[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MOVING BEYOND THE FIRST FIVE YEARS:
ENSURING FEMA'S ABILITY TO RESPOND AND RECOVER IN THE WAKE OF A
NATIONAL CATASTROPHE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS,
PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 9, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-103
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-752 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Loretta Sanchez, California Peter T. King, New York
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Lamar Smith, Texas
Norman D. Dicks, Washington Christopher Shays, Connecticut
Jane Harman, California Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Tom Davis, Virginia
Nita M. Lowey, New York Daniel E. Lungren, California
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Mike Rogers, Alabama
Columbia David G. Reichert, Washington
Zoe Lofgren, California Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Charles W. Dent, Pennsylvania
Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida
Islands Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida
Bob Etheridge, North Carolina David Davis, Tennessee
James R. Langevin, Rhode Island Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Henry Cuellar, Texas Candice S. Miller, Michigan
Christopher P. Carney, Pennsylvania
Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Al Green, Texas
Ed Perlmutter, Colorado
Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
Jessica Herrera-Flanigan, Staff Director & General Counsel
Rosaline Cohen, Chief Counsel
Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Robert O'Connor, Minority Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas, Chairman
Loretta Sanchez, California Charles W. Dent, Pennsylvania
Norman D. Dicks, Washington Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Nita M. Lowey, New York David Davis, Tennessee
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Tom Davis, Virginia
Columbia Candice S. Miller, Michigan
Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin Peter T. King, New York (Ex
Islands Officio)
Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (Ex
Officio)
Craig Sharman, Director
Nichole Francis, Counsel
Brian Turbyfill, Clerk
Heather Hogg, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member
(II)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Henry Cuellar, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Texas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness, and Response..................... 1
The Honorable Charles W. Dent, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Pennsylvania, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response........... 2
Witnesses
Mr. Harvey E. Johnson, Jr., Acting Deputy Administrator and Chief
Operating Officer, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
Appendix
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar............................ 43
Questions From Hon. Bob Etheridge................................ 45
Questions From Ranking Member Charles W. Dent.................... 51
MOVING BEYOND THE FIRST FIVE YEARS: ENSURING FEMA'S ABILITY TO RESPOND
AND RECOVER IN THE WAKE OF A NATIONAL CATASTROPHE
----------
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and
Response,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Henry Cuellar
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Cuellar, Lowey, Norton, Jackson
Lee, Christensen, Etheridge, and Dent.
Mr. Cuellar [presiding.] The Subcommittee on
Communications, Preparedness and Response will come to order.
The subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony from
the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency on the status of the implementation on the
FEMA reforms and to discuss FEMA's preparedness for the next
disaster.
Again, good morning, and, first of all, on behalf of the
members of the subcommittee, let me welcome our witness. We are
glad that you are here to give us an update on how FEMA has
been doing on the FEMA reforms.
The hearing today is entitled, ``Moving Beyond the First
Five Years: Ensuring FEMA's Ability to Respond and Recover in
the Wake of a National Disaster.''
As many people know, the Department of Homeland Security
just passed the 5-year anniversary since its creation.
Throughout the month of April, each homeland security
subcommittee, as well as the full committee, is taking a look
at the Department's vision for 2009 and beyond.
While we want to acknowledge mistakes have been made by the
Department over the past 5 years--FEMA has done some of that
also--we certainly want to work with you all together to make
sure that we learn from these mistakes. Certainly, I know that
FEMA has done a good job in many of the areas, and we certainly
want to recognize--I am one of those types of chairmen that I
want to not only recognize the bad things but also recognize
the good things that FEMA has been doing.
We want to make sure that we work with you with the
Department to make sure that you have developed a vision beyond
the end of this administration. It is vital that the
Department, in light of the critical mission, establish some
policies and procedures to ensure that there is continuity in
the day-to-day operations during the transitional period
between administrations. It doesn't finish on December 31 or in
January with a new president. We want to make sure those
policies are there to make sure that we continue to whomever
might be the new president.
This is especially important for FEMA which role has
expanded greatly since the Department was created. On October
4, 2006, President Bush signed into law the Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, which, as you know,
made substantial changes to FEMA in the Department of Homeland
Security.
It created new leadership positions with clear position
requirements, new missions and restored some responsibilities
that had been removed. Finally, it enhanced the agency's
authority to undertake a broad range of activities before and
after disasters occur.
Efficient, timely and effective implementation of the act
is critical to homeland security, and it has been a high
priority for myself, for Chairman Thompson and the rest of our
committee.
Again, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, I believe there
has been significant progress that has been made under Chief
Paulison and your leadership, and we want to thank you for the
work that you have done and your staff to reform the way our
Federal Government responds to disasters and to make FEMA a
more responsive and effective agency.
I believe that exceptional work has been done in the areas
of disaster operations, logistics, strengthening regional
offices, to name a few.
I think on a personal note, I mention, at least in my
particular district, what happened in Webb County and what
happened in Starr County, in my particular district, after we
had the floodings, FEMA responded in an excellent way. I talked
to my local folks, the mayors and the county judges, and they
had high praise for the way that FEMA responded. So at least on
a personal note, personal knowledge, I do want to say thank you
for the work that you have done.
You all have done exceptional work in the areas that I
mentioned, but there are still some challenges that still
remain. We still have to look at the progress with emergency
housing, public alerts and warnings, contracting and the
integration of grants and the agency's various preparedness
initiatives. We have concerns, and we want to make sure that we
work with you and look at the progress to make sure that we
improve in those areas.
So we look forward to hearing your updates on the efforts
on this particular area.
So I want to thank again the witness again for the
testimony that you will be providing, and at this time, the
Chair recognizes the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent, for an opening
statement.
Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Last Congress, as you know, this committee was instrumental
in the enactment of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management
Reform Act of 2006. This legislation required a number of
organizational, programmatic, and policy changes to implement
the lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina.
This legislation also aims to ensure the Department of
Homeland Security and FEMA will be better prepared to respond
to future catastrophic events. FEMA began informal
implementation of the act last April. Since that time, it has
made substantial changes in areas such as logistics management,
coordination with State and local government officials and
other stakeholders, and establishing guidelines for strategic
and operational planning efforts.
The DHS Office of Inspector General issued a report last
week entitled, ``FEMA's Preparedness for the Next Catastrophic
Disaster.'' As the report details, the inspector general found
that FEMA has made moderate or modest progress in all but one
of nine key areas evaluated by the report. The report notes,
however, that progress has been hindered by ``budget
shortfalls, reorganizations, inadequate IT systems and
confusing or limited authorities.''
As this committee continues to exercise its oversight and
legislative authority over FEMA and the Department, I hope we
pay close attention to the issues that may negatively impact
the implementation of these much needed reforms, and I hope
that we, as a committee, do what we can to assist FEMA in
making progress.
One way we can do this is by urging the next
administration, regardless of party, to preserve the current
organizational structure of the Department. There have been
several major reorganizations of the Department since 2003, as
well as other program and funding transfers; it is time to stop
moving the boxes around. FEMA and the Department must be
allowed time to implement existing requirements and focus on
their core missions.
In addition, while it appears that the committee will not
consider an authorization bill for the Department this year, I
hope we reinstitute this policy moving forward.
The end year authorization bill will help ensure our
committee has a stronger voice in determining priorities for
the budget and for the appropriations process.
I am pleased that we have today Acting Deputy Administrator
Harvey Johnson who is with us today to discuss FEMA's progress
to date. Among other things, I do look forward to discussing
with him how we can best help FEMA continue to strengthen the
Nation's preparedness for a catastrophic event.
So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I yield back my time.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you very much.
We do know that other members of the subcommittee are
reminded that under the committee rules opening statements may
be submitted for the record.
At this time, I do want to welcome our witness, Admiral
Harvey Johnson, who is the acting deputy administrator and
chief operating officer for FEMA within the Department of
Homeland Security. Admiral Johnson came to FEMA in April 2006
after serving as commander for the Pacific area of the U.S.
Coast Guard. Admiral Johnson has a wealth of emergency and
crisis management experience, including support to the Admiral
Thad Allen and the Coast Guard's Hurricane Katrina's response
efforts by coordinating and deploying the West Coast resources.
We are pleased to have you present here today, Admiral.
Without objection, the witness' full statement will be inserted
into the record. I will now ask the witness to summarize his
statement for 5 minutes.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HARVEY E. JOHNSON, JR., ACTING DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Johnson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Dent, members of the committee. I am Harvey Johnson, acting
deputy administrator and chief operating officer of FEMA from
the Department of Homeland Security, and I am pleased to
discuss the progress that FEMA has made over the last 2 years
and describe where we expect to see accomplishments in the
years ahead.
The FEMA of Hurricane Katrina is being progressively
transformed into a new FEMA that is intent on achieving its
vision of becoming the Nation's premier emergency and
preparedness agency. To achieve this vision, we have taken on a
new operational ethos: To lean further forward to provide more
effective disaster assistance to communities and disaster
victims. While both of these may sound more appropriate as
bumper stickers or feel-good slogans, they have in fact been
internalized throughout FEMA, from headquarters to the regions,
to disaster sites, and they are reflected in all that we do.
The vision for our new ethos has inspired an organizational
restructuring within the headquarters as well as the field. The
division once simply called Recovery is now titled Disaster
Assistance; one simply called Response is now Disaster
Operations; and one that was a branch, not even a division, has
been elevated to become the Logistics Management Directorate.
More than simple name changes or moving boxes on a chart,
these organizational changes represent a declaration to those
inside FEMA and those of our external partners that we have a
better fix on who we are and what we do. Every day we become
closer to becoming, in fact, the Nation's premier emergency
management and preparedness agency.
For the first time the structure of the regional aligns
exactly with headquarters to make it easier to effect change
and achieve consistency.
In this new vision, we are an agency that is becoming more
comfortable thinking and acting in an all-hazards environment,
and we are building the skill sets to extend our mission reach
into prevention protection just as we are increasingly
mastering response, recovery and mitigation.
We are building new operational capabilities in the form of
incident management assist teams, operational planners and
watch standards in our response coordination centers. These new
capabilities broaden our operational reach and give us the
capacity to be more alert and to lean further forward.
We are becoming a stronger partner across the Federal
departments and agencies, exercising Federal lead and
continuity of operations and continuity of government, managing
the national exercise system and leading the Federal efforts to
improve the alert and warning capabilities and to try to become
the Nation's logistics coordinator.
In addition, we have reinvigorated our partnership with the
States in major urban areas, improving outreach to Governors,
emergency managers and major city mayors, seeking their counsel
as we develop policy and bring them into our decision processes
during disasters. We have established new contacts with the law
enforcement community by selecting former chief of police, Rick
Dinse, to be the first law enforcement advisor to the
administrator. We now have, for the first time, a disabilities
coordinator and a rural and small State advocate.
We have embraced the preparedness mission, as it has been
further defined by the Post-Katrina Emergency Reform Act and
returned to FEMA. With the formal promulgation of both the
National Response Framework and the National Preparedness
Guidelines, we are extending throughout all government levels
and the larger community, represented by the non-profit
volunteer organizations and the private sector, a higher call
for emergency preparedness among the communities. Both
documents establish doctrine, identify objectives and
priorities and emphasize the value of planning and exercises as
an avenue to achieve heightened state of preparedness across
the Nation.
We have also turned a corner in the administration of State
and local grant programs where we have narrowed the focus on
the grants to better guide, and in some cases direct, where
those funds are spent just so that we can have a greater sense
of assurance that the investment outcomes will measurably
contribute to national preparedness.
Under the leadership of Administrator Dave Paulison, we are
focusing our investment and our placement of resources into
building the capability in the field closer to the States, the
local governments and individual citizens.
Approximately 60 percent of the new positions are being
placed in our FEMA regions, and we are passing more authority
to the regional administrators. The wisdom of that investment
has proven its value as they have expanded their interaction
with States and stood alongside each other in disaster
responses in California wildfires, the ice storms of Oklahoma
and Kansas, the floods in Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana and
most recently the tornados in Arkansas and Tennessee as well as
other disasters.
The differences between FEMA and new FEMA have been evident
to disaster victims as well, as they have engaged with FEMA
more quickly after a disaster and received assistance faster
and with less bureaucracy. It is not uncommon to have the first
individual assistance registration and payment of benefit
within 24 hours of the president providing a disaster
declaration.
Mr. Chairman, I could go on longer in describing the
changes in FEMA during the last 2 years and foretell a stronger
and more effective new FEMA, but please allow me to make just
two more points.
First, the progress that we have made has come with the
support and the encouragement of Secretary Chertoff and
President Bush. The secretary and the president are personally
supportive, as expressed in the fiscal year 2008 and 2009
budget request, which have been the strongest in more than a
decade for FEMA but also in their involvement and advocacy in
bringing about a stronger FEMA.
I also wish to thank this subcommittee and the committees
at large for your support through oversight, budget
appropriations and provision new authorities, all in direct
support of a new FEMA.
My final point: To recognize that strength and character
often comes through the test of adversity. FEMA has had its
share of adversity, and our road to progress has included a
misstep on occasion, but through all of this and through all of
our changes that I have described, the people within FEMA have
persevered, and I would like to add that they have flourished.
They are a dedicated, determined and resourceful lot. They
have responded to Dave Paulison's leadership by taking his
charge and turning it into reality. It is the people within
FEMA that are combined to lead that charge and continue the
transformation toward the vision for new FEMA.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these issues, and
I would be pleased to answer your questions, sir.
[The statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Harvey E. Johnson, Jr.
April 9, 2008
introduction
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Dent and Members of the committee, I
am pleased to be here today to discuss the progress the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has made over the past 2 years and
describe that which we expect to accomplish in the years ahead. FEMA
today is better able to fulfill our mission, which is to reduce the
loss of life and property, and protect the Nation from all hazards,
including natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and man-made disasters,
by leading and supporting the Nation in a risk-based, comprehensive
emergency management system of preparedness, protection, response,
recovery and mitigation.
The standard operations of FEMA displayed during Hurricane Katrina
have been improved. The agency has transformed into a ``New FEMA'' that
reflects the expanded scope of the agency's missions--a mission
supported through building a National Emergency Management System that
provides for a more nimble, flexible use of national resources. It
strengthens the coordination within FEMA elements and with other DHS
components, and will enable FEMA to better coordinate with agencies and
departments outside of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It
will also deliver enhanced capabilities to partners at the State and
local levels and engage the capabilities of the private sector. Day by
day, FEMA is refining its core competencies while becoming an
organization that is valued across all jurisdictions as an engaged,
agile, responsive, and trusted leader and partner.
FEMA continually employs lessons learned and makes progress toward
our vision of becoming the Nation's preeminent preparedness and
emergency management agency. And, we are demonstrating a new ethos as
we lean further forward to deliver more effective assistance to
communities and disaster victims.
The vision for ``New FEMA'' was structured around the Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA) as well as other legislation.
This legislation expanded our ability to meet the preparedness elements
of our mission. We have also been shaped by the results of 17 specific
internal needs assessments that spanned our business functions,
logistics, finance, human resources, information technology and
communications. Those self-initiated assessments provided a blueprint
for our change efforts. The additional reforms uncovered by the needs
assessments and the organizational transition of preparedness
components into FEMA on April 1, 2007, completed this important phase
of our transformation.
The ultimate direction of FEMA has been mapped out in our new
Strategic Plan that establishes five strategic goals, identifies
overarching themes, and provides guidance, objectives and
implementation strategies. The Strategic Plan has been vital in guiding
FEMA's directorates toward enhancing their program development
processes.
As we enter the last year of this administration, this Strategic
Plan will guide a course that will ensure that we leave FEMA in a
better position to serve the American people
Over the past 2 years, FEMA has displayed its leadership in times
of national need. That leadership has been evidenced by the timely
delivery of assistance during various disasters, most recently the
California wildfires, and also the Missouri floods and the tornadoes
that overwhelmed Arkansas and Tennessee.
However, new and reengineered processes, policies, and
organizational changes will only take FEMA so far. The force multiplier
of our success is the hard work and dedication of our people. The FEMA
team is purposefully responding to the challenges of achieving a ``New
FEMA'', whether in the field of logistics, information technology or
acquisitions, as operational planners, or as experts able to deliver
disaster assistance. These are the people who define FEMA; these are
the people who will make the agency the Nation's preeminent
preparedness and emergency management agency. We will continue to
professionalize and educate our workforce, making it a world-class
operation, in terms of competency, diversity, morale, achievement and
opportunity for growth. To compliment this capability, FEMA has made it
a priority to hire qualified professionals in emergency management to
fill senior leadership positions.
The new vision for FEMA is grounded in partnerships that encompass,
yet transcend, the emergency management community to include other
communities, such as law enforcement, private sector, and those with
disabilities. Even within our longstanding partnerships, we are
examining the unique needs of rural communities and small States. To
that end, FEMA has stood up a Private Sector Office and has also
appointed a Small State and Rural Advocate, a Disability Coordinator,
and a Law Enforcement Advisor.
becoming the nation's preeminent emergency management and preparedness
agency
I would like to highlight the major steps that FEMA has taken these
past 2 years, as well as our plans for further refinement and
integration, including the establishment of several FEMA directorates
and new initiatives.
Improving Provision of Assistance to Victims/Communities
FEMA regards the protection and preservation of life and property
as its top priority. Accordingly, the Disaster Assistance Directorate
(DAD) is focused on ensuring the timely and effective provision of
essential financial and technical assistance to disaster-impacted
individuals, households, and communities is available by efficiently
leveraging FEMA's Stafford Act authorities.
In August 2006, the President signed Executive Order 13411 entitled
Improving Assistance for Disaster Victims. This Executive Order
directed Federal agencies, led by DHS, with the responsibility to
improve and simplify the application process for individuals seeking
Federal disaster assistance. FEMA led an interagency task force in the
development and delivery of a Disaster Assistance Improvement Plan
(DAIP), which outlines a coordinated, actionable strategy to implement
a consolidated and unified disaster application format by December 31,
2008. The President approved this plan in September 2007.
While we are committed to streamlining the process of getting
disaster aid to victims, we are also steadfast in our responsibility to
be good stewards of the Disaster Relief Fund. To this end, in fiscal
year 2007, we implemented new software that maintains data on
applicants in mobile homes and communicates real-time data to
caseworkers and the auto-determination system. This software prevents
duplicate housing payments from being made to applicants already
receiving assistance through direct housing.
FEMA has implemented checks in NEMIS that flag ``high-risk''
addresses such as check cashing stores, mail drops, cemeteries, and
jails. Applications with high-risk addresses require an intensive
review prior to the delivery of assistance to prevent potential fraud.
Also in 2007, FEMA partnered with the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) to create and pilot the new Disaster
Housing Assistance Program (DHAP). This new program is a temporary
housing rental assistance and case management program for eligible
individuals and households displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
This new program's interaction with disaster victims is administered by
HUD through its existing national network of Public Housing Agencies
(PHAs). Since the partnership began, HUD and FEMA have been working
together to ensure that the transition of responsibility from one
agency to the other is completed as smoothly as possible.
Additionally, FEMA has undertaken many initiatives to improve
implementation of the Public Assistance Program. We have established a
Public Assistance Steering Committee composed of senior Public
Assistance staff in each of our 10 regions and 10 State
representatives. The purpose of the committee is to serve as the Board
of Directors for the Public Assistance Program, develop the vision,
strategies and policies to ensure efficient, effective and consistent
implementation of the program.
FEMA will continue to refine its evacuee hosting guidance and plans
to complete five State hosting plans for large numbers of evacuees.
These State Hosting Plans will help adjacent States that may host Gulf
Coast evacuees. This effort is designed to synchronize separate State
evacuation plans to create a more cohesive and unified effort. Teams
engaged with each State, identifying requirements and capabilities, and
working to develop a plan that integrates shelter planning with
transportation planning. The result of these efforts will be more
timely, better organized, and better coordinated evacuation by those
with their own transportation as well as for those who need assistance
in evacuating by bus or air. FEMA also is completing enhancements to
systems that support mass care and housing activities following a
disaster. We will implement standard protocols and staff training for
long-term recovery planning. FEMA will continue to refine plans and
procedures for managing disaster assistance operations under the
varying conditions of different catastrophic and extraordinary disaster
scenarios.
In fiscal year 2009, FEMA will continue to improve its plans and
capabilities for managing mass evacuations and the resulting displaced
populations, including additional State and local plans and development
and expansion of evacuee tracking systems. The agency will also
continue to improve, test and exercise its capabilities for all of its
Individual Assistance functions (mass care, emergency assistance,
housing, and human services).
Improving Disaster Operations
Since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA has adopted a more forward-
leaning posture, engaged in stronger collaboration and partnerships at
the local, State, and Federal levels, and augmented its operational
focus, resulting in stronger and more agile disaster response
capabilities. FEMA demonstrated these improvements throughout the year
in response to events such as the California wildfires, Missouri
floods, Greensburg tornadoes, and Hurricanes Dean and Flossie, as well
as in exercises such as TOPOFF 4 and Ardent Sentry.
Headquarters and Regional Operational Planners
In 2007, FEMA headquarters hired 15 operational planners--the first
time FEMA has hired individuals with this skill set--to provide the
capability to perform sophisticated operational analyses, analyze
trends, and improve planning for the response to ongoing and future
events. Planners are currently being hired in each of the FEMA Regions
and Area Offices to provide this same capability in the field. To date,
more than half the Regional planners are on board. Additional staff
will be hired in fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009. There is now
greater depth and capability to work with State and Federal partners to
prepare operational plans and conduct crisis action planning to ensure
that the agency can lead and support a national all-hazard emergency
management response. Regional planners will receive program guidance
from FEMA headquarters and ensure training objectives and qualification
standards are met, but will operate under the authority of the regional
administrators. At the Regional level, these planners will coordinate
the development of coordinated Federal, State, and local operational
plans to guide response activities and help build a national culture of
preparedness. The operational planners will also facilitate/conduct
regional evacuation planning.
Gap Analysis Initiative
One of the major planning accomplishments in 2007 was the GAP
Analysis Initiative, which was developed in coordination with the State
of New York Emergency Management Office/New York City Office of
Emergency Management, and implemented in spring 2007. This project
provided FEMA and its partners, at both the State and local levels in
the hurricane-prone regions of the country, with shared visibility of
asset and capability gaps to determine the level of Federal support
potentially needed in responding to a Category 3 hurricane. This
information would better ensure FEMA and Federal support to States
exactly as they needed it.
During 2007, FEMA worked closely with each of the 18 State
emergency management communities in hurricane-prone areas, as well as
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands,
using a consistent set of measures and tools to evaluate strengths and
vulnerabilities. We incorporated seven critical areas in the initial
application of the GAP tool for review: debris removal, commodity
distribution, evacuation, sheltering, interim housing, medical needs
and fuel capacity along evacuation routes. Our initial use of the GAP
concept, which proved to be successful in the 2007 hurricane season,
will be expanded to cover all hazards and applied nationwide in fiscal
year 2008.
In fiscal year 2009, FEMA's Disaster Operations Directorate (DOPS)
will continue to work within FEMA and with State partners to develop
local, State, and regional operational plans, including incident-
specific catastrophic plans that cover the range of prevention,
protection, response, and recovery activities for that incident. It
will support the development of operational planning capabilities at
all levels of emergency management, and operational planning for the
National Planning Scenarios. We will also continue to increase national
readiness for site-specific catastrophic events, using scenario-driven
plan development processes and supporting the development of vertically
and horizontally integrated Catastrophic Response Plans using NIMS and
the NRF construct.
Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMAT)
In accordance with PKEMRA, FEMA is developing Incident Management
Assistance Teams (IMAT), a next generation of rapidly deployable
interagency national and regional emergency response teams. These new
teams will eventually replace existing Emergency Response Teams (ERT)
at the national and regional level and the Federal Incident Response
Support Teams (FIRSTs). The IMATs are designed to provide a forward
Federal presence to better manage and coordinate the national response
for catastrophic incidents.
The national teams will have the capability to establish an
effective Federal presence that can support the State within 12 hours
of notification, coordinate Federal activities and provide initial
situational awareness. Teams will be self-sufficient for a minimum of
48 hours to augment potentially scarce local resources. They will be
staffed with a core of permanent full-time employees, unlike the ERTs,
which are staffed on a collateral duty basis. The teams will be fully
compliant with NIMS and Incident Command System (ICS) principles and
will train and exercise as a unit. When not deployed, the teams will
train with Federal partners and provide a planning, training, and
exercise capability to help improve State and local emergency
management capabilities. The teams will also engage in consistent and
coordinated relationship-building with State, local, tribal, and other
stakeholders.
Currently, one National IMAT is operational and ready to respond to
any disaster. Three Regional IMATs are planned to be operational by
June 2008, the official start of the hurricane season.
Emergency Communications
FEMA is also improving disaster emergency communications and
interoperability capabilities. FEMA will be ready to rapidly and
effectively respond to protect people and property, to ensure the
adequacy of the Agency's own emergency communications capabilities, and
to help our State, local, and tribal partners develop or sustain their
capabilities.
Under the new FEMA re-organization, DOPS has also created a
Disaster Emergency Communications Division. The new division will
improve the agency's tactical disaster emergency communications and
interoperability capabilities to support all-hazards disaster response
and national security emergency requirements. We are in the process of
advertising and filling new positions to stand up this new division.
Improving Management of Logistics
Delivering the right material, to the right place, at the right
time is one of the most critical missions FEMA coordinates and
performs. In April 2007, FEMA elevated its logistics function to create
a Logistics Management Division (LMD), and is developing logistics as a
core competency. This realignment will transform FEMA's logistics
operating capability and enhance logistics management using as a model
the Department of Defense strategic level logistics organization.
Following the realignment, LMD has worked diligently to strengthen
its business processes and leverage the best practices by enhancing
relationships with both the public and private sector through various
initiatives for a more coordinated logistics response operation. One
such initiative was the Loaned Executive Program. The Loaned Executive
Program was launched as a pilot program for DHS and FEMA. Organized
through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the United Parcel Service's
(UPS) Foundation, the program was designed to bring a seasoned UPS
executive into the LMD to share private-sector expertise. The valuable
knowledge and input from the loaned executive will help the directorate
adopt the best business practices of private-sector logistics
companies. LMD also developed and launched the new ``National Logistics
Coordinator'' concept, which favorably enhanced coordination and
execution during the preparations for Hurricane Dean, and responses to
the California wildfires, Midwest ice storms and the West Coast winter
storms.
Overall, LMD has contributed significantly to FEMA's forward
leaning posture by putting in place contracts and interagency
agreements (IAA) that provide an enhanced logistics capability such as:
Logistics Management Transformation Initiative;
Total Asset Visibility to track supplies in transit;
National bus evacuation readiness;
Ready meals and water (IAA with the Defense Logistics
Agency);
Base camp support contracts;
Single point ordering and tracking for Regions;
Supplies and services (IAA with the General Services
Administration);
Vehicle drivers and fleet management;
Vehicle maintenance.
Moving forward, in fiscal year 2009, the LMD will upgrade National
Distribution Centers (DCs), which are at the core of FEMA's Supply
Chain Transformation effort and are essential to FEMA's fundamental
readiness mission. Strategic positioning of national-level assets at
DCs enables a proactive readiness approach that relies on stocking the
most critical disaster support life-saving and life-sustaining assets
at levels required for immediate distribution to disaster victims. The
``new FEMA'' warehousing strategy will provide the capacity and
flexibility to respond effectively and efficiently to the full set of
disaster scenarios.
Moreover, in fiscal year 2008/9, LMD plans to pilot test the
transformation of logistics management of supplies and services by
further engaging the private sector and incorporating industry best
practices. In an effort to improve business practices, the LMD has
spearheaded a Distribution Management Strategy Working Group, with our
Federal, private and NGO logistics partners, to conduct a comprehensive
analysis to develop an approved distribution and supply chain
management policy. Current contributing members include the Defense
Logistics Agency (DLA), General Services Administration (GSA), Health
and Human Services (HHS), United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM),
United States Army Core of Engineers (USACE), Food and Nutrition
Service (FNS) and Forest Service within the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA), and the American Red Cross (ARC).
The analysis includes rightsizing inventory levels and determining
the most effective strategic supply and service locations in order to
transition into a regional support strategy. The Working Group is
considering all critical distribution and supply chain management
criteria in developing and executing a coordinated Plan of Action to
establish an integrated distribution management strategy for the
National Response Framework. Until this analysis is complete, there are
no plans to develop additional permanent distribution centers.
Improving the Nation's Alert and Warning Systems
The National Continuity Programs Directorate (NCP), FEMA's arm for
building and sustaining the national continuity of operations programs,
including national alerts and warnings, has made significant progress
in providing continuity guidance and support to Federal, State, and
local governments nationwide over the past few years. The NCP is
focusing on efforts to augment the existing Emergency Alert System
(EAS) with the Integrated Public Alert Warning System (IPAWS), to
leverage newer communication technologies to improve the Nation's
ability to provide warnings and alerts.
EAS was put in place in 1994 to replace the Emergency Broadcast
System (EBS), which launched in 1963. In June, 2006, President Bush
issued Executive Order 13407 (``Public Alert and Warning System ''),
establishing the U.S. Government's alert and warning policy and
directing a series of actions meant to improve and modernize the
Government's ability to communicate rapidly with the American people.
The EAS will allow the President to transmit a national alert to
citizens within 10 minutes, and it allows State and local government
officials to send messages during non-Federal emergencies. IPAWS will
leverage digital and satellite technology to expand alerts and warnings
from audio to new communication mediums, including text and video
available over radio, television, telephones, cell phones, and e-mail.
Preparing the Nation For All Hazards
On April 1, 2007, FEMA renewed its focus on building a culture of
preparedness through its integration of the National Preparedness
Directorate (NPD), an expanded Citizen Corps Program and coordinated
activities with Ready.gov and the Department of Homeland Security. NPD
has played an integral role in coordinating several major preparedness
initiatives, such as Top Officials 4 (TOPOFF 4), hiring the newly
created Federal Preparedness Coordinators (FPC), and the development of
national preparedness and response documents.
In January 2008, NPD coordinated the release of the National
Response Framework (NRF), the successor to the National Response Plan
(NRP). The NRF establishes a comprehensive, national, all-hazards
approach to domestic incident response and incorporates many NRP
elements and lessons learned. Incorporating input from hundreds of
individuals, organizations, and governmental partners, the NRF provides
clear guidance on the integration of community, State, tribal, and
Federal response efforts.
Moving into fiscal year 2009, NPD will improve coordination of
national exercises with State exercises, and will implement--for the
first time--a national planning system that will bring consistency to
contingency plans at the local, State and Federal level. By focusing on
planning, exercising and evaluations, and more focused applications of
grant funding, NPD will measurably lead the Nation to a higher level of
preparedness.
With the realignment of the Department mandated by PKEMRA, FEMA is
now responsible for managing billions of dollars in grants that build
the Nation's homeland security capability. To support this new
responsibility, FEMA created a new directorate. FEMA's new Grants
Program Directorate (GPD) is working within the greater emergency
management framework to make sure we are getting the best value for the
investment. In fiscal year 2006, GPD awarded approximately $3 billion
in total grant funds. Since 2003, the Department of Homeland Security
has invested over $23.7 billion in critical funding to our Nation's
homeland security community.
During the same time period, GPD was able to improve and build upon
relationships with subject matter experts on grant guidance; including
TSA, USCG, Infrastructure Protection, and the intelligence community.
As a result, in fiscal year 2008, FEMA was able to narrow the focus of
grant guidance to better target the application of grant dollars to
align with National Priorities and target capabilities established by
the National Preparedness Guidelines, approved by the President
September 2007.
In fiscal year 2009, FEMA will update the Homeland Security State/
Urban Areas Strategies, as necessary, and refine and implement the
funding allocation methodology based on risk analysis and anticipated
return on investment. The Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program will
begin to collect and use performance measure data to improve program
effectiveness. GPD will continue to track State and local grant
administration and spending at the State and local level and add
additional grant programs to the Grants Reporting Tool as necessary.
By working with States and major urban areas, refining grant
guidance, and focusing more directly on the expected return grant
investment, these grant programs will continue to increase our Nation's
capability to prevent, protect against, and if necessary, respond to
and recover from acts of terrorism.
Strengthening FEMA's Regions
One of FEMA's primary reforms made and implemented during 2007, was
empowering and increasing the capability and capacity of its regions.
As the point of interface with States strengthened, FEMA Regions are
essential to deliver on the promise of New FEMA.
One of the most significant initiatives that gives us tremendous
value added, is the new package of blended capability in the form of:
Federal Preparedness Coordinators (FPC), Regional IMATs, and enhanced
Regional Response Coordination Centers (RRCC). Moreover, FEMA has stood
up Grants Management Branches in all 10 Regional offices and has
embedded 20 new Grant Management Specialists in the Regions to manage
EMPG, MMRS, and Real ID grants. The Regions are also strengthening
their ties to partners by the establishment of a Regional Advisory
Committee and Regional Emergency Communications Working Group. Both of
these new entities greatly expand the opportunity to communicate and
exchange ideas with key constituency groups.
The following are just a few highlights of FEMA Regional Offices
accomplishments and initiatives:
In 2007, Regions I, V, VI, IX, and X provided extensive
support to their respective Federal Executive Boards. Solid
partnerships have been created with leadership from the boards
in Hawaii, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, as well as across
New England, Texas, the Midwest and Northwest. Each board has
established active Continuity of Operations Planning Working
Groups supported by membership from representative department
and agencies.
The regional Pacific Area Office, in coordination with the
FEMA Logistics Division and Hawaii State and County Civil
Defense, successfully completed deployment of the DHS Pre-
Positioned Disaster Supplies Program. Regional actions resulted
in the pre-positioning of the 500-person containers and home
recovery kit containers on Oahu, Kauai, Maui, and the Big
Island.
In July 2007, FEMA Region X successfully established an
Alaska Area Office, as required in PKEMRA. The office is
integrated into the Regional operation and provides for
situational awareness in Alaska and enhanced capability to
conduct effective pre- and post-disaster response activities.
Region IV Operational Planners participated in the launch of
several catastrophic planning initiatives, including the
Florida Catastrophic Planning scenario, the New Madrid Seismic
Zone, 2007 hurricanes, critical transportation needs planning
for Gulf Coast mass evacuation, and pandemic influenza.
Improving Our Core Capacities
FEMA's mission and the expectations of performance and need for
21st century business practices for the Agency have substantially
changed in the Post-Katrina environment. In response to PKEMRA and
post-Katrina lessons learned, FEMA has institutionalized various
organizational and functional reforms. To ensure FEMA's mission
success, the Agency immediately began to set the ground work to
implement the suggested and mandated reforms. One major step taken was
to realign its administrative functional areas to better hone its
business practices, enhance its customer services and improve its
processes and informational services infrastructure and professionalize
and grow the permanent workforce.
In fiscal year 2007, FEMA stood up its Office of Management (OM) to
unify and integrate several disparate internal service providers to
synchronize their efforts and increase overall administrative program
effectiveness, efficiency and cohesiveness, while preserving and
advancing service delivery. The new Office of Management oversees FEMA
primary administrative functions, including: Acquisitions Management,
Disaster Reserve Workforce, Human Capital, Information Technology,
Facilities Management, Records Management, and Security. The following
are some of the measures OM has taken since Hurricane Katrina to
address issues internal to the agency that needed to be improved:
The Office of Acquisition Management is strengthening our
capacity to contract for goods and services.
FEMA's Office of Acquisition Management (OAM) has made considerable
strides in improving the contract management and oversight aspects of
its acquisition duties. FEMA has implemented new policies and
requirements on its acquisition workforce, such as improved advanced
planning, accurate documentation, workforce training, increased
emphasis on market research and greater consideration of small business
goals. FEMA can boast that during fiscal year 2007 about 81 percent of
its acquisition dollars were competed. This represents a 45 percent
increase over fiscal year 2006, when only about 35 percent of FEMA's
acquisition dollars were competed. There were three main areas of
improvement which led to the above success.
Institutionalized the use of Contract Administration Plans (CAPs)
to facilitate efficient and effective contract administration and
improve the agency's post-award contract execution. CAPS also promoted
task order competition while ensuring that services are available
expeditiously to meet critical disaster response needs, while
establishing consistent enterprise-wide contract administration
processes for the Contracting Officer's Technical Representatives
(COTR) in various regions. It also documented the agreements between
program offices and OAM and serves as a guide for continual actions
related to a contract administration.
Established a Contract Officer's Technical Representative (COTR)
Program Office to ensure COTRs have the training, support, and tools
needed for effective contract administration. This included the
implementation of a tiered COTR certification program to better match
COTR competencies to contract complexity and ensuring COTR compliance
with DHS and Federal regulations and policy while leveraging best
practices.
Published the Emergency Acquisition Field Guide, which will ensure
that non-1102 (contract specialist) personnel can effectively and
appropriately contract for goods and services in an emergency
situation. The guide defines the critical elements of an emergency
acquisition in plain language so that any member of the disaster
support team can understand and apply proper procedures. It includes
information on purchase cards, program management, and contracting.
The Human Capital Division is ensuring that FEMA has the
right staff.
In 2007, FEMA's Human Capital Division (HCD) took on the daunting
challenge overcoming previous staffing and retention impediments,
optimizing its workforce, improving professional development and
training programs, and streamlining HCD processes through technology
solutions. At the close of fiscal year 2007, FEMA had filled 96.5
percent of its authorized PFT positions. The FEMA Hiring Team was
honored with the Secretary's Award for DHS Excellence for its
outstanding contributions toward achieving FEMA's 95 percent hiring
goal by June 2007.
Before Hurricane Katrina, FEMA had an authorized permanent full-
time staff of 2,200, however, the number of employees actually on board
had dropped, in the aftermath of Katrina the approximate number of
permanent full-time employees dropped to 1,500. Currently, FEMA has
approximately 3,200 employees with an expected total of approximately
4,300 permanent full-time employees by the end of fiscal year 2009.
FEMA's goal is to meet or exceed 95 percent of its fiscal year 2008
authorized staffing level by the end of fiscal year. To do so, FEMA has
chosen to employ some new recruitment techniques to bring in the best
and the brightest to our agency. We are also using staffing services to
hire some specialized positions.
FEMA will also improve and develop steps to measure on-boarding,
talent management, and developing a corporate footprint on all
employees. With these new processes, FEMA will be able to hire faster,
have employees trained and ready to perform, and will have an ongoing
snapshot of its talent and workforce needs.
To support our hiring efforts, in mid-2007 Congress gave approval
to FEMA to convert approximately 110 of our Cadre of On-Call Response
Employees (CORE) positions to Permanent Full Time (PFT) positions.
Another 390 will be converted in fiscal year 2008 with the remainder
converted in fiscal year 2009. As a result of this and other efforts,
FEMA has been able to achieve a steadily increasing net gain in
Permanent Full-Time (PFT) employees since fiscal year 2005. In fiscal
year 2007 alone, FEMA acquired 398 new PFTs, resulting in a net gain in
100 PFT employees for fiscal year 2007. This was a drastic improvement
from the net loss of 97 PFTs in fiscal year 2005.
The Information Technology Services Division is bringing
FEMA systems into the 21st Century.
FEMA's information systems are the tools that enable every mission
and business process for the Agency and serve as the primary building
blocks for New FEMA. To this end, FEMA is developing and plans to
deploy a consistent architecture that will support information
integration for the Agency. By employing new technologies to enhance
capabilities and efficiencies of service, FEMA will strengthen and
unify its operations and management.
FEMA's Information Technology and Services Division (ITSD) has
begun the process of modernization and upgrades to improve information
sharing and functionality between six of FEMA's critical systems:
National Emergency Management Information System (NEMIS), Logistics
Information Management System (LIMS-III), Automated Deployment Database
(ADD), Total Asset Visibility (TAV), Integrated Financial Management
Information System (IFMIS), and the Acquisition Management System
(PRISM).
In addition, the complete transition of preparedness programs into
the FEMA IT system is currently underway, and, to date, we have
successfully migrated the legacy Grants & Training IFMIS and Payment &
Reporting System (PARS) from the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) to
FEMA. A plan has been recently completed that will support and guide
critical IT improvements with the following strategic goals in mind:
(1) To stabilize and integrate IT assets across the agency; (2) to
secure the IT environment; (3) to network the agency; (4) to evolve to
a ``service-forward'' organization; and (5) to establish supporting IT
policy and governance structure. Once the goals of this plan have been
reached the FEMA IT systems will be more robust and allow for more
advanced business practices that will gain efficiencies in program
offices across the agency.
In fiscal year 2009, FEMA will begin a transition of IT systems and
financial resources to the Office of the Chief Information Officer
(OCIO) and continue initiatives such as deployment of a fully compliant
electronic records management system; improve help desk efficiency by
monitoring both workflow and management escalation; begin Advanced
Computer Technology Integration (CTI) system deployment for the
Advanced Contact Center Network; and improve the Disaster Housing
Inspection Management System security to overcome the vulnerability and
risks of using tablet computers in the field that carry personal
identification information.
conclusion
Today, I have been able to give you a glimpse into the ``New
FEMA'', and to highlight a handful of examples of the sea of change
that is post-Katrina, post-Rita FEMA. The public has increasingly seen
a FEMA that is more able to respond, and a FEMA that better promotes
and coordinates continued enhancement of preparedness in the United
States. Our objective is to regain the trust and confidence of the
public and our partners through consistently excellent service.
For the remainder of my tenure, I will work to ensure FEMA
continues to be an empowered agency. Each day FEMA will be better able
to meet the needs of the American people, both as we heighten
preparedness, respond more capably, and lead effectively during the
recovery and mitigation phases. This agency has already improved
tremendously since my first day on the job. With the support of the
skilled and resolutely dedicated FEMA team, I am confident FEMA will
continue to improve. My successors and America will be in a far better
position because of their work.
In the past year, FEMA has been able to respond rapidly and
effectively to the disasters we have encountered. We are more nimble
and responsive than we were last year when I appeared before the full
committee. While we have not faced another catastrophic disaster, I am
confident in saying that we are ready to perform effectively and
efficiently during whatever circumstance we may face, catastrophic or
otherwise. I appreciated the opportunity to appear before you today.
Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you for your testimony.
I would like to remind each member that he or she will have
5 minutes to question the witness.
I now recognize myself for questions.
My first question has to do with transition. As I mentioned
a few minutes ago in my opening statement, we want to make sure
that, as there is a change in administration, whoever that
person might be, is that we establish sound policies and
procedures to ensure that qualified professionals stay in place
to prevent, detect and respond to threats that face our Nation.
Has FEMA prepared a transition plan? Well, first of all, do
you all have a transition team in place? No. 2, have you all
prepared a transition plan?
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. I
appreciate looking at the transition and how that will impact
FEMA, and we have been very concerned with it as well.
Inside FEMA we do have a transition team, and Dave Paulison
has already identified Nancy Ward, who is our regional
administrator in region IX, as a senior career official who
will lead FEMA during the transition until a new administrator
is nominated and confirmed.
One of the strengths in our growth in FEMA is the
acquisition of more SES positions. We gained 10 SES just in
this past year, which is the quota of the Department, and we
now have a senior career civil servant behind every political
appointee. We are working very, very hard to bring in this new
group of SESs who own the programs that we have talked to you
about and to make sure that during the transition those will
continue at the same pace that we started and in the same
direction.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Staffing, I think prior to Hurricane
Katrina, FEMA had nearly 1,700 permanent full-time employees.
Today, the new FEMA has nearly 3,000 and is authorized over
4,000 for fiscal year 2008. What are the biggest challenges to
staffing up FEMA, that is, trying to find the right expertise
that is necessary to do your job to find it for those
particular vacant positions?
I think we think you all have the added challenge of
filling over 1,000 vacancies by September, so could you give us
a status on the staffing and making sure that we hire the right
people with the right expertise to do the job?
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I think the most important
element in growing and achieving new FEMA is to increase the
size of FEMA. When Dave Paulison came in as the administrator,
you are correct, we had about 1,500 permanent, full-time people
in FEMA, and with the help of the Congress and the budget
submitted by the president, we have the chance to get 4,007 by
the end of this fiscal year. That is a sizable growth.
We are focused very hard every week on how we are hiring
those people. We received through PKEMRA different
authorizations for incentives to use in hiring and relocation.
We are using every one of those incentives, and we are focusing
our staffs on just the process of the Federal Government to
hire people.
Every other Thursday we have a staff meeting, and we have a
chart, and I would hold every directorate accountable to find
out where they are in their hiring processes and what their
level of vacancies are. We have mapped out the process so I can
tell whether it is the directorate that has got a problem, the
H.R. system that has got a problem or it is just time in the
queue of waiting for people to apply for a position. So we stay
focused every 2 weeks to see what our progress is, and our
objective is to be at 95 percent staffing again by the end of
this summer.
Some of the challenges are just that a lot of people want
to come to FEMA. We once held a--in our building, we held an
open sign-up, and 500 people came to apply for 45 positions. So
it is not for lack of getting people to apply, but it is a
process of getting through the Federal system, getting secured
clearances done and those requirements.
I might add that we have also gone to a headhunter firm to
hire some of our senior people. It is not good enough just to
put an ad on the street. We need to go out and find the right
people for FEMA. We are about to name a senior executive
service member to lead our National Integration Center, and we
found him in a State where he was a recently departed homeland
security advisor. He has a Ph.D. and has a link with a major
university in the Midwest. That is the caliber of people,
leaders, that we are going to bring in as career civil servants
into FEMA.
Mr. Cuellar. Very good. My last question is on citizen
preparedness. Again, this is something that is important. As
you know, we probably will be filing legislation--I mean, we
will have a bill to formalize this program. One of our things
we have looked at is funding, not having sufficient funding.
Could you tell us what you all are doing on the citizen
preparedness effort, because we are going to be hopefully
passing this bill soon, at least marking it up, should I say.
Mr. Johnson. Well, Mr. Chairman, we would certainly welcome
that legislation to make permanent our citizens preparation
staff, citizens advisory committees. That is a huge return on
investment. For a few dollars, to reach out to communities
across America and to tie them in closer and to be individually
prepared as citizens for disasters is very, very helpful to all
of us.
One of FEMA's challenges is to meet the almost unachievable
expectations of the American public for service from FEMA, and
I think that our citizens staffs can help us in that regard as
well to recognize what their roles and responsibilities are and
what they should expect from their local government, from the
State government and from the Federal Government.
We have a strong staff, a small staff but a strong staff
that are highly motivated to reach out to all of our regions,
to all the communities and to tie together all of those
volunteer groups.
So we would certainly welcome that legislation.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Thank you.
At this time, I would recognize the Ranking Member, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent, for questions. Thank
you.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Johnson, too, for being here as well.
Recently, the State of Colorado announced that they had
hired a permanent State-wide interoperability communications
coordinator, highlighting the importance of--at least at the
State level--for specific attention to this whole issue of
communications operability, interoperability, et cetera.
Could you provide an update regarding FEMA's efforts to
ensure and improve the ability to communicate during disaster?
Everybody on this committee, and in other committees, are
constantly talking about interoperability, and there have been
tremendous amounts of moneys invested in that. Where do you see
us standing on that today?
Mr. Johnson. I think that when we look at the grant funding
the first category of grant funding out of the billions of
dollars is focused on planning, which we think is appropriate.
The second category that spends the most money is on
communications, which we think is also appropriate.
In FEMA's role, we are looking at interoperable
communications at the first responder level. How can we ensure
that the emergency operation centers, command centers, our own
joint field offices have good interoperability, and how can we
ensure that first responders themselves are able to communicate
during a disaster?
For last year's hurricane season, we went to each of the 18
hurricane impact States, the District of Columbia to the Virgin
Islands and Puerto Rico with specific communications teams and
sat down with them and worked through a communications plan, a
communications architecture and a gap analysis to see what they
had for the hurricane season to ensure that among themselves,
with the State and with the Federal Government they could
communicate very well.
That was a very successful effort, and we are building upon
that for this coming hurricane season. We were able to identify
specific gaps, and then in our grant guidance for the 2008
season we were able to write in specific grant guidance that
would direct Federal dollars to solve those gaps.
So I think we are doing a good job of reaching out at the
grassroots level, not dealing at the high level with strategic
thinkers but who is really communicating and to work with them
to build this communications networks.
Mr. Dent. As part of that overall architecture you just
described, has FEMA been working closely with the Office of
Emergency Communications within the NPPD to ensure that there
is interoperability among personnel at all levels?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir, we have. I think that that is a
relationship with NPPD, particularly with the Office of
Emergency Communications, that is just strengthened, perhaps
more so in the last few months than it has over the last year.
For example, ESF 2, emergency support function 2, is a
communications support function for a disaster. We recently
partnered with NPPD to completely rewrite that emergency
support function and clarified our roles and responsibilities.
As I mentioned, FEMA's primary focus is first responder
communications, and OEC's primary focus is dealing with
industry for national level systems, telephone systems, other
communications systems. So I think we have done a very good job
to, sort of, stake out our lanes in the road and then work in a
complementary fashion to achieve interoperability, whereas
before I think there were opportunities where we perhaps had
some confusion in roles. But that is a far better alignment
than I think we have experienced in a long time.
Mr. Dent. Well, I think you just answered my question, and
you are actually working very closely to improve the ESF 2
initiative. That is good to hear.
I will shift focus now away from communications to
evacuation planning. There is really no single office at FEMA
that is responsible for Federal evacuation planning and
operational efforts. As you are aware, the responsibility
resides in many offices--including logistics, disaster
operations and disaster assistance as well as the Office of
Acquisition Management.
How are you ensuring that the evacuation planning is
coordinated across all these offices?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. I think that is true, and I think
even to my opening statement about new FEMA, old FEMA would
have had a bunch of silos. That would have been a particular
issue. At new FEMA, we do work much better laterally, across
our directorates, because each does have a significant role,
and we want to make sure they don't overlap each other.
What we are doing specifically, again, in preparation for--
we did it in the hurricane season. We had a gap analysis that
now we are taking Nation-wide in all of our regions and we have
identified six primary factors where we must succeed in order
to be successful at a Federal, State and local level for
disaster response, evacuation being one of those.
So our gap analysis tool allows us to look from a disaster
operations perspective, disaster assistance and logistics, the
prime players, and what do they each bring to the table and how
do they relate then to local communities, to the State to
fulfill that requirement.
Last year, we found that there were gaps in some States
that have an evacuation plan, and, more specifically, there
were gaps in special needs evacuation. We were able to write
into the gap guidance for the EMPG Grant Program this year
specifically to require States to spend their grant funding to
improve those evacuation plans. So I think we were able to
recognize a problem, assess it on a systematic scale and then
direct resources to help solve that problem.
Mr. Dent. Finally, on that same vein, what has been done at
the State and local level to essentially ensure that
communities near these major urban areas that would likely be
evacuated--are you working with States--are capable of
receiving these evacuees? I mean, it is important that we talk
about evacuation, clearly, from wherever the point of the
incident is, but I worry about major incidents in a major
metropolitan area and the receiving communities. Are we
focusing on that at all?
Mr. Johnson. We are, sir. We used our hurricane plan last
year to build a template for how should we approach that. For
example, we had a plan to move 4,000 people from New Orleans by
Amtrak to Memphis, Tennessee. When they arrived in Memphis,
working with the State and with the Red Cross, the local
counties, we knew exactly what shelter they were going to go to
and what transportation they would use to get from the train
station to a safe shelter, back to the train station and back
to New Orleans.
We used that same template in Memphis, we used it in
Atlanta, we used it in Houston, and we used it in Little Rock
so that we could evacuate enough people out of the Gulf Coast
in a category three or four storm.
That process has now been institutionalized, and we are
able to take that through all of our regions and look at the
exact same issue, in particularly dense, urban areas. How do we
move people out, where do they go, and how do we make sure that
they know where they are going and how they are going to be
treated when they arrive?
Mr. Dent. My time is up, but at some point I would be
interested to see how you have institutionalized this process
and could help those of us in the Northeast, particularly from
potential evacuation from the New York metropolitan area or
from this capital region. I would like to see how you would
develop those plans.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. Our national capital region plan, by the way,
is a place where we need to apply that. We have an evacuation
plan, but we need greater detail to it.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Dent.
At this time, the Chair will recognize other members for
questions they may wish to ask the witness. In accordance with
our committee rules and practices, I will recognize the members
who were present at the start of the hearing based on seniority
of the subcommittee, alternating between the majority and the
minority. Those members coming in later will be recognized in
the order of their arrival.
The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentlewoman from
the Virgin Islands, Mrs. Christensen.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for having this hearing.
Admiral Johnson, when we were setting up the committee and
doing the first reauthorization for the Department, I had a
question about whether State included State and territories,
and you mentioned the small State advocates, so I wanted to
know if that small State advocate also was responsible for
territories, since we are all small, and also how does that
person relate to the region, because, normally we would go to
our regional head with different issues?
Mr. Johnson. Our small State rural advocate is focused on
all small States, territories and rural areas, including Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia. Brock
Bierman is the appointee who has that role, and his primary
value is, how can he look at the processes that we use and do
these processes fairly recognize the particular interest and
the particular circumstances of small States and rural areas?
He does get out in the field and has traveled to see some
of those issues, but, most importantly, is how do our processes
work. So how can we affect the whole system as opposed to
trying to solve that one disaster or one issue at a time? So I
think he is giving a fair look at that.
Inside our declaration process, we are currently
reevaluating the declaration process. We have worked with NEMA,
for example, asked comments on that, and within the next month
we will be able to talk about changes in that process. But one
of the areas of focus is specifically to see how we can better
accommodate those concerns for small States, for territories
and rural areas.
Mrs. Christensen. Okay. Thank you.
In the old FEMA, we had a project called, Project Impact,
that the Virgin Islands had really participated in, and I
thought it was a great preparedness project, it involved the
community, it supported mitigation with funding, and it set up
processes, for example, with businesses so that we wouldn't be
faced with a situation in a disaster where the businesses are
trying to help and there was no mechanism to set up, as
happened in the Gulf.
Is there a similar program in FEMA now, and--well, is there
a similar program in FEMA now with funding?
Mr. Johnson. I have to tell you that I am not familiar with
the program, so if I could look into that, I can get back to
you later on that.
Mrs. Christensen. Okay. Okay, thank you, and I look forward
to that--I expect that we will be submitting questions in
writing?
Mr. Cuellar. That is correct.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
In going through and preparing for this, we understand that
95 percent of your positions are filled?
Mr. Johnson. No, ma'am. We are currently at about 78
percent. We are on a glide path to get to 95 percent. Last
year, we maintained 95 percent from June until the end of the
fiscal year. We were fortunate in the budget process to gain
almost 500 new positions for this fiscal year, and so, of
course, the baseline was elevated and our percentage dropped.
But, as I mentioned, we have a glide path. I pay personal
attention to it every 2 weeks and hold our senior leaders
accountable so that we can get back up to the staffing that we
need to be.
Mrs. Christensen. Well, FEMA always had many temporary
employees who came and worked, went around the country working
in disasters and had a lot of experience, and I was wondering,
in filling your positions, your permanent positions, did you
reach back to some of those temporary employees that had the
experience or did you bring on new people with no real FEMA
experience?
Mr. Johnson. I will give you the positive answer, and I
will give you the concern that you will hear as well. No. 1 is
that when we have these new positions we do want our core
employees and DAE employees to apply for those positions. They
do have years, and sometimes decades, of experience in exactly
that position.
Mrs. Christensen. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. By the Federal Personnel Management System, it
has to be a competitive hire. We can't do a direct hire from a
DAE or a core individual into a permanent position. So it is
the case where they have to compete, and when they do compete
there are sometimes preferences and other issues that come into
play. So some are concerned that they don't always have an easy
path to get that permanent job.
We are taking a look at that. We are discussing it with OPM
to see if there isn't some way that we can make that a little
bit assured. So it is an issue. It does happen, and we like it
when it occurs, but it is an issue.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
I expect we will have another round, and my time is almost
up, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. All right.
At this time, the Chair recognizes for 5 minutes the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for affording us the opportunity for this review ahead of the
hurricane season and as we try to evaluate where FEMA has come.
Mr. Johnson, as you are aware, the subcommittee that I
chair has principal jurisdiction over FEMA for natural
disasters and wrote the Post-Katrina Act. The principal part of
that act was the National Response Framework. We had quite an
ordeal with the National Response Framework.
We had a hearing on the National Response Framework after
there was an outcry from local and State emergency officials
that the framework did not meet their concerns. It was very
disturbing considering that the National Response Framework was
designed to meet the Post-Katrina or the specific Katrina
challenges.
We looked at what you produce. It does seem to me that what
was produced after you heard the criticism and met with local
and State officials were satisfactory.
Now, I need to make sure that the National Response Plan is
not just a piece of paper. You have discussed the hurricane
plan. I would like to know how the National Response Plan
operates, if it does, to help in coordinating for the hurricane
season.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am. I do acknowledge our hearings with
you on the National Response Framework, and I have to say,
again, I think that your hearing itself, your personal
involvement outside the hearing process, your staff was very
helpful in making sure that in fact that in that process that
we did listen more intently to State and local interests. I
think, as you comment, the reaction to the National Response
Framework has been very, very positive.
In terms of looking ahead, we are doing a lot to roll out
the National Response Framework, and I would be glad to provide
separately to you what steps we are taking to roll that new
framework out. For example, the new course, the 900 level
course on the NRF, and already thousands of people have taken
that course to learn more about what the new framework is and
how to use it.
For the hurricane season, we are about to sign a memo that
will pre-designate our Federal coordinating officers for every
State--the 20 hurricane impact States, for the Virgin Islands,
Puerto Rico, District of Columbia--so you will know who the
leader is in advance, and they will start very quickly, and
many already have, reaching out to the State emergency manager
and making those personal relationships in advance of a storm.
The States have been very welcomed with the National
Response Framework. They have identified their people who would
be in a joint field office. So I think all of the processes
that we described will play out in good form, with good
compliance this coming summer.
Ms. Norton. I am pleased to see the plan is being used, Mr.
Johnson.
Now, you mentioned coordinating officials. You know I am
going to ask you about the running controversy that the
subcommittee, our subcommittee, our other subcommittee and the
full committee have had and indeed this committee also has had
about the confusion between the so-called--this is not simply
bureaucracy, if you will bear with me. Those of us who are not
familiar with these two officials, it is the principal Federal
official and the Federal coordinating officer.
Now, the Federal coordinating officer is a statutory
official, and that official is supposed to be on the ground for
the Federal Government, for FEMA, in the event of a natural
disaster. Then FEMA invented something called the principal
Federal official, and so we were paying for two officials on
the ground, and the feedback we got from the field was that
these people were redundant, caused confusion.
It got to be so bad, as you will recall, Mr. Johnson, that
the authorizing committee asked the Appropriations Committee to
de-fund the principal Federal official. If the point post-
Katrina was to have somebody, a point person, if you will, on
the ground that you went to, not two people and you wonder
which one do you go to, then we didn't see why money should be
spent on this principal Federal official.
Has the principal Federal official disappeared? I mean, is
there one person on the ground in a New Orleans, when we now
have to go to a tornado or a flood or is the shadow of this
principal Federal official lurking anywhere?
Mr. Johnson. Ms. Norton, I would have been disappointed had
you not asked me a question about the PFO and the FCO.
Secretary Chertoff personally had a hand in writing the
language in the National Response Framework that describes the
role of the principal Federal official that still exists and
the role of the Federal coordinating officer. Before it was
published, the secretary ensured that we went to the head of
NEMA, the chairman of NEMA, the president of NEMA, and he
personally reviewed the language and found it acceptable. We
sought the opinions of others in the emergency management
community who all felt that it did a far better job of
describing what those two roles were and when they would apply.
Ms. Norton. What is the necessity for two Federal
officials? I mean, you are telling me that despite language in
the appropriations, you are telling me that there still exists
a funded principal Federal official and a Federal coordinating
officer.
Mr. Johnson. They both still exist but very specific and
narrowed. For example, the NRF acknowledges that the Congress
has directed that a principal Federal official not normally be
assigned for a Stafford Act event, which, of course is an event
where FEMA has the leading role. But it also recognizes in some
non-Stafford events that FEMA will have a role there as well.
For example, in TOPOFF 4, which was an IED attack, FEMA led
a response organization with our Federal coordinating officer.
So it does a much better job of laying out when there is a PFO,
it will only be in the most catastrophic or complex events.
Secretary Chertoff has shown a lot of personal restraint.
He has never assigned a PFO after Katrina. With hurricanes,
with the California wildfires, others, he has never assigned a
PFO, because he has confidence in the FEMA Federal coordinating
officer who is in charge of the joint field office and is the
single person to relate with the State coordinating officer in
a disaster.
Ms. Norton. He is a statutory official.
I am pleased at the restraint. I am not sure if it means
there still exists somebody who could be deployed. You would
better be very careful if there are two officials on the
ground.
But what you describe is somebody who would not be on the
ground in a Stafford Act matter, and a Stafford Act matter is,
of course, what we are most concerned with, for the most part,
because while we have been very fortunate not to have an event,
a terrorist event, since 9/11, we have had countless Stafford
Act events, which, of course, are hurricanes and floods and--I
mean, we just finished a flood. I am not sure it was a Stafford
Act event.
But let me take that, the floods we just had. We just had
some floods in the Midwest.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Those were not declared disasters, I take it.
Mr. Johnson. They were declared disasters, and it was a
Federal coordinating officer, a statutory official, who was
assigned to those disasters. There are FCOs right now at about
18 different locations around the country assigned to monitor
the recovery and disasters.
Ms. Norton. So those were Stafford disasters.
Mr. Johnson. That is correct. There is not a single PFO
assigned to any of those events.
Ms. Norton. All right.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. We are going to go, members, to a second line
of questioning.
My question to you is more general. In your eyes, what can
we do to help you? Besides funding, what can we do, as a
committee, to help you address those issues that we mentioned--
emergency housing and public alerts and the other issues, the
three issues that we mentioned?
What can we do to help you, because we want to--our style
is, we are not confrontational, we want to see how we can work
together, because we are trying to fulfill the same goal. You
are in the Executive branch, we are in the Legislative branch,
but I think we certainly should work together. What can we do?
Tell us what we can do to help you to make sure that we are
not here at the end of the year talking about the same things.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I think that your role in
oversight is a very valuable role. By having this hearing
today, by hearings that Ms. Norton just held, by certainly
hearings with the chairman, Chairman Thompson, those are all
very valuable hearings, because you do convey the concerns that
you hear from your constituents, and you keep us on point on
those things.
I think I would just offer that in moving from old FEMA to
a new FEMA it is the structural changes, it is a cultural
change, and those take time. I think to have--as you and I
discussed this morning, I think you are patient but yet you are
persistent, and I think those things are very beneficial to
FEMA.
As we look at these issues, we are finding that there are
areas where we may need new authorities, and we have worked
with your subcommittee in the past and committees on the large
to look at what the authorities might be.
We are learning a lot about how to accelerate recovery in
the Gulf Coast. We are, right now, almost near finishing the
National Disaster Housing Strategy, and that National Disaster
Housing Strategy will point to a number of areas where there
needs to be additional flexibility or perhaps additional
authorities coming to the Stafford Act.
So I think by your continued focus you point to us the
things that are most important to you, listening to your
constituents. As we try to fix all of FEMA, we can sometimes
perhaps miss the mark, and so I think you are able to do that.
I think to provide this forum is very helpful.
Your staffs engage with us, and while sometimes that is an
engagement, even castor oil is good for you, that is what is
reported, I think staff engagement is very good. You have a
professional staff who I think works with us to identify what
the key issues are in advance of the hearing or sometimes to
avoid a hearing, and I think that becomes very beneficial.
So what comes across is the genuine desire to advance FEMA,
not so much the genuine desire to thump on FEMA. There are a
lot of people who are willing to thump on FEMA, and so we
appreciate the fact that you show the persistence, the guidance
and the patience to allow us to make the changes that we need
to make.
Mr. Cuellar. That is the best answer I have heard from a
witness. I appreciate it. I do appreciate your staff continuing
working with our staff, because, as I mentioned, we are all
trying to reach the same goal. So just have your staff continue
working with our committee staff and individual member staff--
also members, their staff also to make sure we do our jobs and
certainly work with you on that.
At this time, I will recognize the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again,
Admiral Johnson, for your very good and thoughtful testimony
here today.
Just real quickly on the Federal preparedness report. The
Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act also required that
FEMA submit a Federal preparedness report. The report is
scheduled to be submitted to Congress, I believe, in May.
Could you please discuss some of the major highlights of
this report and what plans are in place to use the data to
inform processes as you move forward?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. I think that is the kind of thing,
to get back to the Chairman's question, I think this Federal
preparedness report will be very, very beneficial to FEMA as it
helps to drive and focus our efforts but also very beneficial
to the committee and to the Nation.
This will be the first time that there has ever been a
national preparedness report. It will be comprehensive, it
hopefully will be empirically driven. We want to use data,
measurable data so it can be replicated year after year with a
consistent methodology.
I think that you will find that it will talk about--it will
give a positive report into how we have taken our $19 billion
or $20 billion in grants over the last 5 years and invested
those, how we have taken the National Response Framework and
those types of doctrine and leveraged those, how we have used
our national capabilities, our Federal capabilities, our target
capabilities, how those have been beneficial.
We will assess what our progress is on those, and all of it
will show that we have got a good sense of direction, there is
progress along the way, and at least at this point we are
satisfied that we are on the right road.
We do expect to get that report to the Congress by May and
then to reflect it every year afterward.
Now, we just received the State preparedness reports. Some
of those reports came from 150 pages, some with 350 pages, and
they were due the 31st of March, and all of them came in on
time. So that information, as quickly as we can consume it,
will, in part, be reflected in the national preparedness report
as well.
So I think, again, I think it will be instructive as the
first report, and that will help us sort of frame, have we hit
the target you are looking for and how to improve that process
over the years.
Mr. Dent. Well, thank you, and I guess my final question
will deal with the disaster response teams. There are at least
six different types of disaster response teams that can be
deployed in response to a specific event. Have these teams
trained together, and what coordination between these teams is
required before and during an incident?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. There are a number of teams: The
emergency response teams, our National Response Coordination
Center team, our MERS communications team, our urban search and
rescue teams. So there are multiple teams.
What we have been able to do, particularly in this past
year, is to focus more on doctrine and writing down for almost
our first time in FEMA what is the doctrine, the operating
guidelines that these teams use and to make sure they in fact
have common and consistent doctrine, use the terminologies and
the same processes and procedures. That helps to blend those
teams together.
We have also deployed them simultaneously in exercises,
which we had not always previously done. So, in fact, in TOPOFF
4, for example, we deployed urban search and rescue teams, the
MERS was deployed, our national response coordination team was
deployed. So we are weaving them together in the exercise
environment.
Then in disasters, where I think a couple of your staffers
were participating in our national video teleconference for
disaster, that was a chance to play out again and see these
teams in motion. Our first team that provided real-time
screening video from the disaster site, beneficial to the
State, beneficial to FEMA and beneficial to national situation
awareness.
So I think we are focused on that same question: How do we
weave these teams closer together so that in fact they do
become complementary?
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Admiral. You have been an
extraordinary witness. You have been very helpful and
informative, so thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Dent.
At this time, I recognize the gentlewoman from the Virgin
Islands, Mrs. Christensen, for any additional questions.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral, I would like to ask a question about emergency
housing and how do you see that being fixed in the future. We
all know what a disaster it has been. It was in Katrina. I
think that FEMA has a role in the very early days after the
disaster, but what do you recommend, what are you recommending
for the future in terms of fixing the housing problem?
Some people have suggested--I have seen some suggestions
that the Department of Health and Human Services, which handles
refugee problems, ought to do it, and, of course, HUD, which I
don't think performed very well during Katrina either, ought to
do it.
So what do you see going forward?
Mr. Johnson. Mrs. Christensen, I think you appreciate this
issue. I know you do, personally. PKEMRA required us to do the
National Disaster Housing Strategy. There's never been one
before, and we are late, but we are working on it very
intently, and we expect to get it to the Congress in June.
It will point to three specific areas that we think we need
to focus on. First, with greater clarity, what is the role of
the individual, what is the role of the community, what is the
role of the State, what is the role of the Federal Government?
I think those became confused in Katrina where the Federal
Government almost assumed too much responsibility in too broad
of a role. The strategy will talk about that, and it uses the
National Response Framework that identifies who is principally
responsible for the safety and welfare of their citizens and
the roles that fit that.
The second is to look inside housing itself, and there is
sheltering, there is interim housing, and there is long-term
housing. We do think that FEMA's expertise is in sheltering and
interim housing. We think HUD's expertise is in long-term
housing. So we talk about that seam between FEMA and HUD. We
should do what we do best, they should do what they do best,
and both of us should work to do both of those a lot better.
The third area is planning, and a constant drumbeat in FEMA
is planning. There is no consistent way to do disaster housing
planning in our Nation right now, and so we will talk about in
the strategy and propose that we do develop a planning process
that will work at the community level, the State level and the
Federal level to do a better job of planning for a normal
event, if I can use that term, as well as a catastrophic event.
So I think you will find a lot more detail then here at the
end of May, early June when we can submit to you the National
Disaster Housing Strategy.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
Could you explain the IMAT role to me? I am not sure how
they work.
One of the things that we really don't need in a disaster
is duplication and confusion over whose role is what. In some
ways, the IMAT seems to be doing some of what the logistics
team may be doing, and maybe I am not understanding what the
IMAT is about. Also, when you have your regional and your local
people responding and to have another layer come in and
probably doesn't know the players and doesn't know the
jurisdiction can also create confusion.
So could you explain the IMAT a little more to me?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am. That is a great question, and what
I would like to do is give you, sort of, an overview and then
have us meet with your staff and provide a more detailed brief
on our IMAT. I think you will like the IMAT when you see it.
What we do in a disaster now is the States like our ER
teams, the emergency response teams, and these are a group of
FEMA people that respond, that are experts in their area of
specialty, logistics, operations, communications, incident
management, and they respond, and they augment a State
emergency operation center and build the first network to
really build that----
Mrs. Christensen. So do they sit with the emergency person
locally around the table? Is that what they do?
Mr. Johnson. We deploy them. They can either be deployed to
the disaster site or to the State emergency operations center
to help the State, either way. We do that with consultation of
the State.
The bad thing is these teams are made up of people with a
collateral assignment, they are not permanent assignments. So
we take 15 people out of jobs that are full-time important jobs
to put our best people forward. So we basically draw from the
rest of FEMA to support a disaster site, and when you do that
time and time again, sometimes simultaneously, you are taking a
lot of knowledge and strength out of the rest of FEMA and
weaken those regions to support a disaster site.
The IMAT replaces those. It is not on top but it replaces
that. These are permanent, full-time people. Each region will
have an IMAT, and there are two national IMATs that we will
establish this year. So they are full-time people. They are
credentialed, so they are trained and experienced and
recognized as experts in their field.
They will be tasked to be air deployable, and with less
than 12 hours from a disaster occurring, an IMAT should be on
scene at either the State emergency operation center or a
disaster site. Their job is primarily to begin, first,
situational awareness--how you help the State and FEMA to know
what is going on on the ground and to assess what assistance is
required.
The States were as nervous about the concept as you are
when they first heard about it. As we have talked to them about
the professionalism of this team, I think they are excited to
see it when we can first roll it out here between now and June.
They will participate in a disaster, they will participate
in exercises, and they will conduct training with their State
counterparts. So, in fact, when they deploy, it will be with
relationships they have built by exercises and training.
I think it is a very strong concept, and we are really
excited about it at FEMA. I would like the chance to give you
more information about it.
Mrs. Christensen. Thanks. I will look forward to that.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Christensen. It is a little clearer. Thanks.
Mr. Cuellar. Before I recognize Ms. Norton, let me just
follow up on what Mrs. Christensen said, just to make sure we
are on the right path. As you know, Chairman Thompson sent you
the letter. Were you committed in providing this committee a
formalized plan that details the plan to move the 30,000
families still living in FEMA housing into permanent homes and
give us a timeframe for when we should expect that?
Mr. Johnson. You are talking Gulf Coast, specifically?
Mr. Cuellar. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. We are working to move everyone out
of a mobile home or travel trailer into a more permanent
solution. That permanent solution being perhaps a hotel or
motel for a short time and then to a rental unit in Mississippi
and Louisiana. The challenge is greater in Mississippi where
the housing has not restored as fast as it has in Louisiana.
We want to focus on two groups of people. The first group
are those who are health issues because of formaldehyde, those
who are perhaps older, respiratory disease, young children, and
we are focused on that group first. There's about 15,000, I
believe--about 15,000 in that group.
The second group are those who live in a group site or
might be a pre-disaster renter who don't have any other long-
term housing available. So we are focused on both of those
groups.
We think that we can move all of the group site people by
June 1, and we think that we can move the rest of those who are
health issues through the early parts of summer before the
temperatures and humidity really heats up and there may be more
problems with formaldehyde.
We have a good action plan. We established a task force
that involves Federal, State and local officials. They met
twice in Louisiana, and they met last week in Mississippi, and
so we are working with the State, with the local counties to
identify all available rental units, and we are working with
landlords to help them be more receptive to having these
households move in to their rental units.
So we have a very well-organized plan. We have a letter of
response to the Chairman, and we will be glad to provide your
staff with more detail on how we think we can accomplish that
task.
Mr. Cuellar. But the bottom line, Mr. Johnson, one, we will
get a formalized plan, and what is the timetable as to when we
can get that plan?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. On our group sites, for example, we
are down--from about 85, we are down to about 30 group sites
now, and we think we can close all but probably about three by
the beginning of June. There are just three locations in the
different parishes where there just is not--there are not good
housing options available. So we would be glad to talk about
them and then give you a timeline on those who have the health
issues, as I talked about, our two priority groups.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. So when can we expect the plan?
Mr. Johnson. We are actually operating that plan now. Let
me find out and get back to you on when we will respond on the
letter, and then we would be glad to brief your staff at their
convenience.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Just, again, for our staff, give us--go
ahead and get a hold of them and then, staff, if there is an
issue as to they are taking too long, and I am sure it will be
done quickly, just so we can have the plan and when we can
expect it. I just don't want for us to have this meeting and
then we forget about it and we get caught up with other things.
So if you all can just work with staff and the staff will
communicate with us.
Mr. Johnson. Yes. We should respond quickly. Every morning,
I get an updated metrics chart on where we are for both
communities, where we are with hotel-motels, where we are with
availability of rental units and how many people have moved,
even between 1 day and the next, out of a travel trailer or
mobile home. So we would be glad to show you what our
operational metrics are and share some of those with you.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
At this time, I will recognize the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia, Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Johnson, perhaps no controversy has been as searing
since Katrina as the formaldehyde trailer controversy. Are
there any residents still left in those trailers on the Gulf
Coast?
Mr. Johnson. There are. As I was responding to the
Chairman's questions, we still have just under 30,000
households that still reside in mobile homes or travel trailers
on the Gulf Coast, and our effort is----
Ms. Norton. Trailers I am interested in.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. The trailers with the formaldehyde, not the
mobile homes.
Mr. Johnson. In the trailers, I don't recall off the top of
my head exactly what the number is, but it is probably--85
percent of that number are in travel trailers. We are working
with all those families to move them. We have offered to test
those units, and we actually have conducted tests on more than
500 occupied travel trailers. We go back and meet with all
those occupants and we describe to them what the test is, we
give them the result, and we encourage all of them to move to a
hotel-motel right away and into an apartment.
Ms. Norton. What response are you getting from the urgings
to move to a hotel or other temporary housing?
Mr. Johnson. Not a very aggressive response.
Ms. Norton. Why is that?
Mr. Johnson. I think some cultural issues. They have lived
in that travel trailer, it has been their home. It is close to
work, school, their church and their families. Some of them,
perhaps, don't quite believe all of the medical reports,
despite the information we have provided to them. For a while,
there was a thought that if they moved to an apartment, that
they would have to be charged rent.
Part of our housing program, as we move people to an
apartment, in order to encourage self-sufficiency, we were
beginning to escalate their part of the cost of living in an
apartment, but we have waived that. Now, anyone who is in
travel trailer now does not have to pay any element of the rent
when they move to an apartment.
So we have done several things like that to encourage them
to make the decision to leave their travel trailer and to move
to an apartment.
Ms. Norton. I think next to work, near work, near family
and, of course, the horrific shortage of housing, in New
Orleans in particular, may be contributing to this. I just
would hope that this controversy would not flare up again, and
one of the reasons it may not is if we get to cooler weather.
One of the hypotheses is that in very hot weather this
formaldehyde problem emerges when perhaps it does not in other
kinds of weather. We certainly should not have any of these
people in these homes in the hot New Orleans-Mississippi
weather this summer. I mean, if that is still to be shown, we
ought to assume, at the very least, that the hot temperatures--
and I will say even coming from hot, humid D.C., born and
raised, I have never seen anything like New Orleans. So I
understand the problem you have.
We are going to be having a subcommittee hearing, a status
hearing on New Orleans, in particular. So we will try to get to
some of that, because much of that is related to other kinds of
housing and you have alluded to HUD and the rest of it.
Mr. Johnson, I got an e-mail from staff on my subcommittee
concerning your last answer, and, therefore, I want to clarify
this principal Federal officer and principal coordinating
officer. This may sound like a lot of ABCs and DEFs, HIGs, but
it really is about whether we have straightened out something
that has bothered the two committees of the Congress now for
some time.
You are correct that the language refers to emergencies,
and we are talking about Stafford Act emergencies, and the
Stafford Act emergency is neither a nuclear emergency nor a
terrorist emergency. It tends to be an emergency, a natural
disaster emergency.
Now, the report language was clear that there shouldn't be
any PFO funded or any successor--I am looking for the report--
PFOs or successive PFOs. I, essentially, want to clarify. We
understand about declared emergencies, because that is where
the confusion would be monumental.
Are you saying that FEMA does go to other kinds of
emergencies, and if there is no Federal official on the ground
and therefore when you talk about some possibility of a
principal Federal official you are not talking about a Stafford
Act or a declared emergency; you are talking about something
else. I am trying to figure out what is that something else
where we would find someone on the ground, and would that
official find another Federal official on the ground? What is
FEMA doing there in the first place if it isn't an emergency of
the kind that FEMA usually attends?
Mr. Johnson. What the National Response Framework indicates
is that there may be a Stafford Act event for, again, I use as
the example of a pandemic, where there could be a Stafford Act
event but that FEMA may not be in charge of that event. In a
pandemic, for example, there will be a principal Federal
official. HHS has a very large role in a pandemic, and FEMA
will likely not be the lead agency in responding to a pandemic.
Ms. Norton. Okay. I want to understand this, for the
record. If there is no Federal official then on the ground,
then you are saying there could be somebody who you are calling
the principal Federal official but that is because there is
nobody there and because the Federal coordinating official is
not there. So there is one person there. That is whom you are
calling the Federal principal official?
Mr. Johnson. No, ma'am. There will be other Federal
officials there. There will be many Federal officials there.
But in a pandemic, for example, there will be a principal
Federal official, and there will be a Federal coordinating
officer. But I believe that we understand better what their
respective roles are.
Ms. Norton. Well, I don't understand what their respective
roles are, because it is not a Stafford Act emergency, but,
let's face it, a pandemic is a huge emergency, and, yes, CDC
and other Federal officials will be there, but that is the same
way we handle Stafford Act emergencies. Then the question
becomes, who is the lead official where it may be from a
different agency, but you are telling me that there could be
two FEMA officials on the ground, and one could be the
principal Federal official and one could be the coordinating
official.
Mr. Johnson. Ma'am, let me try one more time. There may be
an instance in a Stafford Act, like a pandemic, where FEMA may
not be the lead agency. In that case, there will be an FCO
there, nonetheless, to represent and fill those
responsibilities.
Ms. Norton. So why do we need a PFO, particularly in the
language that said there should be no successor PFOs either?
Mr. Johnson. Right. The language still allows the secretary
to have a PFO, and it allows the secretary--what it restricts
is the secretary's ability to use the PFO in a Stafford Act
event, but it doesn't prevent him from having a principal
Federal official.
In a law enforcement event, for example----
Ms. Norton. I don't understand that at all. I don't
understand--look, this is about whether or not you are funding
two officials on the ground, you are paying for two officials
on the ground who represent FEMA. In fact, on the ground, when
people don't know either of you, there may be confusion as to
who is the point man. That would be the case if you were
talking about a pandemic, which was not a Stafford Act matter
or whether you are talking about a hurricane, which is a
Stafford Act matter.
So I want to know what the two officials do, why and how
they do not overlap, who is in charge, if in fact there is a
possibility of an event where you would have these two
officials on the ground at the same time.
Mr. Johnson. When there is a PFO and an FCO both together,
and that can still happen, it is very clear, both in the
language--it is clear in the National Response Framework, and
it is very, very clear, made clear to them, personally, through
a number of training sessions and personal discussions with the
secretary, with Administrator Paulison, that the FCO is in
charge of the operational event. The FCO is in charge of
meeting with the State----
Ms. Norton. Then why do you need the other official there
at all?
Mr. Johnson. Because in a large catastrophic event that is
very, very complex, like a Katrina, like a 9/11, there may very
well be--could be some Federal coordination issues that need to
be worked out, there is----
Ms. Norton. Well, I thought that is what the Federal
coordinating official--coordinating official--is all about.
Mr. Johnson. But there could very well be instances where
there are larger non-response issues. There could be
investigative issues from the Justice Department and FBI, as
was the case 9/11. There are Federal issues beyond the balance
of the response and recovery that need to have some Federal
coordination. There could very well be a desire on the part of
the secretary and----
Ms. Norton. Is this Federal coordinating official still
paid--I am sorry, principal Federal official still paid at the
same rate he was paid when we first said you should get rid of
him? In other words, if he comes back on the ground, is he
still this highly paid Federal official?
Mr. Johnson. Are you talking about the PFO?
Ms. Norton. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. Well, they are paid based on whatever their
job is. It is not a full-time job.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I just think the record shows
confusion continues to exist, that we probably still do have in
some--nothing has happened yet. You assure me that you have not
had this happen--no PFO has been on the ground anywhere since
the appropriation language was included?
Mr. Johnson. The PFO has not been on the ground on any
single Stafford Act event since----
Ms. Norton. Well, we just had testimony here that we could
have an even larger event, perhaps a pandemic, where there
would be two people, and I have heard Mr. Johnson try to carve
out a role, frankly, for the second official here, and I think
we need to look more closely at that.
Mr. Cuellar. Yes.
Mr. Johnson, we will sit down--I will be happy to sit down
with you all, Ms. Norton, if you all want to follow up with a
meeting. We will be happy to set it up informal and have a
little get together on this.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir, that would be helpful.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Before I pass this on to Mrs. Lowey, let
me just make sure I just ask one thing.
On the alerts and the warning issues, what is currently
FEMA's role in alerting local residents and businesses that
there is a potential disaster approaching? We have seen
wildfires in California, tornados in the Midwest. Especially
now with the new technology, whether it is cell phones or PDAs,
whatever it might be, what exactly are you all doing?
Mr. Johnson. FEMA has a project assigned to us in an
executive order by the president to lead the IPAWS project, the
Integrated Public Alert Warning System, which is basically
designed to replace a 50-year-old analog system into the
digital world. We actually did pilot projects last hurricane
season that allowed us to communicate with individuals in
multiple languages, with individuals with disabilities and do
it with PDAs, with cell phones and a range of new technological
devices.
So we have a project right now over the next 5 years to
develop this IPAWS project and field out for the Nation,
working with State and local governments, working with industry
to field out this integrated system that does take us to the
digital age.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Could you provide that, again, to us,
our staff, what your plan and how you plan to do this? Again,
we would like to sit down and look----
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. We would be glad to provide a
briefing on IPAWS.
Mr. Cuellar. All right.
Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
At this time, I would recognize the gentlewoman from New
York, Mrs. Lowey, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for appearing before us.
The ability of FEMA to respond to future emergencies is
directly linked to the ability of FEMA to help prepare local
first responders. For that reason, I would like to focus my
questions on State and local programs, if I may.
First of all, my first concern, the number of urban area
grants. The number of cities that receive Urban Areas Security
Initiative grants, as you know, is ballooning. When it began,
seven cities received funds. In fiscal year 2008, that number
will likely balloon to 60. The Department funds boondoggles in
areas that terrorists couldn't find on a map at the expense of
real security needs in cities that have been attacked and
remain targets.
Every region of the country, I want to make it clear,
should receive homeland security grants; however, not every
region should receive urban area grants, particularly those
that face few, if any, threats.
So my first question is, why has the Department increased
the number of areas that receive urban area funds? I am not
saying they shouldn't receive some funds for homeland security
but why urban area funds?
Mr. Johnson. Mrs. Lowey, you are correct that we started
with seven tier one, and we still have, I believe, this year
was eight tier one cities, and the number of tier two cities
did increase from last year to this year, as did the funding
level. So I think the no tier one city lost dollars. They may
have lost opportunity for more dollars.
You are probably familiar with our risk formula, which we
have worked with the Congress and the committees to develop. We
go through the risk formula and recognize that across the whole
range of risk, that in fact there are a number of significant
cities, sizable cities beyond just the tier one cities that do
have the potential to incur terrorist risk.
Mrs. Lowey. But following up on that, I am looking at the
numbers. In fiscal year 2006, the Department awarded funds to
35 core cities and 11 sustainment regions, and I was told the
purpose was to finish programs in the 11 sustainment regions
and then only fund 35 urban area awards in future years. But
when the fiscal year 2007 guidance was released, the
sustainment regions were almost all back on the regular list
again, and this doesn't make sense.
So it seems to me DHS has no clear plan for how to manage
the program.
Mr. Johnson. Ma'am, I do believe that we have a plan. I do
believe that our plan is to go by a consistent risk formula and
to assess that risk across the country, recognizing that from
year to year, based on intelligence, based on other
circumstances, that the risks do change.
I think that we acknowledge, as you do, that the primary
risk is in the tier one cities, and we consciously look at the
allocation of funds between tier one and tier two and ensure
that the tier one cities continue to have sufficient funding to
maintain all of the initiatives that they have started that we
have reviewed and we have approved in their applications.
Mrs. Lowey. But they are losing out on additional funding,
even though the threat may increase. You are saying,
``sufficient.'' That is questionable. Depends whose judgment,
right?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Lowey. Let me move on to another problem directly
connected to that issue, and this also involves the management
of UASI, and it has been that for the second consecutive year
45 percent of UASI funds will be safeguarded for areas not in
the top risk tier. That means New York and Washington, DC will
compete with one another, while nearly half is held back for
areas that face less risk than either of them.
So it seems to me this is truly absurd. As a member of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, I am keenly
aware of the fact that every spending bill has specified that
UASI grants are for high-threat, high-population, density,
urban areas. It seems to me they should only be going to what
DHS labels tier one areas.
So if you can tell me--again, that doesn't mean the other
States shouldn't get money in other categories, but what
justification does the Department have for awarding nearly half
of all funds to areas that aren't high-risk?
Mr. Johnson. I guess, again, it is an interpretation of
what is high-risk, and it is the desire by the Department,
across all the grants and the major urban areas--remember,
again, in a major urban area, we are dealing with that just
urban area, and all the other programs we deal with at the
State level. So the funds get diluted in a number of places.
But when you look at the cities in the tier two, there are
a number of significant locations there, and I don't recall
them all, I don't have the list with me, but a number of
significant locations I think we would recognize throughout the
country that do incur risk.
Mrs. Lowey. Wasn't the program created for high-risk areas?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am, it was.
Mrs. Lowey. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. I guess we can get into is it high or higher
and highest, but all my----
Mrs. Lowey. Oh, come on. Look, I am not thrilled to be in
the No. 1 or Washington is pretty close, but if we are in the
No. 1 high-threat areas, I am not going to go through the 60
other States. I am not saying they shouldn't get other funds,
but providing Washington, DC and New York with additional
funds, it seems to me, should be the top priority rather than
including all of those 60 other areas, 60 other States, cities
in the high-risk category.
So let me just say this: I think you are understanding
exactly what I am talking about.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Lowey. I can see your response. So I really do think
there has to be some additional analysis of how these grants--
this is not a pork barrel program. This is for real. We lived
through 9/11. We know the threats, and it would seem to me that
whether it is New York or Washington, DC, the top tier areas,
those eight areas, shouldn't be limited to 50 percent or less,
rather, 45 percent, of funds that are specifically dedicated to
high-threat areas.
Mr. Johnson. I think, clearly, that is a legitimate
perspective. Let's talk again as we look at grant guidance for
the--the grant guidance is out for 2008. Let's talk again about
that, and I mean this involves a lot of decision, a lot of
discussion within the administration of what we have proposed.
It does represent a desire to elevate at the urban area level
the preparedness for any kind of event, all-hazards event. So I
think there are other legitimate perspectives as well.
Mrs. Lowey. Now, I notice you have been a little generous,
Mr. Chairman, with the time, so I am going to throw in one--
see, you started a bad precedent--I am going to throw in one
other quick question.
The big Chairman always calls me, Ms. Interoperability, and
I have been very worried about the lack of interoperability.
Everyone would agree that the ability for first responders to
communicate at the scene of an emergency is vital. However,
this year, FEMA did not request any funding for
interoperability grants, and, as a whole, first responder
grants were flashed across the board.
So given the major cuts for first responder grant programs,
what evidence do you have that first responders can now
seamlessly communicate to justify slashing the budget for these
grant programs? You must have some really good information that
I haven't learned about.
Mr. Johnson. Part of our logic is that we are just signing
out many billions of dollars in interoperability funds,
specifically, this year. So as we look at priorities in the
budget and try to allocate the funds where we think that they
go, we are looking at how much funds are in the pipeline to
fund projects that are still on the drawing board and ready to
be implemented.
So there are a lot of dollars in the pipelines to cities
and to States, to first responders that they have yet to take
on and actualize. So part of our logic is just that, that we
have appropriated a lot of money on this, and we need to see
those dollars be converted into capability before we
appropriate more funds.
Mrs. Lowey. Now, I would like to know if New York has a
whole lot of money in the pipeline that they are not using.
Mr. Johnson. Excuse me?
Mrs. Lowey. Could you share with me if New York has a lot
of money in the pipeline that they are not using? I would like
to know about it.
Mr. Johnson. We can provide to you a status of the funds
and how much has been allocated to the States and how much they
have drawn down for various projects.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, it is my understanding, and I am sure if
you look down, check your records, all New York money is
obligated. So, again, this is not about game playing and pork
barrel and making sure everyone has their share. This is a
matter of looking at the threat, looking at the need and making
sure that those areas that really need it are getting the
money.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Johnson. Let me just say, again, between funds
obligated and then funds expended on some multiyear projects,
there is a delta there, and that is what we are taking a look
at, and where is the funding in the whole pipeline, and how can
we assure that the money gets spent best each fiscal year?
We will be glad to provide additional information to you;
yes, ma'am.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mrs. Lowey.
At this time, the Chair will recognize the gentleman from
North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Johnson, thank you for being here this morning.
Having served as a county commissioner, a State legislator
and a State-wide elected official, a State superintendent, I am
sure you understand that when you say, ``obligated funds,''
when the locals know they have got it, they obligate those
dollars. They may be in the pipeline.
There are only one or two reasons why they haven't been
spent. No. 1, they don't yet have it in their possession or,
No. 2, they haven't received the goods so they can draw down
the money and pay for it.
So when you talk about it being in the pipeline, it doesn't
necessarily mean there is a lot more money going to be spent,
it is just that money has already been obligated and they are
moving. So I would like to identify myself with my good friend
from New York's comments.
Mrs. Lowey. I appreciate your comments.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, ma'am.
Let me move to one other point, because our first
responders are our first people on the scene, but after
Hurricane Katrina, the White House report recommended that DHS
should make citizen and community preparedness a national
priority.
So my question goes with this: As we take the lead--if they
are talking about them taking the lead in the Community
Preparedness Division within FEMA, the National Preparedness
Directorate, having served as a former State school chief, I
know something about what that means, because our schools are
the place where children spend most of their daytime. They also
become places where shelter in place becomes depending on the
kind of problem.
But my concern is this, and I hope you would comment on it,
because equally important when we talk about emergency
management officials, they don't always integrate schools in
their planning. They use them for sheltering in place or when
they are needed.
So my question is this: I have introduced legislation today
to help solve this problem. So my question to you is, how has
FEMA worked with schools to determine the needs of schools that
ensure that the materials that they have developed within the
Department are useful to administrators?
No. 2, do you know how much of these resources are being
used? What is FEMA doing to ensure that school officials are
involved in the emergency planning process, because you and I
know if you aren't involved in planning, you aren't likely to
get any money. That is pretty much a guarantee.
How is FEMA helping schools address their emergency plans
when they need them through grants, because, you know, we have
authorized that they should be eligible? How much grant funding
has gone to schools?
Mr. Johnson. Those are all good questions that I would be
glad to help have the staff provide some more detailed answers,
if that would be acceptable to you, and I will comment overall.
Mr. Etheridge. Okay. If you would, when you make them to
me, make sure that every member of the committee, along with
the chairman, get that, please, sir.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. In general, I guess I approach it
from several different perspectives. No. 1, is involvement of
the schools in planning emergency preparedness predominantly
the role of the State, and so we want to encourage----
Mr. Etheridge. I agree with that except for the fact that
it was included in legislation last year and the White House to
make sure they were engaged with DHS.
Mr. Johnson. So we need to work--as I mentioned previously,
we are focusing more on planning and defining planning in FEMA
and the Department and the Federal Government than we ever have
before. We are probably within weeks of announcing an
integrated planning system that for the first time in the
Nation will have people plan with the same processes, whether
you are in New York or Florida, Maine or California.
By the way, the process will include--we have worked with
NEMA and IEM, and we will use a planning guide developed at the
State level as part of this Federal planning system. So it
won't be imposed on the States as something they have not been
party to.
Mr. Etheridge. It will be best practices.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Etheridge. Okay.
Mr. Johnson. Second is our Community Preparedness Program.
We do reach out to schools through our community programs. We
have a program where we provided radios to schools, all public
schools in America, for disaster warnings and disaster alert.
So we are focused on that and want to work stronger with the
States. I would be interested to see your legislation.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, and I hope you will take a look
at that, because I think it is important. What we are looking
at with this is making it integrated so they are involved in
the planning process at the local level as it moves up. I think
that is critically important.
On that point, in New York, when 9/11 hit, people tend to
forget there were a number of schools adjacent to the site that
were impacted directly, and no one thought about that issue,
and if they were involved in the initial process, some of those
things could be averted. So I think that is the critical piece.
Let me move very quickly, because my time is running down,
and if you have covered this--and, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I
was late, I was in another meeting--the deal with hurricanes.
Other States get a lot of attention from hurricane
preparedness, but North Carolina, I think, is probably the
third or fourth most likely State to be hit. Part of it is
because of our proximity on the East Coast, we sort of stick
out. Then I think it is important that we prepare.
Last year, Administrator Paulison sat before us for 2 weeks
before the start of the hurricane season, and I am happy that
he said much needed to be done. Right now, we have got 2 months
before the next season hits us, and we have the National
Response Framework in place, and FEMA, I think, is in a lot
better shape, I hope, than it was with Katrina, but I do remain
concerned.
So let me ask you a couple of very quick questions. One is,
are we prepared for the 2008 season? I recognize you do the
best you can, but I would like to know where we are.
Particularly, one of the biggest lessons that I think we have
to learn from Katrina was the difficulty we had in
coordination, not only between government levels but also with
non-government organizations, or NGO's, as we might say. Now we
have the NRF, which is supposed to provide standardization for
incident management so that Federal, State and locals can work
more effectively together.
How confident are you that we will be able to integrate the
different groups when we are called upon for a national
situation, and what steps are being taken to ensure a smooth
coordination of communication--getting back to Mrs. Lowey's
issue--and clear command structures for this response?
Now, I know in Katrina we carried in-communications simply
because it was destroyed. I hope we never have that again, but
I would be interested to know--that is a critical piece, as we
all know, because if you can't communicate, we got real
problems.
Mr. Johnson. Our broad area by your questions. Let me
comment, first, that North Carolina is probably a top three or
four States that could be impacted by a hurricane, but it is
also one of the top three or four States in the Nation in
preparedness. Doug Hoell, who is your emergency manager, should
be commending----
Mr. Etheridge. Doing a marvelous job. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. His staff for that. We are
prepared, and preparing even more, for the hurricane season
this coming summer. As you may recall, last year, we introduced
our gap analysis, which we had not done before. The gap
analysis gave us a baseline of all the 20 hurricane impact
States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
as to how they prepared they were. We are engaging with States
even now to rebuild on that foundation and assure ourselves at
the level of their capability and what might be needed from the
Federal Government.
In that process, communications is a key. So we do have our
communications team, as I had mentioned in a prior question,
that is going to each State, including North Carolina, to
coordinate with them and find out what are the gaps, if any, in
first responder emergency communications. We can provide that
assessment to you separately.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. The National Response Framework, I think, has
done a great job of laying out how we will coordinate and
communicate far better in disasters today than we did in
Katrina. So I think that you will see that those States,
particularly the hurricane States we are working with intently,
are very familiar with the National Response Framework.
We have Federal coordinators who have identified to reach
out to all of the State SCOs, to the emergency managers to make
sure we build those relationships early so there won't be any
strangers come hurricane season.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for you patience.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Etheridge.
At this time, I would ask for unanimous consent from the
committee to allow Ms. Sheila Jackson from the State of Texas
to be able to participate and ask questions.
Hearing no objections, so allowed.
At this time, the Chair will recognize the gentlewoman from
Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your
kindness and that of the Ranking Member, and let me also thank
you for your leadership on this issue in holding this hearing
and your staff.
Also, I thank you for allowing my office to work with your
staff on, I think, an important legislative initiative that
addresses the question of how we can work better and make
various tools that the Department of Homeland Security has, in
particular FEMA, working with the issue of evacuation.
So I want to thank you for your leadership and would look
forward to meeting with you on some issues on this matter.
Let me thank the witness, and my questions will be focused
on this question of how we can do better from Katrina.
The good news is that you do have experts on the ground
that will probably be on the ground through the hurricane
season of 2008 in the latter stages of this administration's
leadership. I think Director Paulison, having been a
firefighter and certainly coming from the Gulf region, brings
some instructive insight into this area.
One of the crises of Katrina, and I also met with the
Lieutenant General that led the forces shortly thereafter in
Katrina who we know deserved our appropriation. What resources
do you have for pre-deployment? That was, I think, the Achilles
heal in Katrina. You were not there to evacuate the disabled,
the elderly, the poor, and you were really, in the Texas
phrase, ``A day late and dollar short.''
Do you have, in essence, pre-deployment funds that says,
``We are in hurricane season, we are tracking Hurricane
Roxanne, and that hurricane has a likelihood of hitting the
Gulf or elsewhere.'' How quickly, how much resources do you
have for your troops? When I say, ``troops,'' the resources to
get on the ground.
Mr. Johnson. Part of our gap analysis process is to get
just to that point, to deal with Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
to identify if a category three or above storm approaches their
coast, what are the requirements in order to effect an
evacuation, sheltering, transportation plan, and how are they
positioned to get those resources? Is there a gap, and if so,
what is the Federal responsibility in that gap?
Ms. Jackson Lee. How close are you to having this document,
having this format?
I, frankly, believe, Mr. Chairman, that I would suggest
you, the full committee, but, in any event, it would be
interesting to have a hearing on those plans----
Mr. Johnson. Right.
Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. If you are putting them
together.
Mr. Johnson. We are. We are working with Texas,
specifically--there are two areas in Texas. As you know, the
Rio Grande Valley is of great concern if a hurricane were to go
there, as Hurricane Dean was programmed to go, projected to go
last summer. So we are working with Texas to reevaluate their--
I have forgotten the name of the plan, but it is a major plan
that looks at the Rio Grande Valley.
Then second is when you get to the eastern coast of Texas,
and so they have basically looked at whether a hurricane goes
in one direction. Bill Peterson, our regional administrator,
and Tony Robinson, are working hand in hand with Jack Colley
and those in Texas to look at those plans and identify those
requirements.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, let me just say this--and I have two
quick questions, and I want to try to move on--but in all those
fine individuals whose names I know, we have worked together,
what I would offer to say is that we want to make sure that
there is no disconnect, that the Federal Government and the
State, and as well members who have relevant jurisdiction to be
able to know the bricks and mortar of your plan.
I would like to actually hear it laid out and, as well, to
assure us that the plan impacts the places--for example, no one
ever thought Rita would go as far up the coast as it did. We
are still smarting from the fact that Rita went into the woods
and to rural areas that it was not expected. I think that we
have to be in front of the game, and I don't think we were, and
I want to have the confidence that we are.
I would like to really see the plan, and I think if you
have a plan that impacts Texas, certainly that whole Gulf
region should be included, and the key is, boots on the ground.
Red Cross, FEMA and others on the ground pre a disaster hitting
can avoid so much.
The other point that I hope that we will be addressing is
the question of Citizen Corps as the framework. It is a good
framework, but it doesn't totally work. Citizen Corps can be in
a community, dominate it by local jurisdiction and have the
population that are Hispanic, African American, poor, Asian and
others. Language difficulty, seniors, low-income areas are not
engaged in Citizen Corps.
I think that requires a strong assessment. In fact, I would
like to see an audit of your Citizen Corps around the country
to be able to understand what they do and what their outreach
is. Do you have any input or--not input but any assessment on
making sure that Citizen Corps--because they are funded, and
they sit, sort of, at the top of the jurisdictional head and
really don't trickle down. They are supposed to be the base of
help, volunteer help to a certain extent, in communities.
Mr. Johnson. Two things: First, we would be very happy to
provide you our hurricane plan over the next several weeks;
second; the Chairman indicated that legislation might be
forthcoming that would authorize Citizen Corps, which now is
not an authorized program in FEMA. So I think as I indicated to
the Chairman, we would welcome that legislation.
Third, I think your comments about the limitations of
Citizen Corps, quite frankly, are the first time I have heard
those comments. So I am interested to find out the answers too.
So let Dave Paulison take a look at that and come back to you
and talk about Citizen Corps and whether or not we feel it is
giving you the right part of the community.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, let me go back a question. As I
indicated, I congratulated the Chairman for his leadership on
this issue. We had Director Paulison in my community looking at
these issues of hard to reach areas--senior citizens, poor,
language difficulties, and I think it was evident that many of
the people had not even heard of Citizen Corps, didn't have an
understanding of how to evacuate in flood-prone areas.
So I throw the question back to you: Do you think that is a
problem if we have a structure, even though it might have been
voluntary, that a lot of these places really are not connected
to the best way out and some kind of connectedness any time of
a disaster hitting?
Mr. Johnson. Well, I think it is a problem, and
Administrator Paulison came back and pressed--if that is the
right word--certainly an impression after the visit with you in
Houston and has begun to ask those same questions. So, again,
we have a program that is not authorized and it is not funded
extensively. It is perhaps enough to get down to those levels
in all the major areas where it needs to do that. So I think we
need to do an assessment of Citizen Corps on where it needs to
be.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me associate myself, in concluding
with Congresswoman Lowey and Congressman Etheridge--
Congresswoman Lowey on the grants. I do believe risk is an
issue. I do think we should be continually monitoring the
definition of risk so that we don't leave our places that need
to be concluded.
Then with respect to my committee, the subcommittee that I
work on has infrastructure protection, but I think this
legislation that is coming out of this committee, along with
the school protection, is key to the extent of safe and place,
and I don't think we have enough sites, and I do believe it is
important to have a funding source that helps communities
reinforce physical structures to make them places that can be
considered, if you will, in the line of fire, and I hope that
you would consider that in our ongoing discussions.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. With that, I yield back, and I thank the
Chairman very much for his indulgence.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee, for your expertise
also.
I think we are ready to conclude. I just would like to just
make sure that the things that I mentioned, that we need to
followup the plans on the alerts and the housing and the other
efforts and also to followup what Mrs. Lowey and Ms. Norton and
Ms. Jackson Lee and anything that Mr. Dent also brought up. If
you can just work with our staff so we can go ahead and follow
up on that.
Again, to conclude, we are pleased in many ways what FEMA
has done. We appreciate your leadership and your staff's work
on that. I know that in some areas we need to work on those,
but, again, I do want to emphasize that we do recognize the
good strengths that you have provided us.
So at this time, I want to thank the witness for the
valuable testimony and the members for their questions. The
members of the subcommittee may have additional questions for
the witness, and we ask you to respond as soon as possible in
writing to those questions.
Hearing no further business, the hearing is adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar of Texas for Harvey E. Johnson,
Jr., Acting Deputy Administrator and Chief Operating Officer, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security
April 9, 2008
Question 1. Prior to Hurricane Katrina FEMA had nearly 1,700
Permanent Full-Time employees. Today, the ``new'' FEMA has nearly 3,000
and is authorized for over 4,000 positions for fiscal year 2008.
Efforts to ``staff up'' in several agencies in the Department have been
challenging and I commend FEMA for working to meet these challenges
over the past several years. That being said, FEMA has a challenge of
filling over 1,000 vacancies by September. What I'm most concerned with
is where the staffing levels will be at FEMA over the next year and the
next 5 years. It is imperative that FEMA have a laser-focus on
recruitment, retention, and career progression strategies and plans.
What are the biggest challenges to staffing up FEMA--is it finding
the expertise necessary for the vacant positions? Is it due to delays
in processing for security clearances? How can these challenges be best
addressed?
Answer. FEMA is aggressively recruiting Nation-wide to meet its
fiscal year 2008 ceiling of 4,007 permanent full-time positions. The
biggest staffing challenge to FEMA is being able to accept and process
applications from the increasing volume of interested and talented
applicants who desire to work in a growing and dynamic Federal agency.
For example, FEMA has already received approximately 26,000 hard copy
applications for vacant positions during the First and Second Quarters
of fiscal year 2008. One of our biggest challenges is sorting out the
pool of applicants to find the most qualified applicants. To address
this challenge we are employing a dual approach for recruiting and
staffing the agency. First we are using the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) Service Center (contractor support) for the staffing of
390 4-Year CORE conversions that were authorized by Congress. Second,
we are using the Office of Personnel Management's USA Staffing services
(automated hiring system) for the 443 newly authorized positions. FEMA
is working with DHS to implement an automated hiring system that will
remove the need for processing paper applications and give the agency
greater flexibility in receiving and processing applications in support
of the staffing process.
The FEMA security office is currently involved in all stages of the
recruitment and selection process which should prevent security
processing delays. However, due to the backlog for security clearance
processing in the Federal Government overall, FEMA's ability to move
quickly has been somewhat compromised.
Question 2. Members of the committee have expressed concerns that
the fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security Grant Program Guidance contains
provisions that restrict the use of grant funds for personnel costs.
While, the Implementing the Provisions of the 9/11 Commission Act of
2007, permits grant recipients to use up to 50 percent of their grant
funds for any combination of personnel activities (including overtime
and backfill costs), the Guidance attempts to impose far lower caps on
personnel spending.
Can you explain why FEMA has not complied with the law?
Answer. Section 2008 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/
11 Commission Act, Public Law 110-53, specifies that ``not more than 50
percent of the amount awarded to a grant recipient under section 2003
or 2004 in any fiscal year may be used to pay for personnel, including
overtime and backfill costs, in support of the permitted uses under
subsection (a).''
It is important to understand that the Department views personnel
costs in two different areas: overall personnel costs (e.g., hiring for
planners, grants management personnel, or exercise managers) and
organizational personnel costs (e.g., fusion center analysts). As such,
the Department has different caps for the allowability of these two
personnel categories. Because the Department was allotted the
flexibility of allowing ``not more than,'' it chose to remain
consistent with previous years' guidance and chose to continue capping
overall personnel costs at no more than 15 percent of a grantee's State
Homeland Security Program (SHSP) or Urban Area Security Initiative
(UASI) award. For organizational costs, the Department allows 15
percent under the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) and 25 percent
under the UASI. Taken together, the Department has given States up to
30 percent of the SHSP award for combined personnel costs, and up 40
percent of the UASI award for combined personnel costs.
Question 3. As you know, FEMA uses mission assignments to request
disaster response support from other Federal agencies. According to a
March 2008 report by the Department of Homeland Security Inspector
General, mission assignment policies, procedures, training, staffing,
and funding have never been fully addressed by FEMA, creating
misunderstandings among Federal agencies concerning operational and
fiduciary responsibilities. In addition, the report says FEMA
guidelines regarding the mission assignment process are vague.
Do you dispute the finding of the report?
If so, what has FEMA done to enhance the management of mission
assignments?
Answer. The March 2008 report by the DHS Inspector General report
implied that it was not until November 2007 that FEMA initiated an
ambitious project to re-engineer the mission assignment (MA) processes,
relationships, and resources involved in management of Mission
Assignments. In fact, this process was initiated in the Spring of 2006
(post-Katrina) when FEMA developed revised guidance for Pre-Scripted
Mission Assignments (PSMA) and worked with the Department of Defense
and other Federal Departments and Agencies to improve the PSMAs to
facilitate more rapid responses during disasters. In the past 3 years,
FEMA and its Interagency partners have expended a considerable amount
of time and effort to improve procedures and resources available to
manage the MA and PSMA processes. For example, in 2006, FEMA had a
total of 44 PSMAs which were limited to the Department of Defense and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In 2007 this number was increased to
183 PSMAs with 28 Federal Departments and Agencies. Most recently, the
number has increased to 223 with 31 Federal Departments and Agencies.
PSMA support ranges from heavy-lift helicopters from the Department of
Defense, to generators from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to
Disaster Medical Assistance Teams from HHS, and Emergency Road Clearing
Teams from the U.S. Forest Service. By expanding the development of
PSMAs over the past 3 years, FEMA is now better prepared to support
tribal, State and local governments in disaster response.
In the fall of 2007, at the direction of FEMA Senior Leadership, an
internal MA Work Group (MAWG) was established to further enhance the
management of MAs and improve existing processes. In collaboration with
national and regional response partners, the MAWG was tasked to develop
new procedures to provide greater visibility and financial oversight,
increase specificity and accountability, and improve the efficiency of
MA processes. The MAWG initiated a review of MA procedures including
conducting interviews with FEMA and Interagency stakeholders,
determining gaps, and developing recommendations to improve all aspects
of the MA process. To ensure the credibility of the review, the MAWG
engaged a wide range of interdisciplinary partners. In the review, the
MAWG also considered MA project management, governance, training needs,
limiting factors, and resource constraints.
In collaboration with our stakeholders, the MAWG determined that
ensuring adequate staffing levels to manage the MA process to ensure
proper fiduciary and programmatic issues at the Headquarters and
Regional levels is a major issue. Another recommendation emerging from
the review was to establish the MA process as an official program
within FEMA. These recommendations have been implemented and a formal
MA Program with additional staff has been created in FEMA's Disaster
Operations Directorate. Additional efforts to improve the efficiency of
the MA process include the development of a Standard Operating
Procedures (SOP) Manual to explain and streamline the process for
issuing MAs. The MA SOP outlines the policies, procedures, and
processes that FEMA uses to interact and coordinate with other Federal
Departments and Agencies and organizations when responding to
disasters. It provides response and recovery personnel with detailed
information and guidance for executing MAs during declared emergencies
or major disasters. The SOP documents changes and improvements to the
MA process that help ensure compliance with NIMS and ICS and the PSMA
Approval Process. In addition, a procedure for issuing PSMAs has been
completed and is now available in an Operating Draft PSMA Catalogue.
The Catalogue contains directions for use, comments, and improvements
and a listing of all PSMAs. Additional potential PSMAs are in various
stages of development.
As part of our improvement activities, MA training has been
increased at Emergency Management Institute (EMI) and in the FEMA
Regional offices. Seven courses were conducted on MAs in fiscal year
2007 and more than a dozen courses have been held in fiscal year 2008.
Additional courses are planned. The Disaster Operations MA Program, in
conjunction with EMI, is assisting in the development of a MA Training
Plan, including a ``train the trainer'' course and exercise cycle to
meet future needs. An additional resource, a FEMA intranet-based MA Web
page, is also planned. As part of PSMA improvement processes, training
is available for FEMA staff and staff from other Federal Departments
and Agencies at EMI and online.
With the new Program and dedicated full-time positions, FEMA
continues to improve its incident management capabilities through more
effective coordination of Headquarters and Regional MA efforts.
Question 4. FEMA has gone through enormous reforms since Hurricane
Katrina. Many of the reforms were mandated by Congress. Others were
initiated internally by the Department. However, proposals continue to
be occasionally put forward--both in the Congress and on the election
trail--to reorganize yet again by stripping FEMA out of DHS. Other
substantial changes such as making the FEMA Administrator have a term
of 6 years have also been suggested.
Having served as a senior official within FEMA for the past 2
years, do you believe FEMA can ``work'' within the Department of
Homeland Security or should we make it an independent agency?
What do you see as the pros and cons of FEMA being a part of the
Department of Homeland Security?
Answer. Let me state clearly that FEMA is already working
effectively as part of the Department of Homeland Security and has
made, and will continue to make, great progress in implementing the
necessary reforms. The key consideration at this time is that FEMA is
in the midst of a number of major initiatives to address the remaining
challenges, initiatives that continue to make significant progress
because of continuing support from the Department, the administration
and the Congress. FEMA and the Department have undergone a number of
major reorganizations over the last 5 years, and we don't need another
significant reorganization that will throw the agency into turmoil for
an extended period and interrupt the progress being made in operational
capabilities while we have to sort through the incredibly complex
administrative challenges that would be necessary to support such a
change. FEMA needs a significant period of organizational stability so
we can complete the program improvements underway without the
distractions that another major organizational change would entail.
It must also be stressed does not that the Department of Homeland
Security's leadership is committed to providing FEMA the support it
needs to complete its transformation to the New FEMA. In addition, the
Department of Homeland Security and its more than 180,000 employees are
well situated to provide FEMA with needed support to address
catastrophic disasters. During Katrina, thousands of DHS staff deployed
to support FEMA's disaster response and recovery operations both in
Washington and the field. Such deployments are much easier to implement
when we are part of the same Department and report through the same
chain of command, than they would be if FEMA were separated from the
Department. Add to this that numerous foundational documents of our
national approach to Homeland Security, such as the National Response
Framework, are based on FEMA being part of the Department and one can
see that taking FEMA out of the Department would once again throw into
disarray the whole national effort to prepare for a coordinated
Federal/State/local/private sector response just as we are starting to
see real progress in the understanding of their respective roles by the
various levels of government.
Questions From Hon. Bob Etheridge of North Carolina for Harvey E.
Johnson, Jr., Acting Deputy Administrator and Chief Operating Officer,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security
Question 1. After Hurricane Katrina, the White House Report
recommended that ``DHS should make citizen and community preparedness a
national priority.'' Taking the lead in this effort is the Community
Preparedness Division within FEMA's National Preparedness Directorate.
As the former North Carolina schools superintendent, when I think of
community preparedness, I think of the critical role that schools play
in our communities, not only as places of learning, but also as the
place where our children spend the majority of the day and as
facilities that will be looked to for shelter-in-place and other
emergency needs. I also know that emergency planners do not often think
of schools or consult with them when they're making plans. I know that
FEMA has some school-specific resources and online courses, but--after
conducting a survey of school principals in my district--I'm not sure
that these materials are getting to the school administrators and
planners who need them. Equally importantly, I am concerned that
emergency management officials do not integrate schools into their
planning. I have introduced legislation today to address the needs of
schools, and I would like to hear your assessment of how FEMA is
helping schools prepare for emergencies.
How has FEMA worked with schools to determine the needs of schools
ensure that the materials that have been developed are useful to
administrators?
Do you know how much these resources are being used?
What is FEMA doing to ensure that school officials are involved in
the emergency planning process?
How is FEMA helping schools address their emergency planning needs
through grants?
How much grant funding has gone to schools?
Answer. FEMA is working to provide support to schools and youth to
strengthen preparedness in a variety of ways.
FEMA works closely with our partners at the Department of Education
to provide support to schools and youth to strengthen preparedness and
response skills. Please visit the new Department of Homeland Security
Web site, www.dhs.gov/schoolpreparedness to see the catalogue of DHS
resources that are focused on school preparedness. Examples of the
online school resources include, Building a Disaster-Resistant
University which is FEMA's guide to making colleges more resistant to
disasters, Preparing Your School for a Crisis, published by the U.S.
Department of Education which is designed to assist schools and
communities with either creating a new or updating an existing crisis
plan and Ready.gov for Kids which is the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security's national public awareness campaign.
Within FEMA, the Community Preparedness Division, the Grants
Programs Directorate, and the Emergency Management Institute coordinate
to provide resources and strengthen the integration of schools and
youth in preparedness at all levels including national, State, local
and tribal preparedness planning, education and outreach, and training
and exercises.
The integration of schools in community preparedness is a priority
for FEMA's Community Preparedness Division and Citizen Corps, the
Division's grassroots strategy for community preparedness. The Citizen
Corps mission is to unite communities to prepare for and prevent
emergencies, respond quickly and safely when needed, and to recover
with resilience. Over 2,300 Citizen Corps Councils Nation-wide bring
government and nongovernmental community leaders together to identify
priorities, integrate resources and train and exercise response skills
with both first responders and volunteers. School representatives and
youth program leaders are critical participants on these Councils to
integrate school emergency plans with community plans, coordinate
public alert systems, and to educate, train and exercise the school
community and the community's children on disaster preparedness and
response.
Furthermore, community preparedness, which includes school
preparedness, is integrated across 10 of the fiscal year 2008 DHS
preparedness grants. Since school preparedness is a priority of the
Community Preparedness Division, the Citizen Corps Program (CCP) grant
guidance, which is one of four grant programs under the Homeland
Security Grant Program, explicitly makes school preparedness an
eligible use of grant funds. For example, CCP grant guidance
specifically states that training ``should be delivered with specific
consideration to include all ages, ethnic and cultural groups, person
with disabilities, and special needs populations at venues throughout
the community, to include schools \1\ . . . ''. The CCP grant guidance
gives States the flexibility to identify annual priorities based on
their needs. In recognition of the critical role of school
preparedness, States and local communities around the country are using
these funds to hold school preparedness seminars for students and
teachers, provide CERT training for school administrators, teachers,
and students, print preparedness education and outreach materials for
schools, and assist local schools in developing their school
preparedness plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security Grant Program Guidance and
Application Kit, Page 44-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the national level, Citizen Corps has partnered with the
Department of Education to enhance school administrators, teachers and
students connection to emergency managers and Citizen Corps Councils.
The Department of Education is one of twenty-five National Citizen
Corps Affiliates which expand emergency responder and non-governmental
resources and materials available to States and local communities. One
initiative closely collaborated on by Citizen Corps and the Department
of Education is the ``America is Safer when our Schools are Safer''
NOAA Public Alert Radio Distribution Program. In an effort to improve
public alerts and warnings for schools, the Department of Homeland
Security, FEMA's Citizen Corps, the Department of Education's Office of
Safe and Drug Free Schools and the Department of Commerce's NOAA
provided 97,000 NOAA Public Alert Radios to every public school during
2005-2006. In addition, to providing schools with the potentially life-
saving NOAA Alert Radio, connecting State and local emergency
management and school leadership is an important goal of the ``America
is Safer when our Schools are Safer'' distribution. The initiative has
promoted closer integration by outreach to emergency managers and
education leaders through conference and through the project Web site
that provides resources, information on training opportunities and
tools to connect emergency managers, Citizen Corps Councils and
schools.
FEMA Regional Offices also implement initiatives to provide FEMA
resources and support to integrate schools in preparedness at State and
local levels. For example, FEMA Region I is implementing a region-wide
school-based preparedness education project in collaboration with the
State Emergency Management Authorities and State Education Authorities.
The Student Tools for Emergency Planning (STEP) initiative is a
preparedness education project targeted to the 4th grade level where
students will be taught basic preparedness and strategies for dealing
with various types of emergencies and will act as agents to share this
awareness with family members. Students will build emergency kits with
their families and build a communications plan with their families. In
2008, STEP will be piloted in 29 schools and 11 districts across New
England, with schools representing each of the 6 New England States.
FEMA will provide Teacher Guides, DVDs, copies of student handouts,
refrigerator magnets, demonstration emergency kits, and student starter
kits for all schools participating in the pilot year (2008-2009 school
year). Teachers will dedicate between 1 and 5 hours of classroom time
implementing STEP. Student and teacher evaluations administered after
STEP completion will measure its effectiveness.
At the State and local level, Citizen Corps Councils and five
identified Partner Programs work with first responders at all levels to
provide education, training, and preparedness activities for the
community. As one of the Citizen Corps Partner Programs, the Community
Emergency Response Team (CERT) Program educates community members about
disaster preparedness and trains them in basic disaster response. CERT
covers life-saving skills such as fire safety, light search and rescue,
and disaster medical operations. Using their training, CERT members can
assist others in their neighborhood or workplace following an event and
can take a more active role in preparing their community. The CERT
Program has expanded in recent years to include guidance for CERT
training delivered to teens and on campuses. In addition, the CERT
Program has been utilized by States and municipalities to prepare
schools by training both parents and faculty. For example, the State of
Mississippi is providing all school administrators with CERT training
as part of the State's support for preparedness for schools.
The twenty-five Citizen Corps Affiliates offer additional resources
for public education, outreach, and training. Many Affiliates provide
age and grade appropriate preparedness curricula for schools and
children. Several Affiliates, including The Save a Life Foundation and
the American Red Cross, provide first aid skills to youth throughout
the country. Another Citizen Corps Affiliate, The Home Safety Council,
promotes ``Get Ready with Freddie'' which introduces children to the
importance of both safety and reading. Additionally, the American Red
Cross ``Masters of Disaster'' programs and the National Fire Protection
Association ``Risk Watch'' programs: Natural Disasters and
Unintentional Injuries teach students how to prepare, respond and
recover from disasters and household hazards.
With regards to the question about how much grant funding has gone
to schools, funding provided to educational institutions by program is
provided below. One caveat, some of the funding represented in this
chart is sub-granted to educational institutions for the primary
purpose of training first responders, which could end up being used for
funding activities which may not be strictly characterized as school
preparedness activities (e.g., training on the National Incident
Management System (NIMS)).
[Amount in Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting Period SHSP LETPP CCP UASI EMPG MMRS BZPP Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 Total. 12,664,964.87 2,835,207.31 351,136.72 2,315,963.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 18,167,272.07
2005 Total..................... 11,797,476.90 1,292,158.00 30,190.00 6,106,347.35 58,831.34 227,592.00 1,208,944.50 20,721,540.09
2006 Total..................... 7,276,981.62 2,413,113.19 55,412.00 1,180,453.00 25,700.00 226,521.75 0.00 11,178,181.56
2007 Total..................... 4,122,844.00 520,039.62 7,000.00 ,086,427.01 0.00 245,237.75 0.00 12,981,548.38
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total.............. 35,862,267.39 7,060,518.12 443,738.72 17,689,190.53 84,531.34 699,351.50 1,208,944.50 63,048,542.10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. My State of North Carolina is one of the third or
fourth most likely States to be hit by a hurricane. The report released
by the Inspector General this week said FEMA has made moderate progress
in those preparedness goals most applicable to the 2008 Hurricane
season as moderate, but was only barely in the moderate category. The
IG was particularly critical of FEMA's failure to capitalize on the
relatively weak hurricane seasons since Hurricane Katrina to bolster
its big picture strategy and infrastructure. I am especially concerned
about FEMA's ability to understand all of the assets at its disposal;
its ability to engage in scenario planning; and its ability to preplan
optimal delivery routes and alternatives. The many actors that would be
called into service in a disaster include FEMA assets as well as those
controlled by NGO's, State responders, emergency and health care
responders, and the private sector, just to name a few, and
coordination needs to happen before, not during, a disaster.
Logistics is critical to preparedness. What organizations,
companies, and State responders have been consulted by FEMA's Logistics
division? Please provide details as to the nature of the consultations,
what information was gleaned from each, how that information has been
incorporated into FEMA's logistics planning, and what type of feedback
has been provided back to each enterprise.
What steps has FEMA taken to ensure that, in developing situational
awareness about potential emergencies, it has access to comprehensive
data and can also fully integrate that data into its strategic
planning?
I understand that FEMA has made progress in its ability to track
assets during its response to an emergency, both its own and that of
cooperating private and non-governmental agencies. However,
``tracking'' assets only gives part of the picture. For example,
predictive modeling and optimization before a disaster, could provide
FEMA insight to help develop response plans determine which response
efforts are most efficient. Can you describe the technologies and
methodologies that FEMA has used in preparing for the 2008 Hurricane
season? What are the Agency's plans for the integration of advanced
capabilities and technologies for its future preparation?
Answer. The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA)
2006 directed FEMA to develop an efficient, transparent, and flexible
logistics system for procurement and delivery of goods and services
necessary for an effective and timely response to disasters and to
develop a Demonstration Program with regional and local governments in
the formation of innovative public & private logistical partnerships
and centers to improve readiness. FEMA is to ``partner with State,
local, and tribal governments and emergency response providers, with
other Federal agencies, with the private sector and with
nongovernmental organizations to build a national system of emergency
management that can effectively and efficiently utilize the full
measure of the Nation's resources . . . '' Section 503(b)(2)(B) of
Title 5 of the 2007 DHS Appropriations Act (Public Law 109-295).
In the spirit of PKEMRA, the FEMA Logistics Management Directorate
developed the National Logistics Coordinator (NLC) Concept. FEMA
conducted the first National Logistics Coordination Forum on March 27,
2008. This forum initiated the development of a charter and operating
doctrine for the National Logistics Coordinator concept. This is a
high-level initiative with participants including DOD/NORTHCOM, other
Federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, the private sector,
FEMA Regions and State and local governments. The FEMA National
Logistics Coordinator (NLC) will serve as the Single Logistics
Integrator during National disasters and special events. The National
Logistics Coordinator (NLC) will:
Coordinate domestic emergency logistics planning, management
and sustainment capabilities;
Promote the strategic logistics collaboration of other
Federal agencies, public and private sector partners, non-
governmental organizations, and other stakeholders;
Improve disaster logistics readiness, responsiveness and
preparedness for both Stafford Act and non-Stafford Act
disasters.
Distribution Management Strategy Working Group.--The Logistics
Management Directorate established a Distribution Management Strategy
Working Group in September 2007, with its Federal, private and non-
governmental organizations logistics partners, to conduct a
comprehensive analysis and develop a comprehensive distribution and
supply chain management strategy. Partners in this group include GSA,
DOD United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM)/Defense Logistics,
American Red Cross (ARC), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Health
and Human Services (HHS) and others. The Resource Management Group
(RMG) was established as a sub-working group to collaboratively source
critical disaster commodities with a view of acquiring these
commodities from the most economical, expeditious partner source. This
group began its mission by concentrating on the supply chain of the two
life-saving commodities, water and emergency meals.
The Logistics Management Directorate, Plans and Exercises Division
is aggressively employing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Predictive Models to develop logistics support plans to address the
State gaps analyses.
use of modeling to improve disaster response readiness
Modeling is an essential element of FEMA's planning efforts and
enables planning for different circumstances and data sets. For
example, FEMA is coordinating with the DHS Science and Technology (S&T)
Directorate to adapt modeling tools to the specific circumstances of
large metropolitan areas. Many tools, including HAZUS (Hazards U.S.),
utilize a standard figure for population per square mile, often
resulting in skewed data for areas with high-rise apartment buildings.
The work with S&T is focusing on adapting these modeling tools to
variable situations. FEMA's current planning efforts relative to
hurricanes rely heavily on existing modeling tools such as:
HurrEvac (Hurricane Evacuation) to enable tracking
hurricanes and assist in evacuation decisionmaking;
SLOSH (Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes) to
enable estimates of storm surge heights and winds resulting
from historical, hypothetical, or predicted hurricanes by
taking into account pressure, size, forward speed, track, and
winds;
HAZUS (Hazards U.S.) established by FEMA to assess risk and
forecast losses based on population characteristics and the
building environment;
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers modeling tools which rely
on geo-spatial capabilities to provide hurricane disaster
estimates of debris volumes; water, ice, and commodity needs;
and the number of people within the households likely within
hurricane force winds; and
NISAC (National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis
Center) advanced modeling and simulation capabilities to
analyze critical infrastructure interdependencies and
vulnerabilities.
In addition to the above-mentioned modeling, FEMA also implemented
a Gap Analysis Tool in 2007. The Gap Analysis Tool provides FEMA and
its partners at both the State and local levels in the hurricane-prone
regions of the country a snapshot of disaster response asset gaps to
determine the level of Federal support potentially needed in responding
to a Category 3 Hurricane. Seven critical areas were incorporated in
the initial application of the Gap Analysis Program (GAP) for review:
debris removal, commodity distribution, evacuation, sheltering, interim
housing, medical needs and fuel capacity along evacuation routes.
During 2007, FEMA worked closely with each of the 18 State emergency
management communities in hurricane-prone States, as well as the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, using a
consistent set of measures and tools to evaluate strengths, gaps, and
vulnerabilities. As the Gap Analysis process evolved over the summer of
2007, there was a steady decrease in the initial shortfalls and
vulnerabilities identified in the seven critical areas. Also, the
results of the GAP Analysis process facilitated a more coordinated
FEMA/State response to Hurricane Dean and Tropical Storm Erin in 2007.
Although FEMA's initial use of this very successful tool was used for
the 2007 Hurricane Season, the Gap Analysis Tool and program is
currently being expanded to cover all hazards and will be applied
Nation-wide.
situational awareness
In order to perform its disaster response mission, FEMA maintains
multiple disaster response operations centers, teams and assets that
play a key part in coordinating and providing disaster response
assistance. Based on lessons learned and ongoing assessments, FEMA is
diligently enhancing these capabilities.
FEMA manages a network of operations centers to coordinate and
sustain response operations; maintain situational awareness and a
common operating picture (COP) for DHS and FEMA leadership; facilitate
information sharing between FEMA and non-FEMA entities; and provide
internal and external stakeholders a consolidated, consistent, and
accurate status of on-going incidents, responses or potential events.
The key components of this network are the National Response
Coordination Center (NRCC) in FEMA Headquarters; the Regional Response
Coordination Centers (RRCC) located in each of the 10 FEMA Regions; and
the FEMA Operations Center (FOC) located at the Mt. Weather Emergency
Operations Center (EOC); and the five strategically located Mobile
Emergency Response Support (MERS) Operations Centers (MOC).
The NRCC is FEMA's multi-agency center that functions as the
operational component of the DHS National Operations Center (NOC) to
provide Federal coordination of disaster response operations and
emergency management program implementation. The NRCC maintains
situational awareness links with a large number of operating nodes and
centers at all levels of government such as: State EOC(s); selected
local EOC(s); regional DHS components; regional ESF EOC(s); State
Fusion Centers; Joint Terrorism Task Forces; Headquarters and Regional
department and agency operations centers; and other key operating
centers. The NRCC supports disaster response and resource planning;
monitors potential or developing disaster events; supports regional and
field component operations; and coordinates national-level disaster
response activities and resource allocations for DHS and FEMA.
FEMA is upgrading NRCC capabilities with the installation of a new
Emergency Management Information Management System (EMIMS). EMIMS is a
Web-based software system that will provide greater support to the
NRCC, RRCCs, and JFOs in managing disaster operations and information
flow, maintaining situational awareness, and coordinating information
sharing. One of the initial goals with EMIMS is to incorporate the
expanded Radiological Dispersion Device (RDD) capabilities list into
EMIMS as a password protected resource module. Ultimately, with the
capability provided by EMIMS, vital statistics on the location and
content of RDD teams can be geo-coded into the system and continuously
updated by the department/agency responsible for the team and used on a
real time basis by the interagency community. A longer term goal is to
use EMIMS to create a larger national asset database of all Federal
response teams for all-hazards. This larger database would also be
password protected and available to the interagency community for use
to support disaster response.
Supporting the NRCC are 10 RRCCs, regionally based multi-agency
coordination centers that perform a complementary role to the NRCC at
the regional level. Operating in each of the 10 FEMA Regions, the RRCC
provides situational awareness information, identifies and coordinates
response requirements, supports response operations, performs
capabilities analysis and reports on the status of Federal disaster
response operations. RRCCs maintain close links with the State,
Regional, and local EOCs; State Fusion Centers; Joint Terrorism Task
Forces; Regional DHS components; Regional ESFs; DoD and Interagency
Operations Centers; adjacent Regions and MOCs; and JFOs.
Collectively, the NRCC and RRCCs have three main functional
responsibilities: situational awareness, notification/activation, and
coordination of response and recovery operational support, focused
either nationally or regionally as appropriate. Both NRCC and RRCC
operations are scalable, depending on the nature and magnitude of the
event. FEMA's multiple disaster response teams and assets can also be
immediately deployed to support State and local disaster response
operations and provide situational awareness and help develop a common
operating picture.
Questions From Ranking Member Charles W. Dent of Pennsylvania for
Harvey E. Johnson, Jr., Acting Deputy Administrator and Chief Operating
Officer, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security
state preparedness reports
Question 1. The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act
required States submit reports on their level of preparedness for a
terrorist attack, natural disaster, or other man-made event. All 56
States and territories have submitted their State Preparedness Reports.
Can you address some of the trends that were identified as part of
this effort in terms of the state of national preparedness?
What were the top three areas that will require the greatest
attention by FEMA, working with its State counterparts?
Answer. As required by the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform
Act (PKEMRA), each State/territory has submitted an annual report on
its level of preparedness to FEMA. These State Preparedness Reports
(SPRs) generally address:
Compliance with key national policy and strategy frameworks;
Estimated current capability levels and the resources
(monetary and non-monetary) estimated to achieve identified
target levels.
The collected SPR reports also describe State accomplishments
building capabilities and how States intend to increase all-hazards
preparedness in the future. FEMA is currently in the process of
reviewing the reports to analyze overall Nation-wide trends as
reflected in the reports, identify general areas for increased
attention, and inform broader assessments of national preparedness. The
analysis will also identify how States are interpreting the National
Priorities and setting milestones for their completion; investigate
whether similar or neighboring States share similar capabilities,
targets, and initiatives; and identify and analyze reported
quantitative data. We will be able to identify specific trends by July
2008, once we have developed the summary and findings report of our
analysis on the State Preparedness Reports. At that point, we will be
in a better position to also identify the top areas that will require
the greatest attention by FEMA as it works with its State counterparts.
FEMA's SPR summary and findings report will contain the results of this
SPR analysis effort, and produce findings regarding States'
accomplishments, capabilities, goals, and resource needs. Approximately
3 weeks later, we will have completed the development of a summary and
findings briefing for Congress, as well as recommendations to revise
and improve future SPR guidance, aimed at reducing redundancy and
improving clarity in fulfilling reporting requirements.
national preparedness system tool
Question 2. In a briefing given to the committee staff in February,
it was stated that field tests of the ``National Preparedness System
tool'' began in October 2007 involving approximately 160 participants
from 10 States and 34 jurisdictions in seven FEMA regions. Nine field
tests were completed by December 2007. Currently, the National
Preparedness Directorate is analyzing the results and drafting a
lessons learned report.
Please describe the National Preparedness Directorate ``tool.''
How is the tool used to assess a State or local area's level of
preparedness?
How will the results of this tool be used to inform future planning
and priorities?
Answer. Building on the Target Capabilities List DHS is developing
a streamlined approach to measure capabilities--essentially using
jurisdictional tiers to define who needs to be prepared and at what
level of capability. This effort will help jurisdictions understand,
based on particular risk factors, what they need to do to enhance their
capabilities and meet performance objectives through planning,
training, and exercising.
In order to build an effective Comprehensive Assessment System, the
National Preparedness Directorate's Office of Preparedness Policy,
Planning, and Analysis (PPPA) has evaluated its entire existing suite
of evaluation systems, including the NPS, with the aim of integrating
best practices of current processes to provide a streamlined, effective
approach to assessing capabilities at all levels, including State and
local areas. All current assessment systems are being integrated into a
single comprehensive system that will minimize the burden placed upon
State and local jurisdictions by eliminating redundant and overlapping
planning, assessment, information-gathering, and reporting practices.
The specific assessment systems that were reviewed are:
State Preparedness Reports (SPR).--All 56 States and
territories have submitted SPRs to the FEMA Administrator. SPRs
contain assessments of current capability levels, descriptions
of unmet target capabilities, and assessments of resource needs
to meet preparedness priorities.
NIMS Compliance Assessment Support Tool (NIMSCAST).--
NIMSCAST is a voluntary Web-based data collection tool used to
assess NIMS compliance. Fifty-six States and territories and
18,000 local and tribal entities have NIMSCAST accounts.
Gap Analysis Program (GAP).--GAP assesses 7 response mission
areas in 20 hurricane-prone States and territories. For
example, as depicted in figure 84, GAP data reveals that the
assessed State would require significant Federal assistance in
commodity distribution, evacuation, and the provision of fuel.
Pilot Capabilities Assessment (PCA).--PCA has completed
three pilots (as of November 2007) to develop a capability
assessment methodology.
National Preparedness System.--The National Preparedness
System has completed field tests in 10 States to evaluate all
37 capabilities in the TCL.
Capabilities Assessment for Readiness (CAR).--The CAR was a
one-time, Nation-wide assessment of emergency management
performance conducted by FEMA in 1997. The CAR was completed
over a 3-month period through self-assessments by 56 States and
Territories. Its methodology embraced 13 Emergency Management
Functions (EMFs) based on National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) 1,600 standards.
The National Preparedness System will play an important part in the
Comprehensive Capability Assessment that the Post Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act (PKEMRA) requires. PPPA is incorporating
important features and functions from the NPS and the best practices of
pertinent assessment tools into a single, integrated methodology to
facilitate the capability planning, assessment, and reporting process.
Key components of the NPS will form a critical part of the foundation
for the development of this enhanced assessment tool.
The final Comprehensive Assessment System will capture best
practices and lessons learned from these PPPA efforts to create a
streamlined, yet comprehensive, approach. The goal is to build an
effective national system for enhancing preparedness that integrates
planning tools, assesses capabilities defined by the Target
Capabilities List, and measures progress at the local, State, and
Federal levels.
national response framework (nrf)
Question 3a. The release of the updated NRF is an important step in
improving disaster operations. Its implementation will be critical to
the future success of FEMA in responding to an incident.
Please provide a clear delineation of the roles and
responsibilities of the Principal Federal Official (PFO) and Federal
Coordinating Officer (FCO).
Answer. HSPD-5 designates the Secretary of Homeland Security as the
principal Federal official for domestic incident management. In
carrying out that responsibility, the NRF provides that the Secretary
may elect to designate a single individual to serve as a PFO and be
his/her primary representative to ensure consistency of Federal support
as well as the overall effectiveness of the Federal incident
management.
The NRF further provides that the Secretary will only appoint a PFO
for catastrophic or unusually complex incidents that require
extraordinary coordination. A PFO is a senior Federal official with
proven management experience and strong leadership capabilities. Once
formally designated for an ongoing incident, a PFO relinquishes the
conduct of all previous duties to focus exclusively on his or her
incident management responsibilities.
Responsibilities of a PFO, if appointed, include:
Serves as the DHS Secretary's primary representative to
ensure consistency of Federal support and the overall
effectiveness of Federal incident management;
Interfaces with Federal, State, tribal and local officials
regarding the overall Federal incident management strategy;
Serves as the primary Federal spokesperson for coordinated
media and public communications;
Serves as the primary point of contact for situational
awareness locally for the Secretary of DHS;
Promotes collaboration and helps resolve any Federal
interagency conflicts that may arise;
Identifies and presents to the Secretary any policy issues
that require resolution;
Serves as a member of the Unified Coordination Group.
The PFO does NOT:
Become the Incident Commander;
Direct or replace the incident command structure;
Have directive authority over the Senior Federal Law
Enforcement Officer (SFLEO), Federal Coordinating Officer
(FCO), or other Federal and State officials.
The Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) is appointed by the
President upon recommendation of the FEMA Administrator and Secretary
of Homeland Security, for all Stafford Act Incidents. A senior FEMA
official trained, certified and well-experienced in emergency
management, the FCO represents the FEMA Administrator in the field to
discharge all FEMA responsibilities for the response and recovery
efforts. The FCO is the focal point of coordination within the Unified
Coordination Group, ensuring overall integration of Federal emergency
management, resource allocation, and seamless integration of Federal
activities in support of, and in coordination with, State, tribal, and
local requirements for the geographic areas covered by the Stafford Act
declaration.
Responsibilities of a FCO include:
Executes Stafford Act authorities, including commitment of
FEMA resources and the mission assignment of other Federal
departments or agencies.
Acts as primary Federal representative with whom the State
Coordinating Officer, other State, tribal and local response
officials interface to determine most urgent needs and set
objectives for an effective response in collaboration with the
Unified Coordination Group.
Question 3b. Does prohibiting the use of a PFO during a Stafford
Act event adversely impact the Department's ability to leverage all
expertise and resources available to respond appropriately?
Answer. The Joint Explanatory Statement (JES) associated with
Section 541 of the Fiscal Year 2008 Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act recognizes that there are some situations where a
Stafford Act declaration might be made, but the FCO and FEMA would not
be in the lead. The JES specifically lists pandemic influenza and a
national security special event as examples of such events. The NRF
indicates that there may be major non-Stafford Act responses which may
also include a Stafford Act component or instances in which FEMA would
not be the lead agency in charge of an event. In those cases, the
Secretary may choose to appoint a PFO. The PFO, when appointed, does
not assume the role of Federal Coordinating Officer who is focused on
coordinating emergency management efforts in areas covered by the
Stafford Act declaration. Instead, the PFO serves as the Secretary of
Homeland Security's representative in the field and promotes
collaboration and, as possible, helps resolve Federal interagency
conflict. For catastrophic and highly complex incidents, the PFO serves
a complementary role to the FCO and helps ensure consistency of Federal
response efforts spanning the prevention, protection and emergency
management missions. In a non-Stafford Act event, such as a pandemic
influenza outbreak or an NSSE, that involves significant national
planning, preparation, and coordination across DHS and interagency
mission areas, it makes little sense to disrupt the Unified
Coordination Group leadership cadre by removing the PFO just because a
Stafford Act declaration has been made.
Question 3c. How is FEMA working with the Office of Operations
Coordination to determine when a PFO may be required outside of a
Stafford Act event?
Answer. FEMA and DHS Operations Coordination have worked together
very closely to ensure an integrated, comprehensive leadership
capability in domestic ``notice events'' where there was sufficient
time for advanced planning. For the past 2 years, DHS and FEMA have
selected PFOs and FCOs respectively to attend common leadership and
content training sessions. PFOs and FCOs have been pre-designated for
national level exercises, assignments in planning and executing
National Special Security Events, and planning contingencies, such as
Pandemic Influenza. The distinct duties of the PFO and FCO have been
successfully delineated in each case.
interagency coordination
Question 4. The U.S. Coast Guard has been working to increase its
force structure to include deployable specialized forces or ``Adaptive
Force Packaging.'' These teams will be placed under one command,
designed to integrate with DHS and other Federal and State agencies to
create a more agile, flexible force that can deploy in advance of or
after an event to mitigate threats or hazards.
Has FEMA partnered with the Coast Guard on these efforts to ensure
that deployable teams and resources are coordinated and organized
effectively to meet incident response needs?
Answer. United States Coast Guard (USCG) support is provided
directly to DHS and FEMA during an emergency, with USCG response and
incident management personnel integrating directly into the DHS/FEMA
incident management organization established for a specific incident.
Under the old Federal Response Plan, USCG generally played a role in
only two support functions; Emergency Support Function (ESF) 1 and ESF
10. However, with the broader approach adopted with both FEMA and the
Coast Guard as part of the Department of Homeland Security and under
the new NRF and through the implementation of Pre-scripted Mission
Assignments, USCG now supports 9 separate ESFs across 20 possible
Mission Assignment areas.
To ensure close coordination of USCG and FEMA planning and disaster
response operations, USCG liaisons are assigned to FEMA Headquarters.
The USCG liaisons provide direct interagency coordination, advice, and
education about resources and capabilities; coordinate operational and
policy links between FEMA and the USCG; ensure USCG equities are
properly represented in FEMA's National Response Coordination Center;
and participate in and support Mission Assignment/Pre-Scripted Mission
Assignment processes to facilitate synchronized and effective disaster
response operations.
FEMA has been working with the USCG, through DHS, to coordinate
links with the USCG Deployable Operations Group as part of ongoing
interagency support and facilitation of disaster response expertise and
resources. FEMA has also participated in working group meetings to
discuss the concept of deployable specialized forces.