[Senate Hearing 108-705]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:20 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Thad Cochran, (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Cochran, Specter, Byrd, and Murray.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Office of the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Responses
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL D. BROWN, UNDER SECRETARY,
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
DIRECTORATE
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER
Senator Specter [presiding]. Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen.
I was attending a Judiciary Committee executive session
upstairs where we are trying to move forward on the
confirmation of many judges, when I heard that this hearing
lacked a Republican. It should not be too hard to find a
Republican in the Senate complex on a Thursday morning. And
then I received a summons from Senator Byrd. Now, a summons
from Senator Byrd is not quite like a subpoena.
But it is close. And you know what happens when you do not
respond to a subpoena. There is a bench warrant, and that could
be very serious. So, I left the Judiciary Committee exec room
to convene this hearing. I am going to have to return shortly.
Today this subcommittee will continue the review of the
fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Department of Homeland
Security. We are pleased to welcome the Under Secretary of the
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Mr. Mike
Brown. We will review this year's budget request and work with
you, Mr. Brown.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Homeland security is obviously a top priority for this
country, reflected in the President's budget request for an
increase of 9.7 percent, whereas the discretionary funding got
only a half of 1 percent, defense some 7 percent.
Without objection, the full statement, which had been
prepared for Senator Cochran will be included in the record,
and we now turn to your testimony.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
The hearing will come to order.
Today we continue our review of the fiscal year 2005 budget request
for the Department of Homeland Security.
I am pleased to welcome to this hearing the Under Secretary of the
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Mike Brown.
Our Committee will work hard to provide the funds this Directorate
needs to carry out its responsibilities and perform its mission
successfully.
We thank you for submitting a copy of your statement in advance of
this hearing. It will be made a part of the record, and we invite you
to make any comments you think would be helpful to the committee's
understanding of the budget request.
Now, I will yield to Senator Byrd and other Sentors who may wish to
make opening statements.
Senator Specter. Excuse me. The custom is to call on the
ranking member, the ranking member of the full committee,
former President Pro Tempore, chairman of the full committee,
and so many titles. If I went through them, you would not have
any time left, Mr. Brown.
Senator Byrd.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD
Senator Byrd. Thank you. America has done some great
things. It put a man on the moon, brought him back to earth
safely again, but it has never been able to produce a truly
good loudspeaker system.
I appreciate your kind remarks about me. Plato thanked the
gods for having been born a man, for having been born a Greek,
and for having lived in the age of Socrates. I thank the gods
for permitting me to live in the same age and serve at the same
time in the United States Senate with a chairman and also a
Pennsylvania Senator on this committee who presided over this
committee with such dignity and skill. I thank Senator Specter
for his remarks.
Mr. Chairman, the Senator from Pennsylvania had turned to
me for a statement. May I proceed?
Senator Cochran [presiding]. Please.
Senator Byrd. Welcome, Mr. Brown. No relation to Jimmy
Brown, the newsboy of this town, but a good man nevertheless.
In April of last year, when you testified before this
subcommittee, I asked you how Congress could be sure that the
agencies merged into the new Department of Homeland Security
with specific missions unrelated to homeland security, such as
preventing and responding to natural disasters, would have the
resources to accomplish their missions. In your response, you
assured the committee that FEMA would continue--and I quote--
``to protect our Nation's institutions from all types of
hazards through a comprehensive, risk-based, all-hazards
approach.''
ALL-HAZARDS EMERGENCY PLANNING
In your written testimony today, you stress a continued
commitment to all-hazards emergency planning, but frankly, as I
see it, the President's policies ignore that commitment. I will
repeat that again. As I see it, the President's policies ignore
that commitment.
States and local communities look to FEMA to provide the
resources and expertise that they need to meet a wide range of
challenges. Today, possibly more than ever before, our States
and local communities have to be ready to cope with disasters
such as floods, earthquakes, chemical incidents, disease in our
food supply, and other public health emergencies. Given the
events of 9/11, States and communities must also prepare for
preventing or responding to terrorist attack. And this is why a
focus on all-hazards preparedness is so important.
However, rather than embrace the all-hazards approach to
emergency planning, the President's budget undermines it.
Rather than develop the capacity to respond to a terrorist
attack within the framework of all-hazards planning, the
President's budget, in essence, mandates that State and local
governments give priority to anti-terrorism programs at the
expense of other potential disasters.
TRANSFER OF SEVERAL ALL-HAZARDS PROGRAMS FROM FEMA INTO A NEW OFFICE OF
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION AND PREPAREDNESS
The Administration proposes to transfer several all-hazards
programs out of FEMA and into a new Office of State and Local
Government Coordination and Preparedness. That office's
mandate, as laid out in the Homeland Security Act, is to help
State and local governments effectively combat terrorism.
Under the consolidation proposal announced by the Secretary
on January 26, 2004, and under the President's budget proposal
for fiscal year 2005, emergency management performance grants,
community emergency response team grants, and the metropolitan
medical response system will all be shifted into this newly
expanded office. And yet, this new office does not have the
expertise or the regional staff experienced in all-hazards
planning. FEMA has that expertise.
Yesterday I joined with Representative Martin Sabo, the
ranking member of the House Appropriations Homeland Security
Subcommittee, in sending a letter to Secretary Ridge urging him
not to proceed with the reorganization of the emergency
management performance grants and community emergency response
team programs, along with several Transportation Security
Administration programs.
PROPOSED CUTS TO FIRE GRANTS FUNDING
Furthermore, the administration proposes to cut funding for
fire grants by $246 million and emergency management
performance grants by $9 million and, at the same time, mandate
that States give priority to terrorism preparedness. This is a
squeeze play that States cannot afford.
I will give you a rhetorical question at this point. Where
do these policies leave a small town fire department in West
Virginia or Mississippi, or other rural States, that needs to
purchase breathing apparatus or equipment to deal with a
chemical spill? We have one of the largest chemical complexes
in this country, in the Western Hemisphere as a matter of fact,
in the Kanawha Valley. So this comes home to us in West
Virginia.
PROPOSAL TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FUNDS THAT CAN BE
SPENT ON SALARIES
The President also proposes to limit the amount of
emergency management funds that can be spent on salaries. This
provision would drive a stake through the heart of State and
local all-hazards planning efforts.
TERRORIST ATTACK CONCERNS
I am as concerned as anyone about the possibility of future
terrorist attacks, but I am also greatly concerned that
preparing for such an attack will come at the expense of
preparing for other types of disasters if this administration's
budget proposal is enacted.
There are elements in the budget request that are
praiseworthy. The Administration is again requesting $200
million for the flood map modernization initiative. This
initiative is so important to flood-prone States such as West
Virginia. I am also pleased to see an adequate and timely
budget request for the disaster relief fund. Last year we came
very close to running out of money in the disaster relief fund
and nobody--not even OMB it seems--wants to go through that
again this year.
Also, the Administration's budget recognizes the importance
of pre-disaster and post-disaster mitigation funds. Post-
disaster mitigation funds help communities pay for mitigation
activities right after a disaster occurs, when communities have
the will and the momentum to complete such projects. I hope we
can do even more post-disaster mitigation in the future.
West Virginia endured four Federally declared disasters
last year. No State is more grateful for, and no State is more
in need of, FEMA's programs and expertise than West Virginia.
And I want to compliment you on the excellent work that you and
your staff have done. You have not failed us in West Virginia
where we are very keenly aware of and live often with disasters
that are not manmade.
So, I look forward to hearing your testimony, Mr. Under
Secretary, and to working with you to preserve FEMA's all-
hazards planning programs.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your patience and
kindness.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Byrd.
Senator Murray.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you so much. I join my colleagues in welcoming you
here today. You have a tremendous task before you and I thank
you for your service.
FIRST RESPONDER FUNDING
My colleague, Senator Byrd, discussed the more visible
issues regarding first responder funding. I too am very
concerned about the proposal to shift the homeland security
grants into the Office of Domestic Preparedness. Streamlining
these programs is a key element to ensure our local communities
get the needed resources in a timely manner, but the programs
that are traditionally supported by TSA and FEMA I do not
believe should be forced to compete with our first responders
for funding.
I am also really concerned that the President's budget
request cuts State grants for first responders by $990 million.
It cuts training for first responders by $103 million and
eliminates the COPS program. That is almost $2 billion in cuts
for first responders nationwide at a time when our State and
local budgets just do not have the capacity to absorb those
additional costs. So, I am very concerned about that. I am
confident that Congress will prevent this administration from
decimating those essential first responder programs and I want
my colleagues to know that I will work with them to restore
that.
I do have a number of questions for you and I will wait for
my time. But thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this
hearing.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Brown, we have a copy of your statement which we
appreciate very much your submitting to the committee in
advance of the hearing. It will be made a part of the record in
full. We encourage you to make whatever comments you would like
to make in support of the budget request that will be helpful
to our understanding of the request. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL D. BROWN
Mr. Brown. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
Senator Byrd, thank you for your kind comments, and Senator
Murray, you also.
My name is Michael Brown. I am the Under Secretary for
Emergency Preparedness and Response of the Department of
Homeland Security. I am, indeed, honored to appear before you
today to talk about FEMA's accomplishments over the past year
since we became a part of the Department of Homeland Security.
But more importantly, I want to highlight some of our
priorities for fiscal year 2004 and discuss why support of the
President's budget request for 2005 is critical to ensure that
FEMA can continue to fulfill its traditional mission.
FEMA has undergone changes since becoming a part of
Homeland Security, both externally and internally, but we have
not changed our focus. As part of the Homeland Security
Department, FEMA has continued the tradition of responding to
help disaster victims and those in need wherever disaster or
emergencies strike.
On March 1, FEMA will celebrate its first full year as a
part of the Department of Homeland Security. We are proud to be
part of this historic effort and are more committed than ever
to do our duty as defenders of the homeland. We believe that
the Federal-wide consolidation of all-hazards preparedness,
mitigation, response, and recovery programs brings real benefit
to the American public.
FISCAL YEAR 2003 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
In fiscal year 2003, FEMA responded to 62 major disasters
and 19 emergencies, covering 35 States, 4 U.S. territories, and
the District of Columbia. These disasters included the record
number of tornadoes in the Midwest, the unfortunate loss of the
Space Shuttle Columbia, Hurricane Isabel, and the absolutely
devastating wildfires in California. In fiscal year 2003, FEMA
obligated nearly $2.9 billion in fiscal year 2003 disaster
funds to aid people, victims and communities that were
overwhelmed by these disasters.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 PLANS
In fiscal year 2004, FEMA is focusing on our five major
program areas: mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery,
and national security.
Our mitigation efforts center on modernizing our Nation's
flood maps, providing pre-disaster mitigation grants and
enhancing the national flood insurance program.
In the Preparedness Division, we will support the
Department's efforts to put into place a national incident
management system that will help improve coordination of
disaster response at all levels, and we will also publish
mutual aid system development, credentialing, and equipment
interoperability standards.
In 2004, our response capabilities continue to grow as we
field enhanced response teams and resources, improve our
response times, put into place plans for catastrophic events,
and improve our training. For those impacted by disasters, FEMA
continues to provide appropriate and effective disaster
recovery assistance.
Finally, we are ensuring that the FEMA national security
program has adequately staffed, trained, equipped, and
exercised the continuity of operations and the continuity of
Government programs.
FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST
Looking ahead to fiscal year 2005, the President's budget
request is critical to ensuring that FEMA can continue to
fulfill its traditional mission. The President's budget again
requests $150 million for the pre-disaster mitigation program
to help minimize the devastation caused by natural disasters.
The budget also requests $200 million to continue the
replacement and modernization of the Nation's flood insurance
rate maps, and includes $7 million in new budget authority for
the development and implementation of the national incident
management system as part of the national response plan. These
two initiatives will ensure that all levels of government
across the Nation are prepared to work together efficiently and
effectively employing a single national approach to domestic
incident management.
The President's budget request includes $8 million in new
budget authority for four incident management teams to act as
the core field level response management teams for major
disasters, emergencies, and acts of terrorism.
The President's budget also provides $2.9 billion for
disaster relief, a level consistent with the average non-
terrorist disaster costs over the past 5 years.
I can assure you, Senators, that President Bush appreciates
the importance of recovery. I had the distinct honor of joining
the President in touring Missouri last spring after the
devastating tornadoes struck Pierce City, Missouri. It was
absolutely a downpour. The President gets out of the car, and
goes over to visit with a couple who were standing in front of
their damaged storefront. This couple also had damages to their
home, but using FEMA's temporary housing, our immediate needs
assistance, their insurance, and SBA home and business loans,
this couple is now recovering. The President recognizes the
importance of this type of all-hazards planning, as evidenced
by his $2.1 billion request for the disaster relief fund.
OFFICE OF NATIONAL SECURITY COORDINATION
In fiscal year 2005, FEMA's Office of National Security
Coordination will also continue to carry out its mandated
mission to provide executive agent leadership, to ensure
continuity of national operations in response to all-hazards
emergencies in order to guarantee the survival of an enduring
constitutional government.
In summary, during the last year, FEMA has continued to
carry out its traditional mission. Successful implementation of
the new initiatives and the ongoing activities I have discussed
today will improve our national system of mitigating against,
preparing for, responding to, and recovering from disasters and
emergencies caused by all hazards.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In closing, on a personal note, I want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, Senator Byrd, Senator Murray, for the absolute
wonderful support that you have given FEMA over the past years.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have at
this time.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael D. Brown
Introduction
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
Michael Brown, Under Secretary for the Emergency Preparedness and
Response Directorate (EP&R) of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), which includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
I am honored to appear before you today to talk about FEMA's
accomplishments of this past year since it has become part of the
Department of Homeland Security. More importantly I want to highlight
our priorities for fiscal year 2004 and why support of the President's
Budget request for fiscal year 2005 is critical to insure that FEMA can
continue to fulfill its traditional role of preparing for, mitigating
against, responding to, and recovering from disasters and emergencies
caused by all hazards.
FEMA has undergone significant changes since becoming part of DHS--
both external and internal--but it has not changed its focus. As part
of DHS, FEMA continues its tradition of responding to help disaster
victims and those in need whenever disasters or emergencies strike.
Transition into the Department of Homeland Security
On March 1st, FEMA will celebrate its first full year as part of
the Department of Homeland Security. We are proud to be part of this
historic effort and are more committed than ever to our duty as
defenders of the Homeland. We made significant strides in our first
year as a component of the Department, and we continue to see the
advantage of and realize benefits from being part of a larger
organization. We believe that the Federal-wide consolidation of all-
hazards preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery programs
brings real benefit to the American public.
Since March 1st of last year, FEMA has worked to merge disaster-
related public health programs from the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) into a comprehensive and unified national response
capability. These programs include the National Disaster Medical System
(NDMS), which is designed to provide a single, integrated, national
medical response capability to augment the Nation's emergency medical
response capability when needed for major disasters and Federally
declared emergencies. Another important public health-related program,
the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS), maintains large quantities of
essential medical items that can be provided for the emergency health
security of the United States in the event of a bioterrorist attack or
other public health emergency and to support State and local
communities during emergencies.
FEMA also successfully merged a multiplicity of other disaster
response teams and assets from different departments and agencies to
create a unified national response capability within the Department of
Homeland Security. Among these teams and assets, now merged within
FEMA's Response Division, are the:
--National Disaster Medical System,
--Domestic Emergency Support Team, and
--Strategic National Stockpile
FEMA has also been given operational control of the Nuclear
Incident Response Team in certain circumstances, including the event of
an actual or threatened terrorist attack.
As we settle into DHS, we continue to leverage the extensive
experience and capabilities of the Department's other components. For
example, in responding to Hurricane Isabel, we received aerial imaging
and aviation support from our friends at Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) and the U.S. Coast Guard. We are partnering with the
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate to
improve our damage prediction and resource placement decisions and to
take advantage of their critical infrastructure resources and
expertise. We look forward to continuing and increasing such
cooperation in the future.
Fiscal Year 2003 Accomplishments
In fiscal year 2003, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
obligated nearly $2.9 billion in disaster funds to aid people and
communities overwhelmed by disasters, including floods, ice and winter
storms, wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, typhoons, and tropical
storms. In addition, FEMA obligated $6.8 billion to fund projects
associated with the September 11 response. Overall, FEMA responded to
62 major disasters and 19 emergencies in 35 States, 4 U.S. Territories
and the District of Columbia. These events included the record Midwest
tornadoes, Super Typhoon Pongsona and Hurricanes Claudette and Isabel.
The 19 emergencies declared in 2003 included the loss of the Space
Shuttle Columbia, the President's Day snowstorm, and the Northeast
power outages.
While the California fires in October left an indelible mark in our
memories, the Nation's fire season in 2003 was not as busy, with
exceptions, in Montana and Arizona. But in the areas impacted, the
fires were devastating and severe. In fiscal year 2003, FEMA approved
assistance for 34 fires in 11 States, compared with 83 fires in 19
States in fiscal year 2002.
In fiscal year 2003, Congress supported the President's efforts to
promote disaster mitigation, through the creation and funding of two
important initiatives: the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program and
the Flood Map Modernization Program. Great strides have been made in
both of these areas in the last year. These two programs will
ultimately result in the reduced loss of life and property throughout
our Nation.
FEMA's Preparedness Division awarded more than $160 million in
Emergency Management Performance Grants to the States to maintain and
improve the national emergency management system. To date, the United
States Fire Administration has awarded over $650 million in grants to
fire departments across the Nation as part of the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program. Both of these programs are now requested in
the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) portion of the Department's
budget for fiscal year 2005 and we are working very closely with ODP on
transferring these programs. FEMA also provided a total of 17
interoperable communications equipment grants for $79.57 million, and
the Emergency Management Institute, the National Fire Academy (NFA) and
the Noble Training Center together trained more than 290,000 fire and
emergency management and response personnel nationwide.
In our response to Hurricane Isabel, last September, we
demonstrated a more forward-leaning and proactive response posture and
made every effort to improve communication, coordination and timely
delivery of critical disaster supplies. FEMA increased the frequency of
daily video teleconferences with the impacted States and meteorological
and river forecasting centers, jointly planned response actions with
the States, pre-positioned materials, and opened multiple staging areas
and mobilization centers in anticipation of response needs. These and
other changes we have made allow us to continue to improve Federal
disaster response efforts. We will continue to take advantage of the
lessons learned and best practices from Isabel and other disasters, and
apply them in our programs to change the impact of future events.
Also during fiscal year 2003, FEMA launched the Continuity of
Operations Readiness Reporting System, a single automated system that
allows Federal Executive Branch departments and agencies to report the
state of their Continuity of Operations capabilities and readiness. The
System has been tested and will be fielded this year. In addition to
technology upgrades and improvements, FEMA's Office of National
Security Coordination maintained a 24/7 operational readiness
capability in support of National Security programs, including the
initial planning and coordination for an interagency Continuity of
Operations exercise, Exercise Forward Challenge 2004, to take place
later this year.
Fiscal Year 2004 Priorities
In fiscal year 2004, FEMA is focusing on its five major program
areas: Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, Recovery, and National
Security.
Our Mitigation efforts center on modernizing our Nation's flood
maps, providing Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grants, and enhancing the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). For Map Modernization over 300
mapping projects, valued at approximately $85 million, were launched
nationwide in fiscal year 2003 and we are working with State and local
representatives to identify projects for fiscal year 2004. The PDM
grants will again provide stable funding to assist State and local
governments to reduce risks. The number of NFIP policies will be
increased by 5 percent.
Our Preparedness Division will support the Department's efforts to
put into place a National Incident Management System (NIMS) that will
help improve coordination of disaster response at all levels. In
addition, we will publish Mutual Aid System Development, Credentialing
and Equipment Interoperability Standards. Our support for training and
exercises continues to enhance the Nation's emergency management
capabilities and increasing fire preparedness remains a central
mission.
In 2004, our Response capabilities continue to grow. We will field
enhanced response teams and resources, improve our response times, put
plans into place for catastrophic events, and improve our training. We
will continue to consolidate and integrate all of our different
disaster response programs, teams, and assets; design new approaches;
and implement new efficiencies that will result in a more unified,
integrated, and comprehensive approach to all-hazards disaster
response. We want to elevate our operational response capabilities to a
whole new level of proficiency, one that will further the principles of
the National Response Plan (NRP) and the National Incident Management
System (NIMS) to better serve the American people.
For those impacted by disasters, FEMA continues to provide
appropriate and effective disaster recovery assistance. Simultaneously,
we continue to focus on re-designing our Public Assistance Program and
developing a catastrophic incident housing recovery strategy. These
efforts will enhance our current capabilities and better position us to
recover from a catastrophic event.
Finally, we are ensuring that the FEMA National Security Program
has adequately staffed, trained, equipped, and exercised Continuity of
Operations (COOP) and Continuity of Government (COG) programs to
guarantee the survival of Enduring Constitutional Government.
Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Highlights
The President's fiscal year 2005 Budget for FEMA:
--Assumes a $2.9 billion spending level for disaster relief--a level
consistent with the average non-terrorist disaster costs over
the past 5 years. This includes more than $2.1 billion in new
disaster funds, as well as funds expected to remain available
from prior years. This is over $300 million more than the
fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
--Continues implementation of Project BioShield, which encourages the
development and purchase of necessary medical countermeasures
against weapons of mass destruction. Through an advance
appropriation, $2.5 billion is made available beginning in
fiscal year 2005. These funds will be obligated through fiscal
year 2008.
--Includes $20 million in new budget authority for planning and
exercises associated with improving medical surge capabilities.
--Includes $8 million in new budget authority for four Incident
Management Teams (IMTs) to act as the core, field-level
response teams for major disasters, emergencies, and acts of
terrorism.
--Includes $7 million in new budget authority for development and
implementation of the National Incident Management System
(NIMS), specially designed to provide a basic framework of
organization, terminology, resource identification and typing;
training and credentialing; and communications protocols to
deal effectively with incidents of all sizes and complexities
involving Federal, State, and local governments, Tribal
Nations, and citizens.
--Continues the President's Pre-Disaster Mitigation program, which
helps to minimize the devastation caused by natural disasters
through a competitive grant process that supports well-designed
mitigation projects. In fiscal year 2005, we will initiate
post-disaster evaluations to begin documenting losses avoided
and assessing program impact.
--Continues the replacement and modernization of the Nation's Flood
Insurance Rate Maps.
--Transfers the Strategic National Stockpile to DHHS. As a result of
the transfer, $400 million is moved to DHHS to maintain the
stockpile and strengthen its future capacity with new and
needed medical products as soon as they become available.
--Transfers the Emergency Food and Shelter Program to the Department
of Housing and Urban Development.
Mitigation
FEMA's mitigation programs are an essential part of the Department
of Homeland Security's charge to protect the lives and property of
Americans from the effects of disasters. Mitigation programs provide us
the opportunity not only to develop plans to reduce risks, but more
importantly, to implement those plans before disaster strikes.
In previous years, Congress supported the President's efforts to
promote disaster mitigation by creating and funding two initiatives:
--Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants, and
--Flood Map Modernization.
The intent of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants is to provide a
consistent source of funding to State, local, and Tribal governments
for pre-disaster mitigation planning and projects that primarily
address natural hazards. The plans and projects funded by this program
reduce overall risks to the populations and structures, while reducing
reliance on funds from Federal disaster declarations. The competitive
nature of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program encourages communities to
assess their risks, to evaluate their vulnerabilities, and to implement
mitigation activities before a disaster strikes. This budget proposes
support for both pre-disaster and post-disaster mitigation assistance.
The Flood Map Modernization Program provides the capability to
broaden the scope of risk management. This enables more expansive use
of the geospatial base data needed to develop the flood maps.
Communities, lenders, insurance agents, and others use the maps and the
flood data approximately 20 million times a year to make critical
decisions on land development, community redevelopment, insurance
coverage, and insurance premiums. As flood hazard data is updated, the
current flood map inventory is being changed from a paper map system to
a digital one. New technology will enhance the usefulness and
availability of flood data to all customers. The new system also
supports the development and distribution of geospatial data of all
hazards, both natural and man-made.
The fiscal year 2005 budget will continue to update flood maps
nationwide and increase State and local capability to manage flood
hazard data. By the end of fiscal year 2005, digital GIS flood hazard
data covering 50 percent of our Nation's population will be available
online.
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has a significant
impact on reducing and indemnifying this Nation's flood losses. Prior
to the creation of the NFIP, floodplain management as a practice was
not well established, and only a few states and several hundred
communities actually regulated floodplain development. Flood insurance
was not generally available. We are working diligently to refine and
expand our all-hazards risk communication strategy to meet the goal of
a 5 percent increase in NFIP policy ownership. This increase in
insurance policy ownership will reduce reliance on the Disaster Relief
Fund and will foster individual economic stability.
Preparedness
FEMA's Preparedness Division helps ensure our Nation is prepared to
respond to emergencies and disasters of all kinds. The Preparedness
Division is responsible for Federal, State, local, and community
emergency preparedness programs; assessments and exercises; grants
administration; the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program and the
Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program. The U.S. Fire
Administration works to prevent fire deaths and damage to property, and
carries out its mission through leadership, advocacy, coordination, and
support. The training programs offered at the National Fire Academy and
the Emergency Management Institute promote the professional development
of command level firefighters, emergency managers, and emergency
responders, and are an important aspect of the U.S. Fire
Administration's duties.
The Noble Training Center, located at Ft. McClellan, Alabama, is a
new addition to FEMA. Transferred from DHHS in fiscal year 2003, the
Noble Training Center is the only hospital facility in the United
States devoted entirely to medical training for Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD). In fiscal year 2005, Noble will continue to train
medical personnel for State and local hospitals, emergency medical
services, and the National Disaster Medical System.
In fiscal year 2005, FEMA's Preparedness Division will work with
other components of the Department to develop the National Incident
Management System (NIMS) and the National Response Plan (NRP). These
initiatives will ensure that all levels of government, across the
Nation, work together efficiently and effectively, employing a single
national approach to domestic incident management.
FEMA's Preparedness Division will continue to provide the States
with technical assistance in their all-hazards planning. To avoid
duplicative planning, our efforts will be closely coordinated with
those of the Office for Domestic Preparedness to update State terrorism
preparedness plans.
As part of our effort to prepare our citizens for all disasters,
the Division will oversee the Community Emergency Response Teams, or
CERT. This program, begun as a civilian training program by the Los
Angeles Fire Department, has become a nationwide effort to train
citizens in first aid and basic firefighting and emergency response
techniques. CERT-trained citizens are able to provide those basic
emergency services that would otherwise occupy the first responders.
FEMA provides train-the-trainer programs to allow as many citizens as
possible to receive this training across the country. The CERT program
has grown from 170 teams in 28 States and Territories in March of 2002
to over 900 teams in 51 States and Territories.
Response
FEMA's Response Division is responsible for integrating national
emergency response teams, systems and assets into a comprehensive and
fully coordinated, national capability that supports States and
communities in responding to all types of disasters, including acts of
terrorism. This is accomplished by arranging the necessary and
appropriate national assets, establishing a consolidated national
incident response system, and effectively coordinating strategic
resources in full partnership with Federal, State, local, and tribal
governments, the private sector, volunteers, and citizen partners.
The fiscal year 2005 Response Division budget proposes to:
--Create four Incident Management Teams (IMTs) and formulate plans
for full implementation in fiscal year 2006; the IMT is a
highly responsive and flexible response team that will be able
to quickly establish a strong Federal leadership capability in
any disaster environment or high threat situation, including
acts of terrorism involving the use of WMD;
--Continue all-hazards catastrophic disaster response planning for
one additional U.S. city, based on the pilot disaster planning
template developed for New Orleans, Louisiana. The template
will be used in the future as a basis for all-hazards
catastrophic planning for other high risk areas of the country;
and
--Continue efforts to develop the capability to provide intermediate
emergency housing aimed at meeting the needs of large numbers
of disaster victims displaced from their homes as a result of
large scale and catastrophic disasters
FEMA's Response Division will also continue to implement measures
to reduce response times for its teams and delivery of disaster
supplies.
Additional funding requested in fiscal year 2005 implements the
National Incident Management System--NIMS. FEMA's goal for 2005 is to
focus on the readiness of Federal response teams and the integration of
Federal capabilities with that of State and local jurisdictions. We
will conduct outreach to our Federal response partners and State and
local counterparts to ensure connectivity and synchronization of
response capabilities under NIMS, and will conduct NIMS and Incident
Command System (ICS) training for Federal response teams. These
activities will ensure we have the baseline skills for all teams to
operate under NIMS and be fully integrated into the NIMS/ICS doctrine.
As highlighted previously, the President's fiscal year 2005 budget
proposes an initiative to develop FEMA's medical surge capability.
Under this initiative, FEMA will evaluate supplemental capabilities for
both a fixed and mobile facility to demonstrate the utility of using
alternate facilities to support medical surge activities, as well as
the utility of having a surge capacity that can be mobilized,
transported, and made operational within set timelines. The second part
of this initiative is to implement the concept through two pilot
projects.
Recovery
FEMA's Recovery Division leads and coordinates the timely delivery
of Federal disaster assistance to individuals and communities.
In fiscal year 2005, the Recovery Division will continue to provide
assistance to individuals for temporary housing, damaged personal
property, crisis counseling, disaster unemployment, and disaster legal
services. FEMA responded to over 2.5 million calls last year, from
people seeking to register for disaster assistance and to have their
questions answered. The Recovery Division processed more than half a
million individual disaster applications.
The Individual Assistance Programs that meet victims' most basic
needs provide assistance for housing, personal property losses, and
medical and funeral expenses. In each disaster we ask our customers,
the disaster victims, what they think of the service we provided to
them. I am pleased to tell you that we consistently earn very high
marks from our customers when they are surveyed. In fiscal year 2005 we
will continue to invest in technology that ensures we continue to meet
our customers' expectations.
FEMA's Public Assistance Program, which accounts for the bulk of
recovery expenditures out of the Disaster Relief Fund, is the primary
means for community recovery. State and local governments and certain
non-profit organizations can be reimbursed to repair facilities to
their pre-disaster condition, as well as for costs associated with
debris removal and emergency protective measures. FEMA is focusing on
redesigning the Public Assistance Program to be more efficient and
better prepared to meet the needs of a catastrophic or terrorist event
by moving toward a web-based, user friendly, estimated based program,
communities will be able to recover faster. In order to better prepare
for the transition to a redesigned program, FEMA is establishing a
methodology for estimating the total cost of large projects versus
determining final costs after work is complete. Implementing the Public
Assistance Program using cost estimates will allow State and local
governments to better budget for recovery, improve our estimates of
disaster expenditures, and reduce administrative costs and closeout
timelines. In addition, we are working on proposed revisions to the
Public Assistance Insurance Rule, which was last revised in 1991. The
Stafford Act requires applicants for Public Assistance grants to
``obtain and maintain'' insurance on a damaged facility as a condition
of receiving assistance. In the past, there have been concerns about
this rule imposing a pre-disaster insurance requirement for all
hazards. The proposed rule will not require insurance before disaster
strikes, except for flood insurance in identified flood hazard areas,
as required by the Stafford Act. The purpose of the rule is to simply
clarify issues not adequately addressed in the current rule, such as
eligible deductibles.
The Fire Management Assistance Grant Program is another key
resource for States and local governments to mitigate, manage, and
control forest or grassland fires to prevent damages that may otherwise
result in a major disaster declaration.
I assure you that President Bush appreciates the importance of
Recovery. I had the honor of joining the President in touring Missouri
last spring after the devastating tornadoes struck Pierce City. Even
though it was pouring rain during our visit, the President got out of
his car to go over and talk to a couple who were standing in front of
their damaged store front. They also had damages to their home. Using
FEMA's temporary housing, immediate needs assistance, their insurance,
and SBA home and business loans, this couple is recovering.
The massive California Wildfires of 2003 scorched over 750,000
acres and claimed 24 lives. During the response to the wildfires, the
President and Secretary Ridge wanted me to be intimately involved in
the coordination efforts between the Federal agencies doing work there.
Through the formation of a pair of interagency bodies, the Washington-
based California Fires Coordination Group and the field-level Multi-
Agency Support Group, FEMA's Recovery Division was instrumental in
assuring that each of our Federal partners was coming to the table with
comprehensive plans that were complementary to each other, that
minimized the sort of bureaucratic ``stove piping'' that results in
duplication of efforts, and that continued to focus on the needs
identified by the State and local communities as priorities. Our shared
success is the natural result of FEMA's commitment to ``all-hazards''
emergency management, and a focus on a scaled approach to meet the
challenges of any kind of incident, from the floods, fires, and storms
that happen all too often, to the catastrophic scenarios that we
prepare for, but hope will never come to pass.
We take our mission to help communities and citizens recover very
seriously. My goal is to continue to do the work we do now better and
faster, and to build on our current recovery capabilities to be better
prepared to face a catastrophic natural or terrorist event.
National Security
In fiscal year 2005, FEMA's Office of National Security
Coordination will continue to carry out its mandated mission to provide
Executive Agent leadership to ensure continuity of national operations
in response to all-hazard emergencies in order to guarantee the
survival of an enduring constitutional government. Funding in fiscal
year 2005 will be used to ensure that all Federal Executive Branch
departments and agencies attain and maintain a fully operational
Continuity of Operations (COOP) capability. FEMA will provide
assistance to Federal departments and agencies to help them attain and
maintain fully operational contingency capabilities. FEMA will develop
and implement a test, training, and exercise program that culminates in
a complete exercise of the Continuity of Government (COG) program. In
addition, we will provide technical support and guidance to our
interagency, regional, State and local stakeholders across the Nation.
Conclusion
During the last year, FEMA has been busy but we continue to carry
out our mission to prepare for, mitigate against, respond to, and
recover from disasters and emergencies caused by all-hazards. The key
to our continued improvement will be to take the lessons learned from
previous disasters and incorporate them into our preparedness,
planning, and procedures, so that we do an even better job of
responding next time. We evaluate the lessons learned from each
disaster and make plans to incorporate the new approaches and remedy
problems. Hurricane Isabel provided such an opportunity, and it
validated our priority to reduce disaster response times and improve
our capability to gather information and effectively and efficiently
manage the Federal Government's response to Presidentially-declared
disasters.
Successful implementation of the new initiatives and the on-going
activities I have discussed today will improve our national system of
mitigating against, preparing for, responding to, recovering from
disasters and emergencies caused by all hazards.
In closing, I want to thank the Members of the Subcommittee for
their past support of FEMA and I appreciate the opportunity to testify
before you today. I would now be pleased to answer any questions you
may have.
STRATEGIC NATIONAL STOCKPILE
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Some of the questions that we have relate to the proposals
to make transfers of authority and responsibility within the
executive branch, some from the new Department of Homeland
Security to the Department of Health and Human Services. I
observed in Senator Byrd's statement concerns about that, and I
was going to ask about that as well.
One of the transfers that I notice includes a transfer of
the Strategic National Stockpile to the Department of Health
and Human Services. Why is this a priority of the
administration? Do you think that would be an appropriate thing
to do and would enable us to do a better job of defending
against attacks or terrorist attacks in this area?
Mr. Brown. Senator, the beauty of transferring the
stockpile back to HHS is that it truly aligns the budget
requirements and the operations requirements in one Department.
The important thing to note is that FEMA does not lose its
ability to deploy the stockpile in times of emergency. Under
the national response plan, we will still be able to deploy the
stockpile and utilize it as necessary to aid victims. So, what
we have done is actually realign operations and budget within
one Department.
DISASTER RELIEF FUND
Senator Cochran. There is also a question about whether
some of the funding requests are sufficient to enable you to
carry out your mission and to fulfill your responsibilities
under the law. In particular, we notice that in the President's
budget for disaster relief there is a request for $2.1 billion,
but also included is a transfer of $7 million to preparedness,
mitigation, response, and recovery for the urban search and
rescue teams.
Is this an indication that you really need more money for
disaster relief than is reflected in the budget request?
Mr. Brown. No, Senator, it is not. In fact, I would say in
response to Senator Byrd's comments earlier about last years
episode with the disaster relief fund, that President Bush
absolutely recognizes the importance of the DRF being fully
funded, and in this case by requesting $2.15 billion, we are
going to be able to do that.
I will tell you that we learned some lessons in FEMA last
year because of that experience with the DRF. I am very pleased
to say that our cash management systems have gotten much
better. Our recoveries have gotten much better, and so this
$2.15 billion, combined with the carryover we are going to have
from good cash management, and from the recoveries that we are
going to make in the current DRF funding, will be fully funded
in the DRF this year. I think that is a reflection of the
President's understanding that this pool of money needs to be
available so that FEMA can do its job without worrying if there
is enough money or putting some programs on hold. It is a
recognition of the importance of that fund.
Senator Cochran. Well, I am impressed with the job that the
Department has done in such a short period of time,
reorganizing itself under the new Department's management
structure, but including some agencies like FEMA, which is I
suppose one of the principal responsibilities of this
directorate which you chair, and to do so in a way that did not
diminish in any respect the capacity of the Government to
respond to natural disasters and the traditional role that FEMA
has played. So, I congratulate you on the management function
that you are providing and the responsibilities that you are
carrying out in that regard.
We are going to work hard to be sure that we appropriate
the money that you need and that our communities need when they
are confronted with natural disasters. In my part of the
country, we have been besieged with hurricanes, floods,
tornadoes, and many other natural disasters, and FEMA has been
right there and has helped lead the way, working with local
officials and volunteers who come to respond to those
situations. We know how important your work is and we
appreciate the fact that you are dedicating yourself to help
run this agency so people who do need help in these situations
get it.
Mr. Brown. Senator, I very much appreciate those comments.
FIRE GRANT PROGRAM
Senator Cochran. Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Under Secretary, in my opening statement,
I had a question which I said was rhetorical for that purpose.
Where do these policies leave a small town fire department,
let's say in Sophia, West Virginia, that needs to purchase
breathing apparatus or needs equipment to deal with a chemical
spill? Let us say we are talking about a town in Kanawha County
on the river near the great complex of chemical industries that
have been located there and have served the country so well
through the years. Where does the policy leave a small town
fire department that needs to purchase breathing apparatus or
equipment to deal with a chemical spill?
Mr. Brown. Senator, I would tell you that I think the fire
grant program is one of the best programs in the Federal
Government. It is incredibly efficient, organized, and directly
affects and helps needs like those you are identifying. In
addition to that, it has a peer review process that will take
fire departments from West Virginia, Mississippi, Washington,
or wherever they are from, and the peers themselves, the fire
departments, look at where the need is the greatest and give us
advice about where those dollars should go.
I will tell you that the President's request this year for
$500 million in fire grants is the same amount that the
President requested last year. He recognizes the importance of
first responders. He also recognizes the importance of this
program.
We are doing absolutely everything to ensure that the fire
grant program is not deteriorated in any way by its movement to
ODP. We are providing detailees. We are providing programmatic
support. We are doing everything to make sure that program
stays intact. Congress recognized that last year and said, as
this transfer takes place, the U.S. Fire Administration should
remain a vital part of the grant program, and indeed they are.
FEMA is doing everything to support ODP to keep this program
operating the exact same way it always has so that it does help
fire departments like you describe.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Brown, if it is one of the best programs,
a statement with which I agree, why is the President proposing
to cut it by 33 percent?
Mr. Brown. Well, the President's request is the exact same
as he made last year, and Congress added an extra $249 million
to it last year. The President is reiterating his same request
from last year.
Senator Byrd. But he is cutting the program by 33 percent.
Why is he doing that?
Mr. Brown. His request is the same request he made last
year.
Senator Byrd. I understand that. You said that already. But
on what basis? Why is he doing that?
Mr. Brown. The President's overall request for first
responders is actually an increase. There was $8 billion last
year for first responders, and that is increasing by about $900
million this year. So, overall for first responders, there is
actually an increase.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS
Senator Byrd. Do I have time for one more question on this
round?
Senator Cochran. Yes.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, first, you are proposing to
cut emergency management performance grants by $9 million.
Second, you are proposing to target those reduced emergency
management dollars to terrorism activities, in essence,
mandating that States put terrorism projects at the top of
their priority list or risk losing funding. Finally, you are
proposing to hinder the States' flexibility by capping at 25
percent the amount of each grant that can be spent on salaries.
West Virginia spends more than half of its EMPG funds on
salaries. I understand that nationwide State and local
governments use over 50 percent of their grant funds for the
salaries that pay for emergency planning professionals. In West
Virginia, EMPG is an essential source of funds to help State
emergency managers reduce the threat of floods, assist flood
victims, and to prepare for potential chemical spills. The all-
hazards approach to emergency management is a critical tool for
State officials.
Earlier this week, I received a letter from Stephen Kappa,
K-a-p-p-a, the Director of the Office of Emergency Services in
West Virginia. Perhaps you know him, do you?
Mr. Brown. Yes sir, I do.
Senator Byrd. In his letter, Director Kappa concluded that
the President's proposals for emergency management would have--
and I quote here--``a devastating impact on emergency
preparedness at the State and local levels.'' He, Mr. Kappa,
concluded that--quote, again--``West Virginia and other States
must balance our preparedness efforts to appropriately
integrate terrorism, not to the detriment or exclusion of the
existing national emergency response system that supports day-
to-day public safety needs.'' That is the end of that excerpt
from Mr. Kappa's letter to me.
Today if FEMA focuses too myopically on terrorist threats,
it could jeopardize the all-hazards approach to emergency
management that has been built up over the past 25 years, and
we will be in danger of repeating past mistakes.
I am very disappointed with the President's emergency
management proposal. Please explain, if you will, to a couple
of Senators, who have been here quite some time from flood-
prone States, such as West Virginia and Mississippi, why these
proposals make sense.
Mr. Brown. Senator, let me first state that I understand
the concern that has been expressed by you and others about
this change on the cap. I recognize that concern. In addition
to that, the reason that FEMA has always been successful under
James Lee Witt's leadership, under Joe Albaugh's leadership,
has been that we have always understood that it is the ability
of our State and local partners to do their job that helps make
us successful. We must continue our relationships with the
State and local agencies to understand what their capacities
are, what their abilities are, what they have, and what they
can and cannot do. One way that we will do that is through the
EMPG. By changing the cap, it increases necessarily the amount
of money that is now available for training and exercises at
the State and local government. The administration believes
that personnel costs are truly a shared cost and the State and
locals should share some of the costs of that personnel, with
this change, we are increasing the amount of money that we can
now use to exercise and train those personnel to make them even
more robust in the future.
Senator Byrd. Is that the answer to my question?
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. That is all on this round, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Senator Murray.
CUTS TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I want to follow up on the question that Senator Byrd asked
because I am also hearing from everyone in my State they are
deeply concerned about this cap and obviously the cuts to the
EMPG program. It is really the backbone for many of our
communities in responding to all types of hazards. Senator Byrd
mentioned floods. Certainly earthquakes and all the other
disasters that people have to prepare for are also included.
They have added to this now, obviously, terrorism. I am very
concerned because EMPG really is the lifeblood for many of the
emergency programs in my State and across the country.
A good example is Kitsap County. It has several military
bases, a population of about 240,000, and about one-fifth of
the emergency management budget comes from EMPG funding. That
county uses its funding to support their office operations and
to provide public education to help prepare the cities and
residents in that county for all types of hazards. But not
every community in my State is like that, and for those
communities, EMPG funding is not some kind of enhancement. It
is actually not unusual to see almost 80 percent of the Federal
EMPG allocation used to hire dedicated emergency management
professionals, which is really important.
So, when we see these recommended limitations, many of the
communities in my State and probably across the country tell us
they are going to have to terminate their emergency management
program. That would place our entire emergency management
response system in jeopardy. So, I share Senator Byrd's concern
and I think we need to understand that the cap in particular
will dramatically impact many of our counties to where they are
not doing this, and that is, I do not think, the direction your
agency wants to go.
So, if you want to respond, I am happy to listen.
Mr. Brown. In response, Senator, I would just say again
that I understand those concerns greatly. I want to emphasize
that we believe that a robust State and local system is
necessary for FEMA to be able to succeed because, remember,
FEMA only steps in when it is beyond the capabilities of State
and local governments to respond to a disaster, whether it is
natural or manmade. With the change in this cap, we will now
use those additional resources to train the people at the State
and local level to exercise them more at the State and local
level than we have in the past.
Senator Murray. But if there is nobody there to train, we
are going to be----
Mr. Brown. We would ask the States to see if they cannot
find money to keep those people in place, because I do not want
to lose those people either. I want to keep them there and
train them and exercise them.
Senator Murray. Well, remember, our States and our local
communities are suffering from a very difficult budget crisis
right now.
Mr. Brown. I understand.
Senator Murray. And if we just count on them coming up with
the money, they are going to turn to us and talk about Federal
mandates and complain to us, and it will be back on our
shoulders when there is a response that cannot be taken care
of.
Mr. Brown. I understand that, Senator.
Senator Murray. So, Senator Byrd, I want to work with you
on that concern because I share it.
Senator Byrd. Thank you. You have heard the company line.
PUTTING THE STRATEGIC NATIONAL STOCKPILE BACK UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Senator Murray. The chairman mentioned the issue of the
Strategic National Stockpile being put back under the
Department of Health and Human Services. I think it is a
positive change. I think it will help streamline the Federal
decision-making in time of a crisis, but I am concerned that
with this change, the Department of Homeland Security will no
longer be connected to the public health community and our
Nation's doctors and nurses are our first responders,
particularly in time of a biological attack. They are the ones
we need to sound the alarm, and we need to make sure that the
immunologists and the virologists and the State public health
officials are part of that coordinated effort to manage and
respond to a crisis if it involves bioterrorism. So, I am
concerned about that and want to know from you how we are going
to engage our public health professionals and keep them part of
this loop.
Mr. Brown. Oh, absolutely. In fact, I hope I can alleviate
those concerns because, while the stockpile does transfer back
to HHS, it is only the budget and operations. We would still
deploy the stockpile. We would still handle the logistics of
the stockpile.
NATIONAL DISASTER MEDICAL SYSTEM
In addition to that, we still have the National Disaster
Medical System within FEMA, which we are looking at and
assessing. I think we have a very good relationship with NDMS.
I think they are very proud to be a part of FEMA now. We are
really trying to invigorate that system to make it part of the
first responder community. So I think those concerns that you
have, while they are certainly legitimate concerns, we are
addressing those. I think we are on the right track to
incorporate NDMS fully into our response system.
Senator Murray. Well, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I do have a few other questions, but I know
we have a vote in a few minutes. I would like to submit them,
if I can, in particular involving Hammer Training Facility and
our ability to train some of our local responders that I would
like to get a response back from you.
Mr. Brown. Certainly.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
BIOSHIELD
Mr. Secretary, let me ask you about the budget request as
it relates to the BioShield initiative. The request asks for a
substantial increase in funding from $885 million for this
fiscal year to the level of $2.5 billion for fiscal year 2005.
What is the justification for that substantial increase?
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, that will fully fund the BioShield
program, as the President announced in the State of the Union a
couple of years ago. That will enable us to create, as I said
last year, this venture capital fund, if you want to call it
that, so that we are ready to create a market for any kind of
antibiotics or other medicines that we need to respond to a
bioterror threat. There currently is no way to encourage the
pharmaceutical companies or the drug companies to venture into
these areas and create things for which there is no market
other than the fact that we have intelligence that may tell us
that there is a specific threat, a specific pathogen that
terrorists are trying to use. This will enable us to create
that market and produce those antibodies for that particular
kind of attack.
Senator Cochran. There is a failure by the Congress to pass
legislation that authorizes the BioShield program. Does this
lack of legal authority impair in any way the administration's
efforts to help protect our national security from a threat
that this program seeks to address?
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, we are going to use the excellent
language that you put in the appropriations, and use that as
authorization to move forward, because we think our mandate
from you and from the Congress is to use this money, and to use
it for these kinds of threats. So that is what we will do.
Senator Cochran. To what extent are your funds going to be
expended in this year and for what specific purposes?
Mr. Brown. We currently are looking at some additional
anthrax vaccines and some additional kinds of antibiotics that
we need to develop.
Senator Cochran. The President's budget proposes in this
area to make some transfers, transfer the Strategic National
Stockpile from Homeland Security to the Department of Health
and Human Services. But it does not suggest that BioShield
should be transferred. Why is it more appropriate for the
stockpile to be managed by HHS and BioShield to be managed by
the Department of Homeland Security?
Mr. Brown. Primarily because in BioShield, the resources
that will be used in it are going to be based upon the threats
that the Department of Homeland Security, the Central
Intelligence Agency, and others develop through their intel
gathering processes. So, as we understand and determine what
those threats are, that BioShield money will be there for us to
use to respond to those specific threats. Now, we will still
work with the CDC, with HHS, and others in the development of
those drugs and pharmaceuticals, but because we have the threat
information, we believe that program should remain within DHS.
Senator Cochran. To your knowledge, is there an assessment
being done by the administration on our vulnerabilities to
biological attacks, and if so, who is doing the assessments?
Mr. Brown. There is an assessment that is being carried
forth, primarily by the Department of Homeland Security. Since
September 11th, everything has changed in the Federal
Government. And when I say that DHS is leading it, you can rest
assured that we do not do anything without incorporating all of
our Federal partners. We talk to HHS. We talk to CDC. We talk
to anyone who may be involved to make sure that we get the
right kind of information and that we get the right kind of
response.
Senator Cochran. I assume that your directorate has had
some involvement in the recent events that have been in the
news and with those that we are also familiar with here in
Congress, the ricin incident here in this building, and the
anthrax events of the recent past. To what extent is the
Department actively involved in these episodes? What do you do?
What did you do in connection with those events?
Mr. Brown. Everything from information-sharing among the
Departments to the Capitol Police. We were in constant contact
with them, for example, during the State of the Union or any
other national security special event such as that. We deploy
the National Disaster Medical System. You probably did not have
a chance to see it during the State of the Union, but we had
incredible teams all around these buildings, all within the
Capitol, ready to respond to any type of event. So with FEMA
and the Department of Homeland Security still being seen as the
first responder on behalf of the Federal Government, we have an
intimate involvement in all of those activities.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much for your efforts to
protect our security.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cochran. Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, one of the best with
whom I have ever served. I am talking about you.
Senator Cochran. I understand. You are embarrassing me.
PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION
Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, in fiscal years 2003 and 2004,
Congress appropriated $150 million for a new pre-disaster
mitigation fund. $150 million was a compromise with the
Administration which proposed to spend $300 million on pre-
disaster mitigation and to eliminate any funds for post-
disaster mitigation.
This year, the administration requests $150 million for
pre-disaster mitigation, and requests that 7.5 percent of the
amount a State receives for a disaster from FEMA be provided
for post-disaster mitigation.
I am pleased that the Administration recognizes the
importance of post-disaster mitigation. In West Virginia, the
$5.6 million received from this program will be used to acquire
and demolish repetitive lost properties in the flood plain and
relocate residents. To date, none of the non-planning pre-
disaster funds from either 2003 or 2004 have been made
available to States. West Virginia wants to spend the money on
moving people out of the flood plain before another disaster
strikes. It is unacceptable that this money is stuck at FEMA.
When can States expect to have pre-disaster mitigation
funds in hand?
Mr. Brown. Senator, we have received well over 400
applications for that money. 140 grants have been awarded for
planning and for specific mitigation projects. To date, $49
million has been obligated. $15 million of that was for
planning and $34 million for actual projects. $70 million will
go out on a rolling basis before the end of the calendar year.
So, we have received those 400 applications, and we have
already obligated 49. We have also awarded 140 grants. That
money will start going out the door. I want to get those people
out of those repetitive places just as badly as you do, sir.
Senator Byrd. I am not so sure about that. Be careful what
you say.
Mr. Brown. Sir, we will get those funds out. It is a
process of requesting 400 applications, getting the planning
for those applications done, and the grant money out for those
planning grants. And we will continue to get those monies out
on a rolling basis.
Senator Byrd. The 2003 money was appropriated 12 months
ago. I simply do not understand why it has taken so long to get
the money out the door.
Until fiscal year 2003, States received an additional 15
percent in disaster relief funds for post-disaster mitigation
projects. Earlier this week, I received a letter from a host of
emergency management groups, including the International
Association of Emergency Managers, the American Public Works
Association, and the Association of State Flood Plain Managers,
urging Congress to restore the hazard mitigation grant program
formula to 15 percent from its current level of 7.5 percent.
What is your opinion of this proposal?
Mr. Brown. Senator, I am for anything that we can do to
mitigate disasters, pre-disaster or post-disaster. To the
extent that we can get money out the door to help folks, we are
going to do that.
Senator Byrd. What is your opinion of this proposal?
Mr. Brown. We will certainly take it under consideration
and look at it, Senator.
Senator Byrd. You are going to take it into consideration
and look at it?
Mr. Brown. We certainly will.
Senator Byrd. Well, I am going to call you in a few days
and see how long you have been looking at it. Okay?
Mr. Brown. Excellent.
PROPOSED CUTS TO FIRE GRANTS FUNDING
Senator Byrd. I have just one more question, Mr. Chairman,
and I may have others for the record.
In December 2002, FEMA issued a report entitled, ``A Needs
Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service''. That report found that
half of all fire engines being used by our fire departments
were over 15 years old. It found that 57,000 fire fighters
lacked personal protective equipment, and that 41 percent of
fire department personnel involved in wildland fire fighting
lacked formal training in those duties.
Last year you could not approve over $1.7 billion of
applications because of a lack of funds.
Given the serious deficiencies in basic fire fighting
equipment and skills that you found, do you think that the
administration's proposal to cut fire grant funding by 33
percent and to focus fire grants on terrorism-related
activities will undermine the ability of our local fire
fighters to respond to emergencies in their communities?
Mr. Brown. No, sir, it will not because we will continue to
make certain that under the fire grant program whatever monies
we have available go to the highest critical needs, so that we
start solving the worst needs that we have in the country
first. We will keep the program in place that way and make
certain that the money goes where it should go.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Byrd, very much for
your assistance with the work of this committee. I appreciate
it.
Mr. Secretary, the budget request includes an increase of
$7 million for a national incident management system to support
the President's national strategy for homeland security. This
incident management system is proposed to be a single
coordinating system to bring together the Federal, State, and
local governments, tribal Nations, and citizens during
emergencies, disasters, or other catastrophic incidents.
How will the national incident management system differ
from other systems that are designed to deal with all-hazard
events within the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate?
Mr. Brown. Senator, one of the problems we have now is that
while we have a fairly good, unified command system around the
country--first responders generally understand unified command
and command and control systems--what we lack is a unified
national incident management system with a common language by
which we can all exercise and train to that common language.
This $7 million will enable us to do that. So, when we bring in
teams from anywhere in the country or mutual aid teams are
helping other teams, they will walk into that situation with a
common language, a common training. They will have exercised
under a common system so that everyone will be on the same
page, so to speak, when they are responding to any kind of
disaster.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Cochran. Mr. Secretary, we appreciate very much
your cooperation with our committee, your making available your
statement to us, and the opportunity to visit with you to talk
about the budget request in advance of the hearing.
Senators may submit written questions, as you know. We hope
that you will be able to respond to them within a reasonable
time.
[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
BIOSHIELD
Question. Without Congressional approval of BioShield, who has the
authority to sign contracts related to the obligation of BioShield
funds?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations Act
provided $890 million to be spent for development of biodefense
countermeasures for the current fiscal year. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the
Homeland Security Council, and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) recognize the importance of expeditious progress in developing
much-needed countermeasures while following Congressional intent. In
that vein, DHS and HHS have sought to ensure that the development of
the interagency agreement for next-generation anthrax vaccine is in
line with the proposed BioShield legislation. Until such time as the
BioShield Act is passed, a FEMA contracting officer has the authority
to sign interagency agreements with HHS, which, in turn, will execute
contracts with manufacturers.
ANTHRAX VACCINE
Question. Is the procurement of an anthrax vaccine conducted
through the Strategic National Stockpile or BioShield? Is this the
responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security or the Department
of Health and Human Services?
Answer. Anthrax vaccine (recombinant Protective Antigen, or rPA)
procurement will be funded by the Biodefense Countermeasures
appropriation included in the fiscal year 2004 DHS appropriation, but
will be acquired for exclusive placement in the Strategic National
Stockpile (SNS). The SNS discretionary appropriation is used to
purchase items for which there is a significant commercial market. The
BioShield program was specifically constructed to spur development of
countermeasures for which no commercial market existed, as is the case
with rPA, for inclusion in the Stockpile.
DHS is responsible for assessing current and emerging threats
against the United States. The Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
Medical Countermeasures subcommittee, an interagency group co-chaired
by DHS, HHS, and the Department of Defense, has developed
countermeasures information of interest to officials who will make the
BioShield procurement decisions. The WMD subcommittee commissioned an
end-to-end analysis of medical countermeasures to Category ``A''
biological agents (anthrax, smallpox, plague, botulinum toxin,
tularemia, Ebola and other hemorrhagic fever viruses). Working groups
developed initial requirements for four high-priority bioweapon (BW)
countermeasures for which there is high need and a reasonable
expectation that products will be available in the near term, with rPA
development topping the list.
The DHS Secretary enters into an interagency agreement with the HHS
Secretary, whose department is responsible for providing medical,
scientific, acquisition, technical, and procurement expertise, and is
to establish technical requirements, identify suppliers, negotiate and
evaluate proposals, enter into contracts, assess contractor
performance, and perform administrative services. HHS also must ensure
all the necessary steps have been taken for the licensing of the
finished product.
Additionally, DHS is in the process of finalizing an interagency
agreement with the Army for the acquisition of Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed
(AVA). This agreement will be funded from the Public Health Programs
(SNS) appropriations account.
Question. When will the Department of Homeland Security or the
Department of Health and Human Services procure the doses for which it
has identified a requirement? What is that requirement? How many doses
over what period of time will be necessary to meet it?
Answer. DHS and HHS are now finalizing an interagency agreement to
purchase recombinant Protective Antigen (rPA) vaccine to protect 25
million persons. The government will consider later purchase of
additional anthrax vaccine contingent on new vaccination delivery
system technology and other cost-saving factors such as reduced dose
requirements. A three-dose schedule is currently being evaluated, which
would require a total purchase of 75 million doses. This initial
agreement for fiscal year 2004 is for $134 million. Projections for
obtaining the entire 75 million-dose requirement cover 5 years.
Additionally, DHS is now finalizing an interagency agreement with the
Department of the Army for up to 5 million doses of AVA.
Question. Are we filling at least part of that requirement with an
FDA-approved product currently available?
Answer. The Stockpile currently maintains a small amount of the
only FDA-licensed pre-exposure vaccine against anthrax (Anthrax Vaccine
Adsorbed, or AVA). Currently, it has limited production capacity, and
rectifying that problem would be very expensive and take several years
to accomplish. AVA is not currently licensed for children or for the
elderly. However, in order to ensure that some type of anthrax vaccine
is available until the development and procurement of rPA, DHS and HHS
have signed an interagency agreement for the purchase of AVA through
the Department of the Army. This agreement will provide approximately 2
million doses in fiscal year 2004, 1.5 million doses in fiscal year
2005, and 1.5 million doses in fiscal year 2006.
STRATEGIC NATIONAL STOCKPILE
Question. The proposal to transfer the Strategic National Stockpile
from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) back to the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) in fiscal year 2005 requires
legislative action by the authorizing committee. Has such legislation
been submitted by DHS, and if so, what action has been taken by the
authorizing committee?
Answer. Language to effectuate the transfer of SNS from DHS to HHS
has been added to S. 15, the Project Bioshield Act of 2003.
Question. How has the fiscal year 2004 transfer from HHS to DHS,
and the proposed fiscal year 2005 transfer from DHS to HHS, affected
the daily operations, personnel, and activities of the program? Have we
crippled the program in any way by continuing to shuffle it between
departments? How are decisions being made at this time in regard to the
Stockpile?
Answer. The daily operations of the Stockpile have not been
affected in any significant manner. Personnel and normal operations are
nearly unchanged since the transfer from HHS to DHS and decisions are
being made much as they always have been made at the Stockpile. The
motivation to return the program to HHS is due to the desire to create
a single command structure for the program, and to streamline
operations once again. HHS will, however, have the obligation to deploy
the stockpile when so requested by the Secretary of DHS. As such, the
potential response needs of the DHS mission will not be compromised in
any manner.
METROPOLITAN MEDICAL RESPONSE SYSTEM
Question. What is the direct impact of the elimination of funding
within Emergency Preparedness and Response in fiscal year 2005 for the
Metropolitan Medical Response System?
Answer. The funds that Congress has appropriated for the
Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) over the last several years
have been used to establish certain capabilities, to get the program up
to its baseline, and to facilitate transfer of the program to the
localities for continuation, once the baseline is established. We will
reach the baseline this fiscal year (2004), and therefore no additional
funding is being requested.
Secretary Ridge has proposed a reorganization (a letter was sent to
Members of Congress on January 26, 2004), wherein the MMRS program for
fiscal year 2004 will be transferred to a newly established Office of
State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness. Under this
arrangement, FEMA would have no further role in the MMRS program for
fiscal year 2004, and there will be no Federal program in fiscal year
2005.
We cannot precisely estimate the number of local jurisdictions that
would continue the MMRS program without Federal resources support. We
are fairly certain that a large number of them, as an element of
prudent preparedness and operational necessity, will attempt to
maintain MMRS-type mass casualty integrated response preparedness and
seek to use Federal funds from other programs to support eligible
portions of MMRS-type capabilities.
Question. Are the program activities of the Metropolitan Medical
Response System being met within any other areas of the President's
budget?
Answer. There are other Federal programs, which provide more
narrowly focused, but related, support. These include the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention-Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA) Bioterrorism Preparedness Grants and the HRSA
Hospital Grants; the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) Training
and Exercise Programs and Equipment Grants; and ODP Urban Area Security
Initiative funding to the designated States, which will then work with
counties and cities to form regions that will work together through
mutual aid agreements, interoperable communications, statewide
intelligence centers, and community and citizen participation.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS
Question. What will happen to the all-hazards preparedness,
mitigation, response, and recovery activities of the Emergency
Management Performance Grants if the primary focus for all grant
programs within the Office for Domestic Preparedness is required to be
homeland security activities?
Answer. Effective State and local all-hazards planning capabilities
are critical to the success of FEMA in responding to disasters, but at
this time, the Administration feels strongly that resources be focused
toward building local governments' homeland security capabilities.
Question. If a 25 percent cap is placed on the amount of grant
funding allowed for personnel costs, many county and local emergency
management offices may have to close due to the funding shortfall. The
emergency management offices are critical to the preparation of the
local community prior to disasters, which is the key to ensuring
survival of its citizens during a disaster. The 25 percent cap on
personnel costs could result in as much as a 60 percent decrease in
emergency management staff nation-wide. If this happens, how will it
affect FEMA's ability to operate in the field during a disaster? Would
the direct costs to FEMA increase if more FEMA personnel were required
to travel to the disaster site for assistance due to lack of local
emergency management personnel?
Answer. Currently, Emergency Management Performance Grants funds
are disproportionately used to pay salaries, which is predominately a
State/local responsibility. The cap on personnel costs is intended to
ensure that the State and local governments assume more responsibility
for their personnel costs. This would allow a greater percentage of
grant funds to be utilized by State and local governments for training
and exercises, further enhancing readiness capabilities.
PREPAREDNESS, MITIGATION, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY
Questions. For fiscal year 2004, the Emergency Preparedness and
Response Directorate proposed to establish one pilot Incident
Management Team to develop the base structures and procedures for the
four Incident Management Teams requested in the fiscal year 2005
budget.
Where will the one pilot Incident Management Team be located?
What criteria were used to determine this location?
Where are you in the process of establishing this pilot team?
What is the time-frame for having the pilot team fully operational?
Answer. The Pilot Incident Management Team (IMT) will be collocated
with the Coast Guard facility in Elizabeth City, North Carolina. This
location was chosen for the Pilot IMT primarily due to the efficiencies
that can be achieved through use of existing Coast Guard facilities,
air transportation, and available space. Our goal in fiscal year 2005
is for IMTs to be fully activated within 15 hours of initial disaster
notification and to have an average IMT response time for arrival at a
disaster site within 22 hours. Our current average response time for
all existing response teams is 72 hours for arrival on scene; the
response time for the IMTs will help to reduce this overall average to
60 hours by fiscal year 2005. Geographic proximity and transportation
support will be crucial to achievement of this goal.
Also, this geographic location is ideal for its close proximity to
high-risk areas in the eastern United States. The Pilot IMT is our
development phase of this initiative and the timing for its inclusion
into our response system coincides perfectly with the onset of the 2004
hurricane season. This location will also afford us the possibility of
real-time disaster scenarios in which the IMT can be utilized,
exercised, and evaluated for future development of other teams in
fiscal year 2005.
We are currently engaged in the acquisition of support equipment
and recruitment of personnel, and we plan to have the Pilot IMT at an
operational status by September 2004. The development and validation of
procedures and operational doctrine will be complete by that time as
well. Operational status will be constantly augmented and improved as
we continue to exercise the teams and to enhance our procedures and
doctrine through remedial actions.
In the future, the IMTs will be referred to as Federal Initial
Response Support Teams (FIRST), a name which differentiates them from
existing response teams and which follows incident management protocols
more closely. This name change is proposed in the draft National
Response Plan (NRP) and will be made official when the NRP is
finalized.
Questions. The fiscal year 2005 budget requests an increase of $6.2
million for four Incident Management Teams to act as the core, field-
level response teams for major disasters, emergencies, and acts of
terrorism. It is my understanding that this funding will be used to
secure half of the personnel needed, secure two locations for housing
and deployment of teams, complete studies regarding transportation
needs, and develop plans for full implementation of four teams in
fiscal year 2006.
Will the $6.2 million support two Incident Management Teams or
four? If $6.2 million only supports two fully functional teams, will
another $6.2 million be needed in fiscal year 2006 for the other two
teams? If not, then what is the anticipated need to complete this
initiative?
How will the locations for the Incident Management Teams be chosen?
Do you anticipate expanding beyond four teams after fiscal year
2006?
What is the projected annual funding needed to maintain these teams
once they are in place and fully operational?
Answer. At the time the budget was developed, the plan was for two
full teams staffed by 10 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions. Current
plans are to use the funding requested in the fiscal year 2005 budget
to establish four teams with 5 FTEs to provide better coverage across
the country. The Pilot Team will be established in fiscal year 2004 and
three additional teams will be established in fiscal year 2005. We have
chosen locations for the teams that take advantage of existing DHS
transportation and support assets without requiring a large team
structure. Much of the work for site selection is being done in fiscal
year 2004 to be ready for establishment of the teams. Establishment of
the teams, however, is not an end stage for readiness.
Locations for the IMTs are being identified based on geographic
location as well as collocation with exiting Coast Guard assets that
will be utilized to support the IMTs in their operations. Elizabeth
City, North Carolina, and Sacramento, California, have been chosen as
potential sites on the East and West coasts of the United States. This
will allow the IMTs to have a quick response across the country,
including Alaska and Hawaii, through ground and/or air transportation
provided through support from the Coast Guard.
Our goal in fiscal year 2005 is for IMTs to be fully activated
within 15 hours of initial disaster notification and to have an average
IMT response time for arrival at a disaster site within 22 hours. Our
current average response time for all existing response teams is 72
hours for arrival on scene; the response time for the IMTs will help to
reduce this overall average to 60 hours by fiscal year 2005. Geographic
proximity and transportation support will be crucial to achievement of
this goal.
At this point, we are concentrating on the establishment of the
four teams planned for fiscal year 2005. It would not be fiscally
responsible for us to plan for additional teams until we have
thoroughly tested our capability with the four teams. We plan to
conduct a thorough review of each team through exercises,
credentialing, and after-action remediation before we make a
determination on needs for future development. In order to provide
support to the IMTs, we are also developing augmentation plans that
will seamlessly link our regions and existing team structure to the
IMTs.
We anticipate that the $6.2 million budget will be programmed in
outyears to provide maintenance of caches and equipment, exercise
support, training, further development, and planning support for the
IMTs.
In the future, the IMTs will be referred to as Federal Initial
Response Support Teams (FIRST), a name which differentiates them from
existing response teams and which follows incident management protocols
more closely. This name change is proposed in the draft National
Response Plan (NRP) and will be made official when the NRP is
finalized.
Questions. The President's budget request includes a $1.8 million
increase for the Mobile Emergency Response System to develop a
temporary workforce to assist in the daily operations, deployments and
necessary training and exercise programs to ensure that all response
teams can provide a 24-hour response time to communities impacted by
disasters, emergencies, terrorist events, or weapons of mass
destruction incidents.
How is this workforce trained, maintained, and called into action
when needed? In general, how will the temporary workforce operate?
How many workers make up the temporary workforce?
What is the projected annual funding requirement to maintain the
Mobile Emergency Response System?
Answer. Every effort will be made to hire experienced personnel who
are already trained, qualified, and experienced in the desired general
skill areas. Once hired, they will be paired with permanent full-time
employees for on-the-job-training on specific systems. Their skills
will be maintained and kept current in the same manner by which the
permanent full-time employees' skills are kept current. As new systems
are introduced and current systems are upgraded, they will be provided
a combination of contractor and in-house instruction. They will also be
provided training literature and manuals as well as opportunities for
continuing on-the-job-training. They will be called into action by
using FEMA's Automatic Deployment Database. FEMA developed this system
several years ago to rapidly activate and deploy its temporary
workforce known as Disaster Assistance Employees, who provide most of
the staffing at Disaster Field Offices.
The Mobile Emergency Response System (MERS) temporary workforce
will be called into action as training, daily operations, and
deployment needs develop. In general, the temporary workforce will be
used to reinforce and extend the capabilities of the MERS. When
training opportunities occur, they will be activated for the period of
the training. When deployments occur, they will be utilized in several
important ways. They will report to the home bases to replace deployed
permanent full-time employees to sustain ongoing daily operations. They
will also deploy with full-time employees to increase and extend the
scope of field operations and will deploy in the place of unavailable
full-time employees.
The initial goal is to have 50 MERS temporary employees. Although
all the temporary employees will be available to assist any of the 5
(MERS) Detachments, the initial goal will provide 10 temporary
employees per unit. The final goal is to have 100 MERS temporary
employees. This would equate to 20 temporary employees per unit.
Once all hiring activities are completed, the projected annual
funding to maintain a 100-person MERS temporary workforce is
approximately $3.2 million.
Questions. An increase of $5 million is requested to develop one
fixed and one mobile module to demonstrate medical surge capacity. An
additional $15 million is requested to develop two pilot projects to
evaluate one fixed and one mobile medical surge facility.
How will the locations for the pilot projects be determined?
What follow-on appropriations will be required to support this
project?
What is the anticipated timeframe for expanding this project
nation-wide?
Answer. Department staff will develop standardized evaluation
criteria that will be used to assess potential locations for the pilot
projects. It is currently anticipated that a significant number of
factors will be incorporated in the evaluation criteria, including:
overall population of the jurisdiction; population density in and
around the location; hazards and risks prevalent in the location
(including natural, technological, and terrorist incidents); existing
hospital capacity; strength and organization of existing medical
response and public health systems; existing State or local plans for
surge capacity; availability of existing Federal and non-Federal
facilities with adequate storage space, site access, and proximity to
commercial ground and air transportation; proximity to sources of
medical equipment and pharmaceutical suppliers; and proximity to FEMA
regional offices.
FEMA continues to work with the Administration on the program
details and budgetary requirements for future years.
It is anticipated that if the program is funded beginning in fiscal
year 2005 without delay, procurement will begin for the two pilot units
in fiscal year 2005.
URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE
Question. Why has the administration requested only $7 million to
support the FEMA urban search and rescue program when the annual
preparedness grants of $150,000 that were previously generated under a
$7 million budget were insufficient to properly maintain and operate
these task forces?
Answer. A funding level of $7 million is requested for Urban Search
and Rescue (US&R) for fiscal year 2005. The program will be funded in
the Preparedness, Mitigation, Response and Recovery account, rather
than from Disaster Relief, where it has historically been funded. Since
2001, FEMA has received more than $100 million in both regular and
supplemental appropriations to upgrade equipment for and to train the
US&R teams to perform under a variety of scenarios, including those
involving WMD.
Question. Since all 28 teams have been made Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD) capable, what is the projected funding level for
maintaining that WMD capability in fiscal year 2005?
Answer. The fiscal year 2005 President's Budget requests $7 million
for the US&R program.
Question. Although funding was provided in fiscal years 2003 and
2004 for the purchase of a second equipment cache, is it true that FEMA
has not moved forward on this acquisition of equipment and materials
for the 28 task forces? If so, why not? What happened to those funds?
Answer. The US&R program is committing funds for the 2nd Equipment
Cache initiative. This includes $22.4 million in fiscal year 2003 funds
and $27.3 million in fiscal year 2004 funds through an interagency
agreement with the Defense Logistics Agency, and a subordinate
acquisition contractor to assist the US&R program office staff and to
allow for the bulk purchase of the myriad tools, supplies, and
equipment that will be procured (a full cache has some 6,500 items). An
ad hoc Tiger Team made up of US&R logistics specialists from selected
US&R task forces has been convened to address the purchase,
organization, cache packaging, and other necessary issues for
developing the prototype standardized cache that will be duplicated and
distributed to the 28 US&R task forces in the system. Initial meetings
have already been conducted and subsequent meetings are scheduled.
Furthermore, we are finalizing the lease of necessary warehouse
space to allow for the receipt of the ordered items; developing the
organization, cache packaging scheme, and mobilization load plan of a
standardized cache; and resolving other related issues. Due to the
large size and complexity of a full US&R cache, the procurement and
development is being addressed in a phased approach by cache function,
such as rescue, communications, medical, logistics, etc. To expedite
the process, each segment will be forwarded to all task forces as the
segment is addressed. We anticipate the warehouse lease being finalized
in mid-March. The overall initiative is in progress and on target with
identified timelines. We anticipate the task forces will begin
receiving initial cache shipments in the latter half of calendar year
2004. Fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 funding provides for the
first- and second-year phases of the overall 3-year acquisition.
Funding for the third phase from fiscal year 2005 is indeterminate.
Question. There seem to have been some delays in the progress of
enhancement intended by Congress for the urban search and rescue
program: a lack of progress in acquiring the second equipment cache for
all 28 task forces; delay in the acquisition of ground transportation;
development of additional training programs and task force evaluations
have not been accomplished. What steps are being taken to rectify the
delays and lack of progress?
Answer. The identified aspects of the US&R program are in process
and on target. The US&R program is committing funds for the 2nd
Equipment Cache initiative. This includes $22.4 million in fiscal year
2003 funds and $27.3 million in fiscal year 2004 funds. An ad hoc Tiger
Team made up of US&R logistics specialists from selected US&R task
forces has been convened to address the purchase, organization, cache
packaging, and other necessary issues for developing the prototype
standardized cache that will be duplicated and distributed to the 28
US&R task forces in the system. Initial meetings have already been
conducted and subsequent meetings are scheduled.
Furthermore, we are finalizing the lease of necessary warehouse
space to allow for the receipt of the ordered items; developing the
organization, cache packaging scheme, and mobilization load plan of a
standardized cache; and resolving other related issues. We anticipate
the warehouse lease being finalized in mid-March.
The acquisition of ground transport vehicles, which will allow for
movement of the US&R equipment cache, is also on target. In fiscal year
2003 funding, $11.2 million ($400,000 per task force for trucks and
trailers) and $3.9 million ($138,000 per task force for command and
support vehicles) is being provided to the 28 task forces for this
procurement at the sponsoring agency level.
The US&R program office has received and approved the task forces'
acquisition plans for the fiscal year 2003 acquisition. We anticipate
that all task forces will have the truck/trailer assets in place by the
middle of 2004. Acquisition of command vehicles will follow in the same
vein with the awarding of the fiscal year 2004 Preparedness Cooperative
Agreements, which are also in process.
US&R training requirements are also in process and on target.
Another $2 million in fiscal year 2003 funds has been committed and
eight national US&R specialist-training classes are scheduled and being
conducted in calendar year 2004 (including the development of three new
classes). For fiscal year 2004, $1.9 million is being obligated for
nine national training classes scheduled during 2005. A comprehensive
US&R Task Force Administrative Training Course has been developed and
was recently delivered for the sponsoring agency task force program
managers and grants managers of the 28 task forces. The US&R Task Force
Readiness Evaluation Program is currently under development by US&R
program staff and selected task force members. Prototypes for US&R
Preparedness Cooperative Agreement reporting, monthly operational
readiness reporting (using web-based online access), and onsite peer
evaluation/readiness checks are in progress or have been developed. We
anticipate the pilot onsite inspections to begin in the mid-to-latter
half of calendar year 2004.
EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER PROGRAM
Question. The transfer of the Emergency Food and Shelter Program
from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires legislative action by the
authorizing committee. Has the Department sent a request to the
authorizing committee for legislative language to be considered? If
not, why? If so, what is the current status of the legislative
proposal?
Answer. FEMA is currently working with the appropriate authorizing
and appropriations committees on the legislative language to transfer
the Emergency Food and Shelter program to the Department of Housing and
Urban Development in accordance with the President's fiscal year 2005
budget request.
FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION
Question. The fiscal year 2005 budget request includes $200 million
for the Flood Map Modernization project. How will this funding be used?
Answer. Fiscal year 2005 funding will be used to continue to
implement the Multi-Hazard Flood Map Modernization Program. FEMA's
vision for the program entails providing credible flood maps and data
for communities nationwide that are more accurate, up-to-date, easier
to use, and readily available. FEMA intends to accomplish the
following:
--Network the Nation using the latest Internet portal technology to
provide access to general flood hazard, risk, and mitigation
information, and convert the maps from paper to a digital
format. The information will be tailored to the needs of
specific partners, stakeholders, and users.
--Leverage the use of Federal, State, and local resources, and
transfer ownership and use of flood maps and data to the State
and local levels by building and maintaining effective
partnerships with State, regional, and community entities in
the development of the maps and data
--Use clear data standards to ensure that the modernized flood hazard
maps reflect the best available data that suits the risk level
for the given area
--Reduce processing time and costs for flood map updates and increase
accountability for spending by implementing results-oriented
systems and standards that will facilitate the rapid exchange
of data between our partners, staff, and contractors
--Communicate widely, effectively, consistently, and continuously to
maximize our partners', stakeholders', and users' understanding
of flood hazards and the risks the hazards pose to life and
property
Primarily, the fiscal year 2005 funding will be used to initiate
and complete flood map updates nationwide based on our 5-year Multi-
Hazard Implementation Plan (MHIP) for completing the work in fiscal
years 2004 through 2008. FEMA will use the MHIP to establish goals and
baseline with existing priorities; to document and understand flood map
update needs identified by State, regional, and local partners and
stakeholders; and to develop prioritization criteria and a sequence for
scoping counties and watersheds in the priority areas based on
floodplain management, hydrologic, hydraulics, and terrain needs. The
MHIP will be reevaluated annually to account for changing needs,
natural disasters, and new partnerships; to prioritize changes; and to
update mapping priorities, as appropriate.
FEMA will provide a precise accounting of the engineering studies
to be performed and the flood maps to be produced once development of
the MHIP is completed; will scope the map update projects identified in
coordination with State, regional, and local partners and stakeholders;
and will contract the required map updates with our contractors and
with State, regional, and local participants in our Cooperating
Technical Partners (CTP) program.
Question. The final contract for the national flood map
modernization project has been continuously delayed over the last
several months. Why? When exactly will the contract be finalized?
Answer. The National Service Provider (NSP) contract was awarded on
March 11, 2004. FEMA experienced some delays in finalizing the contract
with the NSP due to the need to ensure the completeness and accuracy of
this performance-based contract. More discussions and negotiations were
needed than for a conventional compliance-based contract. The NSP is
now on the ground in each of the ten regions as well as in
headquarters, performing in accordance with the results-based contract,
and on schedule to deliver initial functionality.
Question. Since this is a performance-based contract, have the
guidelines been developed for how performance will be measured? What
level of funding is available or will be provided for the contract for
``independent contractor'' monitoring?
Answer. FEMA has developed guidelines for how performance on the
NSP contract will be measured and performance metrics have been closely
linked to the strategic goals of DHS and FEMA.
A detailed program management plan that outlines how performance
will be measured has been developed. FEMA has negotiated a performance
requirement summary with the NSP that describes each specific
measurement and its acceptable quality levels. We have established a
specific team that will be responsible for monitoring performance
measurements and reporting results on a frequent basis.
FEMA has assigned specific responsibilities for monitoring and
measuring not only the contract performance, but program performance as
well. We are providing the NSP with incentives to effectively manage
all mapping activities and build partnerships and capabilities while
producing high-quality flood maps using accurate, credible data.
In addition, FEMA is procuring the services of an independent
contractor to help monitor the NSP's performance and to verify that
program outcomes are truly achieved. The projected funding level for
this independent contractor is approximately $1.2 million for fiscal
year 2004.
Question. There is concern about conflict of interest with the
company who has won the national contract and how much work they may be
doing on the sub-contractor level. Are there guidelines in place to
ensure there is no conflict of interest? How will identified conflicts
of interest be avoided or mitigated?
Answer. During the source selection process, one of the key issues
was identifying mechanisms to avoid conflicts of interest or the
appearance of conflict. Each offeror included presentations on means of
avoiding such conflicts. The contract has established that the NSP will
have an aggressive Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) management
program consistent with Federal Acquisition Regulation 9.5.
The NSP, which is a team of experienced contractors led by one
primary contractor, has proposed a conflict of interest management
approach that will be put into place upon contract award. Under the
proposed approach, the prime contractor will not pursue any contracts
for engineering studies with our regional offices or with States under
our CTP program. The proposed approach also includes a reporting
requirement for all other members of the NSP team to disclose all
ongoing contracts and pursuit of contracts to the prime contractor for
screening to identify potential OCI issues, perceived or actual. The
prime contractor will inform our Contracting Officer in writing of any
work that could pose a potential OCI so that appropriate measures may
be taken to eliminate the OCI.
Question. Without valid data the people at the State and local
level won't have confidence in the maps, making them virtually useless.
What guidelines are in place for an independent review of the process
itself and the new digitized maps to ensure the revised maps have valid
data? How will FEMA ensure that the flood hazard ``data'' has been
updated or is current before converting it into new digital maps?
Answer. A fundamental tenet of the Multi-Hazard Flood Map
Modernization Program is that State and local involvement in the
modernization of the flood maps is essential for program success.
State, regional, and local partner involvement is particularly vital
for the identification and use of best available, accurate data that
are appropriate for the flood risk in the area being mapped. We are
maximizing our partners' involvement and contributions in this critical
area by establishing clear quality standards; by making appropriate use
of Internet technology, automated data collection and processing tools;
and through use of independent quality reviews.
FEMA has developed criteria for assuring the quality of flood
hazard maps and supporting data. FEMA implemented Digital Flood
Insurance Rate Map base map standards in 1998 and Light Detection and
Ranging system standards in 2000. Both standards were updated when the
consolidated Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping
Partners was published in February 2002.
State, regional, and local review and acceptance of new and
existing data will be achieved at key milestones throughout the flood
map update process--from the initial identification of flood map update
needs as part of the MHIP, to the scoping of the flood map update, to
the preparation and adoption of the final maps.
Through our web-based flood hazard data collection and delivery
system, we will make component data, such as topographic data,
available for use by our mapping partners as it is developed. This will
allow for data quality verification at the State, regional, and local
levels at numerous points in the flood map update process. These
reviews will help to assure that the data reflect a level of analysis
and effort commensurate with the flood risk faced by the mapped
communities.
In addition to providing access to the data as it is developed, we
are assuring quality by providing data collection and processing tools
for our partners and contractors to use in performing map update
projects. These tools have been designed with quality checks built in
to minimize errors and to assure internal consistency in the collection
and processing of the data. To ensure the tools are used properly, we
will provide appropriate training and support to the partners and
contractors who are using the tools for map update projects.
FEMA is using the latest Internet portal technology to allow State,
regional, and local partners to obtain current status information on
the progress of a map update. This access will give our partners a more
significant role in the management of the program.
Furthermore, FEMA has incorporated a quality standard into the
performance measurement system for the program, and plans to establish
an independent contract to perform independent verification and
validation and to measure the quality of the products produced. The
independent contractor also will help monitor the NSP's performance and
verify that program outcomes are achieved.
Finally, FEMA is continuing the very effective practice of
requiring independent quality reviews as part of the flood map update
process. This practice was institutionalized when we published our
consolidated Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping
Partners in February 2002. We include the independent quality review
requirement in all mapping project-related contract documents developed
with our contractors and with participants in the CTP program. These
independent reviews help to assure map updates are completed
efficiently and are consistent with FEMA standards.
By requiring independent quality reviews throughout the map update
process, we are assuring that products resulting from each activity
meet FEMA standards before the next activity is started. We also are
assuring that the maps and related products and data are internally
consistent. These reviews also provide an opportunity for providing
task-specific training to partners who may not be completely familiar
with FEMA quality standards. The frequent independent quality reviews
also eliminate the costly rework that can result when an error is made
early in the processing and is not identified before processing
continues.
Question. Is the schedule of trying to have completely revised,
digitized flood maps for the entire country in 5 years realistic?
Answer. Based on our current schedule, we believe our plan for
preparing and distributing updated, digitized flood maps is realistic.
However, we will be better prepared to provide a precise accounting of
the type of engineering study to be performed in each county when we
complete the development of our 5-year implementation plan (MHIP);
scope the map update projects identified in coordination with State,
regional, and local partners and stakeholders; and contract the
required map updates with our contractors and participants in our CTP
program.
Question. Is $200 million a year still an accurate estimate of the
cost for this project, not just to convert the old paper maps into
digitized maps but to truly revise them with the most accurate flood
plain data? Are we sacrificing quality at any level for quantity of
maps completed?
Answer. Based on the information we have to date, we believe the
funding requested will be adequate to meet our initial program goals.
We will validate our original program baseline and provide a precise
accounting of when and how the funding will be expended later this
year, after we have completed the development of our 5-year
implementation plan (MHIP), scoped the map update projects identified;
determined the contributions that may be made by State, regional, and
local partners through the CTP program; and contracted the required map
updates.
One of the primary objectives that our NSP was asked to meet was
the creation of credible flood maps for use by partners, stakeholders,
and other users. The maps will reflect the best data available and will
be appropriate for the level of risk associated with the mapped area.
In addition, we have incorporated a quality standard into our
program performance standards to ensure quality of maps produced.
Question. Beyond the 5 years anticipated to complete the project,
how much follow-on funding is anticipated in the out-years to maintain
the digitized map?
Answer. At the present time, we cannot formulate a precise cost for
maintaining the digitized maps. The cost of maintaining the digitized
maps will depend on several factors, including the total cost savings
realized by eliminating routine production of paper maps (e.g., manual
updates, warehousing), and the level of State and local participation
in maintaining the new maps that will be realized by expanding our CTP
program. We will be able to estimate the maintenance budget for the
program after we complete our 5-year implementation plan (MHIP);
coordinate with States, regional agencies, and local communities; and
assess each State's desired level of program participation as
identified in its State Business Plan.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
Question. FEMA Region X has denied the use of Stafford Act disaster
funds for two airports in Alaska (Northway Airport and Gulkana
Airport). The repairs of these airports total $13,675,693. FEMA claims
that it does not have the authority to perform these repairs and claims
that the Federal Aviation Administration is authorized to perform these
repairs. The FAA disagrees and claims that its agency lacks authority
to provide for disaster repairs. Who has the legal responsibility for
repairs to disaster damaged runways and airports?
Answer. The appeal from the State of Alaska has been received and
is currently under review. We will notify your office once a decision
has been reached and the applicant has been informed.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
Question. What percentage of fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004
EMPG funds are being used to pay salaries nationally? Please provide
breakouts by State and include State and local government personnel
expenses.
Answer. In an attempt to be as responsive as possible to the
questions of the Committee, we have developed the information in the
table below. It is a statistical extrapolation based on budget levels
for ``Personnel'' and ``Fringe Benefits'' submitted by the States on
FEMA Form 20-20, ``Budget Information--Non-construction Programs.'' The
States are not required to maintain or to submit detailed information
on the exact percentages of their personnel costs funded with Emergency
Management Performance Grant (EMPG) funds, therefore, we must emphasize
that the data and methodology underlying this analysis are of known
inadequacy, and the results below may not provide a complete or
accurate assessment of the amount of EMPG funds used to pay salaries.
The indications that we are able to derive from this analysis are
that the amount of the Federal share of EMPG funds budgeted by the
States for salaries and fringe benefits varies greatly, ranging from
about 16 percent to about 72 percent. The average of the percentages
was about 37 percent. For the Insular Areas, which are not required to
share cost, the percentages ranged from about 56 to about 72 and
averaged about 67 percent.
Very little data is available for use of pass-through, or subgrant,
EMPG funds for salaries and benefits at the local level. What we do
have indicates that the number is higher than at the State level,
probably averaging 80 percent or more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Percent of Percent of
Reg./St. Name EMPG Federal Personnel Fringe Federal Share Estimated Pass-through
Share Benefits for Salaries/ Pass-through Salaries/
Fringe Fringe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Totals......................................... 154,885,912 75,144,375 16,416,336 37.40 115,843,873 ..............
Region 1................................................ 12,185,673 7,177,474 2,189,927 34.75 7,164,177 ..............
Connecticut......................................... 2,407,428 1,477,757 603,221 43.22 1,404,291 ..............
Maine............................................... 1,609,597 611,124 291,873 28.05 1,464,192 ..............
Massachusetts....................................... 3,457,781 3,062,227 673,690 54.02 1,595,952 ..............
New Hampshire....................................... 1,667,748 733,957 237,289 29.12 959,703 ..............
Rhode Island........................................ 1,599,677 891,015 285,125 36.76 1,136,623 ..............
Vermont............................................. 1,443,442 401,394 98,729 17.32 603,416 ..............
Region 2............................................ 15,011,754 4,632,915 1,311,370 45.25 2,742,707 ..............
New Jersey.......................................... 4,139,084 1,031,739 201,641 29.80 1,672,122 ..............
New York............................................ 7,703,460 2,500,000 859,250 43.61 215,085 ..............
Puerto Rico......................................... 2,536,400 737,895 156,026 35.24 855,500 ..............
Virgin Islands...................................... 632,810 363,281 94,453 72.33 ..............
Region 3................................................ 7,329,496 5,003,332 1,383,750 46.67 6,025,436 ..............
Delaware............................................ .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
District of Columbia................................ 1,501,603 1,793,206 284,000 69.17 410,000 ..............
Maryland............................................ .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
Pennsylvania........................................ .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
Virginia............................................ 3,889,095 2,306,396 810,356 40.07 3,195,436 ..............
West Virginia....................................... 1,938,798 903,730 289,394 30.77 2,420,000 ..............
Region 4................................................ 29,591,145 18,954,422 0 33.48 25,329,569 ..............
Alabama............................................. 3,823,967 3,696,461 .............. 48.33 2,500,000 ..............
Florida............................................. 7,233,935 2,617,511 .............. 18.09 4,279,886 ..............
Georgia............................................. 4,123,419 4,040,060 .............. 48.99 3,687,500 ..............
Kentucky............................................ 1,809,701 1,309,020 .............. 36.17 1,340,853
Mississippi......................................... 2,318,816 1,521,486 .............. 32.81 1,936,342 ..............
North Carolina...................................... 4,253,671 2,399,006 .............. 28.20 5,149,520 ..............
South Carolina...................................... 2,669,936 1,320,078 .............. 24.72 3,317,468 ..............
Tennessee........................................... 3,357,700 2,050,800 .............. 30.54 3,118,000 ..............
Region 5................................................ 24,931,917 11,509,247 4,558,027 30.80 22,249,984 ..............
Illinois............................................ 5,580,907 3,608,501 1,479,486 45.58 2,927,069 ..............
Indiana............................................. 3,365,504 1,200,538 497,218 25.22 4,288,816 87
Michigan............................................ 4,709,793 2,504,359 1,192,078 39.24 3,034,000 ..............
Minnesota........................................... 2,972,911 1,294,766 455,809 29.44 3,547,586 78
Ohio................................................ 5,184,208 1,981,083 553,436 24.44 3,852,513 86
Wisconsin........................................... 3,118,594 920,000 380,000 20.84 4,600,000 88
Region 6................................................ 17,990,977 4,333,511 1,184,259 28.34 11,282,574 ..............
Arkansas............................................ 2,179,451 1,376,311 415,921 41.12 991,384 41
Louisiana........................................... 2,791,271 673,366 121,206 28.47 1,581,860 93
New Mexico.......................................... 1,862,907 331,978 107,487 23.59 1,244,156 75
Oklahoma............................................ 2,415,000 531,156 137,871 27.70 1,764,007 ..............
Texas............................................... 8,742,348 1,420,700 401,774 20.85 5,701,167 75
Region 7................................................ 6,752,153 4,277,632 1,152,392 38.98 6,945,990 ..............
Iowa................................................ 1,600,520 1,094,279 364,760 45.58 5,000 ..............
Kansas.............................................. 1,511,233 850,063 212,712 35.16 3,230,491 ..............
Missouri............................................ 2,295,781 1,712,376 428,095 46.62 1,954,000 ..............
Nebraska............................................ 1,344,619 620,914 146,825 28.55 1,756,499 ..............
Region 8................................................ 11,212,298 4,176,758 1,244,091 28.98 11,553,304 ..............
Colorado............................................ 2,899,310 1,079,936 152,671 21.26 3,949,354 ..............
Montana............................................. 1,621,942 693,757 222,002 28.23 2,173,008 ..............
North Dakota........................................ 1,524,180 651,240 201,884 27.99 2,137,116 ..............
South Dakota........................................ 1,569,201 .............. 0.00 .............. ..............
Utah................................................ 2,121,554 978,743 431,343 33.23 2,373,456 ..............
Wyoming............................................. 1,476,111 773,082 236,191 34.19 920,370 ..............
Region 9................................................ 21,734,734 10,460,851 1,968,488 48.28 12,300,869 ..............
Arizona............................................. 3,123,049 4,104,686 416,372 72.38 45,308 ..............
California.......................................... 13,350,374 3,599,274 690,715 16.07 6,735,231 ..............
Hawaii.............................................. 1,676,149 1,338,168 431,158 52.78 2,022,655 ..............
Nevada.............................................. 1,992,530 646,106 201,491 21.27 3,036,516 ..............
American Samoa...................................... 431,942 243,092 46,176 66.97 10,756 ..............
Guam................................................ 589,350 299,847 117,248 70.77 84,365 ..............
CNMI................................................ 471,340 202,678 62,628 56.29 366,038 ..............
FSM................................................. 50,000 .............. .............. 0.00 .............. ..............
RMI................................................. 50,000 27,000 2,700 29.70 20,300 ..............
Region 10............................................... 8,145,765 4,618,233 1,424,032 42.81 10,249,263 ..............
Alaska.............................................. 1,173,241 1,223,577 429,905 70.47 693,000 ..............
Idaho............................................... 1,501,310 1,090,683 368,881 48.61 1,543,055 63
Oregon.............................................. 2,205,226 721,252 274,074 22.57 3,415,126 79
Washington.......................................... 3,265,988 1,582,721 351,172 29.61 4,598,082 ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What percentage of fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004
EMPG are being used for homeland security activities nationally? Please
provide this information for each State.
Answer. State and local entities have not been required to maintain
detailed reports which segregate their program expenditures on a
percentage-of-use basis.
That being said, FEMA would contend that very nearly all of the
State and local emergency management agencies' resources are being used
for all-hazards preparedness activities, including terrorism. The
capabilities developed and maintained in such areas as training,
exercising, command and control, communications, and even
administration are essential for homeland security (as broadly defined)
as well as for hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, hazardous materials
accidents, plane crashes--any and all mass-casualty situations.
Question. On what equipment, training and exercises were the fiscal
year 2003 fire grants spent? What was requested?
Answer. Below is a list of eligible equipment and training under
the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. Approximately $440
million to $460 million was expended in fiscal year 2003 on these kinds
of items. These represent 80-85 percent of the activities supported for
and applied for under the Fire Operations and Firefighter Safety and
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) program areas. The Fire Operations and
Firefighter Safety program area is the largest request area in the
program, representing 13,888 of the 20,136 applications initially
submitted, and nearly $1.377 billion of the $2.468 billion (inclusive
of non-Federal share) requested. EMS applications totaled 216 for
$14,145,120.
Basic Firefighting Equipment
Adapters, Wyes, & Siamese
Foam eductors and foam concentrate
Hose--(3\1/2\ inches or less)
Hose--Large Diameter (LDH 4 inches or larger)
Hydrant and spanner wrenches
Ladders
Nozzles
Portable deluge sets
Power saws
Ropes, harnesses, carabineers, pulleys, etc.
RIT pack
Wildland
Other basic equipment
Communications
Base station
Computer aided dispatch (CAD)
Computers
Headsets
Mobile radios
Mobile date terminal (MDT)
Pagers
Two-way pagers
Portable radios
Repeaters
Other communications
EMS
ALS airway equipment
BLS airway equipment
Suction
Automated external defibrillators (AED)
Defibrillator/monitor
Blood pressure cuffs
Pen lights
Pulse oximeters
Stethoscopes
Thermometers
Backboards
Cervical collars
Splints
Vest extrication devices
Other EMS
EMS/Rescue
AEDs
Powered/mechanical extrication tools/equipment
Stretchers, backboards, splints, etc.
Technical rescue equipment
Various supplies
Other EMS/rescue
Hazardous Materials (Hazmat)
Computers
Decontamination, clean-up, containment, and packaging equipment
Monitoring and sampling devices
Reference library
Spark-proof tools
Suppression
Other Hazmat
Investigation
Cameras
Lights, portable
Computers
Monitoring and sampling devices
Hand tools
Other investigation
Specialized
All-terrain vehicles
Rehab equipment
Compressors/cascade/fill station (fixed)
Skid unit
Compressors/cascade/fill station (mobile)
Thermal imaging devices
Fixed generator
Washer
Portable/mobile generator
Boats (13 feet in length and under)
Portable pump
Other specialized
personal protective equipment (ppe) list
Structural
Helmets
Pants, coats
Boots
Goggles
Gloves
Hoods
PASS devices
Accountability systems
Flashlights
Complete set of turnout
Hearing protection
Respiratory
Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)--30 minutes with face piece--
no extra bottle
SCBA--30 minutes with face piece--with extra bottle
SCBA--45 minutes with face piece--no extra bottle
SCBA--45 minutes with face piece--with extra bottle
SCBA--60 minutes with face piece--no extra bottle
SCBA--60 minutes with face piece--with extra bottle
Spare cylinders-30 minutes
Spare cylinders-45 minutes
Spare cylinders-60 minutes
Face pieces
Respirators
Air-line units
Wildland
Helmets
Boots
Goggles
Gloves
Pants, coats
Jumpsuits/coveralls
Accountability systems
Shelters
Canteens
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
SCBA/chemical/biological/radiological/nuclear environment respirators
Chemical/Biological Suits (Must conform to NFPA 1994, 2001 edition)
Other WMD-related PPE
Other PPE
Encapsulated Suits
Tyveck suits
Splash suits
Escape masks
Proximity and entry suits
Wet and dry suits
Infection control
training program titles list
Operations (NFPA 472)
Firefighter I, Firefighter II (NFPA 1001)
Instructor Training (NFPA 1041)
Driver/Operator (NFPA 1002)
Officer Training (NFPA 1021)
Basic Wildland Firefighting
Wildland Firefighter Certification
Airport Rescue Firefighting (ARFF) (NFPA 1003)
RIT Training
Confined Space Rescue--Awareness level
Vehicle Rescue
Technical Rescue/Urban Search and Rescue--Awareness level (NFPA 1670/
1006)
Technical Rescue/Urban Search and Rescue--Operations level (NFPA 1670/
1006)
Technical Rescue/Urban Search and Rescue--Technician level (NFPA 1670/
1006)
Hazmat--Technician/Specialist level
Infection Control (NFPA 1581)
Medical First Responder Training
Emergency Medical Technician--Basic (EMT B)
Emergency Medical Technician--Intermediate (EMT I)
Paramedic Training (EMT-P)
Mass Casualty Incident Training (MCI)
NIIMS (Unified Command)
Incident Management Course (IMC)
Integrated Emergency Management Course (IEMC)
Fire Inspector (NFPA 1031)
Fire Investigator (NFPA 1033)
Fire Educator (NFPA 1035)
Telecommunications/Dispatcher
Safety Officer
Question. TOPOFF 2 highlighted the fact that a large-scale
bioterrorism attack does not qualify as a Major Disaster under the
Stafford Act. How did the Emergency declaration differ from the
response and resources that a Disaster would have triggered? Is a
legislative change to the Stafford Act necessary? Will you request such
a change?
Answer. The scenario in TOPOFF 2 did result in an emergency
declaration. The Stafford Act provides authority for the President to
declare either a major disaster or an emergency, as a situation may
warrant. In the case of TOPOFF 2, where the nature of the incident was
not one contemplated for major disaster declarations, an emergency
declaration was determined to be appropriate. The emergency declaration
makes available the same response resources and assistance as would be
available for a major disaster. It also makes available assistance for
individuals under the Individuals and Households Program. The primary
difference in assistance that would be available under a major
disaster, but not for an emergency declaration, is assistance for the
repair, replacement, and restoration of public facilities that sustain
physical damage from the event. This was not a factor in the
bioterrorism attack in TOPOFF 2, nor would it be expected to be a
factor in such types of events in general. In contrast, should a
terrorist event also include fire or explosion, it then would be within
the type of event contemplated as a major disaster under the Act; as a
practical matter, public assistance would then be available to address
physical damages likely to occur in such cases. Accordingly, it is
FEMA's position that the types of events that are addressed by major
disaster or emergency declarations, respectively, are adequate and
appropriate to the types of assistance available under the respective
declaration authorities of the Stafford Act.
Question. What is currently contained in the Strategic National
Stockpile? How will fisccal year 2004 and proposed fiscal year 2005
funds be spent? How much anthrax vaccine is needed? From where will the
Department procure the needed anthrax vaccine, and how long will the
process take?
Answer. The Strategic National Stockpile currently contains anthrax
exposure treatments, smallpox vaccine, nerve agent treatment, and
radiation countermeasures, as well as a limited amount of botulinum
antitoxin.
Proposed Stockpile funding for fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year
2005 will be used to sustain its 12-Hour Push Packages and Vendor
Managed Inventory, to increase stocks for anthrax antibiotics and
vaccine, to purchase smallpox vaccine, and to develop botulinum
antitoxin plasma. The Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Medical
Countermeasures subcommittee, an interagency group co-chaired by the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), DHS, and the Department
of Defense, has recommended the eventual procurement of enough anthrax
vaccine to inoculate 25 million people.
HHS will be the procurement agent for the anthrax vaccine and will
request proposals for the vaccine development. The time requirement for
the actual procurement of the vaccine will be dependent on clinical
trials and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licensure processes.
The Stockpile currently maintains a small amount of the only FDA-
licensed pre-exposure vaccine against anthrax (Anthrax Vaccine
Adsorbed, or AVA). Currently, it has limited production capacity, and
rectifying that problem would be very expensive and take several years
to accomplish. AVA is not currently licensed for children or for the
elderly. However, in order to ensure that some type of anthrax vaccine
is available until the development and procurement of rPA, DHS and HHS
have signed an interagency agreement for the purchase of AVA through
the Department of the Army. This agreement will provide approximately 2
million doses in fiscal year 2004, 1.5 million doses in fiscal year
2005, and 1.5 million doses in fiscal year 2006.
Question. Please detail how the fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year
2005 proposed funding for Project BioShield will be spent.
Answer. Over the past 10 months, the WMD Medical Countermeasures
subcommittee has developed countermeasures information of interest to
administration policymakers who will make the BioShield procurement
decisions. The WMD subcommittee commissioned an end-to-end analysis of
medical countermeasures to Category ``A'' biological agents (anthrax,
smallpox, plague, botulinum toxin, tularemia, Ebola, and other
hemorrhagic fever viruses). Working groups developed initial
requirements for four high-priority bioweapon countermeasures for which
there is high need and a reasonable expectation that products will be
available in the near term:
--Next generation anthrax vaccine (recombinant Protective Antigen,
rPA)
--Anthrax immune therapy
--Next generation smallpox vaccine (modified vaccinia, MVA or LC16m8)
--Botulinum antitoxin
Question. Provide the status of the Disaster Relief Fund. What are
the carryover funds from fiscal year 2004, current balance?
Answer. As of March 10, 2004, the unobligated balance in the
Disaster Relief Fund was $1.813 billion. The fiscal year 2005 budget
request includes an estimated carryover of $453 million from fiscal
year 2004 into fiscal year 2005.
Question. What is the justification for requesting $0 for the
Metropolitan Medical Response System? Provide a legislative history of
MMRS, including its genesis and original intent. What costs are
incurred by EP&R, and what costs are incurred by local governments?
What will EP&R's role be in the MMRS if no funds are appropriated in
fiscal year 2005? How many cities are expected to continue the program
without Federal resources support?
Answer. The funds that Congress has appropriated for the
Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) over the last several years
have been used to establish certain capabilities, to get the program up
to its baseline, and to facilitate transfer of the program to the
localities for continuation, once the baseline is established. We will
reach the baseline this fiscal year (2004), and therefore no additional
funding is being requested. Since 1995, the Federal Government has
publicly articulated a necessity to improve planning and response to
acts of terrorism involving WMD. The Defense Against Weapons of Mass
Destruction Act of 1996, Public Law 104-201, states in Section 1412--
Emergency Response Assistance Program, paragraph (h)(2), ``Of the
amount available for the program pursuant to paragraph (1), $10,500,000
is available for use by the Secretary of Defense to assist the
Secretary of Health and Human Services in the establishment of
metropolitan emergency medical response teams (commonly referred to as
`Metropolitan Medical Strike Force Teams') to provide medical services
that are necessary or potentially necessary by reason of a use or
threatened use of a weapon of mass destruction.''
In 1997, HHS initiated the MMRS program to provide support for the
development of a response system in the event of a terrorist attack. On
March 1, 2003, the MMRS program was transferred to DHS.
DHS is responsible for sponsoring the MMRS program, a system-based
approach to mass casualty/surge capacity preparedness and response,
developed to enhance existing local first responder, medical, public
health, and emergency planning in the event of a terrorist attack.
Through contracts administered by FEMA, DHS is responsible for
providing funding and technical assistance to plan, develop, equip, and
identify training to local governments in 125 identified jurisdictions,
based on threat and population.
MMRS program duties have been absorbed as additional duties by
existing FEMA staff. Costs to absorb these duties include approximately
$770,000 to fund regional salaries, set at 50 percent of the time for
18 staff members currently administering the program; approximately
$408,000 to fund two staff years at the Noble Training Center and two
staff years at headquarters; and an estimated $350,000 for travel.
There are no cost-sharing requirements for local governments.
Secretary Ridge has proposed a reorganization (a letter was sent to
Members of Congress on January 26, 2004), wherein the MMRS program for
fiscal year 2004 will be transferred to a newly established Office of
State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness. Under this
arrangement, FEMA would have no further role in the MMRS program for
fiscal year 2004, and there will be no Federal program in fiscal year
2005.
We cannot precisely estimate the number of local jurisdictions that
would continue the MMRS program without Federal resources support. We
are fairly certain that a large number of them, as an element of
prudent preparedness and operational necessity, will attempt to
maintain MMRS-type mass casualty integrated response preparedness and
seek to use Federal funds from other programs to support eligible
portions of MMRS-type capabilities.
Question. Provide specific examples of capacity at the Department
of Housing and Urban Development that FEMA does not have for operating
the Emergency Food and Shelter program.
Answer. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is
the primary Federal agency responsible for the administration of
homeless assistance programs. While FEMA has successfully administered
the Emergency Food and Shelter (EFS) program over the years, there are
ways that the program could be improved by moving it to HUD.
Specifically, the following examples demonstrate the capacity of HUD to
operate the program:
--HUD, as mandated by Congress, is currently assessing all homeless
assistance programs to determine the need for structural
changes to the programs in order to address the President's
goal to end homelessness in the next 10 years. The EFS program
is the only homeless assistance program not included in this
assessment. In order to ensure an integrated approach to
assisting persons facing housing emergencies and to meet this
goal, it would be more logical for the program to be
administered by HUD. FEMA does not have the capacity to perform
this requirement.
--HUD is able to link housing and supportive services for chronically
homeless persons to other comprehensive services through its
numerous other homeless assistance programs and mainstream
housing programs. FEMA does not have any other homeless
assistance programs.
--HUD has the staffing and financial resources to improve the
administration and delivery of the EFS program.
--HUD has the capacity to ensure that homeless assistance/prevention
programs are not duplicative, allowing for scarce resources to
be utilized more efficiently and effectively. Currently, the
EFS program provides funding to the same agencies that HUD
programs fund for the same services and individuals. FEMA does
not have the capacity to monitor which agencies are duplicating
services.
--As FEMA's mission evolves under the Department of Homeland
Security, its resources must be focused entirely on natural
disasters and catastrophic events, such as the terrorist
attacks of 9/11. The EFS program does not fit within the goals
and objectives of DHS or of FEMA.
Question. How many staff vacancies do you have in EP&R at this
time?
Answer. Vacancies in directly funded programs total 256. This
excludes the Disaster Relief Fund and 88 newly funded positions in the
Mitigation program for Flood Map Modernization and Pre-disaster
Mitigation activities.
Question. Provide the numbers of FTE that have been detailed and
transferred out of FEMA since the Department was created. From which
offices were the transfers made, and to which offices did FTE go?
Answer. In fiscal year 2003, there were 200 FTE budgeted for FEMA's
Office of Inspector General, which transferred in its entirety to the
Department. The only transfers of positions that have occurred are
those positions associated with the Office of Inspector General; no
other FEMA positions have been transferred. FEMA has documented
approximately 85 FTE details since March 1, 2003, to various components
of the Department.
Question. Provide the number of positions (filled and unfilled) and
the Salaries and Expense funds spent within each FEMA office, before
February 1, 2003 and currently. Please indicate which positions are in
the regional offices and the headquarters offices. Do not include EP&R
FTE detailed out of the Directorate.
Answer. The tables below provide the positions and Salaries and
Expense in FEMA as of February 1, 2003, and as of February 21, 2004.
FEBRUARY 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Positions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization Encumbered Vacant TOTAL \1\ S&E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Director............. 15 4 19 $968
National Security.............. 27 20 47 905
General Counsel................ 31 3 34 1,184
Equal Rights................... 10 0 10 283
Regional Operations............ 3 0 3 107
Inspector General.............. ( \2\ ) ( \2\ ) ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
External Affairs............... 52 7 59 1,853
Administration & Resource 4 1 5 210
Planning \3\..................
Human Resources................ 62 2 64 2,103
Financial & Acquisition 130 21 151 4,365
Management....................
Facilities Management.......... 64 7 71 7,876
Response & Recovery............ 327 69 396 12,675
Fed. Insurance & Mitigation.... 153 27 180 5,607
U.S. Fire Administration....... 196 7 203 6,272
National Preparedness.......... 74 7 81 2,759
Information Technology......... 191 17 208 6,867
----------------------------------------
Subtotal Headquarters.... 1,339 192 1,531 54,033
----------------------------------------
Subtotal Regions......... 771 45 816 25,991
----------------------------------------
TOTAL.................... 2,110 237 2,347 80,024
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 2003, encumbered total excludes positions funded under Disaster
Relief and the Working Capital Fund.
\2\ Inspector General (IG) personnel activity was handled by Bureau of
Public Debt. In fiscal year 2004, the entire IG office was transferred
to the Department of Homeland Security.
\3\ Office abolished in 2003.
FEBRUARY 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Positions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization Encumbered Vacant TOTAL \1\ S&E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Under Secretary.. 22 4 26 $1,022
National Security.............. 38 12 50 1,579
General Counsel................ 32 3 35 1,221
Equal Rights................... 9 1 10 275
Regional Operations............ 3 1 4 106
External Affairs............... 40 14 54 1,643
Human Resources................ 55 10 65 1,711
Financial & Acquisition 140 16 156 4,504
Management....................
Facilities Management.......... 60 8 68 8,009
Recovery....................... 73 7 80 2,939
Mitigation..................... 148 32 180 5,662
Preparedness................... 249 38 287 8,006
Response....................... 314 51 365 13,582
Information Technology......... 174 22 196 7,013
----------------------------------------
Subtotal Headquarters.... 1,357 219 1,576 57,272
----------------------------------------
Subtotal Regions......... 770 37 807 25,966
----------------------------------------
TOTAL.................... 2,127 256 2,383 83,238
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 2004, encumbered total excludes positions funded under Disaster
Relief, National Disaster Medical System, and the Working Capital
Fund.
Question. Also please provide the number of Senior Executive
Service positions which FEMA had on Feb. 1, 2003 and the number it has
now. Please include the filled and vacant, indicate political and
career and the division or department. If a position has been moved,
indicate where it was located before and to where it has been
transferred.
Answer. The tables that follow provide the number of Senior
Executive Service (SES) positions in FEMA. FEMA has a set number of SES
slots that the Under Secretary can use for any SES position. Each time
an SES position becomes vacant, the slot returns to the Under
Secretary's ``SES pool'' and the Under Secretary can reallocate it to
another FEMA organization based on a determination of the most critical
SES need. As the charts indicate, from February 2003 to March 2004,
some SES positions were realigned to best support new mission critical
responsibilities.
There was no net change in the number of FEMA's allocated SES slots
between February 2003 and March 2004. In February 2003, FEMA's
allocation was 54 permanent slots and one term allocation for a total
of 55 slots.
As a result of FEMA's transition into DHS, 2 slots were transferred
(the only 2 SES slots transferred outside of FEMA) to the DHS Office of
the Inspector General (OIG). Although OIG originally had three
incumbents, one had retired. However, DHS provided 2 slots from its
overall allocation to FEMA for 2 positions in the Office of the Under
Secretary.
The term appointee in the Information Technology Services Division,
identified in the February 2003 order, resigned and the one slot was
lost. However, again as a result of transitional activities, one slot
was transferred to FEMA from the Department of Health and Human
Services as an encumbered position. Therefore, FEMA's allocation was
then and is now 55 slots.
FEBRUARY 2003 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Encumbered Encumbered Encumbered
Organization Career Non-Career Term Vacant Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Director................................ 2 1 .......... 1 4
Office of National Security Coordination.............. .......... .......... .......... 1 1
Office of the General Counsel......................... .......... .......... .......... 2 2
External Affairs Division............................. .......... 1 .......... 2 3
Administration & Resource Planning Division........... .......... 1 .......... ......... 1
Human Resources Division.............................. .......... 1 .......... ......... 1
Finance & Acquisition Management Division............. 2 .......... .......... ......... 2
Facilities Management & Services Division............. 2 .......... .......... ......... 2
Mt. Weather Emergency Operations Division............. 1 1 .......... ......... 2
Response & Recovery Directorate....................... 5 1 .......... \2\ 2 8
Federal Insurance & Mitigation Directorate............ 6 .......... .......... ......... 6
U.S. Fire Administration.............................. 2 1 .......... ......... 3
Office of National Preparedness....................... 1 .......... 1 ......... 2
Office of the Inspector General \1\................... 3 .......... .......... ......... 3
Information Technology Services Division.............. 5 1 1 ......... 7
Region 1.............................................. .......... 1 .......... ......... 1
Region 2.............................................. .......... .......... .......... 1 1
Region 3.............................................. .......... .......... .......... 1 1
Region 4.............................................. 1 .......... .......... ......... 1
Region 5.............................................. .......... 1 .......... ......... 1
Region 6.............................................. .......... 1 .......... ......... 1
Region 7.............................................. .......... 1 .......... ......... 1
Region 8.............................................. .......... 1 .......... ......... 1
Region 9.............................................. .......... 1 .......... ......... 1
Region 10............................................. .......... 1 .......... ......... 1
---------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... 30 \4\ 15 2 8 \3\ 57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Determination order of February 2003 did not include OIG SES members since they received personnel services
from the Bureau of Public Debt.
\2\ Two additional vacancies were listed on determination order (which were subsequently canceled).
\3\ SES slots allocation (maximum number that could be filled) was 55.
\4\ Ceiling of 19 non-career (political).
MARCH 10, 2004 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (FEMA)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Encumbered Encumbered Encumbered
Organization Career Non-Career Term Vacant Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Under Secretary--Emergency Preparedness 3 2 .......... 2 7
& Response...........................................
Office of National Security Coordination.............. .......... 1 .......... ......... 1
Office of the General Counsel......................... .......... .......... .......... 1 1
Office of External Affairs Coordination............... .......... .......... .......... 1 1
Human Resources Division.............................. .......... .......... .......... 1 1
Finance & Acquisition Management Division............. 2 .......... .......... 1 3
Facilities Management & Services Division............. 1 .......... .......... 1 2
Mt. Weather Operations................................ 2 1 .......... ......... 3
Response Division..................................... 3 .......... 1 2 6
Recovery Division..................................... 2 1 .......... 2 5
Mitigation Division................................... 4 .......... .......... 2 6
Preparedness Division................................. 2 1 .......... 1 4
Information Technology Division....................... 5 .......... .......... ......... 5
Region 1.............................................. .......... .......... .......... 1 1
Region 2.............................................. .......... .......... 6 1 1
Region 3.............................................. .......... .......... .......... 1 1
Region 4.............................................. 1 .......... .......... ......... 1
Region 5.............................................. .......... 1 .......... ......... 1
Region 6.............................................. .......... 1 .......... ......... 1
Region 7.............................................. .......... 1 .......... ......... 1
Region 8.............................................. .......... 1 .......... ......... 1
Region 9.............................................. .......... 1 .......... ......... 1
Region 10............................................. .......... 1 .......... ......... 1
---------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... 25 \1\ 12 1 17 55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ceiling of 19 non-career available for fill.
Question. Please describe how the amounts of CAP-SSSE funds
provided to each State are determined. Describe the States'
responsibilities and how they've changed, if at all, in recent years.
As income associated with the Federal policy fee has increased, have
funds provided by FEMA to the States increased proportionally?
Answer. The purpose of the Community Assistance Program--State
Support Services Element (CAP-SSSE) is to provide, through a State
grant mechanism, a means to ensure that communities participating in
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are achieving the flood
loss reduction objectives of the NFIP. CAP-SSSE is intended to
accomplish this by funding States to provide technical assistance to
NFIP communities and to evaluate community performance in implementing
NFIP floodplain management activities with the goal of building
community and State floodplain management expertise and capability.
Using CAP-SSSE funding, States now provide a significant portion of the
technical assistance to NFIP communities. Without this State support,
FEMA regions would not have enough staff to implement the program. CAP-
SSSE capitalizes on partnering with the staff of State agencies to
provide this assistance.
CAP-SSSE grant fund allocations to States are determined by the
FEMA regional offices. In general, States are provided a baseline
funding amount to develop basic floodplain management capabilities to
assist the FEMA regions in providing technical assistance to
communities. After the baseline amount is established, other factors
such as the number of participating communities in the State,
population growth rate, and number of NFIP insurance policies, as well
as each State's capability to provide assistance and overall technical
support needs, are considered in determining the final allocations. All
States participate in the program and receive funds in varying amounts.
FEMA regional offices and the designated State agency negotiate a CAP-
SSSE agreement that specifies activities and products to be completed
by a State in return for CAP-SSSE funds. There is a 25 percent non-
Federal match for all States receiving CAP-SSSE funds. In some cases, a
State's ability to provide the required funding match may affect
funding levels.
In recent years, States' responsibilities have been changing in
order to support nationwide map modernization implementation.
Specifically, States have been more involved in map modernization
planning activities to assist in implementing this important
initiative. Finally, CAP-SSSE grant funds are not directly linked to
Federal policy fee income. However, total CAP-SSSE funds have increased
by 40 percent over the past 2 years to assist States in their
floodplain management activities and in meeting the challenges of map
modernization.
Question. When will DHS release 2004 CAP-SSSE funds to the FEMA
Regions for distribution to the states?
Answer. Fiscal year 2004 CAP-SSSE funds were released to the FEMA
regions in November 2003. Many States have already received their
fiscal year 2004 CAP-SSSE funding allocation. Some of the FEMA regions
are still negotiating with the States regarding the content of the
State Work Plans. Once the State Work Plans are finalized and approved,
the remaining funds will be awarded.
Question. Are all of the Federal Personnel paid with funds
collected from the Federal Policy fee working directly on National
Flood Insurance Program projects?
Answer. Yes. Each year we carefully monitor the program assignments
paid from the National Flood Insurance Fund to ensure that those
Federal employees are performing NFIP work.
Question. Describe how DHS and HUD are working together to assure
that HUD regulations address installation of manufactured homes
specifically in flood hazard areas.
Answer. On December 27, 2000, the Manufactured Housing Improvement
Act (MHIA) became law (Public Law No. 106-569) and for the first time
established a requirement that HUD develop national model manufactured
home installation standards. DHS has participated in this development
process by submitting to the non-Federal consensus committee,
established by the MHIA, proposed flood disaster-resistant provisions,
consistent with NFIP, which would apply to manufactured homes sited in
flood hazard areas. On December 18, 2003, the consensus committee
approved DHS' proposed provisions and included them in the final
recommended national model manufactured home installation standards
submitted to the HUD Secretary. In accordance with the law, the HUD
Secretary has 1 year (December 18, 2004) in which to act on these
recommended standards.
Question. Will DHS coordinate with HUD to include in existing
Federal regulations (24 CFR Part 3282.303(c)), a requirement that State
administrative agency plans must require licensed installers and/or
dealers to determine whether a proposed manufactured housing site is
located in a FEMA identified flood hazard area before installation?
Answer. Changes to 24 CFR Part 3282.303(c) are not anticipated by
HUD. Rather, under the MHIA, State installation programs for their
licensed installers and/or dealers must include standards that meet or
exceed the protection provided by the national model manufactured home
installation standards that are currently being developed by HUD. A key
provision of the model standards reads, ``Prior to the initial
installation of a manufactured home, it shall be determined whether the
home site lies wholly or partly within a special flood hazard area.''
In this way, States will be fulfilling 3282.303(c) in assuring that
homes are properly installed in their States.
Question. Will DHS coordinate with HUD to require manufacturers
installation manuals to specifically state whether model installation
designs are intended for use in flood hazard areas?
Answer. Under the MHIA, manufacturers shall provide with each home
designs and instructions for the installation of the manufactured home
that have been approved by a design approval primary inspection agency
(DAPIA). Once the national model installation standards have been
established, DAPIAs may not issue approvals unless the designs and
instructions for installation provide equal or greater protection than
the protection provided under the national model standards. A key
provision in the new national model installation standards is that
manufactured homes located wholly or partly within flood hazard areas
shall be installed using methods and practices that minimize damage in
accordance with the flood damage reduction requirements contained in
the NFIP regulations. Specific to foundation systems used in the
manufacturers' instructions, the standards also require that, in flood
hazard areas, the piers, anchoring, and support systems shall be
capable of resisting loads associated with design flood and wind
events.
Question. What priority are you giving to preparing new floodplain
delineations to replace or refine approximated flood hazard areas,
rather than simply converting them to a digital format? How much of the
fiscal year 2005 request for flood map modernization will be spent on
preparing new floodplain delineations? On digitization of existing
paper maps?
Answer. FEMA's current priority is working with States and local
governments to identify those communities at greatest risk and to
provide updated geospatial data. The long-term performance goal for the
Multi-Hazard Flood Map Modernization Program is for the U.S. population
to have up-to-date digital flood hazard data and maps for flood-prone
areas. FEMA is developing flood data and producing maps for communities
that reflect the level of analysis and effort commensurate with the
flood risk faced by each community. Part of the mapping process
involves a needs assessment during which FEMA works with the local
community to determine mapping needs and to assess whether existing
local data are sufficiently accurate to meet local needs and NFIP
criteria. All assessments will be coordinated with States, regional
agencies, and local communities.
During the next 6 months, FEMA will be working with national,
State, and local partners and stakeholders to assemble an integrated 5-
year implementation plan for the Multi-Hazard Flood Map Modernization
Program. We will use the plan to establish goals and baseline with
existing priorities; to document and understand flood map update needs
identified by State, regional, and local partners and stakeholders; and
to develop prioritization criteria and a sequence for scoping counties
and watersheds in the priority areas based on floodplain management,
hydrologic, hydraulic, and terrain needs. The plan that will be
developed is the MHIP for fiscal years 2004-2008.
FEMA will provide a precise accounting of the new engineering
studies and floodplain boundary delineations once we complete the
development of the MHIP; will scope the map update projects identified
in coordination with State, regional, and local partners and
stakeholders; will determine the contributions that may be made by
State, regional, and local partners through the Cooperating Technical
Partners (CTP) program; and will contract the required map updates with
our contractors and with participants in our CTP program.
FEMA plans to update the flood maps based on the level of flood
risk associated with an area and the accuracy of the existing data for
that area. For some areas, there may not be a need to perform a new
engineering study because the flood hazards and related risk are
accurately portrayed on the flood map and are appropriate for the area.
For example, for recently mapped areas, we will use the accurate
available data to create a digital map.
Our modernization effort is predicated on using the best available
data and clear data standards. To that end, it is not our intention to
convert inaccurate flood maps to a digital format.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. I have noted that the Emergency Preparedness and Response
Directorate, which includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), has slowly shifted its emphasis from all-hazards to terrorism.
The President's budget request includes legislative language that would
give ``priority to homeland security activities.'' The intent of FEMA,
however, was to insure broad-based, all-hazards approaches to State and
local preparedness and response efforts. This shift is cause for great
concern.
I strongly believe that a reliable emergency infrastructure--
adequately resourced at the Federal, State and local levels--must build
upon the all-hazards emergency management approach and address the
needs of the entire emergency system, including, but not limited to:
law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services, public health, the
911 communications system and emergency management. Currently, a
greater focus on terrorism has increased the role of emergency managers
and the immediate needs of all responders to ensure adequate
preparedness. Meanwhile, natural hazards continue to be the pervasive
disaster that occurs regularly. In 2003, for example, there were 56
major disaster declarations, 19 emergency declarations and 46 fire
suppression authorizations--none of which were terrorist-related.
Mr. Brown, would you agree that natural disaster preparedness must
not suffer as a result of homeland security efforts, but rather should
be viewed as the most frequent opportunity to validate domestic
preparedness efforts and to also build best practices? If not, please
explain why you think our emergency response system must be focused on
terrorism rather than all-hazards and how that benefits us.
Answer. Although the Department of Homeland Security is focused on
terrorism and protecting the homeland, the President, Secretary Ridge,
and I are committed to an all-hazards approach of preparedness,
response, and recovery from all events, including natural disasters.
Recent efforts to improve response to and recovery from a terrorism
event do not diminish FEMA's commitment to dealing with the destruction
of a natural disaster--just the opposite. FEMA has enjoyed a long
history of focusing on all hazards, and I believe that being part of
DHS has strengthened that approach. As you mention, FEMA has
successfully continued to respond to and recover from a multitude of
natural disasters in the past year. At the same time, these efforts do
provide us with opportunities to better prepare not only for terrorism
events, but also for catastrophic events, whether they be natural or
caused by terrorism.
Question. The President's fiscal year 2005 budget request for the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes changes to the Emergency
Management Performance Grants (EMPG) Program that would severely impact
State and local emergency management. In the fiscal year 2003
Consolidated Appropriations law (Public Law 108-7), Congress called the
EMPG Program ``the backbone of the Nation's emergency management
system.'' In fiscal year 2004, Congress increased EMPG funding to $179
million, directed that EMPG would remain in the Emergency Preparedness
and Response Directorate where the focus is an all-hazards approach to
emergency management, and ordered the continuation of funding personnel
expenses.
I was surprised to read, therefore, that the President's fiscal
year 2005 request cuts EMPG funding by $9 million and also proposes a
25 percent cap on the use of funds to support personnel salaries. Since
the functions of emergency management are almost 100 percent personnel
driven (i.e., planning, coordinating, exercise design, public
education, and hazards at the State and local levels and would result
in losses of 70 percent of their emergency management staff response to
and recovery from actual incidents), this provision would have a
devastating effect on emergency management agencies nationwide. The cap
would eliminate current personnel responsible for planning for and
responding to all
Mr. Brown, now is the time when we should be building the capacity
of our Nation's emergency management agencies. Why, then, is this
Administration seeking to weaken it?
Answer. The EMPG personnel cap is intended to ensure that State and
local governments assume responsibility for their personnel costs.
Effective State and local emergency management capability is not the
primary responsibility of the Federal Government, rather, it is a
shared responsibility. In exchange for absorbing some of these
personnel costs, DHS will increase the amount of funding that goes to
the State and local governments for training and exercises. If the
State and local governments can reprioritize some of their monies to
keep their personnel intact, then DHS will spend the funding freed up
by that on training and exercises to make sure they are still capable
of doing what DHS needs them to do. DHS feels that by imposing the
personnel cap, the Department will be able to do more to build the
capabilities of the States rather than weaken them.
Question. I am very concerned about the state of the floodmap
modernization program. I saw in your budget submission that almost $40
million of fiscal year 2004 funds would be distributed this year.
However, my home State of Vermont has received no funds thus far, and
it appears that several of the state's grants requests have been acted
upon very slowly if at all.
You are asking for another $293 million this year for the program,
yet I am beginning to question whether the benefits of this program are
really flowing to the communities that need to update their maps, and I
wonder whether the program is taking too broad an approach to be useful
at the local level.
Mr. Brown, can you please tell me specifically what this program is
going to do for my home State of Vermont. Is FEMA going to stick to a
verbal commitment made to the State to support its Fluvial Hazards Risk
Assessment Initiative through Map Modernization funding opportunities?
What is the status of Vermont's grant applications for other programs
that will help prepare for flooding, such as the Pre-Disaster
Mitigation program? Answer. FEMA's Mitigation Division administers two
major programs that involve extensive coordination and planning with
State and local officials--the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM)
and the Multi-Hazard Flood Map Modernization Program.
FEMA's PDM fiscal year 2003 funds will be awarded on a competitive
basis with a national priority on funding mitigation projects that
address National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) repetitive flood loss
properties. The national evaluation of fiscal year 2003 PDM competitive
grant applications submitted by the October 6th application deadline
was completed on November 21, 2003. All projects funded under the PDM
program must be cost-effective, consistent with environmental laws and
regulations, and contribute to a long-term mitigation solution.
The sub-applications identified for selection will be approved for
funding in phases. We have approved a list of sub-applications
identified as Phase I and Phase II. An application from North Troy,
Vermont, The River Road Acquisition Project, is included in Phase II.
FEMA's Region I staff soon will be contacting Vermont Emergency
Management staff to discuss program and grants management requirements
that must be addressed in order to make a final determination and to
proceed with a grant award for this project. A final phase of PDM
awards will follow later this spring. Because of the competitive nature
of this program, details about the status of the remaining sub-
applications cannot be released until funding decisions are made. At
that time, I will provide an update to you. In fiscal year 2003,
Vermont also received a $248,275 non-competitive planning grant to help
the State and its local communities protect lives and property by
developing multi-hazard mitigation plans.
In addition, we have a number of Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP) projects that address flood hazards underway in Vermont. FEMA
recently obligated $233,575 for 13 projects and planning grants in
various Vermont communities with HMGP funds made available after
disaster declaration DR-1428-VT (severe storms and flooding, July
2002). The final project to be awarded under DR-1428-VT is in Richford,
Vermont. FEMA is providing $54,375 for a project to relocate the town's
water main from a precarious location under the river where it is
subject to damage from ongoing scouring. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers is the lead agency on this project. We are waiting to review
their environmental assessment and expect, if there are no problems, to
obligate funds this spring. Vermont Emergency Management currently is
soliciting applications for HMGP projects that will be funded following
disaster declaration DR-1488-VT (severe storms and flooding, September
2003).
Under the Multi-Hazard Flood Map Modernization Program, FEMA has
provided $800,000 to fund flood map updates for Windsor County, Windham
County, Washington County, and the Towns of Hinesburg, Stowe, and West
Rutland. FEMA plans to distribute preliminary versions of the updated
flood maps for Windsor and Windham Counties and the three towns during
this summer. FEMA will send these preliminary versions to community and
county officials, State officials, and other key stakeholders to
facilitate a thorough review. The study being performed for Washington
County, which is still in the scoping phase, includes a component of
the Fluvial Hazard Morphology initiative, specifically, riverine
erosion assessment protocol and tools developed by the Vermont Agency
of Natural Resources.
The FEMA regional office staff in Boston has a regional business
plan that describes its 5-year strategic plan for executing the Multi-
Hazard Flood Map Modernization Program. The Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources has expressed an interest in taking some responsibility for
managing local flood hazard data and is preparing its State business
plan to identify the activities it desires to undertake and its 5-year
flood map project priorities. FEMA will use this information to update
the regional and National business plans for the Multi-Hazard Flood Map
Modernization Program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
emergency management performance grants
Question. I am concerned about the Administration's budget cuts and
policy changes to the Emergency Management Performance Grants. First, I
disagree with the President's decision to move the grants from FEMA to
the Office of Domestic Preparedness. No one in my State thinks this is
necessary, and they are concerned that this diminishes the role and
power of FEMA. FEMA was one of the most successful agencies to be
folded into Homeland Security and it would be a shame if the Department
undermined FEMA by taking away programs it handled well in the past. I
think the Administration should avoid trying to fix grant programs that
are not broken.
In addition, not only is there $9 million less than last year for
the grants, but the $170 million that is included in the President's
budget will no longer fund all hazard planning. This is a real
disappointment for county emergency managers in my state. They used
these funds to help them prepare for terrorist attacks as well as
natural disasters like floods and tornados. A reduction in funding,
especially when adjusted for inflation, could force some counties to
reduce staff as well as leave them unprepared for non-terrorism
catastrophes.
Why did the Administration reduce these funds, and why did they
prohibit these funds from being used for all hazard planning?
Answer. The Emergency Management Planning Grant Program provides
vital support to the State and local emergency management system. The
purpose of EMPG is to assist the development, maintenance, and
improvement of State and local emergency management capabilities, which
are key components of a comprehensive national emergency management
system for disasters and emergencies that may result from natural
disasters or accidental or man-caused events. At this time, the
Administration's priority is assisting states in building capabilities
for homeland security.
These grants are a critical part of our homeland security efforts
and an existing strength that must be maintained. The President's
fiscal year 2005 request includes $170 million for continuation of this
program, which is the most any administration has requested for this
program. In fact, the fiscal year 2005 request is $20 million or more
than 10 percent above the fiscal year 2004 request.
The funding increase, and restriction on the amount of funds that
can be used for salaries, will result in a more robust emergency
planning and management system at the State and local effort.
Follow up: The Administration has also decided to allow only 25
percent of these grants to be used to pay personnel costs. The counties
in my State have used these grants to hire people that facilitate
disaster planning and help the local communities to make the best use
of the State and Federal funds they receive. The emergency management
community in my State has told me that this would force them to lay-off
workers and planners, leaving them less prepared for any disaster. Will
the Administration change its position on capping personnel costs, and
if not, how do you expect the states and counties to continue to pay
for this staff?
Answer. The Administration's fiscal year 2005 request for the
Emergency Management Planning Grants is $170 million, which is higher
than any previous request for this program. The funds will be used to
assist the development, maintenance, and improvement of State and local
emergency management capabilities, with a focus on building local
capabilities for homeland security.
As you note, though, the request does cap the amount that states
can use for salaries, thereby significantly increasing the amount of
funds available for planning, training and exercises. The
Administration's budget request still allows for award funds to support
salaries. The request shifts the emphasis to Federal support for
planning while properly aligning responsibility for staffing and
salaries with the states and local governments. The Administration and
Department have consistently supported the idea that homeland security
is a shared responsibility between Federal and State and local
governments. Additionally, it is important to remember that we are
operating in a fiscal and security environment where we must ensure
maximum security benefits are derived from every security dollar. To do
that, we must be able to take a new look at the way in which we
allocate resources, including sharing financial responsibility with our
State and local partners.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Cochran. Our next hearing on the budget request for
the Department of Homeland Security will be held on Tuesday,
March 2, in this same room. At that time, the Under Secretary
for Science and Technology, Dr. Charles McQueary, and the Under
Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection, Mr. Frank Libutti, will be here to discuss the
budget for the programs under their jurisdiction.
Until then, the subcommittee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., Thursday, February 26, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday,
March 2.]