[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET
REQUEST: ENSURING EFFECTIVE PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE,
AND COMMUNICATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 25, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-58
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
---------------------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-558 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or
866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
__________
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Paul C. Broun, Georgia Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Candice S. Miller, Michigan, Vice Brian Higgins, New York
Chair Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Ron Barber, Arizona
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania Dondald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Jason Chaffetz, Utah Beto O'Rourke, Texas
Steven M. Palazzo, Mississippi Tulsi Gabbard, Hawaii
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Filemon Vela, Texas
Richard Hudson, North Carolina Steven A. Horsford, Nevada
Steve Daines, Montana Eric Swalwell, California
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Mark Sanford, South Carolina
Vacancy
Vacancy, Staff Director
Michael Geffroy, Deputy Staff Director/Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana, Chairwoman
Peter T. King, New York Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Steven M. Palazzo, Mississippi, Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Vice Chair Brian Higgins, New York
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Mark Sanford, South Carolina (ex officio)
Michael T. McCaul, Texas (ex
officio)
Eric B. Heighberger, Subcommittee Staff Director
Deborah Jordan, Subcommittee Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Susan W. Brooks, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Indiana, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness, Response, and Communications:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
The Honorable Donald M. Payne, Jr., a Representative in Congress
From the State of New Jersey, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications........ 6
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Witness
Hon. W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 8
Prepared Statement............................................. 10
For the Record
The Honorable Susan W. Brooks, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Indiana, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness, Response, and Communications:
Letter......................................................... 2
Letter From the National Association of Realtors............... 3
Appendix
Questions From Chairwoman Susan W. Brooks For W. Craig Fugate.... 45
THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET
REQUEST: ENSURING EFFECTIVE PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS
----------
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response,
and Communications,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Susan W. Brooks
[Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Brooks, Palazzo, Sanford, Payne,
Clarke, and Higgins.
Also present: Representative Jackson Lee.
Mrs. Brooks. The Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness,
Response, and Communications will come to order. The
subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony from
administrator Craig Fugate on the President's fiscal year 2015
budget request for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I
now recognize myself for an opening statement.
The House Homeland Security Committee recently held a
hearing on the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request for
the Department of Homeland Security at which time Secretary
Johnson testified. This subcommittee will continue that
oversight today with a more in-depth review of the President's
request for the Federal Emergency Management Agency known as
FEMA.
The President's fiscal year 2015 budget requests $10.3
billion for programs and operations at FEMA. This is a 3
percent increase from fiscal year 2014 enacted level. It is
important in these difficult fiscal times that FEMA can fulfill
its mission while at the same time be a good steward of
taxpayer money.
We need to ensure that our Nation is equipped to prepare
for, respond to, and mitigate against disasters and ensure that
our first responders have the training, tools, and resources
needed in order to continue to do their important work.
Administrator Fugate, I am interested in hearing more today
about how you propose to allocate the resources to sustain
FEMA's current missions and what strategic priorities you will
focus on in 2015. For the third year in a row, the budget
request proposes some significant changes within the State and
local programs account, consolidating a number of Homeland
Security grant programs into a new National Preparedness Grant
Program, NPGP.
I am pleased that FEMA has finally submitted a legislative
proposal with this year's request. As our subcommittee
continues to review the proposal, we do have quite a few
questions about it. So I am interested in learning more about
the many aspects of the proposal and how it will be
implemented.
I have questions about the two funding pots, the
sustainment and the competitive, and how these funds will be
allocated to States, high-risk urban areas, port authorities,
and transit agencies. I also have questions about and am
concerned with the proposed elimination of the 25 percent set-
aside for law enforcement terrorism prevention activities.
State and local prevention activities including the
sustainment of the National network of fusion centers have
played a vital role in our Nation's ability to disrupt a
potential terrorist attack.
Moving forward, we need to remember that the purpose of
these grants as detailed in the 9/11 Act are for preventing,
preparing for, protecting against, and responding to acts of
terrorism.
So I hope you will be able to provide us with greater
clarity on this proposal and other questions as we have related
to the NPGP proposal. I look forward to working with my fellow
subcommittee and full committee Members and the many
stakeholder groups as we continue to review and consider this
proposal.
At this time, I ask unanimous consent to insert a letter
from a number of stakeholder groups including the U.S.
Conference of Mayors, the International Association of Fire
Chiefs, the major cities chiefs, and the International
Association of Emergency Managers regarding the NPGP proposal.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Letter Submitted by Hon. Susan W. Brooks
March 24, 2014.
The Honorable Harold Rogers,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Nita Lowey,
Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable John Carter,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
20515.
The Honorable David Price,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
20515.
Dear Mr. Rogers, Ms. Lowey, Mr. Carter, and Mr. Price: As you begin
development of Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 appropriations legislation, we
write on behalf of local elected officials, emergency managers, port
operators, police chiefs and colonels, sheriffs, and the major fire
service organizations to urge you once again not to implement the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Preparedness
Grant Program (NPGP) proposal through the appropriations process.
The NPGP proposal would convert the current suite of homeland
security grant programs into state-administered block and competitive
grant programs in which funding decisions are based on state and multi-
state threat assessments without clear local involvement. We appreciate
the fact that thus far Congress has rejected the Administration's
proposed NPGP and agreed with us that any changes to the grant programs
must be considered by the authorizing committees. We are confident that
the authorizing committees will give careful consideration to FEMA's
specific proposals and any other proposals submitted.
As an alternative to the NPGP, our organizations have developed and
agreed on a set of principles for reforming the homeland security grant
programs: transparency, local involvement, flexibility and
accountability, local funding, terrorism prevention, and incentives for
regionalization. We look forward to working with Congress and the
Administration to develop changes to the grant programs that are
consistent with these principles, and that will improve the programs in
the years ahead.
We also want to take this opportunity to thank you for including
language in the FY 2014 omnibus appropriations bill that would prohibit
FEMA from implementing the NPGP in FY 2014 without explicit
congressional authorization. Thank you also for providing specific
funding levels for each homeland security grant program, including the
State Homeland Security Grant Program, Urban Areas Security Initiative,
port security, and transportation security grant programs.
If we can provide further information or assistance, please contact
us through the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Public Safety Director, or
the International Association of Fire Chiefs' Director of Government
Relations and Policy.
Sincerely,
American Association of Port Authorities, Big City
Emergency Managers, Congressional Fire Services Institute,
International Association of Chiefs of Police,
International Association of Fire Chiefs, International
Association of Fire Fighters, Major Cities Chiefs
Association, Major County Sheriffs' Association, National
Association of Counties, National Homeland Security
Coalition, National League of Cities, National Sheriffs'
Association, National Volunteer Fire Council, The United
States Conference of Mayors, U.S. Council of the
International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM-USA).
Mrs. Brooks. I also ask unanimous consent to insert a
letter from the National Association of Realtors with respect
to the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act. Without
objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Letter From the National Association of Realtors
March 24, 2014.
The Honorable Susan Brooks,
Chairwoman, House Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and
Communications, 1505 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairwoman Brooks: Thank you for holding this important
hearing on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's 2015 budget
request. REALTORS believe this is a critical and timely opportunity to
learn more about FEMA's plans for implementing recently enacted flood
insurance legislation.
As enacted, the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act (HR
3370) would resolve most of the unintended consequences of Biggert-
Waters implementation. However, the effectiveness of this new law will
depend on FEMA's ability to take quick action on a number of
provisions:
(1) Assumption of Current Policies/Rates.--The law was designed to
provide immediate rate relief to the home buyers, by allowing
them to ``assume'' the policies and current rates of sellers.
The purpose was to prevent skyrocketing flood insurance over
the next year while FEMA works to implement the rest of the
law. FEMA needs to act quickly to implement this critical
provision so home buyers have the option to assume current
policies and rates.
(2) Refunds.--The new law calls for an 8-month roll-out of new rate
tables and guidelines for FEMA to issue refunds. In the
interim, recent home owners need to know whether they will need
to apply for a refund, what they can do to prepare, and what
happens if they sell their homes before FEMA begins issuing
those refunds. Also buyers of second homes will need to know
whether they are eligible for refunds if they saw a rate
increase that exceeded 25% per year. It would help to know how
FEMA intends to meet the 8-month deadline and where to direct
home owners to begin getting answers to these and other
questions.
(3) Flood Insurance Advocate.--The Advocate will provide a single
point of contact at FEMA to help home owners begin to answer
refund and other questions about flood maps and rate increases.
(4) Flood Map Certification.--FEMA is required to certify when it
has implemented a flood map program based on scientific review
of a Technical Mapping Advisory Council. FEMA's plans and
timeline to establish this Council in order to begin reviewing
the accuracy of flood maps are crucial.
(5) Flood Insurance Summit.--FEMA agreed to participate in a flood
insurance summit with affected stakeholders. As we work to
implement this new law and look ahead to the next
reauthorization, we hope to make this beneficial summit a
reality for all involved.
REALTORS thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.
It would be good to hear from Administrator Fugate to address these
issues during your hearing. We look forward to working with you as FEMA
continues to implement the new flood insurance law and address the rate
affordability under the National Flood Insurance Program.
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
2014 President, National Association of REALTORS.
Mrs. Brooks. I am encouraged to see that the Department
took advantage of the discretion provided by Congress for
fiscal year 2014 Homeland Security grant program and expanded
the number of cities eligible for the Urban Area Security
Initiative or UASI funding. After falling off the list in 2013,
Indianapolis is once again an eligible urban area.
The city of Indianapolis hosts many, many top-notch events
including our upcoming Indianapolis 500 that require our public
safety officials to have proper training, equipment, and
strategic planning. Previous UASI funding has played a vital
role in ensuring our first responders were prepared for these
events.
As we continue to recover from disasters, such as
superstorm Sandy, we must also evaluate how we are working to
become more resilient and mitigate the damages caused by these
storms. We also must ensure that we are always looking for ways
to rebuild faster, stronger, and more efficiently.
So I was a bit surprised to see that the President's budget
request again proposes to eliminate the Pre-Disaster Mitigation
program. However, it is my understanding that through the
Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative proposal, $400
million would be allocated to a competitive grant program that
would be administered through the Pre-Disaster Mitigation
program.
So I would like to hear a bit more about the rationale
behind this change. Finally, the use of social media has been a
focus of this subcommittee and it has become a new reality for
how first responders and survivors communicate before, during,
and after a disaster.
The recent explosion in East Harlem, the Boston Marathon
bombings, which happened about a year ago, and superstorm Sandy
are just examples of how citizens are turning to Facebook and
Twitter for information and to comfort survivors.
During two subcommittee hearings held this past year, we
have heard from numerous stakeholders, including the private
sector, on this new reality.
Two weeks ago, I, along with Ranking Member Payne, Vice
Chairman Palazzo, and Mr. Swallwell introduced a bill to
authorize the Department's virtual social media working group.
I am interested in learning more about what FEMA is doing to
incorporate social media into their preparedness response and
recovery missions.
With that, I am very pleased to welcome Administrator
Fugate here today. I look forward to your testimony. As always,
thank you for your service.
[The statement of Chairwoman Brooks follows:]
Statement of Chairwoman Susan W. Brooks
The House Homeland Security Committee recently held a hearing on
the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), at which Secretary Johnson testified. This
subcommittee will continue that oversight today with a more in-depth
review of the President's request for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA).
The President's fiscal year 2015 budget requests $10.3 billion for
programs and operations at FEMA. This is a 3 percent increase from the
fiscal year 2014 enacted level. It is important that in these difficult
fiscal times that FEMA can fulfill its missions while at the same time
be a good steward of taxpayer money. We need to ensure that our Nation
is equipped to prepare for, respond to, and mitigate against disasters
and ensure that our first responders have the training, tools, and
resources needed in order to continue to do their important work.
Administrator Fugate, I am interested in hearing more about how you
propose to allocate resources to sustain FEMA's current missions and
what strategic priorities you will focus on in 2015.
For the third year in a row, the budget request proposes major
changes within the State and Local Programs account, consolidating a
number of homeland security grant programs into a new National
Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP). I am pleased that FEMA has finally
submitted a legislative proposal with this year's request.
As the subcommittee continues to review the proposal, we have a lot
of questions. I am interested in learning more about many aspects of
the proposal and how it would be implemented. I have questions about
the two funding pots--sustainment and competitive--and how these funds
will be allocated to States, high-risk urban areas, port authorities,
and transit agencies.
I also have questions about, and am concerned with, the proposed
elimination of the 25% set-aside for law enforcement terrorism
prevention activities. State and local prevention activities, including
the sustainment of the National Network of Fusion Centers, have played
a vital role in our Nation's ability to disrupt a potential terrorist
attack. Moving forward, we need to remember that the purpose of these
grants, as detailed in the 9/11 Act, are for ``preventing, preparing
for, protecting against, and responding to acts of terrorism.''
I hope you will be able to provide us with greater clarity on
these, and other, questions we have related to the NPGP proposal. I
look forward to working with my fellow subcommittee and full committee
Members and the many stakeholder groups as we continue to review and
consider this proposal. At this time I ask unanimous consent to insert
a letter from a number of stakeholder groups, including the U.S.
Conference of Mayors, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the
Major Cities Chiefs, and the International Association of Emergency
Managers, regarding the NPGP proposal.
I was encouraged to see that the Department took advantage of the
discretion provided by Congress for Fiscal Year 2014 Homeland Security
Grant Program and expanded the number of cities eligible for Urban Area
Security Initiative (UASI) funding. After falling off the list in 2013,
Indianapolis is once again an eligible urban area. The city of
Indianapolis hosts many top-notch events, including the upcoming
Indianapolis 500, that require our public safety officials to have the
proper training, equipment, and strategic planning. Previous UASI
funding has played a vital role in ensuring our first responders were
prepared for these events.
As we continue to recover from disasters, such as Superstorm Sandy,
we must evaluate how we are working to become more resilient and
mitigate the damage caused by these storms. We also must ensure that we
are always looking for ways to rebuild faster, stronger, and more
efficiently.
I was surprised to see that the President's budget request again
proposes to eliminate the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program. However, it
is my understanding that through the Opportunity, Growth, and Security
Initiative proposal, $400 million would be allocated to a competitive
grant program that would be administered through the Pre-Disaster
Mitigation program. I would like to hear more about the rationale
behind this.
The use of social media has become a new reality for how first
responders and survivors communicate before, during, and after a
disaster. The recent explosion in East Harlem, the Boston Marathon
bombings, and Superstorm Sandy are just some examples of how citizens
are turning to Facebook and Twitter for information and to comfort to
survivors. During two subcommittee hearings last year, we heard from
numerous stakeholders, including the private sector, on this new
reality. Two weeks ago I, along with the Ranking Member Payne, Vice
Chairman Palazzo, and Mr. Swalwell, introduced a bill to authorize the
Department's Virtual Social Media Working Group. I am interested in
learning more about what FEMA is doing to incorporate social media into
their preparedness, response, and recovery missions.
With that, I am pleased to welcome Administrator Fugate here today.
I look forward to your testimony.
Mrs. Brooks. The Chairwoman now recognizes the gentleman
from New Jersey, Mr. Payne, for any opening statement he may
have.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, and good morning.
Mrs. Brooks. Good morning.
Mr. Payne. I would like to thank Chairwoman Brooks for
holding this hearing and giving this subcommittee the
opportunity to learn more about the fiscal year 2015 budget
request for Federal Emergency Management Agency. Earlier this
month, Secretary Johnson testified before the full committee on
the fiscal year 2015 budget submission for the Department of
Homeland Security.
Members of this panel raised a litany of concerns ranging
from how future budget caps will affect operations to whether
resources are being allocated effectively to enhance security.
There was one topic, however, that generated significant
bipartisan interest--FEMA's proposal to consolidate 18 distinct
Homeland Security grants into one.
This is not FEMA's first attempt at a wide-scale
consolidation of these programs. It is the third attempt. In
the past, when Members asked about the potential changes and
how funding would be awarded under the consolidation proposal,
FEMA stressed that it was not focused on the specifics of which
cities would receive funding. Instead, it was concerned about
building National capabilities.
So before we go down that road for the third time, I want
to be clear about where Members on this panel, at least the
Democratic side, are coming from. The attacks of September 11,
2001, shook America to its core. Prior to 9/11, we only saw
disasters in terms of natural disasters--hurricanes,
earthquakes, tornadoes, et cetera.
Mother Nature can be vicious. But over the years, thanks to
investments in disaster preparedness and recovery, it is an
enemy we can anticipate. The attacks of September 11, in
contrast, we did not see coming. Unlike a natural disaster, we
did not know, at least initially, when it would be over.
Despite our military strength, our intelligence, resources,
and the first responder technologies, Americans has learned
that day that we are vulnerable to terrorism. Unfortunately,
last year, the Boston marathon bombings brought the
unpredictable nature of terrorism into focus once again.
Americans have come to understand that the might of our
military will not stop terrorists from trying to attack our
streets. Fragments of intelligence only tell a full story if
the information is shared with the right people. I represent
northern New Jersey.
I have seen first-hand the death and destruction caused by
terrorist attacks and natural disasters. Both the 9/11 attacks
and Hurricane Sandy were deadly, heartbreaking, and caused
significant economic damage. The nature of terrorism demands a
very different preparedness, response, and mitigation approach
than approaching a storm or other natural disaster.
New Jersey's first responders were some of the first to
attend to the aftermath of 9/11. They again were called to
respond following Hurricane Sandy.
Depending on the type of disaster, what is asked of our
first responders is vastly different.
Asking any firefighter, what is the demand of him in
response to a traditional fire is vastly different from what is
required to respond to a blaze caused by an act of terrorism
where biological toxins may have been released or booby-traps
may have been laid.
In recognition of the difference and the need to build core
terrorism preparedness and response capabilities, Congress
established the Homeland Security grant program.
So as we begin our discussion on grant consolidation today,
you will find that the concerns expressed about your proposal
are fundamental. What is at stake goes far beyond parochial
considerations about who gets the money.
It is about how we take the lessons learned from 9/11 to
make our communities more secure in the absence of a dedicated
and discreet terrorism preparedness and response grant
programs, which is exactly what would occur under your
consolidation proposal.
How can we be assured that the funds we appropriate will be
used to achieve interoperability, harden and protect critical
infrastructure, and address the other vulnerabilities that were
first identified by the 9/11 commission?
I want to thank Administrator Fugate for being here today.
I look forward to his testimony. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mrs. Brooks. Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded
that opening statements may be submitted for the record.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
As authorizers, we have a responsibility to understand the needs
and priorities of the Department.
It is our duty to vet the various budget proposals included in the
budget request, and to question the assumptions underlying conclusions
that program and policy changes will increase efficiency and achieve
savings.
The level of examination required of us goes beyond a full
committee hearing on the entire DHS budget request.
In the past, subcommittees of this committee have held hearings to
more closely review the budget request of the offices and components
within DHS.
Unfortunately, that is no longer the common practice.
In light of restrictive budget caps, we need to understand what
programs at DHS need resources, how we can invest funds more
effectively, and whether components can sustain existing programs under
budget limitations.
In short, we need to understand how adhering to the budget caps
will cost homeland security.
So, I appreciate this subcommittee's effort to take a closer look
at FEMA's budget proposal.
Administrator Fugate, for the third year in a row, FEMA proposes to
consolidate 18 target grant programs into the National Preparedness
Grant Program (NPGP).
The last two times FEMA submitted the grant consolidation proposal,
Members of this panel expressed concern about the apparent lack of
stakeholder outreach.
Members questioned whether FEMA requested sufficient funding for
the program.
And were the lack of detail.
This is the third time FEMA has proposed the NPGP, and it seems
that we're about to have the same conversation we had 2 years ago when
the program was first proposed.
The stakeholders who have contacted my office said that the limited
``outreach'' from FEMA has taken the form of briefings, rather than
engagement, and that it has been sporadic, rather than on-going.
Indeed, Congress only gets roped into the discussion in the month
or so following the budget submission.
FEMA requests about $1.04 billion for NPGP for fiscal year 2015.
But when the Homeland Security Grant Program was funded at that
level in fiscal year 2012, FEMA echoed the concerns raised by Democrats
on this panel that that funding was not sufficient to address the
vulnerabilities of State and local preparedness capabilities.
With State and local budgets stretched as thin as they are today, I
find it hard to believe that State and local programs need less support
today than they did 2 years ago.
I understand that $300 million in addition funding for NPGP was
requested in the President's Opportunity, Growth, and Security
Initiative.
But the practical reality is that the OGSI funding is unlikely to
come to fruition under the current House leadership.
And I have to believe that FEMA and the administration understood
the OGSI funding to be a long shot when it was proposed.
So, I want to understand the rationale behind seeking a $300
million reduction for State and local programs.
Finally, given the important role the Homeland Security Grant
Program has played in strengthening information sharing and
preparedness related to terrorist attacks, we wanted to understand how
the NPGP would work.
This year, we received legislative language for NPGP.
We did not, however, get any more clarity about the structure of
the program.
Indeed, depending on what document you read--the Congressional
Budget Justification or the legislative proposal--it is possible to
draw different conclusions. After 2 years, that is disappointing.
Mrs. Brooks. We are pleased to welcome Administrator Fugate
before the subcommittee.
Mr. Fugate was appointed by President Obama to serve as the
administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and
was confirmed by the United States Senate on May 13, 2009.
Prior to coming to FEMA, Mr. Fugate served as the director
of the Florida Division of Emergency Management, a position he
held for 8 years. Mr. Fugate began his emergency management
career as a volunteer firefighter, emergency paramedic, and
finally, as a lieutenant with the Alachua County fire rescue.
Mr. Fugate and his wife hail from Gainesville, Florida.
Welcome, Administrator. Your entire written statement will
appear in the record. We ask that you summarize your testimony.
You are now recognized and welcomed before the subcommittee.
STATEMENT OF W. CRAIG FUGATE, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Fugate. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Members, Ranking
Members. You have my written testimony. I think I want to go to
leave as much time for questions. But I want to take on the
National Preparedness Grants.
I think it is not our intention to divert them away from
terrorism. It is not our intention to divert or set aside or
exclude any group from that. If anything, it is following the
Constitution of the United States.
Again, I know there are a lot of groups. I know that
Congress ultimately has the authority to authorize and
appropriate the funds. But when disaster strikes, whatever the
cause, including terrorism, our Constitution has divided the
powers between Federal and State to give the State the primary
responsibility to respond to domestic emergencies, including
terrorist acts and the consequences of those acts.
Only the Governor can call out the National Guard. Only the
Governor can request assistance from the Federal Government. To
exclude the Governor from the planning process and allocation
of funds literally goes around our Constitution, which sets up
the responsibilities of the States. It also goes around State
constitutions.
As a former local, State, and now Federal, I have worked at
all levels of government. I can tell you that the original
funding strands were not separated out by jurisdictions.
Although they were in different pots of money, they all came to
the State.
Because of the complaints and concerns of many local
officials who felt the money wasn't reaching them, Congress
made the decision to begin funding cities specifically. That
probably makes sense in States where cities are the primary
capability in response to disasters.
My State, Florida, counties are often bigger. We had a
situation where we had funds going to smaller municipalities
that set within the larger county and larger capabilities of
the overall risk.
Because these funds did not reflect the State constitutions
of who and how authorities distributed between State and local
officials, some States are very much--very powerful home rule,
where local officials would have the primary overall
responsibility for direction.
In other cases, it is primarily at the State level. So
again, this was not an intent to bypass or to eliminate any
group from funding, but to better recognize the central role
that States would have when disasters exceed the capabilities
of local jurisdiction, including terrorist attacks, but also
making sure as the authorizing language I hope is trying to get
to, prioritizing those known areas, those urban security areas
in preserving funding for that, but giving States better
discretion, ensuring that funding is based upon the overall
issue that the State faces, not jurisdiction by jurisdiction.
The reason we looked at this Nationally was probably when
you look at the threats we face, when you look at things like
improvised nuclear devices, we know that no one jurisdiction
would ever have the capability to respond to that. We are going
to have to bring resources from across the Nation.
So in looking at the various threats, some of which are
terrorist-based, some of which are natural disasters, we
started adding up the numbers, the casualties, fatalities,
injuries, search and rescue, immediate recovery needs. In
looking at that, we began identifying critical capabilities and
gaps in that.
So part of this was to address the funding, not only hoping
that by jurisdiction by jurisdiction, it adds up to National
capability, but actually driving some of the bigger risks and
threats as an overall National response, and how do you build
that capability and direct that funding, part of this would
remain by the 9/11 statute, grant funding based upon the
division between the States.
Well the other has to be competitive so that we could see
in some areas of this country where maybe sponsorship by one
State or one community could provide resources to an area
versus each jurisdiction trying to build that capability. I
know there are a lot of concerns about that distribution of
funds.
I know there are concerns about our jurisdiction, my
jurisdiction, getting what we need. I also hear this a lot--
there is not a lot of trust out there.
Well, that also concerns me because in these types of
large-scale events, if we can't agree upon our responsibilities
and work together as a team, how does that work when a real
disaster that exceeds that jurisdiction's capability and that
requires all of our capabilities, not just the local
jurisdiction, the State of impact, or Federal resources, but
multiple States and multiple jurisdictions, responding to these
types of events.
Whether they are natural, terrorist, or technological, the
Nation needs to look at all these resources, to build
capability just to face the threats we face. We can do it
jurisdiction by jurisdiction. But our recommendation is to look
at it as a Nation and base it upon the structures of our
States, not taking away from the importance of local
responders, local jurisdictions or those risks, but recognizing
that when it does happen, it will be the Governor's primary
responsibility on that State to coordinate all of that response
with the Federal Government assisting. That is what is driving
this request.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fugate follows:]
Prepared Statement of W. Craig Fugate
March 25, 2014
introduction
Good Morning Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Payne, and Members of
the subcommittee. My name is Craig Fugate, and I am the administrator
at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). It is an honor to appear before you today to
discuss FEMA's fiscal year 2015 budget request.
FEMA's mission is to support our citizens and first responders to
ensure that, as a Nation, we work together to build, sustain, and
improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to,
recover from, and mitigate all hazards.
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget request provides the level
of resources required, in a balanced and prioritized manner, to support
the agency's ability to fulfill its emergency management mission, while
recognizing the budgetary controls and needs of the agency.
The fiscal year 2015 budget request reflects FEMA's priority to
manage resources effectively across the Federal Government while
ensuring the Nation's resilience to disasters. Under my direction, the
agency continues to re-examine its current allocation of resources to
consider the relative return on investment and to better focus on those
programs that have the most significant impact on the agency's ability
to fulfill its overall mission. Moreover, FEMA will continue to build
on its successful past efforts to streamline and enhance current
business processes, while using smart and innovative technologies to
better maximize the delivery of services and the efficient use of
available resources.
The agency's budget request is guided by the Administrator's Intent
for Fiscal Year 2015-2019 (Intent), and its five strategic priorities:
(1) Be survivor-centric in mission and program delivery; (2) become an
expeditionary organization; (3) posture and build capability for
catastrophic disasters; (4) enable disaster risk reduction Nationally;
and (5) achieve business and management excellence. FEMA is committed
to leveraging our authorities and focusing our policies, programs, and
budget choices to best support our citizens and first responders in
working together to ensure our Nation's resilience to disasters. To
deliver on this commitment, this Intent also provides two guiding
principles to frame our thinking, build our budget request, guide our
decisions, and shape our approach to mission and program execution,
which are: (1) A whole community approach to emergency management and
(2) fostering innovation and learning.
This testimony will review the initiatives the agency hopes to
pursue in fiscal year 2015 through the lens of the Intent and the
strategic priorities.
disaster relief fund
The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) provides individual and public
assistance to help families and communities affected by declared
disasters to rebuild and recover, as well as mitigation funds to reduce
the impact of future disasters. The fiscal year 2015 DRF budget request
is consistent with the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Pub. L. No. 112-25)
and totals $7.03 billion, in addition to carry-over and recoveries. The
DRF request for fiscal year 2015 includes estimated costs for prior
catastrophic events (including Hurricane Sandy), a 10-year average
level for non-catastrophic disasters, and funds for DRF Base activities
(i.e., Emergencies, Pre-disaster Surge Support, Fire Management
Assistance Grants, and Disaster Readiness Support). The request also
includes a $1 billion set-aside for no-notice events, which should also
support initial funding needs of a new catastrophic event. FEMA will
continue to maximize the use of DRF resources by working closely with
States, localities, and Tribes and through the use of its authorities
and policies, including Strategic Funds Management, which is FEMA's
process for obligating Public Assistance project funding based on a
subgrantee's schedule to execute the eligible work. As in the fiscal
year 2014 Omnibus, the DRF fiscal year 2015 request also includes a
$200 million rescission to Base balances in anticipation of unspent
carry-over balances and expected additional recoveries.
continuing to implement major legislative changes
Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013
As part of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013, on January
29, 2013, President Obama signed into law, the Sandy Recovery
Improvement Act (SRIA) (Pub. L. No. 113-2) authorizing several
significant changes to the way FEMA delivers disaster assistance. SRIA
is one of the most significant pieces of legislation impacting disaster
response and recovery since the Post-Katrina Emergency Management
Reform Act of 2006. FEMA began implementing the provisions of SRIA
while it was still helping survivors recover from Hurricane Sandy.
FEMA has developed and implemented pilot programs to use new
authorities for Public Assistance (PA) Alternative Permanent Work and
PA Debris Removal programs as part of its implementation of SRIA. When
these pilots are completed, we believe the data will show that these
programs speed recovery by empowering applicants with more choices,
enabling better and timelier decisions that align with communities'
recovery priorities, putting applicants in the driver's seat of their
own recovery and reducing administrative costs.
Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012
The agency is also implementing the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 2012, (Div. F, Subtitle C, of the ``Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act'' or ``MAP-21'' (Pub. L. No. 112-
141)), which aimed to make the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
more actuarially-sound and to make flood insurance rates better reflect
real flooding risks.
The law requires changes to all of the major components of the
NFIP, including flood insurance, flood hazard mapping, grants and
floodplain management, and we are working to implement those
provisions. These changes are being phased in over time and are
consistent with the direction provided in the Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Act, 2014 (Division F of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. No. 113-76)).
The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014 delays
all work on implementing Section 207 of the Biggert-Waters Act, until
Oct. 1, 2014. However, it neither amends nor changes the requirements
in Section 207 and once funding is made available, FEMA will be
required to continue with implementation. This means that flood map
changes that increase risk and were adopted by communities after July
6, 2012, as directed by Congress, will eventually phase out of
grandfathered rates retroactively once Section 207 implementation
occurs. As part of the NFIP, FEMA identifies flood hazards, assesses
flood risks, and partners with States, Tribes, and communities to
provide accurate flood hazard and risk data, more accurately capturing
flood hazard conditions now more than ever before with the Risk
Mapping, Assessment, and Planning program.
FEMA estimates that it will take an additional 12-18 months to
implement Section 207 once funding is restored.
The fiscal year 2015 request includes $84.4 million to continue
FEMA's Flood Map Modernization Fund and its long-term efforts to
address existing gaps in the flood hazard data inventory and address
changes that continue to occur over time.
strategic priorities
FEMA's budget request is consistent with the Administrator's Intent
and its strategic priorities. Below we have focused on some of the
high-profile programs, policies, and priorities that the agency hopes
to continue, modify, or implement in fiscal year 2015.
Strategic Priority One: Be Survivor-Centric in Mission and Program
Delivery
As part of FEMA's effort and its stated strategic priority to be
survivor-centric in mission and program delivery, the agency is
proposing moving its Emergency Food and Shelter (EFS) program to the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The fiscal year 2015 request is consistent with previous requests
and reflects a focus on FEMA's primary mission of preparing for and
coordinating disaster response and recovery efforts, while ensuring
continued substantial support for the non-disaster EFS program. The
budget proposes a transfer of the EFS program to HUD, as the core
function of the program more closely aligns with HUD's primary mission
and thus will provide the best service to survivors. This transfer will
further reduce fragmentation and duplication of services among Federal
homeless assistance programs, addressing a challenge highlighted by GAO
and others.
Strategic Priority Two: Become an Expeditionary Organization
As part of FEMA's effort and its stated strategic priority to
become an expeditionary organization, the agency is working to develop
a leaner, more agile workforce that is well-equipped, educated, and
trained. As part of this goal, FEMA is also working to ensure its
workforce is appropriately-sized, organized, and distributed to rapidly
mobilize, deploy, and conduct missions, while being fully supported by
FEMA's technology and infrastructure.
Strategic Priority Three: Posture and Build Capability for Catastrophic
Disasters
As part of FEMA's effort and its stated strategic priority to
posture and build capability for catastrophic disasters, the
administration is proposing the National Preparedness Grant Program
(NPGP) and additional funding for NPGP in the Opportunity, Growth, and
Security Initiative (OGSI). The fiscal year 2015 NPGP will work to
build and sustain core capabilities in the National Preparedness Goal,
recognizing that a secure and resilient Nation is one with the
capabilities required, across the whole community, to prevent, protect
against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards
that pose the greatest risk. The NPGP draws upon and strengthens
existing grants processes, procedures and structures, emphasizing the
need for greater collaboration and unity among Federal, State, local,
Tribal and territorial partners.
National Preparedness Grant Program
NPGP proposes to maximize the impact and benefit of grants for the
whole community's capacity to be prepared based on risks. The
legislative language that would be required to fully implement the NPGP
has been shared with FEMA's authorizers and appropriators, and we look
forward to working with Congress as they consider these important
legislative changes.
The NPGP would consolidate current State/local preparedness grant
programs into one comprehensive and overarching program (excluding
Emergency Management Performance Grants and Fire Grants), which
eliminates redundancies and requirements for both grantees and the
Federal Government based on the current system of multiple individual
and often disjointed grant programs.
Consistent with Presidential Policy Directive 8, the NPGP
prioritizes building and sustaining core capabilities to address high-
consequence events posing the greatest risk to U.S. security and
resilience. The NPGP will use the Threat and Hazard Identification and
Risk Assessment (THIRA) process to guide the development of core
capabilities.
State, Tribal, and local governments would be able to prioritize
their need and maximize the use of grant funds for the greatest whole-
community impact, with Tribal governments having the ability to receive
direct funding. This process, and the creation of NPGP, will also
ensure that grantees have the ability to build and sustain capabilities
that can be deployed not just on the local level, but on the regional
and National levels as well--creating an interconnected network of
local, Tribal, State, regional, and National capabilities to increase
the security of the whole Nation.
Implementing the NPGP will also improve the efficiency of the grant
programs by eliminating the burden on grantees to meet often redundant
mandates from multiple individual grant programs. As the subcommittee
is aware, the Redundancy Elimination and Enhanced Performance for
Preparedness Grants Act identified the elimination of duplicative
mandates as a priority.
Ultimately, creating this program would strengthen our ability to
respond to evolving threats across the United States.
Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative
The Nation is already experiencing impact from climate change, and
there is more to come. The budget strengthens America's preparedness
for and resilience to the effects of climate change by including base
funding for investments specifically for identifying and analyzing
critical infrastructure vulnerabilities, as well as funds for grants to
support research and State and local level resilience planning. In
addition to these base funding investments, the budget includes over $1
billion in a Climate Resilience Fund within the President's
Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative to more fully prepare the
Nation for existing and future threats from climate change. The
investments supported by the Fund will arm us with a greater
understanding of the impacts of climate change, provide tools and
information to support community planning that accounts for the effects
of climate change, and help reduce the risk to our communities,
infrastructure, and natural resources in the face of climate change and
extreme weather events. As part of the administration's OGSI, the FEMA
budget includes a separate, fully-paid-for request to support further
preparedness and pre-disaster planning and execution.
The OGSI, which will be split evenly between defense and non-
defense funding, shows how additional discretionary investments in 2015
can spur economic progress, promote opportunity, and strengthen
National security.
The budget will include $400 million for the Pre-Disaster
Mitigation program in the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative.
This, combined with the $150 million in base funding for National Flood
Insurance Program mitigation grants, represent an increase of $425
million over the 2014 spending level. These programs provide grants for
eligible mitigation planning and projects that reduce disaster losses
and protect life and property from future disaster damages. This
includes support for adaptation planning and pilot projects for cities
and communities through hazard mitigation assistance, building on
administration efforts to implement the National Mitigation Framework.
For mitigation funding provided through the Flood Insurance Program,
this can include planning grants to prepare flood mitigation plans;
cost-effective project grants to reduce flood losses, structure
elevation, retro-fitting of existing buildings.
Strategic Priority Four: Enable Disaster Risk Reduction Nationally
As part of FEMA's effort and its stated strategic priority to
enable disaster risk reduction Nationally, FEMA will leverage its
partnerships, programs, and risk information and tools to catalyze
whole community efforts advancing risk-based decision making across the
Nation. This effort will help to build community resilience through
ensuring a common risk picture, better targeting of resources, and a
joint/collaborative National effort to build the capabilities that will
best address the identified/targeted risk areas.
Focus areas will include:
Enabling greater risk-informed decision-making by improving
the quality, accessibility, and use of risk information. For
example: Through the continued modernization of flood maps and
the continued implementation of the THIRA process.
Building the appropriate preparedness capabilities to
address the identified risks through continued implementation
of the National Preparedness System. For example: Through the
implementation of the National Mitigation Framework and
National Disaster Recovery Framework, long-term disaster
recovery planning, training and education, core capability
development, and sharing of lessons learned.
Leading greater Federal interagency collaboration around
risk reduction and resilience, building on earlier efforts such
as establishment of the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group
and implementing a consistent Federal flood risk standard for
Federal funds in Hurricane Sandy rebuilding. For example:
Through the development and adoption of a Federal Flood Risk
Reduction Standard under the President's Climate Action Plan of
2013.
FEMA will also strive to reduce the risk associated with flood
events via the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program. As a result of the
unification of the Flood Mitigation Assistance, Repetitive Flood Claims
and Severe Repetitive Loss grant programs under the Flood Mitigation
Assistance Program, FEMA has been a more efficient delivery of flood-
related grants to States, local, and Tribal communities, which has
reduced future claims to NFIP. These grants provide funding to States,
Federally-recognized Tribal governments, and communities for the
reduction and elimination of the long-term risk flood damage poses. The
grant also provides funds on an annual basis so that measures can be
taken to reduce or eliminate risk of flood damage to buildings insured
under the NFIP. These measures include the acquisition and demolition
of flood-prone structures, elevation of homes above expected flood
levels and construction of minor drainage projects to reduce the impact
of storms.
FEMA requests $150 million in fiscal year 2015, an increase in $50
million over the fiscal year 2014 request, for this activity so that
important loss reduction measures are completed.
Strategic Priority Five: Achieve Business and Management Excellence
As part of FEMA's strategic priority to achieve business and
management excellence, the agency is undertaking several initiatives.
Among them: Continuing to dramatically shrink its facilities footprint
to save funds and apply taxpayer money wisely to higher priorities,
leading the Federal Government in developing collaborative workplaces
and improving security posture and resiliency, executing training
curriculum and programs to ensure employee readiness to timely execute
their responsibilities, and reviewing and maximizing the use of all
technology spending for mission execution.
conclusion
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget provides the level of
resources required to support the agency's ability to fulfill its
emergency management mission. The budget lays out a plan that
effectively manages, efficiently uses and maximizes the impact of our
resources, while ensuring the Nation's resilience to disasters. FEMA's
proposed budget continues to streamline current business processes and
harnesses the use of innovative technologies. The budget also shows a
commitment to learning from each disaster and evolving our plans and
processes to better serve survivors--our ultimate stakeholders--and
meet the needs of the whole community.
We look forward to continuing to work with the subcommittee to
ensure that our Nation is even more prepared and resilient moving
forward.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Administrator Fugate, for your
testimony.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
Keeping along the lines of what you have just talked about
with respect to the National Preparedness Grant Program and the
changes that you are proposing, I think one of the things that
we remain concerned about and I am not certain that it is clear
from what has been submitted thus far and has to do with the
funding of the UASI jurisdictions. So the proposal and the
legislative text are still not clear enough for us to
understand as to how high-risk areas will be funded.
Obviously, we do believe in risk-based funding and so,
appreciate that the same amounts of funding, you know,
shouldn't be distributed equally across the country, but that
there are high-risk areas.
So if authorized, would funding under the NPGP be set aside
for UASIs with applications submitted through the States as is
the current practice? Or will UASIs apply to the States in
which they are located and the States determine the amount of
funding their UASIs will receive?
Mr. Fugate. It would be the urban areas applying to the
State with the criteria that we built into the authorizing
language that rather than setting aside specific funding would
make those as part of the requirements the State would have to
fund.
So in a term, what we would do is still identify in their
threat hazard analysis those urban areas and the types of
activities and capabilities they would need to build in that
area.
But it would give the State the ability to make those final
allocations. Part of this that what we wanted to go to was
building this more as a collaborative so that we have both the
local jurisdictions and the State working together to come up
with these final allocations and recommendations using criteria
to drive that decision.
Mrs. Brooks. So I guess I am just a little bit confused as
to with respect to the communities, and you have expanded it
once again as I stated in my opening remarks to 39 communities.
So are you saying that those are the 39 communities that will
be eligible to apply to their States and others would not be?
Mr. Fugate. No, it would be based upon, and in the case of
some of the expansions that we looked at this year for the
Secretary, last year, if you remember, we were capped at a hard
25.
That cap was lifted this year. Well, one of those concerns
is some of the proximity that some communities either because
of large terrorist venues or proximity to strategic military
installations that didn't always factor into some of the other
risks, but were significant enough to look at.
So when you take my home State of Florida, we have not
identified every location that has a military presence. But if
you look at Florida, between Tyndall Air Force Base, where we
currently are, you know, getting the F-35 up and running, you
have got Mayport, Jackson AS, where P-8 squadrons are at, none
of these are necessarily on the urban security list.
But these would be areas the State could look at going if
there are concerns about the threats, they could look at that,
versus just looking at certain urban areas that were only
designated.
Mrs. Brooks. Moving onto another issue, the NPGP proposal
seeks to change the focus of grants from terrorism to all
hazards. Now, these programs were, in large part established in
response to the 9/11 attacks, as the Ranking Member has
eloquently pointed out. You know, I personally don't believe
the terrorist threats to the United States has diminished
significantly since 9/11.
There are a lot of incredible dangers around the world and
a lot of terrorist threats that we still face. So what is the
rationale for changing the focus of these grants to all hazards
when we know we have so many natural disasters? So how is it
that we will be able to keep our focus on terrorism threats?
Mr. Fugate. Well, the prevention piece I don't think
changes as much with the change in language. In the Homeland
Security grants it always allowed for all hazard base, although
terrorism is the focus. What we want to focus on are
consequences of events.
The need for search-and-rescue teams in the recent mudslide
that is occurring right now in Washington State or the search-
and-rescue teams that were deployed in the State of New Jersey
were built with Homeland Security funds.
It is more of a recognition that we need to build
capability against potential consequences, not just for
specific--one threat, but there are elements within that that
are very germane to terrorism such as fusion centers and other
activities.
Again, this is where we think that prioritizing that in the
grant guidance ensures that funding, but it allows States to
look at the consequences of the types of events they face.
Mississippi got slammed with tornadoes several years ago. Many
communities were literally, the proverbial term, wiped off the
face of the map. It was the ability to deploy resources built
with Homeland Security grants that allowed that initial
response to establish public safety--again, the consequences of
the event.
So it isn't just about the hazards. It is really about
looking at the various consequences and that these are
applicable across a variety of events. Just like the mass
casualty in Boston--could have been an industrial accident
producing a similar number of burn and traumatized patients.
The capability respond to that in the aftermath is the
consequence piece of it.
It doesn't detract them from the prevention piece.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. I see that my time is up. I now
turn to Ranking Member Payne for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Director Fugate, we hear what you are saying. But you know,
I have repeatedly been told that the goals of your grant
consolidation proposal are to improve oversight and enforce a
better collaboration. Now, I am not convinced that achievement
of these important goals warrants, you know, the fundamental
changing of the program.
As the Chairwoman read into the record, stakeholders
including the National League of Cities, the National
Association of Counties and International Association of
Firefighters, to name a few, have come up with a list of
principles that, you know, in my view, are very constructive
guideposts for any grant reform effort.
There are transparency, local involvement, flexibility and
accountability, local funding, terrorism prevention, and
incentives for regionalization.
Are you open to working with this committee and the
stakeholders, you know, on the ways that the Homeland grant
program could be refined to not only meet your goals but also
to adhere to the principles outlined by the stakeholder groups?
Mr. Fugate. Absolutely. Again, we are basing this upon
looking at some of the large-scale threats this country faces.
I always like to go, what is the worst thing that--what is our
worst day in America?
If somehow an improvised nuclear device is ever detonated
in any city, it will require the full capabilities, not only of
the local jurisdictions and the State of impact, not only the
Federal Government, but the non-impacted jurisdictions.
I think we have to look at this, again, what are the
National gaps in capabilities based upon the most significant
threats we face, while recognizing each jurisdiction has unique
responsibilities. But I also have to go back to, when we bypass
Governors, we set up the imbalance of dealing directly through
jurisdictions, not involving the Governors in that process.
But I am willing to work to reach all of the concerns as
best we can in building National capability.
Mr. Payne. Well, Director, I know there have been some
concerns about people being parochial, but you know, you have
pointed out your experiences in Florida. So let me point out my
experiences in New Jersey.
We suffered through Hurricane Sandy. There were still
issues about how those funds that we allocated are being
handled by our Governor, and whether he is using them, you
know, sometimes in political ways.
So in New Jersey, we have a concern with that because we
have seen--we still have communities that are still suffering
after a year later, after, you know, Congress has put those
funds out there.
Now I know a lot of it doesn't fall under you. But that is
our concern. We are concerned about giving that power to
certain people when we have seen the funds have not necessarily
gotten where they should be or used in the proper manner.
Mr. Fugate. I understand. I also understand that the
Constitution, however, was not built around the individuals. It
is built around the entire system. That is what I am proposing,
is looking at the Constitutional structure, division of Federal
and State responsibilities that Governors have under State
constitutions.
Mr. Payne. Well, then why was this grant never set up the
way it is?
Mr. Fugate. The grants originally came to the States.
Jurisdictions were concerned that they weren't getting the
recognition and they have--funding directly. They went to
Congress. Congress began funding and created the urban security
areas.
The urban security areas came after the original Homeland
Security funding. It was not the origination of that. It came
about jurisdictions coming to you, looking to get funding more
directly and bypassing the States. So they were given that
capability.
Mr. Payne. Okay, all right, well, I see my time is up. I
yield back.
Mrs. Brooks. The Chairwoman now recognizes the Vice Chair
of the committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Administrator Fugate, thank you for being here today. I am
going to just change the subject a little bit. A topic that is
on my mind and in the mind of many communities around the
Nation is flood insurance relief.
I know you were in front of a Senate panel, I believe, last
year. We were discussing the affordability issues with Biggert-
Waters 2012. You called on Congress to help you with that.
We responded and we did in a bipartisan and bicameral way.
Just this past Friday, the President signed into law the
Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act. So the key word is
affordability. We think we have given that to you.
We all know Biggert-Waters had a lot of unintended
consequences. Our No. 1 priority for many Members of Congress
from the coastal areas has been to make sure that flood
insurance remains available and affordable to the homeowners
that need it.
The law that was just recently signed by the President, it
was paid for. It puts NFIP, continues to keep NFIP on the path
to solvency. But it does so with a compassionate rate
management, which is extremely important. So let me move
quickly. Now, I know this law was just signed this past Friday.
But has FEMA begun to plan for the implementation of this law?
Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir, we were looking at the language prior
to the Senate actually taking it up. We are looking at the time
frames that you gave us to do refunds. Also, how to now change
the rate increases. I believe there is certain language in
there--shall not exceed 18 percent. So we are going back in
that.
You have also have put in a fee structure. So that fee
structure will have to now go back to Write Your Own so that we
set a point at which they will begin collecting that. That
collection will be--once that data is set, it will not be
collected immediately on all policy. It would be collected, I
believe, when they renew.
So once we set that debt with Write Your Owns, that date,
we would see a year before everybody has paid a fee as they are
renewing their policies. But we have already begun looking at
this and are currently working on the language.
Again, as you can understand, we have to go look at this as
implementation through Write Your Owns, with our two biggest
priorities right now--the recovery of previously-paid fees and
their insurance claims--or not insurance claims, but the
insurance payments that will be retroactively reimbursed and
then setting up for the Write Your Owns, the implementation
rules and the time frames for the new increases and for the fee
structure.
Mr. Palazzo. Will you need specific funding to implement
this law as you did in Biggert-Waters?
Mr. Fugate. Again, we are still looking at what the cost
will be and whether or not it will be within that program with
those additional fee and what that would cost. But we are still
running the analysis of what additional cost there would be.
One of our challenges is because the Write Your Owns
receive a fee as a percentage. When we do the refunds, we still
haven't addressed the percentage of fees they collected as far
as their having to pay any of that back, what that means to the
Write Your Owns, or whether we have to absorb that out of the
program.
Mr. Palazzo. Now, Congress added a provision also to
provide immediate rate relief to the homebuyers and eliminate
the home sales trigger. Under the assumption provision, buyers
of property will be allowed to assume the policies of and the
current rates of sellers.
This was to prevent homebuyers from seeing drastic flood
insurance premium increases while FEMA works on implementing
the rest of the new law.
Now, we understand, we hope that moves extremely swiftly
because it's definitely thrown a wet blanket on real estate
markets across the Nation, and caused homeowners a lot of
grief.
Again, the law was just signed on Friday. Do you know when
guidance is going to be sent out to the Write Your Own?
Mr. Fugate. Congressman, I would have to get back to you.
Part of this will be--since this will essentially be
grandfathering a preferred risk to a new homebuyer, we have to
make sure that the Write Your Owns have clear directions.
So when that transaction takes place, and this will also be
for the mortgage industry that where you have the requirement
to have flood insurance, that they are getting the preferred
rate that was originally with the original seller.
So we will have to basically do both the--what was the
current rate and make sure the Write Your Owns and the
administration of that have that transferred to a new buyer. We
still have some questions we are working out on what is the
best way to do that and the training and time frames to get
that implemented.
But we will report back to you on that.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you. I just want to continue to urge you
to act swiftly on this. You touched on the refunds real quick.
In the mean time, while all this is being implemented and
worked out, is there any advice that you can give us to--that
we can provide our constituents so they can begin getting
answers to their questions?
Mr. Fugate. I think probably, it is important to educate
them that these new grandfather rates are transferable because
it is going to take some time to get that out to every agent,
and get that into the system. So I think you can help people
advocate that the law has changed.
If they are still not getting what they need, work back
with us because we may have to handle some of the most
immediate ones, literally hand-walk it through the process
until the system is fully up and running with the new changes.
Mr. Palazzo. All right, my time has expired. I yield back.
Thank you.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you.
At this time, I would recognize gentleman from New York,
Mr. Higgins, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Administrator, the Urban Area Security Initiative program
originally started with 64 communities, was then reduced to 25,
and then bumped back up to 39. The criteria that was built into
the legislation, which was intended to determine eligibility,
is something the community doesn't desire.
They don't want to be put into the program. They are put
into the program based on an independent analysis that says you
have high-impact targets. The Buffalo-Niagara region that I
represent has the second-busiest Northern Border crossing
between the United States and Canada.
It has the Niagara power project that produces the largest
allotment of electricity in all of New York State. There is
Niagara Falls that is a destination of tens of millions of
people every year from every country in the world. It has
Toronto, an international city.
It is home to the Lackawanna Six that were in an al-Qaeda
training camp in Afghanistan and several other justifications
for including the Buffalo-Niagara region in the UASI program.
The last edition of Inspire magazine, which is a magazine that
is distributed to Jihadists throughout the world to encourage
home-grown terrorism, not only in the United States but
throughout the world, that magazine identified the Buffalo-
Niagara region as being vulnerable to terrorist attack.
That is not a distinction that we are proud of. I would
think that Homeland Security would be very concerned about that
specific reference because terrorism experts say regarding
Inspire magazine as a threat in and of itself, and the magazine
is intended to promote and encourage aspiring Jihadists in the
United States and the world.
What is the Department of Homeland Security response for
excluding a community that never asked to be included in this
program in the first place and then was excluded and now, this
new information, which is very, very alarming for anybody that
lives in that community and should be alarming for everybody in
this administration that is responsible for that program?
Mr. Fugate. Again, we could fund jurisdiction by
jurisdiction. But the capabilities respond as a Nation also
have to be looked at. There are other jurisdictions who also
have compelling reasons to think or justify them being on the
list.
But it is a finite capability. It is prioritized. The
Secretary reviews that list and makes the decisions based upon
all threats, not just populations, not just critical
infrastructure, not just threat intelligence, but looks at
everything. So there is no one single factor that goes into
that.
It is based upon an overall look at the Nation and those
communities. So not being on that list does not mean we don't
agree. But there are finite resources. The Secretary would have
to prioritize which of those cities made that list.
Because there was not a limitation of 25, did expand the
list.
Mr. Higgins. Claiming back my time. The new information
that one region in the entire Nation is identified by a
magazine that is intended to inspire Jihadist activity--violent
Jihad against communities, attacks on the homeland, attacks on
communities that have already been deemed eligible--again, the
Buffalo-Niagara region didn't request to become part of the
program.
It was brought into the program based on independent
criteria that was established by Homeland Security officials.
Now, this new information is a Homeland Security official
who is--who is put in place, takes on a responsibility to
protect the homeland, does the reference of one community in
this Nation, in Inspire magazine, that originates out of al-
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, that promotes violent Jihad
against the homeland specific communities--does this new
information cause concern on your part as a Homeland Security
official for this Nation?
Mr. Fugate. I am concerned about a lot of threats. I am
concerned about terrorism.
Mr. Higgins. You are not answering the question.
Mr. Fugate. The threats we look at have to be looked at----
Mr. Higgins. You run the program, I represent a community.
The community that I represent was identified in Inspire
magazine, which every terrorism expert recognizes is a threat
in and of itself. You are telling me about, you know, wider
jurisdiction.
What do I say to my constituency, sir?
Mr. Fugate. That we fund the Nation. The State receives
additional funds. We fund urban areas. We look at these threats
across the Nation. It is not to say that a jurisdiction does
not have a mention or may be specifically identified.
But it does say that the funding decisions are based upon
States, Nation, threats-based. We try to look at all the
information to make decisions about where we are going to fund
and what we can fund.
Mr. Higgins. Will this new information play into a
reevaluation of communities that are included or not?
Mr. Fugate. It potentially can depending upon how the
information or intelligence and analysis is looking at this,
based upon other threat information that isn't public and looks
at the intelligence community to verify what is in this. We
have seen mismatches between what Inspire will state and what
intelligence services will find out going on.
So we try to look at not only the publicly-available
information, but the match that it gets the threat streams to
make sure we are addressing these threats.
Mr. Higgins. I yield.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. Thank you.
The Chairwoman now recognizes the gentleman from South
Carolina for 5 minutes, Mr. Sanford.
Mr. Sanford. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Let me just say up front that I am a big fan, both in my
previous role in Government services and frankly, as a
reservist with the Air Force, grown to tremendously value your
work over the years. Legitimately, there will always be
differences of opinion. It is what makes the world go round.
But I would say, in as much as you can keep a bias that
maintains this larger notion of Constitutionally-enshrined
Federalism, I think it to be very, very important.
One of the things that I saw in my past role was that there
are a whole host of different perspectives based on geography.
But the idea of having an overlay at the State level so that
one can look at competing demands and competing needs I think
essential to maximizing our effectiveness both from the
standpoint of security and from the standpoint of watching out
for the taxpayer. I guess I have two quick questions.
One is on flood insurance, going back to my colleague's
questions, you know, I think that there was a real skepticism
back home on the coast because if you are a conservative, you
are naturally skeptical of where Government money might be
coming from.
So the idea of saying through the ``Jerry McGuire''
fashion, you know, show me the money, over here, it is give me
the money and then we will show you exactly how the flood map
is going to fall out, exactly where the assumptions are because
as you know, there is a big world of difference in ultimately
damage, and by extension, you know, charges at a premium level
on whether or not storms are going to hit at, you know, high
tide or low tide, how many named storms, how many landfalls, go
down all the different variables.
Is there a place or when will there be a place by which
folks back home, whether on the Gulf Coast or the East Coast,
might be able to look at some of those assumptions and say,
well, I agree with them or I disagree with them, and then
therefore, I can, you know, sort of come further up to speed
with what I like or I don't like with regard to flood
insurance?
That is one--well, let's hop into that one. We will come
back to second one.
Mr. Fugate. Well, I think there is a hyper-awareness
because of the increases proposed under Biggert-Waters. But
there is no such thing as a FEMA flood map. These are
community-based maps. FEMA provides the funding, the criteria.
But ultimately, the local governments are part of that
process. They adopt those maps by ordinance. They have to
enforce building codes based upon those maps. So I think there
is a hyper-awareness.
We need to make sure that the public is aware because when
these maps are originally proposed, that is when public comment
can come in. We will use the best available data. So
oftentimes, there is a better day to finally get results.
Mr. Sanford. Yes, if I might, understood, but at least the
way the folks were telling what they felt back home to me, it
was that the cart was before the horse because that flood map
process had not been complete. They weren't quite sure from an
actuarial standpoint where a lot of the assumptions were.
We are not--where will they be able to get a snapshot on
that?
Mr. Fugate. Well, the actuarial basis was actually looking
at if we knew the base flood elevation. We knew that the risk
was increasing almost exponentially for every 4 feet you drop
down.
An example, we insure a maximum of $350,000 contents and
structure. If you are at base flood elevation, that is about
$3,200 policy. If you are a foot above it, it is a $600 policy.
If you are 4 feet below, it is a $7,200 policy.
You drop down 8 feet, it doubles and it doubles again. So
particularly in coastal Carolina, as we saw with Hurricane
Hugo, we can have storm surge inland of 25 to 30 feet. Now,
that is not what the flood maps are based on. But that is what
the risk is.
So you could see, if you have got homes that are routinely
up on stilts that are sitting 12 to 13, 15 feet in the air, you
have got a pretty serious problem. So if you are slab on grade,
and you haven't been elevated, you could expect those flood
insurance premiums to be extremely high. That is part of the
reason----
Mr. Sanford. Is there a public place where folks might best
look for that information?
Mr. Fugate. We were putting that information at fema.gov
and trying to put information about how the increases were
going to affect. Now, that is now changed with the changed law.
So we will be doing the calculations.
But again, if you are at base flood elevation, you
basically are getting a neutral rate. If you are 1 foot above,
you are getting the preferred rates. So if you are building to
code, you are good. The question has always been, when you
update the maps, what happens if you built with the previous
codes and now, new data says that is not high enough?
Now, you get slapped with these increases. But you did what
you thought you were supposed to do the right time. So again, I
appreciate Congress trying to work this affordability issue.
This was a concern we had previously. But it is reflected----
Mr. Sanford. I see I have got 26 seconds or 25 now. When
will that affordability study be coming out?
Mr. Fugate. Based upon the guidance we have got, it is
going to be a couple-year process working with the researchers
to build that data and look at affordability and look at what
those impacts are.
Mr. Sanford. I will come back with my other question later.
Mrs. Brooks. The Chairwoman now recognizes gentlelady from
New York, Ms. Clarke, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman and to
our Ranking Member Payne.
I thank you Honorable Fugate for being here this morning. I
have a question with respect to the Hurricane Sandy after-
report. Clearly, Hurricane Sandy, which has devastated the East
Coast, we are still trying to recover, we have seen FEMA really
respond well.
You have improved since Hurricane Katrina. But we recognize
that there was an after-report and that there is room for
improvement. Could you give us a sense of what steps FEMA has
taken to address the corrective actions identified in the Sandy
after-action report of July 2013?
Mr. Fugate. Well, a key one, and this is true across a lot
of different disasters, is to make sure we are providing
consistent information to the grantee, the States, and the sub-
grantees about the requirement to follow Federal purchasing
guidelines and contracting requirements.
This has been a systemic issue across all disasters where
when that isn't clear, we oftentimes give bad information--or
have given bad information to follow your State and local
purchasing guidelines or contracting. Then the IT finds you
weren't compliant with Federal.
So we are trying to make sure that on the front end, we are
providing good information. Another example was we did some
pilot programs. You gave us a lot more flexibility with the
Sandy Recovery Improvement Act in addition to the supplemental
funds.
So we are in the process of piloting several things that we
hope will speed up the process, including doing an alternative
project or instead of having to wait until projects are
finished and only reimbursed actual cost, we can do an estimate
on the front end and fully fund a project using authority you
gave us. There are some very large projects, both in New York
and New Jersey that are taking advantage of that.
So as we learned those lessons, hopefully we can speed up
recovery process while maintaining responsibility to the
taxpayers.
Ms. Clarke. I hope that you will also give guidance that in
that special pilot, where subcontracting is concerned, that
that same practice should be applied?
Mr. Fugate. This was one of the key findings from the IG
was that there are many requirements in Federal procurement and
contracting that would apply to subcontractors as well as to
prime, and that FEMA had not done a good job of enforcing that.
So what we are doing is just putting people on the front
end so that when grantees are working these projects and sub-
grantees, we make sure that they understand all of the Federal
procurement law that is applicable, that if you are taking
Federal dollars, it is no longer just State or local
procurement law. You have to adhere to Federal procurement law
which would address those issues.
Ms. Clarke. Outstanding. You spoke about grants. I want to
turn your attention around the FEMA National Preparedness Grant
Proposal. Can you provide specific examples of changes FEMA
made to address concerns raised by stakeholders with this
consolidation?
Mr. Fugate. Well, there are several. But we can provide
more information. One of the very specifics is because we
wanted to look at the consolidation, the 9/11 Act refers to
specific Government entities.
That would potentially leave out certain port and transit
groups that don't fall into the definition.
Ms. Clarke. Exactly.
Mr. Fugate. So we have included in the authorizing language
to expand that definition. That is the only reason why we are
putting the language in there. We are not trying to open the
universe to anybody.
But there were some very specific groups that had
previously received Homeland Security fundings that by
consolidating this, would be limited, unless we have the
authorizing language. So we cannot get a consolidated grant by
appropriations without authorization or we would potentially
have groups left out.
Ms. Clarke. Okay, very well. Then just in closing, I have a
question about NPGP. The draft authorizing legislation included
with the budget request that NPGP would build a sustained core
capabilities identified in the National Preparedness Goal.
But unfortunately, fire-fighting will be a key element of
any response to a terrorist attack. DHS does not identify fire-
fighting as one of its core capabilities. Would the
administration's NPGP proposal eliminate funding for fire
departments that historically have received UASI and SHSGP
funds?
Mr. Fugate. No, ma'am. In fact, two stand-alone grants that
weren't tied to specifically 9/11, the SAFER and the AFG grants
specifically for fire departments, for staffing and equipment
are not touched. Again, this is not for the primary fire-
fighting.
This is the enhancement of fire department, particularly
things like search-and-rescue and Hazmat teams, which are
oftentimes fire-department-based, to focus on those things that
are not the day-to-day responsibilities or operations of a fire
department. So this is really the Homeland Security grants
would not preclude fire-fighting.
It doesn't speak to the day-to-day response as to your
local tax base. It speaks to the enhancement of those teams for
the Homeland Security threats.
Ms. Clarke. So would you--would they still be--would fire-
fighting still be eligible for UASI fund?
Mr. Fugate. Yes.
Ms. Clarke. Okay, very well. Thank you.
I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. Brooks. The Chairwoman now recognizes the Ranking
Member, Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Madam Chairwoman, I ask unanimous consent that
the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, be permitted to
participate in today's hearing.
Mrs. Brooks. Without objection, so ordered.
At this time, I would turn it over to the gentlelady from
Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Thank you, Ranking Member, for your courtesies and to my
colleagues as well, thank you for your courtesies.
Mr. Fugate, it is good to see you again. Thank you very
much. I have a series of questions. This is a very important
subcommittee. But coming from Texas, we have seen you often or
we have seen FEMA often.
We certainly thank them for their service. I want to start
out with your mission which is to support our citizens and
first responders as a Nation, work together to build, sustain,
improve our capabilities. So my questions will follow along
those lines.
Presently, Houston area is suffering a non-noticed
devastating oil spill. I don't know whether or not, though we
have requested that a request for a disaster status has been,
and I would ask you whether you have received any inquiries
from the State of Texas regarding the oil spill that is in the
Galveston, Houston area.
Mr. Fugate. No, Congresswoman, I am aware of it. I know
that the Coast Guard and the EPA had to lead for the Federal
response to the clean-up. I am not aware. We will have Region 6
reach out to NMCI I have not heard anything from the State of
Texas about a declaration request.
But I do know that the Coast Guard and the EPA are
coordinating the response to the clean-up.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, would you--as I left, it was creeping
into local communities. So I would ask if Region 6 could
contact my office as well----
Mr. Fugate. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. Regarding this. To that
point, I notice that--I would assume that the oil spill would
be under the no-notice events.
Mr. Fugate. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. There is notice that it is $1 billion. Did
you use all of your no-notice funding for last fiscal year?
Does it carry-over? Or is this going to be enough?
Mr. Fugate [continuing]. Usually with oil spills, there is
responsible parties. So it would depend upon if there is
uninsured or uncovered losses. That would have to be
determined. But because you have fully funded the Disaster
Relief Fund, we are still able to maintain response to no-
notice events as well as the on-going previous disasters.
Ms. Jackson Lee. You feel in good--you are in good shape.
Is that what you are saying? I am just----
Mr. Fugate. Yes, Congresswoman. As you know previously,
there was always a struggle to have the money. We many times
would have to stop work----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Right.
Mr. Fugate [continuing]. In previous disasters. With the
budget stabilization agreement in fully funding the Disaster
Relief Fund, Congress has enabled FEMA to respond to our
existing previous disasters as well as maintaining the
capability for no-notice catastrophic disaster response.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thanks. I just want to continue to monitor
this issue of the oil spill. I know that there is the self-
reimbursement or reimbursement by those who are responsible.
But I am also looking at the immediacy of the response.
So that is why I would would like to be briefed.
Let me--let me publicly, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking
Member, just thank the U.S. Coast Guard as they have done a
stupendous job. I know this is not this hearing, I am certainly
advocating for their full funding.
Quickly to the flood insurance, the biggest reform, as you
well know--legislation was just passed. In times past, I have
had the FEMA director in my town reworking the flood maps
because they literally destroyed whole communities in terms of
the value of their homes.
So are you all, including now, immediately the sort-of--I
know it was, it was dealing with the insurance aspect of it.
But does that legislation--the reform that was just passed,
impact how you are doing your flood maps?
Mr. Fugate. There are some key provisions both in Biggert-
Waters and then in this that requires us to have a technical
advisory committee and provide more validation of the
methodology. So as we are implementing this and going through
that, we will be providing reports back on the time frames.
But part of this was to have outside validation of the
mapping criteria and also more clarity in the appeal process
for communities to use when they are challenging maps.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Can we, as Members of Congress, reach out
when our communities, you know, en bloc and in large numbers,
so that we can make sure, because when I had this issue in my
district, we did have the FEMA director. He was frankly very
helpful in saying this is not the interpretation.
So do we still have that latitude to be able to do so?
Mr. Fugate. Absolutely, either through our regional staff
or through headquarters staff it is always available to you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I want to move to--just to make mention of
the tragedy in Washington State and hope that you will be
heading there. Others, I know that obviously, you rely upon
your region. But the disaster looks like it is growing. Again,
I want to thank the first responders and join with my
colleagues from Washington State.
Let me--let me just add my other question in, so then you
can respond to both of them. My colleague from New York asked
about firefighters. We are presently having a--just I think
devastating brownouts in the State of Texas. I think you come
from a firefighter community in terms of not having fire
stations' equipment and personnel out on the streets.
Could we enhance our homeland security response because our
homeland security responsibilities are being diminished? We
have got the energy industry there. So what kind of grants
could we utilize that would legally fit within utilizing more
firefighters in the needs that we have in our community?
Mr. Fugate. I will have staff brief you on the programs.
But you have two that currently are funded by Congress--the AFG
and the SAFER grants, one which refers to funding personnel
during these types of crisis and the other is about equipment.
But we can provide that.
As far as Washington State, we have been--region has been
engaged. The Governor made a verbal request last night. The
President granted it. We have some incident support teams on-
site. But it is also a legacy of the Homeland Security grants.
Many of the resources being deployed are actually
Washington State resources built with the Homeland Security
grants and other programs.
Ms. Jackson Lee. But you are standing ready for----
Mr. Fugate. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. Anything that they need in as
much as I understand that there is still any search-and-rescue
mode, and that the numbers either keep going up or down.
Mr. Fugate. It is a very dangerous situation. The best way
to describe the mudslide is it is like quicksand because it is
not stable. You can't walk into it. It is almost an impossible
task to get to some of the areas until it becomes more
stabilized.
So there are many responders standing by. But in some
cases, they can't get into some of the hardest-hit areas
because it is too unstable and too dangerous.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, let me thank you very much. These
are on-going issues to both of you. Thank you so very much for
allowing me this time. With that, I yield back. Thank you.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you so much for your reminder to all of
us about the dangers that not only Coast Guard and response but
this incredible dangerous situation that the mudslides, our
colleagues from Washington brought that to the attention of the
floor yesterday. Several lives have been lost.
So we are, you know, praying for the safety of the first
responders. So I want to thank you for that.
We are beginning our second round of questioning. I am
going to defer my 5 minutes of questioning and turn it over to
the Vice Chair, the gentleman from Mississippi, for a second
round of questioning for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you again, Madam Chairwoman.
Administrator, as a Florida native, you know how important
our community piers are to locals and to tourists who visit our
areas. So with that, there are several cities and counties
along Mississippi's Gulf Coast that were devastated by
Hurricane Katrina in 2006. Many of our piers along the
Mississippi Gulf Coast were destroyed and had to be repaired.
For example, Harrison County repaired its piers following
post-Katrina and post-Gustaf, approval processes and repair
guidelines. This included waiting on environmental impact
studies before constructing the pier. In August 2012, Hurricane
Isaac hit and destroyed many of the piers again.
FEMA declared the coast a disaster area. Since that time,
Harrison County, the city of Gulfport and the city of Long
Beach have petitioned for disaster relief funds to rebuild and
repair piers damaged by Hurricane Isaac.
Discouragingly, FEMA has denied their request because it
has insisted on putting these municipalities through additional
environmental impact studies, even though these same piers were
subjected to environmental impact studies completed only a few
years earlier.
The work involves repairs on existing structures. We are
not talking about completely rebuilding the piers or the
structures. To many in South Mississippi and to me, this is a
prime example of bureaucratic red tape at its worst.
So is it really necessary to repeat the environmental
impact study on a structure that had a study completed only a
few years earlier?
Mr. Fugate. Congressman, I would have to look into that.
All I can tell you is the general criteria used when you are
over 50 percent, the story, we have to follow the law which
requires an environmental review for the investment of the
Federal dollars.
However, we have been working and one of the directions the
President has given us is to speed that process up so we are
not going through concurrent loops of each Federal agency that
has a slice of that.
So we are both trying to improve that process. But again, I
will have to go back and look. But generally, when we look at
something that is over 50 percent, we consider that not
repairs. That may be triggering it. But I will have to get the
details for you.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, please do because we already entered
into the spring season. It would be nice to be able to begin
construction and have it completed before the summer months.
Again, I mean, if we did an environmental review just a few
years ago, and we are not completely rebuilding these
structures but just repairing them, it would make sense that--
to the taxpayer that it is--why waste additional funds or waste
time?
Mr. Fugate. We have been pushing more and more to take
these type of projects and move them into concurrence where it
is not requiring formal review. I will have to find out what is
triggering this on these piers, though.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, great. Now, going back to flood
insurance, and this is just something I was thinking about this
morning, you know, it is--more and more communities are going
to be mapped into the flood plains, which is of course making
people much more aware of the possibility of their rates
increasing.
The mudslides in Washington--homeowners' insurance does not
cover mudslides.
Do you--is it true that you need a flood insurance premium
to cover that----
Mr. Fugate. I would need to defer back. I think it depends
upon if you are talking about shifting soils or actually a mud
flow, which would be caused by flooding. I would have to go
back and see if there is a difference. But in general, when you
have flooding that is producing mud flows that causes that kind
of damage is considered flood damage.
Mr. Palazzo. A local insurance agent I was talking to this
morning did mention that. Real quick, Biggert-Waters 2012
authorized monthly installment premiums, yet FEMA has not
implemented this section. Now that H.R. 3370, which is a law
which was just signed this past Friday, again emphasizes that
Congress wants homeowners to be able to spread their premiums
across 12 months, how quickly will FEMA implement monthly
installment payments for premiums?
Mr. Fugate. Well, again, I just didn't do as quick as I
can, but I have to work through the Write Your Owns, which are
actually in the process of collecting and paying the premiums
back into the program. So I need to get back to you,
Congressman. Why does it take us longer?
Because Write Your Owns actually have to have that
collection process. One of the concerns has always been, which
I am not buying is, well, they will only buy it for the months
that is hurricane season. They won't pay for it the rest of the
year.
I am going no, they are buying a full policy. If they don't
pay all their payments, we are going to go back and see damages
and get that money back. But I think it is really, you know,
one of these issues that I kind of look at the same way. Why
can't we get the installment program?
I know part of it is to Write Your Own but I need to get
you more information.
Mr. Palazzo. Right. To kind of follow up on my colleague
from the East Coast, he mentioned some mapping concerns. I am
going to jump through the narrative and just go to the heart of
my question. What efforts has FEMA taken to ensure accurate
mapping information is being used?
Mr. Fugate. We are not doing a very good job of it, sir. We
are $27 billion in the hole. So somebody has got a flood risk
that we didn't map right.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, we are going to have additional
questions for the record. Yield back.
Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you.
I now turn it over to the Ranking Member of the committee,
Mr. Payne, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
You know, I believe I stated it before, but it is just such
a concern, you know, for the past 2 years. You know, Congress
has rebuffed FEMA's budget request to consolidate 18 grant
programs into National Preparedness Grant Program in favor of
maintaining discrete grant programs, both the preparedness and
response to terrorism.
Indeed, in last year's full committee hearing on the Boston
marathon, Boston bombings, the Boston Police Commissioner Davis
stated that without the grant funding, response would have been
much less comprehensive than it was. Without the exercises
supported through the UASI funding, there would have been more
people who had died in these attacks. That is a quote.
So what do you say to the people who are concerned that
without the discrete program targeting specific capabilities
that there will be an erosion of terrorism preparedness and
response?
Mr. Fugate. Again, to be respectful, Congressman,
notwithstanding the proposal 3 years in a row, and I may be
hard-headed, I have never failed to implement what Congress has
authorized and funded to the letter of the law.
What this really goes back to is not talking about not
funding the city of Boston but giving greater oversight and
following the structures through the States to Boston versus
bypassing the Governor to the State and including them in that
process.
So this is not about taking money away from jurisdictions
but more giving visibility to the States so they have the
overall responsibility for those events and that response to
ensure that all of the issues of the State are funded. They may
be again, when you look at how we are driving the threat and
hazard information, it is going to point to these cities.
But it does give the Governor and the Governor's team more
oversight responsibilities, hopefully, by increasing
competitiveness, building more capability in parts of the
country where it is lacking.
Mr. Payne. But what if the Governor doesn't see the things
the way you see them where you have funded these cities because
of what you have determined and the Governor doesn't
necessarily agree with you?
Mr. Fugate. That is the great debate of our country, sir.
Congress oftentimes finds itself in disagreement with
Governors. You have the authority as the keepers or the purse
to make those funding decisions.
I, however, have to look at this from the standpoint that
unlike other programs, once a disaster triggers a certain
level, it falls under the State constitution. The powers that
originated in that constitution is unique to every State. To
bypass that can set up and I have seen it set up mismatches
between how a State operates and how the funding comes down.
Unlike a lot of other programs, in this case, it is
authorities vested in the State constitution that drive how a
State is built, the team--how they are going to prevent that.
Some States put greater emphasis on the State law
enforcement, for local law enforcement.
You have what I call the cities, States, the Bostons, New
Yorks. Cities of the world that are so large that they are a
special category by themselves. But they all originate from a
State constitution.
Oftentimes, we work around what we don't like about that.
But in a disaster, I have to work that system and support that
system to the best of my ability because that is the foundation
of our response. FEMA does not walk in and take charge.
Mr. Payne. Right.
Mr. Fugate. We respond to the request of the Governor and
support the Governor's response. So this is a reflection
philosophically of how do we best do that. But also understand
that we have to look at these threats, not just jurisdiction by
jurisdiction but across the Nation and understand that we may
not get hit where we expect.
But we have the capability to respond outside of these
areas because we look at Boston. We look at New York as huge
resources that may be called upon to respond elsewhere in this
country.
Mr. Payne. Okay. Well, in New Jersey, well, Newark
specifically with the UASI grant, they have worked well with
the State. Keith Isaac has reached back and gone through county
and have brought them in on the process. So it works--it is
working backwards well that way.
We are just not sure if it came into Jersey's situation, if
it would work back the other way. But that is our problem, I
guess. But what about the terrorism capabilities are a major
concern with these grants in the consolidation?
Mr. Fugate. Again, I think we put emphasis on things that
are the prevention, things like fusion centers. A lot of this
information and looking at how you get the best intelligence,
how do you look at these threats, there is no specific set-
aside for law enforcement because quite honestly, when you do
25 percent set-aside, is that all they are going to get?
If you limit it to 25 percent, that is all they will get.
If you don't put a cap on it, it may be more money on the front
end. But we have to look at this based upon threats and driving
this through grant guidance.
Again, we are more than willing to work with the committee
in the authorizing language to drive those outcomes so that the
State implements the desires of Congress reflecting the needs
of the local communities.
But again, our ask isn't to go back to a system that goes
through a consolidation so we can look at this Nationally, not
just jurisdictionally.
Mr. Payne. What if it was less?
Mr. Fugate. That is always going to be the potential. But
that is a call the State would have to make, and the State
would be accountable for that to their citizens, and their
taxpayers and their voters. It is their constitution. It is
their State.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. The Chairwoman now recognizes the
gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Sanford, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sanford. Yes, ma'am. Just delve in a little bit deeper.
If you look at, you know, the overall $10 billion budget, or
look, very specifically at FEMA, you pick your category. But if
you were to pick the two areas of biggest waste or duplication
that jump out at you, what would they be?
Mr. Fugate. Well, this will make me real popular--beach re-
nourishment. What Mother Nature takes away, we have to put them
back and on engineering beaches, we spend a lot of money on
sand. It is one of our largest costs. It is primarily an
economic issue.
I understand that. But it is again, in budget constraint
times. We have to make decisions about when are beaches really
tied to safety, or are they tied to commerce. I understand the
arguments on both side. But again, I think we have to look at
that.
The other thing is, is the overhead to respond to disasters
because we have all of these systems built around a
reimbursement of actual cost. I think we can show significant
savings because Congress gave us the ability. When you are a
Governor, when you had some projects, we would go to--come back
year after year, looking at every dollar you spent authorizing
it.
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense--which Congress gave us
the authority. You have got to rebuild a fire station. Let's
figure out what it is going to cost and give you the money to
rebuild that fire station versus waiting until you do every
project involved in that fire station reimbursement.
So I think how we look at the overhead of our cost and how
we look at some things and make some decisions about it would
be nice to do a lot of things. I think, you know, I am from
Florida. Beaches are a key part of our economy.
But again, you can look at beaches versus other things. If
you have got to make decisions about what you can and can't
fund, beaches, to me, fall into the category that yes, it is
important. Yes, it is economic. But it is not National
security.
It is generally not public safety unless it is protecting
some kind of critical infrastructure. It is more economic. Is
that the best way to fund it, to maintain it, knowing that
these storms come in and take out a lot of these beach
improvements? We come back the next year, we are faced with the
same situation.
Mr. Sanford. So you would be for ending the re-nourishment
programs on, for instance, Miami Beach?
Mr. Fugate. I think you have to look at that or make that a
local issue that they pay for because it is primarily an
economic business. If the State of Florida thinks it is
important, they ought to fund it.
Mr. Sanford. So sand overhead. But can we get a little bit
more specific in terms of specific area duplication, just sort-
of jumps out at you?
You look at the Federal, State, local overlay with regard
to security perhaps. Or I will give you another--I remember
seeing sort-of up-close, you look at these contractor lock-ins.
Efficiency is not one, I guess, a driver at the time of a
storm.
But there are a lot of profit margins built into somebody's
contractor numbers in emergency preparedness, is there
efficiency that you have seen over the years in terms of best
practice on that?
Mr. Fugate. Oh, absolutely. Congressman, you remember, we
used to--the system was actually weighted more to using
contractors to pick up debris versus your own folks because you
couldn't get your straight time out of it. Again, we have
gotten the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act. That is gone.
We can--we have the power--we actually did it more during
the tornadoes in Oklahoma this summer, where instead of forcing
local jurisdictions that are only using contractors because
they can get fully reimbursed for that, but they couldn't get
reimbursed except for their overtime pay.
We recognize that oftentimes, it will be faster and cheaper
to use your own public works to pick up debris.
So right now, South Carolina, after the ice storm, if they
choose to, they can use a contractor. Or they can use their own
crews to pick that up and we will not penalize them for using
what we would call straight time to folks they were already
paid for but they are doing debris-specific and not resulting
in that going to the contractor. It is not----
Mr. Sanford. Can I interject, Madam Chairwoman, that is a
big point because the degree of money wasted in that particular
program I thought was particularly egregious in the way that
you couldn't--I mean, you had the labor force, the capacity to
work on it. But you would get no reimbursement.
So you would say let's just do the contractor. So the other
guys are idling while the money is being spent at the
contractor level. It is a big deal. But I am sorry for
interjecting.
Mr. Fugate. But we currently have implemented that under
the authorities of Sandy Recovery Improvement Act. We are
tracking those dollars. I think we are going to be able to make
a good case to make this permanent as we get to rule-making.
It is not to say we don't need contractors. But we
shouldn't take the existing workforce out of the picture
because we have a rule that says you can only pay overtime when
this is oftentimes the fastest way to get debris up and the
most cost-effective.
Mr. Sanford. Is there a particular stovepipe that you have
noticed in again, the Federal-State overlay that doesn't work
as well as you would like to see?
Mr. Fugate. Well, harken back to the environmental
historical review piece of that. As the President pointed out,
there is--we cannot suspend law.
But we can certainly look at, do we have to have every
agency do each piece of this sequentially, or can we do
concurrent reviews, speed this process up, come to consensus on
some things that we can set aside, and say, these types of
projects don't require the full review these do but when we do
it, do it so that it does one for everybody, not each agency
doing--and if you remember, as Governor, sometimes, you may be
using HUD dollars, engineering dollars, from the Corps of
Engineers, FEMA dollars.
We would all require separate environmental historical
reviews for the same project. Well, we are past that. We are
working to make sure that whatever one of these agencies does
at first, it is sufficient for all of the Federal dollars going
into that project.
So we are not repeating these reviews over and over again
because different agencies had different requirements.
Mr. Sanford. My time expired. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you for bringing to light the
efficiencies the taxpayers expect us to continue to hone in on.
So I want to thank you for that question.
Now, we turn it over to the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Higgins, for 5 minutes of questions. Thank you.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you Madam Chairwoman. Many communities
have flood--National flood insurance program policies. But not
a single one has been shown new data demonstrating their
continued need to be in a high-risk flood zone.
Oftentimes, communities are told by FEMA that if they
undertake certain flood mitigation projects, the widening of
channels, the design of new bridges that perhaps have less--
fewer piers, the raising of bridges, other flood mitigation
initiatives, that those communities are less--there is less of
a risk of catastrophic flooding, and thus, they come out of the
high-risk area, thus reducing the premiums that they have to
pay.
So I know that remapping is a big part of this program. So
could you give us a status as to the remapping, when it would
be finished and what steps FEMA is taking to ensure the
accuracy in categorizing high-risk flood zones.
Mr. Fugate. For the record, I would like to respond to you
in writing because that's a lot of questions. I want to tell
you something, though, that communities can do without waiting
for remapping and exists right now. That is the community
rating system.
The community rating system is something that they can
apply for now and get discounts based upon a lot of things they
do already, maintaining drainage ditches, providing community
information. The community rating system has a scale of 10 to
1.
The lower that number, the more discounts. So just moving
from a 10 to a 9 will give you a 5 percent across-the-board
discount for all of your--including your high-risk.
So not only is it remapping, and I will need to get the
information about your community, but the community rating
service is another program that communities can use outside of
remapping to start applying discounts for things they do to
reduce the flood risks, storm-water management plans, public
information, maintenance records, and start getting discounts
for both businesses and their residential insurance policies.
Mr. Higgins. That is very helpful. Now, can you get Buffalo
back in the Urban Area Security Initiative? I yield back.
Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Mrs. Brooks. At this time, I turn it over to Ms. Clarke
from the State of New York for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Under the current Homeland Security grant program, the law
allows States to pass through 80 percent of the funding to
locals. Some local governments have indicated that they have
had little opportunity for input, and sometimes little
opportunity to consent to State use of the funds.
How would NPGP address this issue to ensure that local
governments truly have use of the 80 percent pass-through to
apply to their specific and unique needs?
Mr. Fugate. Well, again, it is going to be based upon
working through the States. I understand the sensitivities
here. I would refer back, Congresswoman, to the request the
Ranking Member as well as the Chairwoman to work with you with
authorizing language to drive those kind of outcomes.
But I think again, you have to look at the standpoint of in
some States, State agencies actually provide a lot of the
capabilities. So the 80/20 rule actually works against those
States, where maybe the greater resource was a State agency,
but because we are capped at 80 percent had to go locally, you
couldn't fund it.
So again, we will work with the committee.
But I would strongly recommend, we have to recognize that
there are 50 States and the territories and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico that it is not always going to be the same.
I understand that the Northeast with the large city
structures, why it is different, but it is--again, we have a,
one program that we are trying to make fit back to the
structures of the State's role and ensure, though, your desires
to make sure funding gets to specific issues and specific
communities based upon threats.
Ms. Clarke. Yes, it is really challenging. I think we do
have to acknowledge the nuances because New York City in New
York State is unique.
It is very challenging, you know, given whatever dynamics
may be happening in a State at a given time to have that--not
have the flexibility in place to be able to address unique
needs of that particular locality.
Mr. Fugate. Now, the structure we used in Florida was
actually having the local jurisdiction set as the teams out of
various disciplines as peer review. We found the peer review
process was actually the most effective way. It is kind of one
thing to say I need something and have all your peers look
around, going do we really need that in our response and will
we have gaps?
So there are mechanisms that some States have used very
successfully to engage both your local, State agencies but also
by discipline and a peer review process that drives better
outcomes than any single arbitrator or one person making these
decisions.
Ms. Clarke. So would you then say that peer review process
should be given some sort of rating that enables to have those
differences mediated, for instance?
Mr. Fugate. Again, this would be an opportunity to work
with the committee in the authorizing language to drive that.
But my experience has been when I have the subject expert
sitting at the table--I have got the fire chiefs, the police
chiefs, the sheriffs, the public health officials, the school
board officials, the port folks, and they are all sitting down
there looking at all of their threats, making these decisions
as a group and having to come to consent on this, it eliminates
any one agency bias or any one discipline bias.
I mean, this is what we heard. They will all say, we are
not getting our share because they are looking at how much the
Hazmat teams were getting versus the bomb squads. We said,
well, you can take over the Hazmat mission. This is what suits
cost.
They go, we didn't realize it costs that much money. No,
they can keep that. But oftentimes, if they are not working as
a team, they are not even aware what other parts the team are
doing. We found by doing it that way, we didn't plan to build a
team to respond to the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes.
But it was definitely that process of looking at how you
build collaboratively by discipline and local and State, that
we built the teams and capabilities to respond to, you know,
four hurricanes in one year. It was Homeland Security-driven.
But because it was a consensus process, it built
capabilities that neither the State or locals would have built
by themselves. Again, it is my bias and my experience that says
when you do that, you can build a more resilient Nation. I will
be more than happy to work with the committee to drive that
kind of outcome.
Ms. Clarke. Very well, Madam, I yield back the balance of
my time. Thank you.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you very much.
The Chairwoman now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas,
Ms. Jackson Lee for 5 minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairwoman and the Ranking
Member again. I just have one inquiry. You remember we had a
discussion some months back about constables. We were talking
about making sure that they could be the recipient of grants.
You may not be able to answer it now, but can we please
collaborate again and see--I think we had some discussions on
language. That is a law enforcement structure in the State of
Texas. I have advocated for them being eligible for grants
during emergency times.
Mrs. Brooks. Well, and thank you for that reminder. Of
course, our staff will begin to work with your staff on that.
I would actually ask Administrator Fugate as he talks about
the importance of recognizing State and local jurisdictions and
would wonder whether or not you would like to opine on the
position of constables while we have you here?
Mr. Fugate. Well, Madam Chairwoman, this goes back to the
States. Every State has unique structures that oftentimes
bypassing those State structures, we don't recognize.
I think it would be better to give the State greater
discretion to recognize constables as part of their plan and
make them eligible for funding.
But when we define things here, we oftentimes don't take
into account that States have different provisions. A sheriff
has different authorities and powers in different parts of the
country.
So when you do these things, as part of the challenge of
how do we make sure that we haven't excluded how a State
operates under their constitution, and this would be one more
example of giving greater flexibility so that States can deal
with unique positions by their laws that would not be
necessarily be in every State.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. I look forward to working with the
gentlelady from Texas to learn more about what the
constable's----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Responsibilities are.
Mrs. Brooks. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me--and thank you very much. I am
reclaiming my time to--and thank you so much for the courtesy
to you and the Ranking Member.
What I would say, Mr. Fugate, is in the instance of Texas,
I would just say that it was a mistake and it was probably a--
something forgotten without review because our constables
continually do exercises in Homeland Security around the State.
But I just want to get that on the record.
So we are working both directions. But I would offer to say
sometimes, the Federal Government needs to sort of give a
little guidance to States when they might have not thought of
the utilization. So I look forward to collaborating.
It just brings me back to the decision to consolidate the
State and local grant preparedness programs by consolidating
targeted preparedness grant programs into a single pot. The new
preparedness grant program without requesting sufficient level
of funding, which is my belief, that there is not sufficient
level of funding.
But I would like--as I look at the long list, my perception
is the sophisticated guys, the sophisticated entities will
overcome those who are much smaller and less sophisticated;
i.e., I don't see the Citizen Corps matching up with the Urban
Area Security Initiative and those who applied for that.
The Citizen Corps is very important for the time that I
have have been on this committee, I have talked about the
Citizen Corps and making it diverse, making it in
neighborhoods. I am curious, the transit security grants
matched against the nonprofit security grant program.
The other issue is, which I agree, is when we sort-of
organized these different elements, and I know it makes it
convenient, but Homeland Security was designed after 9/11. It
was about terrorism. It was about the focus on terrorism.
I think this is a mistake. It--smudges or it confuses or it
creates smoke and mirrors, not intentionally, not--this is not
suggesting the intent of it. But I am talking about from those
who are applying.
They have got this big pot. The proficient and efficient
individuals or entities or jurisdictions will certainly
overcome some very good idea of some local volunteer
firefighters. I am just using that as example, beyond the State
governments.
Do we have an opportunity to change this? Do you see what
we are speaking of? Is there any way to bifurcate where you
have the terrorism elements separated? Do you have enough
money? Thank you.
Mr. Fugate. Again, the administration has been asking for a
consistent level of funding based upon our constraints. But I
would go back to your question. Again, I think a consensus
process, where you involve a lot of stakeholders into designing
these systems gives you a better outcome.
I do know that those jurisdictions that, again, if you
remember, the last couple of years, these have been
consolidated anyway.
You are listing all the original programs. But the last
couple of years of actual appropriations has broken it down to
three broad categories--State Homeland Security grants, the
urban security area grants and competitive grants for transit
and ports.
So Citizen Corps funding hasn't been separated for the last
couple of years even though it is an allowed expense. Example,
when I was in New York City, Staten Island, they have a very
robust community emergency response team there that responded
throughout the Sandy response.
Again, it is through the support of their homeland and
their urban security grants the city had funded those types of
programs. But the last couple of years through the
appropriations, we have been actually winnowed down into three
broad categories of which these are eligible funding under the
urban security and their State Homeland Security grants.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you think there is sufficient emphasis
on the terrorism aspect under that structure--under this
structure?
Mr. Fugate. Yes, I do. That is part of our threat and
hazard assessment. But we also have to look at all of the
threats. When we build capability, is it, again, recognition
that although we are funding primarily those threats against
the Nation, that it is designed to be dual use.
Then again, some of the natural hazards actually have
National significance that go beyond the traditional Stafford
Act declaration and reimbursement. There are several notable
natural hazards. A hurricane coming into the Houston Ship
Channel, which not only would have damages through the
hurricane but actually would threaten and disrupt our refinery
oil shipping in the port.
Those again have implications far beyond just the damages
of the hurricane. So those are the reasons why when we look at
all hazard, some natural hazards can produce threats to the
country, as great as some of these terrorist threats. We have
to look at what those responses would require.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back
and will continue to inquire. Thank you.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you for those questions and for the
continued focus on terrorism and prevention and response to
terrorism.
Administrator Fugate, I mentioned during my opening
remarks--and I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes--but
during my opening remarks, I indicated that we had two social
media hearings in this subcommittee. We once again crowd-
sourced questions for this hearing during the weekly SMEM chat
on Twitter.
Some of the chat members, the majority of which have
extensive experience using social media for emergency
management purposes, actually had input into some of our
questions and I appreciate their insights.
But one concern that we have heard, and I certainly hear it
and see it as I talk with communities, local communities, and I
have just visited each of the eight counties in my jurisdiction
and visited with local elected officials and appointed
officials, one concern we have is that many local emergency
management offices sometimes are one-person shops.
They often lack the communication skills or the resources.
They don't know how to maintain active social media operations
and validate the information they receive on social media and
so forth. So I am curious what you believe FEMA's role is in
providing assistance.
Obviously, FEMA does a terrific job on its own as we have
learned other organizations such as Red Cross. But what kind of
assistance are we providing in monitoring and updating social
media sites to affected areas during disasters and how were we
helping train the first responders in local communities on how
to effectively incorporate social media into their preparedness
plans?
Mr. Fugate. Well, a lot of this I want to respond for the
record. I won't take a lot of time what we have been doing. We
have got some tools out there to help bridge that. But I was a
county director by myself with a tiny budget of 325 bucks,
besides my salary, when I started this back in 1987.
I learned a trick.
Mrs. Brooks. You have come a long way, Administrator
Fugate.
Mr. Fugate. But the thing I learned about resource
shortfalls, or what I called OPM--other people's money. First
of all, no one emergency manager responds. You have Government,
private sector, and volunteers.
So what I would do and what I had to do back then just to
get out press releases and deal with at that time fax machines,
was recruit the public information officer from the sheriff's
office, work with the fire department.
So again, I think, you know, it is always a staffing issue
at the local level. You are going to have to look at who else
in your community you can bring in, including volunteers.
Mrs. Brooks. If I can ask, so is that the advice and
recommendations that the Department is giving because that is
something that I shared with members of these communities is
that they often have PIOs and----
Mr. Fugate. Right.
Mrs. Brooks [continuing]. Mayor's offices or sheriff's
departments and so forth.
Mr. Fugate. Again, I think as more agencies are now
starting to look at how they use social media. We developed two
training courses. One is a self-study and one is a delivery
course that we do.
The challenge with these courses is as soon as you have it
done, it has moved on. Instagram has now taken off, you know;
we are still talking about Twitter and Facebook.
Part of this is engaging other people in the community to
serve that role.
But part of it, too, is as we learn techniques and provide
resources, there are some things that we have been working on
to consolidate some of the things we are doing that make them
available to locals, such as being able to consolidate all the
various official Twitter feeds into one place so that when
something starts up, the public oftentimes doesn't know who to
follow.
So we take the State and then we get from the State all of
their local feeds and we will build it based upon a particular
threat so that the public has a place to go to, we call our
social hub, because a lot of times, you may have social media
accounts, but nobody knows about it before a disaster. Then
don't know where to look.
So we are trying to point back to the best information
because usually those local officials printing out social media
so people know that is where it is coming from.
Mrs. Brooks. But what is FEMA's role in training the local
officials on what your process is and how they should, you
know, learn to collaborate and learn to rely upon each other
and doing this coordination, their training?
Mr. Fugate. Primarily, it is done through the public
information officer course training. So specific to public
information officer training and looking at the independent
study course that anybody can take. It is free. You can go to
fema.gov, look up independent study.
We actually have courses on that, but also participating
and working--a lot of the expertise isn't at FEMA. It is as you
know--it is at the practitioner level. So we also try to build
the networks there, point back to the resource. Again, there
are a lot of concepts about how do you virtualize this
information.
But I think part of the trick is we are trying to move
beyond. It is just another way to issue a press release. It is
actually a way to listen to the public, and how do you make
operational decisions about information that isn't always
official, but may have some information relevant to changing
how you are responding.
Mrs. Brooks. Can you share with us in your experience and
with the disasters, whether it is the mudslides, whether it is
Hurricane Sandy or others, what--how much information are
emergency responders actually getting through social media?
Mr. Fugate. It depends upon the skill sets and experience
and we are learning. I will give you an example. We had a
hurricane that was moving up towards the Carolina coast.
National Hurricane Center was very concerned there wasn't an
evacuation.
Local officials weren't doing much. I was looking at some
of their tweets. It was interesting, they were saying they
needed to get all the tourists out. It was a Category 1
hurricane. So I was able to go back to the hurricane center.
Oh, they heard you. They know it is a hurricane. They are
getting their tourists out. They just don't think the threat
wants them evacuating. So it wasn't that they weren't hearing
it, but they were taking an action that they weren't expecting.
It is just sometimes, crowd sourcing can go, here is what I
said. Here is what the public thinks I said. Now, I can change
my message and amplify. It is great you are getting the
tourists out. But oh, by the way, this may be a little bit
stronger storm. We are still concerned about intensification.
We can change the message. But if you don't know how the public
is receiving your information, you don't always know if they
heard what you thought you meant. That may--you know, in
Government, that is not something we, you know, never have
happened to us.
We say something, and then we don't understand why the
public didn't understand it. But if you are listening to the
response, now, you can adjust that message and go okay, maybe
we need to amplify something or maybe they are not getting
something we think is critical. We can come back and
reemphasize that.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. I want to applaud you and FEMA for
hopefully taking the lead in educating the country about the
importance of social media during mass disasters or with
disaster preparedness and response.
At this time, we are going to a brief round of--a third
round of questioning.
I would turn it over to Ranking Member Payne for 5 minutes
of questions.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Now, just to shift back on the conversation we had prior to
my last round, you know, local police departments and, you
know, played a crucial role in preventing this terrorism since
9/11.
The law enforcement terrorism prevention funding is the
only funding designated specifically for prevention.
So I am trying to figure out the rationale for eliminating
the 25 percent set-aside for law enforcement terrorism
prevention.
Mr. Fugate. Again, given the State's ability to prioritize
across all those threats where they want to put their emphasis,
whether or not there is additional funds needed there or other
things that are priority.
I guess I am coming back to understanding your concern
about how we make sure these events occur, and that these
groups have representation, I think is where I would like to
work with you on the authorizing language.
My experience was when I had disciplines working and we had
divided the State up in regions, so we had a lot from rural and
very populated areas, that process--the State was also
responsible for but driven by the disciplines and the locals
gave us a better product than any one group doing it
independently. So again, I understand the concerns.
I would be willing to work on the appropriation language. I
still think we need to come back to looking at going through
the States and looking at National-driven--what are the
capabilities and prevention, what funding may be required. That
is going to be different State by State and merely putting it a
25 percent. Yes, that is the set-aside.
But what if it is more? A lot of times if you say you get
25 percent, that is as much as you will get. If you say this is
a priority, you need to fund these type activities, it may
actually drive more investment strategies on that prevention,
but at the expense of other priorities.
Mr. Payne. Okay. You know, just a topic that, you know,
naturally would be very important to me, you know, with
Hurricane Sandy, and you know, in late October, we know what
happened along the mid-Atlantic region, including my State of
New Jersey.
On January 29, 2013, the President signed a Disaster Relief
Appropriations Act of 2013, which included approximately $50
billion in supplemental appropriations to 19 Federal agencies
for expenses related to consequences of Hurricane Sandy.
To what extent, you know, have Disaster Relief
Appropriation Act funds for FEMA program been obligated or
expended?
Mr. Fugate. I will respond in writing to the specifics. But
in general, we focused on the emergency response and debris
cost because we knew those were the expenses upfront. So where
we have uncontested, we try to get all those done because that
is usually the first thing is the jurisdiction has got to pay
out.
Those are extraordinary costs. Oftentimes, they have to
borrow money. So we did the community disaster loan program as
well trying to fund on the front end as much as that as we
could get done. So we can give you a report on that.
Now, as we get into the rebuilding, you have given us a
couple of tools that we are now starting to get some traction.
One is using cost estimates versus actual costs. This can sound
like a very bureaucratic answer.
But it gives us the ability to go in and get the best
estimate with the jurisdiction and fully fund the project on
the front end versus only reimbursing as they go through the
project. Some of the larger projects are now moving through the
system to the point where we are getting into closure on what
that is, we want to build on the mitigation.
We want to build--and this is the other thing that may be
slowing us down a little bit--I don't think a lot, but I am
trying to drive some decisions about not using our traditional
cost-benefit analysis, always looking to our past to determine
risk, almost like an insurance model but going, if we are going
to build back a water pump station or a wastewater pump
station, we need to build it for the future.
That may mean a different investment and perhaps more on
the front end so that we don't come back next storm and have to
replace or deal with the consequences again.
Mr. Payne. Okay. You know, I think you have kind of heard
me loud and clear in terms of I understand you following the
Constitution and States' rights and that. But I think you have
seen what has been going on in New Jersey in terms of using
some of these funds for leverage for reasons other than they
are prescribed for.
What kind of oversight does FEMA perform to make sure the
funds are going where they are needed--most needed and
guarantees--and grantees are managing the funds effectively?
Mr. Fugate. Well, for the phase we are in right now, there
is no direction by the State. If it is damaged and was an
eligible and declared area, that is determining what is getting
funded. So there is not a lot of discretion at a State level
who we are funding.
We also have been working with the State and local
jurisdictions on their hazard mitigation plan which we have
actually been working with the State all the way back to
Hurricane Irene, where they have had very aggressive programs
to look at repetitive loss areas to either turn it into green
space or elevate.
But for right now, when you talk about our funds, they are
directly tied to some kind of damages or expenses tied to the
disaster.
There is not discretion about prioritizing who gets what
funding. It is is about where the damages occurred, was it
eligible in the rebuilding in that area. We will get you the
numbers on how much you did give us in Sandy and how much has
been allocated in those categories, versus how much still
remains to be written.
Mr. Payne. Okay.
Madam Chairwoman, I yield back. Thank you.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. I now recognize myself for 5
minutes.
So just to clarify, you are indicating that right now, the
funds that really the State of New Jersey does not have much
discretion, that the funds that the Ranking Member is referring
to as being directed by FEMA?
Mr. Fugate. It is being directed by where there is damages.
The State is the grantee. You had some grantees applying for
it. But who determines that funding is based upon your county
that was declared. You have eligible damages.
As those communities get those figures in, we are making
those reimbursements. Again, part of that is tied to the Sandy
Recovery Improvement Act.
So we are actually speeding up some of those areas that
previously took longer time. So what will be interesting is
where we are at now is to kind-of give you a comparison of what
the spending looks like now for permanent work versus some of
the other disasters we have worked.
Mrs. Brooks. Then something that had to come up and not
only in my jurisdiction but obviously in many others is the
issues about flood insurance and under the new law, that it
created a flood insurance advocate for homeowners.
The purpose is to provide homeowners with a single point of
contact at FEMA who could help them begin to answer so many of
these questions that so many of us in Congress certainly have.
So could you please share with us what are the--what are
FEMA's current plans for standing up that office and what might
we anticipate being the implementation time line?
Mr. Fugate. We actually began looking at this when the
language was actually being still drafted. We agreed this is a
good idea. I will tell you, better be more than one person.
So we are looking how to establish----
Mrs. Brooks. I agree.
Mr. Fugate [continuing]. Within the flood insurance program
a separate advocacy group so that their reporting structures
and their evaluation structures aren't tied to other program
goals and objectives. We want to have this set up so they are
independent to that process, although it will be part of the
flood insurance program.
I will have to respond back in writing, Madam Chairwoman,
where we are at on that. But we began looking at that as you
began promoting that in the House language. We agree it is a
good idea. But part of it, too, is making sure that is staffed
adequately and that when we start that program up, it has the
bandwidth to handle the amount of customer interaction we
expect.
Mrs. Brooks. To follow up on that with respect to that, the
new law also requires FEMA to certify when it has implemented a
flood map being programmed based on review of the technical
mapping advisory council, so while it was created in 2012 by
Biggert-Waters law, to this point in time, I believe that
council has not yet been established by FEMA.
So what do you anticipate is the time line on standing up
that very important council so it can begin reviewing and
improving the accuracy of what most of us do refer to as FEMA's
flood maps?
Mr. Fugate. The technical advisory committee draft
structure and pilot and rules were created; we have actually
solicited the applications. We are in the process of making the
appointments. I don't have the date for the first meeting.
But we were in the process of implementing that so that
there has already been a solicitation for membership and the
appointments of that membership. I will just have to get back
to you when their first scheduled meetings are going to start.
Mrs. Brooks. We thank you for that. Again, as you could
tell from many Members on the subcommittee and really across
the country, the issues involving the flood mapping and the law
that was just signed into law last week are so very critical
across the country.
We want to work with you to try to ease the pain that this
has caused so many homeowners across the country.
Well, with that, I want to thank you so much, Administrator
Fugate, for your valuable testimony.
It is so very clear to me and to anyone listening that your
local, State, and Federal experience is so very valuable as you
lead this agency which has--which sees, it seems, more and more
action regularly across the country, and want to support you
and appreciate your responses to questions about your budget.
Members of the subcommittee may have additional questions
for you and we will ask that you respond to those in writing in
addition to those that you have already indicated. So just want
to thank you for your service. We hope to be very helpful.
This agency is so critically important to countries or to
communities all across the country. I want to thank you for
your service.
Pursuant to committee rule 7(e), the hearing record will be
open for 10 days. Without objection, the subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairwoman Susan W. Brooks For W. Craig Fugate
Question 1a. Last year this subcommittee held two hearings on how
social media is transforming the way the Nation prepares for and
responds to disasters. One concern we heard was that some local
emergency management offices are a one-person shop and lack the
resources, or know-how, to maintain active social media operations and
validate information they receive on needs for assistance.
Does FEMA provide assistance in monitoring and updating social
media sites to affected areas during a disaster?
Answer. Yes, we provide social media support as needed and
requested by States during a disaster. Emergency Support Function 15
(External Affairs) ensures coordinated and consistent outreach across
all communication channels. Social media is part of ESF-15, so we
routinely share social media plans and insights with our partners
during the response. This is typically coordinated through the State,
local, or Tribal Public Information Officer (PIO) or Public Affairs
point of contact, who depending on the level of the disaster, are
seated in the Joint Information Center (JIC).
Question 1b. Does FEMA provide training to first responders on how
to effectively incorporate social media into their current operations?
Answer. Through our ten regional offices, we frequently share
social media best practices and offer informal training with partners
at all levels of government. We also engage with our stakeholders and
partners through various association meetings and conferences, in which
social media is focus or topic as a break-out session to include best
practices and lessons learned.
Available courses:
Social Media for Natural Disaster Response and Recovery.--
Course at National Disaster Preparedness Training Center. This
course is listed in the FEMA Training & Education Division
catalog and is given on a regular basis to those at the city/
State level who request the course.
IS-42: Social Media in Emergency Management.--EMI course.
Free, web-based course that anyone can take to give them an
overview of how social media impacts emergency management.
Additionally, the Science and Technology Directorate's First
Responders Group established the Virtual Social Media Working Group
(VSMWG) in December 2010 to provide guidance and best practices drawn
from a cross-section of subject-matter experts from Federal, Tribal,
territorial, State, and local responders. For example, VSMWG's Lessons
Learned: Social Media and Hurricane Sandy report provides an overview
on how social media was used in preparation for, in response to, and in
recovery from Hurricane Sandy. The report is available at https://
communities.firstresponder.gov/DHS_VSMWG_Lessons_Learned_Social_-
Media_and_Hurricane_Sandy_Formatted_June_2013_FINAL.pdf.
Question 2a. On January 29, 2013, the President signed into law the
Disaster Relief Appropriations Act that provided $50.5 billion for
Hurricane Sandy assistance. Shortly after, the Office of Management and
Budget issued a memo that, among other things, stated that, `` . . .
Federal departments and agencies must ensure that the funds
appropriated under the Act be used for their intended purposes.'' To
me, wasting taxpayer dollars is simply inexcusable. In June of last
year, I wrote a letter to you regarding potential improper payments
within the FEMA Public Assistance Program--although I received an
interim response to that letter in November, I have yet to receive a
final response.
How can Members of this subcommittee be assured that the money
appropriated to FEMA will be properly spent, without the kind of waste
we have sometimes in the past?
Question 2b. What has FEMA done since Hurricane Katrina to curb the
occurrence of improper payments throughout the agency?
Answer. For Individual Assistance programs, FEMA has implemented
multiple system and operational enhancements and lessons learned from
the 2005 Gulf Coast disasters to provide prompt service while
minimizing the risk of improper payments. The GAO found in their 2009
audit regarding Improvements to Internal Controls for FEMA Registration
Process that ``data from more recent disaster shows substantial
improvements in internal controls, resulting in far fewer instances of
payments being made to registrations with duplicate and invalid key
data.''
FEMA has worked diligently to put protections in place that will
safeguard against waste, fraud, and abuse, and significantly reduce the
percentage of improper payments. New processes have been developed in
order to improve the identification, reduction, and recovery of
improper payments disbursed to Federal disaster assistance applicants.
First, FEMA now has the ability to validate the identity of
individuals who register for assistance through electronic data
verification prior to receiving any Individuals and Households Program
(IHP) financial assistance. This verification is performed along with
automated checks of applicant occupancy and ownership during the
application process through LexisNexis. Therefore, identity, occupancy
and ownership verification checks are now conducted electronically
during the application process prior to the distribution of disaster
assistance.
Second, FEMA has focused on the increased prevention of improper
payments by developing new information management procedures in our
National Processing Service Centers (NPSCs). The NPSCs have worked with
the Office of Chief Information Officer to improve the National
Emergency Management Information System (NEMIS) software used to
process applications for disaster assistance. These actions include:
Using identity and occupancy verification checks to prevent
automated payments to applicants who may have used a fraudulent
name, SSN, or address;
Flagging ``high-risk'' addresses such as check-cashing
stores, mail drops, cemeteries, and jails to block them from
receiving automated payments;
Blocking duplicative rental assistance payments for
overlapping months or payments over the IHP maximum;
Stopping duplicative registrations over the internet to
prevent duplicate payments to the same applicant;
Improving the NEMIS business rules to prevent duplicate
payments to applicants at the same address; and
Adding a NEMIS direct assistance module to track individuals
in mobile homes or travel trailers in order to prevent the
provision of financial rental assistance to applicants who were
already housed by FEMA.
Third, FEMA has focused on the increased prevention of improper
payments by instituting organizational changes which have further
contributed to the decreased error rate:
FEMA established the IHP Assistance Group in 2008 at the
NPSCs to provide clear, consistent, and timely guidance
regarding IHP policies and case processing procedures in order
to reduce case processing errors, improve operational
efficiency and overall delivery of service.
The NPSCs have established specialized teams of employees
referred to as Specialized Processing Groups dedicated to the
processing of some of the more difficult cases, such as appeals
and recoupments.
The NPSCs have expanded the Quality Control group to include
reviews of special projects and new case processing procedures.
This has enabled the NPSCs to rapidly identify problems with
projects and new processing guidelines and take remedial action
as necessary.
The NPSCs have established an Audit Group responsible for
performing internal audits and analysis on the efficiency and
effectiveness of the manner in which IHP is administered by the
NPSC enterprise.
The NPSCs have updated their IHP credentialing training
curriculum to include changes in IHP policy and case processing
procedures. In 2009, all NPSC staff involved in manual case
processing received re-credentialing training and refresher
courses in 2012.
The combination of these improvements has resulted in a reduction
of the error rate in financial assistance from 14.53 percent following
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to just .3 percent for fiscal year 2011.
As a part of the overall effort to ensure the Public Assistance
program is implemented in a consistent and effective manner the
following initiatives were implemented:
PA Field Operation Pocket Guide.--In June 2012, the PA
Division published the updated Field Operations Pocket Guide to
provide direction on a consistent approach on PA program
delivery. It describes the fundamentals to be followed in PA
field operations Nationally to streamline the process for more
efficient program delivery.
PA Mid-Level Managers.--The PA Division launched the PA Mid-
level Manager initiative to identify, hire, and train a
dedicated group to serve as mid-level managers during large-
scale PA disaster operations. The cadre promotes consistency by
identifying and resolving PA Program implementation and policy
issues through engagement with stakeholders, and coordination
with Headquarters, to ensure the consistency of policies,
guidance, and training. This cadre is used as a core group of
experienced PA program managers that can be deployed as teams
in the event of a National large-scale disaster or support
regional disaster activity as required.
Reviewed approximately 500 resumes for the Mid-level
Managers Positions
Conducted approximately 200 interviews in fiscal year 2013
Identified and hired 80 Mid-Level Managers
Trained and deployed approximately 44 in support of
disaster operations
Approximately 35 remain in various stages of on-board,
pending training, and pending deployment.
PA Consistency Training.--The PA Division instituted the PA
Consistency Training Initiative to train FEMA, and State,
Tribal, and local governments on the PA Pocket Guide, EMMIE and
Public Assistance Program Training to promote consistent
implementation of the PA Program. To date the PA Division has
provided the following consistency training:
Approximately 3,000 FEMA, State, local, and Tribal staff
trained in the PA Consistency Training which includes
training in the PA Pocket Guide, Emergency Management
Mission Integrated Environment (EMMIE) and PA Dashboard.
Provided in-person or video teleconference (VTC) training
in all FEMA Regions training an estimated:
1,900 FEMA, PFT, CORE, and Reservist
500 State participants
300 Local participants
20 Tribal participants
230 PA Technical Assistance Contractors.
As a result of these new measures that have been implemented, the
improper payment rate for PA grants decreased from 5.48% in fiscal year
2008 to 2.78% in fiscal year 2012. FEMA will continue to work to
further reduce this number.
Question 2c. Earlier this month, residents in Indiana reported
receiving alerts on their cell phones about a tornado, and instructing
them to take shelter. However, this alert came more than 100 days after
the tornado outbreak across Indiana. Although we appreciate the value
of alerts, we also understand that either over-warning, or incorrect
warnings, can cause harm and desensitize citizens to these alerts. How
can we be assured that citizens are not over-alerted to the point that
they become desensitized to the warnings they are receiving? How can we
be assured that alerts and warnings are not going out, as this one
apparently did, when there is no imminent danger?
Answer. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Integrated
Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) division worked with the National
Oceanic Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Weather Service
(NWS), and an alerting system vendor used by Indiana to supplement the
State Emergency Alert System relay network with the goal to determine
the root cause of the unintended alert. The investigation revealed that
the vendor system retrieved a test message from a separate NWS news
feed and then sent it directly to the local broadcast stations. The
test message included portions of a test tornado warning originated to
support several State-wide tornado drills in the region. FEMA IPAWS was
not involved in the errant tornado warning.
Both FEMA and the NWS recommend that any parties monitoring NWS
products for alert distribution first ensure that they are ingesting a
proper NWS product to suit their needs and further that they establish
systems which examine incoming messages for proper structure and
content prior to distributing them.
Question 2d. Last year, in Montana, alerts were sent out warning of
a ``zombie apocalypse.'' This hoax was perpetrated by hackers, but
demonstrates that the IPAWS system is vulnerable and could potentially
be used in a real emergency to mis-inform the public. How can we ensure
that the IPAWS system is secure and only used for its intended purpose?
Answer. The zombie-type messages that were broadcast by some radio
and television stations in February 2013 were a result of poorly-
implemented security at those local radio and TV stations.
The integrity of the National alert and warning system components
of FEMA's Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) were not
compromised. However, FEMA is concerned about the integrity and
security of alert and warning stations and equipment even when those
systems are outside of the direct control of FEMA. We have worked to
add emphasis to security awareness and practices in our stakeholder
outreach programs and available training products as well as continuing
to work with partners and stakeholders to improve the security and
public confidence in alert and warning systems that are associated with
the IPAWS.
Question 3a. The fiscal year 2015 budget proposes to eliminate the
Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program. However, at the same time,
the administration's Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative
(OGSI) proposal includes $400 million in competitive grants to State,
local, and Tribal governments through the authorities of the Pre-
Disaster Mitigation program. Can you please explain why the
administration would propose to eliminate a program while at the same
time adding $400 million to it? Would this proposed $400 million be
used for the same types of projects currently allowable under the
current PDM program?
Administrator Fugate, for several years, FEMA has sponsored the
FEMA Think Tank, an on-line forum and in-person discussion sessions
aimed at generating innovative solutions to emergency management
issues.
What ideas that have come out of these sessions?
Question 3b. How these have translated into FEMA being able to
fulfill the administrator's Intent?
Answer. FEMA administers the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA)
program, which is a Pre-Disaster Mitigation program that focuses on
eliminating damage to structures caused by flooding. The President
budget includes funding for this program in fiscal year 2015. The
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is a post-disaster mitigation program
which funds the development of State and local Hazard Mitigation Plans
in addition to all-hazard mitigation projects. With funding for both
the HMGP and FMA programs, FEMA will continue to work aggressively to
ensure that States and communities take advantage of the opportunity to
reduce the Nation's disaster losses through pre-disaster mitigation
planning, and the implementation of planned, pre-identified, cost-
effective mitigation measures.
Enactment of the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative
(OGSI) would provide $400 million for FEMA's Pre-Disaster Mitigation
program. Funding would support competitive grants to State, local, and
Tribal governments through the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program. This
program provides grants for eligible mitigation planning and projects
that reduce disaster losses and protect life and property from future
disaster damages. Besides planning grants the OGSI would provide cost-
effective project grants to reduce flood losses, structure elevation,
retro-fitting of existing buildings, soil stabilization; and management
costs for the State to help administer mitigation programs.
Projects that propose mitigation to address climate change weather
extremes such as winter storm severity; land-slides; flooding;
earthquake; tsunami; and, drought for example will receive additional
consideration.
As highlighted in the Administrator's Intent for fiscal year 2015-
19, FEMA is focusing on a strategic imperative that stresses the need
to ``Foster Innovation and Learning'' within the agency. In recognition
of growing challenges and fiscal constraints, we are working to advance
a culture that better fosters improvement, innovation, invention, and
learning. As one example, FEMA established the Think Tank to help
foster innovation throughout the emergency management community through
bringing together leading entrepreneurs, technologists, academics,
stakeholders, and subject-matter experts from diverse fields to offer
fresh perspectives and new approaches. Specific FEMA Think Tank
discussions have focused on a range of topics, including public-private
partnerships, the use of innovative response technology in disaster
operations, and examples of innovation that arose out of Hurricane
Sandy. FEMA Think Tank and the innovative efforts it has sparked across
the agency, include the use of new backup communications systems in
disaster zones, discussion of electrical alternatives for individuals
that use power-dependent medical equipment, and collaboration on
increasing the efficiency of evacuations. Additional discussions are
being translated into innovative approaches at FEMA, including the
following examples:
OpenFEMA.--The Federal Emergency Management Agency open
Government initiative and a modernization project developed
through Congressional appropriations that embrace the tenants
of transparency, participation, and collaboration to support
citizens and first responders to increase Government
accountability, innovation, and effectiveness. Led by Ted
Okada, FEMA's Chief Technology Officer, OpenFEMA was launched
in October 2012 within the Office of the Chief Information
Officer (OCIO) with the mission to expand and promote a culture
of open Government among FEMA and the whole community in
support of the Nation's ability to prepare for, protect
against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards.
OpenFEMA's goals are to release data for public consumption,
and engage with external partners to leverage FEMA's data to
help achieve meaningful results and improve operational
outcomes in support of first responders, those supporting
disaster survivors, and the disaster survivors themselves.
The OpenFEMA team, the FEMA Think Tank, and FEMA's
Innovation Team have all worked together to encourage a
culture of innovation within FEMA. For example, shortly
after Hurricane Sandy made landfall, FEMA's Innovation
team--a multi-sector, cross-functional group made up of
people in Government, non-profit, volunteer groups,
business, and concerned citizens--deployed and spread out
through the affected areas, working alongside FEMA
employees to identify real-time challenges. The Whole
Community partners needed a shared space to virtually
connect and leverage their resources to solve issues. The
newly-created OpenFEMA team quickly responded and within 48
hours of request provided the a virtual space that allowed
the innovation response team members with different domains
and access points to efficiently collaborate, spurring
innovative ideas, reducing emails and share resources that
supported disaster survivors. Examples of solutions the
Innovation team developed on the virtual space and
implemented include but are not limited to the following:
Providing internet connection at Red Hook, Rockaways,
Staten Island, and other affected communities which allowed
FEMA Corps volunteers to go door-to-door and register
disaster survivors from their door-steps; and freed-up
mobile communications Operations Vehicles (MCOVs) to go
into other affected areas. MCOVs are a limited resource.
OpenFEMA supported the development of an open-source urban
search and rescue app following the Moore, OK tornado
through our participation at the National Day of Civic
Hacking. This event was held across 86 cities across the
country, bringing together thousands of designers,
developers, entrepreneurs, and private citizens to help
solve challenges relevant to their communities. A few days
prior to the event, the category 5 tornado hit Oklahoma
spurring FEMA into action. Although OpenFEMA already had a
concept they would be working on, they quickly used their
resources to support the local innovative community
participating in the Tulsa, OK event, which resulted in the
development of an open-source urban search and rescue
application to assist local Urban Search and Rescue (USAR)
teams. This application recently received the White House
Champions of Change award.
Recently, OpenFEMA hosted the first-ever FEMA Data Town
Hall (FDTH), a brainstorming workshop that brought together
key internal stakeholders, such as agency knowledge
experts, with selected external stakeholders (partners,
first responders, developers, and innovators) to
collaborate on an issue and develop solutions using FEMA's
data. At the end of the town hall each team presented what
they discussed, learned, and made a commitment to bring
their concept to market within 90 days of the event. Learn
more about the event on the FEMA blog.
Hurricane Sandy Innovation.--FEMA utilized some innovative
approaches during the response to Hurricane Sandy--several
examples follow below.
FEMA Community Relations Staff and Disaster Survivor
engagement with mobile devices.--The FEMA Community
Relations personnel facilitated a pilot program of
employing iPads to bring the FEMA registration process to
Disaster Survivors through direct community relations
engagement. By utilizing mobile devices ``on the street,''
FEMA was able to bring the on-line registration website in
person to disaster survivors, allowing them to register on
the spot.
Innovation Team--Sandy.--The administrator's office lead a
pilot operation to coordinate non-profit and NGO
organizations on the ground in select parts of New York
City. The Innovation Team used a centralized collaboration
tool to coordinate open-source innovation planning around
activities like communications, recovery centers, housing,
community engagement, and volunteer management.
FEMA GeoPortal.--Mission-Critical operational data was
made available via a public geospatial portal that was
primarily operated by the FEMA geospatial work force. The
GeoPortal relied on FEMA operational data but also some
crowd-sourced and other open data sources. New innovations
centered around the delivery of over 150,000 Civil Air
Patrol photos as well as over 137,000 geospatial damage
assessments.
Tech Corps program.--FEMA's Private Sector Division has been
using the IdeaScale portion of the FEMA Think Tank as a way to
soft sound preliminary concepts as the team builds a new Tech
Corps program. Tech Corps is based on the concept of
integrating trained volunteers from major companies to support
State and local partners with priority technology gaps after a
disaster. Given the technology focus of the new program,
IdeaScale was a logical tool for starting a conversation on
topics like the appropriate roles and responsibilities of
volunteer technology teams in response and training
requirements. It has also allowed potential Tech Corps members
to take an active role in shaping the program. While the Tech
Corps program is still in a fledgling stage it is an example of
a program that will benefit from crowd-sourced knowledge and
information sharing, such as can be obtained through programs
like the FEMA Think Tank, which foster and exchange of
knowledge.
Question 4a. One of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act's provisions
created greater flexibility within the Public Assistance Program. FEMA
has implemented a pilot program known as the Public Assistance
Alternative Procedures (PAAP).
Can you please provide the subcommittee with an update on how this
pilot program is going?
Answer. Under the SRIA, Section 428--Public Assistance Program
Alternative Procedures, there are two broad areas that the alternative
procedures address: Debris removal activities and permanent work
activities. Thus, FEMA is implementing two (2) separate pilot programs:
Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal (Debris Removal Pilot);
Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Permanent Work (Permanent Work Pilot).
The Debris Pilot was initially implemented during the Oklahoma
tornadoes in May 2013, and Nationally implemented for all disasters
declared on or after June 28, 2013. The Permanent Work Pilot was
effective for major disasters declared on or after May 20, 2013, and
for projects in previously-declared major disasters where construction
has not yet begun; thereby, providing opportunities for projects in
Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy.
FEMA has developed 12 reference documents for State, Tribe, local
governments and eligible private non-organizations. These are available
on-line: http://www.fema.gov/alternative-procedures. FEMA has developed
Assessment Plans for both pilots. FEMA has modified its data system--
the Emergency Management Mission Integrated Environment (EMMIE)--in
order to collect and track the data for the progress report. FEMA has
developed SharePoint access for the Regional and JFO staff to provide
quantifying data that is not collected in EMMIE, such as the number of
debris management plans\1\ received and reviewed by FEMA. As to another
alternative procedure, FEMA established an Expert Panel \2\ to review
projects over $5 million in Federal share for applicants requesting an
independent validation of the cost estimate. FEMA has offered more than
40 training sessions on the pilot program to approximately 1,400 FEMA,
State, Tribal, and local government officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Relevant to the debris management plan alternative procedure,
FEMA has received 185 debris management plans; accepted 45; determined
64 insufficient; and 76 plans are pending review. Under this procedure,
FEMA can provide a one-time 2% cost share increase for applicants that
have a FEMA-reviewed debris management plan and at least one pre-
qualified debris contractor.
\2\ FEMA has established agreements with U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) to use their Center for Cost Excellence to serve as
the third-party Expert Panel to validate estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 4b. How many Public Assistance applicants have taken
advantage of the portion of this program that allows grants to be made
on estimates?
Answer.
Debris Removal--Alternative Procedure Pilot
(The responses below are based on activity since the inception of the
pilot program.)
Four hundred thirty-nine of 652 applicants (or 68%) are
using one or more of the Debris Removal Alternative Procedures,
and 27 of 32 (or 84%) disasters have debris pilot subgrants.
Fifty-one-point-five million dollars of $59.4 million in
debris costs are attributed to subgrants with one or more of
the Debris Removal Alternative Procedures (86% of the debris
funds included elements of the Debris Removal Pilot).
Permanent Work--Alternative Procedure Pilot
Over 25 applicants have committed to Permanent Work Pilot
projects.
Seventeen disasters have Permanent Work Pilot Projects (8
prior to May 20 and 7 post-May 20, which is the date the
Permanent Work Pilot was initiated and published.)
One hundred five projects have been obligated for $139
million.
Eighty-eight projects for $4.1 billion (includes Hurricane
Sandy in NY and Hurricane Katrina in LA) are in project
formulation.
Question 4c. What are the impediments to implementation?
Answer. Since the pilot's inception, the magnitude of declared
events is less than the 10-year average. FEMA evaluated the Debris
Removal Pilot numbers and the level of disaster costs in the last 10
years (from 2003 to 2013) using the same time period from June 28 to
December 31. The typical per-event average for this time frame within
the 10-year period is $32.4 million.
In contrast, we have quantified an average $1.8 million in debris
removal costs for major disasters eligible to use the Debris Removal
Pilot within the same time frame. This represents 6% of the 10-year
average because, based on a 6-month time frame in a single year, the
debris removal costs since the inception of the pilot program are 93%
less than our 10-year average.
FEMA has not encountered impediments in implementing the Debris
Removal Pilot. FEMA continues to collect the necessary data in order to
promulgate regulations and gauge the effectiveness of the pilot.
The Permanent Work Pilot is gaining momentum. The funding structure
under the Permanent Work Pilot is a paradigm shift: Going from
reimbursement based on actual costs to committing to a grant based on a
fixed estimate. FEMA is actively engaged in both educating applicants
about the pilot and in project formulation. These efforts have
contributed to significant commitments to grants based on fixed
estimates.
To date, FEMA has not encountered impediments in implementing the
Permanent Work Pilot.