[Senate Hearing 108-206]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:15 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Thad Cochran (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Cochran, Gregg, Craig, Byrd, Harkin,
Kohl, and Murray.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL BROWN, UNDER SECRETARY,
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
DIRECTORATE
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. The hearing will please come to order.
The subject of today's hearing is the fiscal year 2004
budget request for the Emergency Preparedness and Response
Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security.
We appreciate the attendance of Under Secretary Michael
Brown. We thank you for your attendance today and welcome you
and those who have accompanied you to this hearing.
The President's budget request for Emergency Preparedness
and Response totals $5.96 billion. We have a copy of the
statement you have prepared for the committee, which we will
make a part of the record in full. And we will invite you to
make any explanation of the budget request which you think
would be helpful to the committee as we review this request for
appropriations.
But before proceeding, I want to recognize my good friend,
the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and the ranking
Democrat on the committee, for any opening statement that he
would wish to make.
Senator Byrd.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT BYRD
Senator Byrd. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the
first witness to testify before the recently established
Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations
Committee, the subcommittee that is tasked with making careful
choices about how best to take care of our Nation. Is this
working?
We have been able to send a person to the moon and bring
him back safely again, but we have never been able to perfect a
good public address system.
So this subcommittee has to find the proper balance. How do
we make America safe without fundamentally changing the quality
of a free society? How do we protect ourselves from a threat
within our borders, while protecting our privacy rights, and
our freedom to move about this great country? How do we invest
the resources and organize our efforts to catch terrorists
without throwing out The Constitution? How do we make sure that
the agencies that have been merged into the new Department of
Homeland Security and that have specific missions unrelated to
homeland security, such as preventing and responding to natural
disasters, have the resources to effectively accomplish those
missions?
Over the last 10 years, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency has earned the reputation as the Federal agency that
extends help to Americans in their darkest hour. Time and
again, when Americans have been struck by hurricanes, when West
Virginians have been struck by floods, and when Americans have
been struck by earthquakes, FEMA has been the Federal agency
that was the firm shoulder that disaster victims could lean on.
That is not to say that FEMA's response has always been
without problems, but in recent years, FEMA has been organized
as, and has been very adept at, helping the victims of national
emergencies. I know a good many families and communities in
West Virginia who look at FEMA and wonder where they would be,
how they might have survived, without the aid of FEMA.
In your testimony today, please explain to the subcommittee
what you expect the impact will be of the merger of FEMA into
the Department of Homeland Security. Under the umbrella of the
new Department of Homeland Security, with so much emphasis on
homeland security, can the recently created Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate continue to provide the
victims of natural disasters with the same kind of rapid and
organized assistance?
FEMA was formed in 1979 by merging into one agency five
agencies from existing Federal departments. And it took 15
years for FEMA to work through organizational glitches and
internal bickering at times. I have been on this committee
since FEMA was created, and I do not want to see this very
important agency go through more growing pains.
While learning to prepare for and to respond to all
hazards, the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate
must not lose its capacity to respond effectively to natural
disasters.
Now, the Homeland Security Act places new responsibilities
on your agency, including program transfers from the FBI--it is
that broccoli I had for lunch. Gives you trouble. Does it give
you trouble?
Mr. Brown. Not too often, Senator.
Senator Byrd. The Homeland Security Act places new
responsibilities on your agency, including program transfers
from the FBI, health and human services, and the commerce
department. It is this subcommittee's job to ensure that you
have adequate resources to maintain your past level of activity
and to take on these new responsibilities.
I hope that in your testimony today, you will address
whether the President's budget provides the resources to
address these new responsibilities without undermining your
missions related to responding and preventing natural
disasters. I will look forward to your testimony.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Senator. Senator
Gregg.
Senator Gregg. Mr. Chairman, I will look forward to hearing
the witness.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Secretary, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BROWN
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon, Mr.
Chairman, Senator Byrd, Senator Gregg. It is certainly my
pleasure to be here.
I am Michael Brown, the Under Secretary for the Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate (EP&R) of the Department
of Homeland Security. On March 1 of this year, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) became part of the
Department of Homeland Security. We at FEMA are honored and
excited to be a part of this DHS mission to prepare and protect
our Nation.
However, I want to assure the members of this subcommittee
that FEMA will not lose sight of its responsibility to help
people and communities affected by natural disasters. During my
tenure at FEMA, I have developed an acute appreciation for its
all-hazards mission.
To underscore that point, it is useful to examine our
mission statement. The mission statement of the Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate is to lead the Nation to
prepare for, mitigate the effects of, respond to, and recover
from major domestic disasters, both natural and manmade,
including incidents of terrorism. It still contains the core
responsibilities that guided FEMA as an independent agency.
Since March 1 and the standing up of the Department of
Homeland Security, we have responded to disasters caused by
snowstorms, ice storms, flooding and the Columbia Space Shuttle
disaster.
We have not changed how we respond. The core competencies
of my dedicated staff have not changed, nor have the experience
and expertise that they bring to the table.
We embrace our new homeland security responsibilities.
Those responsibilities will be folded into our long-standing,
well-tested organization and will not replace it.
As we moved into the Department of Homeland Security, I
ordered an internal reorganization of the directorate. We look
forward to submitting those changes to you once we have
completed our realignment.
FEMA will be divided into four disciplines: preparedness,
mitigation, response and recovery. This reorganization reflects
the traditional areas of emergency management. It also
resembles the organizational flow used by many States who must
continue to be our partners in incident management.
The changes that FEMA has undergone, both external and
internal, have not changed its focus. And as part of DHS, we
will continue FEMA's tradition to be there whenever disaster
strikes, whatever its nature.
The Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate faces
serious challenges in achieving this mission. Chief among those
challenges is increased risk. America's metropolitan areas
continue to grow in size and density, with many of the largest
situated in coastal regions, along earthquake faults, or in
other high-risk areas. Commercial and residential development
have progressed at a rapid pace across the Nation, expanding
into previously unsettled or sparsely populated areas, and
exposing growing communities to new risks, especially wildfire,
flooding, and erosion.
To address these growing risks, EP&R will act accordingly.
We are working to consolidate the multiple Federal response
plans into a single national response plan governing our
emergency activities across all levels of Government.
We are augmenting and maintaining the Nation's
pharmaceutical and vaccine stockpiles and strengthening their
future capacity to ensure adequate supplies in the event of a
national emergency.
We are committing ourselves to recruiting, training and
retaining a top-notch workforce and developing a staff with the
talent, skills, competencies and dedication necessary to meet
the demands of the future.
We are working to further develop State, local and
volunteer readiness strategies through planning, mitigation,
preparedness, response and recovery activities.
Finally, we are providing critical information to the
public, the media and the emergency management community by
maintaining public information programs and by building
partnerships with and among Government entities, other
responder organizations and the private sector.
Toward these goals, the President's Budget for Fiscal Year
2004 requests resources to address these areas. Approximately
$900 million is proposed for Project BioShield for a new
permanent authority that would allow the Government to secure
medical countermeasures to strengthen the Nation's preparedness
against bioterror attacks.
There is $400 million to be spent to augment and maintain
the Strategic National Stockpile of drugs and vaccines in order
to expand and strengthen America's capability to respond to a
bioterrorism threat.
$300 million is proposed to continue the pre-disaster
hazard mitigation program, ensuring that the most worthwhile
and cost-effective mitigation programs are funded.
$200 million is proposed to correct, update and digitally
distribute the Nation's flood insurance rate maps, identifying
areas at risk. These maps will guide future development and
flood mitigation efforts.
Finally, $1.9 billion will provide disaster relief under
those primary assistance programs that provide a significant
portion of the total Federal response to victims in
presidentially declared major disasters and emergencies.
These programs reflect FEMA's commitment to performing its
mission of leading America to prepare for, mitigate the effects
of, respond to and recover from disasters, both natural and
manmade, including those acts of terrorism. Successfully
implementing these missions is key to our Nation's well-being.
Finally, one of the strategies the Department of Homeland
Security will employ to implement its broad agenda is the
consolidation of the Department's grant processes within a
single directorate to allow its State and local partners one-
stop shopping for all homeland security needs.
The President's Budget consolidates grants for first
responders in the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) within
the Border and Transportation Security Directorate. The
assistance to firefighters, State and local all-hazards
emergency operations planning, interoperable communications
equipment and Emergency Management Performance Grants all move
from FEMA to ODP.
Because of the proposed transfer of these grant programs,
those resources are now shown in the Border and Transportation
Security/ODP budget instead of the FEMA budget.
In closing, I would like to thank the members of this
subcommittee for the opportunity to speak about some of our
successes over the last year, and our challenges ahead in the
fiscal year 2004 budget.
PREPARED STATEMENT
FEMA joins DHS with great faith that we now have an entire
department helping us secure the Nation against all hazards,
whether natural or manmade. We will do our part by responding
to disasters wherever they strike and whatever causes them. And
with that, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to answer any questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Brown
INTRODUCTION
Good afternoon, Chairman Cochran and Members of the Subcommittee. I
am Michael Brown, Under Secretary for the Emergency Preparedness and
Response Directorate (EP&R) of the Department of Homeland Security.
On March 1 of this year, the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
FEMA, became part of the Emergency Preparedness and Response
Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We are proud
to join the new Department and are determined to do our part to help
Secretary Ridge and the Department succeed. I want to assure the
Members of this Subcommittee that EP&R will not lose sight of its
responsibility to help people and communities affected by disasters. I
served as the General Counsel of FEMA when I first arrived in
Washington, D.C. and, at the time of the creation of DHS, as the Deputy
Director. Given that experience, I have an acute appreciation for
EP&R's mission and its important role in the Department. To underscore
that point, it is useful to examine our mission statement. The mission
statement of EP&R,
To lead the Nation to prepare for, mitigate the effects of, respond
to, and recover from major domestic disasters, both natural and
manmade, including incidents of terrorism still contains the same core
responsibilities that guided FEMA as an independent agency. Since March
1, DHS/EP&R has responded to disasters caused by snowstorms, ice storms
and flooding. We have not changed how we respond.
As we moved into DHS, I ordered an internal reorganization of EP&R.
We look forward to submitting those changes to you once we have
completed our realignment. EP&R will be divided into four disciplines--
preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery. This reorganization
reflects the traditional areas of emergency management. It also
resembles the organizational flow used by many States, who continue to
be our partners in emergency management.
The changes FEMA has undergone--both external and internal--have
not changed our focus. As part of DHS, EP&R will continue FEMA's
tradition to be there whenever disasters strike.
FISCAL YEAR 2002 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
During fiscal year 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) expended nearly $3.9 billion in disaster funds to aid people and
communities overwhelmed by disasters, which included earthquakes,
floods, ice and winter storms, fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, and
tropical storms. FEMA responded to 42 major disasters involving 28
States and 4 U.S. Territories.
FEMA also provided assistance for a near-record 83 fire events that
affected 18 States, with the western part of the Nation experiencing
one of the worst fire seasons in U.S. history. In fiscal year 2002,
FEMA received $360 million in Assistance to Firefighter Grants for
equipment, safety and prevention programs and vehicles. We received
$745 million for that purpose in fiscal year 2003. Late in fiscal year
2002, FEMA was appropriated $225 million to distribute to States in
fiscal year 2003 to modernize their emergency operations centers,
update their emergency response plans, and improve their emergency
preparedness.
In addition to the numerous disasters that struck in fiscal year
2002, FEMA continued its full support to the City and State of New York
in their recovery efforts from the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001. This includes distributing the $9 billion allotted by President
Bush and Congress.
CHALLENGES
The Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate faces serious
challenges in achieving its mission. Chief among those challenges is
increased risk. America's metropolitan areas continue to grow in size
and density, with many of the largest situated in coastal regions,
along earthquake faults, or in other high-risk areas. Commercial and
residential development have progressed at a rapid pace across the
Nation, expanding into previously unsettled or sparsely settled areas,
and exposing growing communities to new risks, especially wildfire,
flooding and erosion. To address these growing risks, EP&R will
continue to emphasize pre-disaster mitigation and insurance.
The risks associated with acts of terrorism also pose a significant
challenge for EP&R. FEMA's rapid and decisive response to the events of
September 11 demonstrated the Agency's role in consequence management.
As a result, the Nation is looking to the emergency management
community--and EP&R in particular--to meet this challenge. Creating a
single, all-incident management plan from the multiple Federal response
plans currently operating is an important step in ensuring EP&R meets
the challenge. Maintaining the Nation's pharmaceutical and vaccine
stockpiles, and strengthening their future capacity to ensure adequate
supplies in the event of a national emergency are additional activities
we will undertake.
EP&R also faces serious challenges in maintaining and developing
its workforce. Within the next 5 years, 48 percent of the EP&R
workforce is projected to become eligible for retirement. Given this,
EP&R has committed itself to recruiting, training, and retaining a top-
notch workforce and developing a staff with the talent, skills,
competencies, and dedication necessary to meet the demands of the
future.
Meeting multiple demands with limited resources, a problem familiar
to all Federal agencies, is another obstacle EP&R will have to overcome
to achieve its mission of protecting the lives and property of the
American people.
ACTIVITIES
Specific mission activities include:
--Improving the Nation's disaster response capabilities and those of
State and local governments by developing and maintaining an
integrated, nationwide operational capability to respond to and
recover from disasters and emergencies, regardless of their
cause, in partnership with other Federal agencies, State and
local governments, volunteer organizations, and the private
sector.
--Assisting all levels of government, first responders, volunteer
groups, and the public in meeting the responsibilities of
domestic emergencies and challenges, especially incidents that
are fire-related or chemical/biological in nature through
planning, mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery
activities.
--Using risk management strategies to reduce and eliminate the long-
term risk to life and property from natural and technological
hazards such as floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, and dam
failures.
--Ensuring the adequacy of the Nation's pharmaceutical and vaccine
stockpiles and other medical supplies that can be delivered to
emergency sites in 12 hours.
--Providing critical information to the public, the media, and the
emergency management community by maintaining public
information programs and by building partnerships with and
among government entities, other responder organizations, and
the private sector.
2004 HIGHLIGHTS
The President's Budget for 2004 includes several areas of emphasis:
--$890 million is proposed for a new, permanent authority that would
allow the Government to secure medical countermeasures to
strengthen the Nation's preparedness against bioterror attacks.
--$400 million would be spent to maintain the Strategic National
Stockpile of drugs and vaccines in order to expand and
strengthen America's capability to respond to a bioterrorism
threat.
--$300 million is proposed to continue the pre-disaster hazard
mitigation program to ensure that the most worthwhile and cost-
effective mitigation programs are funded.
--$200 million is proposed to correct, update, and digitally
distribute the Nation's flood insurance rate maps, to
identifying areas at risk. The maps will guide future
development and flood mitigation efforts.
--$1.9 billion will provide disaster relief under the primary
assistance programs that provide a significant portion of the
total Federal response to victims in presidentially declared
major disasters and emergencies.
EP&R's 2004 programs reflect its commitment to performing its
mission of leading America to prepare for, mitigate the effects of,
respond to, and recover from disasters, both natural and manmade,
including incidents of terrorism. Successfully implementing the EP&R
missions is key to our Nation's well being.
PREPAREDNESS
The mission and overriding objective of the Preparedness Division
is to help the Nation better prepare to respond to emergencies and
disasters of all kinds, including those resulting from acts of
terrorism and involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Preparedness Division
is contained in our $1.652 billion operating expense account.
Preparedness priorities include:
--Strengthening the ability of State and local emergency managers and
responders to prepare for and respond to all hazards, including
terrorist attacks;
--Building and sustaining a national preparedness and response
capability.
The Preparedness Division is responsible for Federal, State, local,
and community preparedness programs; assessments and exercises; the
Radiological Emergency Preparedness program and the Chemical Stockpile
Emergency Preparedness Program; and emergency management and first
responder grants administration.
The Preparedness Division also includes the U.S. Fire
Administration, whose mission is to reduce life and economic losses due
to fire and related emergencies. Fire death rates in the United States
are among the highest in the industrialized world, but many of these
deaths are preventable. The U.S. Fire Administration works to prevent
these deaths and the damage to property through leadership, advocacy,
coordination and support. The training programs offered at the National
Fire Academy and the Emergency Management Institute to promote the
professional development of command level firefighters, emergency
managers and emergency responders are an important aspect of the U.S.
Fire Administration's duties.
Another training program in the Preparedness Division is the Noble
Training Center located at Ft. McClellan, Alabama. Noble Training
Center is the only hospital facility in the U.S. devoted entirely to
medical training for WMD. The Noble Training Center trains medical
personnel for State and local hospitals, emergency medical services,
the National Disaster Medical System and the Metropolitan Medical
Response System.
The Preparedness Division will provide the expertise to develop the
National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the National Response
Plan (NRP). The objective of both of these tasks is to ensure that all
levels of government across the Nation work efficiently and effectively
together, using a national approach to domestic incident management.
NIMS will provide a consistent nationwide approach for Federal,
State, and local governments to work effectively and efficiently
together to prepare for, respond to, and recover from all domestic
incidents. To provide for interoperability and compatibility among
Federal, State, and local capabilities, the NIMS will include a core
set of concepts, principles, terminology, and technologies covering the
incident command system; multi-agency coordination systems; unified
command; training; identification and management of resources
(including systems for classifying types of resources); qualifications
and certification; and the collection, tracking, and reporting of
incident information and incident resources.
The Preparedness Division will continue to provide the States with
technical assistance in their all hazards planning. As part of our
effort to prepare our citizens for all disasters, the Division will
oversee the Community Emergency Response Teams, or CERT. This program,
begun as a civilian training program by the Los Angeles Fire
Department, has become a nationwide effort to train citizens in first
aid and basic firefighting and emergency response techniques. CERT
trained citizens are able to provide those basic emergency services
that would otherwise occupy the first responders. EP&R provides train-
the-trainer programs to allow as many citizens as possible to receive
this training across the country. Currently, over 200,000 citizens have
received CERT training; our goal is to train 400,000 citizens by the
end of 2003.
Preparedness is also responsible for the Metropolitan Medical
Response System (MMRS). The MMRS consists of 120 teams of medical
responders located in major metropolitan areas. The primary focus of
the MMRS program is to develop or enhance existing emergency
preparedness systems to effectively respond to a public health crisis,
especially a WMD event. Through preparation and coordination, the local
law enforcement, fire, hazmat, EMS, hospital, public health, and other
``first response'' personnel are better able to effectively respond in
the first 48 hours of a public health crisis.
MITIGATION
Our mitigation efforts are an essential cornerstone of the
Department of Homeland Security's resolve to protect the lives and
property of Americans from the ravages of disasters. Mitigation
programs provide us the opportunity not only to develop plans to reduce
risks, but to actually implement those plans before a disaster occurs.
In fiscal year 2003, Congress supported the President's efforts to
promote disaster mitigation by creating and funding two initiatives:
pre-disaster mitigation grants and flood map modernization. We are
moving quickly to implement both of these important initiatives.
The Pre-Disaster Mitigation program supports the goals of disaster
mitigation partnerships. The competitive nature of this funding source
encourages communities to assess their risks, evaluate their
vulnerabilities and incorporate an action plan into the ongoing
planning processes.
As an annual grant program, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program
gives States and communities the opportunity to develop plans to reduce
risks. States will no longer need a presidentially declared disaster
before they can receive mitigation funding to reduce their most
significant risks. Mitigation of the most hazardous risks should be a
regular investment priority, and not contingent upon a disaster
declaration.
This competitive program will help ensure that the most worthwhile
and most cost-effective projects are funded. The goal is to fund
activities that will reduce the risks of future damage in hazard-prone
areas, thereby reducing the need for future disaster assistance.
The States play an essential role in the implementation of all of
our mitigation programs, and they will be prominent in the pre-disaster
mitigation program.
With respect to the pre-disaster mitigation grants, we have already
announced the availability of funds for pre-disaster mitigation
planning grants based on the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. The
application deadline for these grants is April 30, 2003, and we will
award these grants to the approved States and territories soon
thereafter.
The fiscal year 2004 budget proposal includes $300 million: an
appropriation request of $280 million for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation
program coupled with $20 million transferred from the National Flood
Insurance Fund for flood mitigation grants.
The fiscal year 2004 request also includes $200 million for the
Flood Map Modernization Program which is also well underway. Flood maps
have been produced for over 19,000 communities. Communities, lenders,
insurance agents and others use the maps and the flood data
approximately 20 million times a year to make critical decisions on
land development, community redevelopment, insurance coverage, and
insurance premiums.
Now, however, more than two-thirds of the maps are more than 10
years old. Many do not accurately reflect the change in flood risk due
to increased development over the years. Nearly all of the maps have
out-dated streets that make it difficult to precisely determine if a
property is located in a floodplain. Of additional concern is that the
vast majority of the existing maps are not compatible with today's
Geographic Information System (GIS) technology. This further
complicates communities' efforts to implement mitigation strategies
through building code and planning and zoning enforcement.
We will continue implementing a two-pronged approach, begun in
fiscal year 2003, for updating the Nation's flood hazard data. With
buy-in from our State and local partners, we are focusing first on
high-risk areas. This will best serve our mission to reduce losses of
life and property. In addition, to take advantage of economies of scale
in these areas, we are emphasizing basin wide studies, where they are
feasible and cost effective. Secondly, we plan to capitalize on areas
that have existing data that can be quickly and efficiently converted
to up-to-date flood studies supporting the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP). This approach provides a framework for prioritizing
projects and is scalable to accommodate available funding in fiscal
year 2004 and subsequent years.
One reason the NFIP flood hazard data is out of date is the lack of
ownership at the State and local levels. Our strategy for map
modernization seeks to change this pattern. We will engage in
partnerships and establish a process that enables State, regional, and
local entities to manage their flood hazard data. Many local
governments already implement the floodplain management standards of
the NFIP. So, where the interest and capability exist, hazard
identification activities should also be accomplished locally. We will
provide flood hazard identification training and technical assistance
to those interested in flood hazard identification. This training will
increase the capability of States, regional planning commissions, flood
control districts, and local governments to produce and maintain flood
hazard studies. The end result will be a decentralized system for
producing data by those most affected by the flood hazard.
A key component of the flood map modernization initiative is
improving e-Government processes for flood hazard data creation and
distribution. Through the Flood Map Modernization Program, we will
enable easy access and exchange of flood hazard data through the
Internet. This system will provide tools allowing the effective use of
information for making decisions that reduce vulnerability to flood
risk.
It is critical that the new flood maps be maintained. We will work
closely with the States and local communities to do so. By moving to a
web-based distribution system and using technology to adjust the maps,
we will provide timely, accurate flood risk information to communities
that wish to make development and redevelopment decisions without the
risk of increasing flood damages.
So far, in fiscal year 2003, we have implemented a performance-
based acquisition strategy for modernizing the Nation's flood maps. Our
``results oriented'' approach leverages the industry's innovations and
``best business practices'' to deliver new flood maps in the most cost
effective and timely manner possible. In addition, we are implementing
an integrated acquisition strategy that will leverage expertise and
resources with other Federal agencies and our State and local partners.
Mr. Chairman, I am also happy to report that the National Flood
Insurance Program, the largest single-line property insurance writer in
the country, is once again debt-free and stands on solid financial
ground as we begin a new era in emergency management.
In June of 2001, Tropical Storm Allison battered the Gulf Coast and
East Coast States. After the final losses were tallied, Allison had the
dubious distinction of becoming our first billion-dollar tropical
storm, and we borrowed $660 million from the U.S. Treasury to pay for
losses that exceeded our reserves. We have repaid that debt, with
interest, as of October 2002.
Approximately 30,000 families, business, and other victims of
flooding from Allison received payments from the National Flood
Insurance Program rather than relying on disaster relief. This example
proves again the value of the flood insurance program, which helps
America recover from the devastating effects of flood, while minimizing
the burden on the taxpayer.
RESPONSE
The Response Division coordinates and implements the Federal
response to presidentially declared disasters. The budget for the
Response Division is contained in the Operating Expenses account and in
the Disaster Relief Fund.
We will continue to improve our disaster response capabilities--and
those of State and local governments--through the efficient and
effective delivery of disaster assistance to victims, while also
reducing costs and ensuring accountability of response assets and
equipment. The Response Division is charged with developing and
maintaining an integrated, nationwide operational capability to respond
to and recover from disasters and emergencies, regardless of their
cause, in partnership with other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, volunteer organizations, and the private sector.
As one of its new initiatives, the Response Division will
streamline capabilities by merging the Federal interagency response
plans into one national response plan. The National Response Plan will
encompass the Federal Response Plan, the National Contingency Plan, the
Federal Radiological Response Plan and the Interagency Concept of
Operations Plan.
We also recognize that disasters, such as an earthquake on the New
Madrid fault, have the potential of affecting tens of thousands of
people. While the emergency management community is well-trained to
handle day-to-day disasters, we are not adequately prepared to handle a
truly catastrophic event. In order to respond to such events, the
Response Division will pursue comprehensive, all hazards catastrophic
planning. The goal is to ensure an integrated Federal, State, local and
private sector response and an efficient mobilization of resources in
the event of a catastrophic disaster. The first area of concentration
will be catastrophic housing.
As part of the EP&R budget, $400 million is requested to maintain
the Strategic National Stockpile. The Strategic National Stockpile is
made up of pharmaceuticals, vaccines and medical supplies housed in
various areas around the country in case of emergencies. By dispersing
the assets, we are able to get the necessary supplies to a disaster
site in 12 hours.
The Administration is requesting $890 million is requested for a
new authority to allow the Federal government to purchase vaccines and
medication for biodefense. EP&R is beginning its work in this arena by
developing a bio-terrorism response plan, Bio-Watch; participating in
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Bio-terrorism Task
force; and participating in major bio-terrorism response exercises such
as TOPOFF 2 and Exercise Silent Night.
The Response Division will take operational control over three
separate teams of specialists that can be rapidly mobilized in times of
disaster: the Domestic Emergency Support Team (DEST) from the Federal
Bureau of Investigations (FBI); the National Disaster Medical System
(NDMS) from the Department of Health and Human Services; and the
Nuclear Incident Response Teams (NIRT) from the Department of Energy.
DEST provides expert advice, guidance and support to the FBI On-
Scene Commander (OSC) during a WMD incident or credible threat. It is a
specialized interagency U.S. Government team comprised of crisis and
consequence management components. The DEST augments the FBI's Joint
Operations Center (JOC) with tailored expertise, assessment and
analysis capabilities.
NDMS is a nationwide medical response system to supplement State
and local medical resources during disasters and emergencies and to
provide backup medical support to the Departments of Defense and
Veterans Affairs medical care systems during an overseas conflict.
The final new team, the NIRT, was established to provide a
versatile nuclear and radiological emergency response and management
capability.
RECOVERY
The disaster relief activities of EP&R are financed primarily from
the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) with funding for permanent staff in the
Operating Expenses appropriation. The 2004 budget request for the DRF
includes $1.934 billion which will help insure that we meet outstanding
obligations from previous disasters, and have the funds needed to
handle events in fiscal year 2004.
The Recovery Division administers the programs that help States,
local governments, communities and individuals recover after the
President has determined supplemental Federal assistance is needed. The
Individual and Public Assistance programs will remain our primary
commitment to communities, individuals, and families affected by
disasters. To provide assistance as quickly as possible, we coordinate
closely with our regional offices, disaster field offices, other
Federal agencies, our State partners and voluntary organizations.
The Individual Assistance Program provides individuals and families
affected by disasters with a full range of available programs in a
timely manner. This assistance varies from tangible help such as
providing funds to repair homes, to the more intangible programs
providing emotional support through State crisis counseling programs.
When disaster strikes, individuals and families need immediate
information and help. Once the President declares a disaster,
applications for individual assistance are taken and centrally
processed to get money into the hands of the victims as soon as
possible, generally within 7 to 10 days. Through timely home
inspections and nationwide call centers, disaster victims are able to
obtain the information and assistance needed to recover.
The Public Assistance Program is the primary means for community
recovery. This program provides cost-shared grants to States and local
governments and to certain private non-profit organizations for debris
removal, emergency protective measures, and repair or replacement of
damaged facilities, such as roads, buildings, and utility systems. A
recent example with which you may be familiar was the removal of
approximately1.8 million tons of debris from the World Trade Center
attack. This enormous effort was completed both ahead of schedule and
under budget. Also, we were better able to address the complex transit
issues in New York City following 9/11 by collaborating with other
Federal agencies. Specifically, integrating FEMA's programs with those
of the Federal Transit Administration improved the means in which
financial assistance was provided to the City.
In order to promote a more efficient use of Federal and State
resources, we work with State and local applicants to evaluate damage
to facilities and estimate the cost to repair them. In addition, we
encourage communities to include mitigation measures in repairs to
reduce future damages to facilities. Finally, EP&R encourages States
with adequate resources to assume a larger role in managing the Public
Assistance program in their States.
The Fire Management Assistance Program is another key resource for
States and local governments to mitigate, manage, and control forest or
grassland fires to prevent damages that result in a major disaster
declaration. This past year's drought spawned many fires, and the
financial assistance we provided through more than 80 fire declarations
saved millions of dollars in damages to private properties and public
facilities.
We take our mission to help communities and citizens recover very
seriously. We continuously survey our customers and evaluate the
effectiveness of our Recovery Programs to help communities and disaster
victims and, at the same time, ensure the proper stewardship of Federal
taxpayer dollars.
CONCLUSION
In closing, I would like to thank the Members of the Subcommittee
for the opportunity to speak about some of our successes over the last
year, our challenges ahead and the fiscal year 2004 budget for the
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate of the Department of
Homeland Security. We join DHS with great faith that we now have an
entire department helping us secure the Nation against all hazards,
both natural and man made. We will do our part by preparing for,
mitigating against, responding to and recovering from disasters. I
would now be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
DISASTER RELIEF FUND
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, for
summarizing your statement and explaining the highlights of the
President's budget request for 2004.
As you know, we just completed action here in the Senate on
a supplemental appropriations bill. I wonder if you have any
comments about the sufficiency of the funds that have been
included in the Senate supplemental appropriations bill in
helping meet the needs of this directorate for the balance of
this fiscal year?
Mr. Brown. Senator, I think that the supplemental goes a
long way to meeting some of our unmet needs. As you know, when
the threat advisory level changes and we go to different
colors, and right now we are in Code Orange, it causes agencies
like FEMA to go through a checklist of different actions that
we think are appropriate to take both within the National
Capital Region and out among our regional directorates across
the country.
We do not just summarily go through and implement
everything that is on that checklist, but only those which we
think are appropriate. So consequently, our operational budget
increases dramatically. And I think the increase in the War
Supplemental from $15 million to $45 million is a very
significant help to us.
I will tell you, however, we are still short in the
Disaster Relief Fund. We would appreciate any help you could
give us in that area.
Senator Cochran. Well, in that connection, I recall the
other day when you came by my office, which I appreciated very
much that we talked about how it is hard to predict how much
money is going to be needed for disaster relief because none of
us knows what the nature of the disaster situation is going to
be from 1 month to the next, or 1 year to the next. And we can
pick out a number, the administration can or the committee can,
and put it in a bill, hoping that will take care of the needs.
What happens, though, if we get to the point where obviously we
are today--and your answer suggests we may be about to run out
of money in the disaster relief account--what happens when you
do run out of money and Congress has not put sufficient funds
in a supplemental or provided them to your office?
Mr. Brown. Historically, Mr. Chairman, yearly
appropriations average approximately $3 billion for the
Disaster Relief Fund, the DRF. That normally gets us through a
typical year of covering ongoing disasters. For example, right
now we have, approximately 50 open disasters on which we are
expending funds, either in individual assistance or public
assistance.
That assistance may include things like payments to
individuals for repairs to homes, payments to State and local
governments for repair of buildings, roads and bridges and so
forth.
What normally happens is that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) will keep the Disaster Relief Fund at about a
half-billion-dollar level. A couple of days ago, it was down to
about $28 million, the lowest in the history of the agency, I
believe. It is now back up today, I think, to about $44
million.
If OMB does not release the funds soon to the DRF, EP&R
will probably have to delay the start of some projects or
postpone the completion of other projects until we do receive
the needed funds.
Senator Cochran. Am I correct in assuming that many of
these projects you are talking about are projects that are
really under the purview of local governments, counties or
States, where they are rebuilding a bridge or repairing
infrastructure of one kind or another?
Mr. Brown. Yes. Either assistance to individuals as a
result of a disaster or public assistance to State and local
governments. We provide funds through the State governments and
they pass it to the entities in the declared disaster area. But
primarily we are talking about public assistance projects,
which would be the buildings and that type of thing that would
have been damaged in a disaster.
Senator Cochran. Yes. So if those local Governments are
deprived of funds, particularly over a long period of time, we
are going to run the risk of creating some more problems and
hazards for the people who live in those communities, or
States, is that correct?
Mr. Brown. That is correct. We will reach some go point
where I will have to have my financial people and others
through to see what projects have been obligated and which ones
we need to pare back until we either get a release of funds
from OMB or additional funding in the DRF.
ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTER GRANTS
Senator Cochran. I want to ask one other question. Then I
am going to yield to other members of the committee for any
questions that they have. Can you tell us why the budget
request shifts the assistance to firefighter grants from
Emergency Preparedness and Response to the Office for Domestic
Preparedness?
Mr. Brown. The President's original proposal recommended
that the entire first responder grantmaking process in the
Department of Homeland Security be moved to FEMA, the Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate. Congress chose not to do
that, and instead chose to split the first responder grants
between FEMA and ODP. As we move through the transition, all of
the normal first responder grantmaking processes that FEMA
performs will go into ODP within the Border and Transportation
Security Directorate to create a one-stop shop for first
responders.
Senator Cochran. Do you have any concerns regarding the
shift in the administration of this important grant program--if
so, what are they?
Mr. Brown. I think the record would show that, as Senator
Byrd has commented, FEMA had some glitches in the beginning. I
also think the record would show that over the past 10 to 12
years, FEMA has done an exceptional job of processing those
grants in a very timely and organized fashion.
I am committed to making certain that if the grants do move
to ODP, that we will provide whatever resources we need to
provide to ODP to allow them that same culture and that same
ability.
Senator Cochran. Thank you. Senator Byrd.
DISASTER RELIEF FUND
Senator Byrd. You have said that your current balance is
about $44 million?
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. And, what is the amount that can be made
available on a contingent basis? Have you made a request to
OMB?
Mr. Brown. Yes, Senator, we have asked OMB to release the
funds to get us back up to at least the $500 million level.
We started that process in early February.
Senator Byrd. Given the fact that in an average month FEMA
pays out $250 million from the Disaster Relief Fund, $544
million does not seem like enough to get you through the end of
fiscal year 2003. Will the President send up a supplemental
funding request?
Mr. Brown. I do not know, sir. You will have to ask him.
Senator Byrd. Well, why would I have to ask him?
Mr. Brown. I do not know if the Administration plans on
submitting another supplemental request.
Senator Byrd. Well, do not give me a flippant response like
that.
Mr. Brown. I am not, Senator. I am just saying I really do
not know whether or not they are going to request another
supplemental.
Senator Byrd. Okay. You do not have to say to me, ``You
will have to ask him.'' I know how to ask the President a
question.
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. And I know how to ask agency heads questions.
What will happen if you run out of money?
Mr. Brown. We will have to start delaying projects.
ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTER GRANTS
Senator Byrd. Recently, the U.S. Fire Administration
released a report that concluded that only 13 percent of the
fire departments are trained and equipped to deal with
biological, chemical or radiological weapons. With this
striking weakness in the ability of our first responders to
respond to a known threat, I am disappointed to see that the
President's fiscal year 2004 budget proposes to cut grants to
fire departments from $745 million to $500 million.
I am disappointed by the fact that the administration has
continued to represent its $3.5 billion proposal for first
responders as an adequate level, when it in fact provides no
more resources than that enacted in fiscal year 2003 for
similar programs.
Given that your agency identified the weakness in
firefighting programs, do you believe that the President's
request is adequate?
Mr. Brown. What we are trying to do, Senator, is to make
certain that through the Assistance to Firefighters Grant
Program, we get the money to where it is most needed, where
there is the greatest risk.
One of the things I have talked about is that we need to
take the funds we get from Congress and the Administration for
the fire program, and make sure that they are used as wisely as
possible.
One way I am trying to do that is to get the different fire
departments to stop competing against one another, particularly
when they are located close to one another or when there is
some way that they can cooperate on a regional basis to better
utilize taxpayer dollars.
I often use my home State of Colorado as an example. There
is no reason why Denver, Boulder and Fort Collins, all located
right together on the front range, should each be applying for
the same equipment. What they should do is get together and
figure out what their vulnerabilities are, then apply for
funding based on cooperative resolution of those
vulnerabilities.
I think that is a better way for the fire departments that
are inadequately prepared to get the equipment that they need.
The $3.5 billion funds the grant programs that award monies
for training and equipment to combat terrorism. The purpose for
which the funds are requested to be used is one of the factors
considered in the peer review process to decide who should or
should not be getting a grant.
Senator Byrd. So I take it that you do not believe that the
President's request is adequate?
Mr. Brown. There will always be more requests than
available funds. For example, Senator, with the current $750
million appropriation for the firefighter grants, we have well
over 20,000 applications in the pipeline representing almost $2
billion worth of requests.
Senator Byrd. Do I have any more time? Are you----
Senator Cochran. Can we move to these others, and come back
to you?
Senator Byrd. Yes. Let us do that. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
will be brief. I do not have any detailed questions, but, Mr.
Secretary, I thank you for being before this committee. I am
telling you as a member of the Senate, I am one who--while I
supported and will support Homeland Security as an agency and
worked with everyone here to get it stood up and operating
from, at least, a legal and structural point of view and a
policy point of view, I was one of those that was concerned
that FEMA get buried and not be as effective as I believe it
has been over the last good number of years.
It is one of those agencies that I think did have the
credibility in the turn-around time and did not get caught up,
it seemed, in so many ways that other agencies seem to as it
related to getting to its mission at hand and executing it.
I hope that does remain the case. We will continue to work
closely with you on it in serving on this new committee. I am
anxious to work with the chairman to make sure all of that
happens, at least from the funding side that which is
appropriate.
I also do not believe in backing so much money up you
cannot get it out the door. I also recognize that sometimes it
is important, even in critical times, that folks stand in line
and wait just a little bit. It makes them a bit more efficient
in the current operations and--but I will tell you that the
fire money that comes to our departments across rural Idaho and
across Idaho itself has been very, very effective, and I think
put to use wisely and appropriately. And it has made those
departments more responsive under the new responsibilities we
are giving them. They are obviously going to need some help in
developing the expertise necessary, so these grants are
important. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Brown. We thank you for those compliments, Senator. I
appreciate that.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Craig.
Senator Kohl.
HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISORY SYSTEM
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Cochran.
Mr. Brown, the current terror alert system, as it is
intended to do, is causing people to be considerably alarmed
and to come to attention, as well as causing considerable
expense inevitably across many parts of our country. At a time
when budgets are squeezed, a higher alert status has, in many
cases, resulted in an increased overtime and anxiety.
Many areas of our 50 States are beginning to not take the
system seriously enough, because they believe that the threat
does not apply to them. This alert system could easily turn
into the boy who cried wolf in that people will not take it
seriously enough until it is too late.
What changes to the system is the Department considering
and can we, in fact, expect changes in the future?
Mr. Brown. I think Secretary Ridge has addressed that by
trying to emphasize that the color-coded system is really
geared toward the law enforcement and professional communities
to give them an idea of where they need to be in their states
of readiness. And I would use FEMA, again, as an example of
what to do. We are trying to get States and locals to adopt a
similar type of program.
We have in our operations manual the different steps we
would take at the different threat levels. Rather than
implement every single one of those steps, we implement what is
important based on the particular threat. We do this so that we
do not have just these huge operational expenses for
everything, but only for what we specifically need based on the
threat.
What we would like to do is educate the State and locals to
do the same thing, that whether they ratchet up completely or
not is something that they can certainly do on their own. But
they should consider ratcheting up only as it applies to the
particular threat and to what is needed in their particular
community.
As Secretary Ridge continues to push down the idea that the
alert system is for the professionals, I think we will avoid
your concern about crying wolf.
Senator Kohl. Well, what I was referring to is any code.
Let us take the second highest, which I believe is--is that
code orange?
Mr. Brown. Yes.
Senator Kohl. Yes. Well, when we issue a code orange alert,
are we intending that every community in every State across the
entire 50 States are at the same level of risk and should
respond?
Mr. Brown. When the Secretary and the Attorney General make
the decision to change the threat level, they are doing that
based on specific intelligence that they receive----
Senator Kohl. Yes.
Mr. Brown [continuing]. About the threat. And I would say,
Senator, that based on the intelligence that the Secretary and
that the Under Secretaries have received that caused the threat
level to go up to orange, there is a very credible threat out
there. I think it is incumbent upon us to convey that to the
State and local governments as succinctly and as appropriately
as we can.
Senator Kohl. What we are asking them to do is go, all--
asking then all parts in all 50 States to go on an alert, and
to do those things and spend that kind of money, which is
consistent with the code orange----
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Senator Kohl [continuing]. Are we suggesting that Rawlings,
Wyoming is at the same level of risk as Washington, D.C. and
New York City?
Mr. Brown. No. But I think where I am miscommunicating is
what Rawlings, Wyoming, should do. Let us say there are 40
items that you can do at Code Orange. Rock Springs or Rawlings
or some place in Wyoming instead ought to decide that they are
going to do only 2 or 3 of those things, because they do not
need to do all 40 of them. So they can hold down their costs by
implementing that kind of system.
Senator Kohl. And so then you are suggesting that every
community should make a decision?
Mr. Brown. Absolutely.
Senator Kohl. Well, then would Los Angeles make a decision
or can--are they in a position to make a decision any less than
Washington, D.C. or New York?
Mr. Brown. If I----
Senator Kohl. Because--in other words, what I am suggesting
to you--and it is okay because you are just starting, or we are
just starting as a country and we need refinement. It seems to
me that there needs to be considerable thought, as I presume
and hope will be given, and some specific direction and
guidance so that all States and communities within all States
can be helped to make particular and specific decisions on what
these alert systems really mean and how they should be applied
and how they do not apply in many cases. In fact, you know,
most parts of America are very unlikely to be hit in time of
terrorism.
And I have not yet heard from the Department an
understanding and a recognition of that as some kind of an
alert system that will account for the fact that most parts of
our country are really at low risk even at times of high risk.
Mr. Brown. Your point is very well taken, and I think it is
incumbent upon FEMA, which is now part of the Department, to
take its protocols and the way we decide what we should be
doing or should not be doing and help the State and locals do
the same thing, by giving them the tools they need to prepare
based on the risk that they may face in their unique community.
As you say, there may be a community that looks around and
says, ``Our risk really is a dam that might be blown up. So
when we change threat levels we need to focus our energy on
that particular vulnerability.'' They might not need to do
everything that FEMA suggests should be done when we go from
one level to another.
TRAINING GRANTS
Senator Kohl. Thank you. Last question: As you know, State
and local governments are struggling with budget cuts. Many are
also working with reduced staffs because of call-ups of the
Guard or Reserve; and add to this the seemingly constant
elevated security alert level at times, and the Governments are
struggling with skyrocketing overages, overtime costs, local
and State Governments, associated with our new security threat.
As a result, many fire departments and emergency managers
are not sending their people to training, because those extra
hours mean even more overtime and overtime that they are not in
a position to account for.
So my question is, will the Department allow the use of
training grants to reimburse for overtime?
Mr. Brown. Senator, I think I will be corrected or somebody
will kick me in the chair if I say this incorrectly, but I am
pretty certain that we are restricted from using the grant
money for overtime. I think what we want to do instead is to
try to get as much of that grant money out to the localities as
possible for ``train the trainer'' programs. By doing so, we
can push the training down to the State and local levels and
not require them to go some place else for the training. I
think that would help alleviate part of that problem.
Senator Kohl. Well, I think what you are saying is true,
and that is what I am referring to. I am suggesting that
because those training grants cannot be used for overtime----
Mr. Brown. Right.
Senator Kohl [continuing]. And because overtime is being
expended, so I am asking--and they do not have the money to
compensate for that overtime----
Mr. Brown. That is correct.
Senator Kohl [continuing]. So that they do not send their
people in many cases to these training programs, which you
definitely want them to do.
Mr. Brown. That is right.
Senator Kohl. They cannot pay for it.
Mr. Brown. That is right.
Senator Kohl. So aside from, you know, throwing up your
hands and saying, ``Well, you will just have to make do the
best you can with these increased emergency problems and
training problems,'' which is not something we want to do, how
else are they going to pay for this overtime----
Mr. Brown. Well----
Senator Kohl [continuing]. Use some of this training money.
You know, maybe you would suggest, well, you can use 20 percent
of it or 10 percent or 5 percent, not all of it, but something
that would give the States and the local governments access to
some additional funding to pay for the training that is being
required.
Mr. Brown. Right. I mean, you are absolutely correct. And
absent that statutory ability to do that, then what we do is
try to push the training down to them to minimize and mitigate
the cost of that overtime.
Senator Kohl. Say that again.
Mr. Brown. To the extent that we have some statutory
relief, which would allow us to do that----
Senator Kohl. Yes.
Mr. Brown [continuing]. What we do in the alternative is to
push the training down to the State and local levels, take it
as close to that recipient as possible to minimize the amount
of overtime that they have to incur in order to receive the
training.
I mean, we could consider that in the 2004 grants, but we
cannot do it in the 2003 grants.
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Kohl.
Senator Murray.
NATIONAL STRATEGY ON TRAINING
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Brown, thank you for being here today. I think the
training we do for first responders is extremely important. I
think we need to do everything we can to better prepare our
communities for natural disasters or terrorist acts or
whatever, you know, is out there. And I know that several
directors within the Department are working on the training
issue. I have talked to Secretary Ridge about this as well.
Last year, there was a lot of talk about the importance of
developing a national strategy on training, and I am curious
what happened to that national strategy, if you can give us an
update on that.
Mr. Brown. That is still in the works. That is one of the
things that EP&R is taking on within the Department to develop.
Just like we are trying to develop and put together the
national response plan, we are also trying to put together a
national training program at the same time.
Senator Murray. But we have not developed a national
strategy on training as of yet?
Mr. Brown. Not yet.
Senator Murray. How can----
Mr. Brown. We still have the training programs within FEMA
that will be transferring; and we are now trying to develop
those kinds of strategies across all directorates.
Senator Murray. Well, how do we know what an appropriate
level of funding is unless we know what the national strategy
is on that?
Mr. Brown. I am not sure I am equipped to answer that for
you, Senator.
Senator Murray. Well, we will be having to make a decision
on this committee on how much to put into training. And unless
we know what the national strategy is it is----
Mr. Brown. Right.
Senator Murray [continuing]. Going to be difficult to do.
Mr. Brown. I will be happy to take that back and formulate
an answer for you.
HAMMER TRAINING AND EDUCATION CENTER
Senator Murray. Okay. Last year, Mike Byne visited my home
State of Washington to see the HAMMER Training and Educational
Facility that is located in Richland, Washington. That is a
training facility that is used by FEMA already. It is used by
the Department of State, the Marine Corps, Army National Guard,
Department of Energy, local law enforcement. It is an excellent
facility. Can you give me an update on what the
administration's consideration of HAMMER is for training
purposes?
Mr. Brown. We want to take all of the assets that we have
in Homeland Security and expand those. We have not only
Emmitsburg, we have the Noble Training Center. We have your
facility in Washington. We want to take all of those and
enhance them as much as possible, because I believe, and I
think departmentwide we all agree, that whatever facilities we
currently have we must expand and make them as efficient as
possible and utilize them as best as possible.
Senator Murray. Do you have a timeline for when you will be
making those decisions; and, again, I ask because we are going
to have to be making some decisions about funding and
management that we need to move forward on. So do you have a
timeline on when you would?
Mr. Brown. Okay. I am told that the timeline is now out to
the States for them to look at to see what kind of timeline
they need. There is apparently some money in ODP now, for them
to develop what they want to do with the facility.
Senator Murray. So are the States going to be responsible
for the training, or is your agency?
Mr. Brown. We would be responsible for providing the money.
But the training is actually done at the State and local
levels.
Senator Murray. Well, the HAMMER Facility is a national
facility. It is not just Washington State. It is for training
for nationally.
Mr. Brown. We have to confess we are not familiar with that
one and all the programs in it, but we will look into it.
Senator Murray. Well, if you could, and if you could talk
to Mike Byrne, because he had been out--but we cannot just say
Washington State, you are going to do HAMMER.
Mr. Brown. Right.
Senator Murray. It is a national training facility. It is
going to take Federal funds. And we need direction on that.
Mr. Brown. Yes, we will find out.
COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAMS
Senator Murray. Okay. In your testimony you talked about
Community Emergency Response Teams, the CERT, which I was happy
to hear you reference, because I know that that is a very
valuable program for training.
I recently spoke with some of the emergency management
facilities--officials actually from my State about CERT, and I
got to tell you the answer I got from the ones in my State
reinforces to me that the Federal Government is not doing
enough in this area to prevent another attack on our country. I
was told that Washington State got $70,000 for CERT training
from FEMA in 2002, and amazingly the State only recently got
approval from the Department to spend the fiscal year 2002
money on training.
You--we are here today to talk about the 2004 budget. Can
you explain to me why the 2002 money is just now going out the
door?
Mr. Brown. That money, Senator, was from the supplemental
in August, so that is maybe why it is just now hitting the
streets.
Senator Murray. Well, actually, my State was supposed to
get $70,000 from the 2002 budget, FEMA 2002 budget----
Mr. Brown. Yes.
Senator Murray [continuing]. For CERT training. They just
got approval from the Department right now to spend that 2002
money. So I am just wondering what--you know, why it is taking
so long. This is from 2 years ago. It was not from the
supplemental.
And my next question was going to be what about the 2003
money. Are you getting that out the door? I heard Senator Kohl
talk about training and using some of that money for overtime;
and I would just caution us that if the money is not getting
out there for training, it is not that it is not needed for
training. It is just for some reason there has been some
bureaucratic hang-ups in getting it out there.
Mr. Brown. Well, I am determined to go back and find out
why, because we have an excellent reputation of getting the
money out the door. I want to find out specifically why this
money has taken longer than normal to distribute.
Senator Murray. I would----
Mr. Brown. I will find out and get that answer back to you.
Senator Murray. Because I think those training dollars are
extremely important, right?
Mr. Brown. I could not agree more.
Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Murray.
When we were considering the supplemental appropriations
bill, Mr. Secretary, in the Senate, money was added for the
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate's disaster
relief account for interoperable communications. I wonder if
you could tell us if in the conference report we do make these
funds available, whether they can be spent in this fiscal year.
Mr. Brown. Senator, I have discussed that with the staff,
and they assure me that we can get the interoperability funds
out by the end of this calendar year. The firefighter grants
will be out by the end of the fiscal year 2004.
Senator Cochran. How does the agency plan to deal with the
fact that the budget request for 2004 does not include any
funding for interoperable communications equipment within your
directorate's account? But it includes it within the Office for
Domestic Preparedness. How is this going to be resolved?
Mr. Brown. We will provide ODP with program support or
whatever it takes to help them, one, get the money out the
door; and, two, to use it effectively.
Senator Cochran. Yes. Well, I assume then that other
agencies within the Department can obtain the use of funds that
are appropriated to the Office for Domestic Preparedness for
this purpose. Is that your understanding?
Mr. Brown. That is my understanding.
OPERATION OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND SUPPORT TEAMS
Senator Cochran. In the response division, you talk about
gaining operational control--your directorate having
operational control over three teams, the Domestic Emergency
Support Team from the FBI, the National Disaster Medical System
from the Department of Health and Human Services, and the
Nuclear Incident Response Teams from the Department of Energy.
How is this going to work? Will these teams essentially remain
under the jurisdiction of their departments as they now exist,
but simply receive funds that are allocated to them through the
Department of Homeland Security?
Mr. Brown. Well, it is a mishmash. Generally, the
operational control of those different teams falls under
Emergency Preparedness and Response. So, for example, the
Nuclear Incident Response Teams, we will deploy those as
needed. But the training and the money to fund and manage those
will actually come from the Department of Energy.
Then you take the Domestic Emergency Support Team from the
FBI. Again, we deploy it, but there is no money that comes over
with it from the FBI. We have not yet quite figured out how we
would actually deploy it and find the money to manage that
deployment.
Regarding the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS), we
have entered into a memorandum of agreement with HHS to have
operational control of it, but to rely upon HHS again for the
management and--what is the word I am looking for--to manage
and----
Oh, right. Okay. I am being corrected. I am talking about
the Strategic National Stockpile. In terms of the Stockpile, we
do have the operational control of it, and we do have an
agreement with HHS.
Back to the NDMS, we would deploy the Disaster Medical
Assistance Teams in it but they do not come with any sort of
money to manage or train or do anything in particular with
them. We would have to enter into an MOA or MOU with HHS to do
that.
Senator Cochran. And the NDMS is the National Disaster
Medical System, right?
Mr. Brown. That is correct. Those are the DMATS and the
DMORTS.
PROJECTS BIOSHIELD AND BIOWATCH
Senator Cochran. Well, this fits in with what we have
become familiar with as project BioShield. You referred to
BioWatch in your statement. Is this the same thing, or are
these two different things?
Mr. Brown. Two different things.
BioShield is the President's $900 million proposal for the
creation of the experimental or the new vaccines, and BioWatch
is the program by which we are trying in several selected
places to implement new monitoring and detection systems.
Senator Cochran. What will the role of your directorate be
with respect to BioShield if it is enacted?
Mr. Brown. We will simply act as the middle man and at some
point NIH and CDC would come to us and say we think we have a
product here.
On the other side, we would say we have identified a
specific threat, a specific biothreat that needs to be
addressed, and we would marry those two up. We would actually
simply act as the middle man, the contract and the funnel for
the money.
STRATEGIC NATIONAL STOCKPILE
Senator Cochran. Well, in terms of your relationship with
the Department of HHS, will Homeland Security have the final
decision-making authority over what goes into the National
Pharmaceutical Stockpile?
Mr. Brown. This is the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile,
which is now called the Strategic National Stockpile. And we
will rely on HHS's expertise to tell us what needs to go in
there.
Senator Cochran. Well, will they decide what comes out or
how you get access to----
Mr. Brown. No. We will do that.
Senator Cochran. You will decide that.
Mr. Brown. We will control the operations and deployment of
the stockpile.
Senator Cochran. Yes. Well, does your directorate have the
expertise to make these decisions, do you think?
Mr. Brown. I think we do, in terms of the deployment and
the response, because we have the National Disaster Medical
System on our team now, thus we have already had meetings with
the Surgeon General about creating within Emergency
Preparedness and Response a medical advisory team for that very
specific purpose.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much. I am going to yield
to others on the committee now for any other questions they may
have and I may have a few in conclusion.
Senator Byrd.
FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
West Virginia has suffered immeasurably from flooding and
other natural disasters. My home State is under a disaster
declaration right now due to flooding. The West Virginia Flood
Prevention Task Force, which I convened, has identified
strengthening the floodplain management program as the most
effective way to stop the vicious cycle of repetitive flooding
in West Virginia.
One of the most important tools to floodplain management is
to have accurate, up-to-date flood maps. Last year, Congress
appropriated $150 million to the Flood Mapping Program at FEMA.
This was the largest appropriation to the Flood Mapping Program
in its history.
But by your own estimates, it will cost $950 million to
modernize all flood maps in the country, so it is important
that these funds be targeted to the communities that are most
at risk. I believe that flood map modernization funds should be
targeted to the most flood-prone communities. And in the past,
FEMA has administered the flood map modernization program by a
population-based formula. Can you tell the subcommittee how you
plan to administer the fiscal year 2003 and 2004 funds?
Mr. Brown. Yes, Senator, I can. I would say that I think
the task force and the effort that your State is making is
commendable. We wish we could get all States to recognize that
if they could get together and start doing that kind of
planning, it would help us do our job even better.
We are currently doing a modernization on a strategy that
was developed by a stakeholders meeting on February 5 and 6 of
this year. It is based on high-population density, high-growth
areas, high-risk areas; but most importantly, history of
repetitive loss claims and what the policy base is, plus the
ability to leverage and cost-share with the State and locals.
So while population density is important, we are trying at
the same time to weigh that against the high-risk and high-
prone areas.
Senator Byrd. Are you saying that you will be moving from a
population-based formula for funding this program? You will be
moving away from that?
Mr. Brown. No. Population is just one criterion now.
Senator Byrd. Yes. The West Virginia Flood Prevention Task
Force concluded that 18 full-time staff would be needed to
properly implement flood plain management activities. But, the
State can only afford to pay for one full-time staff. How would
you ensure that you do not penalize States that desperately
need flood-mapping resources, but whose financial straits
hinder their sophistication?
Mr. Brown. Because we want to look, Senator, at where the
flood maps need to be done first based on that--those different
criteria. We are not going to penalize a State simply because
they may not be, for example, like North Carolina, which has a
very robust program, versus a State that cannot afford to do a
whole lot. We want to do it where it is going to have the most
effect in terms of getting the maps out the door.
Senator Byrd. Given West Virginia's history of flooding and
how outdated its flood maps are, this is a very important
program to the State. The West Virginia Senate and the West
Virginia House passed resolutions in January of 2003 calling on
FEMA to expedite the process of updating West Virginia's flood
insurance rate maps.
In the past, FEMA has used the population-based formula to
distribute the flood-mapping funds. That approach does not take
risk into account. This hurts States like West Virginia that
are small in population, but they are at disproportionate risk
of flood damage.
I understand that you intend to change the way the program
is administered and take risk into account, is that correct?
Mr. Brown. That is correct. We also increased the State
funding for State flood plain management to $1 million in
fiscal years 2002 and 2003. So there should be additional
resources coming for that purpose.
Senator Byrd. Very well. So, you do intend to take risk
into account?
Mr. Brown. That is correct.
Senator Byrd. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Byrd.
Senator Harkin, we welcome you as a member of our
subcommittee.
Senator Harkin. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. You may proceed with any questions or
statements you might have.
FOOD SAFETY
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no
statement, Mr. Chairman, just two little points that I would
like to be able to get a response on, Mr. Brown.
And one is food security. We have talked about this. I have
talked about it with Secretary Ridge. And from my--my
standpoint on the Agriculture Committee and just looking, I do
not see a lot really being done there. I do not know what kind
of plans are being made. Maybe they are. I just--I just do not
know about them. But, you know, we have so many entry points
for contamination of our food supply in this country.
And I know that if it were caught, it might--you know, if
something--if somebody worked to invade the food supply at one
of these entry points, they probably--because of the system we
have set up--it probably could be contained fairly rapidly.
However, it is the psychological impact that happens when
something gets in the food supply like that, and God forbid
some people die of that, what happens to the rest of this
country? Because as you know, some food--let us say a meat or a
meat product could enter at some point--just a couple three
points, and it could be all over the United States in the next
24 hours the way the delivery system is right now.
And yet we still continue with the same basic system that
we have had for a long time. And I just want your response as
to whether you think this is being due--given due consideration
at the--at your department.
Mr. Brown. I think that it is. I mean, I do not know that
much about it, simply because it is something that is not in my
area.
Senator Harkin. Yes.
Mr. Brown. But I do know that APHIS falls now under Border
and Transportation Security and that Under Secretary Hutchinson
is taking it very, very seriously.
But I would like to comment on a point that you made about
the terror aspect. I think the mitigation factor is one
important thing that FEMA brings to the table in the Department
of Homeland Security. When terrorists do something, they are
looking for two effects. They are looking for the immediate
effect their act has, such as blowing up something or killing
people.
Senator Harkin. Yes.
Mr. Brown. But beyond that, they are looking for the terror
that act imposed, and the disruption in the economy, or society
that it causes.
FEMA, I think, is well placed to mitigate those effects. If
you take a natural disaster or a manmade disaster, whether it
be the chemical truck that spills over accidentally or spills
over on purpose because of a terrorist incident, to the extent
that we can train firefighters and other first responders to
minimize the effect of that chemical truck spilling over, we
have taken away one of the tools of the terrorists.
Senator Harkin. All right.
Mr. Brown. We have mitigated against that.
Senator Harkin. Correct.
Mr. Brown. I want to emphasize that is the same attitude
that I know Under Secretary Hutchinson takes when he is
addressing the bioterror aspects of food and other agricultural
products.
FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION
Senator Harkin. The second part is probably maybe a little
bit more in your area, but I wanted to get that in about the
food supply. I will every time we have a hearing on this.
And I do not know if Senator Byrd asked--I heard him talk
about flooding in West Virginia, but in the--did you mention in
the 2003 appropriations bill, we had put in $150 million in
additional funds for flood plain mapping. And the need for
updated maps has been a long-term need across the country, and
when will those funds be released? Was that the question that
was asked? I do not know if that was asked. If it was not, I
would like--if it was----
Mr. Brown. Yes. Right. The Senator referred to the
additional $150 million.
Senator Harkin. Well, when will the funds be released?
Mr. Brown. We now have a process in place. I have learned a
lot just in the past couple of weeks about panels and how we
are putting different panels together around the country----
Senator Harkin. Yes.
Mr. Brown [continuing]. And then implementing this strategy
of defining the population, the risk areas, where the
repetitive losses are occurring, prioritizing those and
starting to get the funds out.
The funds are going out in two different mechanisms. They
are either going directly to the States which already have
their own programs, or to private companies which have their
own programs, so I think the funding has already started in
terms of modernizing those maps.
Senator Harkin. Well, I was not aware of that.
Mr. Brown. I am also told that those particular funds have
not been released from OMB yet. We have the strategy in place,
but the funds have not been released.
Senator Harkin. Okay. Well--and no time when, huh? And also
will the funds be allocated nationally so that each region can
meets its highest needs? What kind of--do you know anything
about the allocation of those funds?
Mr. Brown. Yes. It is going to be.
Senator Harkin. Okay.
Mr. Brown [continuing]. When I outlined the strategy to
Senator Byrd earlier, that was done with the stakeholders'
input and they have outlined on a national basis how we start
this. We jump start it all over the country.
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Byrd, do you have any additional questions?
EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER PROGRAM
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask a question about the Emergency Food and
Shelter Program. It has been well run, well managed by FEMA.
Now that FEMA has moved to the new department, the President
has proposed to move the program to the Department of Housing
and Urban Development.
Could you state what the rationale for moving a program
that had been effectively administered by FEMA to HUD may be?
Mr. Brown. The administration's position was that the
Emergency Food and Shelter Program was really not quite in sync
with the traditional role of FEMA, and more appropriately
belonged in Housing and Urban Development.
Senator Byrd. And Congress specifically chose to keep the
program in FEMA in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations
bill and rejected the President's proposal to move the program
to HUD. Are you committed to implementing the program in fiscal
year 2003?
Mr. Brown. Absolutely, Senator. If it stays with FEMA, we
will continue to implement it. If it moves, we will do
everything in our power to assist HUD in keeping that same
high-level standard of operation.
Senator Byrd. Well, I hope that the program does not fall
through the cracks at the Department. It is a popular program
in our communities. And it helps to address the growing crisis
of homelessness.
INTEGRATION OF FEMA INTO DHS
I have one more comment, then one more question, Mr.
Chairman.
In the past, the vast majority of FEMA's activities have
been in preparation for and in response to natural disasters.
FEMA is an all-hazards agency. But like many other Federal
agencies since September 11, FEMA has provided increased
resources to responding to terrorist threats.
What steps are you taking within the new Department to make
sure that your new agency's ability to respond to natural
disasters is not affected by its integration into the
Department of Homeland Security?
Mr. Brown. A couple of things, Senator. First of all, I
want to just state for the record that I am absolutely
personally committed to making certain that we do not lose that
capability and that approach.
But to specifically give you some examples of how we are
doing that, first and foremost, in the realignment that I am
taking FEMA through right now, we are realigning it along the
traditional lines of emergency management--preparation,
response, recovery, and mitigation. Those will be the four main
functions of this particular directorate.
I think it is important, secondly, that you understand that
I am going to do everything in my power to maintain our
relationship with State and local governments. I think you have
heard Director Albaugh say this, and I think Secretary Ridge
has said it. I want to repeat it, that when there is an
emergency, they do not dial 202, they dial 911.
The people who respond are the State and local governments.
We must continue to keep them in the loop and recognize that
they are the first responders. Those are the ones that we have
to make certain are prepared and know how to respond.
I cannot resist giving the example of the barge that
started burning in New York Harbor a few months ago and there
was a feeling that we ought to go do something, when, in fact,
it was a simple barge fire. I mean, not to minimize the effect
of a barge fire, but it was a barge fire in New York Harbor,
and it is something that the State and locals are trained to
respond to and which they did quite well.
We must maintain that focus. FEMA's focus must be on
responding when something is beyond the State and local
capability.
Senator Byrd. Well, there has been a great deal of concern
that State and local preparedness for natural disasters could
be impacted adversely by the integration of FEMA into the new
Homeland Security Department. In my own case, I am very
conscious of the natural disasters that occur so often, coming
from a mountainous country as I do, and having experienced so
many times over these past 50 years, Mr. Chairman, responding
to communities that have been stricken in those flood-prone
valleys; and having responded by seeking appropriations for
water resources projects, reservoirs, and so on. My
constituents and I are very concerned about this.
The Homeland Security Act instructs FEMA to maintain its
all-hazards focus. But, the threat of terrorism and the
Department's emphasis on it could overshadow the emphasis on
natural disasters. I have been comforted by the responses given
by Mr. Brown to my questions.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND SUPPORT TEAMS
You have not requested funding for the National Domestic
Preparedness Office, the Domestic Emergency Support Teams, or
for the Metropolitan Medical Response System; but your
directorate is responsible for administering these programs.
How will you pay for them?
Mr. Brown. We are currently going through a process of
analyzing what is actually in the budgets of those particular
programs in the other departments, and seeing what we can get
out of those departments to help fund those.
PRE- AND POST-DISASTER MITIGATION
Senator Byrd. Will pre-disaster mitigation and disaster
relief activities suffer in your judgment?
Mr. Brown. No, sir. They will not.
Senator Byrd. What makes you think that?
Mr. Brown. Because I think that the State and locals
recognize that pre-disaster and post-disaster mitigation are
both viable programs, and that in either direction we go, pre-
disaster or post-disaster, we can minimize the effects of
disasters. If we do it pre-disaster, we can do it based on our
longstanding understanding of where the risks are, of
encouraging the States to come in with plans, with the best
mitigation programs for their States and for their risks.
If we do it post-disaster, we will continue to do the same
thing we have done in the past, to go into a place where it has
been hit hard, where there is the motivation to do mitigation
programs. Either way, we can make it work.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I want to help you
when I can.
And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having a good
initial hearing. I think it has been a good one. You have been
most fair. I appreciate the time you have allotted me to ask
questions.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Byrd. We appreciate
your being here today and contributing to the hearing in the
way that you have, as well.
SEVERE ACUTE RESPIRATORY SYNDROME
Mr. Secretary, earlier today, I attended a hearing of the
subcommittee that appropriates money for the Department of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and we had before the
committee the heads of the National Institutes of Health and
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Gerberding,
who is the head of CDC, answered some questions, a few of which
I asked, about this Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)
virus that is scaring everybody from China to Mississippi and
West Virginia. People are concerned about it, and they are
fearful about what the consequences could be and how widespread
it is going to be and who all is going to be affected and what
we can do about it.
And the medical community, of course, is talking about
precautions that ought to be taken, and she responded to some
questions on that subject. My question is what is the
interaction that you expect to occur between the Centers for
Disease Control and your directorate in the investigation of
sudden disease outbreaks such as this?
Mr. Brown. I think we have already established a very good
precedent. When SARS initially broke out three or four weeks
ago, we had conference calls--I believe it was a Saturday or a
Sunday--where we started immediate interaction with them. Do we
need to deploy anything from the stockpile? What do we need to
do in terms of responding at all?
I think we have already established those great lines of
communication.
Senator Cochran. Does this relationship relate to both
terrorist activity, bioterrorism, as well as naturally
occurring virus outbreaks such as SARS? Is this handled in any
different way between you and the Centers for Disease Control?
Mr. Brown. No. I think SARS is a good example of the
biomedical programs and material that are coming into FEMA. It
shows that we are able to respond and communicate regardless of
what the source of the disease or the outbreak is; and that we
are willing to open those lines of communications and discuss
what is appropriate for the response.
Should FEMA and EP&R be doing something? Should the CDC or
NIH be doing something? I think it is just a good precedent we
started with the SARS outbreak.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS
Senator Cochran. Yes. Let me ask you about another subject,
the Emergency Management Performance Grants. This is a program
that was funded in fiscal year 2003 in the amount of $165
million, which was $49 million over what was requested by the
President. But in this budget request, there is no money being
proposed, as I understand it. Are we missing something? Is it
somewhere else in the budget and we just cannot find it, or is
there no request for the Emergency Management Performance Grant
program? Do you know?
Mr. Brown. I have not found it, Senator, and I think that
we need to recognize that the Emergency Management Performance
Grants are something that is vital to State and local
governments for them to operate and maintain their emergency
operation centers and their staffs. I just think it is a very
important program. We very much appreciate the additional money
you gave us.
Sixty percent of the $165 million is already out the door.
Senator Cochran. Yes. Well, it seems to me that this
program could contribute significantly to the challenge of
securing our homeland, because these funds are used by local
governments, as I understand it, to improve the capacity of
State and local emergency management systems to function in
times of emergency and in first responder situations.
Do you share my views of the importance of the program and
that it could be very useful in helping to secure our homeland?
Mr. Brown. I think it is very good for State and local
governments, yes.
DISASTER RELIEF FUND
Senator Cochran. My last concern is that you mentioned
earlier there was a shortfall in funding of the Disaster Relief
Fund. That is a little troubling to me; because this last
weekend, when I was in Mississippi on my way back to
Washington, there were a lot of thunderstorms throughout our
State, the mid-part of Mississippi. It was under thunderstorm
warnings for the better part of the afternoon, and a tornado
hit Meridian, Mississippi. And I was headed north to fly out of
the northern part of the State.
But my question is, if funds are needed for assisting local
governments like that and you say there is a shortage of
funding for the Disaster Relief Fund, I am worried that if we
do not put something in the supplemental, we are going to be
neglecting our responsibilities to these local governments.
You pointed out how there were funds in the pipeline. There
were needs out there and that OMB might be called upon to
reallocate or do something to make up the shortfall. My
question is, are supplemental appropriations required at this
time for the Disaster Relief Fund? There is no request for the
funds. What is the supplemental appropriation requirement?
Mr. Brown. Senator, if you wanted to go back to the
historical traditional funding of the Disaster Relief Fund, it
would probably be somewhere in the ballpark of, I think, $1.4
billion.
It would be $1.4 billion to get us back up to where we
were.
Senator Cochran. That is in addition to what has already
been spent in this fiscal year?
Mr. Brown. Correct. That is correct.
Senator Cochran. Well, I thank you very much. I think your
responses and your enthusiasm for the challenges of this job
are reassuring, certainly to me, and I think we are in good
hands with you serving as Under Secretary of this Department's
Emergency Prepardness and Response Directorate, as it is now
called.
I remember when James Lee Witt came before the Governmental
Affairs Committee. He came up for confirmation, and he had been
a local office holder in Arkansas. President Clinton had named
him as his first administrator of FEMA. And he came by to make
a courtesy call to talk about what he could expect and what
would be asked of him, and what he needed to prepare to do at
his confirmation hearing. And he was really kind of nervous
about the whole prospect.
He had seen things on TV that had scared him about what
could happen to you in hearings like that. But I could tell
right away he had the kind of disposition and commitment that
was probably going to equip him to be an excellent
administrator.
And as it turned out, well, he handled himself very well at
that hearing. I just said, ``Be yourself. Do not worry about
it. Just try to be as direct and candid with your responses as
you can. Nobody is going to be out to embarrass you. They all
understand that you have never been at a hearing like this.''
And he did perform well.
And he performed well as an administrator, because he
really sincerely cared about the people that needed help from
that Federal agency. And I think we have been blessed over time
with a lot of people like him. Joe Albaugh was like that. He
really wanted to make sure that when people needed help from
the Federal Government, from his agency, they were going to get
the help they needed.
And he was personally out there seeing that they got it.
And I think you are that same kind of person too. And I am
pleased to see you serving in this position, and I wish you
well. And you can be assured that our committee is going to
support you and try to help you do your job and to do it well.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Secretary feels
the $1.4 billion that he said is needed to bring it up is
necessary. Does he feel it is needed? Does he feel that the
supplemental should carry that?
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Cochran. I do not want to answer his question again
for him, but he said yes.
Senator Byrd. He did?
Senator Cochran. Yes.
Senator Byrd. I did not hear him say yes.
Senator Cochran. Well, he did.
Senator Byrd. Did he?
Senator Cochran. Is that what you said?
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. Okay. I do not have any hearing aid.
Okay. I--did you say yes?
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. Okay.
[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 Thad Cochran
ALL-HAZARDS APPROACH
Question. Please explain the steps you are taking to ensure those
non-homeland security functions within the Emergency Preparedness and
Response directorate are being preserved.
Answer. The Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate was
created to ensure that the Department maintains its ability to respond
to emergencies and disasters of all types. The Directorate is composed
of the primary disaster response, recovery, mitigation, and
preparedness programs formerly provided by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
While terrorism requires immediate and direct attention in the
present environment, our core mission is to provide leadership and
support to reduce the loss of life and property, and to protect our
Nation's institutions from all types of hazards through a
comprehensive, risk-based, all-hazards approach. The Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate continues to take an all-hazards
approach to preparedness, response, mitigation, and recovery, and we
continue to work with State and local governments, as well as the first
responder community, to this end. This consolidation of national
response assets allows the Federal Government not only to provide the
services that the American people have become accustomed to during
emergencies and disasters and which existed prior to the establishment
of the Department, but also enhances our ability to maximize Federal
resources, streamline delivery processes, and focus programs and assets
on State and local needs.
However, we are not resting on our past achievements. We will be
working with the Congress, other Federal partners, State and local
leaders, and other affected stakeholders to continue to enhance our
ability to respond effectively to all types of disasters.
The focus of the disaster programs formerly within FEMA was one of
an all-hazards approach. The all-hazards approach remains the focus and
benefits from the more global perspective of the Department and its
related components.
Question. How has Operation Liberty Shield and the increased needs
associated with elevating the terrorist threat level to orange affected
the non-homeland security functions of Emergency Preparedness and
Response?
Answer. The Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate's
Response Division maintains the ability to monitor, analyze, and
respond to situations resulting from any type of incident. Our response
programs are designed in an all-hazard manner to allow for timely and
effective response to emergencies and disasters. With the realignment
of Federal response assets into one centralized operational component,
this capability is enhanced.
With Operation Liberty Shield, we have experienced increased costs
associated with the protection of our facilities, as well as with
enhanced operational readiness. At the same time, we have also
maintained a more robust monitoring and assessment operation in support
of the Department's overall activities.
INTERNAL REORGANIZATION
Question. Where are you in the process of internal reorganization?
When can we expect to receive notice of the changes you are making?
Answer. The Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate has
been assertively pursuing internal reorganization as an effective means
of supporting the DHS mission and commitment to the American public as
well as the President's Management Agenda. Under Secretary Brown has
met individually with senior leadership/management of the Directorate
to discuss internal strategic goals, related priorities, and proposed
restructuring designed to enhance capabilities and effectiveness linked
directly to the overall DHS mission.
The Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate is finalizing
its realignment plan, which integrates the Federal disaster response,
recovery, mitigation and preparedness assets. Our main focus during
this process has centered on taking a careful look at the effectiveness
of existing programs, the processes necessary to fully integrate
disaster response programs from other Federal agencies, and meeting the
President's direction to establish a National Incident Management
System while maintaining full mission readiness to respond to
emergencies and disasters regardless of origin.
We expect to initiate this realignment in the near future, but
achievement of the full realignment may not realized until later this
year in order to ensure that we maintain our capabilities during the
upcoming hurricane season. Pending the official realignment of
operations within the Directorate, we will be working to affect the
immediate aligning of personnel to meet mission critical requirements
and maintain our response readiness capabilities.
Question. Will the Department seek to change the account structure
for Emergency Preparedness and Response to reflect this reorganization?
Would it be beneficial to restructure the accounts?
Answer. We have no plans to change the appropriation account
structure beyond what has already been proposed in the fiscal year 2004
Budget. However, as we realign our organization, we may change the
budget activity breakdown that is shown within an account for the
fiscal year 2005 budget request.
ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTER GRANTS
Question. Can you explain why the fiscal year 2004 budget request
shifts the Assistance to Firefighter Grants program from FEMA to the
Office for Domestic Preparedness?
Answer. Financial assistance to States for State and local first
responder terrorism preparedness is being consolidated through the
Office for Domestic Preparedness. For years, States and localities have
asked for a one-stop shop for grants. The proposal to shift grants for
first responders, including those for firefighters, to ODP will
accomplish this goal. This shift will also allow these grants to be
more focused on terrorism preparedness and better integrated with other
State and local funding priorities. However, key aspects of the current
program, peer review of competitive funding proposals and direct grants
to fire departments, will be retained in ODP. The move to ODP will
enhance program coordination with DHS' first responder programs, which
is the key goal of the move.
Question. What concerns do you have regarding this shift in the
administration of such an important grant program?
Answer. We believe that ODP will ensure that the program maintains
its high level of efficiency and cost effectiveness. EP&R looks forward
to working closely with ODP to make sure that this program will succeed
in enhancing the terrorism preparedness of our Nation's firefighters.
Question. What has been the demand for these grants?
Answer. In its first year (when departments were allowed to submit
two applications) the program received grant requests from about 18,980
departments totaling approximately $3 billion. In fiscal year 2002
(when only one application per department was allowed), the program
received requests from approximately 19,550 departments totaling $1.9
billion in Federal dollars. This year, the program received more than
19,950 requests totaling approximately $2.1 billion. However, it should
be noted that most major Federal grant programs receive more funding
requests than they can fund.
INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS
Question. When can we expect to receive a plan for how the $25
million for interoperable communications equipment will be allocated?
Please give us an update on your progress.
Answer. The implementation of the fiscal year 2003 interoperable
communications equipment grant program will be coordinated between the
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, Office
of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS); both departments
received funding in fiscal year 2003 for interoperable communications
equipment grants, with the direction to coordinate their efforts. In
the fiscal year 2003 Consolidated Omnibus Appropriation, EP&R received
$25 million for this purpose, and COPS received $20 million (out of
this, $5 million will go to the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) and $3 million to the National Institute for
Justice's AGILE Program).
We are aware that Congress has expressed interest in providing
additional funds for interoperability communications as part of the
Wartime Supplemental. If additional funding is provided, we believe it
would be advisable to run a single application process for all 2003
funds. We will work with COPS to provide an allocation plan as soon as
possible.
Question. Have you obligated any of the $25 million that was
appropriated for fiscal year 2003?
Answer. No. All COPS and EP&R funding for interoperability will be
awarded through a coordinated process which includes peer review. Grant
awards will be made in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year. EP&R and
COPS anticipate that awards will range from $50,000 to $2 million per
proposal, and expect the funds to be distributed in September.
Question. How does the agency plan to address this issue in fiscal
year 2004, since no funding was requested in the Emergency Preparedness
and Response budget?
Answer. The funding that will be awarded in fiscal year 2003
through the coordinated COPS/EP&R effort will provide funding to
jurisdictions across the Nation for demonstration projects that will
explore uses of equipment and technologies to increase interoperability
among the fire service, law enforcement, and emergency medical service
communities. These demonstration projects will illustrate and encourage
the acceptance of new technologies and operating methods to assist
communities in achieving interoperability.
Once technology is proven and accepted, standards will result that
will serve as the basis for future communication equipment purchases.
We anticipate that in future years, all equipment that would be
purchased by the first responder community would meet the requirements
of the standard. Funding for this equipment may be provided through the
$3.247 billion in first responder grants in the Office for Domestic
Preparedness. Over the last few years, approximately 17 percent of ODP
grant funds has been used for communications equipment. If this average
holds true in fiscal year 2004, the result will be a nearly four-fold
increase in the interoperability funding.
Question. How will FEMA continue the implementation and operation
of the systems put in place with the funding provided in fiscal year
2003 if no funding is provided in fiscal year 2004?
Answer. While there is a maintenance financial obligation
associated with all equipment purchases, the Administration believes
Federal grant funding should be focused on enhancing and improving
communications, not maintaining current investments. The funding
available in fiscal year 2003 will be used to demonstrate the
technologies and operating methods that will best assist communities in
achieving interoperability. Office for Domestic Preparedness grant
funds can support additional enhancements, but maintenance of these
systems is largely a State and local responsibility.
Question. Does the Department of Homeland Security anticipate
developing a system that allows other agencies from within the
Department to access funding for interoperable communications through
the Office for Domestic Preparedness?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security does not anticipate
developing a system that allows other agencies from within the
Department to access funding for interoperable communications. The
purpose of this funding is to allow local governments and first
responders to demonstrate interoperable communication equipment to help
DHS benchmark an acceptable standard. Federal agencies'
interoperability needs should be addressed as part of their ongoing
equipment acquisition process.
MITIGATION DIVISION
Question. Please give us an update on the implementation of the two
pre-disaster mitigation grants and flood map modernization.
Answer. The fiscal year 2003 Omnibus appropriations bill provided
$149 million to the National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund to initiate a
competitive grant program for pre-disaster mitigation planning and
projects for State, Tribal, and local governments. Such hazard
mitigation plans and projects will reduce overall risks to the
population and structures and, in the long term, will reduce reliance
on funding from disasters declared by the President.
As part of the fiscal year 2003 appropriations, EP&R was directed
to provide grants of $250,000 to each of the 50 States and five other
recognized entities for hazard mitigation planning, for a total
allocation of $13.75 million. The Notice of Availability of Funds for
the planning grants was published on March 3, 2003. Applications are
due to EP&R by April 30, 2003.
EP&R currently is putting in final form the fiscal year 2003
guidance for the competitive Pre-disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grant
Program, with an emphasis on factors such as cost-effectiveness,
States' priority ranking, technical feasibility, and consistency with
other Federal programs.
EP&R is also finalizing the guidance for the Flood Mitigation
Assistance (FMA) Program for fiscal year 2003. As in prior years, EP&R
will award planning, technical assistance, and flood mitigation project
grants under the FMA program. For fiscal year 2003, we have established
(as a national priority) mitigating repetitive flood loss properties,
insured under the National Flood Insurance Program, through the PDM and
FMA programs.
EP&R's fiscal year 2003 appropriations included $149 million for
Flood Map Modernization. In March, program staff met with key
stakeholders to finalize the approach for the inaugural-year
implementation. In April, the synopsis for a performance-based
management contract was published. The implementation strategy for this
initiative includes an emphasis on partnering with Federal, State, and
local organizations to accomplish three things: 1. Leverage Federal and
other public funds; 2. Increase local capability to produce and
maintain flood and other hazard data; and 3. Facilitate data management
by those who will benefit most from the information.
The National Flood Map Modernization strategy will be implemented
through two approaches. The first approach focuses on highest-risk
areas, as identified by our State and local partners, immediately
supporting our goal to reduce losses of life and property. Highest risk
areas are those with high growth, high population, and a history of
significant flood losses. We are investigating the feasibility of
basin-wide studies to take advantage of economies of scale in these
areas. The second approach involves capitalizing on areas that have
data that can be quickly and efficiently leveraged into usable flood
hazard data.
Question. What has been the response to date for pre-disaster
mitigation grant applications?
Answer. The Notice of Availability of Funds (NOFA) for the planning
grants was published on March 3, 2003. Applications are due to EP&R by
April 30, 2003.
EP&R is currently finalizing guidance for the competitive Pre-
disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grant Program and the Flood Mitigation
Assistance (FMA) Program. Applications for the competitive PDM will be
due 90 days after the publication of the NOFA, and we expect to begin
awarding PDM grants in September 2003.
Since the FMA funding is 2-year funding, applications will be
accepted from the date of publication of the fiscal year 2003 guidance
until March 2004. We expect to award FMA grants beginning in July 2003.
While none of the application periods for the various grants has
closed, we have received numerous inquiries and expect States to
actively pursue grants through these programs.
Question. What are the funding needs to continue these initiatives
in fiscal year 2004? Is the President's budget request sufficient to
meet these needs?
Answer. In fiscal year 2003, Congress provided $20 million for the
Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA), $149 million for the Pre-
disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grant Program, and reduced the standard
formula for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) from 15 percent
to 7.5 percent. The increase in the PDM program for fiscal year 2003
offsets the reduction in the HMGP, based on average annual HMGP funding
levels.
For fiscal year 2004, the President's budget proposes a level of
funding similar to that provided in fiscal year 2003, with a total of
$300 million proposed for the FMA and PDM programs combined. The FMA
and PDM programs provide a significant opportunity to raise awareness
of risks, and reduce the Nation's disaster losses through risk
assessment and mitigation planning. These programs will permit the
implementation of pre-identified, cost-effective mitigation measures
before disasters occur. Examples of these measures include establishing
disaster-resistant building codes, and retrofitting structures to
protect against wind, seismic, or flood hazards.
The Administration is requesting $200 million in Flood Map
Modernization funding for fiscal year 2004. Multi-year funding is
needed to update the entire national flood map inventory to digital
format.
RESPONSE DIVISION
Question. Which functions (budgets, personnel, daily operations,
etc.) of the Domestic Emergency Support Team, the National Disaster
Medical System and the Nuclear Incident Response Teams transferred from
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Health and Human
Services and the Department of Energy to the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS)? What is meant by operational control?
Answer. The National Disaster Medical System's (NDMS) operations,
budgets, and authorities have been transferred into the DHS. DHS and
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have entered into a
memorandum of understanding that provides the basis for HHS continued
administrative support for personnel, procurement, finance, and other
administrative systems until these functions can be moved to DHS or
beginning in fiscal year 2004, whichever is sooner. HHS continues to
support the personnel system used for the activation of approximately
8,000 civilian volunteers. Although the personnel system continues to
reside within HHS, this has not adversely affected the readiness of the
NDMS. The NDMS legislative authorities (Public Law 107-188) transferred
to DHS, and the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response
became the head of NDMS. For NDMS, operational control means managing
the System on a day-to-day basis, including authority to activate and
deploy, and to direct and manage response teams when they are deployed
to an incident. DHS is also responsible for the strategic development
of the response teams.
The Domestic Emergency Support Team (DEST) is a multi-agency
response element. The operational control of the DEST transferred from
the FBI to DHS on March 1st. While each agency supplies their own
personnel and equipment to the DEST, DHS has assumed the administrative
and logistical responsibilities for the team.
All program management responsibilities for the Nuclear Incident
Response Teams, including budgeting, staffing, training, equipping,
strategic planning, and maintenance, remain with the Department of
Energy. The responsibility for establishing standards, certifying
accomplishment of those standards, conducting joint and other exercises
and training, evaluating performance, and providing funding for
homeland security planning, exercises and training, and equipment is
now the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security.
The emergency response assets of the Department of Energy's
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) will deploy at the
direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Under
Secretary for EP&R, with the exception of the regional Radiological
Assistance Program (RAP) teams, which retain the authority to self-
deploy. While deployed, the emergency response assets fall under the
operational control of the Secretary of Homeland Security for the
length of the deployment. Operational control is the authoritative
direction over all aspects of nuclear/radiological operations and
provides the authority to perform those functions of command and
control over the response assets involving planning, deploying,
assigning tasks, designating objectives, and giving authoritative
direction necessary to accomplish the mission. Operational control
provides full authority to organize the deployed assets as the
Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Under Secretary for EP&R,
or his designee, considers necessary to accomplish assigned missions.
It does not, in and of itself, include authoritative direction for
logistics or matters of administration, discipline or internal
organization. All operational functions will be coordinated through the
Under Secretary for EP&R or his designee, and will be consistent with
current Presidential Decision Directives, Executive Orders, and
interagency contingency plans. All deployed assets will support the
designated Lead Federal Agency and the On-Scene Commander.
Question. Will the three teams essentially remain at their current
departments but receive funding through the Department of Homeland
Security?
Answer. The Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate is
undertaking the integration of these programs within the overall
Federal response structure to ensure that these programs are mission
capable to operate within the National Incident Management System. As
such, the Department will fund these programs to mission capability
standards. We will also be looking for ways to achieve cost savings
during this process. The integration of these teams, as well as the
capabilities of the Urban Search and Rescue Teams, offers the Federal
Government the overall capability to meet emergency and disaster
requirements in a more efficient and effective manner.
Question. Do you foresee any obstacles in this arrangement to the
successful operation of these vital systems?
Answer. The integration of operations, personnel and assets will
present challenges, but it will also create opportunities for
enhancement of programs and processes to better meet the needs of our
clients.
Question. What will the Emergency Preparedness and Response role be
with respect to BioShield if enacted into law?
Answer. The DHS role with respect to BioShield, if enacted, will be
to: assess current and emerging threats of use of chemical, biological,
radiological or nuclear agents; to determine which of such agents
present a material risk of use against the population; and to act as a
prudent manager of any funds made available through the BioShield
authority. The Emergency Preparedness and Response role would be to
ensure the timely inclusion of items procured through Project BioShield
into the Strategic National Stockpile, and in cooperation with HHS, to
ensure that Federal and State partners are well equipped to receive and
distribute allotments of these new countermeasures, as necessary.
The SNS will be able to maintain and deploy the innovative/new
medications and vaccines that become available under Project BioShield.
NDMS medical response teams will be able to utilize any new or
innovative vaccines and medications in their response to the event.
Question. Does the Department of Homeland Security have final
decision making authority over what products go into the stockpile, and
what products will be dispensed from the stockpile?
Answer. No. Under the law, the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) is responsible for determining the content and quantity
of items that go into the SNS. DHS, however, is responsible for working
with HHS to provide the intelligence assessments of the risks of
specific threats that the content of the SNS must address. DHS is also
responsible for funding the SNS, which gives it the fiduciary
responsibility to ensure that funds spent on additions to the SNS are
used appropriately. DHS does have final decision making authority over
the products that the SNS releases.
The Director of the NDMS will participate in workgroups that
provide assistance in the development of the formulary for our response
teams to have the necessary information about the medications and
vaccines in the SNS in order to provide the most effective response.
Question. If the Department has the authority, does it have the
medical expertise to make these decisions?
Answer. The Department's Strategic National Stockpile, housed in
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), identifies
treatment protocols for specific threats and works closely with public
and private subject matter experts in medicine, emergency response,
public health and other disciplines to define the most efficacious and
cost effective items for protecting the American public.
Subject matter experts within HHS, DHS, DOD and other Federal
agencies provide expertise in formulary development and oversight. The
SNS also includes nationally recognized law enforcement, scientific,
and medical experts from the non-Federal civilian sector to assist with
the review of the SNS formulary.
Question. Based on the development maturity and production
readiness of the needed vaccines and medications in the next 18 months,
can the Department effectively and efficiently spend such a large
amount of funds in one fiscal year?
Answer. If the vaccines and medications are available, we will be
able to purchase appropriate pharmaceuticals including vaccines,
antitoxins, and antibody enhancing drugs. However, production
constraints may result in the delivery of these items over a multi-year
period.
Question. How many different vaccines and medications actually will
be ready for Department of Homeland Security purchase in the next 18
months, and what is the cost estimate for each?
Answer. There will be continued procurement of currently produced
smallpox vaccine (Acambis) and anthrax vaccine (BioPort), as well as
heptavalent and pentavalent botulinum antitoxin that will be produced
in the next 6-18 months (Cangene). In addition, two new vaccines are
expected to be ready for procurement through project BioShield within
the next 18 months. These include a new-generation anthrax vaccine, as
well as a new smallpox vaccine. The costs of the new-generation
vaccines are not yet available, but a working group is meeting
regularly, and determining costs is one of their top priorities.
Question. Please provide for the record a detailed statement
demonstrating for each vaccine and medication its development maturity
and production readiness and how that status supports obligation of
specific funding amounts in fiscal year 2004.
Answer. Initiatives to support the intermediate-scale advanced
development of rPA and MVA vaccines are planned for late fiscal year
2003 and early fiscal year 2004 respectively. These initiatives may
include collection of preclinical and clinical data, such as:
production and release of consistency lots; formulation, vialing and
labeling of vaccine; development of animal models in at least two
species to support the FDA animal rule; process, assay and facility
validation; and clinical evaluation in initial phase II trials.
For next-generation recombinant Protective Antigen (rPA) anthrax
vaccine, two candidate products are in early product development.
Preclinical data for this vaccine are expected to be submitted between
July 2003 and September 2004, and clinical data are expected to be
submitted by March 2004. The estimated date for completion of this
phase of the rPA vaccine project is June 2004. For next-generation
Modified Vaccinia Ankara (MVA) smallpox vaccine, two candidate products
are in early product development. Preclinical data for this vaccine are
expected to be submitted between July 2003 and September 2004, and
clinical data are expected to be submitted by June 2004. The estimated
date for completion of this phase of the MVA vaccine project is
September 2004.
Question. Mandatory spending can reduce Congress's oversight and
visibility into a program and its ability to determine appropriate
funding levels. Why did the Department seek these funds through
mandatory spending instead of through annual appropriations?
Answer. As demonstrated by the support shown by Congress in passing
the Bioterrorism bill last year, Members have demonstrated their
support for expediting the progress in acquiring drugs and vaccines to
protect our citizens from bioattack. The Administration proposes this
permanent, indefinite authority to allow the government to purchase a
vaccine or medication as soon as experts agree it is a safe and
effective means of protecting the American people against a serious
threat from bioterrorism. This authority will also serve to assure
potential manufacturers that if they can create a safe and effective
product needed to counter bioterrorism threats, the government can
purchase it. The Administration recognizes that this is an
extraordinary request designed to meet an extraordinary threat, and
will continue to work with Members and the relevant Committees to
demonstrate the checks and oversight embedded in this proposal. The
Administration's intent is to accelerate the production of urgently
needed countermeasures, not to circumvent Congressional oversight.
Question. What information can the Department of Homeland Security
provide the Subcommittee to demonstrate that mandatory spending and not
annual appropriations is required to effectively accomplish this
program?
Answer. It is clear that the pharmaceutical and biologics industry
need incentives to engage in R&D, testing, and manufacture of
countermeasures to biological and chemical threat agents. The President
announced Project BioShield--a comprehensive effort to develop and make
available modern, effective drugs and vaccines to protect against
attack by biological and chemical weapons or other dangerous pathogens.
Specifically related to the question, the proposed legislation for
Project BioShield will ensure that resources are available to pay for
``next-generation'' medical countermeasures. The proposed legislation
creates a permanent indefinite funding authority to spur development of
medical countermeasures. This authority will enable the government to
purchase vaccines and other therapies as soon as experts believe that
they can be made safe and effective, ensuring that the pharmaceutical
and biologics private sector devotes efforts to developing the
countermeasures. The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary
of Health and Human Services will collaborate in identifying critical
medical countermeasures by evaluating likely threats, new opportunities
in biomedical research and development, and public health
considerations. Project BioShield will allow the government to buy
improved vaccines or drugs for smallpox, anthrax, and botulinum toxin.
Use of the proposed BioShield authority is currently estimated to
be $5.6 billion over 10 years. However, under the proposed authority,
funds would also be available to buy countermeasures to protect against
other dangerous pathogens, such as Ebola and plague, as soon as
scientists verify the safety and effectiveness of these products.
Question. What is the interaction between the Centers for Disease
Control and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate in the
investigation of a sudden disease outbreak, such as Severe Acute
Respiratory Syndrome?
Answer. EP&R monitors the status that CDC provides as it
investigates sudden disease outbreaks such as Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome. Should the outbreak threaten to overwhelm the ability of
State/local government's ability to deal with it, EP&R will deploy the
SNS and/or rapidly mobilize the support of multiple Federal agencies
under the Federal Response Plan. EP&R may also activate the National
Disaster Medical System (NDMS). CDC and EP&R are seeking an even closer
working relationship to enhance coordination with the SNS via an MOU.
EP&R personnel participated in a number of teleconferences with CDC
and HHS during the early stages of the investigation. Involvement from
the SNS occurs on a daily basis. Additionally, medical personnel from
the EP&R NDMS section review the daily CDC updates on SARS, and
interact with personnel from HHS on a regular basis.
Question. Does this relationship change based upon the
determination of the origin of a sudden disease outbreak (i.e.
naturally occurring or terrorist related)?
Answer. No, the relationship would not change. Generally, HHS is
the lead Federal department in health emergencies, irrespective of
whether those emergencies are caused by terrorist attacks, natural
disasters, outbreaks, or technological accidents. HHS responds through
its public health agencies and resources, including CDC, the Health
Resources and Services Administration, and the Food and Drug
Administration. EP&R would also respond to both naturally occurring and
terrorist health-related emergencies with the SNS and NDMS. If the
President were to declare a major disaster or an emergency under the
Stafford Act, EP&R, as the lead consequence management agency would
assume overall responsibility for coordinating the Federal response.
HHS, however, is the Federal lead under the Emergency Support Function
for health (ESF 8).
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS
Question. Please explain why funding for Emergency Management
Performance Grants was not included in the President's fiscal year 2004
budget request.
Answer. The Emergency Management Performance Grants are
consolidated into the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request for
first responder grants in the Office for Domestic Preparedness. This
reflects the Administration's belief that State emergency management
and homeland security planning should be integrated with State-level
homeland security efforts. Within the $3.6 billion request for ODP,
approximately $150 million will be allocated to non-personnel costs
previously covered by EMPG, including State and local strategic
planning and development of all-hazard operations plans. Personnel
integral to the administration and planning necessary to build
sufficient Federal plans and capacity are consistent with meeting
Federal responsibilities and will be supported. Personnel directly
meeting the important daily requirements of a State or local government
are expected to be supported at that level of government.
Question. Is consolidation of the Emergency Management Performance
Grants into ODP an indication that this administration is choosing to
focus more on the homeland security aspects of the new department and
less on the non-homeland security responsibilities. What is your view
regarding the Emergency Management Performance Grants?
Answer. The Emergency Management Performance Grants are being
consolidated with other grants within Department of Homeland Security
to provide ``one-stop'' shopping for first responders. While the
emergency management offices within the States have relied heavily on
the EMPG grants for years for all hazards capabilities, the fiscal year
2004 Budget emphasizes that these funds should be focused on enhancing
current capabilities, not supplanting State personnel costs.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
USE OF ORGANIZED LABOR
Question. Are efforts being taken by the Department of Homeland
Security to include organized labor in the planning of emergency
preparedness and response efforts?
Answer. The Emergency Response Directorate of the Department of
Homeland Security is always looking for opportunities to improve
planning for emergency preparedness and response efforts. EP&R has
worked closely with various organizations in our emergency preparedness
and response activities and plans to continue these relationships as
part of the Department of Homeland Security.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
DISASTER RELIEF FUND
Question. Please provide the most recent accounting of balances in
the disaster relief fund.
Answer. As of May 23, the unobligated balance in the Disaster
Relief Fund for non-terrorist related events was $445 million.
Unallocated funds totaled $281 million. Both of these amounts reflect
the fact that the President released $250 million in emergency
contingency funds on May 22, 2003.
Question. According to the Emergency Preparedness and Response
budget justifications, there was $3.9 billion in outlays from the
disaster relief account in 2002, which is, on average, $325 million per
month. Should OMB make the remaining balance in the contingent
emergency fund available this year, how much more will the Department
need to get through fiscal year 2003, assuming an average weather year?
Answer. Supplemental funds for the Disaster Relief Fund will be
required. The Administration is reviewing estimates of requirements and
will notify Congress formally once the requirements are known.
SEPTEMBER 11 RESPONSE
Question. Congress appropriated $8.798 billion to FEMA for response
to the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City. Have all of these
funds been obligated? Please provide an accounting of expenditures.
Answer. No, $6.4 billion has been obligated as of May 21. Another
$1 billion for Debris Removal Insurance is pending enabling legislation
by the New York State legislature to allow the City of New York to
create a captive insurance company or other appropriate insurance
mechanism to allow for claims arising from debris removal. In addition,
$90 million for Ground Zero Health Responders Health Monitoring is
pending completion of an Interagency Agreement with the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. The remaining $1.3 billion is reserved
for ongoing Human Services, Hazard Mitigation, and Public Assistance
Programs. In accordance with the Consolidated Appropriations
Resolution, 2003, remaining funds may be used for non-Stafford Act
costs by New York City and New York State ``associated with'' the 9/11
attacks. At this time, it appears that between $750 million and $1
billion of the $1.3 billion not yet obligated or earmarked will be
available for this purpose.
Question. There is currently $1,024,785 left in EP&R's September 11
response account. How will these funds be spent? Are these the funds
that can be used for non-Stafford Act funding? If not, describe the
estimates and plans for use of non-Stafford Act funds.
Answer. Currently, EP&R estimates that there will be between $750
million and $1 billion available for non-Stafford Act projects
``associated with'' the 9/11 event. The final amount will not be known
until EP&R, New York State, and New York City complete the expedited
close-out process by the end of June 2003. Both New York City and New
York State have submitted lists of non-Stafford Act projects for
funding consideration, and EP&R is drafting Project Worksheets for all
of the projects requested, with the understanding that actual grant
awards will only be made up to the amount of funding available.
Question. Within the $8.798 billion appropriated to FEMA, $2.75 was
for repair to transportation systems. How many funds total are
available for transportation system repair in New York, i.e. Department
of Transportation, Metropolitan Transit Association, PATH? Of the EP&R
amount, how much has been expended? Please detail past expenditures and
any known plans for remaining funds. What is the current estimate for
projects that New York is pursuing for transportation infrastructure
damaged on September 11?
Answer. The primary funding amounts available for transportation
system restoration in Lower Manhattan include: EP&R ($2.75 billion),
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) ($1.8 billion), Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA) (up to $1.5 billion--insurance), Port
Authority (up to $1.5 billion--insurance). In addition, there are
indications that the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation may commit
a portion of the remaining $1 billion of the Department of Housing
and Development's (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
for transportation system improvements. None of the EP&R funds has been
expended to date. EP&R has transferred its $2.75 billion to FTA through
an Interagency Agreement, and FTA is currently working with the MTA and
Port Authority to develop grant agreements for the initial projects.
There is no single definitive estimate for New York transportation
improvements for damaged infrastructure related to 9/11. The core
projects, i.e., PATH station, new MTA terminal, Pedestrian Concourse,
Highway 9A, South Ferry Station, and Port Authority Bus Terminal, are
estimated to cost nearly $5 billion. Additional projects being
contemplated to provide a direct rail connection between Lower
Manhattan and the Long Island Railroad, JFK International Airport, and
Newark Liberty International Airport may cost several billion dollars
more depending upon the final alternative's selected.
Question. Of the $8.798 billion appropriated for post September 11
FEMA activities in New York, $100 million was made available for the
individual assistance program for new air filtration systems. Please
provide the committee with a status report in light of reports that the
program was being used fraudulently by some individuals. What steps has
EP&R taken to ensure that the program is being used properly? How many
people have dropped out of the program? How many funds have been
returned? How will EP&R administer remaining funds?
Answer. To date, nearly $100 million of Federal funding has been
obligated to fund the New York State-administered Individual and Family
Grant program with grants going to more than 110,000 families. Although
program implementation is the responsibility of New York State, EP&R
has instituted an aggressive media outreach and home inspection program
to reduce fraud. As a result, approximately 101,000 applicants (45
percent) have withdrawn from the program. The amount of funds returned
to date is approximately $1.5 million; however, this figure includes
returns due to incorrect addresses and postal errors, which cannot be
easily separated out from funds returned by applicants. In addition,
this amount represents only voluntary returns to date. New York State
and EP&R are just beginning a comprehensive recoupment process to
recapture funds not expended in accordance with programmatic
guidelines. The $100 million is a program estimate, and it appears that
all of the funds will be expended by the time that New York State
completes grant processing; however, if there are funds remaining at
the end of the program, the balance will be reallocated to be used for
other eligible purposes.
BIODEFENSE COUNTERMEASURES
Question. The Department requests $890 million for permanent
indefinite authority for biodefense countermeasures. EP&R budget
justifications indicate that the government will be able to ``pre-
purchase critically needed vaccines or medication for biodefense as
soon as experts agree the vaccines and mediations are safe and
effective enough to place in the SNS.'' Who are these ``experts''? And
what is the process by which drugs will be tested for safety and
effectiveness prior to being placed in the SNS? How will EP&R
coordinate its activities with the Center for Disease Control?
Answer. The experts referenced in the budget justification include
researchers, scientists and doctors at the National Institutes of
Health (NIH), who would have the flexibility to seek outside expertise,
make special purchases, and face other management challenges that can
be barriers to quick progress in converting basic scientific
discoveries into usable products.
Furthermore, the Department's Strategic National Stockpile Program,
operated in coordination with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), utilizes clinically accepted treatment protocols for
specific threats and works closely with public and private subject
matter experts in medicine, emergency response, public health, and
other disciplines to define the most efficacious and cost effective
items for protecting the American public.
Subject matter experts within the Departments of Health and Human
Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), and Defense (DOD), as well as
in other Federal agencies, are routinely requested to provide expertise
in formulary development and modifications to a variety of threat
agents. The SNS Program also utilizes scientific and medical subject
matter experts from the non-Federal civilian sector to assist with the
review of the SNS formulary.
HHS is responsible for determining the content and quantity of
items that go into the SNS. DHS is responsible for working with HHS to
provide the intelligence assessments of the risks of specific threats
that the content of the SNS must address. DHS is also responsible for
funding the SNS and making final decisions over the products that the
SNS releases.
Use of a drug prior to licensure--a so-called Investigational New
Drug--has many safeguards built into it, including informed consent and
extensive follow-up monitoring. These are important provisions, but in
a crisis, they could prevent the drug from being made available in a
timely fashion to all the citizens who need it.
The emergency use authority is very narrowly focused and targeted:
only drugs under the direct control of the U.S. government could be
used, and only after certain certifications had been made. All use
would be voluntary. This emergency authority provides:
--The Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases with the increased authority and flexibility to award
contracts and grants for research and development of medical
countermeasures. Funding awards would remain subject to
rigorous scientific peer review, but expedited peer review
procedures could be used when appropriate.
--A finding by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, based on
expert analysis by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), that
the treatment in question was expected to have benefits in the
emergency situation that outweighed its expected risks.
--Greater flexibility in the FDA review process to meet the
circumstances of specific terrorist threats. Unlike typical
medical product approvals, the authority may be limited to
particular types of medical providers, patients and conditions
of use.
--A limited time period. It would remain in effect no more than 1
year, unless the specific terrorist threat justifies extension
of the authorization, and the available evidence indicates that
the countermeasure is providing important expected benefits.
CERRO GRANDE
Question. Please provide obligations and expenditures to date for
Cerro Grande fires. How many claims have been received to date? How
much has been requested in those claims? What are your best cost
estimates of future need?
Answer. To date, EP&R has approved $437,150,000 in response to
claims from the Cerro Grande fires and has expended $437,000,000.
21,512 claims for assistance have been received, 4,561 of which are
subrogation claims that have been filed by insurance companies and
those represent approximately $105,000,000. From the funds previously
made available by Congress, EP&R also paid eligible mitigation claims
to deter and prevent any future fire damage to property in the Los
Alamos area. According to FEMA's fiscal year 2002 financial statements,
audited by the Office of the Inspector General, the unfunded claim
liability for Cerro Grande totaled approximately $127,000,000.
Subsequent to the end of fiscal year 2002, the fiscal year 2003
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution provided an additional
$89,415,000, leaving a shortfall of approximately $36,000,000.
EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER
Question. How many staff administer the Emergency Food and Shelter
program? From when an appropriation bill is signed into law, how long,
on average, has it taken FEMA to get Emergency Food and Shelter program
funds to the National Board?
Answer. The appropriation for the Emergency Food and Shelter
Program does not provide for FTE. Staff administers the program as
collateral duties. The law requires that once appropriated funds have
been received by EP&R, they must be distributed to the National Board
within 30 days. On average, EP&R has provided the funds to the National
Board within 20 days of receipt of funding. HUD can meet the same
programmatic requirements, so the transfer of EFS to HUD will not
disrupt those operations.
U.S FIRE SERVICE
Question. What steps is the Department taking to respond to
findings in the National Fire Protection Association and FEMA's report
``A Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service?''
Answer. The findings of the December 2002 report, A Needs
Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service, are used to help guide United
States Fire Administration (USFA) program planning and funding
decision-making. However, these findings are regarded as advisory, and
not as formal Administration policy.
The following recent USFA initiatives specifically address issues
identified in the assessment:
--The Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program has distributed funds
targeted to firefighter operations, safety initiatives, new
vehicle purchases, EMS training and equipment, and fire
prevention programs.
--A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed to create Incident
Management Teams in large metropolitan areas for large-scale
emergencies and to ensure that highly qualified personnel are
available for response throughout the Nation.
--Training at the National Emergency Training Center for fire and
emergency management personnel has been expanded to address new
developments and challenges in planning, response, and recovery
from emergencies of all types and scope.
PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION
Question. In fiscal year 2003 Congress appropriated $149,025,000 to
the Nation Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund. Congress directed that each of
the 50 States received grants of $250,000 for planning pre-disaster
mitigation projects. The fiscal year 2004 budget proposed that these
grants be made competitively. Why does the Administration request this
change?
Answer. For fiscal year 2004, the President's budget proposed a
level of funding similar to that provided in fiscal year 2003, with a
total of $300 million proposed for the Flood Mitigation Assistance
(FMA) and Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program combined.
Awarding grants on a competitive basis will ensure that the most
worthwhile, cost-beneficial projects receive funding, such as, but not
limited to, those containing properties insured under the National
Flood Insurance Program that have suffered repeated losses and for
which multiple claims have been paid. With the significant source of
pre-disaster mitigation funding now available, we have an opportunity
to implement a sustained pre-disaster mitigation program to reduce
overall risks to the population and structures, while reducing reliance
on funding from actual disaster declarations. Furthermore, the analysis
required for a competitive process will raise awareness of risks and
reduce the Nation's disaster losses through risk assessment and
mitigation planning, and the implementation of planned, pre-identified,
cost-effective mitigation measures that are designed to reduce
injuries, loss of life, and damage and destruction of property from all
hazards, including damage to critical services and facilities.
The fiscal year 2004 budget reflects a total shift to pre-disaster
preparation and mitigation, with funds that are dedicated to pre-
disaster mitigation, operating independently of the Disaster Relief
programs, assuring that funding remains stable from year to year and,
therefore, not subject to reliance on funding from actual disaster
declarations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
OFFICE FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS
Question. How was it decided that the Office of Domestic
Preparedness (ODP) would be placed in the Borders and Transportation
Directorate and not in Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate?
Does this move create a split between preparedness for terrorism events
and other types of disasters and emergencies?
Answer. The President's plan for the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security placed the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP)
with the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate. However,
prior to passing the Department of Homeland Security Act, Congress
changed the location of ODP to the Borders and Transportation Security
Directorate.
Question. How will the transfer of FEMA's Office of National
Preparedness to ODP affect FEMA's preparedness mission and programs?
Answer. The staff and terrorism-related functions of the Office of
National Preparedness (ONP) have been consolidated into the Office for
Domestic Preparedness, consistent with the intent of the Homeland
Security Act. Consistent with a reorganization proposed by the Under
Secretary, those ``all-hazards'' activities formerly associated with
ONP will be transferred to a newly created Preparedness Division within
EP&R.
2004 FUNDING LEVEL
Question. FEMA funding for fiscal year 2004 appears on the surface
to be greatly increased in this budget, but a closer look shows that
most of that funding goes to Bioshield and a few specific programs.
Given that fact, how will FEMA cope with its new responsibilities when
it will only be receiving level funding for traditional programs?
Answer. Funding was transferred to EP&R for its new
responsibilities. In addition, some of FEMA's functions and resources
related to first responders were transferred to other organizations
with the Department of Homeland Security.
ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS
Question. In the fiscal year 2004 budget request the President
proposes that the Assistance to Firefighters grant program be
transferred to ODP and away from the U.S. Fire Administration, which
has managed it to date. What was the policy reason behind this
proposal?
Answer. Financial assistance for State and local first responder
terrorism preparedness is being consolidated through the Office for
Domestic Preparedness. For years, States and localities have asked for
a one-stop shop for grants. The proposal to shift grants for first
responders, including those for firefighters, to ODP will accomplish
this goal. This shift will also allow these grants to be more focused
on terrorism preparedness and better integrated with other State and
local funding priorities. However, key aspects of the current program,
peer review of competitive funding proposals and direct grants to fire
departments, will be retained. The move to ODP will enhance program
coordination with DHS' first responder programs, which is the key goal
of the move.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Cochran. Well, Mr. Brown, thank you very much. You
have been an excellent and cooperative witness. We appreciate
it very much. We wish you well as you carry out your duties as
Under Secretary of this directorate.
Our next hearing is going to be on Thursday at 2 o'clock in
room 192 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Our witness at
that time will be the Department of Homeland Security's Under
Secretary for Science and Technology, Dr. Charles McQueary.
Until then, the subcommittee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 3:29 p.m., Tuesday, April 8, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m. Thursday,
April 10.]