[Senate Hearing 112-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[The following testimonies were received by the
Subcommittee on Homeland Security for inclusion in the record.
The submitted materials relate to the fiscal year 2013 budget
request for programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]
Prepared Statement of Airports Council International-North America
Chairman Landrieu, Ranking Member Coats, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of
airport operators on the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) travel
programs. As the president of Airports Council International-North
America (ACI-NA), I am submitting this testimony today on behalf of the
local, regional, and State governing bodies that own and operate
commercial service airports in the United States and Canada. ACI-NA
member airports enplane more than 95 percent of the domestic and
virtually all the international airline passenger and cargo traffic in
North America. More than 350 aviation-related businesses are also
members of ACI-NA.
Madam Chairman, we commend you for holding this important hearing.
Each day, airports work to implement measures to streamline the process
for our passengers. To this end, airports partner with the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), and airlines to develop and maintain a comprehensive,
layered security system that efficiently processes passengers.
RISK-BASED SECURITY AND TRUSTED TRAVELER PROGRAMS
We must continue to shift from a rigid process of screening for bad
things to a system that draws upon the vast amount of available data to
focus the most invasive security processes on travelers who have not
been previously vetted. A risk-based system is absolutely what is
needed and TSA should be applauded for its initiative to implement
several risk-based security initiatives involving pilots, passengers
and cargo.
ACI-NA fully supports the TSA PreCheck (Pre3TM) Known
Traveler program. From a practical perspective, this risk-based program
harnesses available data--voluntarily provided by passengers--and
intelligence information to serve as an indicator to guide the
application of screening resources. The most invasive screening
technologies and resources are applied to individuals about whom the
least is known. It not only reduces traveler frustration by providing a
certain level of predictability--while including an essential random
security element--but also streamlines the process today and allows for
the development of a sustainable system in the future.
ACI-NA also strongly supports the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection's (CBP) successful risk-based international trusted traveler
programs which allows prescreened, pre-approved air passengers to use
dedicated lanes and kiosks: Global Entry at certain U.S. airports and
Canadian preclearance airports and NEXUS, which is a joint program
between CBP and the Canada Border Services Agency for U.S. and Canadian
citizens and legal permanent residents entering Canada at Canadian
preclearance airports. These risk-based international trusted traveler
programs provide the dual benefit of enhancing both security and
processing efficiency, since travelers do not have to spend time
filling out paper declaration forms. In addition, participating
travelers do not have to wait in line or visit CBP officers, thus
allowing officers to focus on other, less well-known travelers. We
encourage the subcommittee to support CBP in its effort to deploy
kiosks to additional airport locations and to increase the number of
enrollees in these programs, thus enhancing facilitation and security
for all participating passengers. CBP should fast track its efforts to
make the registration Web site (Global Online Enrollment System) more
user-friendly, so that individuals are not discouraged from joining
these valuable trusted traveler programs.
According to recent CBP testimony, Global Entry has reduced average
wait times for enrollees by more than 70 percent. This program will be
crucial in helping to leverage limited CBP staff resources at airports
during peak travel times, when passenger demand increases
significantly, often resulting in long wait times and missed flight
connections. Efforts to promote the United States as a travel and
tourism destination including improved visa processing is likely to
further exacerbate the strain on limited CBP staffing. Expanding Global
Entry to additional airports and airport terminals will make the
program available to even more travelers and thus promote increased
enrollment, benefiting all passengers, the aviation industry, and CBP.
In order to further enhance security and streamline the process, CBP
should place Global Entry kiosks at all Canadian preclearance airports.
In addition, we encourage CBP to intensify its work with foreign
governments to conclude and implement agreements whereby properly
vetted foreign citizens can enroll in Global Entry and, where
permissible, allow U.S. citizens to enroll in their trusted traveler
programs.
In developing their Known Traveler program Pre3TM, TSA
strategically partnered with CBP to allow members of existing
international trusted traveler programs, Global Entry, SENTRI, and
NEXUS, to participate. As TSA looks at expanding the population of
eligible participants in Pre3TM, ACI-NA encourages TSA to
utilize Global Entry as the primary enrollment platform. This has the
potential to further enhance the security of Pre3TM while
also improving passenger facilitation through increased Global Entry
participation. The ability for Global Entry members to participate in
Pre3TM has already resulted in an increase in Global Entry
enrollments and provides the added benefit of reduced line waits for
international passengers being cleared by CBP officers at U.S. and
Canadian airports. The partnership between TSA and CBP will be
essential in expanding current, and developing new, programs which
utilize available data to better focus limited screening resources.
Going forward, ACI-NA recommends:
--Dedicated queuing lines for Pre3TM-eligible passengers;
--Allowing Global Entry, NEXUS, SENTRI members, and other known
travelers flying on any participating airline to utilize
Pre3TM; and
--Allowing Canadian citizens who are NEXUS card holders to
participate in Pre3TM.
Although screening checkpoints and Federal Inspection Services
(FIS) facilities may have to be reconfigured somewhat, these risk-based
programs will help mitigate the need for ongoing facility modifications
to accommodate the deployment of screening technology.
PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE
We need to begin planning for the future today, designing a
sustainable aviation system capable of efficiently and effectively
processing passengers and baggage. With limited resources, risk-based
programs are essential, and we simply cannot continue the process of
adding security layer after security layer and installing more
screening technology at airports after each new threat. Technology will
always be an essential element of the aviation security system but most
airport security checkpoints do not have space to accommodate the
deployment of additional technology, so its application needs to be
informed by Known Traveler programs.
There are opportunities to further expand the level of data sharing
between TSA and CBP. TSA screens checked baggage and could readily
provide images to CBP so that arriving international passengers
connecting to another domestic or international airport would not have
to reclaim their checked baggage. Eliminating this requirement would
free up TSA resources to focus on other areas.
CONCLUSION
Although there are aspects of the current aviation system that are
effective, there are others which need to evolve to keep pace with the
projected increase in the number of passengers and volume of cargo in
the United States and abroad. The expansion of risk-based trusted
traveler and known-shipper programs that leverage available data and
focus limited screening resources on those travelers and cargo about
which the least is known are essential in ensuring the long-term
sustainability of the aviation system. Such programs allow the United
States and other governments the ability to prioritize threats and make
adjustments to the security posture based upon credible intelligence
information, provide expedited processing for low-risk travelers while
helping to ensure that limited resources are appropriately focused and
allocated. A priority should be placed on deploying the technology
necessary to support the enrollment of travelers and the expedited
processing of previously vetted, low-risk passengers.
Through continued collaboration--both government to government and
government to industry--to expand trusted traveler programs and other
security initiatives, we can better achieve our mutual goals of
enhancing safety, security, and processing efficiency while minimizing
unnecessary operational impacts.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony.
Gregory Principato,
President.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Public Transportation Association
INTRODUCTION
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to submit written testimony on the fiscal year 2013 funding
needs for public transportation security programs within the Department
of Homeland Security. The American Public Transportation Association
(APTA) urges Congress to significantly increase appropriations for
transportation security programs. Past appropriations have not come
close to the levels authorized under the Implementing Recommendations
of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-53). In 2011,
Americans took 10.4 billion trips on public transportation which was
the second highest annual ridership since 1957. Only ridership in 2008,
when gas rose to more than $4 a gallon, surpassed last year's rider
totals. As transit ridership continues to grow, its security needs do
also.
ABOUT APTA
The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) is a
nonprofit, international association of nearly 1,500 public and private
member organizations, including transit systems and commuter, intercity
and high-speed rail operators; planning, design, construction, and
finance firms; product and service providers; academic institutions;
transit associations and State departments of transportation. APTA
members serve the public interest by providing safe, efficient, and
economical public transportation services and products. More than 90
percent of the people using public transportation in the United States
and Canada are served by APTA member systems. Additionally, in
accordance with the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, APTA has
been tasked by Department of Homeland Security to administer the on-
going activities of the Mass Transit Sector Coordinating Council.
GREATER INVESTMENTS IN TRANSIT SECURITY ARE REQUIRED
In 2010, an APTA survey of its transit agency members found
security investment needs in excess of $6.4 billion nationwide. These
are funds that our agencies simply do not have, as overall funding
constraints have led to service cuts, personnel layoffs, and fare
increases. This stated need contrasts the recent trend in cuts to
transit security grant programs. We are very concerned about the recent
decline in transit security funding where, in fiscal year 2012, we see
an allocation of $87 million for transit security. This level is
woefully short of the industry's capital security needs. As recently as
fiscal year 2009, Federal funding for transit security was set at
nearly $400 million. I urge Congress to acknowledge the risk that our
citizens and transit systems continue to face, and restore
appropriations for the Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) in this
and subsequent appropriation bills. Historically, Congress has
permitted the Department of Homeland Security to allocate appropriated
grant funding without specific directive. We recommend that this
subcommittee, in its appropriating capacity, guide DHS regarding
particular program funding allocations to ensure that public
transportation security program needs adequately addressed. Our systems
need the certainty of adequate funding to properly plan and implement
large capital, surveillance, and other security projects to protect our
systems. While there is no indication that our collective security
concerns have diminished and the backlog of needed projects continues
to grow, Federal security grant funds have declined precipitously.
TRANSIT SECURITY NEEDS ARE REAL AND REQUIRE ATTENTION
As we and others have stated many times before, and as the members
of this subcommittee well know, authoritative sources have acknowledged
that the risk to public transportation systems is real, and it has not
diminished:
--The GAO released a 2002 report stating ``about one-third of
terrorist attacks worldwide target transportation systems, and
transit systems are the mode most commonly attacked.''
--In 2007, the GAO reported to Congress that ``the characteristics of
some passenger rail systems--high ridership, expensive
infrastructure, economic importance, and location (e.g., large
metropolitan areas or tourist destinations)--make them
attractive targets for terrorists because of the potential for
mass casualties and economic damage and disruption.''
--On February 29, 2008, the Office of Intelligence of the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) released a report
concluding that public transportation in America remains
vulnerable to terrorist attack. The report states: ``The volume
of previous attacks and recent plotting against mass transit
systems overseas demonstrates continued strong terrorist
interest in targeting this sector.'' The report further states
that: ``Previous rail attacks in Madrid, London, and Mumbai
could inspire terrorists to conduct similar attacks in the
United States.''
--On September 30, 2009, the Honorable Michael E. Leiter, Director,
National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) testified in the Senate
that ``al-Qa`ida continues to pursue plans for Homeland attacks
and is likely focusing on prominent political, economic, and
infrastructure targets designed to produce mass casualties,
visually dramatic destruction, significant economic
aftershocks, and/or fear among the population. The group also
likely remains interested in targeting mass transit systems,
and other public venues, viewed as relatively soft targets as
evidenced by past al-Qa`ida attacks in London.''
--The federally funded and chartered, independent Mineta
Transportation Institute (MTI) has collected data on worldwide
terror incidents and found more than 2,000 separate attacks on
surface transportation--1,223 involving bombs and
incendiaries--since 1970. These attacks caused 6,190 deaths and
approximately 19,000 injuries.
This history calls for continued vigilance and continued
investments in surface transportation security.
SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM STRUCTURE
In fiscal year 2012, program changes were made in the Transit
Security Grant Program and additional, significant, changes are
proposed in fiscal year 2013. APTA acknowledges that there are some
sound goals and positive policy provisions represented by these
changes, including:
--Peer Review.--APTA and its members already have a system in place
for conducting peer reviews--we look forward to working with
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to develop such
a program.
--Multi-year Grant Guidance.--APTA supports the approach of a multi-
year grant guidance--previously, the TSGP guidance changed
nearly every year, and APTA believes this to be one of the
reasons that have contributed to delays in grant performance
and drawdown.
Notwithstanding these improvements to the current program, there
are several other program changes that cause us concern and which we
believe could thwart the progress many grantee agencies have made to
improve the security of their systems in recent years.
Program Consolidation
The National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP) proposes to
consolidate all grant programs previously categorized as preparedness
grants into one comprehensive grant program. This is a drastic change
that eliminates the standalone TSGP--the exclusive pool of funding for
our Nation's public transportation systems. While this new program may
be designed to meet the needs of the emergency management community and
to more closely align with policy represented in the National
Preparedness Goal, emergency preparedness and core capabilities are
only subsets of the policy that the Transit Security Grant Program was
intended to advance. As previously stated, transit systems and their
assets remain high-risk terrorist targets, and investments in hardening
and other capital security improvements specific to transit agencies do
not appropriately fall within this broader emergency preparedness
policy. APTA calls on Congress to authorize and preserve a sufficiently
funded, segregated grant program for public transportation security as
envisioned in the 9/11 Commission Act. We applaud the work of this
subcommittee, as it recommended a separate Public Transportation
Security Assistance grant program within the Department of Homeland
Security fiscal year 2012 appropriations subcommittee report; we hope
that the subcommittee will recommend the same in fiscal year 2013.
Reduced Grant Performance Period
Of additional concern is the new 24-month period of grant
performance for all projects proposed in the fiscal year 2012 TSGP
Guidance, which is further contained in the proposal for the fiscal
year 2013 NPGP. This is a reduction from the previous 3-5-year
allowable expenditure period. APTA certainly appreciates the concerns
regarding unexpended security grant dollars and is committed to working
with transit agencies to carry out important security projects in a
timely fashion. However, it is important to recognize that capital
projects (security-related or otherwise) require multiple years to
complete, and a reduction in the time allotted to expend funding would
preclude many much needed capital infrastructure security projects from
being pursued and instead compel most grant recipients to apply for
equipment and operational grants. This is not in the best interest of
fortifying our systems against attacks, as the majority of the security
needs identified in the 2010 APTA member survey relate to capital
projects. APTA recommends maintaining the 3-year expenditure window
with the opportunity to receive 6-month extensions up to a maximum of 5
years.
Emphasis on Operational Projects and the Top Transit Asset List
Similarly, the fiscal year 2012 TSGP and fiscal year 2013 NPGP
place a high emphasis on operational activities and operational
packages (OPacks). Congress has previously set a clear priority for
transit security capital investments when enacting the National Transit
Systems Security Act of 2007 (title 14 of the 9/11 Commission Act).
Additionally, the fiscal year 2012 grant guidance states that this
year's funding priorities will be based on a pre-designated ``top
transit asset list'' or TTAL. APTA has testified previously that
security investment decisions should be risk-based, which is the
underlying approach of the TTAL. However, across the entire transit
industry, thousands of assets are not listed on the TTAL and, thus,
would not be eligible to receive funding. While this narrower funding
approach is based on tighter fiscal circumstances and the total Federal
dollars available for security grants, it is also indicative of the
inadequacy of current funding levels. The proposed approach will
preclude important security improvements from receiving funding
consideration. APTA recommends reauthorizing the public transportation
security assistance provisions of the 9/11 Commission Act, and urges
Congress to work to make adequate funding available for the program to
meet national needs.
Inability To Directly Apply for Funding
Finally, under the proposal, while transit agencies would be
eligible for security funding, they would be required to apply for
funding through their State Administrative Agency (SAA), and compete in
this process with other State security priorities. This is a shift from
the current program, where transit agencies are authorized to be direct
applicants for and direct recipients of grant funds. We believe that
under this new proposal sufficient funding would not consistently get
to transit agencies, and in many cases the involvement of the SAA has
the potential to slow the already lengthy grant performance process.
Congress has repeatedly endorsed the position that transit agencies
should be direct Federal grant recipients, as they have been through
the Federal Transit Administration, and we urge Congress to continue
this policy.
CONCLUSION
Madam Chairman, I thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to
share our views on these critical homeland security issues. There is no
greater priority for public transportation systems than the safety and
security of our passengers and workers. I urge you not to wait for the
``wake-up'' call of an attack on our systems to provide transit
agencies the support they need. Transit systems across the country
continue to stand ready, committed, and vigilant in utilizing available
resources efficiently to protect our systems and our riders. We urge
you to sustain the critical partnership between transit agencies,
Congress, and the Department of Homeland Security that helps to keep
our Nation safe and moving toward economic prosperity.
______
Prepared Statement of American Rivers
On behalf of our members and supporters across the Nation, I write
to express our concerns regarding the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's (FEMA) proposed fiscal year 2013 budget. Specifically, we are
concerned about the decreased funding levels for flood hazard mapping,
the elimination of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program and
funding for flood mitigation programs under the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP).
American Rivers is the leading conservation organization standing
up for healthy rivers so communities can thrive. Rivers provide
multiple benefits to people and our economy but when floods happen they
put communities at risk. As we have seen over the past few years,
floods are becoming more frequent and more severe. In 2011 alone, there
were 58 Federal flood disaster declarations in 33 different States. The
combined flood damages from these events are estimated at over $8
billion and caused 113 deaths--both figures exceed 30-year averages. We
support several of FEMA's programs that help communities to mitigate
flood damages before they occur.
FLOOD HAZARD MAPPING
The reduction in flood mapping funds from $220 million in 2010 to
$89 million proposed in 2013 hinders the communication of flood hazard
risk to Americans nationwide. Flood hazard mapping is critical to all
sectors of society and across the Nation. These maps provide valuable
information to local public officials who are working to keep the
public safe and to the citizens themselves who want to protect their
families and keep them out of harm's way. In fiscal year 2012, the
flood hazard mapping program sustained a 34-percent cut. While we
understand these are hard fiscal times, investing in flood hazard
mapping is a sound and important use of taxpayers' money. At a minimum,
we recommend maintaining the fiscal year 2012 level of $97 million for
fiscal year 2013.
PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION
The Pre-Disaster Mitigation program is the sister program to the
Hazard Mitigation program as it provides funding to communities before
a disaster hits. It is less expensive to prepare for a flood than it is
to rebuild over and over. When communities and homeowners take steps to
protect themselves and to reduce the impacts of flooding through
mitigation practices such as elevating or flood-proofing their homes,
moving out of harm's way, and investing in ``natural defenses'' they
can save themselves and taxpayers money. Flood mitigation practices
that reduce the loss of life and damages to properties provide $5 in
benefits for every $1 invested.\1\ We recommend funding the PDM to
fiscal year 2012 levels of $35.5 million in fiscal year 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rose, A. et al. 2007. Benefit-Cost Analysis of FEMA Hazard
Mitigation Grants. Natural Hazards Review 8, 97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MITIGATION GRANTS OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
We applaud the administration for the proposed investment of $120
million in flood mitigation programs under the NFIP. The financial
impacts of floods and natural disasters make it clear that our Nation
cannot afford to continue subsidizing development in places that are
unsafe and it must be more strategic in response and recovery efforts
to incorporate long-term sustainability and resilience when allocating
resources. We support the administration's proposed fiscal year 2013
funding of $120 million for the flood mitigation programs of the NFIP.
We appreciate your leadership in safeguarding the American people
from natural and unnatural hazards. As we continue to witness record
breaking flooding, we are hopeful that the resources are in place to
support public officials and communities alike in becoming more
resilient to the next flood. We look forward to working with you to
protect communities and the rivers they depend upon.
James Bradley, Sr.,
Director of Government Relations.
______
Prepared Statement of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation
May 9, 2012.
Hon. Mary L. Landrieu,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Daniel Coats,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
Re: Comments From Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, Hearing on U.S.
Coast Guard Fiscal Year 2012 (Fiscal Year 2013) Budget Request
Dear Chairman Landrieu and Ranking Member Coats: The Arctic Slope
Regional Corporation (ASRC) is pleased to submit written comments for
the record in connection with the May 9, 2012, hearing of the Committee
on Appropriations subcommittee on Homeland Security on the important
topic of the U.S. Coast Guard fiscal year 2013 budget request.
ASRC is an Inupiat-owned Alaska Native regional corporation, formed
pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C. section
1601, et seq. (ANCSA), that represents the interests of the Inupiat
Eskimos of the Arctic Slope, with more than 11,000 shareholders. ASRC's
congressionally mandated mission is to invest in its land base and
business interests to provide for the well-being of our Inupiat Eskimo
shareholders. ASRC owns approximately 5 million acres of land on the
North Slope, including both surface and subsurface estate.
The Honorable Senator Murkowski submitted a letter to the
subcommittee on February 15, 2012, requesting a hearing on the Coast
Guard's fiscal year 2013 budget request, and we thank you for honoring
that request.
The issue of ensuring that the Coast Guard has adequate resources
and infrastructure in the Arctic region is critical, especially as
there is increased interest in and use of resources in the region. We
would like to highlight some issues of which we believe the
subcommittee should be aware, from the perspective of an ANCSA
corporation and our Alaska Native shareholders.
From our observations, ``open water season'' is getting longer each
year as sea ice melts, offering new prospects for resource exploration
and development, tourist vessel transit, and shipping routes (both
point-to-point transit and international) that may reshape the global
transport system. In addition, there are significantly more
international and domestic scientific and research activities in the
region, driven in part by the potential for exploration and development
of Arctic natural resources.
This increased activity, which greatly impacts the North Slope
region and our shareholders, also inevitably leads to more and longer
periods of high activity, with the attendant concerns about the ability
of the Coast Guard to ensure safety and security during these periods
of high vessel activity. We also have concerns with respect to the
potential impacts of high vessel activity on our seasonal subsistence
activities and the ability of the Coast Guard to bring resources to
bear when needed, and in a timely manner.
In order to carry out its missions, the Coast Guard must have
sufficient operational resources, strategically placed to respond to
activity in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, and along the North Slope of
Alaska. Air and sea logistical assets, communications infrastructure,
access to icebreakers and facilities for support vessels, as well as
management and security resources all will be required along our
northern coastline. It is also critical that the location(s) of
infrastructure and support facilities are selected appropriately. We
believe that it is more appropriate to look to site support and
resources at various places across the coastline, dictated by the
local/regional needs and purposes, than to try to identify a single
point where all such resources would be located.
The polar regions that were previously the domain of vessel owners
and operators are now being staked in a global race to energy
resources. The fiscal year 2013 budget request helps the Coast Guard
address its mission requirements, including its mission to safeguard
the United States interests in the Arctic. It is imperative to the
Arctic, the State of Alaska, and the United States to ensure that the
Coast Guard has the financial resources and infrastructure to
effectively carry out its mission. Supporting the Coast Guard in the
Arctic must be a top priority because both United States and
international development will take place in our own backyard. Our open
coastline is at the frontlines of increased marine traffic and
exploration and development activity.
The United States is an Arctic nation. Alaska's strategic location
provides the United States with the opportunity to become the world
leader with regard to Arctic management, as our waters and resources
are being promoted on the global stage. The United States must be
poised to lead in that role. On the international stage, Arctic and
non-Arctic nations alike are such as China, Norway, Japan, Russia, and
Italy, in agreement with Russia, are positioning their countries for
success with respect to Arctic resources and access to global markets.
What the Arctic will be in 20 or 30 years is, and will continue to be,
a critical issue for Alaska, the United States, and the world. Now is
the time to begin planning for the long term, which necessarily
includes ensuring a right-sized and strategically placed Coast Guard
presence.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this very important
matter.
Sincerely,
Tara M. Sweeney,
Senior Vice President, External Affairs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of State Floodplain Managers,
Inc.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S HAZARD MITIGATION AND RISK
IDENTIFICATION PROGRAMS
The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM)\1\ welcomes
the opportunity to comment on the fiscal year 2013 budget request for
the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Specifically, our testimony
will focus on the proposed budgets for flood risk mapping ($89.3
million), for Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) ($0), for mitigation
programs of the National Flood Insurance Program ($120 million) and for
a new National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP) ($1.5 billion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASFPM and its 33 chapters represent over 14,000 State and local
officials and other flood risk professionals--Web site: [http://
www.floods.org].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 2013 FEMA budget request is a mixed bag for hazard
mitigation programs, including additional significant cuts to flood
mapping, elimination of FEMA's only all hazards Pre-Disaster Mitigation
program, but increases in grants for some flood mitigation programs.
Overall, however, the budget reflects a continued downward trend in the
focus on hazard mitigation programs.
Natural disasters in 2011 were record setting, with 14 events in
the United States estimated to have caused over $1 billion in damage.
Four of those were flood events only and others involved significant
flooding. This is the continuance of a trend of increased damages
caused by flooding that has been occurring for over a decade. Flood
damages have jumped from $6 billion per year in the 1990s to nearly $10
billion per year in the 2000s. Unfortunately the trend has been moving
away from investment in hazard mitigation programs that assist
communities to become more resilient following disasters.
Flood Hazard Mapping
Flood hazard mapping is the foundational piece of hazard
mitigation. Not only does it provide data for hazard mitigation plans
and projects but it also provides data for the general public to
understand flood risks, and information for the implementation of local
land use requirements and building codes. With the changing nature of
flood risks and the significant backlog of needed mapping (Some areas
of the country still have flood maps over 30 years old and some have
never been mapped and/or lack engineering data.), the reduction in
flood mapping funds from $220 million in 2010 to $89 million proposed
in 2013 will only delay our identification and understanding of the
risk faced by many Americans. Furthermore, there are demands by the
public and Congress that flood mapping be made more accurate especially
in areas protected by levees. FEMA's ambitious new flood mapping
program, Risk MAP may now be significantly less effective should the
mapping program support not be restored to prior levels of $200 million
or more.
While the Association of State Floodplain Managers acknowledges all
budgets in the Federal Government will likely be reduced to some
extent, the disproportionate reduction in flood mapping funds makes
little sense for a hazard that is the most frequent and one of the most
costly in the United States. Mapping should be funded at earlier levels
because communities need these maps to know where their risks are so
they can take action to mitigate their risks, and thereby reduce the
national risk.
Elimination of Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Even more perplexing is the proposed elimination of the Pre-
Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program. This program has resulted in
numerous successes such as over 18,000 communities having developed and
adopted hazard mitigation plans and all-hazard ``sticks and bricks''
mitigation projects being implemented that have permanently reduced
future risk by getting existing, at-risk development out of harm's way.
It has allowed States who didn't have frequent disasters to tap into
hazard mitigation resources to reduce their risks too. PDM is the pre-
disaster complement to the more well-known Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (HMGP) that is triggered only after a Federal disaster
declaration.
Many States have relied on PDM to support development and
maintenance of hazard mitigation plans, so ASFPM is very concerned
about the effect of the elimination of PDM on hazard mitigation
planning. Approximately 20 percent of PDM funds have been used to
support the hazard mitigation plans required by the Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000. These plans are required for eligibility for post-disaster
mitigation assistance and are key to effective expenditure of
mitigation funds. Lack of support for mitigation planning is a major
concern, especially when it is unclear where future funds will come
from to support communities and States in updating mitigation plans.
PDM, which provides resources before an event happens as opposed to
afterwards, is widely considered to be a successful program despite
acknowledged problems with timely obligation of funds. ASFPM recommends
that the administration could and should look to models which would
delegate the program to States to ensure obligation of funds will
happen much more quickly. Studies have shown that investments in FEMA's
hazard mitigation programs yield on average $4 in benefits for every $1
invested. For flood disasters, the ratio is $5 in benefits for every $1
invested. Also, these programs are cost shared with States and
communities ensuring that they, too, are investing in their future
resilience from hazards. ASFPM recommends retention of the program at
least at the minimal fiscal year 2012 funding level of $35.5 million.
Creation of new NPGP
ASFPM also cautions the administration to thoughtfully proceed with
the creation of a large multi-purpose grant program which folds
together 16 grant programs ranging in focus from terrorism preparedness
to natural hazard mitigation. Inclusion of mitigation as an eligible
activity is the rationale for elimination of PDM. However, the
``vision'' document for this program clearly shows priorities are
focused on funding activities that are not mitigation, and under the
proposed framework mitigation priorities will, in reality, be all but
impossible to fund. Ultimately the National Preparedness Grant Program
(NPGP) and National Preparedness Goal are aimed at readiness, not
mitigation. While mitigation is a component of readiness (as it is a
component of response and recovery) readiness is not a substitute for
mitigation.
ASFPM recommends that implementation of a new NPGP be delayed to
allow for consultation with stakeholder groups. As presently
envisioned, the program is likely to result in neglect of key functions
of mitigation and resilience.
Increase in Funding for Mitigation Grants of the National Flood
Insurance Program
ASFPM is very pleased that the administration has proposed
increasing its investment in flood mitigation programs under the NFIP--
from a funding level of $60 million in fiscal year 2012 to proposed
fiscal year 2013 funding of $120 million. These programs are largely,
but not entirely, focused on properties which file repetitive flood
loss claims. ASFPM notes that the budget assumes a streamlining of the
Flood Mitigation Assistance Grants, the Severe Repetitive Loss program
and the Repetitive Flood Claims program to achieve greater
efficiencies. The greater commitment to elimination of repetitive loss
properties from the National Flood Insurance Program is important to
the NFIP's financial integrity.
Larry A. Larson,
Executive Director.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fleet Reserve Association
INTRODUCTION
Madame Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, the
Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) appreciates the opportunity to present
its recommendations on the United States Coast Guard's fiscal year 2013
budget.
Prior to addressing these issues, FRA wishes to thank the Congress
for the generous pay, healthcare, and benefit enhancements enacted in
recent years. Improved wounded warrior transition and support services
are very important as are other benefit improvements which are
essential to maintaining the all-volunteer force and military
readiness.
Ensuring Coast Guard funding parity with Department of Defense
(DOD) personnel programs remains a high priority for FRA, and the
association notes continuing challenges within the Coast Guard to
adequately fund previously authorized Active and Reserve people
programs. FRA is also deeply concerned about the impact of
``sequestration'' (automatic cuts) mandated by the 2011 Budget Control
Act on Coast Guard programs effective January 2013 unless Congress
intervenes.
It's also important to note that FRA believes that military service
is unlike any other career or occupation, and requires servicemembers'
compensation commensurate with the demands of service plus a robust
benefits package and retirement system. In addition, FRA fully concurs
with Admiral Robert Papp's State of the Coast Guard comment that, ``The
Coast Guard's value to the Nation has never been greater.''
COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION
FRA appreciates the enactment of the fiscal year 2011 Coast Guard
Authorization Act (H.R. 3617) in the 111th Congress that addresses
several important personnel-related issues. The association supports
the Coast Guard Authorization Act (S. 1665), sponsored by Senator Mark
Begich, Chairman of the Senate Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast
Guard Subcommittee, that among its other provisions increases Coast
Guard end strength to 49,350. This bill was approved by the Senate
Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and placed on the Senate
legislative calendar.
FRA also supports the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act
(H.R. 2838) sponsored by Rep. Frank A. LoBiondo, Chairman of the Coast
Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee. That legislation
extends the U.S. Coast Guard Authorization through fiscal year 2014 and
authorizes $8.6 billion for fiscal year 2013, and $8.7 billion for
fiscal year 2014. The bill passed the House last year and is awaiting
action in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.
Provisions of the bill would establish greater parity with DOD for
the Coast Guard and its personnel. During consideration of the bill,
the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee noted that
Active, Reserve, and retired members of the Coast Guard and their
dependents do not always receive the same benefits available to members
of the other armed services. The legislation also mandates that the
Commandant submit a report to Congress on servicemember housing. FRA
strongly supports timely enactment of Coast Guard authorization
legislation in each Congress and believes the legislation is
fundamental to effective congressional budgeting and effective
oversight of the service and its wide ranging and challenging missions.
HEALTHCARE
The FRA strongly supports adequate funding for the Coast Guard
Health Care Fund (HCF) in order to meet readiness needs, fully fund
TRICARE, and improve access for all beneficiaries regardless of age,
status, or location. FRA opposes the administration's proposed retiree
TRICARE fee hikes commencing in 2013. Just last year, the National
Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540) authorized a TRICARE Prime fee
increase of 13 percent for military retirees and future adjustments are
pegged to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) so as to not erode retired
pay.
Healthcare benefits are important to every segment of FRA's
membership. The continued growth in healthcare costs is not just a
military challenge but a challenge for the entire country. FRA believes
that military service is a unique profession and notes minimal
projected savings associated with DOD management efficiencies and other
initiatives in fiscal year 2013 and beyond, while retirees are targeted
for major fee hikes.
Our members are also very concerned about a proposed new TRICARE-
for-Life (TFL) enrollment fee beginning in fiscal year 2013. This is
viewed as another failure to honor commitments to those who served past
careers in the military. These personnel pay Medicare part B premiums
and many have not benefited from the significant pay and benefit
enhancements enacted since 2000.
Due to the unique range of geographic locations to which they are
assigned, Coast Guard personnel and their families often struggle to
find medical providers who accept TRICARE beneficiaries. While
implementation of TRICARE Prime Remote alleviated some of these
problems, costs associated with the TRICARE Standard benefit, and low
reimbursement rates can make finding a healthcare provider an
especially daunting task in many areas. And, Coast Guard personnel who
choose to receive care at DOD military treatment facilities (MTFs) may
be required to travel long distances for care. FRA is committed to
helping address these challenges in order to improve healthcare access
for all Coast Guard personnel, particularly those stationed in remote
locations.
PAY INCREASE
It's appropriate that the Coast Guard and other Armed Forces are
excluded from the multi-year pay freeze for Federal employees announced
by President Obama on November 29, 2010. The association strongly
supports the proposed 1.7 percent military pay increase for 2013, based
on Employment Cost Index (ECI) data. Congress has in recent years
improved military compensation that, in turn, enhanced the recruitment
and retention of quality personnel in an all-volunteer environment,
improved retention, morale, and readiness. More than 50 percent of the
uniformed services community is married and adequate compensation helps
relieve stress associated with demanding operational tempos.
FRA consistently supports pay increases that are at least equal to
the ECI to keep pace with civilian pay. FRA urges the subcommittee to
ensure adequate appropriations to fund the pay increase in the Coast
Guard's budget, plus other benefit enhancements that may be authorized
by the respective Armed Services Committees.
HOUSING
The Coast Guard currently owns 4,013 family homes, at an average
age of 40+ years, with an extensive maintenance and recapitalization
project backlog. These costs are compounding and funds are not
available to keep pace with essential maintenance and replacement
requirements. FRA supports authorization and funding of Coast Guard
initiatives to address this situation and to improve family housing.
DOD privatized approximately 85 percent of its homes using public-
private venture (PPV) authorities, however, the Coast Guard is unable
to leverage the same equity due to no authorization and inadequate
resources to do so. The result is that over 12,000 Coast Guard members
and their families are living in aged, substandard housing that are
expensive to maintain and have recurring and costly maintenance issues.
The vast majority of Coast Guard personnel and their families use
private housing and collect basic allowance for housing (BAH) usually
based on different types of housing than the one in which they choose
to live. (FRA supports reform of DOD housing standards that inequitably
depress BAH rates for mid-to-senior enlisted members due to types of
housing they choose to reside in compared to the type of housing
associated with their pay grades which determines their BAH level.)
The Coast Guard is conducting an assessment of its housing needs
that includes a housing market survey to determine availability of
rental housing in lieu of Government-owned housing and FRA understands
that this report on housing will be available at the end of May 2012,
and that the Coast Guard has diverted $8.8 million from other programs
to be used for housing needs.
CHILD CARE
The availability and accessibility of affordable child care is a
very important quality of life issue for Coast Guard personnel and
their families. The Coast Guard operates nine child development centers
(CDCs) that operate under the same standards as similar DOD facilities.
In addition, a child care subsidy program allows members affordable
access to private sector child care centers, and whenever possible
access to DOD facilities.
High-cost child care can often be attributed to the fact that most
of the duty locations preclude access to DOD and Coast Guard CDCs. The
Coast Guard continues to explore ways to assist with child care costs
for members in remote, high-cost areas and FRA supports these efforts.
Authorization and appropriations to support access to child care plus
updates and enhancements are equally important. The FRA agrees with
Rep. Frank LoBiondo, Chairman of the House Coast Guard and Maritime
Subcommittee, who does not believe there is Coast Guard parity with DOD
in terms of child care and housing.
END STRENGTH
``For the third consecutive year the Coast Guard will screen
hundreds of E-5 through E-9 personnel to reduce its enlisted force by
861 coastguardsmen by June 2012.\1\'' The involuntary retirement
screening by a enlisted review board is focused of enlisted personnel
with 20 or more years of service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Navy Times, Feb., 13, 2012, p. 32, Coasties Face Retirement
Screening, Sam Fellman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 2013 Coast Guard budget request reduces Coast Guard
end strength by 1,000. This includes the elimination of 222 positions
from Coast Guard headquarters and reductions to the recruiting program.
Reduced re-enlistment bonuses are also proposed.
The association also notes that the authorized Coast Guard Reserve
end strength is 10,000, however only 8,100 Reserve personnel are funded
and the level has remained unchanged for a number of years. FRA is
concerned that budget-driven, vice mission related cuts create
inadequate end strength that further stresses Coast Guard personnel and
their families. Repeated deployments for Active Duty personnel and
increased reliance on Reserve personnel are associated results.
Although the fiscal year 2013 budget mandates an authorized end
strength reduction, there is no corresponding reduction in Coast Guard
operational demands. End strength must be adequate to meet operational
commitments that limit lengths of deployments and allow sufficient
dwell time between deployments. As Admiral Papp noted in his recent
State of the Coast Guard address, ``We will not allow our service to
become a hollow operational force.''
YELLOW RIBBON PROGRAM
The Coast Guard in 2011 established a Yellow Ribbon Program, in
partnership with DOD, to enable more than 1,400 deploying
coastguardsmen and their families to connect with resources before,
during, and after deployment. Family support is critical to ensure
there are no unnecessary family problems to distract from duties and
demands of deployment, and adequate resources are essential to
sustaining this important program.
CONCLUSION
Madame Chairman, the FRA appreciates the opportunity to submit its
views for the record on pay, healthcare, and other programs important
to Coast Guard personnel.
The association salutes you, the ranking member, and the other
members of this distinguished subcommittee and your staff for effective
oversight of our Nation's all-important fifth Armed Force, and for your
untiring commitment to the men and women serving so proudly in our
United States Coast Guard.
THE FRA
The Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) is the oldest and largest
enlisted organization serving Active Duty, Reserves, retired, and
veterans of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. It is
congressionally chartered, recognized by the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) as an accrediting Veteran Service Organization (VSO) for
claim representation and entrusted to serve all veterans who seek its
help. In 2007, FRA was selected for full membership on the National
Veterans' Day Committee.
FRA was established in 1924 and its name is derived from the Navy's
program for personnel transferring to the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine
Corps Reserve after 20 or more years of Active Duty, but less than 30
years for retirement purposes.
FRA's mission is to act as the premier ``watch dog'' organization
on Capitol Hill in maintaining and improving the quality of life for
Sea Service personnel and their families. The association also sponsors
a National Americanism Essay Program and other recognition and relief
programs. In addition, the FRA Education Foundation oversees the
association's scholarship program that presented awards totaling over
$120,000 to deserving students last year.
FRA sponsors the annual Coast Guard Enlisted Persons of the Year
program and hosts the annual U.S. Coast Guard Caucus Breakfast on
Capitol Hill each year to recognize Caucus members and increase
awareness about the service's various missions and the work of Coast
Guard personnel.
The association is also a founding member and active participant in
The Military Coalition (TMC), a 34-member consortium of military and
veteran's organizations.
CERTIFICATION OF NON-RECEIPT OF FEDERAL FUNDS
Pursuant to the requirements of House Rule XI, the Fleet Reserve
Association has not received any Federal grant or contract during the
current fiscal year or either of the 2 previous fiscal years.
Master Chief Joseph L. Barnes, USN (Ret.),
National Executive Director.
______
Prepared Statement of the Institute of Makers of Explosives
INTEREST OF THE IME
The Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) is the safety and
security association of the commercial explosives industry. Commercial
explosives underpin the economy. They are essential to energy
production, construction, demolition, and the manufacture of any metal/
mineral product. Explosives are transported and used in every State.
The ability to manufacture, transport, distribute, and use these
products safely and securely is critical to this industry.
The Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD) is standing
up two programs that affect our membership--the Chemical Facility Anti-
Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program and the recently proposed Ammonium
Nitrate Security program (ANSP). Some of our members are regulated
under CFATS, and all will be regulated under the ANSP.
Ensuring the security of commercial explosives and precursor
materials against unauthorized access and use has been a priority of
IME members long before the events of 9/11. As proof of our success,
less than 2 percent of destructive explosives devices used in bombings
and attempted bombings in this country are filled with commercial
explosives.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bomb Center Data, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (ATF), 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISCD ISSUES
CFATS.--Those in our industry affected by this program and been
working hard to meet deadlines for submissions of so-called ``top-
screens'', site vulnerability assessments, and site security plans
(SSP). Our focus has been on identifying and ensuring that we have the
means to meet the 18 specific risk-based performance standards
(RBSP)\2\ required for final SSP approval. While concerns were voiced
about the lack of progress in fully implementing the CFATS program, we
believed a major factor in the delay was the lack of permanent
authorization for the program. We have been proactively working to
achieve that end. In the meantime, we appreciate the efforts of the
subcommittee to be both the appropriator and authorizer for this
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ RBPS are particularly appropriate in a security context because
they provide individual facilities the flexibility to address their
unique security challenges. Using performance standards rather than
prescriptive standards also helps to increase the overall security of
the sector by varying the security practices used by different chemical
facilities. Security measures that differ from facility to facility
means that each presents a new and unique problem for an adversary to
solve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the midst of these efforts, it was revealed that the program
suffers from a number of internal management issues.\3\ Nothing in the
internal review suggests that the legislative framework establishing
CFATS is flawed. Rather, it is DHS' failure to provide adequate
oversight and support that have resulted in program misdirection and
implementation failures. Frankly, we applaud ISCD's new leadership that
identified these issues and developed a plan to address them. Clearly,
DHS has overstepped the role and responsibility Congress gave it. The
result of this unfocused, mission creep is wasted human and financial
capital. ISCD was not supposed to have law-enforcement powers. ISCD was
not supposed to support a culture of cronyism, disrespect, and failed
leadership. ISCD was not supposed to be staffed with individuals
without the skills necessary to run a regulatory compliance program.
ISCD was not supposed to mandate the means to achieve compliance with
its performance standards, as it is attempting to do with the stand-up
of a costly, duplicative personnel surety initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Management memorandum to Under Secretary Rand Beers from Penny
Anderson, Director, and David Wulf, Deputy Director, ISCD, November 11,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We understand that permanent CFATS authorization may have to wait
the outcome of DHS' ability to address the litany of pervasive internal
management failures. During this period of re-evaluation, we cannot
emphasize too strongly that this is not the time to entrust ISCD to
implement a stand-alone personnel surety program. The CFATS personal
surety program is identified in the November 2011 ISCD management
memorandum as the agency's third highest programmatic priority. ISCD
has taken the unorthodox approach of attempting to institute this
program though an information collection request (ICR), rather than
full notice and comment rulemaking as has been the approach used to
establish every other Federal vetting program. This request is pending
at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) has predicted that it will soon be released.
Under CFATS, RBPS 12 establishes a four-part background check for
all facility personnel, and as appropriate, for unescorted visitors
with access to restricted areas. The four-part background check
standards are consistent with the other background check programs
administered by DHS, including measures to verify identity, to check
criminal history, to validate legal authorization to work, and to
identify people with terrorist ties. The latter standard is met by a
check against the terrorist screening database administered by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. ISCD's approach to personnel surety
runs counter to direction from the White House, with industry support,
that DHS consolidate and streamline duplicative vetting programs and
eliminate redundant background checks.\4\ As proposed, ISCD refuses to
reciprocally recognize other, more robust Federal vetting programs as
sufficient to meet the background check requirements of CFATS, and ISCD
does not allow regulated facilities the option to meet its personnel
surety standards by exercising DHS' discretionary authority to open the
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) program to
employees at CFATS facilities. ISCD's program will compel facilities to
collect personal identifying information from a myriad of non-employees
who are granted access to restricted areas--a liability many are
unwilling to assume. It is expected that the site-by-site registration
and access verification procedures will unnecessarily encumber facility
access. Acknowledging these flaws, ISCD has said that it will ``slowly
rollout'' the personal surety program with a promise to fix problems in
the ramp up to full implementation after OMB gives clearance--basically
turning initial implementation into a pilot program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This initiative has as its objective leveraging existing
Federal security background checks to implement the principle of
``enroll once, use many'' to reuse the information on individuals
needing multiple access privileges. Transportation Security
Administration's Transportation and Threat and Credentialing office is
working on this goal through its Infrastructure Modernization program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These personal surety program issues have been identified to the
authorizing committees of the House and Senate. Correspondingly, this
subcommittee should bar ISCD from using any funds to implement this
program until the authorizing committees have addressed these concerns.
Ideally, ISCD would withdraw its ICR proposal and enable chemical
facilities to satisfy the personal surety requirements of RBPS 12 by
accepting evidence that individuals seeking access to restricted areas
are appropriately vetted by existing Federal background check programs
that are at least equivalent to the CFATS standards. Additionally,
individuals needing this access should be allowed to apply for and be
vetted under these existing programs. These accommodations would save
Federal and private sector resources without any diminution in
security.
ANSP.--ISCD is also responsible for the ANSP. The November 2011
management memo includes sections relevant to this program. The ANSP
program, even more than CFATS, directly affects IME members.\5\ As
unbelievable as it may seem, ISCD has proposed to institute a separate,
unique chain-of-custody vetting program for those handling AN.\6\ All
of the criticisms that have been raised about the personal surety
program under CFATS could be repeated here and more. The ANSP vetting
proposal would require the registration and face-to-face on-line
verification of registration of anyone with possession of AN or
transferring AN to another individual. This regulatory interpretation
oversteps statutory authority authorizing the ANSP.\7\ This legislation
restricts the registration and vetting requirements to those
transferring ownership and possession. With this understanding,
individuals engaged in the transportation of AN would not be covered,
nor would individuals at facilities that do not have decisionmaking
authority to direct the commerce of this product. The House Homeland
Security Committee has reported legislation, H.R. 3116, that would
exempt those engaged in the transportation of AN, as the security
vetting of those individuals is handled by the Transportation Security
Administration, and would limit vetting under the ANSP to those who
individuals who both possess and transfer ownership of AN. As with
CFATS, ISCD should allow individuals who possess and transfer ownership
of AN to satisfy the vetting requirements of the ANSP through other
equivalent Federal security vetting programs, such as the vetting
program administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives for those that possess commercial explosives. As we
recommended for CFATS, no new authority should be granted ISCD until
the agency gets its internal house in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In the 1950s, the explosives industry migrated away from
nitroglycerin-based to AN-based explosives for safety reasons. Today
about 99 percent of explosives are AN-based. Currently, we estimate
that the explosives industry uses over 2 million metric tons of TGAN
(technical grade AN) annually, 70 percent of the total AN consumed in
the United States. Almost all TGAN is stored, transported, and used in
bulk. The smallest unit of sale in the United States is 1-ton ``super
sacks,'' not man-portable bags. Eighty percent of the AN received by
our members is delivered by railcar (5 percent by barge and 15 percent
by truck). For safety reasons, we estimate that we deliver 85 percent
or more of AN directly to the end user where it is converted into
explosive material. Of the 15 percent of AN prill that is manufactured
into an explosive prior to delivery to the end user, about 90 percent
is manufactured as ``ANFO.''
\6\ 76 FR 46908 (August 3, 2011).
\7\ 6 U.S.C. 488.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do agree with the Action Plan proposal to integrate into a
single cadre ANSP and CFATS inspectors. Dual training inspectors to
function interchangeably under both programs will optimize the use of
these resources. We believe ISCD has the authority to do this
administratively, though union issues may complicate the merger.
Congress should monitor this situation.
CONCLUSION
The commercial explosives industry has a long history of attention
to the safety and security of the products that we produce. We look for
opportunities to partner with DHS and ISCD to address shared concerns.
On the matter of personnel vetting in both the CFATS and ANSP programs,
we regret that ISCD has not yet been responsive to our suggestions to
leverage existing equivalent Federal programs to accomplish this task.
The cost to American taxpayers, industry, and the Government to stand
up redundant vetting programs has not been justified. Thank you for
your attention to these concerns.
Respectfully submitted by,
Cynthia Hilton,
Executive Vice President.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Emergency Management Association
INTRODUCTION
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the
record regarding the fiscal year 2012 budget for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). As president of the National Emergency
Management Association (NEMA) I represent the emergency management
directors of all 50 States, territories, and the District of Columbia.
Members of NEMA are responsible to the Governors for myriad
responsibilities including emergency preparedness, homeland security,
mitigation, response, and recovery activities for natural or terrorism-
related disasters.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS
The highest priority for NEMA within the President's request is
funding for the Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG). EMPG
assists State and local governments in managing a variety of disasters
and hazards providing the only source of Federal assistance to State
and local government for all-hazards emergency management capacity
building. Grantees utilize EMPG funds for personnel, planning,
training, exercises, warning systems, public outreach, and other
essential functions in establishing effective preparedness, mitigation,
response, and recovery. This program is of considerable economic value
to the Federal Government as all Federal funds are matched 50-50 by
State and local governments. Such a matching requirement increases
accountability and supplements the impact of valuable Federal dollars.
This year, NEMA fully supports the President's requested funding
level and House Appropriations Committee recommendation of $350 million
for EMPG. We appreciate the resource constrained environment, but when
compared to other grant programs, the 50-50 match allows EMPG to stand
alone as a worthwhile investment of Federal funds. In many ways, EMPG
offers a cost-savings by allowing States to manage disasters which
would otherwise need to be addressed by the Federal Government.
NEMA has taken the most significant step forward to date in
attempting to measure the effectiveness of EMPG. For the past 2 years,
NEMA has released ``Emergency Management Performance Grants: Providing
Returns on a Nation's Investment.'' The report measures the
effectiveness of funding provided EMPG in fiscal year 2010. It also
ties individual State and local efforts into the far larger picture of
overall preparedness by demonstrating how a truly national emergency
management system is developed and supported.
A copy of the report is available online at: [http://
www.nemaweb.org/
index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=220&Itemid=402].
HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM
Since the inception of the State Homeland Security Grant Program
(SHSGP), NEMA has maintained support of these grants as critical
resources to help State and local governments build and sustain
capabilities to address the various threats and hazards they face. The
time has come, however, to consider a better way forward in light of
continuing budget cuts to these important programs. During the fiscal
year 2012 budget discussions of last summer, the NEMA leadership
decided on a new approach to the full suite of grants within the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). NEMA subsequently developed the Proposal for a
Comprehensive Preparedness Grants Structure which has been previously
submitted to your subcommittee for review.
NEMA was pleased to see the administration also contribute to the
dialogue of grant reform through the fiscal year 2013 budget proposal.
While we were encouraged to see the administration's vision reflect
many of our recommendations, NEMA strongly believes a continued
dialogue with all stakeholders is necessary to ensure every voice is
heard and every consideration given for the most effective approach to
grants reform. We would suggest several aspects of the President's
budget proposal require additional clarity and further analysis:
--The current planning process must be upgraded to reflect the
maturation of our preparedness efforts in the past 10 years. A
truly comprehensive system must allow for each State and
locality to determine core capabilities, set priorities in a
flexible manner, and measure performance and effectiveness
regardless of available Federal funds.
--Those cities traditionally categorized as ``tier 1'' in the Urban
Area Security Initiative (UASI) program should be directly
funded provided they also participate in the THIRA process and
comprehensive planning process. Furthermore, a process by which
other units of government such as transit and port authorities
or self-organized regions of governments such as other current
UASI participants can apply for funding should be outlined.
Giving direct funding without any requirement to work with or
support an overall State strategy, however, puts the State in
an untenable position as it continues to reward geographic
stovepipes and uncoordinated programs
--The THIRA process must focus on State and local governments and
include consequences of loss in the analysis and provide the
analytical rigor for understanding and problem-solving for
complex issues. The system must also include the full range of
stakeholders including health, law enforcement, public works,
fire, land use, transportation, and the private sector. This
includes collaboration on planning, analysis, project
development, application review, and development of core
capabilities.
--The administration's definition of ``regionalization'' in terms of
application review requires additional clarification. Such peer
review is best handled at the State level and should focus on
setting priorities for projects. Any national review should be
on the State priorities overall and not a micro review of
individual projects. Also, coordination of development of
specific national capabilities such as urban search and rescue
teams is necessary. NEMA addresses this issue through the
recommendation of a multi-disciplinary and multi-jurisdictional
committee comprised of stakeholders across the State to review
all grant applications.
The review committee of Statewide stakeholders is critical to the
development of a governance structure which ensures all
partners and grantees to maintain a voice through a project-
based grants process. The committee would also be responsible
for enabling the range of threats and hazards to be considered
across the full spectrum of State and local activities. Such a
committee promotes fairness, reduces the politicization of
grants, and allows a voice for every constituency.
--Priorities and select projects for local governments, ports, and
other entities, or for those entities to work with each other
within each State and among the States on the highest value
projects cannot be dictated by Washington. The allocation
systems of the past pitted city against city and port against
port with very little consideration of the complex
relationships of our economic system. The NEMA proposal
recognizes and values these relationships. There must be a
marketplace of ideas where value is determined by collaboration
between applicants rather than cutthroat competition between
them with winners and losers.
--NEMA suggests only a small amount of the total grant funding be
held by DHS for competitive pilot projects to spark innovation.
Competition at the project level cannot be calculated by
separate groups or reduced to subjective grading. Up to 5
percent of the funding should be utilized to support innovative
projects. The remainder of the funding from the investment
grant can then be devoted to project-based applications by
State and local grantees. This varies from the administration's
recommendation which continues to address grant funding through
stove-piped programs. By reducing layers of review that impede
the flexibility of the funding, an efficient and effective flow
of funding can be realized for State and local projects.
Overall, the overarching principles and values remain at the heart
of any grant reform. Few seem to disagree with the tenets of supporting
PPD-8; building a culture of collaboration; the ability to be agile and
adaptive to confront changing hazards; building and sustaining
capabilities; encouraging innovation; providing full visibility to all
stakeholders; and recognizing the interdependencies of our national
systems. The importance of these principles and values highlight a
critical point in any retrospective on homeland security grants.
Regardless of our country's fiscal situation, physical security and
economic security are not mutually exclusive and can be achieved with a
more streamlined grant structure. Working with you and our stakeholder
partners, we remain confident a prudent approach forward can be found.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE COMPACT
We appreciate your continued support for the Emergency Management
Assistance Compact (EMAC). NEMA continues to support a budget line item
for EMAC for $2 million so the program may continue providing critical
mutual aid resources across the country.
In fiscal year 2013, specific funding for investment into EMAC is
needed to continue to build capabilities. For example, 26 emergency
management personnel responded to the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks. Conversely, over 66,000 personnel from a variety of
disciplines deployed through EMAC to the gulf coast in response to
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and 12,279 personnel to Texas and Louisiana
during Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. The 2009 spring flooding in North
Dakota and Minnesota resulted in States deploying equipment, sandbags,
and 1,029 personnel to North Dakota. In all, 727 National Guard
personnel and 302 civilians were sent to assist. Last year, over 600
personnel were deployed in response to the floods and tornados in
Missouri, North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Mississippi, Alabama,
and Tennessee.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND HOMELAND SECURITY TRAINING AND EDUCATION
Training and education opportunities stand as one of the most
effective ways to ensure the continued professionalization of emergency
management and homeland security personnel as well as to increase their
abilities to best protect our Nation and communities. The two Federal
Government programs representing the pedigree of these efforts are the
Emergency Management Institute (EMI) and the Naval Postgraduate
School's Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS). Not only do
these two institutions provide the ``gold standards'' within their
respective professional education realms, they also provide leadership
and share resources to support a collaborative effort among training
and education efforts throughout the country.
EMI directly supports the professional core competencies of
emergency managers at the Federal, State, local, tribal, public, and
private sectors. The Institute trains more than 2 million students
annually with residential on-site programs, off-site programs in
partnership with State and local emergency managers, and computer based
E-learning. EMI has recently partnered with NEMA and the International
Association of Emergency Managers to develop the National Emergency
Management Academy. The Academy consists of five courses and provides a
structured and progressive approach to acquire skills, knowledge, and
abilities to meet career challenges in emergency management
CHDS programs include a fully accredited master's degree program;
executive education seminars for Governors, locally elected officials,
and their senior department leaders; an Executive Leaders Program; a
Fusion Center Leaders Program; a peer reviewed online academic journal;
a university and agency partnership effort; and the world's largest
online homeland security library. These endeavors by CHDS significantly
advance the strategic and critical thinking abilities of emergency
management and homeland security personnel in their daily
responsibilities, policy deliberations, and relationships with senior
leadership within their jurisdictions.
NEMA supports the President's budget request of $17.8 million for
EMI and the inclusion of language in the fiscal year 2013
appropriations bill supporting the full funding of the Naval
Postgraduate School's Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS)
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
CONCLUSION
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to address these issues
critical to the emergency management community. This subcommittee
regularly affirms support for ensuring preparedness for our Nation's
vulnerabilities against all-hazards. As you develop the fiscal year
2013 budget for the Department of Homeland Security, we encourage you
to utilize our membership as a resource and continue efforts to build a
strong and robust emergency management baseline in our country.
Together, we will carry-on the initiatives so thoughtfully developed by
this subcommittee over the years. I thank you for the opportunity to
testify on behalf of NEMA and appreciate your continued partnership.
Mr. Jim Mullen,
President, NEMA.
Director, Washington Military Department Emergency Management
Division.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Treasury Employees Union
Chairman Landrieu, Ranking Member Coats, distinguished members of
the subcommittee; thank you for the opportunity to provide this
testimony. As president of the National Treasury Employees Union
(NTEU), I have the honor of leading a union that represents over 24,000
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers and trade enforcement
specialists who are stationed at 331 land, sea, and air ports of entry
(POEs) across the United States. CBP employees' mission is to protect
the Nation's borders at the ports of entry from all threats while
facilitating legitimate travel and trade. CBP trade compliance
personnel enforce over 400 U.S. trade and tariff laws and regulations
in order to ensure a fair and competitive trade environment pursuant to
existing international agreements and treaties, as well as stemming the
flow of illegal contraband such as child pornography, illegal arms,
weapons of mass destruction, and laundered money. CBP is also a revenue
collection agency, processing approximately $2 trillion of imports--28
million trade entries a year--at the POEs and collecting more than $32
billion in revenue for the U.S. Government in fiscal year 2010.
CBP STAFFING AT THE PORTS OF ENTRY
There is perhaps no greater roadblock to legitimate trade and
travel efficiency than the lack of sufficient staff at the ports.
Understaffed ports lead to long delays in our commercial lanes as cargo
waits to enter U.S. commerce.
Those delays result in real losses to the U.S. economy. According
to a draft report prepared by the Department of Commerce, border delays
in 2008 cost the U.S. economy nearly 26,000 jobs and $6 billion in
output, $1.4 billion in wages, and $600 million in tax revenues
annually. According to the same report, by 2017, average wait times
could increase to nearly 100 minutes, costing the United States more
than 54,000 jobs and $12 billion in output, $3 billion in wages, and
$1.2 billion in tax revenues. The cumulative loss in output due to
border delays over the next 10 years is estimated to be $86 billion.
More than 50 million Americans work for companies that engage in
international trade, according to the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
If Congress is serious about job creation, then Congress should support
enhancing U.S. trade and travel by mitigating wait times at the ports
and enhancing trade enforcement by increasing CBP security and
commercial operations staffing at the air, sea, and land ports of
entry.
In October 2009, the Southwest Border Task Force, created by
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, presented the results of
its staffing and resources review in a draft report. This draft report
recommended that the ``Federal Government should hire more Customs [and
Border Protection] officers.'' The report echoes the finding of the
Border-Facilitation Working Group. (The U.S.-Mexico Border Facilitation
Working Group was created during the bilateral meeting between
President George W. Bush and President Felipe Calderon held in Merida
in March 2007.) ``In order to more optimally operate the various ports
of entry, CBP needs to increase the number of CBP officers. According
to its own estimate, the lack of human resources only for the San
Ysidro POE is in the `hundreds' and the CBP officer need at all ports
of entry located along the border with Mexico is in the `thousands.'''
(``CBP: Challenges and Opportunities,'' a memo prepared by Armand
Peschard-Sverdrup for Mexico's Ministry of the Economy: U.S.-Mexico
Border Facilitation Working Group, January 2008, pages 1 and 2.)
Despite these independent studies that state that CBP is
understaffed at ports of entry by thousands of officers, the fiscal
year 2013 budget provides only enough personnel funding to maintain the
current number of CBP officer, CBP agriculture specialist, and CBP
trade operations positions.
NTEU urges the subcommittee to increase funding to hire additional
CBP officers and agriculture specialists to sufficiently staff existing
booths and traffic lanes at the air, sea, and land ports of entry.
Also of concern to NTEU in the fiscal year 2013 budget request is
the decrease of $21 million in funding for inspectional overtime at the
air, land, and sea ports of entry. CBP states that ``this reduction
will not impact operational staffing.''
Overtime is essential when staffing levels are insufficient to
ensure that inspectional duties can be fulfilled, that officers have
sufficient back-up and that wait times are mitigated. In CBP's own
words, ``Overtime allows OFO to schedule its personnel to cover key
shifts with a smaller total personnel number.'' This is one reason that
Congress authorized a dedicated funding source to pay for overtime--
customs user fees, pursuant to title 19, section 58c (f) of the U.S.
Code. CBP collects user fees to recover certain costs incurred for
processing, among other things, air and sea passengers, and various
private and commercial land, sea, air, and rail carriers and shipments.
The source of these user fees are commercial vessels, commercial
vehicles, rail cars, private aircraft, private vessels, air passengers,
sea passengers, cruise vessel passengers, dutiable mail, customs
brokers, and barge/bulk carriers. These fees are deposited into the
customs user fee account. User fees are designated by statute to pay
for services provided to the user, such as inspectional overtime for
passenger and commercial vehicle inspection during overtime shift
hours. In addition, APHIS user fees and immigration user fees also fund
``fee-related'' inspection costs.
User fees have not been increased in years and some of these user
fees cover only a portion of recoverable fee-related costs. For
example, CBP collects the extraordinarily low fee of $437 at arrival of
a commercial vessel to a port to recover personnel and other costs to
process and inspect the vessel's crew and cargo. This fee, however, is
capped at $5,955 per calendar year; no matter how many times the
commercial vessel enters a port that year. This fee was last raised
from $397 to $437 in 2007, but the cap has remained at $5,955 since
1986. In 2010, CBP collected a total of $19.9 million in commercial
vessel user fees, but the actual cost of commercial vessel inspections
in fiscal year 2010 was $33.6 million.
Another example of an extraordinarily low user fee is the fee paid
by railcar owners of $8.25 per car at arrival for processing and
inspection, but the fee is capped at $100 per railcar per calendar
year. In 2010, CBP collected a total of $8.6 million in rail car user
fees, but the actual cost of rail car inspections in fiscal year 2010
was $18.9 million. And commercial vehicles pay only $5.50 per vehicle
at arrival for processing and inspection, but the fee is capped at $100
per vehicle per calendar year. In 2010, CBP collected a total of $13.7
million in commercial vehicle user fees, but the actual cost of
commercial vehicle inspections in fiscal year 2010 was over $113.7
million.
According to Government Accountability Office (GAO), (GAO-12-464T,
page 11), the air passenger immigration inspection user fee should be
reviewed and adjusted to fully recover the cost of the air passenger
immigration inspection activities conducted by U.S. Customs and
Immigration (ICE) and CBP. GAO estimated that fee collections available
to ICE and CBP to pay for costs incurred in providing inspection
services totaled about $600 million in fiscal year 2010, however, ``air
passenger immigration fees collections did not fully cover CBP's costs
in FY 2009 and FY 2010.'' NTEU urges Congress to allow CBP to better
align air passenger inspection fee revenue with the costs of providing
immigration inspection services and adjust the fee as needed so that
collections are aligned with total inspection costs.
Also, according to the GAO, (GAO-12-464T, page 7), CBP has a $639.4
million unobligated balance in its customs user fee account. These
unobligated balances have remained in CBP's customs user fee account
for more than 10 years. NTEU urges the subcommittee to clarify the
purposes for which the nearly $640 million in unobligated balances in
the customs user fee account is available. NTEU supports legislative
changes necessary to allow CBP to use this customs user fee unobligated
balance to fully fund inspectional overtime in fiscal year 2013 and
recover other costs incurred for processing and inspection of
international travelers and trade.
TRADE ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE STAFFING
CBP has a dual mission of safeguarding our Nation's borders and
ports as well as regulating and facilitating international trade. CBP
personnel are responsible for collecting import duties and fees, and
enforcing U.S. trade laws. In fiscal year 2010, CBP collected $32
billion in revenue. Since CBP was established in March 2003, however,
there has been no increase in CBP trade enforcement and compliance
personnel and again, the fiscal year 2012 budget proposes no increase
in FTEs for CBP trade operations personnel.
In effect, there has been a CBP trade staffing freeze at March 2003
levels and, as a result, CBP's revenue function has suffered. Recently,
in response to an import specialists staffing shortage, CBP has
implemented at certain ports a tariff sharing scheme resulting in
certain ports being assigned only parts of the harmonized tariff
schedule. This is a short-sighted solution that shortchanges taxpayers,
trade compliant importers, and the Federal treasury.
Also, the fiscal year 2013 budget requests $10 million for
intellectual property rights (IPR) enforcement enhancement. The
administration's request, however, includes no increase in CBP trade
operations staff at the ports to implement this trade enforcement
program.
Lastly, the fiscal year 2013 budget request proposes to cut 21
trade operations positions including 14 rulings and regulations
staffers who are responsible for promulgating regulations and rulings,
and providing policy and technical support to CBP, DHS, Treasury,
Congress, and the importing community concerning the application of
customs laws and regulations.
NTEU urges the subcommittee not to cut CBP trade operations staff,
but rather to increase funding to hire additional trade enforcement and
compliance personnel, including import specialists, at the POEs to
enhance trade revenue collection.
CBP CAREER LADDER PAY INCREASE
NTEU commends the Department for increasing the journeyman pay for
CBP officers and agriculture specialists. Many deserving CBP trade and
security positions, however, were left out of this pay increase, which
has significantly damaged morale.
NTEU strongly supports extending this same career ladder increase
to additional CBP positions, including CBP trade operations specialists
and CBP seized property specialists. The journeyman pay level for the
CBP technicians who perform important commercial trade and
administration duties should also be increased from GS-7 to GS-9.
RATIO OF CBP SUPERVISORS TO FRONTLINE CBP OFFICERS
CBP is continuing to increase the number of supervisors when a much
greater need exists for new front-line hires. In terms of real numbers,
since CBP was created, the number of new managers has increased at a
much higher rate than the number of new front-line CBP hires. According
to GAO, between October 2003 and February 2006, CBP increased the
number of managers by 17 percent, but increased the number of front-
line CBP officers by only 2 percent (See GAO-06-751R, page 11).
The tremendous increase in CBP managers and supervisors has come at
the expense of national security preparedness and front-line positions.
Also, these highly paid management positions are straining the CBP
budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Sufficient CBP staffing must be provided to ensure security and
mitigate prolonged wait times for both trade and travel at our Nation's
ports of entry. Therefore, NTEU urges the subcommittee to include in
its fiscal year 2013 DHS appropriations bill:
--funding to significantly increase both port security and trade
enforcement staffing at the ports of entry; and
--funding to extend enhanced pay and retirement recognition to
additional CBP personnel, including import and other commercial
operations specialists, CBP seized property specialists, and
CBP technicians.
The more than 24,000 CBP employees represented by NTEU are proud of
their part in keeping our country free from terrorism, our
neighborhoods safe from drugs, and our economy safe from illegal trade,
while ensuring that legal trade and travelers move expeditiously though
our air, sea, and land ports. These men and women are deserving of more
resources to perform their jobs better and more efficiently.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony to the
subcommittee on their behalf.
Colleen M. Kelley,
National President.
______
Prepared Statement of the U.S. Council of the International Association
of Emergency Managers
Chairman Landrieu, Ranking Member Coats, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, I am Hui-Shan Walker, the emergency management
coordinator for Hampton, Virginia. I have been a local government
emergency manager for 12 years and before that worked for 5 years in
the Red Cross' Disaster Services. I serve currently as the president of
the U.S. Council of the International Association of Emergency Managers
(IAEM-USA)\1\; and I am providing, on its behalf, this statement on
critical budget and policy issues for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ IAEM-USA is our Nation's largest association of emergency
management professionals, with 5,000 members including emergency
managers at the State and local government levels, tribal nations, the
military, colleges and universities, private business, and the
nonprofit sector. Most of our members are U.S. city and county
emergency managers who perform the crucial function of coordinating and
integrating the efforts at the local level to prepare for, mitigate the
effects of, respond to, and recover from all types of disasters
including terrorist attacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding FEMA's fiscal year 2013 budget, IAEM-USA supports funding
the Emergency Management Performance Grant at $350 million and the
Emergency Management Institute at $18,305,000. IAEM-USA opposes the
termination of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program. We urge rejection
of the National Preparedness Grant Program proposal until adequate
details are available and key local stakeholders have had input. We
deeply appreciate the support this subcommittee has provided to the
emergency management community over the past few years, particularly
your support for the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program
(EMPG).
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS (EMPG)
IAEM-USA respectfully urges that the subcommittee approve the
President's request of $350 million for EMPG, but continue to reject
combining it with other accounts. EMPG is fundamentally different than
the post-September 11, 2001, homeland security grants because of its 50
percent Federal and 50 percent State and local matching requirements
and established performance measures. It also pre-dates the homeland
security grants by over 50 years. We further request that language be
included continuing to make it clear the funding is all hazards and can
be used for personnel. The program was authorized at $950 million for
fiscal year 2012 in Public Law 110-53.
EMPG, called ``the backbone of the Nation's emergency management
system'' in an appropriations conference report, constitutes the only
source of direct Federal funding for State and local governments to
provide basic emergency coordination and planning capabilities for all
hazards including those related to homeland security. The program is
authorized by Public Law 110-53 for the Administrator of FEMA ``to make
grants to States to assist State, local, and tribal governments in
preparing for all hazards, as authorized by the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et
seq.).'' The legislation creating EMPG is purposefully broad to allow
State, local, and tribal jurisdictions to focus their attention on
customizing their capabilities. Therefore, it is important that FEMA
guidance not be written to make ``one size fits all'' but instead to
allow each local jurisdiction maximum flexibility in meeting the
specific capability requirements. The program supports State and local
initiatives for planning, training, exercise, mitigation, public
education, as well as response and recovery coordination during actual
events. EMPG succeeds in achieving its goal. As the 2011 IAEM-USA
survey report, ``Emergency Management Performance Grant Funds: Return
on Investment at the Local Level,'' demonstrated, EMPG funds contribute
to bring about coordination, integration, and collaboration within
local level jurisdictions across the country. The report on our fifth
annual IAEM-USA survey of EMPG is available at: [http://www.iaem.com/
documents/IAEM.EMPG.ROI.Survey.Report3.5.12.pdf]. Since all disasters
start and end at the local level, it is vital that capacity continue to
be built at this level.
Funding from EMPG has always been important to local government
emergency management offices and is even more vital during the current
economic downturn. The programs of most of our local emergency managers
have faced, or will be facing, budget reductions resulting in reduced
staffing, reduced training, reduced public outreach, and reduced
support to volunteers. Some elected officials are considering reducing
their commitment from a full-time emergency manager to a part-time
emergency manager. Some jurisdictions are terminating the emergency
management position altogether and simply adding the responsibilities
associated with emergency management functions to pre-existing
personnel in other departments. This has the effect of actually
reducing emergency management services--and potentially preparedness--
in many areas of the country at a time when disasters and emergencies
threaten more people and property than ever before. EMPG funding
frequently makes a difference as to whether or not a qualified person
is present to perform these duties in local jurisdictions. It should be
noted that many local emergency management programs have historically
provided significantly more than the 50 percent match that is required
for their EMPG allocations.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE
We respectfully urge the subcommittee to increase the funding for
the Emergency Management Institute (EMI) located at Emmitsburg,
Maryland, by $500,000 to $18,305,000. The additional funds will support
continued development and delivery of the National Emergency Management
Academy foundation classes and support the development of training at
the specialty and executive management levels, to include the
enhancement of the field (G) and on-campus (E) courses. These programs
support both the introductory training and continued professional
development of Federal, State, local, and tribal emergency managers
across the Nation. IAEM-USA urges you to again specifically designate
funding for EMI in your subcommittee report and to require FEMA to
include a specific request in the budget documents.
EMI provides vitally needed training to State, local, and tribal
government emergency managers through on-campus classes, a curriculum
developed for field deployment and distance learning. This ``crown
jewel'' of emergency management training and doctrine has made progress
over the past 2 years with the funding support of Congress in the
update and development of critically needed programs. Sustained funding
for the continuance of existing programs and funds to complete the much
needed executive management series of courses are vital to supporting
local and tribal emergency management programs. For 2011-2012 EMI had
more than 5.5 million active students; 39,559 classroom course
completions, and 2,275,174 independent study program outline course
completions.
PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION
We urge the subcommittee to reject the proposal to terminate the
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program and provide a minimum of $35,500,000 as
appropriated in fiscal year 2012. A congressionally mandated
independent study by the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council, a council of
the National Institute of Building Sciences, showed that on the
average, $1 spent by FEMA on hazard mitigation (actions to reduce
disaster losses) provides the Nation about $4 in future benefits.
NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS GRANT PROGRAM
The proposed National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP) would
consolidate 16 homeland security grant programs into a State-centric
block and competitive grant program. The proposal raises concerns and
questions for those at the local level. For example, the proposal
ignores requirements of the 9/11 Act for 80 percent of the State
Homeland Security Grant program to support local governments, the place
where all disasters begin and end. In addition, the proposed use of a
threat and hazard identification and risk assessment (THIRA) does not
describe how local government officials, local emergency managers, and
first responders will participate effectively and efficiently in the
THIRA process.
In response to the proposed NPGP, 12 national organizations of
locals including elected officials, first responders, and emergency
managers sent a letter outlining a set of core principles to guide
grant program reform--principles which we would urge you to consider as
you evaluate reform proposals. This letter is available at the
following site: [http://www.iaem.com/Committees/GovernmentAffairs/
GovtAffairs.htm#CoalitionLetter21Mar2012]. The principles are as
follows:
--Increased Transparency.--It must be clear and understandable to the
Federal Government and the public how the States are
distributing funds, why they are making these decisions, and
where the funds are going.
--Greater Local Involvement.--Local government officials, including
emergency managers and emergency response officials, know best
the threats and vulnerabilities in their areas. The THIRA
process must include the input of local elected and emergency
response officials, and FEMA must be able to audit States by
comparing local risk assessments to the State level THIRA.
Further, local governments should have the opportunity to
challenge a State THIRA that inadequately reflects their needs
or input.
--Flexibility With Accountability.--Any changes to the existing
Federal grant programs should allow Federal funding to meet
individual local needs, and preparedness gaps as identified at
the local level. Effective but sometimes less politically
popular programs, like mitigation, must still receive funding.
--Protect Local Funding.--Since event impact and response are
primarily local in nature, grant funding should support
primarily local prevention and preparedness efforts, as is the
case under the current program structure. It is important that
the vast majority of Federal homeland security grants continue
to fund local prevention and response activities, including
local emergency managers and first responders, and activities
that support their preparedness efforts.
--Sustain Terrorism Prevention.--The current emphasis on supporting
law enforcement's terrorism prevention activities must be
maintained. The Federal grant funds should not be used to
support larger State bureaucracies at the expense of
operational counter terrorism preparedness, threat analysis,
and information-sharing activities.
--Incentives for Innate Regionalization.--FEMA's proposal focuses on
States and multi-State regions (similar to the FEMA regions).
The homeland security grants must also support preparedness in
metropolitan intra-State and inter-State regions.
THE PATH FORWARD ON THE NPGP
The details matter and there are still too many unanswered
questions on how the NPGP would actually work. We recommend that the
dialogue continue with DHS/FEMA, the Congress and all relevant State
and local stakeholders. On April 24, a letter was sent by 12 national
organizations of locals to Secretary Napolitano and Administrator
Fugate suggesting that the Department not rush to make major changes
this year but let the changes being implemented in the fiscal year 2012
budget play out and be evaluated. This would give time for the
Department to work with key local and State stakeholders and the
Congress in a collaborative way to develop reforms which incorporate
the successful elements of the homeland security programs and identify
changes which need to be made.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we urge the subcommittee to continue to build State
and local emergency management capacity by funding EMPG at $350 million
and to retain it as a separate account. We urge funding for the
Emergency Management Institute be increased by $500,000 to $18,305,000
and the amount be specifically mentioned in the subcommittee report. We
urge that the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program not be terminated. We
urge rejection of the NPGP proposal until more details are available
and more collaboration with key stakeholders has occurred.
Hui-Shan Walker, CEM ,
President.