[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ASSESSING THE NATION'S STATE OF PREPAREDNESS:
A FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PERSPECTIVE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE,
AND COMMUNICATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 19, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-35
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Paul C. Broun, Georgia Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Candice S. Miller, Michigan, Vice Brian Higgins, New York
Chair Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Ron Barber, Arizona
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania Dondald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Jason Chaffetz, Utah Beto O'Rourke, Texas
Steven M. Palazzo, Mississippi Tulsi Gabbard, Hawaii
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Filemon Vela, Texas
Chris Stewart, Utah Steven A. Horsford, Nevada
Richard Hudson, North Carolina Eric Swalwell, California
Steve Daines, Montana
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Mark Sanford, South Carolina
Greg Hill, Chief of Staff
Michael Geffroy, Deputy Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana, Chairwoman
Peter T. King, New York Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Steven M. Palazzo, Mississippi, Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Vice Chair Brian Higgins, New York
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Mark Sanford, South Carolina (ex officio)
Michael T. McCaul, Texas (ex
officio)
Eric B. Heighberger, Subcommittee Staff Director
Deborah Jordan, Subcommittee Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Susan W. Brooks, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Indiana, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness, Response, and Communications..................... 1
The Honorable Donald M. Payne, Jr., a Representative in Congress
From the State of New Jersey, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications:
Oral Statement................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
Witnesses
Mr. Timothy Manning, Deputy Administrator, Protection and
National Preparedness, Federal Emergency Management Agency:
Oral Statement................................................. 10
Prepared Statement............................................. 12
Mr. Mark Ghilarducci, Director, California Governor's Office of
Emergency Services, Testifying on Behalf of the National
Governors Association and the Governors Homeland Security
Advisors:
Oral Statement................................................. 17
Prepared Statement............................................. 18
Mr. Jeffrey W. Walker, Senior Emergency Manager, Licking County,
Ohio, Testifying on Behalf of the International Association of
Emergency Managers:
Oral Statement................................................. 24
Prepared Statement............................................. 25
Mr. James Schwartz, Fire Chief, Arlington County Fire Department,
Testifying on Behalf of the International Association of Fire
Chiefs:
Oral Statement................................................. 29
Prepared Statement............................................. 31
Ms. Kathy Spangler, Vice President, U.S. Programs, Save The
Children:
Oral Statement................................................. 35
Prepared Statement............................................. 37
For the Record
The Honorable Susan W. Brooks, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Indiana, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness, Response, and Communications:
Statement of Troy Riggs, Director, Indianapolis Department of
Public Safety................................................ 1
The Honorable Donald M. Payne, Jr., a Representative in Congress
From the State of New Jersey, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications:
Letter From Kathy Spangler..................................... 41
Appendix
Questions From Hon. Susan W. Brooks for Timothy Manning........ 59
Questions From Hon. Susan W. Brooks for Mark Ghilarducci....... 61
Questions From Hon. Susan W. Brooks for Jeffrey W. Walker...... 64
Questions From Hon. Susan W. Brooks for James Schwartz......... 66
ASSESSING THE NATION'S STATE OF PREPAREDNESS: A FEDERAL, STATE, AND
LOCAL PERSPECTIVE
----------
Thursday, September 19, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response,
and Communications,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Susan W. Brooks
[Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Brooks, Palazzo, Payne, and
Clarke.
Mrs. Brooks. Good morning, the Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and
Communications will come to order. I would like to welcome our
witnesses, everyone in the audience and those who are watching
this webcast today, to our hearing today on our Nation's state
of preparedness.
Before I recognize myself for an opening statement, I ask
unanimous consent that the testimony of Director Troy Riggs,
the director of public safety in Indianapolis be submitted for
the record. Director Riggs is unable to testify today in person
due to a scheduling conflict.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Statement of Troy Riggs, Director, Indianapolis Department of Public
Safety
September 19, 2013
Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Payne, and Members of the
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications:
On behalf of the city of Indianapolis, thank you for inviting me to
testify today on the state of our Nation's preparedness. My name is
Troy Riggs and I serve as director of the City of Indianapolis
Department of Public Safety. Indianapolis is ranked as the 13th largest
city in the United States and the Indianapolis Department of Public
Safety is comprised of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department
(IMPD), the Indianapolis Fire Department (IFD), Indianapolis EMS
(IEMS), the Division of Homeland Security (DHS), Animal Care and
Control (ACC), Public Safety Communications (PSC), the Citizen's Police
Complaint Office (CPCO), and the City of Indianapolis, Mayor's Office
of Re-Entry.
On January 22, 2013, Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard and I
introduced a series of initiatives designed to make the operation of
the Department of Public Safety and its divisions more effective, more
efficient, and more transparent to the public. Internal reviews were
conducted where each Division was asked to provide information such as
mission statements, structure, funding, staffing, goals and measures,
and special projects. These internal reviews were important for
continual assessment of strengths, in order to address concerns and to
search for improvements. What was very collaborative and creative was
that concerns began to be addressed through a process or an efficiency
team. These efficiency teams have addressed some of the biggest
concerns in Indianapolis but also concerns that are trending throughout
our Nation. The efficiency teams take a whole-community approach and
they are made up of not only first responders, but also of volunteers,
city county agencies, private partners, churches, and general members
of the community.
Some of the issues that have been addressed by efficiency teams
relate to preparedness. One of the largest disaster responses that
occurred in Indianapolis recently was reviewed by an efficiency team.
On Saturday, November 10, 2012 the Richmond Hill subdivision
experienced an explosion that impacted 125 homes and resulted in two
fatalities and multiple injuries. The focus of the efficiency team was
to look at what we did well and what we need to improve. In the first
minutes of the explosion hundreds of calls were received. Pinpointing
the hue ``ground zero'' took collaboration with first responders and
dispatch. This was mitigated within 4 minutes of the first call. The
deployment of the first responders met current standard operating
procedures and response time goals. Established priorities of life
safety and fire suppression were achieved following the National
Incident Management System (NIMS) protocols. Collaboration with outside
agencies was a big success. Some of the improvements needed were
identified such as ensuring the command post location was easier to
identify by outside agencies, an improved patient tracking system,
improvement on identifying searched homes, and securing a funding
source for immediate resource needs. With such a large number of
agencies coordinating and sharing information these efficiency teams
serve as a true reflection of our community and are a conduit for
improvement in all areas.
To prepare for such a disaster our Indianapolis Division of
Homeland Security (DHS) takes the lead. The Indianapolis Division of
Homeland Security is responsible for protecting the citizens of Marion
County through a comprehensive program of mitigation, preparedness,
response, and recovery. DHS members work hard in the office and in the
field to ensure that as a city, Indianapolis is ready for anything. Our
emergency plans are continuously reviewed and tested to be sure that
they are operationally sound and up-to-date so that when disasters do
arise these plans are effectively executed. DHS collaborates with other
agencies of the Department of Public Safety to conduct well-rounded
investigations into the criminal activities that happen in our
community.
Another notable event that also turned out to be a huge success was
Super Bowl XLVI. During the first week of February 2012, hundreds of
thousands of visitors came to Indianapolis and shared in the excitement
of Super Bowl XLVI. Years of planning and preparation by our dedicated
personnel finally paid off as we successfully kept spectators,
visitors, and residents safe before, during, and after the event. Super
Bowl XLVI turned out to be a huge success and put the city of
Indianapolis on the map as a community with a distinguished Department
of Public Safety and Division of Homeland Security. Planning and
preparation were in the form of training such as the Indianapolis Joint
Counterterrorism Awareness Workshop that brought together local, State,
and Federal officials together. As the lead planning agency for this
special event, our Division set a new standard for the Nation in
protecting residents and Super Bowl spectators by promoting an
environment of collaboration and cooperation between local, State, and
Federal public safety officials.
Presidential Policy Directive 8: National Preparedness (PPD-8)
requires all FEMA Regions and all States and UASI's (Urban Area
Security Initiatives) receiving homeland security grants to prepare a
Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA). The City
of Indianapolis participated in the THIRA process to look at threats
and hazards closely and help prepare for disasters. During the
Indianapolis THIRA process the Richmond Hill Incident occurred. The
THIRA discussion on HAZMAT/Explosion was therefore quite prescient as
over 81 homes were damaged by the explosion, 32 to the point of needing
to be torn down. Further, all the accompanying issues such as
sheltering, debris removal, forensics, etc. were immediately needed to
be successfully maneuvered heading directly into the cold weather and
Thanksgiving holiday seasons. Responders, stakeholders, and appropriate
resources came from across the UASI to assist in the massive
undertaking--a process made easier due to the planning started through
this THIRA and accompanying steps.
Among Indianapolis DHS' biggest tasks is educating citizens about
preparing for emergencies. This large undertaking is conducted through
the Marion County Community Emergency Response Team program. The CERT
is made up of approximately 1,900 volunteers who dedicate their time
and talents to preparing the community for a disaster by providing
emergency response for the community following a major disaster. The
goal of the Marion County CERT team is to provide the skills that are
needed to sustain residents until emergency professionals arrive. First
responders may not be able to meet the service demand, so civilians
should be prepared to fill this need until help arrives. CERT trains
citizens in basic disaster response skills including fire safety, light
search and rescue, team organization, and disaster medical operations.
Serving the community has become a very important part of the
Marion County CERT team. The CERT team participates in many community
events from cleaning up neighborhoods to distributing weather radios to
mobile home parks to public speaking and conducting preparedness
presentations.
In the future the CERT team will be looking for ways to continue to
service the community by incorporating additional training such as
search and rescue of lost children, providing CPR/AED training, and
reaching out to our most vulnerable populations, including the elderly,
persons with disabilities, and the non-English speaking populations.
The CERT program is making a difference in Indianapolis.
In the area of prevention and protection the Division of Homeland
Security has recently established a Cyber Defense Force whose mission
is to improve the overall cybersecurity preparedness of the
Indianapolis metropolitan area. The Indianapolis Division of Homeland
Security Cyber Defense Force was created in 2013 and currently consists
of 4 members, all reservists. It may be expanded in the future as
warranted. The reservists have many years of experience in the
internet/cybersecurity field. Being a newly-formed group, the section
has just started to provide services to the community at large.
During normal operations, one of the force's main tasks is to
inform, train, and disseminate cybersecurity information to utilities,
industry, businesses, schools, and the community at large via lectures,
newsletters, press releases, web pages, and social media. They will
recruit and train speakers on cybersecurity for the Indianapolis DHS
Speaker's Bureau to act as a force multiplier for disseminating
information.
In addition, they will work with representatives from industry,
utilities, Government, and the EOC to develop a methodology to
communicate with each other as appropriate about potential and
immediate cyber threats. They will conduct table-top exercises and
other drills with these groups to test the procedures developed.
During a cyber attack, the force will be tasked with gathering
reliable and timely information on the on-going attack. If appropriate
they would inform other organizations to be alert for similar attacks
in the event there is a coordinated attack against our city. Then,
using state-of-the-art forensic techniques, the force will help to
gather information on who the attackers were and how the attack was
performed. They will also provide the conduit for reporting this
information to the appropriate government agencies. Lastly, they will
work with the utility/agency/business/organization to suggest the
``best practices'' approach to prevent the attack from occurring the
same way again.
The Cyber Defense Force has started joining up with other groups to
help stay informed about existing regional and National cybersecurity
initiatives and to take advantage of available resources. Some of these
groups include:
The Multi-State Information Sharing & Analysis Center;
Stop. Think. Connect. (www.stopthinkconnect.org and
www.dhs.gov/stopthinkconnect);
The National Cyber Security Alliance (NCSA)
(www.staysafeonline.org);
State of Michigan Fusion Center;
Infragard.
Finally, the Cyber Defense Force is participating in multiple
training opportunities at the State, regional, and National levels to
ensure they have the latest information to accomplish the objectives
outlined above.
Schools are a major component in the fabric of every community.
They are more than the epicenter of education, but are also a space
where sporting events, after-school activities, and community events
are held. For this reason the Division of Homeland Security created the
Safe Schools program. This school-based program develops a solid
relationship between the safety and security initiatives of DHS, the
city government, and the local school system.
One way that we are working with the schools is through the use of
technology. The technology currently being utilized is known as Digital
Sandbox. Digital Sandbox software enables school districts and States
to catalog their facilities and school security plans, create and
update safety assessments, report incidents and monitor threats in and
around their schools. This secure web-based platform and mobile
reporting apps are accessible to all stakeholders from school
administrators to public safety agencies, providing a common,
continuously-updated picture of the school security environment, as
well as seamless information coordination during a crisis. An integral
part of this safety approach is this technology solution designed
specifically for schools that allows school and district officials and
the public safety community to better prepare for, monitor, and respond
to safety- and security-related events. There are already many school
districts in Indianapolis that have been working with the school safety
solution, provided by Digital Sandbox, capturing critical data elements
associated with their schools that will assist first responders in an
emergency. This solution also provides a primary communication vehicle
between the public safety community and schools for ``missing person''
and high-value informational alerts.
We have highlighted several different ways that the City of
Indianapolis addresses prepares for disasters and one of our major
concerns is the sustainability of these programs. Collaboration and
strong partnerships have been a great part of our success but funding
for these initiatives is crucial and funding is an alarming issue we
now face.
As the 13th largest city in the United States Indianapolis was
receiving funds under the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) that
sustained these programs. The Department of Public Safety and the
Division of Homeland Security have expressed and continue to express
our disagreement with the fiscal year 2013 Department of Homeland
Security appropriations, which limits the funds provided under section
2003 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 604) to 31 cities
or urban areas. We strongly urge that this provision be reconsidered to
support the PPD-8 effort to build and sustain preparedness on-going and
supports to build on a range of existing activities.
Even though Indianapolis is the 13th largest metropolitan city and
host to several National and international companies, National sports
venues, professional sports teams, auto racing, NCAA Hall of Fame/
Headquarters, host to several National and/or international large-scale
events, and a large convention business; our funding was cut in 2011
and then we received a significantly reduced amount in 2012; in 2013
our funding was cut yet again. In prior years the funding was around
$4.5 million with the State withholding 20% for their use. In 2012 it
was significantly reduced to $1.2 million with the State keeping 20%
and City of Indianapolis and Hamilton County splitting $900,000.00.
Prominent companies in our major metropolitan area include: Eli
Lilly, Roche Diagnostics, Military Finance Center, Allison
Transmission, Rolls Royce, Federal Express Hub, CSX Central Rail Hub,
Raytheon, MISO (located in Carmel: MISO is an essential link in the
safe, cost-effective delivery of electric power across much of North
America), and many others.
Large-scale events hosted in our city include: The Indianapolis 500
(largest one-day sporting event, which also includes a month long of
events), largest half-marathon in the country, 3rd-largest parade in
the country, Men's and Women's NCAA Final Four (every 5 years),
multiple National and collegiate events, Indiana Black Expo Summer
Celebration, Circle City Classic, professional teams (Indianapolis
Colts, Indiana Pacers, Indiana Fever, Indianapolis Indians, Indy
Eleven, and Indiana Ice), NASCAR Racing, MotoGP Racing, and many other
multicultural events.
Setting an arbitrary cut-off on the number of jurisdictions is
contrary to the intent of UASI as authorized in the Homeland Security
Act of 2002, especially in light of the evolution of the threat to our
Nation which now may include home-grown violent extremism. Homeland
Security is a Federal, State, and local responsibility. The material
recently referenced from Osama bin Laden's journals apparently shows
that terrorists were focusing their interests on mid-sized cities, many
of which are now not receiving Federal funding.
The UASI program addresses the unique planning, operational,
equipment, training, and exercise needs of high-threat urban areas and
assists us in building capacity to prevent, protect against, respond
to, and recover from threats and acts of terrorism. A great deal of
work goes into managing the UASI program at the local level and
consistency of funding is a key component to enable us to continue to
protect our citizens. Inconsistent funding, with no clear direction,
makes it very hard to plan and utilize funds. Eligibility for funding
is determined by the Congressionally-mandated terrorism risk-based
formula which looks at threats, the vulnerabilities of a jurisdiction
and the consequences of an attack. To arbitrarily drop cities like
Indianapolis from the list is to make us ripe for terrorist interest
along with the loss of sustainment of multi-year and multi-million-
dollar projects that provide some of the highest levels of situational
awareness and proactive protective measures.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am happy to answer any
questions the committee may have.
Mrs. Brooks. This month is the 12th anniversary of the
tragic events of 9/11. Earlier this week, we were once again
reminded that tragedy can strike at anytime, and so our hearts
do go out to all of those who were affected by the shootings at
the Navy Yard. Our thoughts also go out to the people of
Colorado as they are weathering historic flooding.
So we would like to thank the law enforcement, the first
responders, members of the military, and medical personnel who
have, once again, responded to these tragic events.
Since 9/11 and to this day, preparing for and protecting
against terrorist attacks as well as other emergencies, has
been a focus of our country, and I know that many of us here
today have dedicated our professional lives to making this
Nation more secure. Make no mistake, over the past 12 years, we
have made significant progress in improving the Nation's
ability to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and
recover from disasters.
One needs only to look at what happened very recently at
the Boston Marathon bombings where we saw an extremely
coordinated and effective response from first responders, law
enforcement, and medical personnel.
Since 9/11, the city of Boston has used Federal grant
dollars to improve their prevention and their response efforts.
They have held training and exercises to test their plans. They
have promoted the use of interoperable communications across
multiple jurisdictions and sectors, and we know that the
actions of those Boston first responders that day, no doubt,
saved many lives and mitigated damage.
However, we also know, as always, there is more work to be
done. So this country still needs to develop a process that
continues to define and effectively measure our effectiveness
capabilities.
FEMA has been assigned with this difficult task, and we
know has been working toward this goal. In order to help
measure our Nation's preparedness, the administration in April
2011 publicly released the Presidential Policy Directive 8--
National Preparedness. PPD-8 required that the Secretary of
Homeland Security submit to the President a National
preparedness goal and a new National preparedness system that
will help achieve the goal.
It has been over 2 years since PPD-8 was released, and we
are still waiting to see the implementation of some of these
critical components of the National preparedness system.
Additionally, as required by the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act and PPD-8, FEMA released the second
annual National preparedness report or the NPR in March of this
year.
This report does outline the progress being made in
building and sustaining our Nation's 31 core capabilities as
defined in the National preparedness goal. It highlights
several areas of National strength including planning,
operational coordination, and intelligence and information
sharing. But it also draws, as it should, attention to areas in
need of improvement including specifically cybersecurity,
recovery-focused core capabilities, and public-private
partnerships.
FEMA has released four of the five National planning
frameworks including prevention, response, recovery, and
mitigation. These frameworks provide processes and strategies
to assist in achieving the National preparedness goal.
In this hearing today, I am interested in learning about
the level of the involvement of the State and local
organizations, what you have had in the development of these
frameworks, and how you are planning, if at all, to incorporate
all of these frameworks into your daily operations.
Additionally, I am interested in learning when the final
framework, the protection framework and the Federal inter-
agency operations plan might be released.
Preparedness is not just a responsibility, as we know, of
Federal, State, and local entities, but individuals, also, must
take a role in preparing for disasters. September is National
Preparedness Month, of which I am a Congressional co-chair, and
it is important we promote preparedness to our constituents,
our communities, and our stakeholders.
This month, I have encouraged Members of Congress to
promote preparedness activities in their districts, but we know
more must be done. According to a 2012 survey by FEMA, 46
percent of respondents reported being familiar with their local
hazards, but only 39 percent said they have an emergency plan
in their own household.
This is actually quite discouraging if you think about it,
if only 39 percent surveyed say they actually have a plan, and
I am hoping that with the preparedness goal and system, we can
continue to educate individuals about the need to be prepared.
After all, we know, and FEMA Administrator Fugate certainly
said, ``Winging it is not an emergency plan.'' We must be
prepared.
With the unpredictable nature of disasters and emergencies,
it is vital that we as a Nation continue to hone our
preparedness capabilities. As the Boston Police Commissioner,
Ed Davis, stated at a House Homeland Security Committee hearing
recently, ``The truth of the matter is nobody bats a
thousand.''
We can't be fully prepared for every single scenario, but
we have to strive to bat a thousand because lives count on it.
Through this hearing, I hope to learn more about the strengths
and weaknesses of our Nation's state of preparedness, and also
gain a greater understanding of how our Nation is working
together to build resilience.
I look forward to hearing the perspectives of our witnesses
on this important issue. I now recognize the gentleman from New
Jersey, Mr. Payne, for any opening statement he may have.
Mr. Payne. Good morning. I would like to thank Chairwoman
Brooks for holding this hearing and giving the subcommittee the
opportunity to learn more about the National state of
preparedness. Before we begin this hearing, I want to express
my condolences to those who lost loved ones, the friends and
co-workers as a result of the tragic events at the Navy Yard
earlier this week.
I also want to thank the first responders for their heroic
efforts in that time of need. Last week, we commemorated the
anniversary of September 11. In 12 years, we have made
significant improvements in our preparedness capabilities from
planning to communications to operational coordination.
However, every day, we are reminded of the work that still
needs to be done. In the last year alone, we have witnessed
incredible tragedies. Last year, Hurricane Sandy wreaked havoc
along the East Coast and in my home State of New Jersey. It
displaced families, destroyed schools and businesses, and
disrupted the school year.
In December, a shooter killed 20 children and 6 adults at
Sandy Hook Elementary School. In April, terrorists detonated
explosives at the Boston Marathon killing 3 people and injuring
many more. In May, tornadoes devastated Oklahoma. Two
elementary schools were in the path of the tornado and,
tragically 7 children died at one elementary school.
After each of these incidents, the National collective
asked, ``What could we have done differently?'' We wonder how
we could have prevented them. If prevention is not possible, we
wonder how we could have mitigated the devastation. If you are
a parent, these tragedies cause you wonder about how best to
protect your children.
Earlier this month, Save the Children released its annual
report card on protecting children in disasters. It found that
28 States including the District of Columbia, do not require
schools and child care facilities to include the four standards
that the National Commission on Children and Disasters deemed
essential.
I am proud to say that New Jersey is one of the few States
that includes these four criteria. I encourage each member of
the panel to review this report, to determine whether your
States meet each of the four criteria. If your State does not
meet the standard, I would urge the members to call their State
officials and ask why.
Along with this individual advocacy, I believe that as a
legislative body, this Congress can do and should do more. I am
introducing the Safe Schools Act legislation that will require
States applying for a State homeland security grant funds, to
certify that their schools have an emergency plan that meets
the standard recommended by the 2010 commission on childrens
disasters report.
I want to thank Save the Children, and I apologize for not
wearing one of my four Save the Children ties today for their
support of my legislation and for all their hard work in making
sure that our children remain a priority, the No. 1 priority,
in our disaster planning and preparedness efforts.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here, and I look
forward to their testimony, and I yield back my time.
[The statement of Ranking Member Payne follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Donald M. Payne, Jr.
September 19, 2013
Good morning. I would like to thank Chairwoman Brooks for holding
this hearing, and giving the subcommittee the opportunity to learn more
about the National state of preparedness.
Before we begin this hearing, I want to express my condolences to
those who lost loved ones, friends, and coworkers as a result of the
tragic events at the Navy Yard earlier this week.
I also want to thank the first responders for their heroic efforts.
Last week, we commemorated the anniversary of the September, 11,
2001 attacks.
In 12 years, we have made significant improvements in our
preparedness capabilities--from planning to communications to
operational coordination.
However, every day we are reminded of the work still that needs to
be done. In the last year alone, we have witnessed incredible
tragedies.
Last year, Hurricane Sandy wreaked havoc along the East Coast and
in my home State of New Jersey. It displaced families, destroyed
schools and business, and disrupted the school year.
In December, a shooter killed 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy
Hook elementary school.
In April, terrorists detonated explosives at the Boston Marathon,
killing 3 people and injuring many more.
In May, tornados devastated Oklahoma. Two elementary schools were
in the path of the tornado, and tragically, 7 children died at one
elementary school.
After each of these incidents, the Nation collectively asks what
could we have done differently? We wonder how we could have prevented
them. If prevention is not possible, we wonder how we could have
mitigated the devastation.
And if you are a parent, these tragedies cause you to wonder about
how best to protect your children.
Earlier this month, Save the Children released its annual Report
Card on Protecting Children in Disasters.
It found that 28 States, including the District of Columbia, do not
require schools and child care facilities to include the four standards
that the National Commission on Children and Disasters deemed
essential.
I am proud to say that New Jersey is one of the few States that
includes these four criteria.
I encourage each member of the panel to review this report to
determine whether your State meets each of the four criteria.
And if your State does not meet the standard, I would urge the
members to call their State officials and ask why.
And along with this individual advocacy, I believe that as a
National legislative body, this Congress can and should do more.
I am introducing the S.A.F.E. Schools Act, legislation that will
require States applying for State Homeland Security Grant funds to
certify that their schools have emergency plans that meet the standards
recommended by the 2010 Commission on Children and Disasters Report.
I want to thank Save the Children for their support of my
legislation, and for all of their hard work in making sure that our
children remain a priority in our disaster planning and preparedness
efforts.
I thank the witnesses for being here, and I look forward to their
testimony.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. Other Members are reminded that
opening statements may be submitted for the record.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
September 19, 2013
Good morning. I would like to thank the witnesses for being here
today to discuss National preparedness.
I would particularly like to thank Ranking Member Payne, Jr., for
inviting Save the Children to testify.
For almost a decade, I have worked to improve disaster preparedness
and planning for children and those with special needs and language
barriers.
I am pleased to work with Ranking Member Payne, Jr., to advance
these efforts.
The 2013 National Preparedness Report indicates that we have made
progress in building cybersecurity capabilities. I am encouraged that
we are moving forward but I am not convinced that anyone believes we
have done all we can to ensure that this Nation's cyber networks are
protected and resilient.
I look forward to continuing the progress on the cyber front.
I also urge the leadership of this House to become actively engaged
in putting legislation on the House floor that will help us protect the
known vulnerabilities in the cyber network that runs every aspect of
this Nation's critical infrastructure.
As we look at the many things that need to be done, we need to
mention the continuing need to provide interim and long-term housing
solutions following catastrophic disasters.
We learned after Hurricane Katrina that we were ill-prepared and
ill-equipped to provide interim and long-term housing to large numbers
of disaster survivors.
I was troubled to learn that 500 people remained in shelters a
month after Hurricane Sandy.
Eight years after Hurricane Katrina, we should have at least
learned how to address housing needs.
Finally, this Congress needs to consider the effect of uncertain
funding has on the development of preparedness and response
capabilities on the local level.
During our full committee hearing on the Boston Marathon Bombing,
the Boston Chief of Police made it clear that the effectiveness of
their response effort was made possible by the Federal homeland
security grants they had received.
As this Congress continues attempts to reduce funding for
preparedness programs, we need to understand that these reductions have
a direct effect on the ability of first responders to save lives during
times of disaster and tragedy.
To call this approach short-sighted is to give it too much credit.
It is not sighted at all. And as it says in Proverbs--where there is no
vision, the people perish.
Madame Chairwoman, I raise these three issues--grant funding,
housing, and cybersecurity--because I know that we can solve each of
them with great benefit to this Nation. I urge you to join us in our
efforts to resolve these problems.
I thank the witnesses for being here today, and I look forward to
their testimony.
I yield back.
Mrs. Brooks. We are very pleased to have this very
distinguished panel before us today on this important topic.
I would like to begin by introducing our first witness, Mr.
Tim Manning. He is the deputy administrator for protection and
National preparedness of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency. This is not your first time testifying before this
committee, so welcome back.
In this capacity, he oversees the National preparedness
directorate, the grants program directorate, the normal
continuity programs directorate, and the Office of National
Capital Region Coordination. Mr. Manning brings to FEMA nearly
2 decades of emergency management experience including service
as a fire fighter, an emergency medical technician, and a
rescue mountaineer.
Next, we have Mr. Ghilarducci. Mr. Mark Ghilarducci is the
director of the California Governor's office of emergency
services. As a member of the cabinet, Director Ghilarducci
serves as the Governor's homeland security advisor and oversees
State-wide public safety emergency management, emergency
communications, counterterrorism efforts, and a State threat
assessment system, STAS.
Prior to his appointment, Mr. Ghilarducci has been involved
in disaster emergency response and recovery activities
resulting from hundreds of major incidents within California--
he served both Nationally and internationally. He is testifying
today on behalf of the National Governors Association and the
Governor's homeland security advisor's council.
Next we have Mr. Jeff Walker, who is the senior emergency
manager for Licking County, Ohio. Prior to this position, Mr.
Walker was the director of the Licking County Office of
Homeland Security and Emergency Management for 13\1/2\ years.
He has served on countless committees including Ohio's
Emergency Management Training Council, Ohio's severe weather
awareness committee, and was appointed to FEMA's National
advisory committee.
Mr. Walker currently serves as the president of the
International Association of Emergency Managers and is
testifying on behalf of that organization. As I understand you
will be heading to Vienna soon to also appear at a conference.
Thank you, Mr. Walker.
Next we have Chief James Schwartz, who has been the fire
chief for the Arlington County Fire Department since 2004.
Prior to this appointment, he served in a variety of fire
department positions including assistant chief for operations,
responsible for all response-related activities including fire,
EMS, hazardous materials and technical rescue, response
incident management, and operational training.
He led the unified command effort for the Pentagon incident
after September 11. He currently serves as the chair for the
International Association of Fire Chiefs committee on
terrorism, homeland security, and he is testifying on behalf of
IAFC. I must say, Chief, that we made the reacquaintance
because we visited as a U.S. attorney appointed 1 month after
9/11.
You were part of a presentation to a number of new U.S.
attorneys at the Pentagon in November 2001, and I remember to
this day, we went to the Pentagon and listened to you and the
chief at that time, present to us what that scene was like, how
you secured that scene, and that horrible tragedy at the
Pentagon.
It was a very powerful presentation to all of us in law
enforcement to learn about what the fire service's role is in a
terrorist incident, and so good to see you again.
I would now like to defer to Ranking Member Congressman
Payne to introduce our next witness.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. It is my honor and
privilege to introduce Ms. Kathy Spangler, and she is the vice
president of the U.S. programs for Save the Children, where she
focuses on improving educational outcomes for children living
in poverty, through early childhood development, literacy,
physical activity, and nutrition.
Additional, Ms. Spangler oversees Save the Children
programs that are dedicated to protecting children during
emergencies and disasters and focuses on preparedness and
response efforts. Prior to joining Save the Children, Ms.
Spangler served as the founding director of the National
Partnerships for the National Recreation and Park Association.
It is really an honor to have her here to testify on these
issues, so welcome. I yield back.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. The witnesses' full written
statements will appear in the record and just to let you know,
you have 5 minutes for opening remarks, and we will start with
you, Mr. Manning.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY MANNING, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, PROTECTION
AND NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Mr. Manning. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Brooks,
Ranking Member Payne, Members of the subcommittee. Good morning
and thank you for having me here today.
The administration remains committed to strengthening the
security and resilience of the United States through a
systematic preparation for the threats and hazards that pose
the greatest risk to the security of the Nation. Much progress
has been made fueled by FEMA's grant programs but with
leadership at the State and local levels.
Monday's tragedy at the Washington Navy Yard underscores
the role State and local emergency responders maintain in
keeping this Nation safe. In March 2011, President Obama signed
Presidential Policy Directive 8 on National preparedness.
The body of work established pursuant PPD-8 creates a
system that allows us to both build preparedness and to
understand how well-prepared we are by setting a goal,
establishing a baseline, sending common and comparable
terminology, measuring the capability gaps, and assessing our
progress towards filling them.
The National Preparedness Goal released in September 2011
is the cornerstone of PPD-8 and defined a set of 31 distinct
core capabilities across the mission areas needed to achieve
the National preparedness.
The National preparedness system is the instrument that the
Nation uses to build, sustain, and deliver the core
capabilities to achieve the goal. Implementation of the NPS is
a whole-community approach to homeland security and emergency
management that supports building, sustaining, and delivering
the core capabilities through identifying and assessing risks,
estimating capability requirements to meet those risks,
planning to deliver those capabilities and validating those
capabilities through exercises and real-world incidents and
reviewing and updating each.
The foundation of the National Preparedness System is
identifying and assessing risks. To be truly prepared and to
understand our progress towards the goal, we need to know what
we are preparing for. Communities should understand the risks
with which they are faced.
The Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment or
THIRA process, helps communities identify those threats and
hazards and determine capability targets and resource
requirements necessary to address anticipated and unanticipated
risks.
The THIRA process gives communities their end-state,
capability targets based on their threats and hazards and
resources required to meet those targets. The State
preparedness report measures the rate or change between current
baselines and the end-state identified in the THIRA.
This SPR is an annual self-assessment and review of State
preparedness based on the targets set in the THIRA. The
National planning frameworks describe how the whole community
works together to deliver the core capabilities needed to
achieve the preparedness goal, as part of a unified and
coordinated effort.
There is one framework for each of the five mission areas:
Prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery.
The protection framework is very close to nearing
completion. We are working closely with our partners across the
Department of Homeland Security and across the homeland
security and emergency management community to ensure that the
draft protection framework aligns with and expands, clarifies,
and advances the National strategic approach protecting
critical infrastructure and the strategic guidance of the
administration and Secretary of Homeland Security.
At the Federal level, each framework has been supported by
a mission-area-specific Federal Interagency Operation Plans, or
FIOPs for short. These FIOPs describe how the Federal
Government will deliver the core capabilities in each mission
area in support of a response and State and local governments.
The protection, prevention, mitigation, response, and
recovery FIOPs are under the final development and review, and
we are confident in their completion and publicaton in the very
near future.
The National Preparedness Report then examines the
preparedness across the Nation. The first NPR released in 2012
included specific accomplishments in the context of the core
capabilities identified in the goal.
The 2013 NPR identified 65 key findings. Several of these
findings focusing on overarching National trends and
highlighting areas of National strength. The 2013 NPR found the
Nation continues to make progress building preparedness in key
areas including planning, operational coordination,
intelligence and information sharing, and operational
communication.
Each of these was identified as also an area of strength in
the 2012 NPR. The Nation also made progress in suggesting areas
identified for improvement in 2012, including cybersecurity,
recovery focus, core capabilities like economic recovery, and
the protection of natural and cultural resources.
The 2013 NPR also found the Nation has made some progress
in planning to address long-term challenges posed by climate
change and extreme weather, but this remains an area of focus
for preparedness initiatives Nationally.
This past year has given FEMA more opportunities than we
would like to assess the preparedness through real-world
incidents. Hurricane Sandy, the Boston Marathon bombings, the
tornado in Moore, Oklahoma, and many others demonstrated how
the Nation's preparedness activities have had a positive effect
on our response capabilities.
Our efforts to train, equip, and exercise public safety
personnel, as well as the planning assistance we provided to
our partners, all helped save lives.
In conclusion, the National Preparedness System as
envisioned by PPD-8, has contributed to our ability to focus on
those areas where gaps exist in order to strengthen the public
safety and the Nation's security and resilience. Our ability to
measure progress has also improved, and we look forward to
working with Congress and all of the stakeholders to continue
to reduce vulnerabilities the Nation faces.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am happy to
answer any questions the subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Manning follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy Manning
September 19, 2013
introduction
Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Payne, and Members of the
subcommittee: Good morning. I am Timothy Manning, deputy administrator
for protection and National preparedness at the Department of Homeland
Security's (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). On behalf
of Administrator Fugate, it is my pleasure to appear before you today
to discuss the Nation's state of preparedness.
The administration remains committed to strengthening the security
and resilience of the United States through systematic preparation for
the threats that pose the greatest risk to the security of the Nation,
and we are more secure and better prepared to prevent, protect against,
mitigate, respond to, and recover from the full range of threats and
hazards the Nation faces than we have been at any time in our history.
We plan better, organize better, equip better, train better, and
exercise better, resulting in an improved National preparedness and
resilience.
Much of this progress has come from leadership at the State and
local levels, fueled by FEMA's grant programs. Over the past 10 years,
Congress, through the Department of Homeland Security, has provided
State, territorial, local, and Tribal governments with more than $36
billion. We have built and enhanced capabilities by acquiring needed
equipment, funding training opportunities, developing preparedness and
response plans, exercising and building relationships across city,
county, and State lines. Although Federal funds represent just a
fraction of what has been spent on homeland security across the Nation
overall, these funds have made us more prepared.
In March 2011, President Obama signed Presidential Policy Directive
8 on National Preparedness (PPD-8), which describes the Nation's
approach to National preparedness. PPD-8 aims to strengthen the
security and resilience of the United States through the systematic
preparation for the threats that pose the greatest risk to the security
of the Nation, including acts of terrorism, cyber incidents, pandemics,
and catastrophic natural disasters. PPD-8 defines five mission areas--
prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery--and
requires the development of a series of policy and planning documents
to explain and guide the Nation's efforts in helping to ensure and
enhance National preparedness.
The body of work established pursuant to PPD-8 creates a system
that allows us to understand how well-prepared we are by setting a
goal, establishing a baseline, setting common and comparable
terminology, measuring capability gaps, and assessing our progress
toward filling them. PPD-8 creates the National Preparedness System
(NPS), a cohesive approach that allows us to use the tools at our
disposal in the most effective manner and in a way that allows us to
monitor and report on our progress.
National preparedness is the responsibility of the whole community
to include all levels of government, the private and nonprofit sectors,
and individual citizens. Each year, the Nation makes additional
advances toward achieving the National Preparedness Goal (NPG) and
implementing the NPS.
the national preparedness goal
The NPG, released in September 2011, is the cornerstone of PPD-8
and defines a set of 31 distinct core capabilities across the mission
areas needed to achieve National preparedness. The NPG, developed
through a collaborative process including all levels of government, the
private sector, and the general public, envisions a secure and
resilient Nation with the capabilities required across the whole
community to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and
recover from the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk.
the national preparedness system
The NPS is the instrument the Nation uses to build, sustain, and
deliver the core capabilities to achieve the NPG. Implementation of the
NPS uses a whole-community approach to homeland security and emergency
management that supports building, sustaining, and delivering the core
capabilities through identifying and assessing of the risks we face;
estimating capability requirements to meet those risks; building and
sustaining capabilities; planning to deliver capabilities; validating
those capabilities through exercises and real-world incidents; and then
reviewing and updating our capabilities and plans.
Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
The foundation of the NPS is identifying and assessing risks. To be
truly prepared and to understand our progress toward our goal, we need
to know what we are preparing to address and to what level of service.
Every community should understand the risks it faces. By understanding
its risks, a community can make smart decisions about how to manage
risk, including developing needed capabilities. Risk is the potential
for an unwanted outcome resulting from an incident, event, or
occurrence, as determined by its likelihood and the associated
consequences. By considering changes to these elements, a community can
understand how to best manage and plan for its greatest risks across
the full range of the threats and hazards it faces. The Threat and
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) process helps
communities identify threats and hazards and determine capability
targets and resource requirements necessary to address anticipated and
unanticipated risks.
The First Edition of the Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG 101)
presented the basic steps of the THIRA process. Specifically, the First
Edition described a standard process for identifying community-specific
threats and hazards and setting capability targets for each core
capability identified in the NPG. In August 2013, FEMA refined the
THIRA methodology through the release of CPG 201, Second Edition. The
Second Edition expands the THIRA process to include an estimation of
resources needed to meet the capability targets. The THIRA process now
assists communities to answer questions such as, ``What are my current
and future risks?'' and, ``What level of service do I need to address
my risks?'', and addresses what specific capabilities are needed, such
as teams of specialized resources.
The results of the THIRA process will continue to mature. Over the
coming years, as FEMA and our partners refine our application of the
THIRA through repetitive efforts, the results--capability targets and
required resources--will be improved. And today, the THIRA process is
providing communities all across the country with a clearer picture of
what resources are needed to address their risks and providing a
realistic and empirical basis for strategic and operational planning
than has ever been possible before.
State Preparedness Report
The THIRA process gives communities their end-state--capability
targets based on their own threats and hazards and the resources
required to meet those targets. The State Preparedness Report (SPR)
measures the rate of change between current baselines and the end-state
identified in the THIRA. Once each jurisdiction has determined
capability targets through the THIRA process, the jurisdiction
estimates its current capability levels against those targets in its
SPR. The SPR is an annual self-assessment of State preparedness based
on the targets set in the THIRAs. The SPR is submitted by the 56 States
and territories to FEMA. The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform
Act of 2006 (PKEMRA) requires an SPR from any State or territory
receiving Federal preparedness assistance administered by DHS.
Developing an effective SPR also requires active involvement from the
whole community, and FEMA encourages jurisdictions to seek input from
multiple stakeholders when assessing their capabilities.
The THIRA and SPR processes are scalable to encourage sub-
jurisdictions and sub-grantees to provide input to the State or
territory. The summary results are published in the annual NPR.
The next component of the NPS is to build and sustain capabilities.
This step ties grant investments directly to needs and shortfalls. In
State grant application Investment Justifications, grantees must
address the capability gaps and requirements documented in their SPR
that the investment intends to address. In addition, the grantee must
identify the specific outcomes the investment will yield.
National Planning Frameworks
The National Planning Frameworks describe how the whole community
works together to deliver the core capabilities needed to achieve the
NPG as part of a unified and coordinated effort. There is one Framework
for each of the five mission areas (prevention, protection, mitigation,
response, and recovery). These mission areas represent a continuum of
interrelated activities and reflect the relationships and partnerships
across the whole community.
The Frameworks document the roles and responsibilities of the whole
community in National preparedness, recognizing the value of
partnerships and working together.
Each Framework:
Summarizes the roles and responsibilities across the whole
community;
Defines each mission area's core capabilities, along with
key examples of critical tasks;
Defines coordinating structures--either new or existing--
that enable the whole community to work together to deliver the
core capabilities;
Describes the relationships to the other mission areas;
Identifies relevant information to help with operational
planning;
Provides information that State, local, Tribal, and
territorial governments can use to revise their operational
plans; and
Uses concepts from existing preparedness efforts and
doctrine, such as the National Incident Management System.
The Frameworks also affect whole-community preparedness reporting
and assessments. For example, the Frameworks can assist whole-community
partners as they complete the THIRA process. The critical tasks
described in the Frameworks will help whole-community partners
understand the activities, which help to deliver capabilities to the
established targets, as well as the resources needed conduct the
activities and achieve the targets.
The environment in which we operate grows ever more complex and
unpredictable. The Frameworks are living documents, and will be
regularly reviewed to evaluate consistency with existing and new
doctrine, policies, evolving conditions, emerging risks, and the
experience gained from their use.
As of today, four of the five frameworks have been published. The
National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF), which was released in
September 2011 and rolled out across the country during the next 6
months, focuses on how to restore, redevelop, and revitalize the
health, social, economic, natural, and environmental fabric of the
community and build a more resilient Nation. The updated National
Response Framework (NRF), as well as the new National Prevention and
National Mitigation Frameworks, were rolled out on May 6, 2013. Each of
these frameworks addresses the unique expectations and challenges for
each mission area.
The NRF aligns roles and responsibilities across Government and the
private sector in a unified approach in responding to any threat or
hazard.
The National Prevention Framework focuses on addressing the
challenges stemming from an imminent terrorist threat.
Fostering a culture of preparedness--centered on risk (present and
future) and resilience to natural, technological, and terrorist
events--is the focus of the first edition of the National Mitigation
Framework. The document provides context for how the whole community
works together and how mitigation efforts relate to all other parts of
National preparedness.
The Protection Framework is nearing completion. We are working
closely with our partners in DHS and across the homeland security and
emergency management communities to ensure that the draft Protection
Framework aligns with the implementation of Presidential Policy
Directive 21 (PPD-21) and Executive Order (EO) 13636. PPD-21, which
replaced HSPD-7, expands, clarifies, and advances the National approach
to protecting critical infrastructure pursuant to the strategic
guidance of the Secretary of Homeland Security. And EO 13636 directs
Federal agencies to use their existing authorities and increase
cooperation with the private sector to provide better protection for
the computer systems that are critical to our National and economic
security. This alignment will ensure that the efforts undertaken under
PPD-21 and EO 13636 complement other efforts under way in the
prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery mission
space.
Federal Interagency Operational Plans (FIOPs)
At the Federal level, each framework is supported by a mission
area-specific Federal Interagency Operational Plan. The individual
FIOPs describe how the Federal Government delivers core capabilities
for each mission area. Each FIOP describes the concept of operations
for integrating and synchronizing existing Federal capabilities to
support State, local, Tribal, territorial, insular area, and Federal
plans, and is supported by Federal department-level operational plans,
where appropriate. The Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, Response and
Recovery FIOPs are under development. The Protection FIOP will follow
the release of the Protection Framework.
national preparedness report
The National Preparedness Report (NPR) examines preparedness across
the Nation. The first NPR, released last year, included specific
accomplishments in the context of the core capabilities identified in
the National Preparedness Goal. While the inaugural 2012 NPR
highlighted preparedness accomplishments in the decade following the
September 11, 2001 attacks, the 2013 NPR focuses primarily on
accomplishments either achieved or reported on during 2012.
In total, the 2013 NPR identifies 65 key findings. Several of these
findings focus on overarching National trends and highlight areas of
National strength, areas for improvement, and issues that cut across
multiple capabilities and mission areas.
The 2013 NPR found that the Nation continues to make progress
building preparedness in key areas, including planning, operational
coordination, intelligence and information sharing, and operational
communications--each of these was identified as an area of strength in
the 2012 NPR. Hurricane Sandy highlighted strengths in the Nation's
ability to respond to and recover from disasters. Federal partners
supplemented State and local resources through established response and
recovery support functions, and whole-community partners provided
valuable support to survivors.
The Nation also made progress in addressing the areas for
improvement identified in last year's NPR, including: Cybersecurity;
recovery-focused core capabilities like economic recovery; protection
of natural and cultural resources; housing; and integration of
individuals with disabilities and access and functional needs. The 2013
NPR also found that the Nation has made some progress in planning to
address the long-term challenges posed by climate change and extreme
weather, but that this remains an area of focus for preparedness
activities Nationally.
This year, FEMA established criteria to identify areas for National
improvement using State preparedness data, exercise information, and
linkages to long-term drivers of emergency management. The 2013 NPR
identifies two new areas for improvement using this repeatable
methodology: Infrastructure systems and public and private
partnerships. Over time, it is expected that the NPR will also identify
additional new areas for improvement and remove areas that are
effectively addressed.
The strengths and areas for improvement in the NPR will be used to
inform planning efforts, focus priorities for Federal grants, and
enable informed collaboration among stakeholders working together to
improve the Nation's preparedness.
preparedness in action
The past year has given FEMA more opportunities than we would like
to assess preparedness. Whether it was Hurricane Sandy or the Boston
Marathon bombing, real-world incidents and National-Level Exercises
have tested our preparedness efforts.
Hurricane Sandy demonstrated that integrating and coordinating with
the whole community is a critical part of FEMA's role in disaster
response and recovery efforts, making the Operational Coordination core
capability one of the most valuable core capabilities during any
incident. These real-world experiences also confirmed that enhancing
infrastructure systems is a National area in need of improvement.
Stressed infrastructure systems--including water and wastewater
treatment, surface transportation, airports, inland waterways, marine
ports, electricity infrastructure, and communications and fuel
systems--can present obstacles to effective response and recovery
operations. Climate change and extreme weather events also expose
vulnerabilities in key infrastructure sectors--including transportation
and commercial facilities.
The response to the Boston Marathon bombings was another example of
how the Nation's preparedness activities had a positive effect on
response. FEMA has supported 12 exercises directly involving the city
of Boston. These have included topics as diverse as chemical or
biological attacks, hurricane preparedness, hazardous materials events,
cyber incidents, and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). In 2011,
DHS--in conjunction with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
National Counterterrorism Center--hosted a Joint Counterterrorism
Awareness Workshop that focused on integrating response operations to a
complex attack in the Boston metropolitan area. Many participants from
the local, State, and Federal community, who participated in these
exercises, responded to the bombings.
Oklahoma's response to the May 20, 2013 tornado that devastated the
city of Moore is also indicative of the meaningful impact of FEMA's
homeland security grant funding. Oklahoma's Regional Response System,
developed with the support of FEMA's grant funds, deployed Technical
Rescue Teams to assist with rescue efforts. Ambulance Strike Teams and
Mass Emergency Medical Surge Teams also responded, providing care to
thousands of survivors.
The responses to Hurricane Sandy, the Oklahoma tornadoes, and the
Boston Marathon bombings demonstrated the security and resilience of
the Nation. Our preparedness programs, posture, and investments were
critical in each one of those responses, but there is still more--there
is always more to do--to improve preparedness. We will continue to work
with communities across the country to prepare. All disasters are
local, but we're proud to be there to support communities across
America as they prepare for whatever hazard they may face.
conclusion
The NPS, as envisioned by PPD-8, has contributed to our ability to
focus on those areas where gaps exist in order to strengthen public
safety and the Nation's security and resilience. Our ability to measure
our progress has also improved, and clarity and focus will be brought
with the continued implementation of the Threat and Hazard
Identification and Risk Assessment process. We look forward to working
with the Congress and stakeholders as we continue to reduce
vulnerabilities the Nation faces. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify. I am happy to answer any questions the subcommittee may have.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Manning.
The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Ghilarducci for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARK GHILARDUCCI, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION AND THE GOVERNORS HOMELAND
SECURITY ADVISORS
Mr. Ghilarducci. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Brooks,
Ranking Member Payne, and the Members of the subcommittee for
allowing me the opportunity to appear before you today to
provide a State's perspective on National preparedness
intergovernmental engagement.
First let me say that we have made significant progress
since September 11, 2001, in our combined efforts to build and
enhance the capabilities necessary to meet our Nation's
preparedness. It really is indisputable that Federal
investments have played a crucial role in this all-hands-on-
deck effort.
However, there are on-going and ever-changing threats and
challenges which we must remain vigilant to and nimble enough
to collectively understand and effectively address. Without
this effort, the forward progress in our Nation's level of
preparedness will be in jeopardy due the challenges that exist
or have emerged during the last several years, such as, on-
going and new homeland security threats or hazards such as
cyber-terrorism and espionage, transnational criminal
organizations, home-grown extremists, and an increase and the
frequency of complexity of natural disasters.
As well are the inconsistent capability at State and local
levels for multi-agency coordination and the necessity to
establish and/or expand mutual aid capabilities. A suite of
Federal preparedness grant programs that are somewhat
cumbersome and untimely and whose structure no longer aligns
with the current economic or hazard- and security-based
environments.
A newly-established doctrine on National preparedness,
which has shown really early promise, but it needs time and on-
going fine-tuning to be truly effective in the long term.
Last, a lack of emphasis, really, on pre-event disaster
mitigation as part of the whole community effort to increase
community resiliency and help reduce the physical and economic
impacts of a disaster.
So we need to continue to work together at all levels of
government and the private sector to address these and the many
other challenges that we face, to ensure that important gains
our Nation has made in overall preparedness are not reversed.
Neither the Federal Government nor States can address any
of these issues independently. In an era of constrained
budgets, all levels of Government must do more with less and
must identify opportunities to leverage and optimize resources
to meet the needs of our communities. To achieve our shared
goal of a more resilient and secure Nation.
I believe that one of the most significant avenues to help
us get there, is through an effective multi-agency coordination
and adequate and trained workforce and a robust mutual aid
system. California, as you may know, has a long history of
using its mutual aid system for responding to man-made natural
disasters and other emergencies.
We understand that no one agency, be it State or local, has
enough resources to cope with large-scale emergencies or
complex disasters. For example, our strong mutual aid system
recently was leveraged in fighting the rim fire near Yosemite
National Park, which I am sure you all saw, it made National
news, through effective multi-agency coordination and
situational intelligence sharing.
Over 142 fire agencies, 24 law enforcement agencies, 36
county governments, and 13 State agencies were coordinated
through my department with the Federal Government and deployed
to the rim fire for over 5 weeks. A fire that is actually still
burning and has consumed more than 255,000 acres making it the
third-largest in California's history.
In addition, California's dedicated emergency management
professionals and first responders are often called upon by
FEMA and other States to respond to disasters throughout the
country including catastrophic disasters, such as, Superstorm
Sandy and Hurricane Katrina.
My team coordinates these out-of-state resource requests
through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact or EMAC
agreements. California receives EMAC's agreements regularly and
most recently, members of my team returned from providing on-
site assistance to Alaska in response to their flooding
disaster, and we sent multiple resources to New York and New
Jersey and Connecticut following Superstorm Sandy.
So I believe that our mutual aid system really is one of
the best in the world and, although, all 50 States are
signatory to EMAC, the recent 2013 National Preparedness Report
showed that many States are not accounting for critical
resources in neighboring States as a part of their capability
assessment.
A shared awareness is critical for States to ensure what
assistance can be leveraged via inter-State mutual aid during
times of crisis. The fiscal support is important in ensuring
and promoting a shared awareness of regional assets and
capabilities to ensure that this is done in a coordinated and
effective way.
So the Governors and the members of GHSAC stand ready to
serve as equal partners with both the Federal Government and
with local communities to improve the Nation's preparedness
system, to make Federal investments more efficient by
recommending changes and improvements in performance metrics,
and hoping to reform preparedness grant programs to build State
capabilities to achieve that goal of a more secure and
resilient Nation for our future.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
committee today on behalf of California National Governors
Association, and I look forward to working with you to create a
prepared and resilient country. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ghilarducci follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Ghilarducci
September 19, 2013
Thank you Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Payne, and Members of the
subcommittee for holding this hearing. My name is Mark Ghilarducci. I
am director of the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services
and the homeland security advisor to Governor Edmond G. Brown Jr.
It is my privilege to appear on behalf of both the National
Governors Association (NGA) and the Governors Homeland Security
Advisors Council (GHSAC), which represents Governors' homeland security
advisors of the 55 States, territories, and commonwealths as well as
the District of Columbia. Governors and their homeland security
advisors appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to provide the
State perspective in this important dialogue about National
preparedness and intergovernmental engagement.
a ``whole-community'' approach has been key to preparedness
Governors are committed to leading State-wide efforts to build and
sustain the capabilities required to meet local needs and address
National homeland security priorities. The National Preparedness
Reports (NPR) of the last 2 years have made it clear that our Nation's
level of preparedness has vastly improved since September 11, 2001.
This is the result of not only an increased focus on community
preparedness since 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, but also a decade's
worth of Federal investment and engagement at the State and local
level.
Intergovernmental and public-private collaboration, effective
coordination, and enhanced communication are key elements in achieving
a ``whole-community'' approach to National preparedness. These concepts
have been recently demonstrated in a number of ways, including: The
improved preparation and response to Hurricane Sandy; the support
provided by State and local fusion centers on numerous successful
criminal and terrorism investigations, such as the Boston Marathon
bombing; the on-going implementation of a Nation-wide public safety
broadband network; the use of National Guard dual-status commanders to
coordinate State and Federal military forces during an emergency; and
the development and implementation of the National Preparedness System
(NPS).
Unfortunately, our progress could be put at risk by a number of
significant, emerging challenges, including:
a growing number of homeland security threats and hazards
facing States and communities such as those related to
cybersecurity;
a suite of Federal preparedness grant programs whose
structure no longer aligns with the current economic or
security environment; and
a newly-established doctrine on National preparedness, which
has shown early promise, but needs time and fine-tuning to be
truly effective in the long term.
Active Federal-State engagement will be critical to addressing
these challenges and ensuring that positive trends in our Nation's
level of preparedness are not reversed. Neither the Federal Government
nor States can address any of these issues independently. In an era of
constrained budgets, all levels of government must do more with less.
Unity of effort is no longer an aspiration, but an imperative to meet
both the needs of our communities and the National Preparedness Goal of
``a more secure and resilient Nation.''
engagement is key in addressing state cybersecurity needs
States and the Nation face an expanding range of homeland security
threats that have moved beyond the traditional physical domain and now
includes cyberspace. In fact, while this year's updated NPR highlighted
forward movement on Federal efforts to strengthen its cybersecurity
posture in the last year, a majority of State Preparedness Reports
(SPR) ranked cybersecurity as one of the weakest core capabilities at
the State level.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2013 National Preparedness
Report, March 30, 2013, p. ii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governors and their homeland security advisors are aware of the
rising cybersecurity risk facing public and private-sector entities
within their States. Many are actively engaged in efforts to develop
threat prevention, remediation, response, and recovery strategies to
enhance security and improve resiliency against attacks. Because of the
speed and evolving nature of this threat, however, States must take
full advantage of Federal resources and expertise they can leverage to
protect State systems and address current gaps in capabilities. Active
Federal-State engagement will identify additional opportunities to
collaborate on strategic planning, coordinate on incident response, and
share information on potential threats.
To support this need, NGA established the Resource Center for State
Cybersecurity (Resource Center), co-chaired by Maryland Governor Martin
O'Malley and Michigan Governor Rick Snyder. The Resource Center brings
together representatives and experts from key State and Federal
agencies and the private sector to provide strategic and actionable
policy recommendations that Governors can adopt to craft and implement
effective State cybersecurity policies and practices. Next week here on
Capitol Hill, the Resource Center will release A Governors' Call to
Action on State Cybersecurity that will provide five key
recommendations Governors can implement in the near term to address
cybersecurity within their State.
For its part, the Federal Government can expand its level of
engagement with States by improving information sharing; better
leveraging State and local fusion centers to share intelligence
information and mitigate cyber threats; assisting with cyber incident
response planning; and working through the Council of Governors to
build and enhance the role of the National Guard to support State
cybersecurity needs. As States seek to make investments to build
cybersecurity capabilities, they also need the flexibility to
prioritize Federal grant funding for such uses--an option not fully
available today.
federal grants can better align with preparedness planning
In the last decade, Federal, State, and local governments have
invested billions to strengthen homeland security and emergency
preparedness. States continue using homeland security grant funds to
develop and sustain core capabilities such as intelligence fusion
centers, State-wide interoperable communications, specialized response
teams, and citizen preparedness programs.
While the number of threats and hazards facing States and the
Nation has increased, Federal support for State and local preparedness
efforts has steadily decreased. Federal, non-disaster preparedness
grant funding has dropped 75 percent since 2003. This reduction,
combined with State and municipal budget challenges, has significantly
limited the ability of State and local governments to build new
capabilities, sustain prior investments, and maintain forward momentum
with preparedness efforts.
The NPS and its components are intended to ensure the most
effective and efficient use of resources across the preparedness
spectrum. While the NPS was established as a framework to better enable
States to prioritize projects, the structure of the grant programs
themselves has changed very little since their inception. As currently
designed, the preparedness grant programs are often duplicative.
Statutory restrictions on the use of funds and shortened performance
periods reduce States' flexibility and compound administrative burdens.
Grant programs should appropriately align with the NPS to better link
Federal investments to capability targets and National preparedness
objectives. Reform is essential to ensure that limited Federal funds go
towards priority projects for States and communities, while providing
the most value to all taxpayers.
The National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP) proposed by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is a good first step to
addressing many of the challenges with the current suite of grant
programs. While not endorsing the NPGP, NGA sent a letter (attached) in
May to Chairman Michael McCaul and Ranking Member Bennie Thompson to
articulate States' appreciation of the proposal and calling for
comprehensive grant reform. Included with the letter was a set of
Governors' principles on grant reform to help inform Federal efforts to
restructure and streamline these programs. Federal, State, and local
engagement on grant reform is on-going, but could be more active.
States will continue to work with Congress, FEMA, and their partners at
the local level to develop a reform proposal to make preparedness
grants more measureable, accountable, and flexible to meet the needs of
our communities.
implementation of the preparedness system can be improved
Post-Hurricane Katrina, the focus of National preparedness efforts
was expanded to an all-hazards approach to meet the challenges of both
terrorist events and natural disasters. As the list of potential
threats and hazards expanded, so too did States' interpretation of how
and where funding and attention should be prioritized. There was no
systematic approach to measure the Nation's level of preparedness or
the long-term value of the $40 billion Federal investment through
preparedness grant programs.
A number of statutory and administrative changes have been
introduced to address gaps in Federal policy and streamline processes
including the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 and
Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD-8) issued in 2011. These reforms
attempt to provide a roadmap for all levels of government to assess
risk and build capabilities using a whole-community approach. Many
deliverables required by PPD-8 are still in various stages of
development and will likely take years to fully implement. Despite this
protracted time table, establishing a standardized, Government-wide
planning doctrine for disaster management would be a significant
achievement. The NPS is intended to be a collective effort to provide
valuable insight into National-level risks and ensure that investments
are targeted appropriately. States are doing their part through NPS
deliverables such as the State Preparedness Report and the Threat and
Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA). Through these
processes, States are working hard to understand their level of risk to
a broad array of threats and the capabilities needed to address them.
Implementing the SPR and THIRA, however, is not without its
challenges. Despite FEMA's efforts to engage with States on their
concerns, many problems remain unresolved. States recommend the
following steps to improve Federal-State engagement on the NPS,
streamline planning processes and make the system work in a truly
integrated and synchronized manner:
Existing relationships with State stakeholder groups should
be better utilized.--In general, the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and FEMA should take advantage of
existing State associations and councils, such as the GHSAC, to
help solicit input and feedback on NPS guidance and programs.
As much as FEMA and the Federal Government are leading these
efforts, effective collaboration must go both ways. Innovations
at the State level in these areas can better inform the
development of Federal guidance and operating procedures.
Federal outreach must happen earlier with more time allotted
for feedback.--While DHS has reached out to State stakeholders
during the development of the NPS and planning frameworks, it
has concurrently solicited State, local, Tribal, and
territorial (SLTT) input on a series of other draft planning
documents (including the National Infrastructure Protection
Plan). This has made it a challenge for some stakeholders to
prioritize feedback requests and provide a timely response
under the tight deadlines provided. If DHS seeks meaningful
input from SLTT stakeholders, a reasonable amount of time--
certainly more than a couple of weeks--must be offered.
FEMA must connect the dots on the NPS.--Engagement on
specific parts of the NPS such as the THIRA has been adequate.
There has been less guidance, however, on how the SPR, THIRA,
and other parts of the NPS will develop into a cohesive
``system'' that will meet the National Preparedness Goal.
States will be leading efforts to evaluate overall progress and
integrate processes into standard operating procedures. FEMA
must provide the SLTT community with a better understanding of
how NPS processes are integrated to meet objectives and measure
performance over time. As new guidance and revised plans are
rolled out in the coming months and years, technical assistance
and consistent collaboration with State and local partners must
remain a priority for DHS.
The NPS should be given time to mature.--Prior to PPD-8 and
the NPS, Federal processes, policy, and grant guidance lacked
an integrated framework, consistent methodology, or adequate
metrics for measuring performance over time. To gain the SLTT
community's continuing support of these efforts, processes and
doctrine must remain consistent, deliberate, and stable. In
many ways, instituting the NPS will require a cultural shift
and changes to entrenched bureaucracies. Stability will ensure
that new processes and procedures have the opportunity to take
root within all levels of government and are fully integrated
between all stakeholders as the NPS is designed.
Elements of the NPS need to be aligned and synchronized.--A
key objective of the NPS is to ensure that decisions regarding
incident management and resource allocation are informed by
both National-level priorities and the reciprocal needs of
States, local communities, and surrounding regions. Recently,
regional THIRAs were performed by FEMA Regional Offices before
State THIRA's were complete. For the NPS to be effective and
efficient, schedules and deadlines on deliverables should be
synchronized and better-aligned with State activities. This
small but important change will provide senior leadership at
all levels with a shared situational awareness about the risks,
capabilities, assets, and resources that exist across and
within jurisdictions.
Promote shared awareness of regional resources and expand
mutual-aid capabilities.--Knowledge of regional assets and
capabilities is critical for State preparedness and response
planning. All 50 States, the District of Columbia, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico are signatory to the Emergency
Management Assistance Compact (EMAC). As the recent 2013 NPR
indicated, however, many States are not accounting for the
resources and assistance available in neighboring States as
part of their capabilities assessments. FEMA can provide better
coordination through its regional offices to facilitate mutual
aid agreements between States and the FEMA regions. In an era
of tightened budgets and declining Federal grant funding,
leveraging resources across jurisdictions is essential to meet
both State-wide preparedness requirements and National
objectives.
states are partners in meeting preparedness goals
Per the 2013 NPR, States continue to deal with gaps in several core
capabilities including cybersecurity and those that are recovery-
focused such as housing. As States seek to build these capabilities,
sustained collaboration and communication with Federal partners will be
critical. The NPS is intended to provide an ``all-of-nation'' approach
for building and sustaining a cycle of preparedness activities over
time. Significant progress has been made over the last 2 years to
standardize processes and create a common doctrine for disaster
planning Nation-wide. We are clearly still in the ``building'' phase,
however, and more work remains to be done.
Similar to what are now widely-accepted procedures for incident
command, the NPS will require several years in the field and continued
refinement for progress to be made and measured over time. Programs and
processes at each level--including preparedness grant programs--must be
better-aligned and synchronized to permit each part of the NPS to
accurately inform the next. This cascading effect will ensure that
capabilities are prioritized and focused to meet local, State, and
National needs. Federal engagement must be consistent, deliberate, and
transparent as new guidance is issued and as stakeholder feedback is
acquired.
Governors and the GHSAC stand ready to serve as partners with the
Federal Government and local communities to improve the NPS, reform
preparedness grant programs to improve efficiency, and build
capabilities to address threats across all domains including
cyberspace.
Attachment.--Letter From the National Governors Association
June 10, 2013.
The Honorable Thomas Carper,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510.
The Honorable Tom Coburn,
Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510.
The Honorable Michael McCaul,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, United States House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Bennie Thompson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security, United States House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Coburn, Chairman McCaul, and
Ranking Member Thompson: The Nation's Governors thank you for
supporting State and local homeland security preparedness programs.
Over the past decade, these programs have strengthened our ability to
detect and prevent terrorist attacks and respond to catastrophic
emergencies. Despite this progress, recent events such as the Boston
Marathon bombing and Hurricane Sandy remind us that threats to our
communities continue to evolve. To confront today's dynamic threats,
Federal homeland security grant programs must be restructured to
streamline processes and ensure the most effective use of taxpayer
dollars. We urge you to support common-sense reforms and stand ready to
work with you to find solutions to our Nation's most pressing homeland
security challenges.
In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, nearly
20 programs were established to help State, territorial, Tribal, and
local governments prepare for and respond to terrorist attacks, natural
disasters, and other emergencies. Together, these programs have
invested billions in Federal and State funds to build and strengthen
critical capabilities such as intelligence information sharing,
interoperable emergency communications, bomb detection, and hazardous
materials response. By serving as the central point of coordination
among multiple jurisdictions and functional areas, States have played a
key role in ensuring that scarce resources are used effectively to meet
identified National priorities while being tailored for regional needs.
Today, while all levels of government are better-equipped to handle
a range of emergencies, whether man-made or naturally-occurring, we
face new emerging threats such as cyber-attacks and home-grown violent
extremism. To actively address these new risks, State and local public
safety officials require greater flexibility than the current homeland
security grant framework allows. The current grants structure does not
properly incentivize collaboration between local governments and State
agencies, which can lead to duplication of effort and restricts the
dedication of resources to areas of most critical need. Thoughtful
reform of these grant programs can ensure the efficient and effective
use of taxpayer dollars while protecting our citizens and our way of
life.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has proposed a new
National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP) to replace the current suite
of grants. This proposal addresses many of the challenges States face
with the current suite of grant programs. While we have concerns about
portions of the NPGP, we applaud FEMA for putting forward a
comprehensive proposal and believe it is a good first step toward
meaningful reform.
The Nation's Governors stand ready to work with you to improve
these important grant programs and offer the attached set of reform
principles to help guide this effort. We look forward to working with
you to continue to strengthen the partnership among all levels of
government to prepare for and respond to emergencies.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Governor Martin O'Malley,
Chair, Health & Homeland Security Committee.
Governor Brian Sandoval,
Vice Chair, Health & Homeland Security Committee.
Attachment.--Governors' Principles for Homeland Security Grant Reform
The Department of Homeland Security provides State and local
governments with preparedness grant funding that provides support for
developing and maintaining critical homeland security and emergency
management capabilities. Over the last several years, these grant funds
have been significantly reduced. With decreased funding expected for
the foreseeable future, Congress and the administration are reexamining
the grant programs in order to make them more flexible and effective.
Currently, there are 18 major preparedness grant programs
administered by the Department of Homeland Security. Many of these
programs often overlap with others, creating unintended inefficiencies
and unnecessary administrative burdens. In addition, changing program
requirements often make the current structure complex and burdensome to
States.
Governors are supportive of efforts to reform these programs. As
reform proposals are considered by Congress and the administration,
Governors offer the following principles:
Principles:
Grants should be risk-based but continue to provide each
State and territory funding to support critical homeland
security and emergency management capabilities, including
personnel costs and the sustainment of investments.
Funding should focus on developing, enhancing, and
sustaining common core capabilities.
The Federal Government should work with States and
territories to develop consistent methods to measure or assess
progress in achieving common core capabilities.
Grant funding should be distributed through States and
territories to enhance regional response capabilities, avoid
duplication of effort, and ensure awareness of gaps in
capabilities.
Consistent with current law, States should be permitted to
use a portion of the grant funds for management and
administration in order to coordinate the efficient and
effective use of grant funds, provide necessary oversight, and
comply with Federal reporting requirements.
Any reform to the current grant programs should provide
States with flexibility to determine which priorities should be
funded and where investments should be made within their
borders.
Any grant program should allow flexibility for any State
cost-share requirements.
The Federal Government should provide clear, timely, and
explicit guidelines for conducting threat assessments and how
those assessments will be used to determine base-level funding.
The Federal Government should be more transparent with
States in sharing the data used to populate the funding
formula/algorithm. States should be provided with a centralized
point of contact and reasonable time to review and inform the
data.
The Federal Government should ensure that reforms eliminate
inefficiencies, do not duplicate efforts, and do not place
additional administrative burdens on States.
Grants should allow for multi-year strategic planning by
States and local jurisdictions.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Ghilarducci.
The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Walker for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY W. WALKER, SENIOR EMERGENCY MANAGER,
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF EMERGENCY MANAGERS
Mr. Walker. Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Payne, and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee, thank you for
allowing me the opportunity to provide testimony on this
important topic. I am Jeffrey Walker, the president of the
International Association of Emergency Managers to the U.S.
Council. I served 13\1/2\ years as director of the Licking
County, Ohio, office of homeland security and emergency
management.
We appreciate the opportunity to talk about the gains that
have been made in preparedness, the remaining challenges, some
local perspectives on capability, and the further steps needed
to enhance them.
At the local government level, emergency managers play an
essential role bringing together the stakeholders, public,
private, and non-governmental organizations for a cohesive and
workable plan and response to a disaster. They have the
responsibility to ensure horizontal coordination between the
departments of local government and vertical coordination
between local, State, and Federal governments.
They are responsible for making sure that all missions of
emergency management, mitigation, preparedness, response, and
recovery, are able to be accomplished at the local level. Let's
review some tools that allow emergency managers to perform
their vital role in National preparedness.
The Federal emergency management agencies, Emergency
Management Performance Grants is vital funding to local
emergency managers and has been called the ``backbone'' of
emergency management systems.
The EMPG is fundamentally different from the post-September
11, 2001, homeland security grants. It goes back to the 1950s,
requires a 50/50 cost match, and requires various performance
measures.
All disasters start and end at the local level, which
emphasizes the importance of building and sustaining this
capability at the local government level. The EMPG funding
should not be invested exclusively in State governments alone.
Funding from EMPG frequently makes a difference as whether or
not a qualified person is present to perform these duties in a
local jurisdiction.
One of the challenges of local emergency managers is to get
individuals and families to take action to be well-prepared. We
welcome FEMA's efforts to bring a more scientific basis to this
effort.
FEMA's Emergency Management Institute, located in
Emmitsburg, Maryland, provides vitally-needed training. The
crown jewel of emergency management training and doctrine has
made progress over the past 3 years in the development of
programs for State and local emergency managers, particularly,
the development of the Emergency Management Professional
Program which includes National emergency management
foundations, leadership, and executive academies.
IAEM-USA is an active participant in developing the
National planning system curriculum. We look forward to the
final product which will be focused on moving planners from all
disciplines to the same common operating picture and lexicon,
which will increase awareness of their impact on emergency
management.
Congress frequently hears about Federal programs being
rolled out without consulting with stakeholders. There has been
extensive consultation with stakeholders making this program
stronger.
Emergency management capabilities are being built across
our Nation at the local government level. For example, the
locals in the State of Mississippi have built a strong
partnership to prepare for a wide array of hazards.
Mississippi passes through a minimum of 60 percent of its
allocated EMPG funding to local government emergency management
offices and spends the remainder on programs designed for local
support. After Hurricane Katrina, the Mississippi locals
identified their highest priority mitigation actions, and the
Mississippi Emergency Management Agency worked with them and
FEMA to fulfill those priorities, particularly, generators,
shelters, and safe rooms.
Another capability, local capability, is a Metropolitan
Medical Response System. Every MMRS jurisdiction has its
success stories. Success as an on-going critical analysis can
be attributed to the MMRS planning, training, and coordination,
which has been replicated across the United States.
Since 2012, MMRS has not been funded as a Department of
Homeland Security stand-alone program, but it is allowable
expense to be decided at the State and local level. Many of
these valuable programs are facing extinction. In these
challenging economic times, it is important to know what the
return on investment is for our preparedness dollar.
We know what a prepared community should look like. IAEM-
USA released a paper titled, ``Preparedness, a Principled
Approach to Return on Investment,'' which is available on our
website. The paper articulates a framework based on the
``Principles of Emergency Management'' that should be used to
derive meaningful objectives and measures for preparedness
grants as we try to reach that goal.
In conclusion, the assessment of our Nation's preparedness
is neither simple nor straightforward. We continue to make
progress towards the goal a prepared community with our key
partners at the local, State, and Federal levels of government,
private enterprise, and non-governmental organizations. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey W. Walker
September 19, 2013
Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Payne, and distinguished Members of
the subcommittee, I would like to thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to provide testimony on this important topic.
I am Jeffrey Walker, the president of the International Association
of Emergency Managers, U.S. Council. I served 13\1/2\ years as director
of the Licking County, Ohio Office of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management.
IAEM-USA is our Nation's largest association of emergency
management professionals, with 5,000 members including emergency
managers at the State and local government levels, Tribal nations, the
military, colleges and universities, private business, and the
nonprofit sector. Most of our members are U.S. city and county
emergency managers who perform the crucial function of coordinating and
integrating the efforts at the local level to prepare for, mitigate the
effects of, respond to, and recover from all types of disasters
including terrorist attacks.
We appreciate the opportunity to talk about the gains that have
been made in preparedness, the remaining challenges, some local
perspectives on capabilities and the further steps needed to enhance
them.
Like an imposing and beautiful edifice is made up of individual
parts, so goes our National preparedness. The brick and stone of
preparedness in our local jurisdictions make up the walls of State
preparedness, which together, form the overall shape of National
preparedness. While we admire the look and design of the final, overall
edifice, we must appreciate the value and importance of the individual
parts that make the construct assume its final shape.
And, like the fact that the building will not stand without the
individual bricks and stones supporting the overall structure, so too,
goes our National preparedness.
At the local government level, the emergency managers play an
essential role--bringing together the stakeholders (public/private/and
non-governmental organizations) for a cohesive and workable plan in
response to a disaster. They are the people who are charged with the
responsibility to ensure horizontal coordination between the
departments of local government and vertical coordination between local
governments, State governments, and the Federal Government. They are
responsible for making sure that all missions of emergency management
(mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery) are able to be
accomplished at the local level.
Let us take a look at some of the tools that allow local Emergency
Managers to perform their vital role in National preparedness.
emergency management performance grant
The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Emergency
Management Performance Grant (EMPG) is vital funding to local emergency
managers and has been called the backbone of the Emergency Management
System. EMPG is fundamentally different from the suite of post-
September 11, 2001 homeland security grants. EMPG has a history
stretching back to the 1950's when it was recognized that there was a
Federal interest in building emergency management capacity at the State
and local levels. Its original authorization was in the Civil Defense
Act of 1950, as amended. EMPG requires both State governments and local
governments to invest 1 local dollar for each grant dollar received. It
also requires various performance measures in order to continue
participation. IAEM-USA recognizes that all disasters start and end at
the local level which emphasizes the importance of building and
sustaining this capacity at the local governmental level--and EMPG
funding should not be invested exclusively in State governments alone.
Funding from EMPG frequently makes a difference as to whether or not a
qualified person is present to perform these duties in a local
jurisdiction. We are grateful that Congress has recognized the
importance and uniqueness of EMPG by supporting that it be maintained
as separate account within FEMA. It is important to have a grant
focused on building emergency management capability for those entities
at the local government level statutorily charged with the
responsibilities of coordinating mitigation, preparedness, response,
and recovery.
individual and family preparedness
One of the challenges of local emergency managers is to encourage
individuals and families to prepare. A report called ``Preparedness in
America: Research Insights to Increase Individual, Organizational, and
Community Action'' was released in September 2013 by FEMA. The report
acknowledges, ``[a]s disasters continue to impact our Nation, the role
of individuals and the importance of engaging all sectors in reducing
the impact of disasters has become increasingly evident. (Page 1)''
It is clear to me that in America there are many factors that
influence how preparedness becomes relevant to each and every citizen.
The attitudes and the experiences of our citizens either encourage or
discourage them from taking preparedness seriously. When preparedness
information is provided for where we live, work, and play it must be
easy to understand and apply. Opportunities to review, discuss, and
exercise family preparedness plans help make preparedness a personal
goal. Unless we become personally committed to being prepared we will
not be ready for the next disaster or emergency. Each community has
various ``networks'' that need to be encouraged to join the
preparedness ``team.'' Only when the time is taken to reach out and
educate these networks about the need for personal preparedness will
the whole community plan be successful.
emergency management institute (emi)
The Emergency Management Institute (EMI), located in Emmitsburg,
Maryland, provides vitally-needed training to State, local, and Tribal
government emergency managers through on-campus classes, a curriculum
developed for field deployment and distance learning. This ``crown
jewel'' of emergency management training and doctrine has made
tremendous progress over the past 3 years in the development of
vitally-needed training programs for State and local emergency
managers.
We are particularly pleased with the progress made in the
development of the Emergency Management Professional Program (EMPP)
which includes the National Emergency Management Foundations,
Leadership and Executive Academies. These multi-course academies will
enhance the education and training opportunities of the current and
next generation of emergency managers by focusing content on the
critically important core competencies which were developed as part of
the project.
national planning system
IAEM-USA is an active participant in developing the National
Planning System (NPS) Curriculum. We look forward to the final product
which will be focused on moving planners from all disciplines to the
same common operating picture and lexicon, which will increase
awareness of their impact on Emergency Management. For example,
municipal planners should be aware of the hazards within the community
so that they avoid development and construction within the areas
impacted by the hazard.
The NPS efforts have strongly engaged the stakeholders in
identifying ways to be more inclusive of Emergency Management. We
cautioned them to not start from scratch. Instead, we suggested that
they identify the gaps and develop steps to remove them by implementing
courses that provide the skills necessary.
The stakeholders participating in this effort ranged from certified
planners, the Military, the FBI, State and local law enforcement, FEMA,
local emergency managers, National Flood Plain Managers, land-use
planners, and many others.
The new training curriculum results in the potential of up to three
certificates for those with successful completion. It provides a
challenge to planners, enhancing their existing knowledge. Planning is
at the core of what we do in emergency management. If the work invested
in building the foundation of the NPS is carried through the rest of
this project, IAEM-USA is confident the training will have a great deal
of validity.
Congress frequently gets to hear about Federal programs being
rolled out without consulting with stakeholders. We're here to let you
know that this one is not one of those programs. There has been
extensive consultation with the stakeholders, and this program will be
the better for it. By building on what has gone before and by being
inclusive of a wide range of stakeholders this program will be well-
built. This is a program that we expect to have follow-through that
results in actions that will have a meaningful impact on our
preparedness.
building local capabilities
Emergency Management capabilities are being built across our Nation
at the local government level. Many of the local jurisdictions--as well
as the State of Mississippi--are being very active in building
emergency management capabilities at the local level. Mississippi is
subject to a wide array of hazards including hurricanes, tornadoes,
floods, ice storms, earthquakes, and technological hazards. Together,
the locals and the State of Mississippi have built a strong partnership
to prepare for these hazards. Mississippi passes through a minimum of
60% of its allocated EMPG funding to local government emergency
management offices and spends the remainder on programs designed to
support locals.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the local jurisdictions in
Mississippi identified what their highest priority mitigation actions
were, and the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency worked with them
and FEMA to fulfill those priorities. Hundreds of generators were
purchased for shelters and critical infrastructure identified by the
locals. Over 120 community ``safe rooms'' and ``361'' shelters with a
capacity of over 50,000 were constructed to provide individuals,
communities, and schools with a place to take shelter from natural
hazards in Mississippi.
Another local capability being built is the Metropolitan Medical
Response System (MMRS). It has played a critically important role in a
number of communities, but today I'd like to share with you a story
from Huntsville, Alabama about MMRS and also provide some background on
the program.
One of our IAEM-USA members, John ``Rusty'' Russell is the
Emergency Management Director for Huntsville, Alabama. He tells me that
MMRS funding has been the cornerstone of their medical and responder
team building since 2002. They have been able to develop plans and
build medical response capability in 14 counties across north Alabama.
They were able to provide training and exercises that have added
cohesion to the way traditional responders and medical professionals
work together during emergencies.
In November, 2007, a Huntsville City School bus with a driver and
41 students plunged 75 feet from an interstate overpass in Huntsville.
The bus landed vertically and toppled over killing three students and
injuring several others. The response was immediate and working within
the MMRS plan 40 students were transported to two major hospitals
within the first 50 minutes after the accident. The actual emergency
part of the response was quickly and definitively over after 1 hour
although the media frenzy and the investigation lasted for months. The
very same responders and hospital personnel had participated in an
eerily similar exercise just days before which involved a simulated
airplane crash.
Since the inception of the MMRS program in 1996 under the then U.S.
Health Resources and Services Administration it grew to 124
jurisdictions covering approximately 75% of the U.S. population. MMRS
programs began building health care coalitions 12 years before the
recent initiative by the assistant secretary for preparedness and
response (ASPR) at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The latest guidance for the HHS Funding Opportunity Announcement is
similar in intent and uses wording similar to the original MMRS
jurisdiction deliverables. The MMRS program was moved to the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security in 2004 and continued to build cross-
disciplinary public health and medical emergency capabilities in
accordance with Federal guidance under the Target Capabilities List.
Every MMRS jurisdiction has its success stories. In recent years
MMRS-built preparedness and response capabilities were used in Pima
County, Arizona to respond to the ``Gabby Giffords'' shooting, in the
Aurora, Colorado theater shootings, and at the Boston Marathon
bombings. Successes and on-going critical analysis can be directly
attributed to MMRS planning, training, and coordination, which has been
replicated across the United States. As a country we are facing the
very real possibility that these valuable resources and capabilities
will fade away as Federal agencies decide what the priorities of the
locals should be and seem to ignore the MMRS success story. Since 2012
MMRS has not been funded as a U.S. Department of Homeland Security
stand-alone program, but is an ``allowable expense'' to be decided at
the State level. Some MMRS jurisdictions have fortunately still
received some funding for MMRS activities, but a majority of MMRS
jurisdictions face certain ``extinction'' within the next 12 months if
they do not receive sustainment funding. The final year of the MMRS
program funding (Federal fiscal year 2011) was approximately $28
million; dollar-for-dollar those funds have yielded the greatest return
on preparedness funds than any other U.S. DHS program. A minority of
MMRS jurisdictions may be absorbed into other systems but the reality
is the capabilities that have been built will be lost. The newer
initiative from U.S. HHS ASPR is starting from ground zero in its
endeavors to build health care coalitions based on the whole-of-
community approach and in many States it is a hospital-centered program
for which inter-agency cooperation can be an afterthought. The best
realistic result would be for U.S. HHS ASPR to receive increased
funding to then directly fund and reinvigorate the MMRS program and
enhance and expand what has already been built to include more
communities. The top-down program driven at the State level does not
have as great of a chance to succeed when it sometimes disregards the
locals which are the community in whole-of-community.
measuring preparedness
IAEM-USA released a paper called ``Preparedness: A Principled
Approach to Return on Investment.'' http://www.iaem.com/documents/
Preparedness-Principled-Approach-to-ROI-11Aug2011.pdf. (Overview
available at http://www.iaem.com/documents/overview-ROI.pdf)
Challenging economic conditions have meant that, in addition to the
Federal Government, local, State, Tribal, and territory jurisdictions
have also been carefully examining where they will invest their
resources. All resource investments are being evaluated including those
related to emergency management. Specifically, local, State, Tribal,
and territory jurisdictions, and Congress want to know ``How can we
tell if we are getting a return on our investments in emergency
management?''
The answer to this question has been historically delivered through
reciting anecdotal stories or visually displaying data related to the
things we can count--what we have purchased and activities we have
undertaken--in maps, charts, tables, and graphs. Unfortunately, these
stories and data have had little meaning absent a framework against
which to interpret them.
Jurisdictions at all levels invest in emergency management
preparedness activities to ensure, to the degree possible, that their
jurisdiction is ready to efficiently and effectively respond to and
recover from hazard events. Thus, the question we must answer when
considering return on investment related to emergency management is,
``To what extent are we prepared?'' To this point jurisdictions at all
levels have not been able to answer this question satisfactorily.
It may be easiest to introduce what a meaningful framework against
which to measure preparedness would entail if we first begin at the end
with IAEM-USA's vision of what a prepared jurisdiction (at any level)
would look like.
A prepared jurisdiction is one that engages in preparedness actions
guided by professional emergency managers and professional emergency
management programs. The jurisdiction's preparedness actions are driven
by the risks that they face. The jurisdiction has comprehensively
considered all known hazards, vulnerabilities, and possible impacts and
actively engages in preparedness actions related to mitigation,
response, and recovery. The jurisdiction is progressive by
incorporating innovations, technologies, and best practices as they
ready themselves for future hazard events. The jurisdiction's
preparedness actions have provided a legitimate basis upon which to act
in the wake of hazard events but are not so rigid as to lack the
flexibility to respond to unanticipated issues. The stakeholders in the
jurisdiction (e.g., fire, police, public works, elected officials) are
integrated by their use of common technologies, systems, and management
processes. The jurisdiction operates in a collaborative organizational
environment wherein inclusiveness, relationships based on trust, on-
going interactions between stakeholders, open communication, and
consensus-based decision making are the norm. And, finally, the
prepared jurisdiction would be coordinated; the stakeholders within the
jurisdiction would know and accept their roles, have identified the
procedures necessary to fulfill their roles, and have practiced the
fulfillment of their roles in conjunction with other stakeholders.
A prepared jurisdiction is the goal of every emergency management
practitioner and every emergency management program. Bringing about the
description above is the reason emergency management exists. The EMPG
program allows emergency management to work toward these outcomes;
therefore, our objectives and measures associated with EMPG should be
designed to measure progress towards these goals.
IAEM-USA suggests in Preparedness that a framework of preparedness
outcomes based on the accepted Principles of Emergency Management
(2007) should be used to derive meaningful objectives and measures for
the preparedness grant program most valued by local emergency
managers--EMPG. This argument is supported by decades of disaster and
emergency management research. The outcomes include professionalism,
risk-driven, comprehensiveness, progressiveness, flexibility,
integration, collaboration, coordination. The fact is the equipment,
supplies, and systems we buy and the activities we undertake with EMPG
funds are critical because they contribute to our ability to achieve
these outcomes.
conclusion
In conclusion, the assessment of our Nation's preparedness is
neither simple nor straightforward. We do know what a prepared
community looks like and we continue to make progress toward that goal
with our key partners at the local, State, and Federal levels of
government, private enterprise, and non-governmental organizations.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Walker.
The Chairwoman now recognizes Chief Schwartz for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAMES H. SCHWARTZ, FIRE CHIEF, ARLINGTON COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS
Chief Schwartz. Thank you, Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member
Payne, for this opportunity to be here this morning with you
and talk about this important topic. The International
Association of Fire Chiefs represents the leadership of the
Nation's fire, rescue, and emergency medical services including
rural volunteer, metropolitan career, and suburban combination
departments.
I would like to thank the subcommittee for this opportunity
to share with you some thoughts about our Nation's
preparedness.
Local fire and emergency services are critical players in
any effective system of National preparedness. They respond to
all hazards including earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes,
floods, and mass casualty events. They also provide a diversity
of other services including emergency management, community
education about family and personal preparedness, building code
enforcement, protection of critical infrastructure, and
information sharing about threats and risks to their
jurisdictions.
The Nation is better prepared today than it was 12 years
ago. Evidence of this fact can be found in the response to
natural disasters like the 2011 tornado in Joplin, Missouri,
and the Superstorm Sandy, as well as mass casualty events, like
the April 15 bombing in Boston.
Jurisdictions are developing capabilities to fill those
gaps based on lessons learned from these and many other events.
If I could cite a couple of examples.
On September 11, 2001, the National capitol region was
capable of putting two mass casualty units on the scene of the
Pentagon during that crisis. Today, we have 23 units across the
region that are standardized and completely interoperable. In
addition to that, we have ambulance buses which were a lesson
out of the Katrina emergency where we realized that we needed
the capacity to move large numbers of patients. These buses can
move up to 25 patients at a time.
An issue that has obviously been spoken about a little bit
this morning and is very relevant to our timing here, active-
shooter capabilities. In the northern Virginia region of the
National capitol area, we are in the process of training 3,000
police officers in the techniques of tactical emergency
casualty care, which takes the lessons of the war theatres of
Afghanistan and Iraq and teaches police officers and fire
fighter EMS personnel how to treat trauma wounds in the field
to save lives.
In addition, some departments have created capabilities to
insert medical providers into an indirect threat zone before a
shooter is subdued, and we look forward to that particular
capability being rolled out across the country over the next
several months.
The National Preparedness System depends on local fire and
EMS resources to be adequately staffed, equipped, and trained.
However, the great recession cost Federal, State, and local
budget cuts that have affected the Nation's response
capabilities.
A couple of examples cited by research from the National
Fire Protection Association. Fifty-one percent of all fire
departments do not have enough portable radios to equip
emergency responders on a shift. This is down from 77 percent
in 2001, and 75 percent in 2005. Forty-eight percent of all
fire departments that are responsible for EMS have not formally
trained all their personnel to provide that service. This
percentage is down from 54 percent in 2001.
Sixty-five percent of all fire departments that are
responsible for hazardous materials response have not formally
trained all their personnel to National standards, and this is
down from a percentage of 73 percent in 2001.
The IAFC believes that taxpayer funds can and should be
used effectively to improve National preparedness. In order to
help grantees use better Federal grants, the IAFC recommends
that FEMA develop a system for grant recipients to share
information about the successful, and occasional not-so-
successful, uses of grant funds in order to harness information
about what we do next.
It seems not very efficient when somebody has created
something very successful to not promote that to be replicated
in other communities across the country.
The Nation's information-sharing efforts are another area
in which National preparedness can be improved. The Nation has
developed an information-sharing regime with 78 fusion centers
around the Nation. Many of these fusion centers lack
standardization and are in various stages of implementation.
They must continue to focus on collaborating with all
stakeholders including fire and EMS departments and, in
addition, it is important to make sure that these centers
provide information for end-users, local fire, EMS, and law
enforcement personnel.
The Joint Counter Terrorism Assessment Team at the National
Counterterrorism Center is another information-sharing tool for
local public safety. This is an effort by NCTC to include local
responders in the intelligence community, so that there is not
only a greater awareness in local communities of what the
intelligence community is producing, but a higher level of
understanding within the community about what locals need in
order to make better preparations.
It is important that local stakeholders also have a role in
the PPD-8 process. From fire to emergency services perspective,
all of the resources, equipment, and personnel, are owned by
local jurisdictions. We are concerned that the State-centered
approach identified in the THIRA and National Preparedness
Grant Program proposal and look forward to working on improving
these efforts in the near future.
Fires remain a major threat to the Nation. Overseas
terrorists deliberately used fire as a weapon during 2008
attacks in Mumbai and at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi in 2012
to cut access and draw media attention.
Al-Qaeda magazine Inspire has urged its followers to use
fire as a weapon here in the United States to cause damage and
fear. Fire fighting will remain a major component of an
effective National preparedness system, and we urge the
committee to consider this oversight by FEMA as it reviews PPD-
8 progress.
On behalf of the leadership of the Nation's fire and EMS
departments, I want to thank you for this opportunity to be
here this morning to talk about this important topic, and I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Chief Schwartz follows:]
Prepared Statement of James H. Schwartz
September 19, 2013
Good morning, Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Payne, and Members of
the subcommittee. My name is James Schwartz, chief of the Arlington
County (Virginia) Fire Department and chairman of the Terrorism and
Homeland Security Committee of the International Association of Fire
Chiefs (IAFC). The IAFC represents the leadership of the Nation's fire,
rescue, and emergency medical services (EMS), including rural volunteer
fire departments, metropolitan career departments, and suburban
combination departments. I would like to thank the subcommittee for
this opportunity to share with you some thoughts about the Nation's
preparedness.
America's fire and emergency services play a critical role in our
National preparedness system. There are approximately 1.1 million men
and women in the fire and emergency services--approximately 344,000
career fire fighter and 756,000 volunteer fire fighters--serving in
over 30,000 fire departments around the Nation. These fire fighters are
the only organized group of American citizens that is neighborhood-
based, staffed, trained, and equipped to respond to all types of
emergencies. They respond to all hazards ranging from earthquakes,
hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods, to acts of terrorism, hazardous
material incidents, technical rescues, and fires. Local fire
departments also provide a diversity of non-traditional services to
their communities including emergency management; community education
about family and personal preparedness; building code enforcement;
protection of critical infrastructure; and information sharing about
threats and risks to their jurisdictions. America's fire and emergency
services also provide a majority of the Nation's pre-hospital 9-1-1
emergency medical response.
are we better-prepared to respond to a major incident in the homeland?
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the catastrophic
nature of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 demonstrated major
weaknesses in the Nation's ability to prevent, protect, mitigate,
respond to, and recover from major all-hazards events. In the aftermath
of these events, the Federal Government, States, counties, localities,
and communities all have taken steps to improve the Nation's
preparedness. The Federal Government created the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS); strengthened the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA); developed the National Incident Management System (NIMS); and
distributed over $38 billion in grants to States and localities to
improve the Nation's preparedness. On March 30, 2011, President Obama
released Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-8, National Preparedness, as
a further refinement to the Nation's preparedness system.
As events across the Nation have demonstrated, the Nation is
better-prepared today than it was in the 1990s and early 2000s. While
major incidents, both natural and human-made, will always cause loss to
life and property, events such as the response to the 2011 tornado in
Joplin, Missouri; the response to Superstorm Sandy last year; and the
response to the Patriot's Day bombing in Boston all demonstrate the
strength of the Nation's emergency preparedness system. Jurisdictions
across the Nation are developing capabilities to fill gaps in their
preparedness systems, and studying these events to learn lessons that
can be applied in their communities.
Consider these examples from the National Capital Region (NCR):
One of the lessons of September 11 was the importance of
patient tracking. In the aftermath of 9/11, it took several
days to locate all of the victims that had been transported
from the Pentagon to area hospitals. In response to this
problem, the NCR developed a patient tracking system. Now EMS
personnel are deployed with hand-held devices that allow them
to scan a victim's triage tag and enter basic information about
the victim's identity and pre-hospital care. This information
is transmitted to a regional hospital coordinating center. The
center coordinates the distribution of patients to area
hospitals, so that no patients are lost in the system and no
hospitals are overloaded.
The response to 9/11 also identified the need for greater
emergency response capacity. This capacity needed to be
standardized to ensure true interoperability for an effective
response to any crisis. In order to address this challenge, the
NCR developed standardized regional capabilities like mass
casualty units and ambulance buses; bomb teams that coordinate
through a regional organization called Metrotech; and air units
to refill fire fighters' self-contained breathing apparatus
during an incident. On 9/11, there were only two mass casualty
units in the NCR, and they were stationed at the airports. Now
there are 23 mass casualty units situated around the region.
To improve greater coordination, the NCR jurisdictions used
funds from the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) to
interconnect the fiber optic networks built and funded by local
jurisdictions to form the ``NCR Net.'' This system enables the
seamless transition of critical data, including information
from computer-aided dispatch systems, throughout the region to
improve situational awareness and reduce emergency call
processing time.
Many similar examples exist across the Nation. For example, in
analyzing the response to Hurricane Katrina, many States found that
they did not have Intrastate Mutual Aid Systems that would allow them
to deploy fire and EMS resources in a timely manner within the State.
With the support of FEMA, the IAFC developed the Intrastate Mutual Aid
System (IMAS) program to help States build these mutual aid systems.
During the time of Hurricane Katrina, only 4 States had State-wide
mutual aid systems for fire and EMS. Now, because of the IAFC's work,
there are 34 States with robust mutual aid systems and 12 States that
have completed exercises to their programs and are in the process of
being deployable with assistance.
While the majority of investments in preparedness are made by local
communities, it is important to emphasize the role that the Federal
Government has played in enhancing the Nation's preparedness. The NIMS
and its resource-typing help local authorities from around the Nation
identify capabilities and share resources with each other. The
preparedness grant programs, administered by FEMA, help States and
localities purchase necessary equipment and training to fill gaps in
their homeland security preparedness. In addition, the Federal grants
help to bring homeland security partners (fire, EMS, law enforcement,
private sector, public health, etc.) together to plan, train, and
exercise together. For example, the years of planning, equipment, and
training purchased by Tucson, Arizona, through the Metropolitan Medical
Response System (MMRS) played a major role in the effective
interdisciplinary response to the January 8, 2011, incident involving
Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others.
The Federal Government also is playing a significant role in
resolving the problem of communications interoperability. The Final
Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United
States highlighted the tragic consequences of the communications
interoperability problems that occurred during the 9/11 response. The
DHS has been focused on resolving this issue since 9/11. Through more
than $13 billion in grants, including the Interoperable Emergency
Communications Grant Program, and the work of the DHS' Office of
Emergency Communications and the Office for Interoperability and
Compatibility, the Federal Government is helping first responders
around the Nation to begin to talk to each other at the State and
regional levels. Last year, Congress passed the Middle Class Tax Relief
and Job Creation Act (Pub. L. 112-96), which allocated 20 MHz of
spectrum and $7 billion to establish a Nation-wide, public safety
broadband network. This legislation also created the First Responder
Network Authority, which is doing the preliminary planning that will
allow first responders from different States to respond to a National
disaster and be able to seamlessly communicate with each other.
areas for improvement
While the Nation is more prepared for a major all-hazards incident,
there is still a lot of work to do. The Great Recession cut property
values and local government tax receipts, which reduced the amount of
funds that State and local governments could spend on emergency
preparedness. A long period of spending cuts and the sequester have
reduced Federal funds and programs to improve preparedness. The
National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA) 2011 Needs Assessment
provides some information about how the fire and emergency services
have both improved and still have lots of work to do to become truly
prepared.
For example:
51 percent of all fire departments that answered the NFPA's
survey do not have enough portable radios to equip all
emergency responders on a shift. This percentage is down from
77 percent in 2001 and 75 percent in 2005.
51 percent of all fire departments cannot equip all fire
fighters on a shift with self-contained breathing apparatus.
This percentage is down from 70 percent in 2001 and 60 percent
in 2005.
48 percent of all fire departments that are responsible for
EMS have not formally trained all of their personnel involved
in EMS. This percentage is down from 54 percent in 2001 and 53
percent in 2005.
65 percent of all fire departments that are responsible for
hazardous materials response have not formally trained all of
their personnel involved in hazmat response. This percentage is
down from 73 percent in 2001 and 71 percent in 2005.
The National preparedness system depends on local fire and EMS
resources to be adequately staffed, equipped, and trained. FEMA grant
programs, such as the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program, help to
bolster the emergency response capabilities in jurisdictions that still
cannot meet basic needs. However, it is clear that more work needs to
be done.
The IAFC believes that taxpayer funds can--and should--be used
effectively to improve National emergency preparedness. In order to
help grantees better use Federal grant funds, the IAFC recommends that
FEMA develop a system for grant recipients to share information about
the successful uses of grant funds to develop capabilities. For
example, as part of the Public Health and Medical Services core
capability defined by PPD-8, FEMA could post information about the
NCR's patient tracking system. If a jurisdiction was interested in
developing this capability using Federal funds, it could adopt the NCR
system for its use and avoid costly mistakes already experienced
elsewhere. In addition, as more jurisdictions adopt each other's plans
for developing core capabilities, the system will create greater
interoperability of these capabilities across the Nation.
Along with building and sustaining basic emergency response
capabilities, the Nation also needs to move forward more aggressively
on developing and dispensing medical countermeasures. As the Nation
debates military action over the use of chemical weapons in Syria, it
is important to recognize the need for the Nation to be prepared for
this threat at home. First responders will be on the front lines of any
biological or chemical attack or the outbreak of pandemic influenza.
The IAFC supports H.R. 1791, the Medical Preparedness Allowable Use
Act, which would allow jurisdictions to use homeland security grants to
fund the distribution of medical countermeasures to both first
responders and their families. The legislation proposes a good use of
Federal funds to ensure the health of critical staffing needed during a
catastrophic incident.
The Nation's information-sharing efforts are another area in which
National preparedness can be improved. After being identified as a
weakness by the Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks upon the United States, the Nation has developed an
information-sharing regime with 78 fusion centers around the Nation.
Many of these fusion centers lack standardization and are in various
stages of implementation. It is important that these fusion centers
continue to focus on collaborating with all stakeholders, including
fire and EMS departments. In addition, it is important to make sure
that the fusion centers are providing information to the end-users in
local fire response agencies that is clear, helpful, and actionable. As
the committee determines the next steps in fusion center development,
any performance metrics must measure not only the quantity of
information passed on to local stakeholders, but also the information's
quality and if it meets the needs of the end-users.
One important tool in the Nation's information-sharing system is
the Joint Counterterrorism Assessment Team (JCAT). This organization is
located in the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). It is composed
of local fire fighters, EMS personnel, and law enforcement officers,
who are allowed to work with intelligence analysts to develop
information for local first responders. The JCAT develops specific
products that are distributed to first responders to warn them of new
threats and the tactics and techniques they may face in the field. One
issue that may arise with the JCAT is that local agencies must cover
the salary and backfill expenses for the JCAT detailee. In this budget
environment, many jurisdictions are unable to cover these expenses,
which mean that only a few large departments will be able to
participate in this program.
presidential policy directive/ppd-8
PPD-8 is the latest revision of the Nation's preparedness system.
It sets the National Preparedness Goal, solidifies Federal roles and
responsibilities, and describes the National Preparedness System. The
IAFC was consulted by the National Security Council staff as it
developed PPD-8. Many of our suggestions were included in the final
document.
One highlight of PPD-8 and the National Preparedness Goal is the
focus on mutual aid. Mutual aid is a key to an effective emergency
response system. Based on the principle of ``neighbor helping
neighbor,'' an effective mutual aid system allows fire and EMS
departments to use a scalable system to call upon resources as an
incident escalates. As local budgets are cut around the Nation, local
fire departments rely upon each other to protect their communities.
Mutual aid is also a major component of an effective National
preparedness system. Many jurisdictions will not be able to meet all of
the core capabilities defined by PPD-8 on their own. However, by
working together, they will be able to complement each other's
strengths and weaknesses and protect their citizens. The IAFC has
worked with the States to develop intra-State mutual aid systems
through its IMAS program. As FEMA implements PPD-8 and the National
Preparedness Goal, the IAFC also urges the agency to recognize the
importance of developing mutual aid through regionalism. In
jurisdictions, like the NCR, the communities clustered around a border
may have more in common than with the rest of the State. Programs like
UASI and MMRS help to foster this type of regionalism for major
metropolitan areas that cross State lines.
One concern about PPD-8 is the National Preparedness System's focus
on States. For example, the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment (THIRA) should be completed by States and the FEMA regions.
The proposed National Preparedness Grant Program proposal would give
States a larger say in how FEMA grant funding is allocated.
It is important that local stakeholders also have a role in the
process. From a fire and emergency services perspective, all of the
resources--both equipment and personnel--are owned by local
jurisdictions. Any estimation of resources to meet the core
capabilities must include the input of local fire and EMS departments.
In addition, local jurisdictions best know their threats, risks, and
level of preparedness to meet them. The IAFC welcomes language in the
latest THIRA Guide (Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 201), which
urges State emergency managers to use a whole-communities approach in
filling out their THIRAs by consulting local fire, EMS, law
enforcement, and public health departments. However, the record on the
THIRAs has been mixed so far, with some States working with their local
jurisdictions to complete their THIRAs and other States not doing so.
As the committee continues its oversight of the PPD-8 process, one
question should be ``are local stakeholders being included as equal
partners in the process?''
The IAFC also is concerned that firefighting is not listed as a
core capability under PPD-8. Other missions of the fire service are
covered, including building code enforcement, hazmat response, and
emergency medical response. However, as recent events in California
have shown, fires remain a major threat to the Nation. Overseas,
terrorists deliberately used fire as a weapon during the 2008 attacks
in Mumbai and at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in 2012 to cut access
and draw media attention. The al-Qaeda magazine, Inspire, has urged its
followers to use fire as a weapon here in the United States to cause
damage and fear. As 9/11 demonstrated, firefighting will remain a core
capability in an effective National preparedness system. We urge the
committee to consider this oversight by FEMA as it reviews the PPD-8
process.
conclusion
On behalf of the leadership of the Nation's fire and EMS
departments, I thank you for the opportunity to discuss the state of
the Nation's preparedness. It is important to remember that any
National disaster begins locally and ends locally. However, one of the
greatest lessons that the Nation has learned in the past 12 years is
that it requires the development of a comprehensive National system to
improve preparedness. This National Preparedness System must
incorporate all stakeholders at the Federal, State, Tribal, local, and
individual levels. Through its various missions, the fire and emergency
services are prepared to perform their role in the mission areas of
prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery. It is
important to recognize the amount of progress that the Nation has made
since 9/11, and that there is more work that needs to be done. The IAFC
looks forward to working with the committee and the administration to
continue to improve our Nation's preparedness system.
Mrs. Brooks. Chief Schwartz.
The Chairwoman now will recognize Ms. Spangler for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF KATHY SPANGLER, VICE PRESIDENT, U.S. PROGRAMS,
SAVE THE CHILDREN
Ms. Spangler. Chairwoman Brooks, Ranking Member Payne, and
the esteemed Members of the homeland security committee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify on this critical issue.
Unfortunately, I must report to you that when it comes to
protecting our Nation's children from disaster, America is not
prepared.
Over the past year, we have seen incredible destruction and
high-profile school tragedies that remind us how vulnerable
children are during disasters, and that they can strike
anywhere and at any time. However, too many States are failing
to take basic actions essential to protect our children. It is
like they are stuck in a pre-Katrina mindset. Do you know how
long it took to reunite the last child with their family post-
Katrina? Six months.
After 8 years, many States still fall short on their
reunification planning. Any given work day, 68 million children
are separated from their families. If a disaster strikes a
school or a child care center, what happens to these children?
Are schools and child care centers doing all they can to
prepare for emergencies? Is Government requiring them to meet
even minimum standards? More often than not, the answer is no.
After Katrina, Congress authorized the National Commission
on Children in Disasters and led by Save the Children. It
recommended hundreds of steps that should be taken to protect
children. We condensed those recommendations into four minimum
standards.
They are that States require all child care centers to have
an evacuation and relocation plan, a family reunification plan,
and a plan for children with special needs. That they require
all schools K-12 to have a disaster plan that account for
multiple hazards that can occur.
This month, we released our sixth annual disaster report
card and found that 28 States and the District of Columbia
still fail to meet at least one, if not all four, of these
minimum standards. Six States and the District of Columbia fail
to even require multi-hazard plans for all schools.
So with so many States failing to act, it is up to the
Federal Government to do what it can to protect children. That
is starting to happen. The Department of Health and Human
Services, the Administration for Children and Families has
proposed a new rule requiring child care providers that receive
subsidies through the Child Care and Development Block Grant to
verify that they have an emergency plan that meets two out of
three child care standards. We are hopeful that HHS will amend
the rule to include all three.
Today, we express our profound gratitude to Ranking Member
Payne, and Ranking Member Thompson, for introducing legislation
that takes the same approach to motivate State action on the
fourth standard to better protect children in schools. Their
legislation titled, Safe School Act, would require each State
applying for the State Homeland Security Grant Program through
the Department of Homeland Security to certify that they
already require schools to have multi-hazard emergency plan.
If ever there was a year when we saw the variety of
emergencies that can occur in States, it is this one. This act
is a critical first step to protecting children in schools. I
encourage you all to co-sponsor this legislation and to
encourage your colleagues to do the same.
Save the Children has three recommendations today. First,
pass the Safe School Act. Second, make child care mapping an
eligible activity under the State Homeland Security Grant
Program. One of the areas where the gaps in protecting children
is most glaring is around child care. After the Oklahoma
tornadoes and Hurricane Sandy, Save the Children helped damaged
and destroyed child care centers reopen.
These centers often have little access to emergency
recovery funds. Yet their services are desperately needed by
families who have lost everything, and for children who have
experienced an event that is terrifying in their young lives.
One Oklahoma child care director told us, as parents and staff
pulled children from the rubble after the tornado destroyed her
center, first responders raced down the street right past them
to a nearby destroyed hospital. Nobody stopped to help them
because nobody even knew a child care center, with infants and
young children, was there. Federal support for child care
mapping will help ensure that this does not occur again.
Our third recommendation would require FEMA to report
annually on the amount of homeland security grant funds that
are being dedicated to the needs of children. Save the Children
has successfully advocated for such a report from FEMA via the
annual appropriations process. We can announce today that this
reporting has shown, that out of the $14 billion in homeland
security preparedness grants, for fiscal years 2004 through
2010, only 16 States put funds toward protecting children.
The total investment was less than $10 million. In other
words, only 0.7 percent of emergency preparedness funds were
invested to the needs of children. We need to start tracking
this allocation every year. To do that, we recommend a long-
term authorization directing FEMA to complete this task
annually.
Once we shed light on how little is being done to protect
the most vulnerable among us, our children, we can encourage
States to rectify this shameful oversight. Congress has the
power to act now to protect children before the next disaster
strikes. We urge you to do so. I appreciate the opportunity to
be here today and welcome any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Spangler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kathy Spangler
September 19, 2013
UNACCEPTABLE: Despite a record disaster year and high-profile school
tragedies, most States still fail to meet basic child-safety
measures.
Chairman Brooks, Ranking Member Payne, and esteemed Members of the
Homeland Security Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
on this critical issue. You ask whether our Government is doing enough
to protect children when disaster strikes? Put quite simply, we are
not. This is unacceptable.
This past year showed our country how disaster can strike anywhere
at any time and how vulnerable our children can be. 2012 was the
second-costliest year of U.S. disaster destruction on record. Thousands
of families were uprooted. The devastation left by Hurricanes Sandy and
Isaac in New York, New Jersey, and the Gulf Coast, the Oklahoma
tornadoes, and the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in
Connecticut should be a wake-up call. But when it comes to taking very
basic measures to protect our children from disaster, too many States
won't budge. It's like they're stuck in a pre-Katrina world where the
gaps weren't so clear.
Do you know how long it took to reunite the last child with her
family after Hurricane Katrina? Six months. And yet 8 years later, many
States are still falling short when it comes to family reunification
planning.
Any given work day, 688 million children are separated from their
families. Where are these children? In schools and child care. Children
need protections where they are, and it's the Government's obligation
to make sure that happens.
After Katrina, Congress authorized the National Commission on
Children aand Disasters led by Save the Children and it recommended
hundreds of steps that should be taken to protect children. We
condensed many of those recommendations into just four minimum
standards. And for 6 years we have released a Disaster Report Card on
how States are doing.
The four standards are: That States must require all child care
centers to have (1) An evacuation and relocation plan, (2) a family
reunification plan, and (3) a plan for children with special needs, and
(4) that States require all K-12 schools to have disaster plans that
account for multiple types of hazards. Last week, we released our 2013
report, ``Unaccounted For: A National Report Card on Protecting
Children in Disasters'' (www.savethechildren.org/get-ready) and the
results were astonishing.
288 States plus the District of Columbia still fail to meet
minimum standards on protecting children in schools and child
care.
6 States and the District of Columbia still fail to require
multi-hazard plans for all schools.
Since 2008, the number of States meeting all four standards
has risen from 4 to only 22.
Fortunately, there are some bright spots. This year, 4 States
including New Jersey, Tennessee, Nebraska, and Utah all took steps to
meet all four standards. Furthermore, the Federal Government appears to
be advancing efforts to address these gaps.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration
on Children and Families, has proposed a new rule obligating child care
providers that receive subsidies through the Child Care Development
Block Grant (CCDBG) to verify that they have an emergency plan with 2
of our 3 critical provisions, and we are hopeful that HHS will amend
that rule to include all three.
Today, we are pleased to congratulate Ranking Member Payne, Jr. and
Ranking Member Thompson, on this very committee, for introducing
legislation today that takes this same approach to motivate State
action on the 4th standard--to better protect children in schools.
Their legislation, called the ``S.A.F.E. Schools Act'' would require
each State applying for the State Homeland Security Grant Program
(HSGP) through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to certify
that it already requires its schools to have multi-hazard emergency
plans (or that it will do so by the start of the 2015 academic year).
This would be the tipping point we need to better protect our children!
If ever there was a year when we saw the variety of emergencies
that can occur in States this year was it. From fires to floods to
tornadoes to hurricanes to man-made disasters; we saw first-hand that
at a very minimum, schools and child care centers must have emergency
plans that require them to consider and practice each. Just imagine how
different it is to practice moving all children out into a parking lot
in a fire drill, versus moving them all into a safe room for a tornado,
much less practicing a lock-down for a shooting situation. We must
require multi-hazard plans. And this act is a critical first step. I
encourage you all to co-sponsor this legislation and encourage your
colleagues to do the same.
This is the first of three recommendations we offer today. Because
there is more the Congress can do to protect our children.
From Sandy to Sandy Hook, Isaac to Oklahoma, Save the Children was
on the ground during the major disasters of the past year. We provided
child-friendly services in shelters, mental health programs for parents
and kids, and recovery funding for child care providers and schools. As
the leading child-focused emergency response organization, we are
seeing many critical gaps in protecting children.
One of the most startling is how child care centers are often left
behind when it comes to emergency response and recovery. After the
Oklahoma tornadoes, we helped damaged and destroyed child care centers
that have little access to emergency recovery funds reopen. Their
services were desperately needed by families of children who
experienced the most terrifying experience of their young lives, and
many of whom lost homes or even neighbors.
One director told us how as parents and staff pulled children from
the rubble of her destroyed center that day, first responders raced
down the street, right past them to a nearby destroyed hospital.
Nobody stopped to help them because nobody even knew a child care
center, infants and young children, were even there.
Our second recommendation is that the Congress encourages States to
map the locations of all child care centers so this never happens
again. It can do so by making child care mapping eligible for block
grant eligibility.
Finally, we need to encourage protecting children and accounting
for their unique needs across all our Nation's emergency planning
efforts. Save the Children believes a good start is showing just how
much or little the States are doing for children with the Federal funds
they receive. Unfortunately, it is very, very little.
A measure we were able to successfully advocate be included in the
fiscal year 2012 budget process required for the first time that the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) detail how much of their annual grant funds
are dedicated towards the needs of children. FEMA's resulting report
showed that only 16 of the States dedicated a total of less than $10
million to protecting children out of billions of dollars worth of
emergency preparedness grants between 2004-2010.
Our third recommendation is that instead of fighting to include
this required reporting in the budget every year, the Congress require
such reporting in authorizing legislation. Once we shed light on how
little is being done to protect the most vulnerable among us--our
children--we can encourage States to rectify this shameful oversight.
To recap, our three recommendations are:
(1) Pass the ``SAFE Schools Act'' in order to utilize the State
Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) to ask States to require
multi-hazard emergency plans for schools;
(2) Recommend block grant eligibility for child care mapping;
(3) Require FEMA to report the percentage of grants going
children's needs.
Congress has the power to act now to protect children before the
next disaster strikes. We urge you to do so.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and welcome any
questions you may have.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Ms. Spangler.
I now am going to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey
for questions. I understand he may need to step out a bit and
so I wanted to make sure that he got his questions in.
Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Well Madame Chairwoman, I appreciate that
consideration. Let me start with Mr. Manning. The 2013 NPR
boast Nation-wide adoption of NIMS in 2012. That is really
encouraging, but I am hearing that NIMS is not being enforced
in New Jersey. Have you heard about any problems enforcing NIMS
in New Jersey?
Mr. Manning. Congressman, I am not aware of any specific
problems in New Jersey, but it is something I would be very
happy to look into and get back to your office on.
Mr. Payne. Yes, I would appreciate it. We had conversations
at a forum several weeks ago with first responders and heads of
homeland security in my district, and that issue has been
raised by several different entities in terms of that, you
know, what should I tell them in terms of it not being
enforced?
Mr. Manning. Well Congressman Payne, I believe that NIMS
has been the National doctrine for the preparation for
coordination in response to disasters for many years now. It is
enforcement or the manner in which it is used is one that
varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The basic doctrine of
the incident command systems span of control, unity of command,
and the organization of responding to a disaster is one that
has had wide-spread distribution. Not one that I have heard
that there are concerns with the New Jersey, and I will look
closely into it.
I know there have been questions from time to time about
its applicability in the day-to-day organizational structure of
emergency response organizations, and the current position of
the administration is that NIMS is an organizational--the
incident command system specifically is an organizational
structure specifically created for response to a multi-agency
or a large emergency or disaster and not one necessarily to be
used to organize the administrative function of an
organization.
That may be the case there. I would be happy to look into
it and report back to your office.
Mr. Payne. That will be fine, thank you, sir. Ms. Spangler,
you know, over the course of the past year man-made and natural
disasters have had a tremendous impact on children, as you
stated. Save the Children supported efforts in Hurricane Sandy,
Newtown, and the tornado in Oklahoma. What are the most
important lessons learned related to children that the
organization learned during--as a result of these disasters?
Ms. Spangler. Thank you for the question, Congressman
Payne. It has been an extraordinary year, and we have been on
the ground in partnership with FEMA and the Red Cross and other
partners in each of these disasters. For us what has been so
amazing to watch is the fact that child care facilities are not
considered part of the core strategy. That there is very little
data--it took us weeks to identify the damages associated with
child care centers.
I think it is incredibly important to recognize that for
communities to recover, getting child care centers back up and
operational is critical to family well-being, it is critical to
the economic well-being of a community, and it is an area that
I think we have really failed to identify before, during, and
after.
Many of these child care facilities are operating. They are
not necessarily non-profit, but they operate on very small
margins, and they are not eligible for emergency recovery
funds. So we have done the best we can with our partners to
help them recover and get back operational, but we think that
the mapping strategy around child care would be incredibly
important for emergency management.
It would be important for the States to be able to provide
necessary resources to help communities recover more quickly.
In long term, it will allow us to reach out more directly to
child care providers on the preparedness front.
Mr. Payne. Okay. It has been about 3 years since the
National Commission on Children and Disasters released their
report to Congress. In your opinion, what ways has the Federal
Government been most successful in implementing the
recommendations of the report?
Ms. Spangler. A few ways. We would really give credit to
the Federal agencies for their support in this work, in
particular, our partnership with FEMA and the focus on child-
friendly materials and services at shelters. You may know that
we will work with shelter partners to implement child-friendly
spaces to provide psycho-social support for children to have a
normal environment as much as it possibly can be and to allow
their families to begin to restore through the process of
registration and recovery.
So FEMA has instituted new regulations that do support
greater access to materials and equipment in those settings.
Certainly FEMA has also been focused on through Mr. Fugate's
direction on leadership in terms of children and the task force
associated with children's efforts, and so we are really
pleased with the effort that FEMA has put forward in these past
few years to support that.
We also would say that we are partnering with the
Department of Education, certainly post-Sandy Hook, as well as
previous disasters to support efforts to support preparedness
in schools. Multi-hazards preparedness is a very important
part. We saw in Sandy Hook that reunification and relocation
were issues that caused some strife for families in those
immediate moments following the tragedy.
Those are areas that even for a school that was prepared
and drilled as we believe that Sandy Hook was, in the fog of a
disaster, it still is a priority that we train and we drill, so
we are working with the Department of Education on that as
well.
Mr. Payne. Thank you and, you know, as a child of the 1960s
I can remember having fall-out shelters in the schools, and
we--fire drills, and so, moving forward with this legislation,
it just bothers me that, I mean, we even have to raise this
issue and people haven't thought about, what about the
children, especially after what we saw in Sandy Hook and the
tornado.
The Sandy Hook incident was--you know, just a terrible act
of violence, but the natural disaster, us not being prepared
for that, I don't see why it should be such an issue, and maybe
we have to take to the American people if we can't get, you
know, this body to act. Let's take it parents and see how they
feel, and they can push their representatives in this way.
So I really thank you for all your efforts. Your report was
enlightening and is really helping us determine how to move
forward and making sure our children, I am a father of
triplets, they are older now, but I try to put myself in other
peoples' situation and what would I do if it was my children? I
think this is just really a refining of what we have done in
this country to be prepared for a disaster. So this should be
the next step.
We have a National preparedness, now what are we doing for
our children? So I thank your efforts, and I ask unanimous
consent to submit the 2013 Save the Children National report
card and support letter from Save the Children to the record.
Mrs. Brooks. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Letter From Kathy Spangler
September 18, 2013.
The Honorable Donald Payne, Jr.,
U.S. House of Representatives, 103 Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Payne: On behalf of Save the Children, US
Programs, I am proud to endorse the ``Secure America for Education
(SAFE) in Our Schools Act of 2013.''
The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina demonstrated how unprepared the
Nation was for major disaster. Children were extremely vulnerable,
often unprotected, and it took 6 months to reunite the last child with
her family. In addition, despite a record disaster year and high-
profile school tragedies, most States still fail to meet basic child-
safety measures endorsed by the National Commission on Children and
Disasters, which was Congressionally-authorized as a result of
Hurricane Katrina, and submitted a comprehensive package of recommended
standards to Congress and the administration in 2010.
Since 2008, Save the Children has published a disaster report card*
tracking the progress on all States meeting four critical standards:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Disaster Report Card is available at http://
www.savethechildrenweb.org/getready/Disaster-Report-2013/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
an evacuation plan;
a family reunification plan;
a plan for children with special needs; and
that States require all schools to have disaster plans that
account for multiple types of hazards.
In the first year of publication, we found that only four States
met all four standards, however, that has risen to 22 as of 2013.
Unfortunately, there are 28 States (including the District of Columbia)
that are still failing to meet the needs of children and protect them
in school settings.
That is why we greatly appreciate your leadership in introducing
the ``SAFE Schools Act of 2013,'' by requiring States that apply for
homeland security grant funding to adopt basic evacuation,
reunification, multi-hazard, and children with special needs in school
settings. This bill would represent a critical step towards holding
States accountable for meeting the disaster-related needs of children
in schools.
We look forward to working with you and your colleagues on
advancing this bill through the legislative process. Thank you for your
consideration and support of our Nation's children.
Sincerely,
Kathy Spangler,
Vice President, U.S. Programs, Save the Children.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. I now will recognize myself for 5
minutes of questions. These really are directed more to Mr.
Ghilarducci, Mr. Walker, and Chief Schwartz.
It really appears to me that the National preparedness
report is a very Federal and State-driven report that tries to
capture where the Nation is regarding our preparedness
capabilities. According to that report, as I said in my opening
statement, planning, intelligence, information sharing,
operational communications are all considered National
strengths and things that have improved.
Whereas cybersecurity, which you certainly mentioned, Mr.
Ghilarducci, and public-private partnerships still remain
challenges. I am curious in your opinion and as the people most
in-tune with your communities and you have mentioned, response
is local. When we have emergencies, whether they are natural
disasters or man-made, the response is always local, and you
are most in-tune with your communities. Do you feel that the
strengths and weaknesses identified in these reports are
accurate? Are they detailed, and are they accurate?
You have mentioned, you know, some of--and so I would like
to kind of drill into what you think are the strengths and
weaknesses and more probably with respect to our weaknesses,
and you have mentioned in your opening statement some of those
weaknesses, but I would like for you to share a bit of what you
think with respect to that report, the strengths and
weaknesses.
Mr. Ghilarducci.
Mr. Ghilarducci. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. You know,
the report and the strengths that were identified, sort-of try
to capture a one-size-fits-all through the country as we have
put this effort forward and developing capabilities, so from
that context, I think it is understandable, and we are trying
to put a parameter around this.
But really from where we are engaging, you know, with our
stakeholders, with our partners, leveraging those relationships
with public-private partnerships or private sector, for
example, with community-based organizations, is absolutely
critical if we are going to actually have a comprehensive
whole-community capability.
That is one area that more could be done in including all
the way up to engaging the business community in our decision
makings and incorporating them into our operation centers as a
partner and being able to adjudicate different issues that come
up during disaster operations.
In addition, that replays into the whole context of
cybersecurity and the need to build a platform, a baseline, for
which we are all on the same page with regards to
cybersecurity, and how we are going to be able implement those
mitigated efforts to protect ourselves as local communities, as
the industry, business and industry, and as education,
academia, and Government.
So that we are all working together because really--in
cybersecurity, really, it is the weakest link that is going to
exploited, and when that happens, then the system can be fully
impacted. So again, this area of bringing in subject matter
experts in different organizations and stakeholders that have--
and in the case of cyber, pretty much everybody is impacted by
this, has a role and would benefit from a capability to develop
and get them into that process as we move forward.
As we have done our planning efforts we have used the THIRA
and the THIRA is a good tool. It was really a little bit, I
think in the approach, a little bit discoordinated in being
able to collect a most appropriate amount of information, most
relevant information to be able to give you really what the
true picture is with regards to our National preparedness.
I think that given more time, given the ability to not have
different sectors submitting information sort of unilaterally,
to be able to make that THIRA complete, would have gone a long
way to give you a more comprehensive picture to make this
report something that is less of an overarching and a little
bit more specific.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. Thank you for those comments.
Mr. Walker, any thoughts you have.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Chairwoman Brooks. Just one comment
I would have on the report, essentially to start with, I
believe it says in there in detail that--this is the second
report and as they grow, there will be measurement tools
available, more clear pictures presented, and I would agree
with that as being a--and I see it on the local level, any of
the reports that are provided to us as local directors from
either our States or from FEMA, that there are tools that we
use as a measurement supporting device for the decisions we are
making to become resilient locally. To make our whole
community.
We want to look at what is around the country versus where
we are and try to measure up to some of those, or try to say it
is impossible for us to do that, because emergency management
is really resource-driven, so we are looking at, do we have the
resources here locally when the wind blows and the storm
happens?
I think of Gaylon Kitch, who is the Moore, Oklahoma,
emergency manager. He is in a one-man shop, only able to do
what he can do for one person, but he has developed a strong
supporting group of volunteers and that is what--you have to do
those kind of things on the local level to be successful, as
they use the skills and the people available to you locally and
the tools like the NPR to become successful, to be able weather
the storm so to speak. Thank you.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. We know that DHS is committed to
those performance measurements and working on those systems.
Chief Schwartz, any comments you might have?
Chief Schwartz. Just briefly, Chairwoman, I guess, you
know, I would observe in addition to the comments already made
that, we oftentimes suffer from a lack of defined processes and
maybe even standardization, so when we talk about, is it a
State-centered process or is it more locally-driven? The real
answer is that it is a diversity of approaches.
We listen to fire chiefs talk about their involvement in
THIRA. We hear some say that they have been involved. They have
been asked to provide inputs, and we hear from others that they
have never been a part of that conversation.
I think in acknowledgment of a National preparedness goal,
and even pre-dating PPD-8, this idea that we were going to
build a system of National preparedness, that we focus on the
locality and build out regionally to the State and then multi-
State as necessary, hasn't really been achieved.
We haven't--and we haven't created really the direction, I
think, in terms of processes. As an example, if the States were
to be required to engage stakeholders on a regional basis, as
they do in some instances, like Virginia, where we have regions
of the State that are home to regional hazardous materials
teams. Everybody doesn't have to have their own team, but there
is an assessment within the region about what that threat looks
like and how to resource against that threat.
You can imagine how that same kind of approach could be,
you know, put in every State, and then, where there are
discrete differences between one area of the State and another,
those could be accounted for, but localities and regions--some
regions of the State would know where they are getting their
resources, how they are going to meet those threats that are
specific to them.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you very much. My time is now up.
I now will recognize the other Members of the subcommittee
for questions they may wish to ask our witnesses and, in
accordance with the committee rules and practice, I plan to
recognize the Members who were present at the start of the
hearing by seniority in the subcommittee, and those coming in
later will be called upon as they arrive.
At this time, I would recognize the vice-chair of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, and I thank our
witnesses for being here today. I have a couple of statements I
want to read, and then I just want to ask a couple questions to
get an understanding of why of these programs was not properly
funded in the President's budget.
It is centered around the pre-disaster mitigation program.
We know it provides funds to States, territories, communities
for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of
mitigation projects before a disaster event. Funding these
plans and projects reduces overall risk to the population and
structures. You know, our No. 1 priority is to protect property
and our people, and the pre-disaster mitigation grants do that.
Now the President's fiscal 2014 budget proposed to
eliminate PDM funding, and so that is--kind of my question is
to Mr. Ghilarducci and/or Mr. Walker, the pre-disaster
mitigation grants are useful, aren't they, I mean, can you
elaborate on that?
Mr. Ghilarducci. Absolutely. I mean, this is a--it is a
good question you have, why they weren't funded. If we look at
the--I mean this cycle that we are in is problematic. This deal
where we continue to--I mean, it is important to have response
capability. There is no question about that.
But as we see more and more events taking place, more
complex events taking place, particularly, weather-related
complex events taking place, and we see that there is really no
effort being put into pre-disaster mitigation from the
standpoint to harden, to reduce vulnerabilities, to make our
communities more resilient, we have only done one-half of the
equation. This is problematic.
Because it will cost the taxpayers, it will cost us more
and more by just throwing response resources at it and be ready
to response when we could actually reduce that amount of money
and costs by hardening and making our communities more
resilient. As a part of that, it is not infrastructure
resiliency. It is also in the preparedness aspects.
It is in the building, as mentioned, you know, getting our
schools up to speed and our children educated, and there is a
lot to pre-disaster mitigation, and I would like to see, you
know, when you look at the total number of dollars that are
spent in sort of the response and the after event side, by
comparison to what is put into pre-disaster mitigation, if we
could even just take half of that and move it in, we would be
so much further as a country.
That is really what we need to do, and I concur with your
statement 100 percent.
Mr. Palazzo. Mr. Walker, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Walker. Just a couple of things--you know, we are
interested in why pre-disaster mitigation is not funded, also,
as an organization, the International Association of Emergency
Managers. It is pretty important to each one of our directors
on the local level. You know, there is an adage, I guess, to
say, that for every dollar spent on mitigation, we save $3 or
$4 of other dollars.
I believe that to be true having experienced disasters,
having seen the outcomes, having seen what is necessary, so
pre-disaster mitigation is a tool for the local emergency
manager, preliminary, before the disaster strikes, to be ready
to be able to survive. Thank you.
Mr. Palazzo. So you all would agree it is a good investment
to put money into the PDM program. It helps save lives. It
helps save property. So that leaves my question to Mr. Manning,
can you explain to me why the President's budget zeroed those
dollars out?
Mr. Manning. Thank you, Congressman. In putting together
the President's budget request, we had to take close
consideration given the fiscal environment with which we were
presented, which grant programs to propose and how to structure
FEMA's overall budget to accomplish our mission.
There is no question of the support within FEMA for
mitigation. It is an absolutely critical element to emergency
management. When we were considering which grants to propose,
we had to look at which grant programs accomplish something
that is duplicated by another grant program. Those are the
areas where we had to constrict what we proposed.
Mitigation--the vast majority of money that is spent on
mitigation in this country comes from the Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program, a separate mitigation grant. It is significantly
higher than PDM. That is a grant that comes as a percentage of
a disaster. It is grant money that is awarded following a
disaster, but there are two options for the expenditure of that
money.
One of which is--was referred to as 404 mitigation, and
that is a grant that is used for a pre-disaster mitigation
elsewhere in the State, but is awarded as part of the public
assistance program of a disaster grant. By linking it to the
disasters, you have a program that focuses mitigation money in
the areas of the country with which they are faced with the
most frequent disasters.
Mississippi is a huge recipient of the Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program, for example. That allows for repetitive loss
mitigation programs, flood control structures, things that will
alleviate the repetitive damage from frequent disasters such as
hurricanes, tornados in the central United States, earthquakes
in California, wild fires throughout the American Southwest.
So at first when putting together the President's budget,
we took a number of different areas, PDM being one, the pre-
disaster mitigation grant program--the majority of that money
was spent on planning, not on mitigation programs per se, but
on planning for a mitigation.
That planning activity is eligible under all of our other
grant programs and the actual mitigation, the construction
projects, the doing of mitigation, which is most often
completed in the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, HMGP, is
maintained in this proposal.
Mr. Palazzo. Mr. Manning, I am out of time, but I think
that one thing is certain, that both of the grant programs are
extremely important. One is pre-disaster, one is post-disaster,
and not only are they both great investments, but not to
digress too much, I think we need to continue to invest in our
NOAA satellites, our National Weather Service, our data
buoyancy center. These are our early--you know, basically
alarms that allow us back here in the homeland, to be prepared
for the Sandy, for you know, just natural disasters, and that
is going to lead to us saving lives and property, so thank you,
Madame Chairwoman.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you.
The Chairwoman now recognizes the gentlelady from New York
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, and let me thank
our panelists for their insight and expertise in this matter. I
am a New Yorker so very familiar with all of the challenges we
face, was a member of the New York City Council post-9/11, and
so the whole build-out of the incident command structures was a
part of the portfolio that I managed as a council member.
I am looking at the decades that have passed now and
wondering, you know, what we need to do to make sure that is
there is National standard, and would want sort of get some
feedback and, in addition to that, just trying to get a sense
of, you know, how we focus our Nation from municipality up
through the States on the need to really integrate emergency
preparedness into our way of life.
Because that is really the major challenge and to the
extent that, after each event, we go back to life as best we
can and adjust ourselves to those new environments, there is
really no call to action in terms of behavioral change. So I
want to get some feedback, you know, I recognize my colleagues'
comments around funding, but the reality is we would really
love a robust funding, the ability to get to the municipalities
the resources they need.
The reality is that our budget just doesn't provide for it,
and we have to make some very harsh decisions about what our
priorities are financially. We are in an age where the climate
is really wreaking havoc across the Nation. We, you know, went
from 9/11 to Sandy, and so it is great to want these things,
but then you have to have the political will to put the
resources where your mouth is.
Let me just get some feedback about how we Nationalize and
sort of create within our civil society a desire to change
behavior, to address what we know has become a way of life for
us, and I will start with you, Mr. Manning.
Mr. Manning. Thank you, Congressman Clarke. The absolutely
critical and important point you make there. We heard from many
of the other witnesses this morning about the maybe perceived
State-centricity of the efforts that the Federal Government has
been undertaking, but let me assure and all the committee
Members that we take a truly National approach to this.
You may have heard Administrator Fugate on many occasions
talk about how emergency management is a team effort. FEMA is
just part of that team. But the most important part of that
team is the public, as our citizens, our friends and family,
and our neighbors. So while we anticipate the National
preparedness system that we discussed earlier, is really one of
National--it requires the whole Nation to be part of it. We
refer to this often as the whole-community approach.
But the idea is not one simply of the State bringing assets
to bear, we interface with the State as an organizing
principle, but it really requires private sector, requires non-
governmental organization, it requires--it is the aggregate of
all the local capabilities. But most importantly, it is the
preparedness and the commitment and willingness of the public
to be part of that solution.
A key element to the President's directive, PPD-8, our
National preparedness is the campaign is to build and sustain
resilience in the Nation. That is not something that is focused
on governments at any level. It is something that is focused on
the public. It is an attempt at our efforts--our collective
efforts to shift the conversation from something as simple as
critical, but as simple as have an emergency kit and a plan to
really understand the hazards that you are faced with in your
community and those things that you need to do to work as a
community, to protect each other and make it more resilient.
Things like planning guidance for schools that we have done
with the Department of Education and the Office of Vice
President, Department of Justice, but things that we are doing
with the Department of Treasury about financial literacy for
underprivileged, and just the general public, because that
really can make the difference between being a victim of a
disaster and surviving the disaster more resiliently.
So those are huge efforts that we are undertaking starting
with, as you heard from Mr. Walker earlier in his testimony, a
more science-based approach to the public's perception of
emergencies and disasters and why they do or do not react or
take steps. A very interesting one that our colleagues at Save
the Children has informed of in the past, we have now evidence
of, that families that have--individuals who have children in
their home are roughly 60 or so percent likely to have an
emergency plan in place. Without children in the home, it is in
the teens.
There is a huge difference there understanding why people
do or do not react or prepare is key to our ability to change
that and move the needle in our preparedness and resilience of
our communities.
Ms. Clarke. My time is up, but if we are having a second
round, I would love----
Mrs. Brooks. We will, thank you, yes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you.
Mrs. Brooks. We will begin the second round of questioning
at this point. It is my understanding that it is voluntary for
States to include local first responders in their process in
completing the State preparedness report, and we have heard
about how different States have different assets throughout the
report from the chief and certainly we know that from Mr.
Walker's testimony about emergency preparedness, emergency
managers, and what assets they have.
I guess this is to start out with Mr. Ghilarducci, did your
office solicit input from local emergency managers and first
responders in developing California's specific preparedness
report, and do you know if the other States you are here
representing, really all States, what is the process that you
use to collect that information?
Mr. Ghilarducci. Well the short answer, yes, we did include
all of the local partners and members of the private sector and
NGOs. You know, I mean, sometimes I am a little bit surprised
to hear about the lack of maybe coordination that takes place
at State and local across the country because in California, it
is second nature. We have a very integrated collaborative
process on all aspects of emergency management.
We work routinely--our centers are interagency centers so
they are made up of local, State, and Federal. We have private-
sector people involved, representatives of the non-governmental
community. So, from that context, you know, as we move forward
with all these initiatives there involved in it, we often reach
out to our partner States. In our case, Oregon, Nevada,
Arizona, to come and join us in these multifunctional efforts
so that we can look at the cross-boundaries from State to
State.
As I spoke before, sometimes States don't do that, and, you
know, when we look at these--truly, when you get catastrophic
earthquake in California, believe me, there is going to be
plenty of work to go around and plenty of need, and we are
going to need support from our partner States.
I think that when you look across the country and talking
to my colleagues, it is different in different places, and
sometimes there are really strong relationships between the
State and the locals and sometimes there isn't so much strong
States. Some right-to-work States, and the locals are more on
their own, and some where the State has much more of a role and
being engaged with developing mutual aid capabilities and
emergency planning.
For us, I could tell you, there really should not be and
there cannot be another way except to integrate and
collectively and collaboratively work together to develop
these. That is going to give you the strongest product that you
could possibly get.
Mrs. Brooks. Absolutely. Chief Schwartz, I am curious, in
your State and, again, Mr. Walker, how is that collection
process happened with your State or has it?
Chief Schwartz. In Virginia when they submitted their
THIRA, they did include a document from our region that had
been produced a couple of years ago. It was our hazard and risk
assessment, but there was no follow-on to that. There wasn't
any conversation about how we might have wanted to have amended
that paper or placed it in the proper context for the THIRA
report.
I would just, again, go back to the point, that if in the
amount of diversity that we have to approaches across the
State, if we don't get FEMA to create certain mandates, to
require inclusiveness, to require participation through all
levels of government, then we will remain, I think, all over
the place in terms of the inputs that we are getting.
Mrs. Brooks. If I am not mistaken, the fire service
community is actually not specifically mentioned in the
National preparedness system document or the preparedness
report and system report. Any thoughts regarding that?
Chief Schwartz. Well there are references to what the fire
service does. There is no direct reference to fire fighting as
a core capability. I think our position is that if you were to
look at localities that were not properly resourced for
something as basic as fire response within their community, it
is probably an indicator that they are also incapable of
dealing with anything beyond, you know, a simple house fire or
a fire--how would you expect a community that is under-
resourced, as I was describing in my testimony around radios
and protective gear for their fire fighters to then be able to
put together some response for a larger crisis like a Joplin-
sized tornado or such.
Mrs. Brooks. Mr. Walker, any comments you have? Thank you.
Mr. Walker. Well my experience in the State of Ohio is the
one that they offered up an idea that if we had input on
certain areas of the fire initially, we weren't required to,
but it was kind of an agreement where we could do that. One of
the things in the International Association of Emergency
Managers that I think is important to point out is, that we
form strong partnerships with a lot of different agencies like
the Red Cross, a lot of different agencies that are responsive
in emergencies.
We work with them and we make them partners, so that we can
make sure that our local people also have that partnership
because the Red Cross is everywhere. Certain agencies are
everywhere in the country and that they can form those
partnerships and when they are building resilience, and when
they are doing the things that commit to a whole community,
they can use those resources and public/private partnerships.
We have an extremely strong caucus that evolves around
public/private partnerships that is really working very hard.
We have a very strong caucus leader, and they are doing a lot
of substantial work to push that forward so that the private
sector and the public sector actually get together and talk
about things.
That is what is necessary in resilience. I just was
contacted by my own Red Cross chapter in my local community and
resilience is a term that they are going to start working on,
and they wanted to know if I could help read the book, so to
speak. I also had--after FEMA put out the piece on worship
centers, I was contacted by the Methodist church in Ohio about
how could we help them support so they could better understand
what was being said in the document because they are not
emergency managers.
So there are a lot of things going on as well as the THIRA,
there are a lot of opportunities, I would say, that people can
afford themselves of that will make them stronger on the local
level. Thank you.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. Thank you very much. My time is up.
I now would return to the gentlelady from New York for
further questions.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Madame Chairwoman. I serve
as the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity,
Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies so I want
to direct questions to you, Mr. Ghilarducci and Mr. Walker. The
NPR indicated that progress has been made toward building
cybersecurity capabilities, but there are still challenges.
How much support are States receiving from the Federal
Government to implement a new cyber technology, develop
incident response plans, and employ effective cyber risk
management, and do you feel States need more direction and
support from the Federal Government for cyber? To you, of
course, Mr. Walker, with respect to emergency managers, how you
are working to develop relationships with chief information
officers and chief information security officers so that you
can work together in the event of a cyber incident?
Let me layer this a little bit because, you know, a cyber
incident could mean the shutdown of many of our skater systems,
things that would, you know, basically stop life as we know it,
which makes it a layered incident to a certain degree. At what
level, what depth, are our States and our managers looking at
this potential threat to our Nation?
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Congressman Clarke. I think on the
local level, I have seen a lot of work being done to enhance
the abilities of the local people to use cyber correctly. What
would happen if cyber quits, that means do you back to writing
checks by hand? What is your COOP plan for your local
community. That has to be included in there, so it is a strong
primary function of that.
The other side, I would say that as in emergencies when we
try to use the social media side of things, we need to be
careful that the facts that are coming out, that are correct. I
believe we saw during Hurricane Sandy somewhere, I was in New
York City, if I remember right, that Wall Street was flooded
and that was not a fact.
So it has to be factual. It also has to have some kind of
support if the system goes down so that we can take a step back
and still operate and still serve our citizens as best we can
with their understanding that, you know, we are in a disaster.
Thank you.
Mr. Ghilarducci. This is really a threat that is evolving
and emerging every day, and I think everybody is still kind of
grappling to get their hands around really what is the
magnitude of the threat. I would tell you that from a State
perspective that there is still a lot of gaps. Because of what
I just said in that we are grapple with understanding the
parameters of the threat, the ability for the Federal
Government to support State provide guidance, has been rather
limited.
I mean, we get threat announcements, potential cyber
incidents or cyber threats, and the Federal Government is just
starting to kind of come up to speed with this. You know, I
think in time, we all need--we are able to get on the same
page, we actually have started a cybersecurity task force
because there was really a lack of guidance.
This cybersecurity task force really is a unique group that
incorporates not just government agencies at the local, State,
and Federal level, but the private sector, the individuals that
actually are responsible for building and designing security
software. So that when they are doing that, they are building
resilient systems that we can count on as we move forward in
the out-years.
We are also talking to subject-matter experts to identify
where those low-hanging fruit sort-of mitigated efforts that
can be done immediately so we could socialize that across the
board. I think local governments, academia, et cetera, and even
individuals in their homes are thinking to themselves, how can
I really protect myself against the kind of cyber intrusions
that we are seeing?
It could be something stealing your identity all the way up
to knocking its data system, so the threat is broad, and the
other piece is education. You know, we are working with the
Department of Ed to try to identify educational processes where
we can start teaching kids early on about cybersecurity. Most
kids today are using social media, and that opens them up to
cyber crimes.
So, we are looking at it on different levels. I think you
have to look at it on different levels as you move forward to
be able to establish this. Then I think once, you know, some of
these drivers can put in some guidelines. I think everybody at
the State and the Federal level will get on the same page, and
we could be a little bit more robust, but to specifically
answer your question, I think there are still gaps with regards
to that relationship.
Ms. Clarke. Madame Chairwoman, I am concerned about this
area and the level and the depth and breadth of what our local
governments, State governments would encounter were there to be
a major incident with respect to cyber if it is the grid.
I think that it may be worthwhile for us to take a deeper
look into this matter as we go forward. You know, you could
have a cyber event at any moment. It could be on top of a
natural disaster, and if you layer these types of incidents, it
could be catastrophic.
So I hope that you will share with your colleague, that the
Chairman of the Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and
Security Technologies subcommittee, of our desire to see us
come together and really delve deeper into this subject matter.
I want to thank you all for your candid responses today. It is
very helpful. Thank you.
Mrs. Brooks. I thank the gentlelady from New York because
her concern, and I think a significant growing concern among
Members of Congress, is this issue of cyber attacks, and what
we would do in case of an emergency.
I am pleased to report, we haven't shared yet with the
entire committee, that both the Cybersecurity, Infrastructure
Protection, and Security Technologies Subcommittee of the
Committee on Homeland Security, as well as this subcommittee,
will be having a joint hearing in October specifically on
whether or not our State and local communities are prepared for
a significant cyber attack.
I think what the American people don't begin to appreciate
and think about is, while a cyber attack right now, we think
about maybe an attack on our financial institutions and, as you
mentioned, things such as identity theft and maybe our
computers simply going down, you know, or some denial-of-
service attack is what a lot of people are accustomed to
learning about.
What I think we need to be prepared for are things such as
cyber attacks on our infrastructure, cyber attacks on our
Federal aviation systems, or on our nuclear systems. These are,
I think, very grave serious concerns that we have, and I think
as we have also learned the number of cyber attacks that are
being launched by foreign governments.
These are not just individuals that are launching, you
know, young hackers who are hacking into systems. This is a
whole other level, and so I very much appreciate you agreeing
that we need to have this hearing, and so we will be having
further discussion in October and so I look forward to your
participation at that hearing.
It is my understanding that the gentleman from New Jersey
may be returning, and so we are going to--I have a couple of
more questions, follow-up, if the panel will indulge us. One
thing that you have mentioned, that I think is very important
and a number of you have mentioned is, what is the
individuals--what are our roles as Government to educate
individuals?
Congressman Payne spoke about that a bit, and what are we
doing as Government to really raise the level of awareness to
individuals and to families and to businesses as to what their
role is? I mean, the public/private partnership, public is
really government, private is--well we often think of them
maybe as businesses, it is also all individuals and what their
role is.
We once had a house fire at our home and only because we
had drilled with our children and had talked to them, you know,
to Ms. Spangler's point about preparedness with children, did
the kids know where to go, and it was--it worked just having
had those conversations.
It is interesting, Mr. Manning, that you talked about the
fact that people with children are often a bit more prepared
than now, my daughter who is 23, does she have a plan, has she
even thought about, you know, a plan now that, you know, she is
really more on her own.
So I am curious how local--we will start with you, Mr.
Walker, maybe, just to all of your points, what your thoughts
are about what should we be doing, in Government, to help raise
the level of awareness. It is not just the Red Cross' job. They
work very hard day in and day out.
What are your thoughts about what we can be doing to really
raise the level of individual--I have also just returned from
Israel in August, and let me tell you, every citizen in Israel
goes through drills, is prepared and thinks about their role in
protecting themselves and their families, but I think the
United States of America is far behind.
We will start with you, Mr. Walker, and then would like
others' comments.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Chairwoman. I would agree with you
that we--the picture we see a lot of times seems to be that we
are far behind, but there is a lot of work that is done. I
think sometimes we have that 1 month a year where September is
ready month.
I think the better thing is that it is 12 months out of the
year that we are ready because there are various catastrophes,
various weather emergencies, various things that happen around
the country. How do we get our people involved? I think through
public/private partnerships. That is one of the things that is
being discussed strongly by our organization and by other
organizations is, how do you increase involvement? How do you,
let's say, get their attention so that it remains a factor in
their lives?
It is very difficult because we are drawn in a lot of
different directions individually in our lives, but there has
to be a way. I am not sure I have the solid answer for that. We
continue to work on it, and I think in public/private
partnerships, you are broadening the base of people who can
help you get there. They employ the people in your community.
They can do things through their businesses, through all kinds
of opportunities to get their attention.
How do we measure that? I think that yet has to be
established.
Mrs. Brooks. Thanks. I appreciate and believe that every
agency is working on that. I am curious whether or not any of
you know of any, you know, specific efforts that have actually
proven to be effective or any ideas that you would like to--
that you would like to see implemented. Chief.
Chief Schwartz. Well, Madame Chairwoman, I would observe
that, you know, we have had a lot of successes. If you look at
the Joplin response, if you look at the flooding in Iowa 4 or 5
years ago, the community proved itself to be quite resilient
and capable of dealing with a tragedy that couldn't be stopped
in the moment, but certainly I think was a good demonstration
of a resilient community, resilient region.
I, for one, think that we need to focus on growing a
generation of prepared adults. We need to start getting in our
school systems and getting kids when they are young. If you
follow the example of the reduction in fires and fire deaths in
this country, you can see a parallel between increases in
technologies, in our buildings, and they include things like
sprinkler systems, but you can also see an increase of public
awareness about safe practices with regard to fire.
How many young adults could you find today that do not know
what ''``stop, drop, and roll'' is, that don't know what
``change your clock, change your battery'' is? Imagine a
parallel effort around preparedness. It may be somewhat cynical
to suggest that we are not going to change or affect much of
adult behavior, but over a relatively short period of time, we
could grow a new generation of prepared adults who rethink
this, similar in a way to your experience in Israel, because
the fact is in Israel, it is part of the culture.
Now, it may be because it is--it goes to their existential,
you know, their mere existence whether or not they are
prepared, but we could transfer some of the lessons from there
in terms of being more acculturated to the issues of
preparedness. If we got access to kids early in schools and
gave them the life skill of being prepared.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you very much. I do agree and as
actually Congressman Payne mentioned, you know, as a child, it
seemed like we did a lot of drills in the 1960s, that would be
when I was growing up as well.
Ms. Spangler, anything you would like to say specifically
because I agree it can be a cultural shift and if we start
younger, and if we talk about it, but I know that a lot of
people don't want to scare their kids. They don't want, you
know, people to be overdramatic about what can happen, but yet,
I believe it is so important. Ms. Spangler.
Ms. Spangler. Visiting a Seaside Heights child care center
and spoke to a mother who was displaced and spent many months
trying to get back home, and she had a 2-year-old. She
expressed to me how her child stopped talking at 2, and how
tragic that is for a child in their development. It wasn't
until they got back to the child care center that they started
to verbalize.
Brain research is suggesting that even non-verbal children,
who experience a disaster, years later, once they begin to have
vocabulary, they start to act this out. It is precisely the
right time to inculcate those preparedness lessons, those
integrated practices. They are part of the equation. They are
not just little adults.
All too often, we tend to treat them in that manner, so
part of early childhood development should include, whether
that is a Head Start center or a private center, whether that
is a school at an elementary age or at high school, there are
ways that we can incorporate the elements of preparedness into
their development.
This past year, we actually, as a Nation, had very clear
moments of collective helplessness, and it was really because
of the children that were affected by these disasters. So we
have seen, just in the last year, the interest in preparedness
take a shift. It has been very difficult as a non-profit
organization to get anyone interested in supporting this work.
We have partnered well with the Federal agencies. We have
partnered well with the Red Cross, but for the very first time,
because of this visceral emotion that we have shared around the
risk that our children face, there is an openness.
So any way we can incorporate our partnership with
emergency management personnel to educate and inform, not only
the children, but their parents to ensure that licensing
regulations include elements of preparedness. We have to weave
this in to all that exists around children in a more holistic
way.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you very much. At this time, I would
recognize Ranking Member Payne for any further questions he
might have.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. Mr. Walker, what
kind of relationships do the State and local emergency managers
have with school districts, and how do emergency managers
incorporate schools, child care facilities, and children into
their preparedness plan?
Mr. Walker. From the local's perspective, we, in my
experience, all the schools and child care agencies are part of
our response plan. They are part of our 9-1-1 system for
notification. We also support their drills and exercises so
that when they have fire drills, they have tornado drills which
are required by law, I know in the State of Ohio, and probably
in numerous other States around the country.
So we hope, I guess the best term I could say is, our local
emergency managers like to become partners with those people,
so they can support what needs to happen if there is a
disaster. We can support their movement of people. We can
support all those kind of things that are necessary for that
agency to be successful in preventing loss of life.
Mr. Payne. Based on the legislation that I have proposed,
the Safe legislation, what is your feeling upon that?
Mr. Walker. I am not totally familiar with that
legislation.
Mr. Payne. Right. I know you didn't have the opportunity,
but the overall, you know, description of--yes.
Mr. Walker. It has got to be of primary importance for
every emergency manager to support that kind of an opportunity,
to support that kind of an element or legislation would hope.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. Mr. Manning, whatever has FEMA
undertaken to encourage States to require school and child care
facilities to meet the standards for emergency planning set
forth by the 2010 commission on children and safety?
Mr. Manning. FEMA has done a great deal of work with the
commission on children in disaster, Save the Children, our
other partners such as the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children. In developing our capabilities at the
State, local, and the Federal government levels, to coordinate
children in disasters.
On the preparedness side, we have done--we just completed
not too long ago an effort with the Department of Education,
the Department of Justice, led by the Vice President, to issue
new planning guidance for schools as well as higher education
and houses of worship, three different documents, to bring
their emergency plans into kind of the more modern approach.
Not just for fires and tornadoes where applicable, but for
active-shooter environment. How to work with their State and
local government emergency management agencies which wasn't
very clear in previous guidance.
By all accounts, very well received, and a great deal of
work going towards that. It is not currently required by the
Federal Government that schools accomplish this. This is
something that we encourage folks--encourage our partners at
the State and local governments to do, but similar to the other
elements of the National Preparedness Program recognizing the
diversity of the 56 States and territories and how they are
organized and how they are subordinate--and their political
subdivisions are organized the degrees of autonomy in school
districts are even more widely organized.
It is work that we encourage--strongly encourage. We make
eligible under all the grant programs and provide a great deal
of tools and resources to governments and school districts to
accomplish.
Mr. Payne. Okay. Thank you. What is your take on what--the
effort that I am trying to foster in terms of children?
Mr. Manning. Well as we have encouraged our partners in the
educational community and communities throughout the country to
do this work, it is certainly important, of course,
Congressman, I look forward to examining the bill and
discussing it within the Executive, but at this point until I
have a chance to see it, it is kind of difficult to comment.
Mr. Payne. Absolutely. Just the broad idea in terms of----
Mr. Manning. Yes. The coordination--planning within schools
for all hazards and emergencies, both the things that they have
historically done, such as, fire evacuations and drills for
tornadoes. It is absolutely critical bringing the community
more involved, absolutely critical. I recently--this month is
National Preparedness Month. This year, we are focusing on
children, ready kids.
Mr. Payne. Excellent.
Mr. Manning. Did a great deal of press over the last few
months where, in every interview, emphasized the importance of
parents getting involved in their schools, knowing their
school's emergency plan, and providing assistance there.
Absolutely something important.
Mr. Payne. Hopefully after you have a chance to look over
the bill and study it, you will come back to me and say it is
not strong enough, Congressman, so----
Mr. Ghilarducci, I understand that California is one of the
22 States that requires schools and child care facilities to
include their emergency plans and the four standards of the
commission on children. Can you talk about your office work to
ensure the special needs of children are incorporated into all
hazard preparedness plans?
Mr. Ghilarducci. Well we do have a very robust program
working both with our State department of education and with
our county governments and the various school districts on all
aspects of emergency preparedness. Obviously, California is a
large earthquake-prone State and so, you know, we do a lot with
earthquake preparedness in schools, and that gives us, of
course, the opportunity to expand on everything from active-
shooter to, you know, basically evacuations or emergency
sheltering, et cetera.
We have programs where we don't only train the responders
on how to deal with the schools, but we have programs where we
actually train the teachers. They are really on the business
end of this. They are the ones that have to deal with the
children at the time. Of course, I am married to a second-grade
school teacher, so I hear about this all the time, and she
gives me lots of suggestions on how better to incorporate
emergency preparedness in schools.
In the students training education program we do for
teachers, it really empowers them, because the more you know
the more empowered you are, and you can then act accordingly
during emergency situations.
I just want to say that, you know, there are many kids
today that have access and functional need issues as well,
which is another component to the emergency planning efforts
that needs to be taken into account.
It is another area where we focus on. I actually placed in
my office--an office of access and functional needs, so we
really focus on that segment of the child population so that
they are--in many ways, they are the ones that need support the
most at the critical time, and we don't want to lose sight of
that, so those have been initiatives that we have worked with
as well.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. Madame Chairwoman, I yield
back.
Mrs. Brooks. I would like to thank you and thank all of the
witnesses for your very valuable testimony. I think as you said
initially, Mr. Ghilarducci, it is ``all hands on deck'' when we
are talking about emergency preparedness, response, and
communications. We have seen that, seen a significant
improvement as you have all shared. Certainly since 9/11. We
certainly appreciate the insight that you gave during your
opening statements as well as answering questions with a lot of
thought and care.
I appreciate the time and staying over. We will continue
to, you know, take comments. I must let you know that Members
of the committee may have additional questions for the
witnesses, and we would ask you to respond to those in writing.
So, at this time, pursuant to Committee Rule 7(e), the
hearing record will be open for 10 days and, again, thank you
all for staying over a bit longer and for the work that you are
doing each and every day. Without objection, this subcommittee
will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Hon. Susan W. Brooks for Timothy Manning
Question 1. In May, FEMA released three of the five National
planning frameworks--Prevention, Mitigation, and Response. FEMA also
released the National Disaster Recovery Framework in September 2011. We
are still waiting on the Protection Framework to be released. These
frameworks are to act as guides for the whole community in developing
and maturing capabilities to achieve the National Preparedness Goal.
How will these frameworks help to enhance the state of preparedness?
Answer. The National Planning Frameworks set the strategy and
doctrine for building, sustaining, and delivering the core capabilities
necessary for achieving the National Preparedness Goal and help enhance
the state of preparedness in several ways. First, each framework
establishes a set of key themes that guide the development and
execution of the 31 core capabilities identified in the National
Preparedness Goal. These themes include engaged partnership with the
whole community; scalability, flexibility, and adaptability in
implementation; and integration among the frameworks.
Second, the frameworks emphasize a risk-driven, capabilities-based
approach to preparedness, which helps jurisdictions maximize resources
and focus on the risks that are most likely to affect their
communities.
Third, the frameworks provide an emphasis on emergency planning.
Each framework includes planning assumptions and other valuable
guidance that includes the development of various plans among all
levels of government, private-sector entities, and other whole-
community partners. For example, the frameworks provide the setting for
the development of the Federal Interagency Operational Plans (FIOPs)
and allow for the integration of other policies, plans, and doctrine.
Finally, the Frameworks summarize the roles and responsibilities of
each part of the whole community in National preparedness--including
all levels of government, private and non-profit sectors, faith-based
organizations, communities, and individuals--recognizing the value of
partnerships and working together.
Question 2. The 2013 National Preparedness Report once again
highlights cybersecurity as a major capability gap among States. In
2012, DHS/FEMA held a National-Level Exercise that simulated a cyber
attack. This exercise raised a number of issues, including a question
about when Stafford Act assistance would be available in response to a
cyber attack. How has FEMA been working with the Department's National
Protection and Programs Directorate and relevant stakeholders to
address the findings of the exercise?
Answer. For the 2012 National-Level Exercise, FEMA's National
Exercise Division led an analysis of observations and findings from the
exercise, and facilitated development of corrective actions. This
effort included subject-matter experts from both the public and private
stakeholder community and the corrective actions are part of the formal
Corrective Action Program (CAP). At multiple levels of government, key
stakeholders have conducted working group meetings and other forums to
collaborate on resolving the issues.
After the exercise, FEMA's responsibility is to track the progress
of the corrective actions. A primary agency and specific individual as
a point of contact are assigned to each corrective action and are
responsible for collaborating with identified supporting agencies (such
as NPPD) and other stakeholders to implement appropriate
recommendations and report the corrective action as complete.
Question 3. When you testified before this subcommittee in March,
we discussed the draft Capability Estimation Guide. At the time of the
hearing, you indicated that the guide was in its final stages of
completion and would include information from pilot programs. Can you
share with us the results of the pilot programs?
Answer. During the spring of 2013, FEMA developed draft capability
estimation guidance and supported a pilot program to facilitate
implementation of the ``Estimating Capability Requirements'' component
of the National Preparedness System. The results of this pilot program
led to a streamlined Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment (THIRA) process that includes capability estimation and
associated technical assistance.
Based on feedback received during the National review of the
Capability Estimation Guide last spring, FEMA updated the THIRA
guidance, releasing the Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 201,
Second Edition: Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment,
in August, 2013. The updated CPG incorporates capability estimation as
step 4 of the THIRA process. Jurisdictions implement this process to
determine the resources required to achieve their capability targets,
and successfully manage their risks.
This year, all grantees receiving funding assistance from the
Homeland Security Grant Program, Tribal Homeland Security Grant
Program, and Emergency Management Performance Grants, must conduct a
THIRA in alignment with CPG 201, Second Edition. All grantees will
complete and submit a THIRA to FEMA by December 31, 2013. As a part of
the completed THIRA, grantees will conduct capability estimation for a
subset of the 31 core capabilities, including eleven Response-specific
core capabilities and two Recovery core capabilities. These are as
follows:
Response:
Critical Transportation;
Environmental Response/Health and Safety;
Fatality Management Services;
Infrastructure Systems;
Mass Care Services;
Mass Search and Rescue Operations;
On-Scene Security and Protection;
Operational Communications;
Public and Private Services and Resources;
Public Health and Medical Services;
Situational Assessment.
Recovery:
Health and Social Services;
Housing.
Question 4. For the second year in a row, the President's fiscal
year 2014 budget request includes a proposal to consolidate a number of
non-disaster grants into a new National Preparedness Grant Program.
This request has been repeatedly denied by Congress due to a lack of
detail. We have been told that the administration is developing a
legislative proposal that would provide the additional detail we are
looking for. What is the status of this proposal and when will it be
sent to Congress?
Answer. The administration has re-proposed the National
Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP) to continue the development and
sustainment of a robust National preparedness capacity supported by
cross-jurisdictional and readily deployable State, local, Tribal, and
territory assets.
DHS and FEMA recognize that a secure and resilient Nation is one
with the necessary capabilities in place, across the whole community,
to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the
threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk. The fiscal year 2014
NPGP will continue the building and sustainment of the core
capabilities in the National Preparedness Goal (NPG) across the whole
community.
The administration's proposal is in the final stages of the
Executive branch concurrence process, and will be shared when the
process is complete.
The administration's fiscal year 2014 budget re-proposes the NPGP,
originally presented in the fiscal year 2013 budget, to create a robust
National preparedness capability, with some adjustments made to respond
to broad stakeholder feedback solicited and received during 2012. In
particular, the fiscal year 2014 NPGP provides grantees and other
stakeholders greater certainty regarding the sources and uses of
available funding while maintaining the core priorities of the
administration's fiscal year 2013 grants vision.
(1) The fiscal year 2014 NPGP prioritizes the development and
sustainment of core capabilities as outlined in the NPG.
Particular emphasis is placed on building and sustaining
capabilities that address high-consequence events that pose the
greatest risk to the security and resilience of the United
States and can be utilized to address multiple threats and
hazards. The NPGP continues to utilize a comprehensive process
for assessing regional and National capability requirements
through the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment (THIRA) and capability estimation processes, in
order to prioritize capability needs and invest in critical
National capabilities.
(2) DHS will submit a comprehensive legislative proposal seeking
authorization of the proposed NPGP. That legislative proposal
currently is under review within the administration; we expect
that Congress will receive it in the near future.
Question 5a. As we move forward in developing the National
Preparedness Report and implementing the National Preparedness System,
what steps need to be taken to ensure that we are getting an accurate
picture of the Nation's state of preparedness?
Answer. FEMA has identified a set of strategic priorities for the
National Preparedness Report (NPR) to ensure an accurate picture of the
Nation's state of preparedness and support implementation of the
National Preparedness System. These priorities include collecting
repeatable preparedness indicators to demonstrate year-over-year
progress and gathering meaningful indicators from across the whole
community. These activities will help inform the development and
implementation of National preparedness priorities. Finally, it remains
a priority to effectively communicate preparedness progress to inform
decisions across the whole community.
Question 5b. How do we ensure that the whole community is included
in the development process for the National Preparedness Report?
Answer. The NPR is intended to reflect preparedness contributions
from the full spectrum of whole community partners: Federal, State,
local, Tribal, and territorial governments; the private sector; non-
governmental organizations; faith-based and community partnerships; the
access and functional needs community; and individuals.
FEMA will continue to encourage whole-community partners to
contribute to future evaluations of National preparedness by
participating in the planning process, exercises, and capability
assessments. In November 2010, FEMA published CPG 101: Developing and
Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans, Version 2 (CPG 101 v. 2), to
assist in making the planning process consistent across all phases of
emergency management and for all homeland security mission areas. With
this edition, greater emphasis is placed on representing and engaging
the whole community--to include those with access and functional needs,
children, and those with household pets and service animals. Grantees
are required to submit to FEMA an annual assessment of their progress
in developing and/or updating and exercising their EOP that reflects
this planning guidance. In addition, FEMA encourages States,
territories, urban areas, and Tribes to engage the whole community in
the development of their THIRA and SPRs and report to FEMA on whole
community participation. The results of these efforts are used to
support and validate key findings in the NPR. Findings from exercises--
as well as real-world event responses--are a valuable performance-based
tool for understanding areas of strength and areas for improvement in
preparedness Nationally. Whole-community partners should engage in the
yearly State Preparedness Report process as it remains a key avenue for
State, local, Tribal, and territorial stakeholders to support future
NPRs.
In addition, private-sector organizations can continue to engage in
annual assessments and reporting on critical infrastructure protection
and resilience, which helps the Nation understand the progress made
across all 16 infrastructure sectors in protecting critical
infrastructure.
Non-governmental, faith-based, disability, access and functional
needs, and community organizations can document and share their
accomplishments to highlight the critical role they play across the
core capabilities. Lessons Learned Information Sharing (LLIS.gov)
serves as the National, on-line network of lessons learned, best
practices, and innovative ideas for the emergency management and
homeland security communities. LLIS.gov provides Federal, State, local,
Tribal, and territorial responders and emergency managers with a wealth
of information and front-line expertise on effective planning,
training, and operational practices across homeland security functional
areas. Best practices, lessons learned, and case studies developed by
practitioners and submitted to LLIS.gov are used in the NPR to
illustrate whole-community preparedness efforts.
Questions From Hon. Susan W. Brooks for Mark Ghilarducci
Question 1. What are your thoughts about the consolidation of non-
disaster grants into a single National Preparedness Grants Program?
Answer. Comprehensive grant reform is necessary to give State and
local public safety officials sufficient flexibility to ensure funds
can be used as effectively as possible. The current grants structure
reduces the flexibility of grantees to invest in capabilities
identified as the highest priority and does not properly incentivize
collaboration between local governments and State agencies. This can
lead to duplication of effort and restricts States from ensuring
resources are used to meet the most critical needs.
Thoughtful reform can ensure the efficient and effective use of
taxpayer dollars while protecting our citizens and our way of life.
Consolidation of the grant programs such as that proposed by the
National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP) is one possible solution. As
the committee considers the NPGP or other reform proposals, the
National Governors Association (NGA) and the Governors' Homeland
Security Advisors Council (GHSAC) encourage you to ensure that any
reforms provide greater flexibility to meet today's dynamic threats
while ensuring transparency, accountability, and collaboration.
Additional improvements could also have a positive impact, such as:
Extending the period of performance.--Lengthening the
current 2-year grant process would better ensure effective use
of taxpayer dollars and lead to more sustainable outcomes. The
condensed 24-month period of performance lends itself to
funding the expedient, but not necessarily the highest priority
or most beneficial projects. This can include projects and
programs that tend to be more complex and comprehensive, such
as interoperable communications or cybersecurity.
Providing better performance metrics.--While Federal
investment in building and sustaining State and local
capabilities has clearly improved community preparedness
Nation-wide, a systematic process to determine both the
qualitative and quantitative value of Federal investments
against preparedness priorities and capability gaps the Nation
has lacked. Establishing more clearly-defined performance
metrics, time lines, and milestones will provide a means to
link investments to National preparedness priorities and
measure progress in filling capability gaps over time.
Strengthening States' leadership role.--States are best-
positioned to understand the daily threats facing their
communities and serve as key facilitators in the homeland
security enterprise. Reform of current grant programs should
provide States with the flexibility to determine which projects
should be funded and where investments should be made within
their own borders.
The Federal Government should also ensure that reforms eliminate
inefficiencies, avoid duplication of effort, and do not place
additional administrative burdens on States.
Question 2. Chairman McCaul and Chairman King recently released a
report on the National Network of Fusion Centers, which among other
things discussed the importance of the National Network to our Nation's
homeland security mission and made recommendations for the network's
improvement. California has a number of fusion centers, six I believe.
Additionally, California is one of the few States that have developed a
coordinated State-wide fusion center program--the State Threat
Assessment System (STAS). How has implementation of this system helped
to enhance California's state of preparedness?
Answer. Since its establishment in 2007, the State Threat
Assessment System (STAS) has significantly enhanced California's
preparedness to counter the full spectrum of threats facing the State.
California's comprehensive STAS is comprised of five Regional Threat
Assessment Centers (RTACs) and a State Threat Assessment Center (STAC).
Our preparedness capability has been supported by the STAS through both
the implementation of a concept of operations governing its activities,
and numerous intelligence coordination and information-sharing
agreements. These enabling agreements have facilitated the creation of
joint threat assessments, information-sharing environments, and the
Terrorism Liaison Officer (TLO) Network. These tools and products help
construct a comprehensive State-wide threat picture and better enable
State and local leaders to efficiently deploy their resources to
prepare for or respond to the threats facing California and the broader
western region.
Through STAS, TLOs are enlisted and trained to serve as
California's front-line defense to disrupt terrorist plots, analyze
disparate pieces of information and share analyses with the National
intelligence community. California's system brings together public
safety agencies at all levels of government and provides first
responders with the tools and training necessary to detect and report
suspicious activity that may be a pre-indicator of terrorism or other
criminal activity. More than 84,000 law enforcement officers and public
safety personnel in California have received training through the
program. We believe our experience with STAS demonstrates how continued
leadership and investment in the Nation's network of fusion centers can
provide a critical resource to meet local, State, and National
intelligence and information-sharing needs.
Question 3. Would you recommend this system or a similar system to
States that have multiple fusion centers?
Answer. The State Threat Assessment System (STAS) could be a force
multiplier for other States with multiple fusion centers, but each
State faces a unique set of circumstances and must have the flexibility
to use systems and processes that best fit their needs. Intelligence
coordination and information sharing are universal concepts within the
fusion center network and implementing a version of California's STAS
concept of operations could enhance those activities in other States.
The STAS has provided California's fusion centers with the ability to
quickly and efficiently share critical intelligence information and
best practices. At the same time, each STAS member center retains its
unique mission and independence so it can provide the focused support
upon which their customers depend.
Question 4. As we move forward in developing the National
Preparedness Report and implementing the National Preparedness System
(NPS), what steps need to be taken to ensure that we are getting an
accurate picture of the Nation's state of preparedness?
Answer. An accurate picture of National preparedness requires a
standardized, Government-wide planning doctrine for disaster
management. States continue to have concerns with integrating NPS
guidance, such as the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment (THIRA), into their annual disaster planning processes. As I
discussed in my written testimony, there are a number of steps FEMA
could take to improve State-Federal engagement on the NPS, streamline
planning processes and make the system work in a truly integrated and
synchronized manner. These recommendations include the following:
FEMA must connect the dots on the NPS.--There has been
little guidance on how the State Preparedness Report, THIRA,
and other parts of the NPS will form a cohesive ``system'' that
will meet the National Preparedness Goal. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) must provide the State, local, Tribal,
and territorial (SLTT) community with a better understanding of
how NPS processes are integrated to meet objectives and measure
performance over time.
The NPS should be given time to mature.--To ensure
implementation and the support of the SLTT community, processes
and doctrine must remain consistent. In many ways, instituting
the NPS will require a cultural shift and changes to entrenched
bureaucracies. Stability and continuity will ensure that new
processes and procedures have the opportunity to take root
within all levels of government and are fully integrated as the
NPS was designed.
Elements of the NPS need to be aligned and synchronized.--
Recently, regional THIRAs were performed by FEMA Regional
Offices before State THIRAs were complete. For the NPS to be
effective, deliverables should be synchronized and better
aligned to ensure valuable information from States and
localities can be included in regional plans. This small but
important change will provide senior leadership at all levels
with a shared situational awareness about the risks,
capabilities, assets, and resources that exist across and
within jurisdictions.
Furthermore, reform of Federal preparedness grant programs would
allow States to better align Federal and State funding with capability
targets identified through the NPS process. In combination with the
recommendations above, grant reform would ensure that Federal
investments in State and local capabilities are supporting State-wide
and regional needs, as well as the overall objectives of the National
Preparedness Goal.
Question 5. How do we ensure that the whole community is included
in the development process for the National Preparedness Report (NPR)?
Answer. States are taking a number of steps to ensure that local
communities are part of the disaster planning and funding allocation
process. This includes involving cities and municipalities in the THIRA
process early on, so that State THIRAs are informed and aligned with
the needs of local communities and the surrounding region. As mentioned
above, better alignment and synchronization of NPS products would help
support State efforts to improve collaboration with partners at the
local and municipal levels and solicit their valuable input into State-
wide risk assessments and preparedness reviews. The Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and FEMA could also take several steps to
facilitate better collaboration and ensure that feedback from all
relevant stakeholders is comprehensive and provides value to the NPR.
These recommendations include the following:
Existing relationships with State stakeholder groups should
be better utilized. DHS and FEMA could take better advantage of
existing State efforts, associations, and councils, such as the
GHSAC, to solicit input and feedback on NPS guidance and
programs. As much as FEMA and the Federal Government are
leading these efforts, effective collaboration must go both
ways. Innovations at the State level in these areas can better
inform the development of Federal guidance and operating
procedures.
Federal outreach must happen earlier with more time allotted
for feedback. DHS has concurrently solicited SLTT input on a
series of draft planning documents (including the National
Infrastructure Protection Plan). This has made it a challenge
for some stakeholders to prioritize feedback requests and
provide a timely response under the tight deadlines provided.
If DHS seeks meaningful input from SLTT stakeholders, a
reasonable amount of time--certainly more than a couple of
weeks--must be offered.
Promote shared awareness of regional resources and expand
mutual aid capabilities. Knowledge of regional assets and
capabilities is critical for State preparedness and response
planning. For States to provide accurate capabilities
assessments, they must be able to account for the resources and
assistance available just across their borders. FEMA is best
positioned to facilitate better coordination through its
regional offices by supporting mutual aid agreements and
awareness of resources between States and the FEMA regions.
Questions From Hon. Susan W. Brooks for Jeffrey W. Walker
Question 1. What are your thoughts about the consolidation of non-
disaster grants into a single National Preparedness Grant Program?
Answer.
Combining Non-disaster Grants
Non-disaster grants include a wide variety of grant programs that
cover a number of different areas of responsibility. Some of these
areas would not make good candidates for joining together in one over-
arching grant program. For example, the Emergency Management
Performance Grant Program (EMPG) should not be included in any grant
consolidation program. The Emergency Management Performance Grant
Program (EMPG) should be maintained as a separate all-hazard program
focused on capacity-building for all-hazards preparedness, response,
recovery, and mitigation at the State, local, and Tribal levels for
those entities statutorily charged with such responsibility. All
disasters start and end at the local level, which emphasizes the
importance of building and sustaining this capacity at the local
governmental level. Funding from EMPG frequently makes a difference as
to whether or not a qualified person is present to perform these duties
in a local jurisdiction.
EMPG is fundamentally different from the suite of post-September
11, 2001 homeland security grants. It has been in existence since the
1950's, requires a 50% State, Tribal, and local match and has
established performance measures. EMPG, called ``the backbone of the
Nation's emergency management system'' in a Congressional report
constitutes the only source of direct Federal funding for State and
local governments to provide basic emergency coordination and planning
capabilities including those related to homeland security. The program
supports State and local government initiatives for planning, training,
exercises, public education, as well as response and recovery
coordination during actual events.
In addition, the Firefighter Assistance program grants and the Pre-
Disaster Mitigation grants should not be included in any consolidation
proposal.
Administration's National Preparedness Grant Program Proposal
Along with 12 other National organizations of local elected
officials, police chiefs, sheriffs, and the major fire organizations,
IAEM-USA voiced our concern about the administration's fiscal year 2014
budget proposal. This proposal would combine the current suite of DHS
homeland security grant programs into a State-administered block and
competitive grant program in which funding decisions would be based on
State and multi-State threat assessments without clear local
involvement. The proposal posited the use of a Threat and Hazard
Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) but did not describe the
role of locals in the process or how to handle a disagreement on the
results.
We believe that such a consolidation proposal should be carefully
considered by the authorization committees and not accomplished through
the appropriations process. It is our understanding that the
administration will be submitting a legislative proposal to the
authorization committees and we look forward to reviewing that language
and having discussions with FEMA and the committees. Without the
specific language it is difficult to evaluate.
Our 13 organizations agreed on a set of principles for reforming
the homeland security grant programs to include transparency, local
involvement, flexibility and accountability, local funding, terrorism
prevention, and incentives for regionalization. We will review the
language with these principles in mind.
Question 2. As we move forward in developing the National
Preparedness Report (NPR) and implementing the National Preparedness
System, what steps need to be taken to ensure that we are getting an
accurate picture of the Nation's state of preparedness?
Answer. Elected Government leaders, legislative bodies, emergency
responders, and citizens have been asking the question, ``How prepared
are we?'' This question has loomed large in our minds since September
11, 2001--and even more so in recent years with their economic
constraints. We have traditionally answered this question by reciting
anecdotal stories or visually displaying data related to the things we
can count--what we have purchased and activities we have undertaken--in
maps, charts, tables, and graphs. Unfortunately, these stories and data
have had little meaning absent a framework against which to interpret
their meaning. The NPR has attempted to provide such a framework by
looking at the 31 core capabilities strictly from the perspective of
the Federal and State government. Most of the capability within the
United States actually resides at the local government level (below the
State level) and does not appear to be reflected in the NPR data.
Jurisdictions at all levels invest in emergency management
preparedness activities to ensure, to the degree possible, that their
jurisdiction is ready to efficiently and effectively mitigate, prepare
for, respond to, and recover from hazard events. Thus, the answer to
the question posed by this committee is quite important. And, to this
point jurisdictions at all levels have not been able to answer
satisfactorily.
If we desire a system of measurement that allows us to assess the
extent to which we are prepared as a result of our investments in
emergency management, then we must ensure that the system must be
simple, relevant, and valued across stakeholder groups (including
Congress, FEMA, and State, territory, Tribal, and local jurisdictions).
The system and any associated tools must facilitate the local
jurisdiction's understanding of the status of its preparedness and what
remains to be accomplished as well as the Federal Government's
understanding of the extent to which the Nation is prepared.
In 2011 the U.S. Council of the International Association of
Emergency Managers (IAEM-USA) released a document entitled,
Preparedness: A Principled Approach to Return on Investment, which
tackles this important issue by articulating a meaningful system of
measurement for the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) that
IAEM-USA believes will also be simple, relevant, and valued. The EMPG
program, in place since the 1950's is intended to be a 50-50 matching
program between the Federal Government and participating local, State,
Tribal, and territory jurisdictions designed to build capacity at all
levels of government.
It may be easiest to introduce what a meaningful framework against
which to measure preparedness would entail if we first begin at the end
with our vision of what a prepared jurisdiction (at any level) would be
able to do in the aftermath of hazard events. We know what we want. We
want jurisdictions across the Nation to be able to effectively
mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from hazard events. We
want to limit injuries and deaths, property and infrastructure loss,
and environmental damage after a hazard event. We want jurisdictions to
manage hazard events at the lowest possible level and with their own
resources if possible. We want jurisdictions that can efficiently and
effectively utilize their resources and the resources of supporting
jurisdictions to get what they need, when they need it, where they need
it. We want jurisdictions to be able to quickly get their jurisdictions
back to normal and better than normal if possible. And, we want to know
that this vision will be consistently achieved in the wake of hazard
events. Making this vision a reality is the job of emergency
management.
How emergency management makes this vision a reality is not
adequately captured through anecdotal stories or reports of the number
of equipment purchased or plans produced. Simple stories and numbers do
not alone paint a picture of preparedness nor do they get at the heart
of what ultimately allow jurisdictions to achieve our vision.
A prepared jurisdiction is one that engages in preparedness actions
guided by professional emergency managers and professional emergency
management programs. The jurisdiction's preparedness actions are driven
by the risks that they face. The jurisdiction has comprehensively
considered all known hazards, vulnerabilities, and possible impacts and
actively engages in preparedness actions related to mitigation,
response, and recovery. The jurisdiction is progressive by
incorporating innovations, technologies, and best practices as they
ready themselves for future hazard events. The jurisdiction's
preparedness actions have provided a legitimate basis upon which to act
in the wake of hazard events but are not so rigid as to lack the
flexibility to respond to unanticipated issues. The stakeholders in the
jurisdiction (e.g., fire, police, public works, and elected officials)
are integrated by their use of common technologies, systems, and
management processes. The jurisdiction operates in a collaborative
organizational environment wherein inclusiveness, relationships based
on trust, on-going interactions between stakeholders, open
communication, and consensus-based decision making are the norm. And,
finally, the prepared jurisdiction would be coordinated; the
stakeholders within the jurisdiction would know and accept their roles,
have identified the procedures necessary to fulfill their roles, and
have practiced the fulfillment of their roles in conjunction with other
stakeholders.
A prepared jurisdiction is the goal of every emergency management
practitioner and every emergency management program. Bringing about the
description above is the reason emergency management exists. The EMPG
program allows emergency management to work toward these outcomes;
therefore, our objectives and measures associated with EMPG should be
designed to measure progress towards these goals. We strongly believe
that the principles outlined above may have wider applicability than
simply measuring the return on investment in EMPG funding.
IAEM suggests in Preparedness that a framework of preparedness
objectives based on the accepted Principles of Emergency Management
(2007) should be used to derive meaningful objectives and measures for
the preparedness grant program most valued by local emergency
managers--EMPG. This argument is supported by decades of disaster and
emergency management research. The fact is the things we buy and the
activities we undertake with preparedness funds are critical because
they contribute to our ability to achieve these outcomes.
Preparedness suggests a principle-based process to developing
measures of return on investment for EMPG. The second part lays out a
cohesive framework of outcomes. We are pleased to present the document
to this committee, and we urge dialogue within Congress and FEMA with a
goal of adopting the framework presented by IAEM-USA as a means to
assess the overall preparedness of our Nation.
Question 3. How do we ensure that the whole community is included
in the development process for the National Preparedness Report?
Answer. IAEM-USA suggests that following the model proposed in our
document will create a process that is more inclusive of the whole
community, and the impact those interactions have on the overall level
of preparedness within our Nation.
Questions From Hon. Susan W. Brooks for James Schwartz
Question 1. In the National Preparedness Report, the intelligence
and information-sharing capability was listed as one of the areas of
National strength. However, I'm concerned that the report overlooked
the lack of information sharing between Federal and State law
enforcement entities and first responders, specifically fire fighters.
How can we improve this interaction to ensure that our fire service
personnel and other first responders are aware of any criminal or
terrorist activity in the communities they serve?
Answer. This issue continues to be a constant problem for the fire
and emergency services, even though there has been improvement.
Effective information sharing for the fire and emergency service must
meet two important criteria:
(1) It must be timely.--In many cases, information from the fusion
centers comes out after press reports. This problem is to be
expected in the case of an on-going terrorist attack where CNN
and the major news networks will display the events in real-
time as Federal, State, Tribal, and local authorities try to
determine what is happening. However, it is a problem, when the
information distributed by a fusion center warning about a
possible threat does not add any information beyond what fire
chiefs can pick up from public sources.
(2) It must provide information that fire chiefs can use to take
action to protect their communities.--Much of the information
from fusion centers is not much different than information that
chiefs can infer or obtain from public sources. Many fire
chiefs take actions to protect their communities based on this
information and information gained from relationships with
Federal, State, Tribal, and local authorities in their
jurisdictions. The best information is strategic information
that will influence the response capabilities that a fire chief
develops.
One example of a successful information-sharing partnership is the
Joint Counterterrrorism Assessment Team (JCAT), which is part of the
National Counterterrorism Center. The JCAT invites local first
responders to work with intelligence analysts to develop information-
sharing products that are written from the first responders'
perspective. These products include information about potential
terrorists' threats, tactics, and techniques, along with how local
communities can prepare for these threats.
Question 2. What are your thoughts about the consolidation of non-
disaster grants into a single National Preparedness Grant Program
(NPGP)?
Answer. The IAFC continues to be concerned about the
administration's National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP) proposal.
Over the past 2 years, we have asked for more information about how the
program would work and offered to engage in negotiations with the
administration to develop a grant program that meets the needs of local
first responders, the administration, and other stakeholders. However,
we have not received detailed information about how the NPGP would
actually work.
While the revised NPGP proposal for fiscal year 2014 meets some of
our previous concerns, we continue to believe that a successful reform
of the existing homeland security grant programs must include the
principle of local input into the grant determination process. The
local first responders will be the first on-scene in an incident and
will remain in the community afterwards. In addition, local first
responders best know their preparedness capabilities and where the
potential targets and weaknesses are in their communities. Any
successful grant program must include the participation of all
stakeholders: Federal, State, Tribal, and local.
Question 3. As we move forward in developing the National
Preparedness Report and implementing the National Preparedness System,
what steps need to be taken to ensure that we are getting an accurate
picture of the Nation's state of preparedness?
Answer. The first thing that we need to decide as a Nation is
whether we would like to measure outputs or outcomes. Many analysts try
to use a quantitative approach that measures the number of fire
apparatus, search-and-rescue teams, etc. purchased with Federal funds.
This method is simpler to use, but misses the true qualitative approach
needed to measure preparedness. A more outcome-based approach would
focus on concepts such as better coordination by local communities and
regions, better training, possession of the necessary resources, and
other factors that would result in an effective response.
The National Preparedness Goal focuses on the development of
capabilities that are important to an effective response. However, it
makes an important error in not including fire fighting as a core
capability. Many fire and emergency service departments are involved in
the core capabilities, such as Threats and Hazard Identification, Mass
Search and Rescue Operations, Public Health and Medical Services, and
Operational Communications. However, all of these capabilities require
fire departments to engage in activities above their baseline mission.
It is difficult to measure the preparedness of fire and emergency
departments to perform these other capabilities without a definition of
the baseline mission of the department.
In order to get a comprehensive understanding of the Nation's
preparedness, the IAFC recommends that the administration look at not
only preparedness activities taken through Federal mandates and
funding, but also what the States and localities are doing. States,
like Virginia, complete an Annual Fire Service Assessment for the
Virginia State Assembly. Non-governmental organizations, such as the
National Fire Protection Association, complete semi-annual needs
assessments for the fire and emergency services that provide
information about the Nation's preparedness at the State and local
level. In addition, there are numerous academic analyses of the
Nation's preparedness and response capabilities. In order to
effectively measure the Nation's National preparedness, FEMA should
include reports and assessments from Federal, State, Tribal, and local
governments, non-governmental organizations, and academic institutions.
Question 4. How do we ensure that the whole community is included
in the development process for the National Preparedness Report?
Answer. It is important for FEMA to work with all stakeholders to
examine a comprehensive picture of what is happening. As stated above,
there are numerous analyses being completed by Tribal, State, local,
non-governmental, and academic entities. These entities should be
engaged in developing the National Preparedness Report. In addition,
the report should reflect that local communities and regions have
relationships that fall outside of the Federal sphere, and FEMA should
work with these communities and regions to include their perspectives
in this report.