[Senate Hearing 110-823] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 110-823 MISSION POSSIBLE: FEMA'S FUTURE PREPAREDNESS PLANNING ======================================================================= HEARING before the AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, LOCAL, AND PRIVATE SECTOR PREPAREDNESS AND INTEGRATION of the COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 __________ Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 45-991 WASHINGTON : 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana TOM COBURN, Oklahoma BARACK OBAMA, Illinois PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN WARNER, Virginia JON TESTER, Montana JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, LOCAL, AND PRIVATE SECTOR PREPAREDNESS AND INTEGRATION MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas, Chairman DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BARACK OBAMA, Illinois NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico JON TESTER, Montana JOHN WARNER, Virginia Kristin Sharp, Staff Director Michael McBride, Minority Staff Director Kelsey Stroud, Chief Clerk C O N T E N T S ------ Opening statement: Page Senator Pryor................................................ 1 WITNESSES Wednesday, September 24, 2008 Marko Bourne, Director of Policy and Program Analysis, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security....................................................... 2 Nancy J. Dragani, President, National Emergency Management Association, and Executive Director, Ohio Emergency Management Agency, Ohio Department of Public Safety....................... 5 Larry Gispert, President, International Association of Emergency Managers, and Director of Emergency Management, Hillsborough County, Florida................................................ 7 Jane Bullock, Principal, Bullock and Haddow, LLC, and Former Chief of Staff, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and Member of the Adjunct Faculty, Center of Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management, George Washington University....................... 9 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Bourne, Marko: Testimony.................................................... 2 Prepared statement........................................... 31 Bullock, Jane: Testimony.................................................... 9 Prepared statement........................................... 50 Dragani, Nancy J.: Testimony.................................................... 5 Prepared statement........................................... 38 Gispert, Larry: Testimony.................................................... 7 Prepared statement........................................... 43 APPENDIX Questions and responses submitted for the Record from: Mr. Bourne................................................... 56 Ms. Dragani.................................................. 70 Mr. Gispert.................................................. 74 Ms. Bullock.................................................. 75 MISSION POSSIBLE: FEMA'S FUTURE PREPAREDNESS PLANNING ---------- WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 U.S. Senate, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration, of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark L. Pryor, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. Present: Senator Pryor. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR Senator Pryor. I will go ahead and call us to order. Thank you, everyone, for being here, and certainly the staff and the Members who are coming. I appreciate the work that got us here today. I want to welcome our panelists and our other guests to the Subcommittee today to hear about FEMA's future preparedness efforts. I appreciate you all taking time to be here today. The purpose of this hearing is to assess FEMA's preparedness and continuity of operations over the next 12 to 18 months. As we all know, the next year-and-a-half will see changes in leadership in all the Federal agencies. Many of our State and local partners will also undergo changes in their leadership levels. My goal in holding this hearing is to assess our ability to respond to a catastrophic incident during this time of transition--not just for the Presidential race, but for the next year or year-and-a-half of transition as people get acclimated and get a new Administration up and running. We need to make sure that nothing falls through the cracks. I always feel like the period of transition is critical. For example, here in Washington, we are seeing the winding down of one Administration, and whether it is a Democrat or a Republican who wins in November, we will see a new Administration with a lot of new people, and a lot of times in that time of flux and transition, it can be a vulnerable time for our people. We are in the process of tying up loose ends. I know FEMA has a lot of loose ends that need to be tied up--staffing up agencies, defining roles and responsibilities, and evaluating our capacity. History indicates that terrorists try to capitalize on moments where there seem to be instability or uncertainty, and if this hurricane season is any indication, we cannot count on Mother Nature to cut us any slack, either. It is my hope that this hearing will shed some light on our Nation's emergency management and response capabilities and also identify areas where we can strengthen that. Some of my concerns include ongoing policy initiatives, like the establishment of a target capabilities list and an inventory of Federal response capabilities. I am also interested in planning efforts to wrap up or hand off projects like the National Disaster Housing Strategy, National Response Framework, pandemic flu preparedness, and the continuing flooding and hurricane recovery efforts. It is critical that we focus on gaps in preparedness and response capabilities now rather than later. In my experience, homeland security and emergency management issues have crossed the partisan divide, which I think is a good thing and I hope that they continue to do that. This Administration and previous Administrations offer valuable emergency response and planning experience and our State, local, and private sector partners must also be brought to the table as we identify the best practices in remaining prepared over the next 12 to 18 months. Again, I appreciate everyone's time and attention to this issue and thanks again for being here. Now what I would like to do is introduce our panel. Mr. Bourne, I will let you go first. Marko Bourne is the Director of Policy and Program Analysis at FEMA. I appreciate you testifying before this Subcommittee again. I think he held the distinction of being on our Subcommittee's first panel and now on our last panel before the end of this Congress. So Mr. Bourne, go ahead. TESTIMONY OF MARKO BOURNE,\1\ DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Mr. Bourne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is once again a pleasure to be here before the Subcommittee. I have certainly enjoyed the times that we have been able to chat in the past. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Bourne appears in the Appendix on page 31. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As you said, my name is Marko Bourne and I am the Director of Policy and Program Analysis at FEMA in the Department of Homeland Security and I am pleased to be here for a number of reasons. This Subcommittee has been a tremendous supporter of FEMA and its development and operational readiness over the last several years and it has been my task, among my responsibilities in managing the policy, strategic planning, and transformation process to also have overseen many of the specific developments following PKEMRA and the merger of the Preparedness Directorate into FEMA and many of the reorganization efforts that we have been undertaking along the way. The current operational tempo we are in right now certainly lends itself as a perfect backdrop to the discussion that we are here to have today and I would like to use that as a way of highlighting the progress that we have made to date and the challenges that remain. When, in 2006, Administrator Paulison actually announced his vision for what became known as New FEMA, the major goal was to regain the trust and confidence of the American people by transforming FEMA back into the Nation's preeminent emergency management and preparedness agency, and part of that challenge was to release this past spring FEMA's strategic plan, which is not just for this year, it is not for next year, it is designed to be a strategic plan to build for the next 5 years, and it had significant goals in the plan. Those goals include strengthening our core capabilities and competencies and our capacity to build on the National Emergency Management System, not just on FEMA's Emergency Management System. Our second goal was to build strong regions. The idea that the region is the essential field echelon of FEMA. It is the direct day-to-day connection with our State and local partners, and we are undertaking efforts which I will talk a little bit more in detail in a moment. Strengthening our partnership with the States, which involves more than just providing disaster assistance after the fact, but to plan, train, and exercise in advance. Professionalize the emergency management system by providing additional training opportunities, supporting EMI and the other training institutions that are now part of FEMA, and to build on an effective planning effort that is not only synchronized at the Federal level, but also synchronize through our regions with our State and local partners, and we have made a significant amount of progress in building not only that partnership, which is an ongoing development, as well as FEMA's own internal capacity to deal with these events. We had to focus in many respects on expanding our internal capabilities and strengthening our organization. Part of the challenges that we faced in the post-Katrina environment included the ability to better coordinate with State and Federal agencies, and with Federal agencies, we developed over 200 Pre-Scripted Mission Assignments that help us in advance of disasters facilitate the actions of other Federal agencies. Prior to this year, there were less than 30 of those and we have now 223 with 31 different Federal agencies. On the ground, with the support of the Congress and this Subcommittee, we developed Incident Management Assistance Teams. There are two National Incident Management Assistance Teams and three regional ones and more will be coming on board in the next year. They are our ground troops. They are the folks that go out there that have extensive experience in emergency management and disaster response. They provide situational awareness. And they make that early linkage with our State partners and ultimately with our local partners in areas that are most affected. Our Logistics Management Directorate, which used to be buried about three tiers down in the Operations Directorate, is now a stand-alone and we have revamped the way FEMA looks at logistics and we learn lessons every day about how to better track resources, provide those resources to the State, and when called upon, deliver those resources to the American public. FEMA now has over 60 Mobile Disaster Registration Centers where we can actually roll into areas that do not have power, do not have life support. The ability for folks to apply not just by phone but to apply online, and current activity with regards to applications for disaster assistance in the wake of Hurricane Ike, over 71 percent of those disaster applications have come online now as opposed to calling the 1-800 number, which allows for a tremendous increase in our capacity to register victims for disaster help. We have looked at robust systems for evacuation planning. We learned from Hurricane Katrina that there are those that cannot evacuate themselves. State and local governments have taken great pains to begin to look at how they can support the evacuation of their local population. But what we have done on the Gulf Coast was to look and work with them to develop a comprehensive evacuation plan that involves also Federal support to that when called upon by the State. It is not something that is put together on the fly, but is determined in advance how many people need to be there, what kind of movement needs to happen, and what are the mechanisms to move people to. All of that is part of our preparedness culture and our planning culture, which is slowly growing. We are in the process now of vetting with State and local governments the new Integrated Planning System, and the idea behind IPS is to find a way to not only synchronize Federal planning, but how does that translate to State and local planning. And the IPS document along with the Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 has been vetted with the States and is in its final review period now before publishing. We have strengthened our regions. We are almost doubling the size of our regions both this year and next year, and all of that planning is in place to provide them not only with more training folks, but planning folks as well as emergency response. Hurricanes Gustav and Ike allowed us an opportunity to essentially dry run many of these activities. They have allowed us to determine where there are strengths and weaknesses in our current planning process and how we can improve coordination between all levels of the State, local, and Federal Government. I think it is fair to say that in any disaster, the plan is the first thing that needs to be changed because no disaster respects a plan on paper, and we have tried to be extremely versatile in addressing those challenges as they have come up. We do have a long way to go to continue the rest of the planning that we are doing this year, to finish hiring all of the staff that we have in the queue. There are over 500 that are going to be hired and on board within the next 30 days, which will get us to the 95 percent goal that we set for this year. And we have asked in 2009 for additional support and staff and we look forward to the budget and the appropriations bill so that we can begin to embark on hiring those folks, as well. I thank you and the Subcommittee for your continued support. I will end my remarks here by saying that we continue to build on the foundation. We are building an organization that has the opportunity to move forward aggressively with the support of our State and local partners and we will continue to support the American people in their ability to respond, recover, and mitigate against future disasters. I will be happy to take any questions you might have. Senator Pryor. Thank you. I will save my questions until we have the whole panel testify, but thank you very much. Nancy Dragani is the President of the National Emergency Management Association. She is also Executive Director of the Ohio Emergency Management Agency. Please go ahead, Ms. Dragani. TESTIMONY OF NANCY DRAGANI,\1\ PRESIDENT, NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OHIO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Ms. Dragani. Thank you, Chairman Pryor, and thank you for the invitation to come here and say a few remarks about FEMA's preparedness. FEMA's readiness as we look at the transition in 2009 is a critical issue that Congress and the next Administration must explore and explore carefully. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Dragani appears in the Appendix on page 38. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As you well know, in the past 5 years, FEMA has weathered two significant reorganizations. First, FEMA was reorganized into the Department of Homeland Security in the years following September 11, 2001. FEMA was reorganized again through the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina, which brought back into FEMA some very critical functions and allowed it to provide a more robust and stronger support to its State and local partners. In March 2008, NEMA's members drafted a white paper that outlined recommendations for an effective emergency management system. There were several top emergency management issues that were identified. The first was a focus on all-hazards emergency preparedness. We have seen the pendulum shift from a focus on natural hazards, then post-September 11, 2001, to almost exclusively terrorism, back to catastrophic natural hazards post-Katrina. We need to balance that focus and recognize that if we are prepared for all hazards, then we will be able to respond whether it is a pandemic or a hurricane or a tornado in the Midwest. Emergency management must be owned and supported by elected officials at all levels of government as a critical government service. This isn't just FEMA's job. It isn't just the States' job. It is local government, as well, and we must work together and be adequately resourced to perform our mission. The Nation requires an emergency management system which recognizes the integration of local, State, Tribal, regional, and Federal organizations so that when we need a single management structure following a catastrophic event, that structure is understood and in place. And finally, our citizens and businesses must understand and act on their personal responsibilities, and we have to develop a culture where everyone understands that, ultimately, response happens in the home. The first responder is mom and dad taking care of themselves and their families. I want to talk just a little bit about a revelation that I had a couple weeks ago when I was in Portland at our National Emergency Management Association conference. Several of our members were not there because they were focused on Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. I realized then it was very apparent that we no longer have single-State disasters. We have disasters that involve multiple States and require a national response. One of the ways that we effectively do that is through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact. That compact has proved its value over and over again since Hurricane Katrina and it really requires at this point the establishment of a permanent funding authorization so that the compact can be maintained and the intent can be improved. FEMA regions, and I will echo something that Marko said, I certainly support the development of FEMA regions and FEMA regional coordination capabilities. They are more important now than ever before. The regions need to be fully staffed. They need to have stockpiles, resources pre-positioned, and continue the development of those regional assets. And finally, Emergency Management Performance Grants. We talk about EMPG often because it is the single Federal all- hazards emergency preparedness program that supports the building of capability at the State and local level. It must be maintained as a separate all-hazards program with adequate funding and flexibility to address the specific needs of States and local governments. While Ohio is not prone to hurricanes, thank goodness, and we are not very prone to earthquakes, we are prone to devastating floods, both flash and riverine, tornadoes, and winter storms. Over the past several years, we have been fortunate in having a longstanding and very productive and positive relationship with our Federal partners, particularly FEMA Region V and Ed Buikema and his staff. We have an equally strong and supportive relationship with our 88 county Emergency Management Directors that represent our local partners. This relationship both up and down is critical as we build effective national emergency management systems, and it requires trust and confidence in all your partners, whether they are Federal, State, or local partners. That partnership was again evident last summer when we had devastating floods in Central Ohio and just last week when we had nearly two million customers without power for days on end. We do have a few recommendations for FEMA, DHS, and the Administration. The first is that the FEMA Administrator must continue to serve as a primary advisor to the President on emergency management issues, and FEMA as an organization must be adequately staffed and given the authority to provide both the resources federally, but the resources to its State and local partners, as well. Second, State, local, and private stakeholders should be involved in the full lifecycle of any strategy, policy, or plan development related to national preparedness efforts because ultimately, if it is national, it brings in State and local partners. And I do want to applaud FEMA for the efforts they have done to date in the last several months to bring us in early as policies are being developed rather than waiting until after the fact. Finally, the Federal interagency preparedness activities must be coordinated at the Federal level prior to implementation. The effort that FEMA is undertaking through the Integrated Planning System to coordinate Federal planning activities is critical and prevents both duplication and confusion at the Federal level that translates down to local relationships. With that, I want to thank you again for allowing me to come and share a few thoughts with you and I will be happy to answer any questions when we are done. Thank you. Senator Pryor. Thank you. Larry Gispert is the President of the International Association of Emergency Managers. He is also Director of Emergency Management for Hillsborough County, Florida, which I understand that you have about 1.5 million people? Mr. Gispert. One-point-two, but who is quibbling. Senator Pryor. One-point-two, and growing? Mr. Gispert. Yes, sir. Senator Pryor. Go ahead. Thank you. TESTIMONY OF LARRY GISPERT,\1\ PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EMERGENCY MANAGERS, AND DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA Mr. Gispert. Good afternoon, Chairman Pryor. Thank you for allowing me to present testimony on this critically important topic. I am Larry Gispert. I am the Director of Emergency Management for Hillsborough County, Florida. Hillsborough County, including the major city of Tampa, is on the West Coast of Florida. The county's population is approximately 1.2 million. I currently serve as the President of the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM), and am testifying on their behalf today. I have 28 years' experience in emergency management with the last 15 years as the Hillsborough County Director. I have also served as the President of the Florida Emergency Preparedness Association. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Gispert appears in the Appendix on page 43. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IAEM has over 4,000 members, including emergency management professionals at the State and local government level, Tribal Nations, the military, colleges and universities, private and nonprofit sectors, and members in 58 other countries. Most of our members are U.S. city and county emergency managers. We believe that the high potential for disasters and crises in our country demand that we maintain an effective national system of emergency management. This national system needs to consist of strong partners at the Federal, State, and local levels. Yet it is our belief that this mission is most easily realized through making FEMA once again an independent agency reporting directly to the President. In the absence of this structural change, we believe success is not impossible, but will certainly require more effort coupled with a very vigilant Congress. After Hurricane Katrina, IAEM endorsed a number of critical elements for achieving a strong FEMA. They are: Maximum amount of access of the FEMA Director to the White House; FEMA clearly responsible for coordination of the Federal response to disasters; adequate funding, resources, and personnel for FEMA; experienced, qualified, and knowledgeable leadership in all key FEMA positions; the Principal Federal Official position abolished; FEMA regions strengthened; inclusion of local emergency managers in policy development; insist on an all- hazards approach to emergency management; and the entire preparedness mission returned to FEMA. IAEM supports hiring qualified and experienced emergency managers in the senior leadership roles at FEMA. The next Administration should continue FEMA's recent noteworthy efforts to involve State and local emergency managers in policy development. Not too long ago, I gently reminded our partners in FEMA that if they wanted us to be there at the crash landing, we should be in on the take-off. I am pleased to say that recently, there appear to be few crash landings. Our written testimony contains several examples of collaboration. We particularly appreciate the inclusion of State and local emergency managers on the National Advisory Council and several of the Regional Advisory Councils. We urge FEMA to recognize that one size does not fit all by giving more flexible guidance on their many grants. We urge the new Administration to keep the focus on all hazards, of which terrorism is only one. While terrorism is an incident to which we are all vulnerable, it is certainly not the most likely disaster to occur. All our communities are vulnerable on a daily basis to Mother Nature. We hope that the new Administration quickly chooses a highly-qualified Administrator with actual emergency management experience to run FEMA. Strong State and local emergency managers are a critical element to the future success of a National Emergency Management System. In order to enhance the capacity of this profession, there are a number of critical elements that the new Administration should embrace and promote. They are: Ensure emergency management policies are consistent with the principles of emergency management initiative; return the Emergency Management Institute to the forefront of preparing our profession's future leaders; support individual certification, Certified Emergency Manage (CEM), and program accreditation, the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAT). We need FEMA's assistance in promoting community preparedness. We need to jointly work together in making our citizens survivors instead of victims. Some citizens are not able to help themselves, but the general population is more than capable of doing so. A survivor never asks, ``Where is my assistance?'' Instead, a survivor asks, ``How can I help fix the problems?'' Survivors act as force multipliers; victims become a liability. In conclusion, we hope that the new Administration will consider the critical elements IAEM has adopted. We believe a strong and independent FEMA with clear authority, direct access to the White House, and highly-qualified leadership is essential. We urge Congress to insist on full implementation of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act. We urge continued involvement of State and local emergency management in policy discussions. We do not want any more crash landings. We stand ready to assist in any way we can. Thank you. Senator Pryor. Thank you. Our fourth and last panelist is Jane Bullock. She was Chief of Staff of FEMA when it was led by the legendary James Lee Witt and she is now an adjunct professor at GW's Center for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management. Thank you, and go ahead. TESTIMONY OF JANE BULLOCK,\1\ PRINCIPAL, BULLOCK AND HADDOW, LLC, AND FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, AND MEMBER OF THE ADJUNCT FACULTY, CENTER OF CRISIS, DISASTER, AND RISK MANAGEMENT, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY Ms. Bullock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity you have given me today to talk about something that is very important to me, to my peers on the panel, to the Congress, and most critically to the American people, and that is how we can better serve them during times of crisis. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Bullock appears in the Appendix on page 50. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe I bring a unique perspective to this hearing. I had the privilege of working as a career civil servant in FEMA for 21 years, culminating in my position as Chief of Staff to FEMA Director James Lee Witt. In my career at FEMA, I worked in earthquake preparedness, radiological emergency preparedness, flood insurance. I was the Director of the Office of Regional Operations and the Director of Public Affairs. And as a career civil servant, I served on the internal FEMA transition teams for Administration transitions in 1988, 1992, and led the transition team in 2000. Throughout this time, I worked alongside the most dedicated and talented civil servants in the Federal Government, who from 1992 to 2000 successfully responded to over 300 major disasters, including the 1993 floods, the Northridge Earthquake, Hurricanes Floyd and Fran, and the Oklahoma City bombing. FEMA is a unique agency in that its entire mission is focused on helping American people to prepare for and mitigate the impacts of disasters, and when a disaster strikes, to provide support to individuals, families, and communities to effectively respond and recover. However, we always recognize that FEMA cannot achieve its mission on its own. Our ability to succeed was always dependent upon a working partnership with State and local governments, other Federal agencies, NGOs, nonprofits, and the private sector. All disasters are local and FEMA has been most effective when it has had the authority and resources to coordinate and direct the Federal Government's efforts to support State and local officials before, during, and after a disaster. Unfortunately, I believe the current Administration and the current political leadership at the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA do not understand this mission and do not know how best to achieve it. We saw this first in Hurricane Katrina and now, 3 years later, after the promise of reform and the talk of a FEMA renewal, we are seeing it again in the recovery to Hurricane Ike. As we look forward to the next 12 months, as you said, Mr. Chairman, change will be coming to Washington and to the Federal Government. During this period, we could experience any number of disasters--a major earthquake in California, which unfortunately is long overdue, severe storms, a flu outbreak, or a domestic terrorism event. What can be done in the coming months to ensure that should a major event occur, FEMA and the Federal Government will be prepared? What should the vision for the future FEMA in a new Administration be? FEMA needs to be returned to its former status as the world's best emergency management organization. In my written testimony, I lay out long-term goals. Now, I would like to briefly mention those, but focus on short-term activities that will support a heightened level of preparedness as we begin. To improve our preparedness long-term, we must: Make FEMA an independent agency and the Director a member of the President's cabinet; rebuild FEMA's partnership with State and local emergency management organizations; support risk-based all-hazards preparedness, mitigation, and response; invest in FEMA's career civil servants and strengthen the role FEMA's regional staff can play as the first line of defense; rebuild the Federal Response Plan; invest in hazard mitigation and support community disaster resiliency; and embrace the private sector, the NGOs, and the CBOs as full partners in our Nation's emergency management system. Obviously, all of this cannot be accomplished in the next few months, but there are some practical actions that can be taken now. There are three areas I would like to focus on: Rebuilding the State and local partnership; improving coordination at the Federal level; and taking a thoughtful and careful approach to personnel actions during the transition. First, I would suggest that the career leadership of each of the FEMA regions meet together with their State directors and local emergency directors to talk about what can be expected from FEMA during this period and how they will work together specifically to respond to a large event. As you have heard from the earlier panelists, FEMA has reached out to State and local partners, but if these meetings were to occur in each region, there would be an ability to look at what capabilities do exist. There are varying capabilities at the State and local level. An open and honest dialogue of what States can expect from the Federal Government and what FEMA can count on from State and local governments will go a long way towards managing the response and managing expectations of our citizens that may be impacted by a large event. At the same time, I would strongly encourage our regions to make the same effort to reach out to CBOs and NGOs and the private sector. There are many organizations that are now very active in response and preparedness as a result of the government failure in Hurricane Katrina. We will need their support in a major disaster, but it is important, as with State and locals to understand what assets they have and how they can be utilized. Second, I would encourage the senior career leadership at FEMA to convene meetings with their counterparts in the Federal departments and agencies to make sure that not just the mission assignments are done, but that the relationships exist and that they can provide a coordinated and effective Federal response. Relationships are what make disasters work. Under the new Federal Response Framework, the roles and responsibilities of the Federal partnership have been blurred and DHS and FEMA has tried to do it all by assuming more lead roles. I think this is a major mistake because DHS and FEMA simply do not have the expertise to do it all. The most effective Federal response mechanism evidenced in the 1990s was based on utilizing the expertise of the other Federal agencies, and this worked because FEMA provided the overall coordination and because we reimbursed them through the Disaster Relief Fund. I think an immediate step would be to meet with the Federal partners and establish simple short-term operating agreements as to the roles and responsibilities in the event of a large event. To be absolutely honest, I believe that in the event of a disaster, we will see a more effective Federal response because the senior career leadership in FEMA know what needs to be done and know how to do it. It will execute without being second guessed, without being restricted by indecision, cost, or political philosophy, as we have seen happen under the current Administration. Third, I would like to focus on personnel issues that are relevant to our ability to be prepared, and this is based on experience that I have had in going through transitions. I know there is concern over the numbers of positions at FEMA that remain unfilled. I would like to introduce a note of caution in rushing to fill these positions. In the rush to fill these positions, we are seeing individuals being selected who may be qualified on paper, but lack an understanding of what it takes to run a successful emergency management organization. We are seeing individuals hired who are ex-military or ex-Coast Guard who have good credentials but their disciplines are Federal- centered. Their background and training is about calling the shots, being in charge, acting independently. Collaboration and coordination is often foreign to them. But those are the essentials for an effective preparedness and response structure. In addition, these disciplines often don't have a lot of experience working with State and local governments, don't recognize the importance of listening to our partners, listening to their ideas, their concerns, and their needs. As you know, the Constitution assigns public health and safety to the States. The Disaster Relief Act makes it clear that the Federal Government is called on when State and local capacities are overwhelmed. A strong effective system, national system of emergency management, must be built on this partnership. During a time of change, another major concern is to ensure that career positions are not filled by former political appointees from throughout the government who have very limited experience in FEMA. During the 2000 transition, all Federal agencies were required to inform Congress when a former political employee was chosen to fill a career position. I would urge Congress to request the same notification as we proceed through the next months. FEMA is a small agency with a very big mission and as such must be careful to hire only the best and most qualified. Finally, another issue has arisen relative to the FEMA Regional Directors. There has been significant discussion of converting the Regional Director position to career civil service and DHS and FEMA have said that they intend to do so as these positions are vacated. I believe this is a major mistake. As a former Director of FEMA's Office of Regional Operations, I have worked closely with FEMA's regions and their staff. The FEMA regional structure has always been built around a strong career Deputy Regional Director, and a political Regional Director who can be that critical interface with the political community of governors, local elected officials, and Members of Congress. In the 1990s, we found that FEMA's most effective Regional Directors were those political appointees who had the skills and experience to work in the political world dealing with the political issues while the career staff managed and carried out the necessary preparedness and response actions. These Regional Directors developed a level of trust with their career employees that allowed everyone to do their job. One final note on personnel in times of anxiety--in times of transition. Transitions are times of anxiety for career civil servants. The more the transition process can be open, transparent, and involve career employees, the unions, and the organizations that represent the civil service, the smoother the transition and the inevitable reorganizations will be. I would encourage and hope the Subcommittee, through its oversight responsibilities, could encourage the new Administration to endorse such an approach. In conclusion, I think it is time to take action to correct the mistakes we have made. During my 21-year career at FEMA, the agency was most successful when the President and the Congress made it clear that the Federal Government has a critical role in supporting State and local governments in disasters. FEMA was most successful when the FEMA Director had a strong relationship and direct access to the President and worked closely in concert with FEMA's dedicated career employees. We have the opportunity to restore FEMA and our Nation's emergency management system to the former status as the best in the world and to restore the confidence of the American people that their government will be there to help them when the next disaster strikes. Thank you very much. Senator Pryor. Thank you, and let me just start with you, Mr. Bourne, and put you on the hot seat first and ask you some questions. Some of these are follow-ups from some of the things that the other witnesses have said today, and obviously people have their different perspectives and all that, but I would like to get FEMA's perspective on several items. FEMA has been through a series of leadership changes in the last 7\1/2\ years and some structural changes, but this election and this new Administration will be the first time that there really is a full-scale change of Administrations for FEMA. I guess the first question is, do you feel that FEMA is preparing for that transition, and if they are, how are they? Mr. Bourne. FEMA is preparing for it and we are very well prepared, and obviously that is an ongoing process that is going to happen for months to come. To give you an idea just in broad outline, with the exception of one position, which will be filled within the next 60 days, all the senior executive career positions in FEMA are filled. The one that is not yet filled and will be filled in the next 60 days is the Deputy U.S. Fire Administrator. All of the senior positions throughout the agency, GS-15 and above, predominately are filled. The vacancies that exist on the books right now are from our rapid expansion of converting the 4-year corps to career, which are happening now. Those are the cadre of on-call reserve, our temporary workers which the Congress has allowed us to do over the last fiscal year, this fiscal year, and our request for the next fiscal year. FEMA has roughly doubled in size. We went from 2,000 full- time equivalent personnel to well over 4,000 now. We are at, I believe it is 3,600 in our hiring at this point and we continue to have about 500 in the queue that are going to be hired over the next several weeks. Now, that is not a rush. That has been an ongoing effort for, quite frankly, more than a year and a half, to build the competency level of the folks in FEMA. Our transition planning efforts are underway and have been actually underway since before the beginning of the calendar year this year, based on these basic areas: Knowledge transfer; the succession planning that we have done within each of our directorates and offices; communications outreach, not only which has begun with our employees, but they are actually in the process now of developing 60-, 90-day plans for the immediate days after the election takes place and the inauguration happens so that the critical path issues are identified, ready to be teed up and addressed; our readiness, which has increased over the last several years. We are leading the effort to develop the Federal Interagency Con Plan for the period of heightened alert, which is ongoing, being managed through our planners in the Disaster Operations Directorate, along with other Federal agencies. We are in the process of also making sure that our management and administrative practices are not only fully documented and up to date, but that we are providing a guidebook that-- essentially how FEMA operates, so that whether--whoever comes in the door after January 20, and whoever is part of that transition post-election is going to have a very in-depth knowledge to draw from. Also, that transition binder, which is in the process of being developed now, is not going to be made just available to the new Administration when they are identified, but it is actually going to be provided to every single FEMA employee, and the purpose of that is it is the first comprehensive mission and function guidebook that the agency has had and it is rather what I will call a fairly extensive yet easy to read digest of every program, of what each directorate does, its relationship to the other directorates. So the planning process has been well underway and we are at this point updating parts to it as opposed to trying to develop it while we are in the middle of hurricane season. Senator Pryor. So it sounds like from your response, which was a detailed response, you share my concern about the fact that gaps sometimes are created during a transition period and it sounds like you are doing, at least from your perspective, everything you can to make sure those gaps don't exist, is that right? Mr. Bourne. We are doing a lot. Exactly. We are trying to find as many of the gaps, fill as many of those as we can. Where there are gaps that cannot be addressed in the time we have remaining, we have put together options for remediation that we will pass on certainly to the folks that follow us. The Administrator is very concerned to make sure that there is not a single dropped disaster or a crash landing, as my friend from Florida would say, but to try to make sure that it is a seamless transition for the agency. The career SES staff in FEMA are intimately involved with this process and it has been a collaborative process right from the beginning. Senator Pryor. Great. Let me follow up on one thing you said a few minutes ago. You talked about how all but one of your senior career positions have been filled. Were those positions filled with career people or were they filled with political people that were moving into career positions? Mr. Bourne. They have been filled with career folks. We have not moved political people into SES slots. There has only been, I believe, one political in the whole agency that successfully competed for a GS-14 slot in preparedness. He was a Schedule C, he was not a SES. That went through the OPM process for review, so it was vetted fully, and I believe that has also been made available as per Congressional requirement as part of the notification process. Now, we have talked many times about who are the political folks in FEMA and how were they hired and what experience they have. The Administrator has only hired political leadership in FEMA that has extensive emergency management and public safety experience. Our seven regional administrators that are political all have more than 20-plus years in this business, Ed Buikema being one in Region V, as well as many of the others. The three career regional administrators come also with extensive both political and what I will call career experience--Nancy Ward in Region IX, which is California, Phil May, who goes back many years in FEMA, both as a former Regional Director, also has extensive experience, and John Sarubbi, who came to us out of the Coast Guard has extensive emergency experience from his days, as well. So there is not just a hiring of a political person for political sake. It is actually people that come with experience and we hope that would continue regardless of what positions are political in the future in FEMA or not. Senator Pryor. All right. I do want to talk a little bit more about some of those personnel matters in a minute, but first, let me ask about the National Response Framework, which is the document that sets out the lines of authority and decisionmaking in a disaster. The document itself is out, but the annexes that support State, local, and private sector entities, the so-called partner guides, as well as the catastrophic index, have not been completed. So my question to you is when will they be completed and is this something that you are going to leave to the next Administration to clean up? Mr. Bourne. No. Actually, those are well on the way towards completion. They have been in the process of being vetted, not only by the organizations in the private sector or the State and local sector that are part of that, but they are in the process also of being finalized so that they can be published prior to the end of this calendar year. Those partner guides were designed to provide additional support to State and local, private sector, and NGOs, and they are being written with those folks not only in mind, but also with those folks involved, and that process should be completing and being wrapped up over the next month or so. Senator Pryor. OK, because honestly, in different contexts within FEMA, we have asked for things in the past. This has been a frustration on the Committee and the Subcommittee. We have asked for things in the past and receive excuses such as, ``Oh, we are going to do that next week, next month,'' whatever, and sometimes it takes entirely too long to get---- Mr. Bourne. It does, and that is something that we have concern about, as well. Not to make an excuse for it, but FEMA had over 275 specific taskings in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act---- Senator Pryor. Yes. Mr. Bourne [continuing]. That we have had to address, work through while trying to also obtain additional staff in order to beef up our ability to respond as well as plan. And so it has kind of been a bit of a juggling act at times for us, but we have gotten a significant amount of help from our State and local partners and others to try to make it successful, and we don't relish the idea of missing deadlines, but we are certainly pressing forward as expeditiously as we can. Senator Pryor. All right. Let me change gears on you again here and talk about the National Strategy for Pandemic Flu Implementation Plan. It has not clearly addressed the roles of DHS, FEMA, versus HHS. It also does not address how FEMA and HHS will work together on sheltering a recovery over a long period of time. To me, it seems that it should address these two matters. Do you think that it should, and what kind of guidance would you like to see from FEMA over the long term? Mr. Bourne. That is actually a very good question and an interesting one on several levels. We have been working closely with not only HHS, but the Office of Health Affairs in the Department and Admiral Crea, who is leading the departmental effort on the pandemic plan with HHS. Certainly, FEMA has got a role to play, not necessarily as a primary coordinator of activity, but to support the larger Federal response. Some of our regional administrators and our Federal Coordinating Officers have already been predesignated for various regional planning efforts and they are intimately involved with that. Our Disaster Operations Directorate is also involved with the more detailed planing, which is going on now to address the issues that you have brought up. Certainly in a pandemic, the sheltering issue and the recovering issue is one that this country has not faced in about 90 years or so, and there was not at that time the ability to move not only people, but also material and support like we have today. The vast majority of these issues that are going to be raised in pandemic may require sheltering in place and supporting that and we are working with HHS to determine what we can bring to the table to support State and local efforts to address those problems because that is going to be probably the trickiest part of the entire operation, beyond the fact of getting the Strategic National Stockpile deployed and delivered, doing the additional prophylaxis that needs to be done to prevent additional folks from getting whatever it is the pandemic is being caused by. So our folks are actively engaged in that. I don't have all the details of that planning at my fingertips, but I would be happy to share that planning with the Subcommittee. Senator Pryor. Great. I am not going to ask all my questions to you, Mr. Bourne, but I do have a few more. I just want to cover some of these subjects since this will be the last hearing of the Subcommittee for the year and it will be the last one we have before the Presidential race and until we get back in January. I want to ask about the National Disaster Housing Strategy. I understand that the comment period for the draft strategy was just extended to, I think, September 29. How is the comment collection process going? In other words, when I hear you have an extension, that makes me wonder, are you getting a lot of comments or not enough comments? I would like to know how that is going and how FEMA plans to incorporate these final comments into the strategy? Mr. Bourne. So far, I believe--and I don't have the exact numbers in front of me--as of the other day, there were 16 specific commentors with over 80 specific comments so far. Many of those came from one or two commentors. We have extended it in order to provide additional opportunity for folks who have been certainly listening to the hearings of the last 2 days to get a better understanding of what their thoughts are. We continue to encourage them. We will continue to take comments really after the comment period is over anyway. If they are filed with FEMA through the docket, we will continue to incorporate those. All of the comments will be responded to. All of the comments will be addressed within the revised and final strategy. There will not be a comment left out of the process. Each commentor will learn what the adjudication of their comment was and what the rationale for either accepting it, modifying it, or not accepting it was. Senator Pryor. And when do you think we will see the final strategy? Mr. Bourne. Our goal is to get it done before the holidays. Senator Pryor. Before the end of the year? Mr. Bourne. Well before the end of the year. Senator Pryor. And there has also been a National Disaster Housing Task Force. Basically, I think, a lot of these decisions have really been ceded to the task force. Has that been established yet? Is it up and running yet? Mr. Bourne. Well, I do want to correct one misimpression that folks may have. The task force is not--the responsibility for the other piece is--the annexes which folks have been talking about has not been ceded to the task force. That is actually--those annexes are well underway and being drafted by FEMA staff and other folks within the Federal interagency, to include the Red Cross, HUD, and a number of others. Those annexes, six of which are nearing the point where they can begin a review process. The seventh of them, which is the final one, is really kind of a conglomeration of issues that we think need to be addressed by future Congresses and that one won't be completed until the rest of the annexes have fleshed out their requirements and their needs. Senator Pryor. Is the task force up and running? Mr. Bourne. The task force is up and running. It is being temporarily led by Susan Reinertson, who is our Region X Administrator. She has come in to help stand it up while we hire full-time staff to support that effort. The Red Cross, HUD--I want to say two or three other agencies that are escaping me right now have also not only lent support to it, but they have actually provided staff support to help that task force stand up. Senator Pryor. Will the task force have continuity over the next year or so through the transition? Mr. Bourne. Yes. As a matter of fact, it is all career people and that continuity will continue, and their mission and mandate is to not only continue to support the final effort to finish the strategy in general, but also to take the strategy and begin to develop ideas on better implementation of not only FEMA's housing role, but to work with State and local folks to determine how housing can be handled in the future and what new ideas are available within the marketplace or what needs to be developed to address unique challenges. Senator Pryor. All right. Let me change gears on you again. FEMA, by its nature, always has some matters that are still open. One of those would be right now, the Hurricane Katrina recovery effort is still ongoing. FEMA is still involved there. Obviously with Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, the same thing. I mean, you are still very much involved in those matters. They are still open. Do you have any specific plan on turning these open cases over to the next Administration, or is your hope that they will just continue along as they are doing, most of the career people? How does that work? Mr. Bourne. They actually are--most of FEMA's workforce, quite frankly, an overwhelming percentage, somewhere in the 90 to 99 percent range, are the career folks. They manage the disasters. They are the ones populating the Joint Field Offices. They are the ones that manage the effort with regards to the temporary or the Transitional Regional Offices that are out there in the Gulf. Quite frankly, we still have an open office and open projects from the Northridge Earthquake in 1994. There are a number of disasters that span many years because some of these projects, quite frankly, going on for many years. So that is something that transfers from one Administration to the other routinely throughout the course of FEMA's history and we don't see any change in that transfer happening that would upset the progress being made. Senator Pryor. Well, let me just ask for a little point of clarification. I have a note here that says FEMA has the highest percentage of political appointments among operational DHS components. Thirty-four percent of FEMA executives are non- career appointees. Are you saying the overall workforce is 90 percent---- Mr. Bourne. I don't know the exact percentage, but out of 4,000 authorized FTE, there are only 16 non-career SES appointments. There are only four or five Schedule C appointments. And there are five Senate-confirmed positions. Senator Pryor. So you are saying you only have 25 or 30 political---- Mr. Bourne. That is correct. Senator Pryor [continuing]. Appointees and---- Mr. Bourne. Yes, and as a matter of fact, there are fewer Senate-confirmed positions in FEMA now than there were back in the 1990s or the 1980s. Senator Pryor. OK. Let me again change gears here for a moment. FEMA has initiated a Catastrophic Disaster Response Planning Initiative, and could you give us a little more detail about the initiative and is it adequate and what lessons have you learned from it that you think are important to carry forward for the next year or two? Mr. Bourne. Well, there are actually two parts to the catastrophic planning we are doing. One, we would support a Congress-provided catastrophic planning grants to, I believe, five major urban areas in the country to address catastrophic events in those major urban areas. But we have also been doing catastrophic planning on very specific disasters, South Florida specifically, Lake Okeechobee, and the planning in Miami-Dade and that region. In California, the Sacramento area with regards to the levees that surround the Sacramento Valley and what would happen if an earthquake undermined those levees and what would happen with salt water seepage into that region. We are also looking at the New Madrid Earthquake Seismic Zone. All of these efforts have been underway for a couple of years now and they are essentially bottom-up planning efforts. They are a combination of local officials, geological folks, depending on the type of hazard being faced, Army Corps of Engineers and ourself and our regions are very much involved in that planning process and we expect those to continue, not only into the next year, but into the next several years. Senator Pryor. Yes. The New Madrid Fault issue is important to us in our State because it is just immediately to the north of us and really runs down through Arkansas, the Eastern part of the State--the extreme Northeast part of the State. It is one of those areas, when they talk about earthquakes, that is often overlooked. People think about the West Coast, but geologists tell us that a New Madrid earthquake could be much worse than what you see on the West Coast, given the nature of the soil and the various conditions. So I am glad to know that planning is moving forward. Is that something that has a target date where you are trying to get all the planning complete and you are going to have that wrapped up by a certain point, or is that just an open-ended---- Mr. Bourne. It is somewhat open-ended because obviously as science provides us with more tools and understanding and as the built environment changes within those communities--New Madrid earthquake, for example, is a process that started a couple of years ago and I believe the planning process is built out through the next two fiscal years, at least, before there is what we will call--I don't want to say a hard stop, but a soft stop at that point to determine that all the planning from bottom up has been completed. There are a number of exercises that are planned over the next couple of years to address various aspects of the plan. So it is kind of an ongoing effort, but the bulk of the majority of the planning will be done over the next year or two. Senator Pryor. I think that is great. Let me also ask about how FEMA is doing in finding ways to measure progress on preparedness. I know this has been a challenge, where you, I guess you can call them metrics. You are really looking for ways to measure what you are doing and how prepared you actually are. As I understand it, there is currently no inventory of Federal capabilities even though one is required in the Hurricane Katrina law that we passed. And so if there is not a good inventory of Federal capabilities, it is kind of hard for us to figure out how to distribute grant monies and which local entities should get what. Do you have any comments on that, or is there any progress on that? Mr. Bourne. There is. Part of it is what is available within the Federal Government to support capabilities in the field, to support State and local. There actually is an ongoing development and an ongoing inventory of Federal assets that are available to FEMA. Our Disaster Operations Directorate has begun that process. It is being assisted by the National Preparedness Directorate. Senator Pryor. When will that be completed, do you know? Mr. Bourne. It is constantly evolving and being added to. There is already a base amount that is available to us and we do it through what is called the ESFLG, which is the Emergency Service Function Leadership Group, which is made up of all the Federal agencies that support FEMA in disasters. They have been working that project for a number of years. What we don't have yet is what we will call the assessment of State and local capabilities which is under development in two ways. One, through the Federal preparedness reporting that the National Preparedness Directorate has been working with the States and locals to develop. The idea is what questions should we be asking State and locals about their capabilities? A Target Capabilities List, which already exists, is going through a bit of a transformation because one of the challenges of the original TCL project was it was very voluminous, very difficult for State and locals and first responders to understand what their capability should be, and the TCL Redevelopment Project that has been going on for the last 7 months or so is looking at each TCL. We have been going out within the regions, bringing together stakeholders of hazardous materials experts, State emergency managers, local emergency managers, experts in the field to change the way the TCLs are presented, understand what they really mean so State and locals can make decisions about what capability they wish to build. When that project is completed, there will be a better way to inventory what is required. Second, we are taking a look through what is called the Cost of Capabilities Project in our grant shop. Grants is taking a look at what have we spent money on going back as far as we possibly can, given the records of early grants up to the grants now, and trying to make a determination as to what has been accomplished so far using the eight preparedness elements in the National Preparedness Goal as kind of a benchmark. And the idea is to say, what have we spent money on? What capabilities have potentially been built with that spending? And what capabilities remain to be realized because not all of the money may have been spent yet? And that effort is already underway. We expect some preliminary results in the next 6 months, and then it will become an ongoing part of the process. Grants feed a portion of preparedness. Training feeds a portion of preparedness, exercises, etc., and the National Preparedness Directorate is pulling together that umbrella that pulls all those things in so we will have a much better management picture. Senator Pryor. Well, it turns out we have a couple of experts on State and local matters here, so let me ask them, Ms. Dragani and Mr. Gispert. On the State and local level, is it difficult to assess what your capabilities are and how is it working with FEMA? Is that being coordinated? Mr. Gispert. Ladies first. Ms. Dragani. Thank you, Mr. Gispert. On a State level, it has proved challenging to assess our capabilities because we are not sure what capabilities yet we need to build. So I think as the Target Capabilities List becomes more fleshed out, easier to understand and easier to translate, with clearer guidance and clearer risk analysis, then it is easier for States to identify what capabilities they need. Senator Pryor. And are you waiting on FEMA for that? Ms. Dragani. No, we are not waiting on FEMA for that. I think that there is a point where it is the responsibility of State and local government to move forward, because ultimately, we are responsible for our citizens. So I think most States and governments are moving forward. They are analyzing their risk. They are developing the capabilities that they think they need based on the risks they know they have. Senator Pryor. OK. Mr. Gispert. Mr. Chairman, it is not that we have not assessed ourselves. We have assessed ourselves to death. Since the implementation of the Homeland Security Grant Program, every year, the focus has changed and we have always shifted off counting different widgets for different budget years. Senator Pryor. Give us an example of that. Mr. Gispert. Originally, when the Homeland Security Grant Program came out, it was absolutely forbidden to buy anything that could be used for anything other than a response to a terrorism event. We kept hammering back, all hazards. Why can't we buy a device that can be used in a hurricane as well as a terrorism event? Eventually, DHS and FEMA relented and we have been able to do that the last couple of years. We went under what was called the National Plan Review, sir, after almost an 8-year Administration, we were suffering being assessed by idiots. I have been in this business 28 years. These people had no clue what we did at the local level and they came down and said, ``Thou shalt do it this way,'' and we said, ``No, we won't. We have spent the last 30 years planning from here to here to here.'' The response was, ``No, you will do it.'' I will have to tell you, mostly it was our friends in the Department of Defense who wanted to implement a defense planning strategy on the local levels. We are civilians. We at the local level have command and control of nothing. We coordinate and cooperate. We ask people to do things. We don't command them to do it. And you cannot plan a pure structured response to a scenario under the command and control structure if you don't have that ability to command people. So what we do at the local level is if we need dump trucks, we ask who has them? Are you willing to give them? Yes? OK, you are in the plan. And we go around and we look for whatever needs to be done, and we have done that for years and years and years. I will say in defense of the current FEMA Administration, that reaching out to locals improved after they initially issued the National Response Framework (NRF). We raised hell about the NRF because it was totally different from what we have ever had. They withdrew it. They asked for our comments, and they came out with a document that we all could live with. They have been reaching out to us. But sir, that is 1 year in an 8-year Administration. What we are saying in our comments here is not that they are bad people now, but the question is what happens after January 20th? Do we continue this collaboration or do we go back to the Federal ``Thou shalt do this''? We tell you that we are at the local level. We are where the rubber meets the road. We have to have a partner. We don't need a commander, we need a partner. And when you have certain assets at the Federal level that we don't have at the local level and we ask for them and we need them, we need them now. So once again, what we are hoping is that the outreach that the FEMA people have done over this last year will continue in the new Administration, and I think we will get there. And some of those loose-ended projects, Congress asked for will get completed. In their defense, they got pulled 30 different ways. You gave them, you will do a National Housing Strategy and do it in 30 days or whatever it is. The next thing you know, they are doing this, and they can only do one thing at a time. Senator Pryor. Right. Mr. Gispert. So those are my comments, sir. I am sorry. Senator Pryor. No, that is good. You both have said it is sometimes difficult to assess your capacities to do certain things. I know that a lot of people who have looked at this say that in spite of us spending $4 billion with HHS that has gone to State and local hospitals for preparedness, many folks believe that our hospital system and emergency management community is just unable to handle a prolonged bioterrorism or flu-type epidemic, some sort of pandemic. In your experience in your local and State areas, do you feel like your hospitals are capable of handling a long-term challenge like that? Mr. Gispert. Define long, please. How long are you talking about, 30 days? Sixty days? Senator Pryor. Well, or longer, like a flu pandemic. Mr. Gispert. The answer is, no, we cannot do it. Senator Pryor. Yes. Mr. Gispert. In Florida, our hospital capacities are at 95- plus percent all the time. That means they don't have very many spare beds. So when we have a catastrophe, they start putting people in the hallways and those kind of things. They couldn't do it for a long period of time. Senator Pryor. Do you know if your hospitals have collaboration agreements with other hospitals in the region---- Mr. Gispert. Yes, sir. Senator Pryor [continuing]. And in the State and have they worked on those contingency plans? Mr. Gispert. Yes, they have. The hospitals are different because that is where the private for-profit scenario comes in and sometimes government has very little decree over a private for-profit hospital. But they have collectively planned with us at the community level. They know that they are going to be a part of the emergency response. I have 14 active hospitals in my community and we plan on a yearly basis and have what we call a mass casualty drill---- Senator Pryor. Right. Mr. Gispert [continuing]. Which is at least 200 patients and what have you. It has always been the agreement between local, State, and Federal Government that the locals hold the fort until the cavalry comes. Senator Pryor. Right. Mr. Gispert. Now, you can define that as 3 days, 4 days, but we can't go extended periods of time. And then the State comes in with the resources from the other surrounding counties, and when they get exceeded, here comes the Federal Government. That is the theory behind all this. So the locals are only supposed to hold the fort for a short period of time while the cavalry is mustering and coming to our help. Senator Pryor. Ms. Dragani, did you have any comments on that? Ms. Dragani. I do. I think that hospitals don't have the capacity to handle mass casualties on any broad scale. However, building the system with public health, with acute care centers that can take those non-critical patients and provide them with the resources, the IVs and the fluids and those types of non- critical care support will free up hospitals to continue to provide the critical care. But I would also say, if I may, Senator, you commented early on about pandemic. There is no other organization, I would submit, in the Nation that is more capable or qualified to pull together a pandemic response than the emergency management community because we are collaborators. It is about sheltering or providing food, caring for people, pulling together information and intelligence. It may not be a typical disaster, but it absolutely will be a crippling disaster, and I think the emergency management community, whether it is State, local, or Federal, is the right organization to pull that response together. Senator Pryor. OK, great. Ms. Bullock, you mentioned something in your statement about, as I understand it, you think it is important to have political appointees out in these regional offices. Could you elaborate on that? As I understand what you said, it is because the political appointees do well in dealing with local political people. Is that what you said? Ms. Bullock. We all know that disasters are political with a small ``p'' and it becomes an important issue for a governor, for a local elected official, for Members of Congress when they are back in their districts to be able to talk about some of the political issues with an equivalent, to be able to talk about some of the political issues with someone who can get a connection back to the political head of FEMA. The career staff often get intimidated in terms of dealing--and this is what we saw throughout the 1980s and 1990s--often get intimidated in those circumstances and also often don't think about the politics of disasters. And the structure--and we had a lot of that--back in the 1980s when I was running the Office of Regional Operations, there was a lot of discussion about making the Regional Directors career. In some regions, we had to depend on career deputies to fill in. But it is very clearly important that when we look at how FEMA delivers a response, we use the career people to do what they do best, but it is very important that there is a political entity in that regional office. Senator Pryor. So you think it would be a mistake for FEMA to fill all those positions with career people? Ms. Bullock. I absolutely do, and I think it is a mistake that they have already filled three of them. Senator Pryor. Well, let me ask Mr. Bourne from FEMA, because you mentioned this in some of the early questionings and maybe even your opening statement, about these positions, these regional offices, and I think you said there are now three career civil service people in those, what, out of nine-- -- Mr. Bourne. Out of ten. Senator Pryor. Out of ten positions? Let me hear your thoughts on why you think it is important that we put career people there. Mr. Bourne. Well, one, kind of an overarching point, being a political person within FEMA should not necessarily equal to incompetence, which some people like to believe that is the case. It may have been in the past, but the idea is that folks with political acumen can exist both in a political job as well as a career job. We have a long history in FEMA that goes back throughout its entire history of the former regional directors, now regional administrators, the political slots being vacant for extended periods of time where the deputy regional directors, regional administrators, were essentially filling both roles for 18 months, a year, 2 years at a clip. One of the challenges that Administrator Paulison had to face when he first got the job was not only making sure that the positions were filled, whether they be political or otherwise, and at the time they were all political positions, but also to make sure that they were filled with people who understood the business of emergency management and emergency response, and that is why he was able to actually pick and hire these folks without any kind of interference or what I will call the political side of the equation overly influencing the selection of the candidate who ultimately was in the job. Now, there was a reason that we picked those three regions to be the ones that are career. One, they are regions that have had vacancies in the political leadership before for extended periods. Two, they are three of the busiest regions of all the FEMA regions, and quite frankly, we filled them with executives who not only understand how to do emergency management and collaboration, but they also have a background that allows them to understand the politics of working with a State and local government. Their connection is to governors, to chiefs of staff, to the Emergency Management Directors in those States, and to all of those folks, and we have encouraged all of our regional administrators, whether they are career or political, to make those connections and to build those relationships regardless of who is sitting on the other side of the phone or the table. So when we talk about, should they all be career, we have never said they should all be career. We don't know whether or not they should all be career. We have thought about how many should be or shouldn't be and we have wrestled with this, as well. And that is why there has been no movement beyond the three that were chosen. Nancy Ward has an extensive background that I think anyone at this table would recognize, as does Phil May and others. So I think it is a question of if I could convert a political today, there are a number of current regional administrators who are political that are far more capable than many of staying on in those roles, but that is not what we are doing. We believe the new Administration has to have an opportunity to weigh in on that. Senator Pryor. All right. If there are vacancies in these remaining seven positions between now and January 20, which is 4 months from now, is FEMA's plan to fill those with career people or just leave those vacant? Mr. Bourne. No, they will remain vacant and they will be-- the deputy administrators within those regions that may become vacant will take over, as they are trained to do and designed to do, to act as the interim until the new Administration determines how it wishes to fill those positions. Senator Pryor. Ms. Bullock, did you have any comment? Ms. Bullock. Mr. Chairman, yes, if I could make a comment. One thing that I failed to mention was the FEMA regional directors are unique in that when we have large disasters and we have multiple disasters, they are basically the President's representative at that disaster. When the Director of FEMA can't be at 22 different States, the regional director represents the President and it is very important that the regional director and the FEMA Director have the confidence of the President. And as I said before, why we do this is so the deputy regional director, the career people, can count on running that disaster, doing the nuts and bolts that need to be done day to day on that disaster, and the political regional director can be looking out for the best interests of the citizens, be looking out to make sure that the President and the Director of FEMA's desires are being taken care of. Senator Pryor. OK. Let me ask this of our three non-FEMA witnesses because I know what FEMA is going to say on this. There has been a little bit of a controversy in the Subcommittee for the last, 4 or 5 years about whether FEMA should remain part of Homeland Security or be a separate entity like it was under the previous Administration. A couple of you have already voiced your concerns and I would like to hear just a little bit more on where each of the three of you are on how you think FEMA should be structured in the next Administration. So Ms. Dragani, let me start with you. I don't think you mentioned it in your statement. If you did, I missed it, but I know the other two did. Go ahead. Ms. Dragani. All right. I did not, Mr. Chairman, mention it in my statement. It is at this point more important to the National Emergency Management Association and our members that wherever FEMA is, in or out of DHS, the FEMA Administrator has direct access to the President and the organization is adequately resourced, trained, prepared, and ready to respond to our needs. So at this point, we don't have a formal position, in or out. Senator Pryor. Do you have a personal view? Ms. Dragani. I would like to go back and think about it a little longer. It is a position that--it is a decision that obviously will have extraordinary impacts on both my profession and the Nation as a whole. Senator Pryor. Mr. Gispert, you mentioned in your testimony that your organization is for breaking FEMA away from Homeland Security. Could you elaborate on that a little bit more? Mr. Gispert. Once again, I represent local emergency managers where the rubber meets the road. A large majority of our members would prefer a stand-alone FEMA. It comes from a long history that when we were originally taught emergency management, we were taught that emergency management performs best when the emergency manager reports directly to the CEO, whatever you may call that CEO. You may call him the president, you may call him the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, you may call him the mayor. You do not need interloping people in between that person and the CEO. Regardless of the personalities involved, if somebody reported to me when the sun was shining, I would want to be involved when the proverbial hits the fan. It is kind of hard to back away and say, you report to me on a daily basis, but when all hell is breaking loose, you report to the President. So we think for a most efficient form--it has its problems, also, but for the most efficient mechanisms of delivering the programs of FEMA, FEMA needs to stand alone. It needs to report directly to the President, however that is couched, whether it is a cabinet level or however. It needs to be a stand-alone agency. FEMA does not need anybody standing between them and the President. Senator Pryor. Ms. Bullock, when you were at FEMA, you were there for 21 years? Ms. Bullock. Twenty-one years, yes. Senator Pryor. And so you saw a lot of different directors there and a lot of changes in that agency over time, both a lot of personalities involved but also administration philosophy impacting FEMA. Give us your thoughts on whether FEMA should be taken out of Homeland Security. Ms. Bullock. Well, there is no issue that I feel more passionate about. The mission of FEMA, to a degree, is inconsistent with the mission of the Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security prevents accidents from the skies. It prevents immigration over the borders. The mission of FEMA is to protect our people and to work with them to prepare and respond and mitigate disasters. The necessity for the Director of FEMA to represent the President during a disaster is unquestionable. When we had disasters during the Clinton Administration and James Lee was the Director, every single other Federal agency knew that if James Lee needed something, he could get on the phone and the Secretary of the Army would pick up the phone--excuse me, the Secretary of Defense, DOD, would pick up the phone and say, ``James Lee, if you need it, we will get it there.'' We saw none of that happening in Hurricane Katrina because the head of FEMA didn't have the connections and relationships with their equivalents in the cabinet, and Secretary Chertoff was busy with other things. What would have happened if during Hurricane Ike we had a major terrorism event? Where would Secretary Chertoff have been? The Director of FEMA would have been handling Hurricane Ike, but then when the consequences of that terrorism event were realized, after it became not the crime scene, FEMA would be there. I cannot explain how strongly I feel that FEMA being moved into DHS saw a diminishing of its resources. It saw a diminishing of an incredible career staff. And it saw a diminishing of its ability to carry out what the President needs to have carried out during a disaster. Senator Pryor. Before the Clinton Administration, was FEMA a separate stand-alone agency? Ms. Bullock. FEMA has always been a separate stand-alone agency. It was not until the Clinton Administration, however, that the Director of FEMA---- Senator Pryor. Became cabinet---- Ms. Bullock [continuing]. Became a member of the cabinet. The agency is not cabinet level and I would not be recommending that. But it is very important for it to be stand-alone. Senator Pryor. You do not recommend it be cabinet level? Ms. Bullock. Not at this point. I think that would have to be more carefully studied. But I do believe the Director of FEMA must be a member of the cabinet, similar to how the SBA is not cabinet level, but the SBA Director is a member of the cabinet. Senator Pryor. And also, is it fair to say--I am not trying to put words in your mouth--is it fair to say that, given your 21 years at FEMA, the best model that you saw was the Clinton Administration model for FEMA? Ms. Bullock. Absolutely, and the reason it was the best model was, we had a director who knew the President and could count on his support. We had a President who understood that during time of need, the American public expected their government to be there and we were there. And we had people in the director's office who listened to the career people, who understood what needed to be done. We were extremely lucky in the fact that James Lee Witt was one of the State Emergency Managers. Prior to James Lee, FEMA had a series of directors who had limited disaster experience and look what happened. We had Hurricane Hugo. We had the Loma Prieta Earthquake. We had Hurricane Iniki, and then finally Hurricane Andrew, where the agency was going to actually be abolished. There was a bill in Congress abolishing it. It wasn't until we had an Administration who really understood that disaster response is a fundamental chore for government and it has to be done in collaboration with State and local governments. My concern is DHS is taking a top-down approach. I am very happy to hear in the last year that they have been collaborating with State and locals, but if you look at what has happened in DHS, it is top-down. They are telling State and local governments what to do. They are telling the private sector what you can or can't do as part of a response. That is not how disaster responses work well. And all you have to do is look at the successful track record we had in the 1990s. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. We have a successful model. Senator Pryor. And Mr. Bourne, am I correct in assuming that your official position is that it stays where it is? Mr. Bourne. That is the position of the agency and the Administration and certainly the Department, and it is the position of the administrator. I have been personally there when he has gotten calls directly from the President at 6:30 in the morning. He has absolute access to the President. That has not been an issue in the last 2\1/2\ years. He is the one that travels with the President to disasters. He is the one that briefs the President, as well, and the Department has been very supportive during the time that Administrator Paulison has been in charge in being fully supportive. We have been able to get resources and assets from other departmental components that we might not have had access to immediately otherwise. And so there is a tremendous synergy that can be built there, other issues aside. So there is an ongoing effort, and you will notice in Hurricanes Gustav, Ike, and Hanna, the floods in the Midwest, that Secretary Chertoff was very supportive, was engaged, but the Administrator of FEMA was running those disasters. Senator Pryor. I must say, I am pleased with this Administrator of FEMA. Mr. Gispert, let me follow up on something that I asked Mr. Bourne early on in his questioning and that is on the National Response Framework. This is the document I mentioned before that the annexes that have the State, local, and private sector information is not complete and the catastrophic annex is not complete, either. Are you familiar with that document and---- Mr. Gispert. I am familiar with the National Response Framework, yes, sir. Senator Pryor. And has it been helpful for you, or does it---- Mr. Gispert. To be honest with you, no. Senator Pryor. OK. And why not? Mr. Gispert. Because we looked upon the NRF as the way the Federal people work with each other. Senator Pryor. OK. Mr. Gispert. We have had a long, comprehensive Community Planning Guide 101 which we have used as our method of planning and interacting, and so we looked at the NRF as the Federal way of getting their act together--who is going to provide what. So we didn't look at it very critically from a local level and we have not started those local and State annexes yet, that I am aware of. Senator Pryor. Right. Mr. Gispert. That is a couple of the annexes that haven't started. So once again, the reason that we pitched a fit, because we thought--and this is what we were able to clarify-- we thought that the Federal Government was going to dictate to the State and locals a drastic change in methodology of emergency planning and response at the local level. They have since then backed off and said, ``No, you guys continue to plan the way you do; we just need to interact with one another.'' That is perfectly reasonable. At one time, we truly did think they were going to mandate an entire change in the way we do emergency planning and that would be catastrophic in itself, sir. Senator Pryor. Right. Ms. Dragani, did you have any comment on the National Response Framework? Ms. Dragani. I am very familiar with the framework. Until there is more meat on the framework via the annexes, I think that it is very theoretical and squishy in nature. That was probably the value in the Federal Response Plan. It was very specific. We knew at the State and local level what kind of Federal resources were coming from what agencies and that is the kind of detail that I think has yet to be finalized in the National Response Framework through those annexes. Senator Pryor. All right. Ms. Dragani, you mentioned in your opening statement that all hazards is the way to go and that you have to find the balance between the natural disasters and the manmade disasters or the terrorism-type disasters. In your view, have we as a Nation, starting with FEMA, and at the local level, too, State and local level, have we found that balance? Ms. Dragani. No. I think that we are closer to that balance. Hurricane Katrina forced the Nation to recognize that Mother Nature can be the worst terrorist of all, so the pendulum has begun swinging back. I still see, as I review guidance for grants, as I review guidance for plans, an overwhelming focus on terrorism versus natural disasters, and I think that by separating terrorism out as a single specific event, it is not an all-hazards focus. An all-hazards focus recognizes that terrorism, hurricanes, pandemic, satellites falling from the sky, massive power outages are all threats that we may face and we need to base those threats on our situation, our jurisdiction, our geology, and our risk. Senator Pryor. Mr. Gispert, do you have any comments on have we found the balance yet? Mr. Gispert. No, sir. Originally, DHS did not even know the word ``all-hazards.'' In the last year-and-a-half, they at least are speaking the word all-hazards. I have not seen a real substantial swing to the all-hazards. All-hazards is very simple. Eighty-five percent of the time, a cop is a cop, a fireman is a fireman, a public works is a public works. You don't need to keep changing what they do. They do the same thing regardless of the incident. Now, terrorism does have some specific unique things, like hazardous gas and those kind of things. But basically speaking, 85 percent of the response to a terrorism event is the same as the response to a tornado, or to a hurricane, and that is what we kept telling them. Eighty-five percent of it is the same. Why are you swinging over and worrying about the little 15 percent of the 100 percent of the time? They now at least understand that we are not going to give up on all-hazards at the local and State level, so if they don't want to use it at the Federal level, they are going to at least understand what we are talking about, because I can never, ever go back and tell the 1.2 million people in Hillsborough County, Florida, that I am most worried about a terrorism event when every summer we have a good chance that Mother Nature will visit us with a catastrophic hurricane. My citizens want to know, why aren't you planning for the hurricane, because that is going to happen. Terrorism may or may not, but hurricanes are. So we need to take that into consideration. Every one of our communities throughout the country has their own specific problems that occur to them. They need to focus on them. Now, once they are comfortable with that, maybe they can think of other things. But until that time, you need to focus in on what your hazards are--you do a vulnerability assessment of your community, you rack and stack your hazards, and you start at the top and you work down. Senator Pryor. I want to thank all of you for being here today. I know some of my colleagues may have some questions, so we will leave the record open for 7 days or so. It is possible that the Subcommittee staff will follow up and try to get some answers to written questions because some of my colleagues may have those. But I really do want to thank you for being here and most especially thank you for doing what you do because it is very important for the homeland security of this country that we have folks like you out there doing everything that you do. So thanks again, and this hearing is adjourned. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]