Vessel requirements) and 33 CFR 106 (OCS facility
requirements). Vessels engaged in the mineral and oil service (OCS
activity), are required to have vessel security plans under 33 CFR 104.
Additionally, production platforms that host 150 persons for 12+ hours
continuously for 30 days or more, produce greater than 100,000 barrels
of oil per day, or produce greater than 200 million cubic feet of
natural gas are required to have facility security plans. Foreign
vessels of 500 g.t. and foreign Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit's
(MODU's) are required to comply with the International Ship and Port
Facility Security Code.
In addition, regulations require vetting of those vessels using the
Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) (33 CFR 150.325) using the advanced
notice of arrival process.
INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION
Question. As we have seen in recent weeks, intelligence is a
critical piece to the prevention of terrorist attacks.
In your opinion does the Coast Guard receive and accurately digest
intelligence information in order to protect our maritime assets here
at home and abroad?
Answer. Yes, the Coast Guard does receive and accurately digest
intelligence information in order to protect our maritime assets here
at home and abroad. The role of the Coast Guard Intelligence and
Criminal Investigations Program is to provide timely, accurate and
actionable maritime border related information and other pertinent
intelligence information so that decisions can be made and actions
taken in support of the Coast Guard operational commanders, other
members of the Intelligence Community and law enforcement agencies.
Some of these efforts include:
--Ongoing efforts to limit maritime vulnerabilities in the wake of
the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The MTSA of 2002 established a
number of measures designed to deter terrorist acts against the
U.S. maritime infrastructure, such as vessel and mariner
screening and port security planning.
--Compiling information from around the United States to discern
patterns of suspicious incidents having a maritime nexus.
--Program activities have been enhanced to assist in countering
potential maritime threats:
--Creation of Field Intelligence Support Teams (FISTs) in key U.S.
ports.
--Development of a Maritime Intelligence Fusion Center (MIFC) under
each Area Commander, to provide actionable intelligence to
Coast Guard operational commanders, while also sharing that
analysis with interagency partners.
--Development of a joint support effort, COASTWATCH, with the Office
of Naval Intelligence. COASTWATCH does vessel, mariner and
passenger screening on Advance Notice of Arrival to U.S. ports.
--Permanent presence on the FBI National Joint Terrorism Task Force
(JTTF) and select Regional JTTFs.
--As a complement to the MTSA-mandated Port Security Assessments, the
Coast Guard Intelligence and Criminal Investigations Program
conducted Port Threat Assessments (PTA). PTAs provide threat
analysis for specific ports, inclusive of both terrorism and
crime--foreign and domestic--using law enforcement and
intelligence information.
Question. Is the Coast Guard's intelligence operation sufficiently
funded and running effectively?
Answer. Yes, the Coast Guard Intelligence Criminal and
Investigations Program is sufficiently funded. Additionally, the Coast
Guard is also working closely with the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security to
improve its intelligence programs and better integrate them with the
Federal intelligence apparatus in accordance with the National
Intelligence Strategy (NIS).
AVIAN INFLUENZA
Question. There have been recent reports concerning the
effectiveness of anti-virals that are cheaper and more plentiful than
Tamiflu and seem to be effective against the bird flu virus.
Is the government making plans to stockpile any of these
alternative drugs?
Answer. The Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) is maintained and
updated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While
oseltamivir (Tamiflu) is the most widely-discussed antiviral to be used
for pandemic influenza, other options may be considered. Older and
cheaper medications such as amantadine, have recently been shown to
have reduced efficacy against seasonal influenza, and have been
supplanted by oseltamivir. In the event of a pandemic, detailed
analysis of the causative virus will be required to determine the most
effective antiviral. We will work closely with Federal and private
partners to optimize the SNS for this and other events.
Question. Where is the Department in its mission to acquire the
needed bio-defense countermeasures to protect us from a pandemic bird
flu outbreak?
Answer. Biodefense countermeasures in the event of a pandemic will
include a combination of antivirals, vaccines, improved health care
surge capacity, and social distancing measures. The Strategic National
Stockpile is adding antivirals and will continue to improve these
stockpiles as the manufacturers improve capacity. The Department of
Health and Human Services has provided funding to a number of groups to
improve vaccine production technology to improve our ability to create
large amounts of pandemic vaccine. There is no specific vaccine now
against the causative agent, and will not be until a pandemic occurs
and a causative agent is identified. We are working closely with our
Federal partners, principally HHS, to analyze methods for improving
surge capacity, and to model the optimal social distancing and
community shielding strategies.
Question. Is the Strategic National Stockpile equipped to defend
the American people from such a catastrophe?
Answer. An accounting of the specific supplies within the Strategic
National Stockpile (SNS) is available from the CDC. The SNS is adding
supplies on a continual basis, and DHS is cooperating closely with HHS
and other agencies in evaluating prioritization.
COMMUNICATION WITH STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL
Question. While I believe this has generally been addressed in your
statements today, I believe one of the biggest shortfalls we had during
Katrina was a lack of a clear chain of command and poor communication
with government agencies at the State and local level as to the Federal
Government's role.
One example was the confusion over debris removal contracts how
how's FEMA addressed this issue specifically and on a broader scale
ensured that policies are clear and widely available to community
leaders?
Answer. FEMA's challenge is to educate communities and local
governments across the county during periods of non-disaster activity
on the programs and processes that will be used if and when disasters
occur. Since disasters can strike anywhere in the country, this is a
challenge for the Federal and local governments alike.
To address the debris removal process specifically, a number of
policies and other guidance documents addressing debris clearance
issues have been issued since the Katrina-Rita hurricanes. Three have
dealt with debris removal from private property, and two dealt with the
specific issues of hazardous stump removal, and measuring capacity of
hand-loaded trucks. In addition, a checklist for local governments
contracting for debris removal and a summary of the authorities of
other Federal agencies for debris removal were issued to clarify roles
and responsibilities at all levels of governments in the debris removal
process. A Memorandum of Understanding is being developed with the
Federal Highway Administration to clarify the responsibilities of each
agency for removal of debris from highways.
In the area of oversight of debris removal work, two guidance
documents are being developed for monitoring of debris operations for
Federal, State and local monitors. All of the documents are or will be
available on FEMA's Public Assistance web page. Also on the web is a
registry page for debris contractors to list their information for use
by State and local governments wishing to arrange for services by these
contractors.
FEMA believes that our regulations and policies that govern the
Public Assistance Program (which includes debris removal) should be as
transparent as possible. To this end, we provide State and local
governments an opportunity to review draft policies, procedures and
guidance documents before we finalize them. After reviewing all
comments, we provide copies of the final documents to the National
Emergency Management Association (NEMA) and other national associations
for distribution to their member jurisdictions. We also publish these
documents on our Public Assistance Program webpage. In addition, at the
beginning of each disaster, we provide copies of relevant documents to
State and local officials.
Also, as FEMA reviews, updates and develops policies based on the
lessons learned from Katrina, we are sharing these policies with
national stakeholder organizations and with the States through our
Regional Offices. Whenever possible, we are also providing a chance for
stakeholders to review and comment upon our policies as they are
developed.
DHS STANDARDS ON ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS
Question. In light of recent reports about the environmental
hazards associated with natural and manmade disasters, for example; the
pollutants in the air at the site of the World Trade Centers or the
toxic substances in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
Does DHS have standards by which they can measure environmental
threats to first responders and local residents when an incident
occurs?
Answer. Standards for occupational safety are established by the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), a
division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. General
environmental monitoring is under the purview of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE
Question. The Urban Area Security Initiative provides funding to
the largest most vulnerable municipalities in the hope of matching
funding levels with risk.
In light of the ``all hazards'' planning method, what is the
department doing to ensure that funding and resources are properly
focused on the most disaster prone areas of the Nation?
Answer. The Department remains committed to providing all States
and territories across the Nation with Federal funding to build the
necessary capabilities for any kind of catastrophic incident, whether
man-made or natural. Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) funds are
unique as they address the special planning, equipment, training and
exercise needs of high threat, high density Urban Areas, and assist
them in building an enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent,
protect against, respond to and recover from acts of terrorism.
Nevertheless, in light of several major new national planning
priorities, which address such issues as pandemic influenza and the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the allowable scope of UASI activities
has broadened to include catastrophic events, provided that these
activities also build capabilities that relate to terrorism.
To further focus fiscal year 2006 homeland security funding,
including the identified UASI participants, the Office of Grants and
Training (G&T) facilitated a ``Risk and Effectiveness'' funding
process. This process was predicated on the concept that Risk = Threat
+ Consequence + vulnerability and involved the following factors:
--Analysis of relative risk to assets as well as risk to populations
and geographic areas;
--The anticipated effectiveness of State and Urban Area grant
proposals in addressing their identified homeland security
needs.
Additionally, G&T began to strongly emphasize the importance of
preparing for catastrophic incidents in fiscal year 2005 to all States
and urban areas by allowing grant expenditures that aligned with the
National Response Plan's Catastrophic Incident Response Annex (CIRA).
This emphasis was restated in fiscal year 2006.
The Department has also embarked upon a strong capabilities based
planning approach for all States and urban areas to include the
Nation's most disaster prone areas. Working through G&T and in
accordance with Homeland Security Presidential Directive #8, the
Department required all States, territories and urban areas to realign
their existing State and/or Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy in
fiscal year 2006 with the National Priorities listed below:
--Expanded Regional Collaboration
--Implement the National Incident Management System and National
Response Plan
--Implement the Interim National Infrastructure Protection Plan
--Strengthen Information Sharing and Collaboration Capabilities
--Strengthen Interoperable Communications Capabilities
--Strengthen Chemical, Biological, Radiological/Nuclear, and
Explosive (CBRNE) Detection, Response, and Decontamination
Capabilities
--Strengthen Medical Surge and Mass Prophylaxis Capabilities
--National Review of Emergency Operations Plans and the Status of
Catastrophic
This approach directly links to and supports the National
Preparedness Goal, the four homeland security mission areas it
outlines, and the 37 key elements included in the Target Capabilities
List (TCL) which are all-hazard in nature, encompassing the full
spectrum of activities necessary to address the entire range of threats
and hazards faced by the Nation. In fact, only six of the 37
capabilities in the TCL focus strictly on terrorism; the remaining ones
cut across all types of hazards, whether natural or manmade. G&T's
portfolio of assistance programs support the development and
sustainment of all capabilities across all four mission areas.
Additionally, the Department recently reviewed UASI catastrophic
planning through the Nationwide Plan Review. The Nationwide Plan Review
focused on the planning capability within the TCL. The results of this
review, which examined planning from an all-hazards perspective, are
serving to guide the development and deployment of technical assistance
resources and planning guidance to UASI sites. Additionally, the
results will factor into eligible planning activities in the fiscal
year 2007 grant guidance to allow for key issues identified during the
review to be addressed. These efforts will prove invaluable to areas
that are particularly prone to disaster.
OPERATIONS CENTERS
Question. I know FEMA engages pre-staging as a hurricane is
approaching or before the start of hurricane season, but I am
interested in any plans that might be in place to permanently locate an
operations center where pre-staging of commodities will take place.
Does FEMA have any plans in progress to implement a program to
strategically locate supplies and equipment within certain geographical
regions?
Answer. FEMA is working hard to develop a sophisticated, efficient,
agile national logistics supply system capable of meeting emergent
needs, responsive to trends, and anticipatory of long-term
requirements. We want to ensure that the right commodities such as
food, water and ice, can be provided at the right time and at the right
place to meet victim needs. A great deal of progress has been made.
As part of its Logistics program implementation, FEMA has
strategically positioned resources in warehouses geographically
dispersed across the country. Strategically located, these facilities
are called Logistics Centers (LCs) which operate daily and carry
initial response resources for an all hazards environment. FEMA is
currently working with the Drug Enforcement Administration on an
initiative to strategically locate pharmacy caches in these Logistics
Centers. Currently FEMA has LCs located at Atlanta, GA; Fort Worth, TX;
Moffett Field, CA; Frederick, MD; Cumberland, MD; Guam, Puerto Rico,
Hawaii and at Berryville, VA (known as the Disaster Information Systems
Clearinghouse, which contains electronic equipment such as laptops). In
addition to these permanent facilities, FEMA uses commercial storage
facilities to store additional ice, water and meals ready to eat. These
commercial facilities are also located throughout the country in
geographically dispersed areas. FEMA has plans to conduct further
analyses to determine the optimum number and locations of Logistics
Centers.
FEMA also has a Pre-Positioned Disaster Supply (PPDS) program that
was developed in 2003 to place life sustaining disaster equipment and
supplies as close to a potential disaster site as possible. There are
several types of PPDS containers. Two types are used to store Initial
Response Resources (IRR): a 20 foot container that serves 250 people
and a 40 foot container that serves 500 people. The containers hold
blankets, cots, pillows, first aid kits, personal hygiene supplies, a
small generator, power cords, and lighting. A Home Recovery Kit (HRK)
contains equipment to aid in an initial emergency home repair with
plastic sheeting, hammers, saws, nails, rope, personal safety
equipment, a ladder, lighting sets, and a small generator.
FEMA also operates the Pre-Positioned Equipment Program (PEP). PEP
consists of standardized equipment pods and a Special Events Pod (SEP).
The pods include equipment such as personal protective,
decontamination, detection, technical search and rescue, law
enforcement, medical, interoperable communications and other emergency
response equipment and can be deployed, upon formal request, to support
State and local governments in responding to a major chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear, explosives or natural hazard events.
Pods can be deployed within 10 to 12 hours and are also deployable to
supplement FEMA response operations to include the National Disaster
Medical System (NDMS) and Urban Search and Rescue (US&R). Pod Support
Teams consisting of specialized teams of responders staff the PEP pods.
Additionally, since the SEP is provisioned with some civil disturbance
equipment, it is available to Federal agencies to support National
Special Security Events.
Additionally, for the 2006 Hurricane Season, FEMA Logistics
embarked on a massive pre-positioning effort in coordination with at-
risk coastal States. FEMA worked with the hurricane-prone States in
Regions I, II, III, IV, and VI to determine their potential disaster
response-related needs and subsequently developed and finalized pre-
positioning requirements for critical commodities. Pre-positioning
requirements were determined based on individual discussions with each
of the States concerning their anticipated shortfalls as well as
analysis using standard disaster response models such as the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) models. FEMA also has signed an
Inter-Agency Agreement with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to
lease trailers for pre-positioning. Over 1,100 trucks have been pre-
positioned. FEMA Logistics also developed a concept of operations for
the 2006 Hurricane Season, which can be found as an annex to the 2006
Hurricane Seasons CONOPS. FEMA will continue to review the lessons
learned to aid in determining future pre-positioning efforts.
EDUCATION AND OUTREACH EFFORTS
Question. Mr. Paulison, in your written statement you mentioned
many new initiatives that have been taken to communicate with citizens
as predictable events such as hurricanes approach and immediately
afterwards. I believe the communication gap was one of the most
frustrating issues for individuals and community leaders. I would like
to hear more about your education and outreach efforts and the
communication.
What is FEMA doing to make sure that the public understands what
the government's capabilities are and what they as individuals should
be doing?
Answer. FEMA has been working closely with the Department of
Homeland Security's Office of Public Affairs updating its Emergency
Support Function's (ESF 15) Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), which
serves as the Federal communications plan during incidents. Several
States have indicated that they will incorporate ESF 15 SOPs into their
own communications plans to ensure consistency and coordination of
communications efforts. And, DHS and FEMA have initiated a quarterly
conference call with all State communications officers, established an
emergency communications protocol with State representatives, and
through the regional public affairs officers, emphasized Federal-State
relationship building regularly.
In addition, FEMA has developed both a Concept of Operations for
hurricane season communications that will ensure dissemination of key
messages throughout the readiness, response and recovery phases, as
well as a comprehensive library of communications products (such as
news release templates, fact sheets on programs, public service
announcement scripts) for use in all disaster operations.
FEMA Public Affairs is working in coordination with its Recovery
Division to improve its communication efforts to disaster victims. A
contract is in place to assess all current Individual Assistance
communication products for disaster victims. With feedback from a broad
spectrum of FEMA staff, as well as State and local input, communication
products such as letters, call center scripts and fact sheets will be
reviewed, assessed and then modified as needed to ensure we are
effectively communicating with those needing disaster assistance
information.
FEMA actively conducted outreach during the months leading up to
the 2006 hurricane season. This communication strategy worked to
generate media interest and engage State and local officials in
communicating disaster preparedness, damage prevention and new
initiatives and improvements that are in progress to enhance and expand
FEMA's capabilities. A primary goal of this effort is to raise the
awareness of individual responsibility and the roles of voluntary
organizations, and the local, State and Federal Government in preparing
for, responding to, and recovering from disasters.
To achieve this FEMA worked to communicate relevant information
through many forums and venues. Examples of this include, but were not
limited to the following:
--Extensive outreach (e.g. press release, fact sheet, interviews)
regarding FEMA's retooling efforts about initiatives being
undertaken by the agency to improve operations.
--Participating in hurricane conferences across the Gulf and Mid-
Atlantic States, with Director Paulison speaking about FEMA
initiatives in progress, and the roles and responsibilities at
all levels of government. Booths at the larger conferences
supplied extensive preparedness materials to attendees as well
opportunity to speak directly with FEMA representatives.
--Partnering with NOAA for their annual Hurricane Hunter Tour, which
this year included the States of Texas, Alabama and Florida.
The week-long tour included media and the opportunity to reach
out to groups such as children, local officials and
congressional offices to convey preparedness information.
--A FloodSmart campaign, encouraging individuals to purchase flood
insurance before the start of the 2006 hurricane season. This
campaign included press releases, talking points and a
satellite media tour to TV and radio stations.
--An emphasis on public service announcements (PSAs), both TV and
radio on preparing for disaster, specifically hurricanes. The
National Association of Broadcasters assisted in distributing
the TV PSA to their members and FEMA pushed regionally as well.
--FEMA featured a Media Day at the Fort Worth Logistics Center, and
has been promoting coverage of response capabilities and
operations during events such as the recent Tropical Storm
Ernesto. Our goal is to promote stories on preparing for
disasters, specifically hurricanes, as well as educating media
representatives about response capabilities so that they better
understand--and are able to clearly convey--the system and
process when disasters strike.
FEMA has conducted extensive outreach to the media, including
segments on national shows like Face the Nation, Meet the Press and the
Dr. Phil show. A key element in these appearances has been a concerted
effort to explain what FEMA has done to improve its preparedness for
future disasters and responsiveness to disaster victims. The outreach
has also allowed the opportunity to explain the important role that
personal preparedness plays in the emergency management cycle.
Communication is critical to emergency management--by those who are
potential victims as well as to first responders and FEMA is working
aggressively to be more transparent in what we do to prepare, respond
and recover from disasters.
DISBURSEMENT OF AID TO COMMUNITIES
Question. Another issue was disbursement of aid to communities, I
heard regularly about some communities having too much and others
having none at all for a period after landfall.
Is FEMA working to coordinate aid at all levels of government and
with the NGO's like the Red Cross?
Answer. In the area of delivery of commodities to affected
communities, FEMA is working hard to develop a sophisticated,
efficient, agile national logistics supply system capable of meeting
emerging needs, responsive to trends, and anticipatory of long-term
requirements. All of the actions underway to improve FEMA's logistics
capabilities are designed improve coordination and delivery of services
to the disaster victims. We want to ensure that the right disaster
relief commodities can be provided at the right time and at the right
place to meet the needs of States, communities, and disaster victims.
FEMA's logistics and commodity distribution capabilities have been
improved by replenishing and restocking essential disaster commodities
at logistics and staging facilities. Stockpiles of disaster
commodities, namely food, water and ice, have been greatly increased.
An agreement was signed in March with the Defense Logistics Agency to
provide enhanced procurement, delivery, and vendor managed inventory
capabilities to ensure stockpiles of emergency meals, water, and
plastic sheeting are available. There is now more emphasis on providing
commercial type meals better matched to the general population's
nutritional and caloric requirements. In addition to replenishing and
restocking essential disaster relief commodities at logistics and
staging areas across the United States, FEMA continues to work with
vendors to have a ready supply of needed commodities and assets for
surge capability beyond FEMA's ``on hand'' capacity.
FEMA has implemented a new tracking system to improve visibility of
disaster assets and commodities from requisition to delivery of
disaster commodities within hurricane-prone States, thus enhancing
logistics management. This new capability will provide FEMA with an
improved ability to manage its inventory of certain commodities and to
track the location of trailers carrying commodities such as water, ice,
emergency meals, plastic sheeting, tarps, generators, cots, and
blankets. This tracking will provide real time status to FEMA and the
States being assisted and will result in more effective and efficient
delivery of relief supplies to disaster victims. FEMA will continue its
efforts to expand this tracking system and plans to eventually expand
it nationwide. Building on a strong system of strategic pre-positioning
of Federal commodities developed in the last 2 years for quick
deployment of assets to hurricane-prone States, FEMA has been closely
coordinating with the States to improve commodity delivery. States have
provided detailed information to FEMA regarding precise staging areas
and points of distribution to the most valuable pre-determined
locations to best reach populations in need. States will take ownership
of Federal commodities and are charged with their distribution to
individual citizens.
The National Response Plan (NRP) applies a functional approach that
groups the capabilities of Federal Departments and Agencies and the
American Red Cross into Emergency Support Functions (ESF) to provide
the planning, support, resources, program implementation, and emergency
services that are most likely to be needed during disaster response.
The ESF structure provides mechanisms for interagency coordination both
for declared disasters and emergencies under the Stafford Act and for
non-Stafford Act incidents.
The American Red Cross (ARC) is the primary agency for any mass
care issues during an Incident of National Significance under ESF #6.
The functions under ESF #6, Mass Care, Housing, and Human Services,
have been expanded to incorporate recovery elements that are initiated
under the response phase. ESF #6 is designed to identify, focus, and
support operations for the immediate, short-term, and long-term needs
of victims of an Incident of National Significance in an effort to
reduce human suffering. ESF #6 supports State, regional, local, and
tribal government and nongovernmental organization (NGO) efforts to
address the non-medical mass care, housing, and human services needs of
individuals and/or families impacted. This function involves
identifying the incident requirements and shortfalls and coordinating
Federal resources to support all mass care services as part of a broad
program of disaster relief. It also involves assisting with the
identification and coordination of non-medical mass care services for
sheltering and feeding operations, emergency first aid at designated
sites, disaster welfare information collection, and bulk distribution
of emergency relief items with appropriate agencies.
FEMA has invested substantial time in meeting with the ESFs in both
group and one-on-one meetings, including ESF #6, to discuss disaster
response roles and responsibilities and address issues relating to
functional and operational procedures and assignments. The meetings
have also focused on ensuring that ESFs can maintain situational
awareness and common operating picture capabilities. Furthermore, the
recently revised NRP Catastrophic Incident Supplement (NRP-CIS)
outlines an aggressive concept of operations, establishes an execution
schedule and implementation strategy, and, in the supporting
appendices, provides functional capability overviews and outlines key
responsibilities of interagency partners. The Basic Plan provides a
general strategic overview and outlines the tactical concept of
operations at local, State, and Federal levels of government, to
include detailed Federal logistical and transportation support actions
and responsibilities. FEMA reached out to the American Red Cross (ARC)
to ensure that their comments/concerns were addressed in the recently
issued, revised NRP-CIS.
Ultimately, FEMA is working toward implementing a supply chain
management platform to support disaster logistics capabilities that
will allow DHS to manage and track the sourcing, deployment, arrival,
and demobilization of commodities, equipment, transportation assets,
and response teams employed within the disaster theater of operations.
All of our actions to improve logistics capabilities are being
coordinated with our partners at all levels of government.
With respect to disbursement of funds, Public Assistance funds are
obligated into an electronic funds transfer account from which States
can then disburse funds to applicants at the local level. Payment
through the State is required by the Common Rule regulation (44 CFR
part 13). FEMA assists the States and local communities in properly
completing and submitting Public Assistance project requests, and
ensures that eligibility criteria are equitably applied to each
applicant, but the requirements for applicants to obtain funds from the
States are determined by the States. Loans under the Community Disaster
Loan Program are made directly to local governments as provided in
Section 417 of the Stafford Act and based on equally applied
eligibility criteria and the annual operating costs of the local
government which will vary from local government to local government.
FEMA REIMBURSEMENT
Question. In the aftermath of Hurricanes Ivan and Katrina
communities in Alabama have been struggling with the time it takes FEMA
to reimburse localities in the wake of these storms.
Do you have a plan to remedy this situation?
Answer. Although FEMA provides assistance to local governments in
developing scopes of work and cost estimates for applicants to
accomplish eligible work, FEMA does not reimburse the local governments
directly. All reimbursements are provided to the States, who then
reimburse the local governments. To provide some perspective, it is
important to note that in the past year FEMA has processed 33,088
project worksheets (PWs) for the five States impacted by the Katrina-
Rita hurricanes (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas)
for a total of $5,989,788,800. This equates to an average reimbursement
rate of over $16.4 million per day. For Alabama alone as a result of
Hurricanes Ivan and Katrina, FEMA processed 5,192 PWs for a total of
$328,511,817.
Even with this unprecedented number of PWs processed, FEMA is
committed to improving the reimbursement process. In coordination with
the State, FEMA deploys staff with the appropriate skill sets
immediately after a disaster strikes to assist local applicants in
developing their project applications. We also assist applicants with
supporting documentation that must be submitted to the State, and
provide guidance to applicants on proper contracting procedures to
minimize the number of errors to speed reimbursement. FEMA is
continuing to review its processes and look for ways to further
streamline the grant approval process to ensure funds are available to
applicants as quickly as possible while still safeguarding against
waste, fraud and abuse.
Question. Are there plans in place to expedite the reimbursement
process?
Answer. We have established a Public Assistance Steering Committee
to review and recommend standardized procedures and improvements to all
Public Assistance policies and procedures, which will include a
thorough review of the reimbursement process.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
SPLITTING PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
Question. Hurricane Katrina proved that, as currently organized,
the Department of Homeland Security is not prepared to deal with a
major disaster.
Why is it that you are comfortable with the decision to split the
preparedness and response missions between the Preparedness Directorate
and FEMA?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security's Second Stage Review
realigned Preparedness activities under a single directorate to allow a
steady focus on preparedness activities, enabling FEMA to focus on the
core mission of coordinating the response to, and assisting the
recovery from, disasters and emergencies regardless of cause. These two
offices, while organizationally separated, were integrated towards a
common purpose within the Department.
With the passage of the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, these two entities will be combined into one DHS
component office. The Department supports the organizational
integration of FEMA and Preparedness; under the new structure, these
offices can maintain dedication to their respective missions while
increasing coordination for their complementary duties.
MEASURING PREPAREDNESS
Question. Since fiscal year 2004, we have spent over $18 billion on
Homeland Security grants to State and local governments.
Yet we are holding this hearing today and asking--Are we prepared?
Answer. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Department of
Homeland Security has invested more than $18 billion in terrorism
preparedness and other first responder support including planning,
training, specialized equipment, technical assistance and exercises in
order to help meet the needs of our Nation's stakeholders and
preparedness partners. This funding is provided for the development of
national preparedness initiatives that further the DHS mission of
preparing the Nation to prevent, protect against, respond to, and
recover from incidents of terrorism or catastrophic events. The funding
assists in filling identified capability gaps for our Nation's first
responders and other disciplines, including governmental entities,
nonprofits, faith-based organizations, medical personnel, and citizens.
First responder training is also a critical element in
preparedness. For example, since September 11, 2001, the DHS
Directorate for Preparedness' Office of Grants and Training (G&T) has
dedicated approximately $900 million to training first responders and
the Nation's emergency response community. To date, G&T training
activities have resulted in the training of thousands of first
responders, emergency response personal and public officials.
Currently, G&T has over 70 courses available to support the Nation's
preparedness efforts.
Other examples of G&T's training efforts include training programs
developed through the Competitive Training Grant Program (CTGP).
Training developed under CTGP is required to be innovative and non-
duplicative of current training offered by the National Domestic
Preparedness Consortium (NDPC), other G&T training partners, or other
disseminated training in the field. The CTGP is unique since it
specifically allows for the target population needing the identified
training to have a role in the development of the training to address
their specific needs in homeland security preparedness. This
involvement is a true partnership in homeland security. The end result
is greater knowledge, increased involvement, and a wider distribution
of the training.
The Department of Homeland Security has also invested in the
development of exercises and evaluation procedures that allow for
cross-cutting assessments of the Nation's preparedness identifying
strengths and weaknesses and creating future training, planning and
investments. These exercises provide national leaders with the
opportunity to work together, identify key policy issues, refine key
incident management procedures, and improve their ability to respond to
Incidents of National Significance. They also allow responders from
different jurisdictions and agencies to form the professional
relationships that are critical during responses to real incidents. The
Directorate for Preparedness has established the National Exercise
Program and the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program,
which provide the means to conduct periodic evaluations in performance-
based exercises.
All of these efforts tie directly to the common planning and
strategic approach found within the all-hazards National Preparedness
Goal (Goal). Preparedness requires a coordinated national effort
involving every level of government as well as the private sector, non-
governmental organizations and individual citizens. It addresses
capabilities for the full range of homeland security missions, from
prevention through recovery. By identifying mission areas, national
priorities, and target capabilities, the Goal facilitates systematic
resource allocation to close capability gaps, thereby enhancing the
effectiveness of preparedness efforts.
Funding from Homeland Security grants to State and local
governments has been allocated to strengthen State and local level
capabilities in line with the capabilities-based planning emphasis of
the National Preparedness Goal. Examples that support the Goal and
national preparedness priorities include the following:
--Urban Search and Rescue teams (USAR) that are fully equipped,
trained, exercised;
--State Agricultural Response Teams (SART) that are fully equipped,
trained, and exercised;
--Regional Interoperable Communications vehicles that are fully
equipped, trained, and exercised;
--Information Sharing activities that include fusion centers that are
equipped and are operational;
--Chemical Biological Radiological/Nuclear Explosive-Hazardous
Materials teams (CBRNE-HAZMAT) that are fully equipped, trained
and exercised.
The development of tools such as the National Preparedness Goal and
all-hazards capabilities-based planning provide a framework to
effectively measure progress as we continue to improve the Nation's
preparedness.
Question. There is still a real tension between terrorism and
natural disasters when we discuss preparedness. This tension is present
despite the fact that the very same people--our firefighters, police,
medical personnel, public works officials and emergency managers--show
up no matter if the disaster is man-made or natural. I wonder if the
Department can lead us toward preparedness if we are still struggling
with what to prepare for.
Under Secretary Foresman--two questions--how do you define
preparedness?
Answer. In HSPD-8 (National Preparedness) Preparedness is defined
as ``the existence of plans, procedures, policies, training and
equipment necessary at the Federal, State, and local level to maximize
the ability to prevent, respond to, and recover from major events.'' In
support of HSPD-8 implementation, DHS developed a list of all-hazards
Target Capabilities (the ``Target Capabilities List, or TCL'') that
concretely defines preparedness for four common and thirty-three
specific prevention, protection, response and recovery capabilities.
These capabilities define measurable outcomes, identify critical tasks,
and establish target levels of performance. They reinforce the premise
that all-hazards preparedness is a shared responsibility and
encompasses deterrence, prevention, protection, response, recovery and
mitigation against threats to the homeland. These capabilities are
fully interchangeable (all-hazards), with the exception of five
prevention mission capabilities that are specific to the threat of
terrorism. The General Accountability Office (GAO) concluded in a July
2005 Report (GAO-05-652, ``DHS' Efforts to Enhance First Responders'
All-Hazards Capabilities Continue to Evolve'') that a review of the TCL
(which at the time included 36 rather than 37 capabilities) that: ``Our
analysis of the target capabilities established by DHS showed that most
of DHS's targeted capabilities--30 of 36--are common to both terrorist
attacks and natural or accidental disasters.''
Lastly, it is not the sole responsibility of FEMA or the
Preparedness Directorate, it is a mission shared among DHS, the Federal
interagency community, our State, local, territorial, tribal and
private sector partners and, most importantly, with the American
people.
Question. How do you measure it so that we know if we are getting
somewhere?
Answer. DHS' Directorate for Preparedness (``Preparedness
Directorate'') was constituted during 2005 as one of the major outcomes
of the Department's Second Stage Review. Preparedness assets from
across DHS are now congregated in the Preparedness Directorate. The
Preparedness Directorate bolsters the Nation's security through a
multi-layered system of preparedness measures based on risk assessment
and management. Over 1,000 employees in the Directorate are at work to
improve our ability to manage and measure our Nation's preparedness. In
response to HSPD-8, (National Preparedness), the Directorate developed
a National Preparedness Goal and national preparedness priorities that
establish guidance and targets for strengthening and measuring the
Nation's preparedness. As part of HSPD-8 implementation, DHS adopted a
capabilities-based planning approach, and developed a comprehensive
library of thirty-seven capabilities (the ``Target Capabilities List,
or TCL'') that establish the foundation for measuring preparedness by
defining required target levels of performance. Fiscal year 2006 DHS
Grant Guidance included Target Capabilities as the construct for
investment justifications. The Preparedness Directorate's Office of
Grants and Training has conducted a pilot capabilities assessment to
determine best practices for capability measurements and readiness
determinations.
The National Preparedness Goal and TCL comply with the HSPD-8
requirement to ``establish readiness benchmarks and targets to
strengthen the Nation's preparedness.'' The Goal includes eight
national preparedness priorities that are linked to specific
capabilities. Each capability is clearly defined, has a specific
outcome, includes both preparedness and performance measures and
metrics, and identifies national target levels which provide a common
methodology to measure preparedness across the Nation.
Together, the National Preparedness Goal and Targeted Capabilities
List reinforce the Directorate's primary focus on ``risk management,''
which involves an analysis of threat, vulnerability and consequence.
Working with State, local and private sector partners, the Directorate
identifies threats, determines vulnerabilities, and targets resources
to reduce risk where it is greatest. Through grant programs, the
Directorate is able to invest in building capabilities which reduce
vulnerabilities and thereby reduce all-hazard risk.
MEDICAL PREPAREDNESS
Question. According to the Census Bureau, the National Capitol
Region's daytime population is estimated at over 982,000 people. A
potential threat to this area is detonation of nuclear weapon. The
Administration is so worried about a nuclear attack they created a
whole office, called the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, in the
Department of Homeland Security to mitigate this threat.
If a nuclear attack was launched on the United States today, how
many people could be treated for Acute Radiation Syndrome with the
medication that we currently have in the stockpile?
Answer. As the Strategic National Stockpile is managed by the
Department of Health and Human Services, this question should be
directed to HHS.
Question. The current Bioshield solicitation provides for only up
to 100,000 courses, with no assurance that even 100,000 will be
purchased.
Why are you only seeking 100,000 courses of medicine?
Answer. As acquisitions for Project Bioshield are managed by the
Department of Health and Human Services, this question should be
referred to HHS.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
Senator Byrd. You do a great job, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, and I enjoy working with you.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the hearing was concluded, and
the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call
of the Chair.]
-