[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE,
AND COMMUNICATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-71
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] CONGRESS.#13
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-598 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Peter T. King, New York, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Daniel E. Lungren, California Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Michael T. McCaul, Texas Henry Cuellar, Texas
Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Paul C. Broun, Georgia Laura Richardson, California
Candice S. Miller, Michigan Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Tim Walberg, Michigan Brian Higgins, New York
Chip Cravaack, Minnesota Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Joe Walsh, Illinois Hansen Clarke, Michigan
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Ben Quayle, Arizona Kathleen C. Hochul, New York
Scott Rigell, Virginia Janice Hahn, California
Billy Long, Missouri Vacancy
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania
Blake Farenthold, Texas
Robert L. Turner, New York
Michael J. Russell, Staff Director/Chief Counsel
Kerry Ann Watkins, Senior Policy Director
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS
Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida, Chairman
Joe Walsh, Illinois Laura Richardson, California
Scott Rigell, Virginia Hansen Clarke, Michigan
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania, Vice Kathleen C. Hochul, New York
Chair Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Blake Farenthold, Texas (Ex Officio)
Peter T. King, New York (Ex
Officio)
Kerry A. Kinirons, Staff Director
Natalie Nixon, Deputy Chief Clerk
Vacant, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness, Response, and Communications..................... 1
The Honorable Laura Richardson, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications........... 4
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security.............................................. 5
Witness
Mr. Richard Serino, Deputy Administrator, Federal Emergency
Management Agency:
Oral Statement................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
For the Record
The Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness, Response, and Communications:
Statement of the Florida Emergency Preparedness Association.... 2
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
----------
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response,
and Communications,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bilirakis, Marino, Farenthold,
Turner, Richardson, Clarke of Michigan, Hochul, and Thompson.
Mr. Bilirakis. The Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness,
Response, and Communications will come to order. The
subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony from FEMA
Deputy Administrator Richard Serino on the President's fiscal
year 2013 budget request for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency. I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
The full committee recently held a hearing on the
President's fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Department
of Homeland Security at which Secretary Napolitano testified.
This subcommittee will continue that oversight today with a
more in-depth review of the President's request for the--for
FEMA.
Administrator Serino, I believe this is the first time you
have appeared before our subcommittee. Is that correct?
Mr. Serino. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Very good. Welcome, sir.
The President's fiscal year 2013 budget requests $10
billion for programs and operations at FEMA. Of this amount the
request includes $789 million for salaries and expenses, nearly
$200 million less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
Some of this reduction is attributable to account transfers
while some is due to more efficient use of funding--and we
appreciate that--such as rent reductions and improved IT
operations. It is important in these difficult budgetary times
that all agencies and departments work to streamline waste and
enhance operations.
Administrator Serino, I am interested in hearing from you
about the management efficiencies included in this budget
request.
The budget request proposes major changes within the State
and local programs account by consolidating a number of
Homeland Security grant programs into a new National
Preparedness Grant Program. The subcommittee will be holding a
hearing focusing on grants next month but I am particularly
interested in hearing more about this proposal today as the
request leaves us with more questions than it provides answers.
How would FEMA factor risk when allocating funding under
this program? We want to hear that. Would high-risk urban
areas, port authorities, and transit agencies be able to apply
directly for funding? We are all interested.
Allocations under NPGP would rely heavily on a State's
threat and hazard identification and risk assessment, THIRA,
and yet nearly a year after the THIRA concept was first
introduced as part of the fiscal year 2011 grant guidance
grantees have yet to receive guidance on how to conduct the
THIRA process.
Questions also remain as to how local stakeholders would be
involved in the THIRA process at the State level. It is
essential that the local law enforcement, first responders, and
emergency managers who are first on the scene of a terrorist
act, natural disaster, or other emergency be involved in this
process. I am sure you will agree. They know the threats to
their local areas and the capabilities they need to attain to
address, of course, these threats.
These questions and others must be answered as this
proposal is considered. As you engage Congress on this proposal
you must also do more to engage the State and local
stakeholders that will be impacted by the proposed changes.
On that note, I have received feedback from the Florida
Emergency Preparedness Association on this proposal and I ask
unanimous consent to insert it in the record. Without
objection, so ordered. This is it here.
[The information follows:]
Submitted for the Record by Chairman Gus M. Bilirakis
Statement of Florida Emergency Preparedness Association
fepa comments on fema grant reform and 2012 empg guidance
FEPA coordinated two conference calls with a focused group of
members to discuss the recently released DHS/FEMA National Preparedness
Grant Program (NPGP) for the 2013 grant cycle and funding guidance for
the 2012 Federal Emergency Management Performance Grant. The calls were
conducted on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 and Friday, February 24, 2012.
The purpose of the calls was to exchange comments, concerns, and
information regarding the proposals to allow FEPA to be better informed
to provide information to the membership regarding these initiatives.
In addition, FEPA's established relationship with Florida Congressman
Gus Bilirakis provides the Association with a unique opportunity to
submit our thoughts directly to the Congressman for his consideration.
This document represents a summary of the issues and questions
discussed on the calls.
Background.--The NPGP consolidates a variety of current DHS grant
programs (EMPG and Fire Grants will remain independent grants) and
proposes that each State receive a ``base'' amount of funding allocated
by population with the remainder of funds allocated through a National
competitive process. FEPA recognizes any grants process can be improved
and applauds the Federal initiatives to evaluate the grant programs'
effectiveness and seek input on methods to improve funding processes.
FEPA also is encouraged that the grant consolidation appears to
reinforce an ``All Hazards'' approach to emergency management. Without
this, emergency managers are faced with becoming ``competitors'' rather
than ``collaborators'' with other response disciplines for scarce
resources.
questions/comments/concerns
What portion of the overall combined NPGP funding stream is
dedicated to the ``base'' amount versus the ``competitive''
pool of funding?
What is the representation on the National peer review panel
for the competitive process? FEPA strongly suggests the
inclusion of local emergency management practitioners and that
their representation be equally weighted with State and
National interests.
Projects funded in the competitive process are to be tied to
a State's Threat Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
(THIRA). How will the development of initial THIRAs be funded?
What is the anticipated time line to complete the THIRAs?
Based on anticipated use of THIRA as a tool for
comprehensive capabilities and risk analyses, it appears that
the THIRAs represent a very deliberative and complex process.
Given this, will States have time to develop these assessments
for the 2013 competitive funding cycle? What is FEMA's time
line for completion of its (FEMA) regional THIRAs and how will
FEMA's regional THIRAs influence the individual State THIRA
documents in each FEMA region? Are State THRIAs expected or
required to include locally developed THIRAs or similar
assessments?
Will DHS/FEMA issue detailed guidance information on the
development of State THIRAs so the documents can offer a
consistent perspective for the National competitive project
review? If so, when?
Will States be required to include local projects in their
project submissions under the competitive process?
Will local projects or projects that benefit local
jurisdictions be a required percentage of a State's competitive
project submissions?
Will there be an appeals process to adjudicate the
determinations/outcomes of the competitive process?
The documents refer to ``regional capabilities'' and
``deployable capabilities and assets'' under EMAC. What is the
definition of regional for these grant proposals?
Many States have established regions for operational or
programmatic purposes; but these may not accurately reflect
sociological, demographic, and other characteristics that
affect response capabilities and capacities. Are locally
trained personnel considered deployable assets under EMAC?
Are preparedness activities such as NIMs-compliant local
planning, training, and exercises still eligible and encouraged
for funding?
Are NIMS training requirements for local personnel still in
place or are they now only required for personnel deployed
under EMAC?
The documents state: ``In addition, competitive applications will
be required to address a capability gap identified in one of the FEMA
Regional THIRAs, identify that the proposed new capability does not
duplicate one that already exists within a reasonable response time and
describe how the capability will be fully established within the 2-year
period of performance.''
As noted above, when will the FEMA Regional THIRAs be
completed and available?
How does FEMA define a ``new capability that does not
duplicate . . . within a reasonable response time''? FEPA
strongly encourages DHS/FEMA to recognize intra-regional
capability gaps where even a robust regional approach results
in underserved areas and populations, particularly for events
that occur with little or no warning.
Will the base and competitive funding process require States
to recognize local emergency management organizations that have
robust programs and can effectively manage grant funds to
encourage distribution and use of the funds at the lowest
effective level of Government?
2012 empg funding opportunity announcement
How does the THIRA component of the State Mitigation Plan
that is required to be completed by December 31, 2012 relate to
the THIRA used as the basis for NPGP competitive projects?
As noted above, how can these comprehensive assessments be
completed by December 31, 2012 given the grant project award
start date is June 1, 2012 and grantees have 90 days to accept
or reject an award?
The guidance includes permissive language that a grantee may
sub-grant funds to non-Governmental entities. What is the
purpose of this distinction in the grant guidance? This
provision may promote unintended segregation of these entities
from core emergency management Government functions rather than
promote inclusion. Many of these entities have access to
alternative Federal grant programs for their specific expertise
and missions.
If funded, will these entities be expected to meet the same
program requirements as Governmental entities--i.e. trained
personnel, approved emergency plans and procedures, training
and exercise plans?
expediting expenditures of dhs/fema grant funds
FEPA would also like to express concern regarding FEMA's recently
released guidance to State Administrative Agencies to expedite
expenditure of certain DHS/FEMA grant funds (Grant Programs Directorate
Information Bulletin Number 379, February, 17, 2012). As noted above,
FEPA recognizes the need for continual review and improvement of grant
processes and the need to expend grant funds within a reasonable period
of performance. However, the bulletin places the burden on grantees and
sub-grantees to request and fully document the need for funding
extensions without recognizing that delays with the FEMA project
obligation, FEMA project review, and FEMA evaluation process are often
the initial cause of the fund expenditure delays. In Florida, this is
particularly true of multiple delays in required FEMA environmental
review of capital projects, such as Emergency Operations Centers. FEMA
should perform an internal review of each local project that is
affected by Information Bulletin 379 that has experienced a delay in a
required Federal review and automatically exempt it from the new
requirements.
Mr. Bilirakis. A topic I have discussed with Administrator
Fugate on several occasions is the importance of mitigation.
Studies have indicated that for every dollar that is spent on
mitigation activities there is a $4 return on investment. That
is why I was surprised to see that the President's budget
proposed to eliminate the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program.
Administrator Serino, I would like to hear more about the
rationale behind this proposal--this proposed elimination and
how this budget supports mitigation efforts in other areas.
Finally, I am interested in hearing more about the
implementation of Presidential Policy Directive 8. FEMA
released the National Preparedness Goal and the National
Disaster Recovery Framework last fall.
What feedback have you received from stakeholders on these
documents? How has the NDRF been integrated into FEMA's
recovery operations? What is the status of the development of
the other frameworks required by PPD-8?
With that, of course, I once again welcome you,
Administrator. Of course, we look forward to working with you
this year, welcome you to the subcommittee, and of course, I
look forward to your testimony.
The Chairman now recognizes the Ranking Minority Member,
Ms. Richardson, for any statement she may have.
You are recognized.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also Ranking
Member Thompson, for supporting us here in this hearing.
Good morning, Deputy Administrator Serino. Thank you for
being here today to discuss the details of the full year 2013
budget request for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
I did have an opportunity to meet you when we had the open
house, I believe, over there, and found your team to be well
prepared to do the job.
This budget request appears to reflect efforts to
streamline business and procurement procedures and to eliminate
redundant programs to reduce costs. Though I have some
questions about some of the cost-cutting proposals, certainly
we appreciate FEMA's efforts to do the necessary belt-
tightening that we all have to do at this time.
That said, I have serious reservations about some of the
proposals that are included in the full year 2013 budget
request. Specifically, needing more details about the
consolidations in the National Preparedness Grant Proposal
Program, which would consolidate 16 targeted Homeland Security
grant programs.
Last year, despite strong opposition by the House
Democrats, Congress approved an appropriations law that gutted
funding for State and local programs. The bill, for the first
time, punted its responsibility for allocating funding among
State and local grant programs to the Secretary. As an
authorizer I am particularly troubled that this committee did
not take action and did not--failed to send a message of
support for these programs.
It is important to remember that Congress, pursuant to
legislation within this committee's jurisdiction, was created
to adequately provide discrete grant programs to direct grant
investments to address specific gaps in National and local
preparedness capabilities. Some of these programs, such as the
Urban Area Security Initiative and the Port Security Grant
Program, have provided support where significant gaps in
security capabilities fail to this point.
Moreover, I am concerned about the effect of the grant
consolidation on the predictability of grant funding for some
of these agencies. Few State and local governments will be able
to replace the Federal funding that will be lost for this
potential consolidation.
Some of my questions will be, what do we expect to happen
to these on-going projects and how will we fill in the gaps
if--in the event support is needed? The work will not stop and
the security gaps will remain despite our many efforts to
address this problem. By bringing forward these circumstances
Congress has to be careful that we don't be judged in the
future for being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
Again, I thank you for being here today. I look forward to
your testimony. But more in particular, I would like to stress
that I would like to hear for the record how we plan on dealing
with the impacts that will be anticipated based upon the
consolidations of these much-needed programs.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Bilirakis. I thank the Ranking Member.
I now recognize the Ranking Minority Member of the full
committee, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
also for holding today's hearing.
In 2011 FEMA responded to 99 major disaster declarations,
29 emergency declarations, and 114 fire management assistance
declarations. This Nation has never experienced more man-made
nor natural tragedies than required Federal help than they did
in 2011.
Every corner of the Nation was affected. Thousands of
people suffered loss and displacement. Many of these disasters
did not receive extensive media coverage, however. None of the
large-scale disasters, like Hurricane Katrina, but the people
who lived through them, they were catastrophic moments, and in
those catastrophic moments FEMA responded.
Unfortunately, in 2011 FEMA had to contend with more than
the record-breaking number of disasters. Precisely at the
moment when funding was most needed and disaster assistance was
critical my friends on the other side of the aisle greeted this
unprecedented number of disasters by cutting FEMA's grant
funding and attempting to require budgetary offsets for
disaster relief. This year I hope that history does not repeat
itself either in the number of disasters or in FEMA grant
funding reduction.
This Congress must do its part to assume--to assure that in
times of tragedy and crisis FEMA is willing to respond and has
adequate funding and staffing. But as we do our part FEMA must
also do its part.
I am encouraged that this agency is finally getting back on
track. Many stakeholders have commented about the improvement
in FEMA's response, especially after the tornadoes in Joplin
and Tuscaloosa.
However, the Nation needs to know that these stellar
response efforts would not have been possible without the
assistance of State and local first responders. Those State and
local first responders gain their training through expertise
and equipment through the use of Federal grant funding. These
grants were cut last year and will continue to be reduced this
year.
FEMA's fiscal year 2013 budget request includes a proposal
to consolidate 16 individually authorized preparedness grant
programs into a single, insufficiently funded pool of money.
Two weeks ago Secretary Napolitano, in testimony before this
committee, pledged to include stakeholders in future
discussions about grant reforms. I look forward to those
discussions.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that opening
statements may be submitted for the record.
I am pleased to welcome Administrator Serino before the
subcommittee. Mr. Serino was appointed by President Obama to
serve as the deputy administrator of--of FEMA and was confirmed
by the United States Senate on October 5, 2009.
Prior to joining FEMA Mr. Serino served over 30 years in
the Boston Emergency Medical Services, becoming the chief of
the Department in 1999. He also served as the assistant
director of the Boston Public Health Commission. Mr. Serino has
completed studies at Harvard University's Kennedy School of
Government and recently graduated from the Naval Postgraduate
School's Executive Leadership Program.
Welcome, Administrator. Your entire written statement will
be--will appear in the record. I ask that you summarize your
testimony, and you are recognized now, sir. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD SERINO, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Mr. Serino. Thank you. Thank you, and good morning,
Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Richardson, Ranking Member
Thompson, as well as Members of the subcommittee.
As stated, my name is Rich Serino. I am the deputy
administrator for FEMA and I am truly honored to be here today
on behalf of FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security to
talk about the President's fiscal year 2013 budget, which
possesses more than $13.5 billion for FEMA.
As you know, as mentioned, FEMA has changed the way we do
business over the last several years and we are much more
effective agency today than we were in the recent past. This
year's budget request reflects the agency to continue these
changes by managing the existing resources, reducing
redundancies, enhancing efficiencies, and focusing on the
programs that help the agency fulfill its critical emergency
management function.
As Mr. Thompson mentioned, 2011 was a very busy year for
first responders and emergency management officials. We
responded to the 99 major disasters, 29 declarations, 140 fire
management claims. Only three States in this country did not
receive a Federal disaster declaration in 2011.
Major disasters touched every part of the region. Tornadoes
devastated Joplin, Missouri, impacted several other States in
the Midwest, the South--Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina,
and unfortunately, today some other tornadoes have struck
similar areas, as well. Hurricane Irene impacted 35 million
people along the East Coast. We saw record levels of flooding
in North Dakota, along the Mississippi and the Missouri Rivers;
and historic droughts led to numerous wildfires in the State of
Texas.
I traveled extensively to many of these disasters and often
asked: Can FEMA do this alone? Can we handle it all? The simple
answer is: FEMA is just part of the emergency management team.
The team is made up of first responders, volunteers, survivors,
and Congress. You are part of that team, as well.
We call that the whole community. We rely on the whole
community concept in emergency management, which includes
individuals, includes the non-profit agencies, includes the
faith-based community, includes the private sector, includes
Federal, State, local, Tribal governments to help our Nation to
prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and
mitigate all the hazards.
To be effective at the whole community we must work
together before a State even receives a Stafford Act
declaration of Federal assistance. That is why FEMA engages key
community leaders to develop plans, identify resources, equip,
train, and exercise in preparation for potential emergencies.
To support the whole community effort FEMA has awarded
billions of dollars in grant funds to States, urban areas,
Tribal governments, and non-profit agencies to support homeland
security goals. We trained more than 2 million first responders
at the Center for Domestic Preparedness and conducted the
first-ever National test for the emergency alert system.
We increased the National Flood Insurance Program
participation as well as participation in the Fire
Administration's distance learning program. We hosted more than
200 emergency response and recovery exercises to Federal,
State, local, Tribal, non-profit, the private sector to work
together, and we saw good results from those exercises during
all of the incidents, especially the tornadoes in the South and
the Midwest this past year.
As part of the 2013 budget proposal the administration
proposed a new vision for the grant programs designed to
develop, sustain, and leverage the core capabilities across the
Nation. The Department's previous approach was meant to achieve
a level of funding for each State that would allow them to
develop and maintain their baseline capabilities.
Through consolidation of 16 grant programs, some of those
which were redundant, the Unified Grant Program will be based
on determined risks, called the National Preparedness Grant
Program. The new approach, based on the new National
Preparedness Goal, will focus on sustaining capabilities,
addressing identified gaps, prioritizing funds for resources
that can be deployed regionally and Nationally.
The National Preparedness Grant Program fosters an agency's
whole community approach to help prepare our State and local
community, as directed by and required by Presidential
Preparedness Directive 8. The new program will allow, in fiscal
year 2013, to provide $500 million more to the State and local
programs than was appropriated in fiscal year 2012.
As we worked through our programmatic responsibilities we
took notes of the lessons learned, improved our customer
service to maintain good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. We
instituted FEMAStat, an initiative where we are able to look at
effective ways to look at problems ahead of time, and like many
agencies, realized our personnel costs were some of our highest
costs and look at ways that we can improve our response efforts
to streamline what we are able to do. We cut costs and
streamlined the way we run joint field offices and did a lot of
virtual joint field offices.
In all, the 2013 budget will provide FEMA with the level of
resources we need to support our important emergency management
mission and will help us continue our efforts to how we do
business so we can focus on the needs of the community, and
most importantly, the needs of the survivors.
Thank you. I look forward to this opportunity and answer
any questions that you may have.
[The statement of Mr. Serino follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard Serino
February 29, 2012
i. introduction
Good morning Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Richardson, and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee. My name is Richard Serino,
and I am the Deputy Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). It is an honor to appear before you today on behalf of
FEMA to discuss our fiscal year 2013 budget request.
As you know, FEMA has changed the way we do business over the past
several years and we are a much more effective agency today than we
were just a few years ago. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget
reflects FEMA's goal of managing resources more effectively across the
Federal Government while ensuring the Nation's resilience and emergency
preparedness. We will achieve this goal by developing, sustaining, and
leveraging our core capabilities across the country by creating a
robust National response capacity using a Whole Community approach
based on cross-jurisdictional and readily deployable State and local
assets to support National preparedness and response. In addition, FEMA
has re-evaluated its programs relative to a return on investment and
will continue to focus its resources on those programs that have the
most significant impact on the agency's ability to fulfill its
emergency management mission. Moreover, FEMA will continue to
streamline current business processes and harness the use of innovative
technology.
We are especially pleased to inform the committee that for the
first time in the history of the Disaster Relief Fund, the fiscal year
2013 request includes a $500 million reserve cache to prevent the DRF
from falling to the dangerously low level it did during September of
fiscal year 2011. This budget request exemplifies FEMA's commitment to
looking for ways to do our work better, smarter, and faster, including
identifying and eliminating redundancies and increasing productivity.
We also continue to look for new and innovative ways to leverage the
capabilities of our partners and stakeholders.
We understand that FEMA, like all agencies across Government, will
have to do more with less. For fiscal year 2013, the President's budget
seeks a net discretionary budget authority of approximately $10.008
billion, which is $641.5 million dollars, or 6.02 percent, less than
FEMA's fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
ii. reviewing and streamlining programs
FEMA is constantly reviewing its policies and programs to identify
and quickly remedy any existing wasteful practices or processes. Such
reviews have resulted in changed policies, streamlined processes, and
occasionally, eliminated programs. These efficiency initiatives are
crucial if we are to continue accomplishing our mission efficiently and
effectively. Throughout the past year, we implemented many efficiency
measures such as streamlining our already sound financial business
practices, implementing outcome-based strategic planning, and creating
improvements to disaster assistance delivery. These efforts will
continue next year and are reflected in the fiscal year 2013 budget
request.
FEMAStat
In January 2011, FEMA began implementing FEMAStat, a management
process designed to consistently examine specific outcomes across the
agency in order to ensure alignment with the administrator's
priorities. FEMAStat helps us monitor the agency's readiness posture
and allows leadership to identify developing trends, shape priorities,
and seize opportunities to improve performance. The FEMAStat process
allows managers to recognize performance gaps based on real data then
make the decisions necessary to address those gaps.
Since the inception of this new initiative, we have realized many
achievements, including:
the identification of opportunities to build internal
expertise and save costs;
the adoption of regular metrics and milestone-based reviews
by specific component, such as the Mission Support Bureau's
weekly briefing to senior staff on their performance measures;
the establishment of the Office of the Chief Procurement
Officer (OCPO) as the responsible party for FEMA's acquisitions
process, from start to finish. By reorganizing and assigning
this role to the OCPO, a single office will track the entire
process and indentify inefficiencies and bottlenecks along the
way; and
the refocusing of resources on Individual and Community
Preparedness, following discovery that only a small percentage
of the preparedness budget had been spent in this area. As a
result, I recently directed funding for individual and
community preparedness programs be increased by $10 million. To
build and sustain National preparedness and support existing
programs, we are developing a campaign to move members of the
public from awareness to action. Elements include a year-round
effort to support preparedness through media and outreach and
expand youth preparedness technical assistance. Technical
assistance will increase the volume of youth preparedness
programs Nation-wide and enhance the effectiveness and
sustainability of those existing. The network of youth and
school preparedness will cross ages and sectors, and benefit
from a foundation of collective National partners committed to
institutionalizing youth and school preparedness.
Throughout the next fiscal year, we will continue to use FEMAStat
to review the effectiveness of our activities and find ways to
eliminate identified inefficiencies.
Salaries & Expenses
The Salaries and Expenses (S&E) appropriation, formerly Management
and Administration, provides core mission funding for the development
and maintenance of an integrated, Nation-wide capability to prepare
for, mitigate against, respond to, and recover from the consequences of
major disasters and emergencies. Consistent with Congress'
appropriation in fiscal year 2012, the fiscal year 2013 President's
budget request has organized the S&E appropriation under the following
program/project/activity (PPA) structure: Administrative and Regional
Offices, Preparedness and Protection, Response, Recovery, Mitigation,
Mission Support, and Centrally Managed Accounts. This structure ensures
that the resources are transparent and grouped with like activities.
State and Local Programs
FEMA is constantly reviewing all of the agency's policies and
programs to identify wasteful practices and processes. To this end the
agency proposes in fiscal year 2013 to consolidate its various
preparedness grant programs--with the exception of the Emergency
Management Performance Grants and Assistance to Firefighter Grants--
into a single, comprehensive preparedness grant program called the
National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP).
The NPGP will require grantees to develop and sustain core
capabilities outlined in the National Preparedness Goal rather than
work to meet mandates within individual, and often disconnected, grant
programs. NPGP will also focus on creating a robust National response
capacity based on cross-jurisdictional and readily deployable State and
local assets.
Consolidating the preparedness grant programs will support the
recommendations of Pub. L. 111-271, the Redundancy Elimination and
Enhanced Performance for Preparedness Grants Act, and will streamline
the grant application process. This will enable grantees to focus on
how Federal funds can add value to their jurisdiction's unique
preparedness needs while contributing to National response
capabilities. To further increase the efficiency of the NPGP, FEMA will
issue multi-year guidelines, enabling the agency to focus its efforts
on measuring progress towards building and sustaining National
capabilities. This consolidation will eliminate administration
redundancies and ensure that all preparedness grants are contributing
to the National Preparedness Goal.
For fiscal year 2013, FEMA is requesting $1.54 billion for the
NPGP. The complete reorganization of preparedness grants will allow for
a more targeted grants approach where States build upon the
capabilities established with previous grant money.
Bottom-up Reviews
Another way that FEMA can identify potentially wasteful practices
or opportunities for improvement is by performing programmatic bottom-
up reviews (BUR). A bottom-up review is a systematic review of every
aspect of an agency program from multiple stakeholder viewpoints and
helps identify ways and methods to improve the program.
In December 2011, FEMA initiated a BUR of the Pre-positioned
Equipment Program (PEP) to assess the efficacy of the program based on
capital investments versus deployments of the PEP caches. The BUR
analysis revealed that PEP resources are redundant of capabilities
provided by FEMA grant programs and have not been utilized since 2005
for disaster response and the desired return on investment for this
program has not been realized. In fact, the caches were only deployed
to a limited number of events and in each case, the inventory was not
used. Based on the BUR analysis, and having given due diligence to the
consideration of potential extenuating factors, FEMA proposes to fully
eliminate the Pre-Positioned Equipment Program (PEP) in fiscal year
2013, which will result in a savings of $6.2 million.
FEMA is also conducting a National Urban Search & Rescue (US&R) BUR
to determine whether the US&R Response System, as currently structured,
can fulfill the Nation's current and future needs for technical US&R
capabilities and to identify strategies to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the System. In March 2011, an initial report presented
dozens of system issues identified through stakeholder interviews.
FEMA's Office of Policy and Program Analysis (OPPA) is now in the
process of finalizing their report.
The Public Assistance (PA) BUR was kicked off in the spring of 2011
and was designed to be a comprehensive review of the PA program's
processes, procedures, and policies. The objectives of the PA BUR are
to identify ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the PA
program, to make it less burdensome for all, and to develop
recommendations for program changes to support the rapid recovery of
communities affected by disasters. FEMA has recently concluded the
review phase, and based on the input received has developed a vision
for an improved PA program. FEMA is currently finalizing a course of
action to realize this vision, which will include opportunities to gain
feedback from our stakeholders on potential enhancements of revisions
to the program.
Pre-Disaster Mitigation
To ensure a maximum return on investment, efficiency, and
effectiveness as well as to reduce redundancy within FEMA grant
programs in fiscal year 2013, we proposes to eliminate the Pre-disaster
Mitigation (PDM) program. The Pre-disaster Mitigation Program has an
unexpended balance of $174.2 million, and FEMA will be working to
allocate these amounts in fiscal year 2013 and recover any unexpended
balances.
Since the most costly and frequent natural disaster is flooding, we
plan to maximize the use of our flood grant portfolio to assist in
managing the risk. FEMA administers four other mitigation grant
programs that can fund, or exclusively fund, flood mitigation projects.
In addition, PDM funds are used to fund State and local hazard
mitigation plans, which is an eligible activity under the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program. FEMA intends to use its sizeable unobligated
carryover balance from prior years to close outstanding grants.
iii. disaster relief fund
The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) accounts for a significant portion
of FEMA's budget and mission. For fiscal year 2013, FEMA and the
Department of Homeland Security are taking prudent steps to ensure the
DRF is funded at the appropriate level to meet the assistance needs of
affected communities and disaster survivors following a Presidentially-
declared major disaster or emergency. In addition, FEMA has further
refined its accounting methodology to align with the Budget Control Act
(BCA) of 2012.
As a matter of practice, FEMA continually reassesses out-going
obligations and reimbursements held against the DRF balance, such as
contract requirements or Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation
projects from past disasters. This consistent financial monitoring
allows us to determine if outstanding funds can be de-obligated from
previous projects and returned to the DRF. By de-obligating mission
assignments and disaster contracts in 2010, and de-obligating funds
from completed projects in 2011, FEMA returned over $4.7 billion (as of
September 30, 2011) to the DRF since the beginning of fiscal year 2010.
For fiscal year 2013, FEMA requests $6.09 billion for the DRF, $5.5
billion of which is designated as being for disaster relief in response
to major disasters. Additionally, we estimate that we will be able to
de-obligate $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2013 by continuing to enforce
standard closeout policies, establish and track closeout metrics, and
streamline and simplify the closeout process.
FEMA's 2013 request was calculated in accordance with the BCA, and
therefore does not account for unexpected catastrophic events (those
with expected costs exceeding $500 million) that may occur in fiscal
year 2013. Our request assumes that events costing greater than $500
million and that occur during fiscal year 2013 will be funded with
emergency supplemental funding, as provided for in the BCA. The fiscal
year 2013 request, as formulated, accounts for the continuing costs of
past large-scale disasters and the expected annual cost of small-scale
disasters.
The fiscal year 2013 request also includes a $500 million reserve
cache to prevent the DRF from falling to the dangerously low level that
it did during September of fiscal year 2011. This is especially crucial
since the end of the fiscal year coincides with the 2013 hurricane
season. We are also seeking to avoid a repeat of fiscal year 2010 and
fiscal year 2011 when we implemented Immediate Needs Funding
restrictions, which delayed critical rebuilding projects.
iv. investments in our workforce and technology
A key to increasing any agency's efficiency is to make strategic
investments in its people and technology. FEMA understands this and has
already begun work on key investments that will increase the agency's
capabilities and aid us in accomplishing our mission.
Investing in Our Workforce
In 2011, the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO)
established a new orientation and training program for newly-hired
employees. These new training courses teach employees about FEMA, its
mission and culture, and how to work with our programs across the
organization. OCHCO has already trained more than 450 new hires through
this initiative and FEMA will continue to evaluate and improve its
onboarding process to ensure that new employees are as productive and
prepared as possible.
FEMA is developing several leadership development initiatives to
enhance opportunities for growth for our current employees. By
investing in leadership programs, we are investing in the future of
FEMA. In 2011, FEMA launched the Future Leaders program; a 1-year
program designed to enhance a participant's understanding of leadership
at FEMA to build their leadership competencies. After a competitive
selection process, 33 employees were selected for the inaugural year of
the new program and after its completion the group has already begun to
positively impact FEMA. The Future Leaders have been working to promote
the FEMA leadership culture throughout the entire agency, as well as
serving as inspiration for other young people to enter into emergency
management as a potential career, thereby a ``win/win'' for the whole
community.
Additionally, FEMA recognizes that every employee of our agency is
an emergency manager, and we are focusing on improved training and
position qualifications to ensure we can provide the best possible
customer service during disaster response and recovery efforts. FEMA
recently developed a National credentialing program focused on a
Government-wide and holistic approach to disaster surge staffing. The
new FEMA Qualification System (FQS) will ensure that disaster response
and recovery professionals are held to consistent expectations of
workforce competency so they can perform the critical actions required
to help individuals and communities respond to, recover from, and
mitigate against disasters. This unified approach will ensure that FEMA
employees are receiving the right training and will deliver that
training in an organized and efficient manner. We recently held town
hall meetings in each of our regional offices, and at our headquarters
building here in Washington, to discuss these changes directly with our
staff. I personally led the meetings in Regions I, VI, and X, and was
incredibly pleased by the productive dialogue and exchange of ideas
that we had during the town halls.
IT Automation Modernization
FEMA is in the process of planning and executing major initiatives
in IT automation modernization, streamlining the agency's information
management systems. Currently, FEMA relies on a time-consuming, manual
process to pull data about disaster efforts and funding, as well as
other programmatic efforts. With the funding proposed in the fiscal
year 2013 budget, FEMA will build on the fiscal year 2012
appropriations and work to modernize its IT systems and apply a
comprehensive approach that integrates the preparedness, prevention,
response, mitigation, and recovery missions when planning its
activities. These improvements will allow the agency to more
effectively and efficiently articulate metrics and outcomes.
Facility Upgrades to Mt. Weather
Another important investment contained in this budget is for the
Mt. Weather Emergency Operations Center (MWEOC). MWEOC is a 564-acre
FEMA facility approximately 64 miles west of Washington, DC. This
facility provides the infrastructure necessary to support the agency's
Continuity of Operations (COOP) activities, Incident Management,
classified programs, and other all-hazards activities for multiple
Federal Executive Branch Departments/Agencies (D/As). MWEOC is
currently undergoing a massive infrastructure upgrade to provide modern
facilities capable of supporting 21st Century technology and today's
Federal Department and agency requirements. In order to support this
initiative, we propose a $10 million increase in funding in fiscal year
2013.
Modernizing the Emergency Alert System (EAS)
FEMA is also in the process of modernizing the Nation's Emergency
Alert System (EAS). An important aspect of continuity planning is the
technology used to communicate with the public. The Integrated Public
Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) program is a modernization and
integration of the Nation's EAS. IPAWS is designed to improve public
safety through the rapid dissemination of emergency messages to as many
people as possible over as many communications devices as possible. In
November 2011, FEMA conducted the first-ever Nation-wide EAS test. This
National EAS test assessed the capability of the system to communicate
emergency information simultaneously across the United States. FEMA now
has the information to determine the extent of the EAS successes and
opportunities for improvement so we can now move forward to advance the
system and its components.
In addition to modernizing the EAS, FEMA is developing two systems
for individuals with enabled mobile devices to receive important
emergency messages; the PLAN (Personal Localized Alerting Network), and
the CMAS (Commercial Mobile Alerting System). These programs will use
mobile technology to provide geographically targeted alert messages
such as warnings on imminent threats, AMBER alerts, or emergency
messages from the President. PLAN/CMAS leverages the extensive work
done by the cellular industry and the DHS Science & Technology
Directorate (S&T) to deliver these messages while avoiding the delays
commonly found in text-message based systems. This new process is a
critical capability as was shown during the moments following the
earthquake in this region last August when there were clear delays
disseminating text message alerts to the public.
PLAN/CMAS became operational in New York City and Washington, DC,
during this past fall and winter, and we anticipate a Nation-wide
operational capability beginning April 2012. FEMA is working with the
cellular industry and DHS S&T to conduct test and pilots of this
capability over the next several months to ensure its success.
v. the whole community approach: 2011 accomplishments
Regardless of the budget environment, it is important to recognize
that FEMA's efforts are part of an interconnected plan of action for
emergency management. This Whole Community approach to emergency
management provides the best framework for leveraging the expertise and
resources of our stakeholders at all levels, both Governmental and non-
Governmental. Moreover, the Whole Community approach is an important
efficiency and cost-saving tool since it maximizes our limited funding
by leveraging the capabilities of our partners.
In this past year, we have continued to utilize the Whole Community
approach to better fulfill our mission. During fiscal year 2011, FEMA
responded to 98 new Presidential major disaster declarations, 26 new
Presidential emergency declarations, and 112 new fire emergency
declarations. In all, the agency's efforts provided needed assistance
to 48 States, the District of Columbia, and one territory in responding
to a variety of major disasters, including severe winter storms,
devastating tornadoes and flooding, wildfires, Hurricane Irene, and
Tropical Storm Lee. Some examples of FEMA working with the Whole
Community before, during, and after disasters include:
During the response to Hurricane Irene, Federal officials
were embedded in State and local emergency management operation
centers and assessment teams were pre-deployed to every State
in the storm's path. As a result, leading up to the storm's
landfall State and local officials consistently reported no
communication challenges--usually the No. 1 problem identified
in past disaster response.
In Missouri, FEMA Emergency Support Function No. 14 provided
planning, organizational, and on-site event support for the
Joplin Citizen Advisory Recovery Team's first Open House
Workshop. Approximately 300 people attended the open house
event, during which residents learned about the recovery
planning process and had the opportunity to provide their input
to the recovery process.
In Georgia, FEMA and the Georgia Emergency Management Agency
collaborated with the State's American Bar Association to
provide free legal assistance to survivors.
In Alabama, FEMA partnered with the Alabama Department of
Mental Health to activate Project Rebound in the tornado-
affected parts of Alabama to provide free crisis counseling for
an extended time after the disaster.
We connected big businesses to small business in the
response and recovery efforts to the devastating Joplin
Tornado. In response to the tornadoes across the South, we
shared data on store locations, available resources, power
restoration and situational awareness with hundreds of private-
sector organizations.
In multiple disasters we coordinated for private-sector
support at the community level, working with our joint field
offices to facilitate mobile phone charging stations, financial
guidance, hygiene kits, billboard messaging, hotel information
videos, philanthropic efforts, and more.
On the preparedness side, we increased private-sector
participation in our National Level Exercise to a historic
level of over 3,000 participants. And in support of National
Preparedness Month, we also inspired significant gains in
private-sector coalition members, with more than 1,300 signed
members.
The DHS Center for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships
responded to Presidentially-declared disasters in several
States. Working in partnership with FEMA Regional Voluntary
Agency Liaisons (VALs), The DHS Center, hosted ``FEMA 101''
sessions for local faith leaders in Alabama to inform them
about the FEMA application process and encourage them to assist
community members in applying for FEMA assistance. DHS Center
supported faith-based and voluntary responses to the Joplin
tornado by working with the Volunteer Reception Center
established and run by AmeriCorps; The American Red Cross
shelter; Convoy of Hope's and Southern Baptist Convention's
Disaster Relief operation centers.
These are just a few of many examples of FEMA's efforts to
effectively partner with the expertise and resources of our
stakeholders at every level.
National Preparedness Goal and System
In 2011, FEMA became the Federal lead for the implementation of
Presidential Policy Directive 8 on National Preparedness (PPD-8). PPD-8
requires the development of both a National Preparedness Goal and a
National Preparedness System. The National Preparedness Goal
establishes core capabilities for prevention, protection, response,
recovery, and mitigation that will serve as the basis for preparedness
activities within FEMA, throughout the Federal Government, and at the
State and local levels. The National Preparedness System enhances the
Whole Community concept by formalizing engagement across all levels of
government to develop and strengthen a consistent preparedness process.
Looking ahead, FEMA will continue to organize the implementation of the
National Preparedness System in accordance with both PPD-8. FEMA will
also be working with partners across the emergency management community
to integrate activities into a comprehensive campaign to build and
sustain preparedness.
National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF)
In 2011, FEMA released the National Disaster Recovery Framework
(NDRF). The NDRF--for the first time--clearly defines coordination
structures, leadership roles and responsibilities, and guidance for
Federal agencies, State and local governments, and other partners
involved in disaster recovery planning and implementation. The NDRF
reflects input gathered through extensive stakeholder discussions which
included outreach sessions conducted by FEMA and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development in each of the ten FEMA Regions, and
forums held in five cities across the country. The final NDRF
incorporates comments and recommendations from discussion roundtables
held with professional associations, academic experts, and more than
600 stakeholders representing Federal, Tribal, State, and local
governments, as well as public and private organizations.
In September 2011, FEMA hosted the National Recovery Tabletop
Exercise (Recovery TTX). This exercise involved players from the Whole
Community, with over 200 participants from Federal, State, local, and
non-governmental organizations. It was the first opportunity to explore
the application of the NDRF using a National Level Exercise large-
scale, multi-State, multi-Region catastrophic earthquake scenario. The
Recovery TTX was a great opportunity to further outline the scope of
each Recovery Support Function (RSF), identify the necessary linkages
between RSFs and understand capacities to support the RSFs in all
phases of recovery.
Individual Assistance (IA)
Over the past several years, FEMA has overhauled its recovery
capability to provide individual assistance (IA) more quickly and
efficiently. In 2005, FEMA had a daily capacity to perform 7,500 home
inspections that were used to determine which FEMA repair and
replacement grants a disaster survivor may be eligible to receive.
Today, FEMA's capacity has increased to 20,000 home inspections daily
by the 15th day of the disaster.
FEMA has also established internet registration and applicant
intake surge capacity to process up to 200,000 registrations per day
during a catastrophic event. Moreover, since the identity of nearly all
applicants is authenticated at registration, FEMA is able to strengthen
controls against waste, fraud, and abuse. In 2011, web registrations
accounted for one-third of all registrations.
In addition to a centralized website, FEMA's National Processing
Service Centers (NPSC) have made significant improvements in customer
service that have resulted in the ability to quickly and efficiently
serve more customers. Through initiation of an Interactive Voice
Response (IVR) system, applicants can now check the status of their
application without agent intervention. This self-service option for
disaster applicants is also provided through a comprehensive on-line
capacity. As a result of these new automated options, in calendar year
2011 the Registration Intake and Helpline achieved an average wait time
of just 55 seconds and answered more than 1.7 million calls.
Mass Care
FEMA has improved the way it delivers mass care services by
implementing the National Mass Care Strategy. This strategy provides a
framework to strengthen and expand resources available to help shelter,
feed, and provide other mass care services by pooling expertise and
identifying partnership opportunities. The newly created National Mass
Care Council was launched in June 2011 and is co-chaired by the
American Red Cross, FEMA, and the National Voluntary Organizations
Active in Disaster (National VOAD). FEMA is an important part of the
emergency management team; however, we have learned that we cannot and
should not do it alone. Whole Community is a team approach that not
only engages our partners at every level, but allows us to maximize
available resources by leveraging their assets and abilities.
Risk Mapping and Flood Insurance
This past fiscal year, FEMA initiated 385 Risk Mapping, Assessment,
and Planning (Risk MAP) projects affecting 5,100 communities and
addressed the highest priority engineering data needs, particularly
coastal and levee areas. In addition, the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) reduced potential flood losses by an estimated $1.7
billion and wrote more than 5.5 million flood insurance policies,
providing financial protection for more than $1.25 trillion in property
value from flood loss. Moreover, the Unified Hazard Mitigation
Assistance (UHMA) program provided up to $252 million in flood grant
funds, which prevented losses of approximately $502 million. FEMA's
mitigation efforts play an essential role in the agency's mission by
increasing the resiliency and reducing the financial impact of
disasters.
National Level Exercise 2011 (NLE 11)
FEMA coordinated the National Level Exercise 2011 (NLE 11) in May
2011 and tested response capabilities to a simulated catastrophic
earthquake along the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ).
The main priority for NLE 11 was to validate National, joint,
regional, and State operations planning objectives and courses of
action in response to an NMSZ earthquake. This exercise also served as
an opportunity to test and evaluate the Whole Community response
methodology to effectively collaborate within the NMSZ catastrophic
incident management system. Through this exercise, we identified many
strengths as well as some areas of improvement that can be applied to
both NMSZ earthquake planning and to other catastrophic planning
efforts.
Areas of strength identified:
The U.S. Department of Justice worked with the affected
States to facilitate executive orders that deputized Federal
law enforcement personnel, allowing them to enforce State and
local laws;
Incident information was disseminated to private-sector
partners through two daily conference calls, with participation
from approximately 200 private-sector organizations; and
The National Response Coordination Staff (NRCS) developed an
effective National Advanced Operational Plan (N-AOP) to help
project shortfalls and inform resource prioritization and
allocation decisions.
Areas for improvement identified:
Existing processes to request, activate, deploy, and track
life-saving/life-sustaining resources did not meet FEMA's
existing requirements;
Liability and licensure issues delayed international Urban
Search and Rescue and medical teams from supporting the
response;
There were not enough resources or facilities available to
support mass care requirements; and
While redundant communications and Federal communication
assets supported the response, there were critical gaps in
achieving communications after a catastrophic event and
ensuring that the Federal Government can effectively
communicate with populations without power.
vi. conclusion
Over the past several years, FEMA has undergone a major overhaul to
improve our existing programs and improve customer service to disaster
survivors. The successes we have achieved would not have been possible
without the significant resources provided to us by Congress and
specifically Members of this committee. Still, we understand that we
are competing for finite resources within a budgetary climate that
requires us to make difficult program choices and become more even more
efficient in our efforts.
The administration's proposed budget reflects the appropriate
balance of enabling FEMA to fulfill its mission while reducing spending
in several areas and forcing program efficiency and innovative
thinking. FEMA will continue to fulfill our most important mission to
support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a Nation we
work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare
for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all
hazards.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the proposed FEMA budget for fiscal year 2013.
Mr. Bilirakis. I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
As I noted in my opening statement, and I know you just
addressed, I believe that the budget request lacks sufficient
detail about the proposed National Preparedness Grant Program.
We just have to hear more.
When can this subcommittee expect to receive additional
information from FEMA, including eligible direct applicants and
the risk formula that would be used to allocate the grants? We
are going to have another hearing--I believe it is next week--
specifically on this issue. But if you could address that I
would appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Serino. Sure. We are in the process of actually going
through and--and getting as much input that we can, as you
mentioned, from the stakeholders. We are reaching out to our
stakeholders as well as, obviously, Members of Congress to get
the input on how we are going to implement the National
Preparedness Grant Program as we bring together those 16
various programs and consolidate them into one. We plan on
doing that and moving forward over the next few weeks.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good.
We are going to try to limit the questioning to 5 minutes,
and then maybe we can go for a second round. But I know that
Members will have more questions than the time slot allotted,
so please enter your questions into the record.
I know that, Administrator, you will also be available for
questioning. Thank you very much--after this hearing.
The proposed National Preparedness Grant Program relies
heavily on the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment, as I mentioned earlier, THIRA, that will be
completed by the States. The THIRA requirement was first
included in the fiscal year 2011 Homeland Security grant
guidance nearly a year ago. As I mentioned, however, the States
are still waiting to receive guidance from FEMA on conducting
the THIRA.
When will the THIRA guidance be provided to grantees and
how will the Department of FEMA work with States to develop
these assessments? Second, how will FEMA work to ensure that
the input of local stakeholders, again, is included in THIRA?
Mr. Serino. The THIRA guidance we should have completed
within the next, again, few weeks. It is something that we have
been pushing for. We should certainly have it, I would say, you
know, by the end of the month in March, that we will have it
out to our--to the grant stakeholders.
As well, we are also looking at how we are able to bring
together and hear from the local and State officials. Having
spent my entire career prior to coming here as a local official
in emergency response it was important that we reach out to the
locals.
The locals are on the ground. The State, the locals know
the issues at hand. That is why in the National Preparedness
what we have done for this grant and for fiscal year 2012 is
actually relax some of the restrictions that were on in the
past so that in the previous years could actually use some of
that--those grant dollars to free up, and we have removed a lot
of the restrictions on those.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you.
As you may know, the Government Accountability Office
recently released its report on duplication within the Federal
Government. In these difficult times we must work to limit
duplication--I am sure you agree with that--and any
inefficiencies, something that FEMA has tried to address in the
budget, and I really appreciate that.
It is for this reason I was surprised, however, to hear
that FEMA is considering starting its own Office of
Intelligence, which would seem to be duplicative of the work
conducted by the Department's Office of Intelligence and
Analysis. Of course, first, is this true? If it is, why? Does
FEMA feel that it is receiving the--is it receiving the
necessary support from I&A?
Mr. Serino. What we are looking at doing is actually having
more of a liaison ability to make sure that we get the
information--not building an office, but actually able to get
the information from them, and part of the team is a liaison so
we are able to get informed. We are not going to be going out
and looking at it and analyzing it; it is more creating a
liaison so we are actually able to get the information.
Mr. Bilirakis. I see.
Mr. Serino. Working closely with the intelligence community
within the Department----
Mr. Bilirakis. Well, I appreciate you clarifying that.
FEMA has been working for years to develop measures and
metrics to determine the effectiveness of these grant programs,
but we have seen little of these efforts--any results. What is
the status of the development of these metrics? When will this
committee receive the report on the results of the work FEMA
conducted with the National Academy of Public Administration?
Mr. Serino. We have been working on the National
Preparedness Report, and as called for in PPD-8, we will have
that done by the end of March 2012 that that report will be
completed and will be made available.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good.
One last question. This subcommittee has conducted
continuing oversight over the Integrated Public Alert and
Warning System, IPAWS. Recently this subcommittee actually
approved legislation--it will go to the full committee, we
hope, actually next month.
You discuss IPAWS in your statement. Will you elaborate on
how the budget request supports the continued development of
our alert and warning capabilities?
Mr. Serino. Sure. We were able to do the National test
earlier this last--end of last year, and that provided some
information. It was the first ever test, and with that----
Mr. Bilirakis. Can you give us an assessment--excuse me--on
the National test?
Mr. Serino. Sure. We learned a lot. It was the first ever
National test. We learned a lot. We are still compiling a lot
of the information on that, but we are also looking at some of
the things that worked very well and some of the places that
there were gaps.
We have been working with the communications industry as
well as with the general public. A lot of the information that
people were concerned about ahead of time actually did not
happen, and we had very good response overall. What we plan to
do is actually take even more of the data and look and see how
we can address it as we move forward both with IPAWS and any
future tests that we may be doing.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Could you also briefly give me
assessment on the implementation of the Personalized Local
Alerting Network, and I understand it was deployed in New York
City and Washington, DC?
Mr. Serino. What we were able to do is to have a system
that people would actually send messages out to their cell
phones. People could sign up for that. We were able to deploy
that in a people--in localized areas, similar to what a lot of
communities that have Reverse 9-1-1 for land lines, we would
also be able to send alert messages out to people's mobile
phones. There are ways that people can sign up for that. It is
both in New York, we are also looking and we have started a lot
of outreach in our social media area in utilizing cell phones
and utilizing mobile applications that people can actually sign
up on-line with their mobile phones to get disaster assistance
at m.fema.gov.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
Now I will recognize Ranking Member Richardson, thank you,
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Richardson. Actually, I am going to defer my time to
the Ranking Member of the committee.
Mr. Bilirakis. You are recognized, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Serino, kind of explain to us the recoupment letters
that have gone out. Where are we on that?
Mr. Serino. The majority of the recoupment letters have
gone out, and probably the most important thing for people to
realize is those letters have gone out and for people who have
received the letters, that they have 60 days to get back to us
so we can look at forgiving those. So I think it is important
for people, once they receive those, to make sure they get back
to us. All those letters have gone out and we are in the
process of going through the entire detail process on the
recoupment.
Mr. Thompson. Are we publicizing the waivers and other
options available to people not just in the letter but--just
explain how that is being done.
Mr. Serino. Right. We have done an outreach in the main
areas that were affected both, obviously, through the letters,
but also some other outreach through various news media to let
them know that this is happening.
Mr. Thompson. Can you provide the committee with whatever
that outreach has been? The reason I say it is I am from an
area that was impacted by Katrina and I have not seen any
outreach to date.
Mr. Serino. Okay.
Mr. Thompson. So I am a little concerned about it. So if
you would get back to me----
Mr. Serino. We will get back to you with that, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
The closeout of some of the Katrina-Rita packages--we saw a
report recently where, you know, we still have an awful lot of
disasters that have occurred years ago that we have not closed
out. What is FEMA's plan for closing out these projects?
Mr. Serino. We have an aggressive plan to close out the
older disasters--to try to close out over 200 a year. This year
I believe we had 103 new offices that are open; we were able to
close more than that. We were able to close, like, I believe
120 or so.
We are putting a very aggressive effort towards that. In
fact, that is helping us with our Disaster Relief Fund. It is
actually recouping money.
Over the last 2 years we have been actually able, through
closeouts, through de-obligations, is able to get back $4.7
billion over the last 2 years. We have an aggressive posture
for this year, as well, to continue that and to continue the
closeouts as aggressively as possible. Some of the closeouts
are more difficult that have been on-going, that are still
active, but some of the longer-term ones we have put a very
concentrated effort towards that.
Mr. Thompson. To the Chairman's comment about the
consolidation of the grants program, you talk about stakeholder
involvement. Can you provide us the written guidance for
stakeholder involvement? Some of us are concerned that you have
consolidated 16 programs into one, but we really want to see
the plan. If you could provide us with that I think it would be
very helpful.
Mr. Serino. Yes, sir. Be glad to.
Mr. Thompson. I guess that was a reference to the issues of
the tornadoes in the Midwest last night and yesterday evening.
Can you just give us, as best you can, an update on how that
situation is developing?
Mr. Serino. Sure. We actually--I was on an 8:30 brief call
this morning and the emergency managing personnel from the
State of Kansas were on board with us. They gave us a pretty
detailed update as to--there was a number of injuries, I
believe--a couple of severe injuries, and also about eight to
10 other minor injuries in this one town that was severely hit.
In addition to that, I am not confirmed, of the fatality that
was reported on the news, but it wasn't confirmed by them as of
about 8:40 this morning.
We have been in contact with each one of the State--our
regional administrators in the States affected, called the
Governor's office, and spoken with the directors of emergency
management. At this time they don't see any need for any
Federal assistance at this time, but again, it is very early
on. We have been outreaching to them and offering our services
and have people on the ground.
Mr. Thompson. Just let me say that, as someone who has gone
through some of these similar-type situations, an outreach is
absolutely important. Katrina taught a lot of lessons, and one
of them is the outreach in the beginning works miracles for
that process. I would like to compliment the agency on that
outreach.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.
Now I will recognize Ranking Member Richardson. Thank you.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serino, you said that there was going to be a process
for input regarding the consolidation. Have you determined what
that process is going to be and when you are going to announce
it?
Mr. Serino. We are in the process of putting that together
and looking for various input from Members of Congress, as
working with Members of Congress, working with the--we do
outreach to the communities, to the first responder, the
communities, the communities at the State and local levels, as
well. We do that on a fairly regular basis. I don't have all
the time lines, but--and where we are going to be doing that--
but we can get that to you.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. Just a few things that I would like
for you to keep in mind is: One, as we look at regions it is
important to understand that some cities might be within their
own right just as large as, you know, another city in another
area. So specifically in my community, for example, Long Beach
and Los Angeles is combined together, and Los Angeles, within
itself, you know, the second-largest city in the entire United
States, and yet Long Beach, you know, has--when you look at the
port activity, surpasses all of the others except for Los
Angeles.
So it is important that--one of the problems we ran into
with transportation is that when you consolidate and sometimes
you only look at one particular area in one region and you may
be missing--if that region, you know, actually encompasses,
which is in my case 40 percent of the entire Nation's cargo
then clearly you shouldn't only be looking at that region as
one grant allocation. So I think it is important in some of the
language that I have seen referencing regions that your regions
are considering size and scope, because you may have several in
one region that, you know, equate to four or five of the
others.
The other thing I would encourage is it has been much
discussion on this committee is the tiered process. I haven't
heard anything of whether you intend upon continuing that, and
I would like some specific information if that is the case.
Then the third one is, is the State--as I understand it the
State would be supplied with some of these funds. Would the
State be a mere pass-through or would the State be the
determining factor of who actually gets the dollars? Because if
that were to be the case I think I would have a concern and I
think probably some of my colleagues, as well, because these
funds shouldn't be intended to balance a State's budget but
rather to go as it is intended, and it should be risk-based and
not for any other purpose.
My other question--I have several. My first one that I
have, and excuse my cold here, I have expressed concern in the
past of the Office of Disability Integration and Coordination
that it lacks the adequate resources to provide the proper
assistance to State and local governments as they improve their
preparedness plans to accommodate special needs populations. I
understand that this year's budget request about 14 percent
less funding, or $73,000, for the office's activities at
headquarters. Why does this budget request seek less funding
and how will the reduction, in fact, affect the office?
Mr. Serino. For the Office of Disability Integration we
actually have put regional personnel in each one of the
regions. We have put--assigned one to each one of our 10
regions in addition to headquarters. We have actually
integrated how we deal with functional access needs and
disabilities all throughout the agency to--so it is sort of
difficult to see in the one line item because it is now we have
it in each region. It is over $1 million that we have assigned
to that.
In addition, we have actually put this in how we do
response. We are trying to not make----
Ms. Richardson. Isn't it--I apologize, sir, but I have only
got a minute left. Doesn't this individual, though, have other
responsibilities besides being the disability coordinator?
Mr. Serino. No. That is their function.
Ms. Richardson. That is their sole function.
Mr. Serino. In each of the regions, yes.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. So then, what do you anticipate the
reduction in the funding would be?
Mr. Serino. We actually have put them in all the regions.
We actually have seen much increase, if you look at funding
that was also from the various disasters. They have been at 25
of our different disasters this past year----
Ms. Richardson. Are you telling me there is not a 14
percent reduction in this section?
Mr. Serino. It is actually spread throughout the
organization, so----
Ms. Richardson. So you are telling me there is not a 14
percent or there is no reduction in the Disability Integration
and Coordination Office?
Mr. Serino. I will double-check, but it is actually spread
throughout the organization. It is not just that one part in
the office. What we do is we have had--moved it into the
regional offices in support in each of the regional offices, as
well. That is for the one office in the headquarters.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. If you could clarify that for us for
the committee in writing. Speaking about the regional offices,
in full year 2012 about $1.18 million was appropriated for
activities by the regional coordinators. The FEMA budget
request includes only $1.08 million for regional coordinators.
So what I am saying to you is you are telling me there is more
and yet the numbers are telling us there is less.
Mr. Serino. We actually have--they are in all of our
regional offices where they are--in each one of the offices we
have a person that is assigned to each one of those. In
addition to their being there for those in the regional offices
they go across the country during a disaster. We had recently
in the efforts that they were able to do, for example, in
Pennsylvania during flooding in Harrisburg the work that they
were able to do was bring together from the disability
community at the disaster recovery centers and utilizing some
technologies that actually were not in this war came out of the
Disaster Relief Fund in order to support the survivors during
the disaster.
Ms. Richardson. Mr. Serino, my time is expired, but again,
my question isn't where are they going; my question is: Is
there a reduction in the budget? Because according to our
numbers it is showing there is a reduction in the budget, so
that is what I need for you to answer.
But I will catch you on the second round in respect to my
colleagues.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Appreciate that.
Now I will recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Farenthold, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you
on doing what I think we are striving to do in the budget--in
the budget and in the Government overall, and that is
consolidate and bringing these programs together. The buzzword
we hear is eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, and I think the
consolidation that you guys are doing is a step in that--the
right direction, and I applaud you for that and hope other
agencies will follow.
I understand the other side's concern that some stuff might
fall through the cracks in these consolidations but I do
believe that if you have one group overlooking everything you
don't get a lot of duplicative services. Again, I think that is
great and I want to congratulate you on that.
You were also talking about there were some cuts to the
mitigation. Could you spend maybe 30 to 45 seconds explaining
what--you know, the broad, general areas of that--of those
cuts?
Mr. Serino. Sure. In the pre-disaster mitigation, those
cuts were--were made and we are actually looking at how we can
take those. There is a lot of unexpended funds in that Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Fund from previous years, so we are
actually going to be taking that money and moving it forward
into this--to this fiscal year into fiscal year 2013 and making
it so we can approve some of the projects in the past that some
of the cities, counties, and States were unable to do. So we
are going to be moving some of those funds.
In addition to that, we are looking at some of the
consolidation in the HMPG grants, so we are able to actually
utilize some of that because a lot of that is in some of our
flooding grants, as well. So it is a combination of the
consolidation in that area, as well.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. There was a--you know, we had a
big bruhaha in Congress. You all ran out of money last year.
Obviously we had a historic degree of disasters that you
discussed earlier. How are we planning for that where you all
don't come with your hand out come October?
Mr. Serino. In two different ways. With the Disaster Relief
Fund we are asking for $6.1 billion and we have actually taken
and looked at and utilized, looking over the last 10 years, to
actually see what we have actually be able to spend and what
are--have be been for non-catastrophic. In addition to that, we
have asked for a $500 million safety valve relief that we have
in there that we can use for emergencies. That is so we don't
end up in that same position that we ended up at the end of
September last year.
Mr. Farenthold. Great. I don't want to--as a former
broadcaster I remain concerned about the Emergency Alert System
and the--and the PLAN system. You mentioned that it has been
rolled out in the District of Columbia and New York? I am a
half-time resident of the District of Columbia. I am not seeing
any of the outreach on it; there is nothing that has popped up
on my cell phone. Of course, my phone is billed to my Texas
address.
It seems like we need to make sure we have got good
coverage on this almost to the point rather than being an opt-
in system it ought to be an opt-out system, where if your cell
phone is in that area you ought to have to opt out. I think you
judge how many people just don't follow what goes on in
Government on a day-to-day basis. I am not sure any level of
outreach will get the level of penetration that I think we
would need in the event of a true disaster.
So I would encourage you guys to--to rethink that, even
though that is a little off-topic for the budget. I do think
you could not budget enough money for outreach to get the level
of penetration that you would need for these programs to be
successful.
That is basically all I have, and I will yield back the
remainder of my time.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much. Appreciate it, sir.
All right, next we have my good friend from the State of
Michigan, Mr. Clarke. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Clarke of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Serino, appreciate your service. My question
is: How can Congress work with you to better protect those
high-risk urban areas, such as Metropolitan Detroit, from
terrorist attacks, and specifically, how we can allocate more
of the existing money under the Urban Areas Security Initiative
to those urban areas that are truly at risk? Because Federal
money is scarce right now but yet the threat to our urban areas
has not diminished.
So let me give you my specific case, is that I am concerned
about the citizens and facilities of Metro Detroit being
adequately protected by these homeland security funds. I have
fought to make sure that Metro Detroit remains eligible for
these Urban Areas Security Initiative Funds and last year the
Department of Homeland Security awarded over $9 million to
Michigan under this program to protect urban areas from
terrorist attacks. Of that $9 million--and again, the State
received the money even though the law says that it is the
urban area that would apply for it--of that $9 million the city
of Detroit only received $800,000. So I wanted to find out how
we can better allocate that existing money so it goes to the
high-risk area.
Now, Metropolitan Detroit has a large population, which is
spread throughout several counties. However, many of the key
assets that would be targets of a terrorist attack are within
Wayne County, such as our international airport--and we already
had somebody try to blow up a plane already. Many of the
remaining physical assets are right in the city of Detroit.
Now, they have not yet been attacked so I want to make sure
that that doesn't happen.
In Detroit we have the busiest international border
crossing at all of North America there. We have a large waste
water and drinking water system that could be a potential
threat for bioterrorist attack.
We have, right on the river front, the symbol of U.S.
manufacturing--the world headquarters of General Motors--and it
is in a building that has a 70-story tower in it. That is an
icon of U.S. manufacturing, and unfortunately, it could be a
big target for a terrorist to attack.
So how can we get more of the funds to the city that
actually needs to protect its people, protect these assets?
We heard through local homeland security officials, and
also looking at the law, that the State of Michigan, as well as
other States, can take up to 20 percent of the funding off the
top. Now, I am assuming that many States use this money for
homeland security purposes. But still, that is a large chunk of
money that could go directly to protect our assets.
Also, the geographic area that is considered at risk in
Michigan is very broad. Now, although agriculture is a very
important job creator in Michigan--it is our second-largest
industry--I don't think that the corn fields surrounding Metro
Detroit are at risk from attack from al-Qaeda. They will try to
blow up the Ambassador Bridge, or contaminate our water supply,
or blow up another plane that--as they attempted to do a few
years ago. Our corn fields are not at risk.
So how can we get more of the funds to the city of Detroit
and to Metro Detroit, where we actually need that type of
protection?
Mr. Serino. With this new National Preparedness Grant
Program it actually is risk-based and actually looking at the
risks and where they are, and able to--where we are able to do
those. In addition to that, it is also looking at the regional
area to look at where those highest risks in the region and how
we are able to utilize all the different assets that are in the
area to help support, whether it is Detroit, whether it is
another city, whether it is Long Beach, whether it is Los
Angeles, is looking at it in a regional approach is how we are
able to support each other and how the communities are able to
support each other so the assets are assets that are not just
for the one city but assets for the region, but also assets
Nationally, as well.
Mr. Clarke of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, just with the few
minutes that I have, I would like to follow back up with you
and your staff just on the issue of Metro Detroit to get more
of the existing money directly where it is needed.
Detroit is also in a financial crisis right now for many
reasons--housing crisis, we have had many schools that were
closed and parents left the city to send their kids to other
school districts. But we are in a fiscal crisis and the
firefighter grants that the Homeland Security has available for
cities requires the cities to match--provide local dollars up
to 20 percent. The city of Detroit and other cities facing
great financial emergencies may not be able to provide that
type of match even though they need to hire more firefighters
and better equip their firefighters. What can cities such as
the city of Detroit do if they can't meet the matching
requirements because of their financial situation, yet they
need to be eligible to receive firefighter assistance?
Mr. Serino. The Firefighter Assistance Grant is actually
now, obviously, one of the most popular grants and to continue
to help hire firefighters throughout the country. As you
requested, we will be more than glad to come and have a
specific brief for you for--with our grants folks. We would be
glad to do that.
Mr. Clarke of Michigan. I really appreciate that. Thank you
so much, Administrator Serino.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much, sir.
I now recognize the gentleman from New York, and he is
recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Serino. I was pleased to hear this is a
risk-based allocation of resources, and certainly that is good
news for New York City.
I had a question on the PLAN--the alert system. Has there
been efforts to involve the private sector, the internet
service providers, the telecoms, which seem to me that they
have the ability do geographically disseminate information and
do it much more quickly, and has there been a good level of
cooperation there?
Mr. Serino. Yes. We have actually had very good cooperation
with the communications industry--the internet industry. They
have been really partnering with us as technology has changed
from where the system was just 5 or 10 years ago to where we
are today and looking how we can utilize this new technology in
order to get the word out to our, you know, to the public,
and--when it is necessary.
In addition to that, we have also had the opportunity to
really--during the test but also previously--to make sure we
maintain some of the old system with the new system, not going
all to the new. But the communications industry has been one of
our biggest partners on this.
Mr. Turner. Could you give me an example of the internet
service providers--Yahoo, or AOL, or--and----
Mr. Serino. Well, for example, not just on the alert system
but on some of the outreach that we are able to do, just about
10 days ago or so I was actually in San Francisco and had a
technical roundtable that we brought together people from
Facebook, from I think Google--there was about 15 different
high-tech companies that were there that are actually looking
at how we can use new technology moving forward not just in the
alert system but also how we are able to--to work and do
outreach. Some of those really good ideas were reaching out to
those and continuing that dialogue, as well.
Mr. Turner. Thank you. That is all I have.
I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Now I will recognize Mr. Marino, from the great State of
Pennsylvania, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Marino. Thank you, Chairman.
Good morning, sir. Thank you for being here. I, too, want
to commend you on reviewing your budgets line by line. I have
been involved in business; I have been involved in the Federal
Government as a prosecutor. To date, no one has been able to
prove to me that regardless of how efficient an agency is that
you cannot strive to tweak it and make it a little better, so I
appreciate that.
I have one question and I don't know that it is a simple
question. I am from Pennsylvania in the middle district--the
10th district--middle district when I was U.S. attorney, and we
were hit by Irene, we were hit by storms prior to that and
after that, and actually, a significant amount of damage on the
East Coast, and particularly in my district.
What can be done or what funds, if there have been any set
aside--I know you are a reactive agency, but what are we doing
on the proactive side of not so much in the training area,
because you are doing an excellent job there, but actually
doing substantive work to mitigate the flooding, if you
understand my question?
Mr. Serino. Yes. Actually, quite a bit of work that we are
doing on--a lot of people look at FEMA as just, as you say, a
reactive agency. In reality, we actually do quite a bit before
that. We both do in flood mitigation and mitigation for all
sorts of hazards, as well.
With the new National Disaster Recovery Framework a lot of
people think that is recovery after the fact. But we are
actually finding that a lot of work that could be done ahead of
time actually is going to save not only lives, and dollars, and
people's homes and businesses, but it is also going to help
them deal with some of the financial recovery, if people have a
plan and plan how to recover after a disaster.
There are certain communities in this country that are
really trailblazers on how they are able to do this, and we are
actually working with them and it is part of our National
Disaster Recovery Framework under PPD-8 that we are actually
putting a significant emphasis towards that. We spent a good
time yesterday with our mitigators on how we can actually look
at--how we can actually look at mitigating before the disaster
because, as mentioned earlier, every dollar we spend saves $4.
Actually that is a really low number because you can actually
save quite a bit more if you look at how quickly you can get
people back to work, back into schools.
Joplin is a great example of that, of how they were able to
get people back into the schools 55 days after the tornado
struck. That helps bring back the economy and helps bring back
people ahead of time.
Mr. Marino. If you don't mind, I would like to suggest with
you three or four areas where I see, from my district, where we
may be able to do some proactive work. Overwhelmingly, people
refer to it as ``dredging the streams,'' and it is not so much
the major rivers, it is--and what I have learned over the past
year, it is the tributaries, and the mountain water, and the
springs, and the creeks rushing in. I don't refer to it as
dredging, but--because during the rainfall so much debris--
rock, gravel, stone--washes down into a stream, and of course,
when you put something into a stream like that and it piles up
several feet the water is going to come up higher faster.
So if we could come up with some type of program and the
funds available to prioritize areas that are doing a great deal
of damage and have that dredged out and put back and then
rebuild those banks to try and mitigate runoff. Another area is
older bridges over secondary and tertiary roads, and those
bridges sometimes have two pipes separated by a pier in the
middle and a great deal of debris washes up to those pipes. If
we could, when we are building bridges on secondary and
tertiary roads, think about going to the span effect--spanning
that small bridge over the section of road instead of having a
pier or a pipe in the middle of it that is going to just be a--
it will clog up and that causes the back--the flooding, as
well.
Then also, preventive measures where people are in a flood
zone and continually are in a flood zone, and we have to convey
to them that, you know, we will try to help you, buy you out,
and get you out of there, but you have to make the decision are
you going to take advantage of it or not, and if not, you know,
we cannot afford to be rebuilding the property year after year
after year in the flooding.
So with that, I appreciate your work and if you need
anything from my office or this committee please don't
hesitate.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Appreciate it very much.
I think we have a little time for a second round, so I am
going to go ahead and ask a couple questions if that is okay.
First of all, tell us a little bit more about the FEMA
Think Tank--how it works and how can the folks find out about
it? What have your experiences been so far?
Mr. Serino. The FEMA Think Tank is something we started
earlier this year, announced it last year, came out from an
idea of people at the State and local level on how they can
cause--give input to FEMA and the emergency management
community as a whole.
The Think Tank is a couple of different facets. You can go
on-line at www.fema.gov/thinktank and submit ideas,
suggestions, and actually a forum for people to communicate
across the country.
The second part of that is actually a call that we actually
do once a month that I host that we have people who call in
about various issues. Last month was about technology and how
we are able to use technology and going back to ham radio
operators as a key part of that. We had over 500 people on that
call; on the first call we had over 650 people. We had tweets
that were generated from that.
Mr. Bilirakis. So that is a National call. Not a regional
call, a National call.
Mr. Serino. It is a National call that anybody can call
into and offer suggestions. We usually pick a topic or two on
how we are able actually to--what the topic is, and so we can
consolidate the discussion. Then we have an open forum at the
end.
This is not just for FEMA, it is actually for the emergency
management community. What we have seen--for example, one of
the--the first call was held in Milwaukee, and in Wisconsin the
State actually heard some of the things on the call and says,
``Geez, we have never heard of that idea,'' and now they are
implementing it. We saw the same thing with some of the high-
tech and some of the applications that other people didn't know
they had.
So it is an open forum for exchange of ideas of--to share
those ideas, and it has been very successful. We are having a
lot of interest in it. We have had a lot of people who have
tweeted about it and we have had a lot of--not just in social
media, but a lot of interest from lots of folks.
We also invite any Members here to attend the call. We will
make sure people know when the call is, but it is on-line, as
well.
Mr. Bilirakis. Can we also post this on our Congressional
websites to get the word out in our Congressional districts?
Mr. Serino. That would be great. I think as we talk it is
really whole of community and how we can reach out to the
community. We do that in many different ways by going out,
speaking to folks in person, whether it is at conferences, at
meetings, every opportunity we have. This is using the
technology that is available now to continue that whole
community discussion.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you.
Can you elaborate on some of the efficiencies and maybe the
redundancies that you have eliminated? You have this in your
testimony, but if you could elaborate we would appreciate it
very much.
Mr. Serino. Sure. Some of the things we have done both on
the Disaster Relief Fund side, first. I will mention a few of
those that we are actually consolidated some of our field
offices, that rather than standing up a joint field office for
all the disasters we actually looked at doing some of those
virtually, and just by doing that virtually we literally have
saved millions of dollars on how we are able to do that.
Some of our joint field offices that we actually have open
we looked at how we provide security, how we do all of our
business processing. We are able to save literally millions of
dollars in that area, as well.
In the non-Disaster Relief Fund, we hold what we call
FEMAStat. It is a metrics measurements. We hold those about
every 2 weeks to look at to see how we are able to focus on one
area that is cross-cutting in the agency so we are not
duplicating, whether it is funds, whether it is personnel. We
have seen significant savings and more operational and breaking
down the stovepipes between different areas both within the
agency and how we can do that in the emergency management
community, as well.
I have a list of things that we have been able--both
dollars saved as well as opportunities that we have been able
to collaborate much better that I would be happy to share with
you, as well.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good.
One last question: FEMA has been assigned the role of
coordinating agency for the implementation of PPD-8. How is the
PPD-8 program executive office coordinating with other DHS
components and other Federal agencies and departments on the
development of the various frameworks required by PPD-8?
Mr. Serino. With PPD-8 we have met all the time lines that
were set. We have exceeded them. Early on we met the
preparedness goal and that was sent out last year ahead of
schedule. We got the system that was developed ahead of
schedule.
We are in the process now of developing the preparedness
report that will be out by the end of March, and as we are
developing the frameworks--and this is not just FEMA or DHS, it
is--and it is not just Federal Government. We have been
reaching out with all the stakeholders. It has been one of the
really good collaborations. But we have been getting input from
people from the--not just the Federal but the State, the
locals, private citizens, the nonprofits have all been giving
input to these, as well.
We have been using a lot of technology, as well, to do
that, so people can send their inputs in and we look at each
one of those--all those comments and integrate as many of those
as--we look at all of them and integrate where we can.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you very much.
Now I will recognize our Ranking Member.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have got quite a
few questions here to wrap up with.
First of all, Mr. Serino, last fall on the issue regarding
offsets to fund the Disaster Relief Fund former Secretary of
Homeland Security Tom Ridge testified, ``Never in the history
of this country have we worried about the budget around
emergency appropriations for natural disasters and, frankly, in
my view we shouldn't be worried now.'' Deputy Administrator, is
it your belief or the position of the Department that budget
offsets should be required in applying disaster relief funding?
Mr. Serino. Currently, as the money that we are asking
for--the $6.1 billion--should be adequate to meet the needs
that we have for this current fiscal year, for fiscal year
2013.
Ms. Richardson. Mr. Serino, my question is: Do you believe
that these funds should be required to have an offset?--is the
question.
Mr. Serino. At this point we believe we are offset with the
way we are doing it now.
Ms. Richardson. No. The question is, in regards to prior
years, coming years, you may need more money. We may have more
disasters than what we are planning on of, unfortunately,
this--these dollars. Is it your position and the position of
the Department that you should be required to have offsets?
Mr. Serino. Not at this time.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. Thank you, sir.
Second of all, I just want to clarify and run back to real
quick that according to our notes we are showing that there is
a reduction in the Offices of Disability Integration and
Coordination and also in the regional coordinators, so if you
could clarify that for us, as well.
Next, I had a question on--according to the full year 2013
briefing document the committee of FEMA we are expecting a
reduction of 695 full-time employees. That does not represent a
reduction in staffing levels, is what your folks have said. Is
that true?
Mr. Serino. Correct. What we have done is a number of those
employees we just moved, but do it to funding in the line items
where they were. The number of folks that moved, for example,
in some of the State and local programs were moved and budgeted
differently.
To go back to the question on the disability, actually
there is no budget reduction that we have between fiscal year
2012 and the fiscal year 2013. In fiscal year 2012 there was
$1.5 million that included the region and $1.5 million again
requested in 2013. Overall personnel, no reduction in the
number of staff between the fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year
2013.
Be happy to get with you after this and our staffs,
whatever, to see where the disconnect may be.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. Then, sir, also, according to the
budget, so let me make sure that I am clear--of the 695
positions you are talking about moving people around but we are
not talking about reduction in force?
Mr. Serino. Correct.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. It is also my understanding there
might be cuts to the National Fire Academy. Can you tell us how
that would affect training opportunities, particularly for
firefighters, especially in these tough budget times?
Mr. Serino. With the cuts that we are looking at in the
National Fire Academy we are actually looking at doing this in
some of the various areas of training. We are actually looking,
if I am not mistaken, at increasing from last year's level in
various ways that we are able to in some of the technology
issues because some of the funds that we had initially with the
startup costs, and some of those costs now with sustainment so
we would be able to see some of the savings there.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. Sir, I understand the consolidation
of the grant programs, and as you have heard, many Members of
Congress have expressed their concerns to that. Further, in the
budget you identify the National Preparedness Grant Program,
you have the First Responders Assistance, and then you have the
Management Administration.
But of the grants that are consolidated that had not been
in the past it just seems a little odd to me that you left out
possibly consolidating--you took care of the first responders,
which has always been a No. 1 priority of this Congress, both
on the Republican and on the Democratic side. We have always
fought to reinstate those appropriate funds. What surprises me
is that you didn't identify a consolidated section, for
example, for port, transit, and rail.
It just seems a little odd that you would have port,
transit, and rail competing with drivers license and, you know,
citizen training, and--when we know the exposure that we have
with our ports, when all you have to do is look at the bombings
around the world on rail. It just seems a little odd of why you
would have these programs compete and not set aside a minimum
amount of funding to be able to protect these areas.
Mr. Serino. One of the things that we are looking at is how
we can truly consolidate and regionalize so that where people--
those dollars that are spent are utilized in the best way
possible, and also to make sure that people in the specific
areas--the cities and the States--that they look at this on a
regional basis, that it is--yes, it is the ports, and yes, it
may be transit, but they are also looking at all the assets
that are available to them so that they are working together.
Ms. Richardson. Right. But my question is: Wouldn't you
agree that it seems odd that you wouldn't have particular funds
to protect your ports and your transit and your rail when you
compare that to the other programs that you have now dumped
them in with--to compete with?
Mr. Serino. Well, I think the important thing to look at is
how these are consolidated, and so we look at a regional risk-
based area. It is not just looking at just the ports; it is not
looking at just the transit; it is not looking at just, for
example, MMRS or UASI. It is looking at how we can consolidate
and be more effective.
Ms. Richardson. So, then how are you intended upon
allocating this program? Because it seems to me at first you
say, ``We haven't pulled anything together,'' but now it seems
like to me that you are saying that you are looking at
allocating these dollars based upon a regional need.
Mr. Serino. Well, we are looking at the--based on risk,
and--risk, and also with how we are able to work together as a
region and have the regional--so the assets that people have
can be used regionally as well as not just for that specific
area.
Ms. Richardson. So, for example, if a region like New York
or Los Angeles, which is where I am from--Los Angeles-Long
Beach--if you--if we have major transit, major port, and rail,
how are you going to adequately divvy all this up, given your
consolidations?
Mr. Serino. Well, it will be a combination that people will
be able to look at that at risk base and then at the same time
be working with the State and the locals, as well.
Ms. Richardson. But you have already identified in your
previous programs that these areas are risk-based. You have
already identified from prior years your Tier 1 cities of New
York, Long Beach-Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco,
Jersey City, Newark, San Diego, Philadelphia, District of
Columbia, Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth. All of these places have
transit, port, and rail.
Mr. Serino. Right. A lot of those also have UASIs and MMRS
systems, and a lot of them have a lot of the other components.
What we want to do is make sure that all of those are
coordinated working together across the different agencies so
there are not the stovepipes within each city or each area so
they are not seeing duplicative resources given to one
particular region. By combining all these grants is a way for
us to do that.
Ms. Richardson. So how are you going to ensure that there
is adequate funding for all these different areas if they are
competing?
Mr. Serino. Well, we have--obviously we have a budget and
we have to work within that budget, and we are able to, you
know, distribute those based on risk across the country.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. Seems like we are going in circles
here and I look--I believe the Chairman has already said he is
planning on having a hearing, but my question is, if you have
already identified that there is a risk--for example, in Long
Beach-Los Angeles with the port--you have already identified a
risk, that there is transit risk there, you have already
identified that there is rail issues there, and you have done
the same for New York, and you have done it for UASI, it seems
like what is the point, then, of consolidating? Because you
have already identified that these issues have--that these
particular communities have these problems.
Mr. Serino. Well, the risk is in those communities; it is
in other communities, as well.
Ms. Richardson. Right.
Mr. Serino. There are various--and a lot of these programs
that we have we want to make sure that the previous programs,
the UASI, that they are not duplicative, that they are not--the
UASI program is not doing the same thing as the port program,
as the transit program in one area, and this way of
consolidating also ensures that.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. Did you have prior reports that
demonstrated that that was the case?
Mr. Serino. Some----
Ms. Richardson. Yes.
Mr. Serino. There has been, you know--there are examples
given, as well.
Ms. Richardson. Could you supply that to the committee?
Mr. Serino. Sure.
Ms. Richardson. Okay.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Again, we are going to have a hearing
on this proposal and we will expect these questions to be
answered. As you know, there is a lot of concern, but we
commend you for, you know, consolidating, but we have to get
these answers--these questions answered before we have an
opinion on this proposal.
But I want to commend you, also, for being here. Thank you
for your valuable testimony.
Of course, I thank the Members, and my Ranking Member here,
for asking the tough questions.
The Members of the subcommittee may have some additional
questions, and I know we do, and we will ask you to respond in
writing, sir.
So the hearing will be--the record will be open for 10
days. Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
Thank you very much for attending.
[Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]