Chapter 7: Statutory Authority

**Chapter Outline**

1.  Introduction of topics and concepts to be discussed in the chapter.

    a.  Legal basis of modern emergency management in the United States.

    b.  Budget authority.

    c.  Program eligibility.

    d.  Roles and responsibilities.

2.  Case Studies

    a.  The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP):
        Legislation to Address a Particular Hazard

    b.  The Homeland Security Act of 2002: A New Emergency Management

    c.  The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000: A Shift to Pre-Disaster
        Mitigation

3.  Additional Sources of Information

4.  Glossary of Terms

5.  Acronyms

6.  Discussion Questions

    a.  General

    b.  NEHRP

    c.  Homeland Security Act of 2002

    d.  DMA 2000

7.  Suggested Out of Class Exercises

## Introduction

No emergency management system anywhere in the world can properly
function without statutory authority and consistent budget
appropriations. Statutory authority defines disasters programs,
determines who is eligible for these programs, provides the legal
support needed to implement disaster programs and establishes the legal
foundation for funding the programs and activities of the disaster
agency. Without such authority, a government agency is powerless.

**Legal Basis of Modern Emergency Management in the United States**

The first recorded emergency management legislation in the United States
occurred in 1803 when a Congressional Act was passed to provide
financial assistance to a New Hampshire town devastated by fire. This is
the first example of the Federal government becoming involved in a local
disaster. During the 1930's the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and
the Bureau of Public Roads were both given authority to make disaster
loans available for repair and reconstruction of certain public
facilities after disasters. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was
created during this time to produce hydroelectric power and, as a
secondary purpose, to reduce flooding in the region. The Flood Control
Act of 1934 gave the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers increased authority to
design and build flood control projects.

The next notable time frame for the evolution of emergency management
occurs during the 1950's. The era of the Cold War presented the
principal disaster risk as the potential for nuclear war and nuclear
fallout. Civil Defense programs proliferated across communities during
this time. Federal support for these activities was vested in the
Federal Civil Defense Administration (FCDA) and the Federal Civil
Defense Act of 1950.

The 1950's were a quiet time for large-scale natural disasters.
Hurricane Hazel, a Category 4 hurricane inflicted significant damage in
Virginia and North Carolina in 1954. Hurricane Diane hit several
Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states in 1955 and Hurricane Audrey, the
most damaging of the three storms, struck Louisiana and North Texas in
1957. Congressional response to these disasters followed a familiar
pattern of ad hoc legislation to provide increased disaster assistance
funds to the impacted areas.

In the 1960's the United States would be struck by a series of major
natural disasters. The Ash Wednesday Storm in 1962 devastated over 620
miles of shoreline on the East Coast, producing over \$300 million in
damages. In 1964, an earthquake measuring 9.2 on the Richter scale in
the Prince William Sound, Alaska, became front-page news through out
America and the world. This Easter quake generated a tsunami that
effected beaches as far down the Pacific Coast as California and killed
123 people. Hurricane Betsey struck in 1965 and Hurricane Camille in
1969 killing and injuring hundreds and causing hundreds of millions of
dollars in damage along the Gulf Coast.

As with previous disasters, the response was passage of ad hoc
legislation for funds. However, the financial losses resulting from
Hurricane Betsey's path across Florida and Louisiana started a
discussion of insurance as a protection against future floods and a
potential method to reduce continued government assistance after
disasters. Congressional interest was prompted by the unavailability of
flood protection insurance on the standard homeowner policy. Where it
was available, it was cost prohibitive. These discussions, eventually
led to passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 that created
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

Congressman Hale Boggs of Louisiana is appropriately credited with
steering this unique legislation through the Congress. Unlike previous
emergency management/disaster legislation, this bill sought to do
something about the risk before the disaster struck. It brought the
concept of community-based mitigation into the practice of emergency
management. In simple terms, when a community joined the NFIP, in
exchange for making federally subsidized, low cost flood insurance
available to its citizens, the community had to pass an ordinance
restricting future development in its floodplains. The Federal
government also agreed to help local communities by producing maps of
their community's floodplains.

The NFIP began as a voluntary program as part of a political compromise
that Boggs reached with then Senator Tom Eagleton of Missouri. As a
voluntary program, few communities joined. After Hurricane Camille
struck the Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi coasts in 1969, the goals
of the NFIP to protect people's financial investments and to reduce
government disaster expenditures were not being met. But it took
Hurricane Agnes devastating Florida, for a change to occur.

George Bernstein, brought down from New York by President Nixon to run
the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) within the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), proposed linking the mandatory
purchase of flood insurance to all homeowner loans backed by Federal
mortgages. This change created an incentive for communities to join the
NFIP, as a significant portion of the home mortgage market was federally
backed. This change became the Flood Insurance Act of 1972.

In the 1970's, responsibility for emergency management functions were
evident in more than five Federal Departments and Agencies including the
Department of Commerce (weather, warning and fire protection); the
General Services Administration (continuity of government, stockpiling,
federal preparedness), the Treasury Department (import investigation),
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (power plants) and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (flood insurance and disaster relief).

With passage of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, prompted by the
previously mentioned hurricanes and the San Fernando earthquake of 1971,
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) possessed the most
significant authority for natural disaster response and recovery through
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) under the Federal Insurance
Administration (FIA) and the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration
(disaster response, temporary housing and assistance). On the military
side, there existed the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency (nuclear
attack) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (flood control). However,
when one looked at the broad range of risks and potential disasters,
more than 100 federal agencies were involved in some aspects of risk and
disasters.

This pattern continued down to the State and, to a lesser extent, local
levels. There were parallel organizations and programs that added to
confusion and turf wars especially during disaster response efforts. The
States and the Governors grew increasingly frustrated over this
fragmentation. In the absence of one clear Federal lead agency in
emergency management, an effort was initiated through the National
Governor's Association to consolidate Federal emergency management
activities in one agency.

In the midst of these efforts, an accident occurred at the Three Mile
Island Nuclear Power Plant in Pennsylvania, which added impetus to the
consolidation effort. This accident brought national media attention to
the lack of adequate off-site preparedness around commercial nuclear
power plants and the role of the Federal government in responding to
such an event.

On June 19, 1978, President Carter transmitted to the Congress, the
Reorganization Plan Number 3 (3 CFR 1978, 5 U.S. Code 903). The intent
of this plan was to consolidate emergency preparedness, mitigation, and
response activities into one federal emergency management organization.
The President stated that the plan would provide for the establishment
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and that the FEMA
Director would report directly to the President.

Subsequent to Congressional review and concurrence, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency was officially established by Executive
Order 12127 of March 31, 1979 (44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, Comp., p.376). A
second Executive Order, Executive Order 12148, mandated reassignment of
agencies, programs and personnel into the new entity FEMA.

The most sweeping piece of disaster relief legislation was the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 (Public
Law 93-288). The Stafford Act includes the following provisions:
cost-sharing requirements for public assistance programs; provided funds
for states and local governments to manage public assistance programs;
encouraged hazard mitigation through a new grant program; and, gave the
federal government the authority to provide assistance for disasters
regardless of cause. The Act outlines the process for a Presidential
Disaster Declaration and defines eligibility requirements for applicants
for individual and public assistance. The Act also laid the legislative
groundwork for the development and implementation of the Federal
Response Plan (FRP) that is activated during a catastrophic disaster to
marshal the full resources of the Federal government to support and
state and local governments.

These legislative actions establish the statutory authority for the
Federal government to support a national emergency management system in
three critical areas: budget authority, program eligibility and roles
and responsibilities.

**Budget Authority**

The bulk of past emergency management legislation at the Federal level
has been prompted by disaster events and was created to address the need
to provide Federal disaster assistance to communities and individuals.
In effect these pieces of legislation were devised to provide the budget
authority for spending Federal funds in helping communities and
individuals to recover from catastrophic disasters. Budget authority is
also provided for funding the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), the Disaster Relief Fund and the functions of the Federal
Response Plan. Funds have also been authorized for preparedness and
mitigation programs.

**Program Eligibility**

Current statutory authority defines eligibility requirements for
individuals and communities for receiving Federal disaster assistance.
This authority has established preparedness and mitigation programs
designed to help communities and individuals be better prepared to
respond and recover from disasters and to reduce the impacts of future
disasters. Legislative action created the National Flood Insurance
Program and defined the requirements that communities must meet to
participate in the program and permit their citizens to purchase
government subsidized flood insurance.

**Roles and Responsibilities**

These legislative authorities serve to define the roles and
responsibilities of those Federal agencies and departments involved in
emergency management. This issue was especially critical in the creation
of FEMA and defining FEMA's role through the Federal Response Plan in
coordinating the actions of other Federal agencies and departments in
supporting state and local disaster response efforts. The legislation
also defines the roles and responsibilities of local and state
government officials in seeking Federal disaster assistance through a
Presidential Disaster Declaration.

The three case studies included in this chapter were prompted initially
by disaster events and include language concerning budget authority,
program eligibility and roles and responsibilities. The National
Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) was designed to address
issues surrounding a specific hazard (earthquakes) and provides budget
authority and roles and responsibilities for those Federal agencies
authorized to implement the provisions of the Act. The Homeland Security
Act of 2002 established the new department of Homeland Security in
response to the September 11 attacks and brought together agencies and
programs from across the Federal government much as the legislation that
established FEMA did in 1979. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 is a
good illustration of legislation that redefines spending and budget
authorities. The Act authorized FEMA to spend Federal funds on hazard
mitigation projects prior to a Presidential Disaster Declaration for the
first time.

Case 7.1: The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP):
Legislation to Address a Particular Hazard

### Introduction

Since its inception in 1977, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program (NEHRP) has been the cornerstone of emergency management
mitigation, planning and response to the earthquake related disasters in
the United States. The program, now led by the National Institute for
Standards and Technology (NIST), is a partnership of some of the
nation's most highly recognized Federal agencies involved in scientific
research and development, including the United States Geological Survey
(USGS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).

Today, these four agencies work hand-in-hand to provide our country, and
the international community to a degree, the education and tools
necessary to be successful in earthquake disaster management. NEHRP\'s
mission includes not only the improved understanding, characterization
and prediction of the earthquake hazard, but also has a strong focus on
managing and mitigating the earthquake hazard in the built environment.

This case examines the earthquake hazard within the United States, and
the passage of legislation by congress to create the Federal mitigation
program in response to this recognized natural hazard. Additionally, the
program's accomplishments and currently-revised status are detailed.

### Earthquakes in the United States

An earthquake is a sudden movement of the Earth, caused by an abrupt
release of accumulated strain between two or more of the earth's plates.
When the crust of the Earth is subject to tectonic forces, a certain
amount of deformation results. Due to the rigidity of the Earth's crust,
cracking or jerked movements can occur when the stress or pressure from
the tectonic forces exceeds the yield strength of the adjacent plates.
This activity creates vibrations called seismic waves. These waves
travel through the earth and along its surface. These seismic waves
cause the ground shaking of an earthquake (HR, 2003).

Earthquakes are most commonly measured in the United States using one of
two scales. The first, called the **Richter scale**, is used by
seismologists to express the seismic energy released by an earthquake.
The scale is logarithmic, and ranges in magnitude from 1 to 10. Though
this scale does not measure the intensity of shaking at ground level,
Figure 7.1.1 displays typical effects observed at various Richter
magnitude ranges. Another scale developed to measure the earthquake
hazard, called the **Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale**, specifically
measures the effects of an earthquake at different sites. This scale is
commonly used by seismologists seeking information on the severity of
earthquake effects, which can be more useful in determining damages
caused by the event. Intensity ratings are expressed as Roman numerals
between I at the low end, and XII at the high end (see sidebar 7.1.1).
The Intensity Scale differs from the [Richter Magnitude
Scale](http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/magnitude.html)
in that the effects of any one earthquake vary greatly from place to
place, so there may be many Intensity values (e.g.: IV, VII) measured
from one earthquake. Each earthquake, on the other hand, should have
just one Magnitude (although it is common for different stations to come
up with slightly differing values.)

[]{.mark}

The earthquake hazard is present throughout all of the fifty United
States. The hazard zones fluctuate in severity depending upon proximity
to faults in the earth's crust, as depicted in the hazard map displayed
in Figure 7.1.2. Although the west coast and Alaska are famous for their
propensity for earthquakes, the central and eastern parts of the country
share this risk often unbeknownst to the residents of those areas.

#### **History of Earthquakes in the United States**

In the United States, earthquake records exist dating back to the late
14^th^ century. Though they have occurred with moderate to severe
intensity throughout the country, the most recent events have occurred
in the western U.S. The following list highlights the most significant
events in the past two centuries.

1.  New Madrid earthquakes; New Madrid, Missouri; 1811-1812

2.  San Francisco earthquakes; San Francisco, California; 1906

3.  Alaska "Easter Sunday" earthquake; 1964

4.  San Fernando earthquake; San Fernando, California; 1971

5.  The Loma Prieta Earthquake; California; 1989

6.  Northridge earthquake; California; 1994

These quakes have each played a significant role in the study of
earthquake hazard mitigation in the United States; perhaps none more so
than the Easter Sunday earthquake of 1964 and the San Fernando
earthquake in 1971. The Easter Sunday earthquake violently shook
Anchorage, Alaska and its surroundings in 1964, and caused the formation
of a tsunami. This earthquake is recognized as one of the driving forces
behind the commencement of formalized research of the causes of the
earthquake hazard in the United States (Bullock, 2004). The San Fernando
earthquake of 1971 resulted in an expansion of ongoing research such
that mitigation of the hazard was examined. The San Fernando earthquake
registered as Magnitude 6.5 on the Richter scale, killing 58 people and
injuring over 2,000, and caused over \$500 million in damages.

[]{.mark}

### NEHRP

The earthquakes experienced in the United States in the 1960's and
1970's caught the attention of the American people, and of the national
science community. They also drew the attention of Congress. In
particular, Congressman George E. Brown, Jr., a democrat from
California, realized the need for a national plan to respond to and
recover from major earthquake disasters.

In 1977, Congressman Brown spearheaded what is known today as the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). Through his work,
Congressman Brown brought attention to the fact that, while the county
was making strides in earthquake research, it was still lacking public
policy relating to prevention of the tragedy associated with such
events. Additionally, he recognized that there was little in terms of
response mechanisms that addressed the specific hazard. Brown sought to
spur the creation of building codes and infrastructure changes to
mitigate the earthquake hazard, and to develop a response plan and the
drills necessary to increase readiness for these destructive, mass
casualty events.

The roots of Brown's legislation appeared in the mid 1970\'s. At that
time, concern over the 1971 San Fernando earthquake and the 'Palmdale
Bulge' seismic zone in southern California led to the formation of the
Newmark-Stever Committee by the President\'s Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP). The committee was originally created to
develop a program to understand and address the seismic hazards in
southern California, but their mission was later expanded to include
earthquake hazards on a national scale. The committee\'s recommendations
eventually became the basis of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act,
which became Public Law 95-124 on October 7, 1977.

Congress detailed the assumptions under which they based the program
within the act. Explicitly stated within its verbiage are the following
declarations:

1.  All 50 States are vulnerable to the hazards of earthquakes, and at
    least 39 of them are subject to major or moderate seismic risk,
    including Alaska, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts,
    Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina,
    Utah, and Washington. A large portion of the population of the
    United States lives in areas vulnerable to earthquake hazards.

2.  Earthquakes have caused, and can cause in the future, enormous loss
    of life, injury, destruction of property, and economic and social
    disruption. With respect to future earthquakes, such loss,
    destruction, and disruption can be substantially reduced through the
    development and implementation of earthquake hazards reduction
    measures, including (A) improved design and construction methods and
    practices, (B) land-use controls and redevelopment, (C) prediction
    techniques and early-warning systems, (D) coordinated emergency
    preparedness plans, and (E) public education and involvement
    programs.

3.  An expertly staffed and adequately financed earthquake hazards
    reduction program, based on Federal, State, local, and private
    research, planning, decision making, and contributions would reduce
    the risk of such loss, destruction, and disruption in seismic areas
    by an amount far greater than the cost of such program.

4.  A well-funded seismological research program in earthquake
    prediction could provide data adequate for the design, of an
    operational system that could predict accurately the time, place,
    magnitude, and physical effects of earthquakes in selected areas of
    the United States.

5.  The geological study of active faults and features can reveal how
    recently and how frequently major earthquakes have occurred on those
    faults and how much risk they pose. Such long-term seismic risk
    assessments are needed in virtually every aspect of earthquake
    hazards management, whether emergency planning, public regulation,
    detailed building design, insurance rating, or investment decision.

6.  The vulnerability of buildings, lifelines, public works, and
    industrial and emergency facilities can be reduced through proper
    earthquake resistant design and construction practices. The economy
    and efficacy of such procedures can be substantially increased
    through research and development.

7.  Programs and practices of departments and agencies of the United
    States are important to the communities they serve; some functions,
    such as emergency communications and national defense, and
    lifelines, such as dams, bridges, and public works, must remain in
    service during and after an earthquake. Federally owned, operated,
    and influenced structures and lifelines should serve as models for
    how to reduce and minimize hazards to the community.

8.  The implementation of earthquake hazards reduction measures would,
    as an added benefit, also reduce the risk of loss, destruction, and
    disruption from other natural hazards and manmade hazards, including
    hurricanes, tornadoes, accidents, explosions, landslides, building
    and structural cave-ins, and fires.

9.  Reduction of loss, destruction, and disruption from earthquakes will
    depend on the actions of individuals, and organizations in the
    private sector and governmental units at Federal, State, and local
    levels. The current capability to transfer knowledge and information
    to these sectors is insufficient. Improved mechanisms are needed to
    translate

10. Existing information and research findings into reasonable and
    usable specifications, criteria, and practices so that individuals,
    organizations, and governmental units may make informed decisions
    and take appropriate actions.

11. Severe earthquakes are a worldwide problem. Since damaging
    earthquakes occur infrequently in any one nation, international
    cooperation is desirable for mutual learning from limited
    experiences.

12. An effective Federal program in earthquake hazards reduction will
    require input from and review by persons outside the Federal
    Government expert in the sciences of earthquake hazards reduction
    and in the practical application of earthquake hazards reduction
    measures.

The Act established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
(NEHRP) as a long-term, nationwide, earthquake risk reduction program.
It also designated member agencies from within the Federal government,
and denoted their activities and responsibilities (Runden, 1997).
NEHRP\'s primary goals, as stated in the Act, where:

-   The improvement of understanding, characterization and prediction of
    hazards and vulnerabilities

-   The improvement of model building codes and land use practices

-   Risk reduction through post-earthquake investigations and education

-   The development and improvement of design and construction
    techniques

-   An improved earthquake mitigation capacity; and

-   Accelerated application of research results.

FEMA was designated as lead agency of the program, and the Act assigned
it several programmatic, planning, coordination, and reporting
responsibilities (WSSPC, 2003). These include:

-   To prepare annual program budgets;

-   To ensure that the program included the necessary steps to promote
    the implementation of earthquake hazard reduction measures by
    Federal, State, and local governments, national standards and model
    building code organizations, architects and engineers, and others
    with a role in planning and constructing buildings and lifelines;

-   To prepare a written plan for the program, including specific tasks
    and milestones for each partner agency, which would by updated as
    required no less frequently than every 3 years;

-   To prepare reports that describe the program's activities and
    achievements; and

-   To request the assistance of Federal agencies (other than the
    program partners), as necessary, to assist in carrying out the
    mission of the program.

As a program member, FEMA was responsible for:

-   Operation of a grant and technical assistance program which would
    enable States to do the following:

    -   develop preparedness and response plans

    -   prepare inventories and conduct seismic safety inspections of
        critical structures and lifelines

    -   update building and zoning codes and ordinances to enhance
        seismic safety

    -   increase earthquake awareness and education, and

    -   encourage the development of multi-State groups for these
        purposes.

-   Preparation and execution of a comprehensive earthquake education
    and public awareness program, including the development of materials
    and their wide dissemination to schools and the general public;

-   Preparation and dissemination of information on building codes and
    practices for structures and lifelines;

-   The development and coordination of Federal interagency plans to
    respond to an earthquake, with specific plans for each high-risk
    area, which ensure the availability of adequate emergency medical
    resources, search and rescue personnel and equipment, and emergency
    broadcast capability;

-   Development of approaches to combine earthquake hazard reduction
    measures with measures for reduction of other natural and
    technological hazards; and

-   Provision of response recommendations to communities after an
    earthquake prediction has been made.

### FEMA was the controversial partner during the development of NEHRP. The agency was clearly the newest of all the partners in the project in 1977. As such, it had little clout in Federal policy decision making and little respect from other federal agencies, including its 3 partners in the NEHRP program (Bullock, 2004). However, the organization was resilient, and out of the work to create a response plan to deal with a catastrophic earthquake came the roots of the Federal Response Plan (FRP). Another internationally renowned program led by FEMA, the Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) team program, also traces its roots to FEMA's NEHRP-related research into earthquake response and recovery.

The other program partners included the United Stated Geological Survey
(USGS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Each of their stated
functions follows below.

**United States Geological Survey (USGS)**

The primary function of the USGS as a member of NEHRP was to conduct
research, especially as it related to characterizing and identifying
earthquake hazards, assessing earthquake risks, monitoring seismic
activity, and improving earthquake prediction capabilities.
Specifically, the USGS was tasked with:

-   Conducting a systematic assessment of the country's identified
    seismic risks zones, and where appropriate, establishing and
    operating seismic monitoring projects.

-   Conducting seismic '**microzonation**' studies in urban and other
    developed areas where earthquake risk was determined to be
    significant;

-   Working with State and local government officials governments to
    ensure that they are knowledgeable about the specific seismic risks
    in their areas;

-   The development of standard procedures for issuing earthquake
    predictions, including aftershock advisories;

-   When necessary, the issuance of earthquake predictions or other
    earthquake advisories;

-   The establishment of a Center for the International Exchange of
    Earthquake Information which:

    -   promotes the exchange of information on earthquake research and
        earthquake preparedness between the United States and other
        nations;

    -   maintains a library containing selected reports, research
        papers, and data produced through the program; and

    -   answers requests from other nations for information on United
        States earthquake research and earthquake preparedness programs.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Operation of a National Seismic Network;

-   Support of regional seismic networks, which shall complement the
    National Seismic Network.

The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program monitors the Nation's earthquakes,
studies why they occur and how they shake the ground, provides
quantitative earthquake-hazard assessments, helps promote loss-reduction
measures using these results, and provides crucial scientific
information to assist emergency responders when earthquakes occur. The
program's work is carried out by USGS scientific and technical personnel
and also through a system of competitive external grants and contracts
that is allotted twenty-five percent of the program's funds. In the past
25 years, the grant program has funded approximately 2,500 grants and
cooperative agreements with state geological surveys, university
researchers and research consortia, state and local government agencies,
and nonprofit and other organizations in the private sector.

The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program is now recognized as a leader in
seismic-hazard studies. In implementing the results of these studies to
mitigate the effects of earthquakes, USGS has actively collaborated with
state geological surveys, emergency-response officials, earthquake
engineers, local governments, and the public. This collaboration has
resulted in improvements in earthquake preparedness and public safety in
the United States (Filson, 2003).

**National Science Foundation (NSF)**

The National Science Foundation was given the responsibility for funding
research on earth sciences that sought to improve the understanding of
the causes and behavior of earthquakes, of earthquake engineering, and
the human response to earthquakes. Specifically, the NSF was tasked
with:

-   Encouraging the prompt dissemination of significant
    earthquake-related findings, the sharing of data, samples, physical
    collections, and other supporting materials, and the development of
    intellectual property so research results could be used to mitigate
    earthquake damage;

-   In addition to supporting individual investigators, providing
    support for university research consortia and centers for research
    in geosciences and in earthquake engineering;

-   Working closely with the USGS to identify geographic regions of
    national concern that should be the focus of targeted solicitations
    for earthquake-related research proposals;

-   Emphasizing, in earthquake engineering research, development of
    economically feasible methods to retrofit existing buildings and to
    protect lifelines to mitigate earthquake damage; and

-   Supporting research that studies the political, economic, and social
    factors that influence the implementation of hazard reduction
    measures.

The NSF operates a major grant project titled "The Network for
Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES)." Today, funding for this
project is \$82 million over a period of five years. The intent of NEES
is to:

1.  Change the focus on earthquake research from physical testing to
    seamless integration of testing, analysis and simulation;

2.  Revolutionize the practice of earthquake engineering research with
    state-of-the-art experimental equipment and information technology;

3.  Enable new earthquake hazard mitigation technologies: structural,
    geotechnical, and tsunami

**National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)**

NIST was given the responsibility for carrying out research and
development to improve building codes and standards and practices for
structures and lifelines. Specifically, the Act dictated that NIST:

-   Work closely with national standards and model building code
    organizations, in conjunction with the Agency, to promote the
    implementation of research results;

-   Promote better building practices among architects and engineers;
    and

-   Work closely with national standards organizations to develop
    seismic safety standards and practices for new and existing
    lifelines.

The NIST Building and Fire Research lab conducts extensive research on
engineering techniques that increase building survivability during
earthquakes or events that result in earthquake-like characteristics.
For example, NIST building engineers have worked with university and
private researchers to develop a pre-cast concrete building joint that
can withstand strong earthquakes. The joints use high-strength steel
cables and mild steel bars that stretch during an earthquake, and then
return to their original shape. The joints have since been used to
construct a 39-story apartment building in San Francisco.

[]{.mark}

### Changes to NEHRP in the 1990s

As a Senator from Tennessee in 1990, former-Vice President Al Gore
introduced a congressional bill to reauthorize the Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Act of 1977. On November 16, 1990, this bill became [Public
Law
101-614](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d101:SN02789:|TOM:/bss/d101query.html|),
the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act.
The Act significantly amended NEHRP by refining the agency
responsibilities, program goals and objectives. The major changes to the
original bill included:

-   Giving FEMA the primary responsibility for planning and coordinating
    NEHRP;

-   Conducting earthquake hazard identification and vulnerability
    analyses;

-   Developing seismic design and construction standards;

-   Developing an earthquake prediction capability;

-   Preparing plans for mitigation, preparedness and response
    activities;

-   Conducting fundamental and applied research into the causes and
    implications of earthquake hazards;

-   Educating the public about earthquake hazards

The 102nd Congress produced several bills that would have amended the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, but none were passed. [H.R.
2806](../%20http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d102query.html) was introduced on
June 27, 1991, which would have required that all earthquake-prone
states be identified and would have established a program of earthquake
insurance and reinsurance. [H.R.
4792](../%20http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d102query.html) was introduced by
Rep. Patsy Mink (D-HI) on April 7, 1992 and [S.
2533](../%20http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d102query.html) was introduced the
same day by Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI). Both bills were similar to H.R.
2806 but dealt with earthquakes and volcanoes and would have established
a program for earthquake and volcanic eruption insurance and
reinsurance.

In November 1993, concerns were raised regarding the effectiveness of
NEHRP. The program was seen as lacking a strategic plan, having
insufficient coordination and implementation of research results, and
lacking emphasis on mitigation. In response to these concerns, Dr. John
H. Gibbons, Director of the [Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP)](http://www.whitehouse.gov/OSTP.html) directed that a study be
conducted to address these concerns. The review was made by the National
Earthquake Strategy Working Group (NESW), and the result was the report
"[Strategy for National Earthquake Loss
Reduction](http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/NSTC/html/USGS/index.html),"
as well as the formation of the National Earthquake Loss Reduction
Program (know as NEP). The goals of NEP, coordinated by FEMA, included:

-   Provide leadership and coordination for federal earthquake research;

-   Improve technology transfer and outreach;

-   Improve engineering of the built environment;

-   Improve data for construction standards and codes;

-   Continue the development of seismic hazards and risk assessment
    tools;

-   Analyze seismic hazard mitigation incentives;

-   Develop understanding of societal impacts and responses related to
    earthquake hazard mitigation;

-   Analyze the medical and public health consequences of earthquakes;
    and

-   Continue documentation of earthquakes and their effects.

### 

###### NEHRP Accomplishments

Over its two and a half decades of existence, NEHRP enjoyed many
successes that led to increased earthquake preparedness for the nation.
The following list highlights several of those accomplishments, as
reported in Congressional testimony by Chris Arnold, president of the
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI).

-   Earlier NSF funded research and later FEMA support produced
    nationally applicable earthquake provisions for the design of new
    buildings. Regularly updated, most recently in 1997, these
    Provisions are incorporated into new building codes, and form the
    basis of the new International Building Code, which replaced the
    three US model codes in the year 2000. As part of this work an
    important effort in hazard mapping for the United States has
    resulted in the publication of completely revised and updated maps
    for use with the Provisions

-   A major innovation, which took over 5 years to develop, was the
    creation by FEMA of a software program to estimate earthquake losses
    across the U.S. Known as \"Hazards U.S.\" (HAZUS) This hazards
    modeling program has since been expanded to perform loss estimations
    for other hazards like hurricanes.

-   Following the Northridge earthquake FEMA used some of its mitigation
    resources to enable four critical hospitals in the Los Angeles to
    undergo extensive repair and rebuilding. This represented the
    implementation of a specific seismic mitigation program which both
    guarded against earthquakes for decades to come, but also provided
    general upgrading of important health facilities.

-   NEHRP--sponsored social scientists have developed new tools and
    understandings about public policy, economic, societal, and other
    factors, such as community decision-making, that govern state and
    local adoption of measures to reduce future earthquake losses.

-   The successful recording of high levels of ground motion and
    structural response in several earthquakes over decades enabled
    remarkable progress in earthquake engineering and earthquake hazard
    assessment. These advances demonstrated the value of instrumentation
    programs that made such recordings possible. Prominent among such
    recent advances were the quantification of the high potential
    strength of near field ground motions --within a few kilometers of
    the fault line- especially the revelation of the nature of the
    \"pulse\" or \"fling\" that often dominates the motion. Only
    recently have these effects been quantified with sufficient accuracy
    that they can form the basis of code provisions.

-   NEHRP contributed, through USGS, to the TriNet program established
    to provide an emergency response tool focusing on the Los Angeles
    urban area. This is cooperative effort by FEMA, USGS, and the State
    of California, that provides real-time warning and information
    during and immediately after an earthquake event.

-   A national commitment to multidisciplinary research and outreach was
    been made by NSF's decision to expand its research centers from one
    to three. The first was in New York (Multidisciplinary Center for
    Earthquake Engineering Research), a second was been created in
    Illinois (Mid-America Earthquake Center), and the third is the
    Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, located in
    California. They have helped to focus NEHRP resources on regional
    needs for research, technology development, technology transfer, and
    public education about earthquake risk, and provide an
    infrastructure for nation-wide coordination of the development of
    seismic hazard mitigation technologies.

> Selected NEHRP programs and program policies, developed over the
> course of NEHRP's history, and described to Congress by Mr. Arnold,
> include:

-   Performance Based Seismic Design

> []{.mark}
>
> Although fatalities in US earthquakes have decreased dramatically, the
> economic damages have done the opposite. The last major US Earthquake,
> Northridge (1994), resulted in tens of billions of dollars in damage,
> not including business interruption costs, loss of housing insurance,
> instability and job loss. Experts have estimated that the potential
> losses for future earthquakes may exceed \$100 billion in a single
> event.
>
> Recently, engineers realized that the process of building design and
> construction must undergo a significant change in order to reduce
> societal losses. The new design and construction methodology called
> Performance Based Seismic Design (PBSD) was created to do just this.
> Several individuals and teams have and continue to work on PBSD. NEHRP
> has been a leading supporter in the movement towards widespread
> application of PBSD. Basic research sponsored by NSF provides much of
> the analytical and experimental basis which has given engineers the
> belief that really useful damage prediction and reliability are
> feasible, if not yet fully within their grasp. FEMA supported a
> seminal workshop and accompanying studies on PBSD at Berkeley in 1994.
> Most recently, FEMA commissioned EERI to develop an action plan for
> the products and comprehensive guidelines necessary for a proper
> application of the methodology.

-   The FEMA Existing Building Program

> While improved codes and design practices have made great advances
> possible in the design of new buildings; the main threat lies in the
> nation's inventory of vulnerable existing buildings. Beginning in
> 1985, FEMA's "Existing Building Program" has worked through an action
> plan that has culminated in the publication in 1998 of "FEMA 273." The
> document provides engineers with systematic guidance to enable them to
> formulate effective rehabilitation to retrofit buildings and reduce
> the risk of future damages. The document has been converted into an
> **ASCE Standard** that will make the document an essential reference.

-   Problem-Focused Research

> Following the Northridge earthquake, two major programs of research
> were designed and implemented to study and solve engineering
> deficiencies that the earthquake revealed. The first program dealt
> with finding solutions for the design of steel moment-frame buildings.
> A large number of these types of buildings suffered unexpected damage
> in the earthquake, raising serious questions about their design and
> fabrication. The research program is known as the SAC Steel Project
> after the joint venture of three non-profit organizations responsible
> for its technical management. The program is comprehensive, including
> physical testing, analysis, investigation of damage, performance
> prediction and evaluation and economic and policy studies.
>
> The second problem-focused research program is aimed to reduce the
> deficiencies in wood frame design and construction that resulted in
> severe damage and losses in the Northridge earthquake. The three--year
> multi-university project, based at Caltech, was funded by FEMA under
> its Hazard Mitigation Program. In addition to Caltech, research was
> conducted at several California Universities for Research in
> Earthquake Engineering (CUREe) universities.

-   Social Science Research and Application:

> Social science research can promote loss reduction first by improving
> knowledge of the social and economic dimensions of the earthquake
> problem, and then by providing guidance on how to apply both technical
> solutions and broader change-oriented strategies to lessen the impacts
> earthquakes have on the built environment and our social fabric.
> Although earthquakes may not yet be defined as a major social problem
> by many segments of our society, it is still necessary to view seismic
> hazards within a social policy framework. Like other social problems,
> the earthquake hazard will not be addressed adequately until both the
> social processes that produce earthquake vulnerability and the policy
> steps that need to be taken to reverse those processes are understood.
> Social science and policy research are essential accompaniments to the
> technical studies that are the basis of NEHRP research.

### NEHRP Today

On March 1^st^, 2003 FEMA officially became part of the Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate for the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). This new arrangement presented some significant
challenges to FEMA, and to many of its programs, such as NEHRP. Because
of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, there has been an overt
shift in federal emergency management from the mitigation and response
to natural and technological disasters to the prevention of terrorist
attacks. Budgets are being realigned in support of agencies whose
primary focus is thwarting terrorism, and long-standing programs for
mitigation of natural hazards in the U.S. are undoubtedly feeling the
impacts.

In 2003, NEHRP celebrated its first 25 years of existence. But this
celebration was accompanied by hearings in Congress regarding the
performance of the program and what its appropriate level of funding
should be, and how that funding should be prioritized among other
federal research and mitigation activities (HR, 2003). While the program
had achieved significant progress since inception, and was generally
considered by Congress to be a successful undertaking, it was stated at
the time that new knowledge and tools have not translated to decreased
overall vulnerability. As recorded during House Committee on Science
hearings, Congress felt that, "end-user adoption of NEHRP innovations
has been incremental and slower than expected," and that the "slow
implementation of new mitigating technologies has left us vulnerable to
major losses."

**National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization of
2004**

On October 25, President George W. Bush signed the National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Public
Law 108-360). The new law authorized \$900 million to be spent over the
five years on the development and implementation of earthquake hazard
reduction measures and interdisciplinary earthquake research activities.
In a significant policy shift, the lead agency status for NEHRP was
transferred from FEMA to NIST.

The law also authorizes \$72.5 million over three years for a new
National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program that will be modeled after
NEHRP. The program's goal is to study the impact of wind on structures
and to develop cost-effective ways to mitigate these impacts.

### Conclusion

History has taught us the need for earthquake mitigation, and the U.S.
government has addressed this need through the National Earthquake
Hazard Reduction Program. Though mitigation has always been a difficult
concept to sell, the legislation behind the act has helped to build a
foundation for ongoing support of the mitigation for earthquake events.
Additionally, recognition that these mitigation activities may have dual
uses, and defend people and property from other hazards such as
tornadoes, hurricanes, wind, or event terrorist attacks, has given
greater credibility to NEHRP and mitigation in general. Clearly, that
NEHRP has actually gained momentum at a time when natural hazards have
experienced a shadow of attention is proof of the recognized value of
the history and future potential of such a program. []{.mark}

[]{.mark}

####### References

House of Representatives (HR). 2003. "The National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program: Past, Present, and Future." Hearing Charter;
Committee on Science. May.

Filson, McCarthy, Ellsworth, and Zoback. 2003. "The USGS Earthquake
Hazards Program in NEHRP---Investing in a Safer Future." U.S. Geological
Survey Fact Sheet 017-03. February.
<http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/fact-sheet/fs017-03/>.

Western States Seismic Policy Council (WSSPC). 2003. "National
Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program."
<http://www.wsspc.org/links/nehrp.html>

Runden, Catherine. 1997. "Update on the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program." AGI Government Affairs Program. October 30.
<http://www.agiweb.org/legis105/nehrpup.html>.

Bullock, Jane. 2004. Bullock & Haddow, LLC. Personal Interview. April.

Shedlock and Pakiser. 1997. "Earthquakes." United States Geological
Survey; General Interest Publication. October.
[http://www.pubs.usgs.gov](http://www.pubs.usgs.gov/).

The Nevada Seismological Laboratory. 1996. "The Modified Mercalli Scale
of Earthquake Intensity."
<http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/mercalli.html>

**Figure 7.1.1: Typical Effects Observed During Various Richter Scale
Magnitudes**

  ---------------- -------------- ------------------------------------ --------------
  **Descriptor**   **Richter      **Earthquake Effects**               **Frequency of
                   magnitudes**                                        Occurrence**

  Micro            Less than 2.0  Microearthquakes, not felt.          About 8,000
                                                                       per day

  Very minor       2.0-2.9        Generally not felt, but recorded.    About 1,000
                                                                       per day

  Minor            3.0-3.9        Often felt, but rarely causes        49,000
                                  damage.                              (estimated)
                                                                       per year

  Light            4.0-4.9        Noticeable shaking of indoor items,  6,200
                                  rattling noises. Significant damage  (estimated)
                                  unlikely.                            per year

  Moderate         5.0-5.9        Can cause major damage to poorly     800 per year
                                  constructed buildings over small     
                                  regions. At most slight damage to    
                                  well-designed buildings.             

  Strong           6.0-6.9        Can be destructive in areas up to    120 per year
                                  about 100 miles across in populated  
                                  areas.                               

  Major            7.0-7.9        Can cause serious damage over larger 18 per year
                                  areas.                               

  Great            8.0-8.9        Can cause serious damage in areas    1 per year
                                  several hundred miles across.        

  Rare Great       9.0 or greater Devastating in areas several         1 per 20 years
                                  thousand miles across.               
  ---------------- -------------- ------------------------------------ --------------

Source: <http://www.answers.com/topic/richter-magnitude-scale>

**Figure 7.1.2: Earthquake Hazard Zones in the United States**

![](media/image1.png){width="4.500694444444444in"
height="2.9590277777777776in"}

Source: United States Geological Survey (USGS)

**Figure 7.1.3:** An example of a NEHRP success. Shown here, the Alaskan
oil pipeline that survived severe damage after the 7.9 magnitude
earthquake occurred on the Denali Fault in November 2002. Because of
improved structural designs based on work by NEHRP participants the
pipeline did not break, averting a major economic and environmental
disaster.

> ![](media/image2.jpeg){width="3.375in" height="2.6875in"}
>
> Source: FEMA -
> <http://www.fema.gov/hazards/earthquakes/nehrp/best_practices.shtm>
>
> **Sidebar 7.1.1: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale**
>
> I. People do not feel any Earth movement.
>
> II\. A few people might notice movement if they are at rest and/or on
> the upper floors of tall buildings.
>
> III\. Many people indoors feel movement. Hanging objects swing back
> and forth. People outdoors might not realize that an earthquake is
> occurring.
>
> IV\. Most people indoors feel movement. Hanging objects swing. Dishes,
> windows, and doors rattle. The earthquake feels like a heavy truck
> hitting the walls. A few people outdoors may feel movement. Parked
> cars rock.
>
> V. Almost everyone feels movement. Sleeping people are awakened. Doors
> swing open or close. Dishes are broken. Pictures on the wall move.
> Small objects move or are turned over. Trees might shake. Liquids
> might spill out of open containers.
>
> VI\. Everyone feels movement. People have trouble walking. Objects
> fall from shelves. Pictures fall off walls. Furniture moves. Plaster
> in walls might crack. Trees and bushes shake. Damage is slight in
> poorly built buildings. No structural damage.
>
> VII\. People have difficulty standing. Drivers feel their cars
> shaking. Some furniture breaks. Loose bricks fall from buildings.
> Damage is slight to moderate in well-built buildings; considerable in
> poorly built buildings.
>
> VIII\. Drivers have trouble steering. Houses that are not bolted down
> might shift on their foundations. Tall structures such as towers and
> chimneys might twist and fall. Well-built buildings suffer slight
> damage. Poorly built structures suffer severe damage. Tree branches
> break. Hillsides might crack if the ground is wet. Water levels in
> wells might change.
>
> IX\. Well-built buildings suffer considerable damage. Houses that are
> not bolted down move off their foundations. Some underground pipes are
> broken. The ground cracks. Reservoirs suffer serious damage.
>
> X. Most buildings and their foundations are destroyed. Some bridges
> are destroyed. Dams are seriously damaged. Large landslides occur.
> Water is thrown on the banks of canals, rivers, lakes. The ground
> cracks in large areas. Railroad tracks are bent slightly.
>
> XI\. Most buildings collapse. Some bridges are destroyed. Large cracks
> appear in the ground. Underground pipelines are destroyed. Railroad
> tracks are badly bent.
>
> XII\. Almost everything is destroyed. Objects are thrown into the air.
> The ground moves in waves or ripples. Large amounts of rock may move.

Source: FEMA

Case 7.2: The Homeland Security Act of 2002: A New Emergency Management

## Introduction

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) was passed by the 107^th^
Congress on November 19^th^, 2002, and signed into law by President
George W. Bush on November 25^th^ of the same year. The Act's official
title, "An Act to establish the Department of Homeland Security, and for
other purposes," reflects the wide ranging, open-ended, and somewhat
uncertain goals that guided its creation. This act, as this case will
show, is both the culmination of a decade-long process of recognition
and acceptance of a global terrorist threat, and the beginning of a new
age of emergency management within the United States.

The bureaucratic modifications stipulated by this act, namely the
movement of Federal agencies within the executive office of the
President, have been carried out largely in accordance with the schedule
defined by its code. However, as would be expected from any
transformation of such great magnitude, unforeseen complications and
roadblocks continually appear within the new configuration and to the
new operations, but the adjustments required to accommodate them occur
with regularity. Ultimately, the goal of this legislation is to achieve
a state of preparedness for the nation from all hazards, regardless of
their natural, technological, or intentional origins.

### Background: The Growing Need for Legislation Addressing the Terrorist Threat

**Nunn Lugar Domenici Act**

The contemporary roots of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 date back to
the first term of the Clinton Administration. Several major
terror-related events occurred during Clinton's first three years in
office, prompting the drafting and passage of the Nunn Lugar Domenici
**WMD** Act (Public Law 104-201, September 23, 1996). These events
include:

-   1993 Bombing of the World Trade Center

-   1995 Oklahoma City Bombing

-   1995 Tokyo Subway **Sarin** Gas Attacks

The primary result of the WMD Act was the provision of greater funding
for training and equipment for the nation's first responders. This act
addressed what could be done in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, but
very little was done to change the way that the Federal Government
prevents terrorist acts from occurring in the first place. Always in the
background, however, was a growing bipartisan movement calling for a
less fragmented and more coordinated approach to combating terrorism.

**Terrorism Annex to the Federal Response Plan**

In 1996, during the Olympic competitions in Atlanta, Georgia, a bomb was
detonated in a crowd, injuring dozens of people and killing one. The
source of the attack was determined to have been domestic, apparently
the act of a delusional individual, thereby negating any greater
recognition by Americans of the need for better systems of terrorism
prevention. This was, however, the third large terrorist attack on
American soil in a period of three years, and as such it helped to build
the steam behind the development of a Terrorism Annex to the Federal
Response Plan. The criminal element of a terrorist attack, which had
confounded previous responses to terrorism where the FRP had been
invoked, was recognized as a component that needed special consideration
(as it had not been addressed in the original FRP). This annex appended
the original response document by dictating the coordination of the
various Federal agencies likely to respond to future terrorist events
(including the events of September 11^th^.)

The Three Commissions

In 1998, President Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich petitioned
Congress to form a 14-member panel called the United States Commission
on National Security/21st Century (USCNS/21), also known as the
Hart-Rudman Commission, to make strategic recommendations on how the
U.S. Government could ensure the nation's security in the coming years.
The independent panel, created by Congress, was tasked with conducting a
comprehensive review of American security with the goal of designing a
national security strategy.

The Commission's report, "Road Map for National Security: Imperative for
Change," dated January 31, 2001, recommended the creation of a new
independent National Homeland Security Agency (NHSA) with responsibility
for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. Government
activities involved in homeland security. This agency would be built
upon the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), with the Coast
Guard, the Customs Service, and U.S. Border Patrol (now part of U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) within the DHS) transferred into it.
NHSA would assume responsibility for the safety of the American people
as well as oversee the protection of critical infrastructure, including
information technology. Obviously, the Commission's recommendations were
not heeded before 2001, but many of its findings would later be
integrated into the justification and legislation behind the creation of
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Two other commissions were established to study the terrorist threat
during these years: The Gilmore Commission and the Bremer Commission.
The Gilmore Commission, also known as the Advisory Panel to Assess
Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass
Destruction, produced a series of annual reports beginning in 1999 (with
the final report released in 2003). Each of these reports presented a
growing base of knowledge concerning the WMD risk faced by the United
States, and a recommended course of action required to counter that
risk.

The Bremer Commission, also known as the National Commission on
Terrorism, addressed the issue of the international terrorist threat.
The commission was mandated by Congress to evaluate the nation's laws,
policies, and practices for preventing terrorism, and for punishing
those responsible for terrorist events. Its members drafted a report
titled "Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism." This
report, issued in the year 2000, arrived at the following conclusions:

-   International terrorism poses an increasingly dangerous and
    difficult threat to America

-   Countering the growing danger of the terrorist threat requires
    significantly stepping up U.S. efforts

-   Priority one is to prevent terrorist attacks. U.S. intelligence and
    law enforcement communities must use the full scope of their
    authority to collect intelligence regarding terrorist plans and
    methods

-   U.S. policies must firmly target all states that support terrorists

-   Private sources of financial and logistical support for terrorists
    must be subjected to the full force and sweep of U.S. and
    international laws

-   A terrorist attack involving a biological agent, deadly chemicals,
    or nuclear or radiological material, even if it succeeds only
    partially, could profoundly affect the entire nation. The government
    must do more to prepare for such an event

-   The President and Congress should reform the system for reviewing
    and funding departmental counterterrorism programs to ensure that
    the activities and programs of various agencies are part of a
    comprehensive plan

Each of these conclusions and recommendations would take on great new
meaning in the aftermath of the September 11^th^ attacks, and would
guide many of the changes incorporated into the Homeland Security Act of
2002. However, in the absence of a greater recognition of a terrorist
threat within the borders of the United States, no major programs were
initiated to combat the growing risk.

Presidential Decision Directives 62 & 63

As these commissions were conducting their research, President Clinton
was addressing other recognized and immediate needs through the passage
of several Presidential Decision Directives (PDDs). Terrorist attacks
continued to occur throughout the world, aimed at US Government,
Military, and private interests. In 1996, terrorists carried out a
suicide bombing at the US Military (Khobar Towers) barracks in Saudi
Arabia, and in 1998, simultaneous bombings were carried out at the U.S.
diplomatic missions in Kenya and Tanzania.

In May of 1998, President Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive
62 (PDD-62): Combating Terrorism, which called for the establishment of
the Office of the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure
Protection and Counterterrorism. The directive's primary goal was to
create a new and more systematic approach to fighting the terrorist
threat. PDD-62 reinforced the mission of many U.S. agencies involved in
wide array of counterterrorism activities. The new National Coordinator
was tasked with overseeing a broad variety of relevant policies and
programs including counterterrorism, critical infrastructure protection,
Weapons of Mass Destructions (WMD) preparedness and consequence
management.

Soon after this directive, President Clinton issued Presidential
Decision Directive 63 (PDD-63): Protecting America's Critical
Infrastructure. This directive tasked all of the departments of the
Federal Government with assessing the vulnerabilities of their cyber and
physical infrastructures, and to work to reduce their exposure to new
and existing threats.

Attorney General's Five-Year Interagency Counterterrorism and Technology
Crime Plan

In December 1998, as mandated by Congress, the Department of Justice
(DOJ), through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), began a
coordinated project with other agencies to develop the Attorney
General's Five-Year Interagency Counterterrorism and Technology Crime
Plan. The FBI emerged as the Federal Government\'s principal agency for
responding to and investigating terrorism. Congress had intended the
plan to serve as a baseline for the coordination of a national strategy
and operational capabilities to combat terrorism. This plan represented
a substantial interagency effort, including goals, objectives,
performance indicators and recommended specific agency actions to help
resolve interagency problems. It clearly did not, however, tear down the
walls that prevented interagency sharing of information, as evidenced by
the failures that resulted in the success of the 9/11 terrorists.

General Accounting Office (GAO) Findings

The Department of Justice (DOJ) asserted that the Attorney General's
Five-Year Interagency Counterterrorism and Technology Crime Plan,
considered together with related PDDs as described above, represented a
comprehensive national strategy to address the terrorist threat.
However, after a thorough review, the General Accounting Office (GAO),
Congress's investigative arm, concluded that additional work remained,
that would build upon the progress that the plan represented. The GAO
contended that a comprehensive national security strategy was lacking.

In the GAO report GAO-01-55T: 'Combating Terrorism: Comments on
Counterterrorism Leadership and National Strategy,' released March 27,
2001, it is stated that the DOJ plan did not have measurable outcomes
and suggested, for example, it should include goals that improve state
and local response capabilities. The report argued that without a
clearly defined national strategy, the nation would continue to miss
opportunities to focus and shape counterterrorism programs to meet the
impending threat. It also made the criticism that the DOJ plan lacked a
coherent framework to develop and evaluate budget requirements for
combating terrorism since there was no signal focal point. The report
claimed that no single entity was acting as the Federal Government's top
official accountable to both the President and Congress for the
terrorism hazard, and that fragmentation existed in both coordination of
domestic preparedness programs and in efforts to develop a national
strategy.

The GAO released another report in early September of 2001 (GAO-01-822)
entitled 'Combating Terrorism: Selected Challenges and Related
Recommendations,' which it finalized in the last days before the
terrorist attacks occurred in Washington and New York. The report stated
that the Federal Government was ill-equipped and unprepared to counter a
major terrorist attack, claiming also that from sharing intelligence to
coordinating a response, the government had failed to put in place an
effective critical infrastructure system. It further stated that,

> "Federal efforts to develop a national strategy to combat
> terrorism\...have progressed, but key challenges remain. The initial
> step toward developing a national strategy is to conduct a national
> threat and risk assessment\...at the national level (agencies) have
> not completed assessments of the most likely weapon-of-mass
> destruction agents and other terrorist threats\..."

To prevent terrorist attacks, the GAO recommended:

-   A national strategy to combat terrorism and computer-based attacks

-   Better protection for the nation\'s infrastructure

-   A single focal point to oversee coordination of Federal programs

-   Completing a threat assessment on likely WMD and other weapons that
    might be used by terrorists

-   Revising the Attorney General's Five-Year Interagency
    Counterterrorism and Technology Crime Plan to better serve as a
    national strategy

-   Coordinating research and development to combat terrorism

In a later report regarding Homeland Security, (GAO-02-610) 'Key
Elements to Unify Efforts Are Underway but Uncertainty Remains,' the GAO
called for more of the same in terms of needing central leadership and
an overarching strategy that identifies goals and objectives,
priorities, measurable outcomes, and state and local government roles in
combating terrorism since the efforts of more than 40 federal entities
and numerous state and local governments were still fragmented. It also
called for the term Homeland Security to be defined properly since to
date it had not.

September 11, 2001

The attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, and the Pentagon
in Arlington, Virginia, could arguably be considered the first national
disaster event, outside of wartime, in the history of the United States.
It is the first disaster in this country that impacted all Americans,
leaving all citizens and communities with an unrelenting sense of
vulnerability. The economic consequences of these attacks, felt in all
parts of our country and, in fact, around the world, make this disaster
event truly global in scope.

[]{.mark}

The attacks involved the hijacking of 4 commercial airliners by 19
trained terrorists. Three of the four planes were flown into major
American landmarks -- the two World Trade Center Twin Towers, and the
headquarters of the United States military. The fourth, whose target may
never be conclusively known, was prevented from reaching its target by
passengers on the plane that overpowered its four terrorist hijackers.
Almost 3,000 people were killed, and billions of dollars in property
damage resulted. The full economic impacts, which include everything
from lost revenues to increased spending on terrorism preparedness, may
never be known.

This was not a simple act, but one that required years of surveillance,
funding, training, intelligence gathering, practice, and breaching of
United States immigration law. There were many instances during this
time, as were evidenced in the report of the National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) (created to
investigate the causes of the 9/11 attacks and means to prevent similar
attacks from occurring the future), where individual agencies involved
in counter-terrorist activities recognized one or more of these
activities. However, insufficient coordination between the agencies
prevented the Federal Government system of preventing terrorist attacks
from piecing together the larger picture of what exactly was occurring,
and as such, the terrorists were ultimately successful in their mission.

Immediate Response to the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks

In the immediate aftermath of the September 11^th^ attacks, as the
search and rescue teams were still sifting through the debris and
wreckage for survivors in New York and in Virginia, the Federal
Government was analyzing what had just happened and what it could
quickly do to begin the process of ensuring such attacks could not be
repeated. It was recognized that nothing too substantial could take
place void of longer-term study and Congressional review, but the
circumstances mandated that real changes begin without delay.

On September 20^th^, 2001, just 9 days after the attacks, President
George W. Bush announced that there would be established an Office of
Homeland Security, by Executive Order, within the White House. Directing
this office would be Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge. Ridge was given no
real staff to manage, and the funding he would have at his disposal was
minimal. The actual order, catalogued as Executive Order 13228, was
given on October 8^th^, 2001. In addition to creating the Office of
Homeland Security, this order created the Homeland Security Council,
\"to develop and coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive
national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or
attacks.\"

Four days later, on September 24^th^, 2001, President Bush announced
that he would be seeking passage of an Act entitled "Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism", which would become better known as
the Patriot Act of 2001. This Act, which introduced a large number of
controversial legislative changes in order to significantly increase the
surveillance, and investigative powers of law enforcement agencies in
the United States (as it states) to " ...deter and punish terrorist acts
in the United States and around the world", was signed into law by the
President on October 26^th^ after very little deliberation in Congress.

On October 29^th^, President Bush issued the first of many Homeland
Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs), which were PDDs specifically
designed to "record and communicate presidential decisions about the
homeland security policies of the United States" (HSPD-1, 2001). The
following is a list of several of the HSPDs, their stated purposes, and
their dates of issuance:

-   HSPD-1: Organization and Operation of the Homeland Security Council
    -- October 29, 2001

-   HSPD-2: Combating Terrorism Through Immigration Policies -- October
    29, 2001

-   HSPD-3: Creation of the Homeland Security Advisory System -- March
    11, 2002

-   HSPD-4: National Strategy to Combat WMDs -- September 17, 2002

-   HSPD-5: Management of Domestic Incidents (Creation of a National
    Incident Management System (NIMS) -- February 28, 2003

-   HSPD-6: Integration and Use of Screening Information (Creation of
    the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC)) -- September 16,
    2003

-   HSPD-7: Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and
    Protection -- December 17, 2003

-   HSPD-8: Strengthen National Preparedness (\"establish policies to
    strengthen the preparedness of the United States to prevent and
    respond to threatened or actual domestic terrorist attacks, major
    disasters, and other emergencies by requiring a national domestic
    all-hazards preparedness goal, establishing mechanisms for improved
    delivery of Federal preparedness assistance to State and local
    governments, and outlining actions to strengthen preparedness
    capabilities of Federal, State, and local entities.\") -- December
    17, 2003

-   HSPD-9: Defense of US Agriculture and Food -- February 3, 2004

-   HSPD-10: Defense from Biological Weapons -- April 28, 2004

-   HSPD-11: Comprehensive Terrorist Screening Procedures -- August 27,
    2004

-   HSPD-13: Maritime Security -- December 21, 2004

On March 21^st^, 2002, President Bush signed Executive Order 13260
Establishing the President\'s Homeland Security Advisory Council (PHSAC)
and Senior Advisory Committees for Homeland Security.

### The Homeland Security Act of 2002

On November 25, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (HS Act) (Public Law 107-296), and announced that
former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge would become Secretary of a new
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be created through this
legislation. This act, which authorized the greatest federal government
reorganization since President Harry Truman joined the various branches
of the armed forces under the Department of Defense, was charged with a
three-fold mission of protecting the United States from further
terrorist attacks, reducing the nation's vulnerability to terrorism, and
minimizing the damage from potential terrorist attacks and natural
disasters.

[]{.mark}

The sweeping reorganization into the new Department, which officially
opened its doors on January 24, 2003, joined together over 179,000
federal employees from twenty-two existing federal agencies under a
single, Cabinet-level organization. The legislation also included
several changes within other federal agencies that were only remotely
affiliated with DHS.

The creation of DHS was the culmination of an evolutionary legislative
process. The Department was clearly the result of the criticism that
increased federal intelligence inter-agency cooperation could have
prevented the September 11^th^ terrorist attacks. The White House and
Congress had both recognized that as Director of the Office of Homeland
Security, Tom Ridge did not have a large enough staff or budget to
succeed, and thus they began the deliberations to create what is now a
Cabinet-level Department fusing many of the security-related agencies
that were dispersed throughout the Federal Government before 9/11.

For several months during the second-half of 2002, Congress jockeyed
between different versions of the Homeland Security bill in an effort to
establish legislation that was passable yet effective. Lawmakers were
particularly mired on the issue of the rights of employees -- an issue
that prolonged the legal process considerably. Furthermore, efforts to
incorporate many of the intelligence-gathering and investigative law
enforcement agencies, namely the National Security Agency (NSA), the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) into the legislation failed.

Despite these delays and setbacks, after the 2002 Midterm elections, the
Republican seats gained in both the House and Senate gave the President
the leverage he needed to pass the bill without further deliberation
(H.R., 299-121 on November 13, 2002; Senate, 90-9 on November 19, 2002).
While the passage of this act represented a significant milestone, the
implementation phase presented a tremendous challenge; a concern
expressed by several leaders from the agencies that were to be absorbed.
On November 25, 2002, President Bush submitted his Reorganization Plan
(as required by the legislation), which mapped out the schedule,
methodology, and budget for the monumental task.

Beginning March 1, 2003, almost all of the federal agencies named in the
act began their move, whether literally or symbolically, into the new
Department. Those remaining followed on June 1, 2003, with all
incidental transfers completed by September 1, 2003. While a handful of
these agencies remained intact after the move, most were fully
incorporated into one of four new directorates; Border and
Transportation Security (BTS), Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection (IAIP), Emergency Preparedness and Response (EP&R), and
Science and Technology (S&T). A fifth directorate, Management,
incorporated parts of the existing administrative and support offices
within the merged Agencies.

Secretary Ridge was given exactly one year to develop a comprehensive
structural framework for DHS, and to name new leadership for all five
directorates and other offices created under the legislation.
Astonishingly, he and his team were able to meet these goals (though, as
would be expected, many changes have been made to this original
framework).

In addition to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the
HS Act made several changes to other federal agencies and their
programs, and created several new programs. A list of the most
significant is presented below:

-   Established a National Homeland Security Council within the
    Executive Office of the President, which assesses U.S. objectives,
    commitments, and risks in the interest of Homeland Security,
    oversees and reviews Federal homeland security policies, and makes
    recommendations to the President.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Transferred the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) from
    the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

-   Explicitly prohibits both the creation of a national ID card and the
    proposed Citizen Corps "Terrorism Information and Prevention System"
    (Operation TIPS, which encouraged transportation workers, postal
    workers, and public utility employees to identify and report
    suspicious activities linked to terrorism and crime.) The Act also
    reaffirmed the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the
    Armed Forces in law enforcement activities except under
    Constitutional or Congressional authority (the Coast Guard is exempt
    from this Act).

-   The "Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act", incorporated into the HS
    Act, allowed pilots to defend aircraft cockpits with firearms or
    other 'less-than-lethal weapons' against acts of criminal violence
    or air piracy, and provides anti-terrorism training to flight crews.

-   The Critical Infrastructure Information Act (2002), incorporated in
    the HS Act, exempts certain components of critical infrastructure
    from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations.

-   The "Johnny Michael Spann Patriot Trusts," created to provide
    support for surviving spouses, children, or dependent parents,
    grandparents, or siblings of various federal employees who die in
    the line of duty as result of terrorist attacks, military
    operations, intelligence operations, or law enforcements operations.

####### DHS "6-Point Agenda" Reorganization Plan

In July of 2005, Secretary Chertoff announced that he would be making
significant organizational changes to the Department. These changes were
proposed "to ensure that the Department's policies, operations, and
structures are aligned in the best way to address the potential threats
-- both present and future -- that face our nation" (DHS, 2005). These
changes began to take effect in late 2005, and are reflected in the
organizational chart provided as Image 7.2.1.

## DHS Subcomponents and Agencies

The Department of Homeland Security is a massive agency, with many
responsibilities in a staggeringly-wide range of program areas,
approximately 179.000 employees, a massive multi-billion dollar budget,
and an ambitious list of tasks and goals. The Department leverages
resources within federal, state, and local governments, coordinating the
transition of multiple agencies and programs into a single, integrated
agency focused on protecting the American people and their homeland.
More than 87,000 different governmental jurisdictions at the federal,
state, and local level have homeland security responsibilities.

[]{.mark}

The following list comprises of the major components that make up the
Department of Homeland Security (See Images 7.2.1 -- 7.2.3):

**Office of the Secretary**

The Office of the Secretary oversees activities with other Federal,
State, local, and private entities as part of a collaborative effort to
strengthen our borders, provide for intelligence analysis and
infrastructure protection, improve the use of science and technology to
counter weapons of mass destruction, and to create a comprehensive
response and recovery system. Within the Office of the Secretary there
are multiple offices that contribute to the overall Homeland Security
mission.

-   **Office of the Chief Privacy Officer**  - works to minimize the
    impact on the individual's privacy, particularly the individual's
    personal information and dignity, while achieving the mission of the
    Department of Homeland Security.

-   **Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties** - provides legal and
    policy advice to Department leadership on civil rights and civil
    liberties issues, investigates and resolves complaints, and provides
    leadership to Equal Employment Opportunity Programs.

-   **Office of the Inspector
    Genera[l](http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=89)** - is
    responsible for conducting and supervising audits, investigations,
    and inspections relating to the programs and operations of the
    Department, recommending ways for the Department to carry out its
    responsibilities in the most effective, efficient, and economical
    manner possible.

-   **The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman** - provides
    recommendations for resolving individual and employer problems with
    the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services in order to
    ensure national security and the integrity of the legal immigration
    system, increase efficiencies in administering citizenship and
    immigration services, and improve customer service.

Other offices within the Office of the Secretary include:

-   Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs

-   Office of the General Counsel

-   Office of Counter Narcotics

-   Office of Public Affairs

**Directorates and Other Operational Offices**

**Preparedness Directorate**

The Preparedness Directorate works with state, local, and private sector
partners to identify threats, determine vulnerabilities, and target
resources where risk is greatest, thereby safeguarding our borders,
seaports, bridges and highways, and critical information systems. This
directorate is designed to bolster the nation's security through the
application of a system of preparedness measures based on risk
assessment and management.  Working with state, local, and private
sector partners, the Preparedness Directorate identifies threats,
determines vulnerabilities, and targets resources where risk is
greatest.  Through grants and training on both national and local
levels, the directorate fosters a layered system of protective measures
to safeguard borders, seaports, bridges and highways, and critical
information systems. It is designed to:

-   Consolidate preparedness assets across DHS

-   Facilitate grants and oversee nationwide preparedness efforts by
    supporting first responder training, citizen awareness, public
    health, infrastructure and cyber security, and ensure proper steps
    are taken to protect high-risk targets

-   Focus on cyber security and telecommunications

-   Address threats to our nation's public health through the Chief
    Medical Officer, who coordinates preparedness efforts against
    biological attacks.

The components of the Preparedness Directorate include:

-   **Chief Medical Officer** - has primary responsibility for working
    with other Federal agencies in completing comprehensive plans for
    executing our responsibilities to prevent and mitigate cyber based
    attacks.

-   **Cyber and Telecommunications** - has primary responsibility for
    working with other Federal agencies in completing comprehensive
    plans for executing our responsibilities to prevent and mitigate
    biologically based attacks.

-   **Fire Administration** - reduces deaths and economic losses from
    fires and related emergencies through public education, training for
    fire protection personnel and enhanced technology.

-   **Grants and Training** - assists states, local communities,
    regional authorities, and tribal jurisdictions to prevent, deter,
    and respond to terrorist and other threats to national security
    through funding, training, and exercises designed to increase
    preparedness and responsiveness.

-   **Infrastructure Protection** - identifies and assesses current and
    future threats to the nation's physical and informational
    infrastructure, issuing timely warnings to prevent damage to the
    infrastructure that supports our community and economic life.

-   **Office of National Capital Region Coordination** - oversees and
    coordinates Federal programs for and relationships with the National
    Capital Region to ensure adequate planning, information sharing,
    training, and execution of domestic preparedness activities. 

**Science and Technology Directorate**

The Science and Technology Directorate is the primary research and
development arm of the Department.  It provides federal, state and local
officials with the technology and capabilities to protect the homeland.

The strategic objectives of the Directorate include:

-   Developing and deploying state-of-the art, high-performance,
    low-operating-cost systems to prevent, detect, and mitigate the
    consequences of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and
    explosive attacks;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Developing equipment, protocols, and training procedures for
    response to and recovery from chemical, biological, radiological,
    nuclear, and explosive attacks;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Enhancing the technical capabilities of the Department's operational
    elements and other Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies to
    fulfill their homeland security related missions;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Developing methods and capabilities to test and assess threats and
    vulnerabilities, and prevent technology surprise and anticipate
    emerging threats;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Developing technical standards and establish certified laboratories
    to evaluate homeland security and emergency responder technologies,
    and evaluate technologies for SAFETY Act certification; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Supporting U.S. leadership in science and technology.

The directorate is led by an Under Secretary (Charles McQueary), with
four primary offices responsible for managing different categories of
technology.

**The Policy Directorate**

The Policy Directorate is the primary policy formulation and
coordination component for the Department of Homeland Security.  It
provides a centralized, coordinated focus to the development of
Department-wide, long-range planning to protect the United States.

This Directorate was created to do the following:

-   Coordinate policies, regulations, and other initiatives across DHS

-   Ensure consistency of policy and regulatory development across DHS

-   Perform long-range, strategic policy planning

-   Assume the policy coordination functions previously performed by the
    Border and Transportation Security (BTS) Directorate

The Policy Directorate is made up of the following components:

-   **Office of Policy** - the primary office within the Policy
    Directorate responsible for the formulation and coordination of
    Department-wide policies designed to protect the United States.

-   **Office of Immigration Statistics** - contributes to the
    formulation of Department policies through the development,
    analysis, and dissemination of statistical information on
    immigration in the United States.

-   **Office of International Affairs** - is responsible for
    coordinating the development of Department policies that have
    implications for the international community in accordance with U.S.
    foreign policy.

-   **Office of the Private Sector** - fosters communication between the
    private sector and the Department and provides guidance to the
    Secretary on proposed policies and regulations and their potential
    impact on private sector organizations and the nation's economic
    security.

-   **Office of Strategic Planning** - provides a central focus for the
    formulation of Department-wide, long-range planning and strategic
    goals to safeguard the homeland.

**Management Directorate**

The Management Directorate is responsible for Department budgets and
appropriations, expenditure of funds, accounting and finance,
procurement; human resources, information technology systems, facilities
and equipment, and the identification and tracking of performance
measurements.

**Office of Intelligence and Analysis**

The Office of Intelligence and Analysis is responsible for using
information and intelligence from multiple sources to identify and
assess current and future threats to the United States.

**Office of Operations Coordination**

The Office of Operations Coordination is responsible for monitoring the
security of the United States on a daily basis and coordinating
activities within the Department and with Governors, Homeland Security
Advisors, law enforcement partners, and critical infrastructure
operators in all 50 States and more than 50 major urban areas
nationwide.

Through its [Homeland Security Operations Center
(HSOC)](http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0456.xml ),
this Office provides real-time situational awareness and monitoring of
the homeland, coordinates incidents and response activities, and, in
conjunction with the DHS Office of Information Analysis, issues
advisories and bulletins concerning threats to homeland security, as
well as specific protective measures.

**Domestic Nuclear Detection Office**

The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) was established to improve
the Nation's capability to detect and report unauthorized attempts to
import, possess, store, develop, or transport nuclear or radiological
material for use against the Nation, and to further enhance this
capability over time.  The strategic objectives of the DNDO include:

-   Develop the global detection architecture and ensure linkages across
    Federal, State, territorial, tribal and local agencies.

-   Conduct aggressive evolutionary and transformational research and
    development programs to improve probability of detection by
    integrating and deploying current technologies and improving those
    capabilities over time.

-   Enhance the nuclear detection efforts of Federal, State,
    territorial, tribal, and local governments, and the private sector
    to ensure a coordinated response.

-   Establish standards, response protocols and training across the
    Federal, State, territorial, tribal, and local levels to ensure that
    detection leads to timely response actions.

-   Enhance the effective sharing and use of nuclear detection-related
    information and intelligence.

-   Maintain continuous awareness by analyzing information from all
    mission-related detection systems.

**The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)**

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is tasked with preparing
the nation for hazards, managing Federal response and recovery efforts
following any national incident, and administering the National Flood
Insurance Program.

**Transportation Security Administration (TSA)**

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) protects the nation\'s
transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and
commerce.  

**U.S. Customs and Border Protection**

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is responsible for protecting the
nation's borders in order to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons
from entering the United States, while facilitating the flow of
legitimate trade and travel.

**Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)**

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the largest investigative arm
of the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying
and shutting down vulnerabilities in the nation's border, economic,
transportation and infrastructure security.

**The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)**

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center provides career-long
training to law enforcement professionals to help them fulfill their
responsibilities safely and proficiently. It is located in New Mexico.

**U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services**

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is responsible for the
administration of immigration and naturalization adjudication functions
and establishing immigration services policies and priorities.

**The U.S. Coast Guard**

The U.S. Coast Guard protects the public, the environment, and U.S.
economic interests---in the nation's ports and waterways, along the
coast, on international waters, or in any maritime region as required to
support national security.

**The U.S. Secret Service**

The U.S. Secret Service protects the President and other high-level
officials and investigates counterfeiting and other financial crimes,
including financial institution fraud, identity theft, computer fraud;
and computer-based attacks on our nation's financial, banking, and
telecommunications infrastructure.

**Advisory Panels and Committees**

-   **Homeland Security Advisory Council** - provides advice and
    recommendations to the Secretary on matters related to homeland
    security. The Council is comprised of leaders from state and local
    government, first responder communities, the private sector, and
    academia.

-   **National Infrastructure Advisory Council** - provides advice to
    the Secretary of Homeland Security and the President on the security
    of information systems for the public and private institutions that
    constitute the critical infrastructure of our Nation's economy.

-   **Interagency Coordinating Council on Emergency Preparedness and
    Individuals with Disabilities** - was established to ensure that the
    Federal government appropriately supports safety and security for
    individuals with disabilities in disaster situations.

**Strategic Goals of the Department of Homeland Security**

On February 24, 2004, the Department of Homeland Security released its
strategic plan, entitled "Securing Our Homeland." This document outlined
the reasoning behind the creation of the Department, as well as its
goals and objectives. These goals and objectives are summarized below:

**Strategic Goal 1: Awareness** - Identify and understand threats,
assess vulnerabilities, determine potential impacts and disseminate
timely information to our homeland security partners and the American
public.

> Objective 1.1 - Gather and fuse all terrorism related intelligence;
> analyze, and coordinate access to information related to potential
> terrorist or other threats.
>
> Objective 1.2 - Identify and assess the vulnerability of critical
> infrastructure and key assets.
>
> Objective 1.3 - Develop timely, actionable and valuable information
> based on intelligence analysis and vulnerability assessments.
>
> Objective 1.4 - Ensure quick and accurate dissemination of relevant
> intelligence information to homeland security partners, including the
> public.

**Strategic Goal 2: Prevention** - Detect, deter and mitigate threats to
our homeland.

> Objective 2.1 - Secure our borders against terrorists, means of
> terrorism, illegal drugs and other illegal activity.
>
> Objective 2.2 - Enforce trade and immigration laws.
>
> Objective 2.3 - Provide operational end users with the technology and
> capabilities to detect and prevent terrorist attacks, means of
> terrorism and other illegal activities.
>
> Objective 2.4 - Ensure national and international policy, law
> enforcement and other actions to prepare for and prevent terrorism are
> coordinated.
>
> Objective 2.5 Strengthen the security of the Nation's transportation
> systems.
>
> Objective 2.6 - Ensure the security and integrity of the immigration
> system.

**Strategic Goal 3: Protection** - Safeguard our people and their
freedoms, critical infrastructure, property and the econo­my of our
nation from acts of terrorism, natural disasters, or other emergencies.

> Objective 3.1 - Protect the public from acts of terrorism and other
> illegal activities.
>
> Objective 3.2 - Reduce infrastructure vulnerability from acts of
> terrorism.
>
> Objective 3.3 - Protect against financial and electronic crimes,
> counterfeit currency, illegal bulk currency movement and identity
> theft.
>
> Objective 3.4 - Secure the physical safety of the President, Vice
> President, visiting world leaders and other protectees.
>
> Objective 3.5 - Ensure the continuity of government operations and
> essential functions in the event of crisis or disaster.
>
> Objective 3.6 - Protect the marine environment and living marine
> resources.
>
> Objective 3.7 - Strengthen nationwide preparedness and mitigation
> against acts of terrorism, natural disasters, or other emergencies.

**Strategic Goal 4: Response** - Lead, manage and coordinate the
national response to acts of terrorism, natural disasters, or other
emergencies.

> Objective 4.1 - Reduce the loss of life and property by strengthening
> nationwide response readiness.
>
> Objective 4.2 - Provide scalable and robust all-hazard response
> capability.
>
> Objective 4.3 - Provide search and rescue services to people and
> property in distress.

**Strategic Goal 5: Recovery** - Lead national, state, local and private
sector efforts to restore services and rebuild communities after acts of
terrorism, natural disasters, or other emergencies.

> Objective 5.1 - Strengthen nationwide recovery plans and capabilities.
>
> Objective 5.2 - Provide scalable and robust all-hazard recovery
> assistance.

(Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Strategic Plan)

## Conclusion

The important question that Congress, the General Accounting Office, and
the American people will continue to address is whether or not this
legislation has addressed the terrorist hazard that threatens American
citizens within the nation's borders. The following summarizes several
of the individual performance measures by which that question may
ultimately be addressed.

> Sharing of Intelligence -- This issue has yet to be settled to a
> degree that all involved parties are satisfied with the outcome. The
> TTIC, which resides not in DHS but in the FBI, has already come under
> harsh criticism for having insufficient staff. Additionally, the rules
> by which information is shared are still considered too restrictive
> for the maximum benefit of such sharing between agencies to be
> realized. However, the turf wars that created compartmentalization of
> information that the TTIC has tried to reduce formed over decades, and
> as such, it should be expected that breaking down such barrier s will
> require several years. The greatest challenge, which still has a long
> way to go, is how effectively this information will be shared with the
> State and local first responders.
>
> First Responder Resources and Capabilities -- Should a terrorist
> attack happen again, which it likely will, local first responders are
> assuredly going to be the first on the scene. These local officials
> will have the greatest opportunity to save lives and manage the
> disaster that follows. Local agencies, after all, are expected to
> assume that they will be managing the disaster for up to 72 hours
> before Federal help arrives. The Homeland Security Act of 2002
> attempts to address the training, equipment, and funding shortfalls
> that have been identified at the local levels, but problems remain.
> Even the formulas by which grant money is distributed to the states
> has been a point of contention since the Department first began
> (between risk-based or population-based methods of determination).
> Recent studies show that first responders, for the most part, are not
> ready to manage a major terrorist attack, especially if that attack
> involves biological or chemical warfare agents. However, billions of
> dollars in funding for equipment and training have been disbursed, and
> it is likely that time will help these local agencies to adjust to the
> new hazards they face.
>
> The All-Hazards Approach -- The Department of Homeland Security was
> created in response to a terrorist attack, but its mission includes
> the preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery from all hazards
> -- including natural and technological. It would seem that terrorism
> was not only the main focus, but the only focus, based upon the
> actions that have been taken by the department. The billions of
> dollars in first responder funding that have been disbursed are a
> perfect example of this -- they are based upon terrorism risk, not an
> all-hazards risk assessment. When hurricanes and earthquakes strike,
> it is now DHS that responds, through FEMA. How effectively they do so
> will depend upon the ability of the Department's leadership to keep
> the all-hazards approach in mind as they move DHS forward through its
> strategic goals.
>
> Preparedness of Individuals -- A prepared nation depends upon the
> preparedness of individuals. If another terrorist attack were to
> occur, the actions of regular citizens will greatly affect the
> ultimate outcome of the event. Also, citizens who are adequately
> prepared could serve to prevent a terrorist attack by recognizing the
> hazard and reporting that information to authorities. DHS has
> addressed this need through their public preparedness website
> [www.ready.gov](http://www.ready.gov/). The true effectiveness has
> thankfully not been tested, as there have not been any major terrorist
> attacks in the United States since the creation of the Department. It
> is likely, however, that the day will eventually come when individual
> preparedness is called upon.
>
> The Homeland Security Alert System -- This five-color coded alert
> system, created through HSPD-3, has come under considerable attack
> during its brief years of existence. Beyond the Federal Government, it
> has found little positive applicability, especially by local first
> responders and private citizens. Recent legislation gives the
> impression that this system may be abandoned, pending consideration by
> Congress. If this happens, a new system will need to be developed to
> inform citizens of the terrorist risk, or else a major DHS objective
> will remain unfulfilled. This area clearly has a long way to go.
>
> Funding -- The Department of Homeland Security depends upon a
> considerable amount of funding -- generally between \$35- and \$40
> billion dollars each year. This is not surprising considering the
> number of agencies that were absorbed, and likewise, the number of
> Federal officials. However, with emerging reports of unwise spending
> practices and the ineffectiveness of certain programs, there remains
> the risk of decreased future funding. Additionally, if years go by
> without any more terrorist attacks, it may be hard to continue pulling
> money from other social programs to pay for a program that fewer and
> fewer people will feel is entirely necessary. But, there are currently
> no signs that DHS funding levels will decrease in the near future.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 was a clear case of legislation
drafted to address an immediate emergency management need. Presumably,
the drafters of this legislation recognized the importance of
considering all four phases of emergency management -- preparedness,
mitigation, response, and recovery. Director Ridge has since been
replaced by Federal Judge Michael Chertoff, whose first significant
project as director included a full assessment of the effectiveness of
each DHS component. The report that results his findings may answer many
of the questions posed above. However, as experience taught us after the
creation of the Department of Defense, these things take time.

**[References:]{.underline}**

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff Announces Six Department of
Homeland Security. 2005. -Point Agenda for Department of Homeland
Security. DHS Press Release. July 13.
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0703.xml.

## Image 7.2.1: DHS Organizational Chart

![](media/image3.png){width="7.375in" height="5.549305555555556in"}

Source: [www.dhs.gov](http://www.dhs.gov/)

####### Image 7.2.2: Policy Directorate

![](media/image4.png){width="5.992361111111111in" height="3.08125in"}

Source: [www.dhs.gov](http://www.dhs.gov/)

####### Image 7.2.3: Preparedness Directorate

![](media/image5.png){width="5.979861111111111in"
height="2.7472222222222222in"}

Source: [www.dhs.gov](http://www.dhs.gov/)

**Sidebar 7.2.1: Summary of the Homeland Security Act of 2002**

The full text of this Act is available at
<http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/hr_5005_enr.pdf>

**Title I:** Establishes a Department of Homeland Security (DHS), headed
by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

-   **Primary Mission (full text):**

> Prevent terrorist attacks within the United States;
>
> Reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism;
>
> Minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, from terrorist
> attacks that do occur within the United States;
>
> Carry out all functions of entities transferred to the Department,
> including by acting as a focal point regarding natural and manmade
> crises and emergency planning;
>
> Ensure that the functions of the agencies and subdivisions within the
> Department that are not related directly to securing the homeland are
> not diminished or neglected except by a specific explicit Act of
> Congress;
>
> Ensure that the overall economic security of the United States is not
> diminished by efforts, activities, and programs aimed at securing the
> homeland; and
>
> Monitor connections between illegal drug trafficking and terrorism,
> coordinate efforts to sever such connections, and otherwise contribute
> to efforts to interdict illegal drug trafficking.

**Title II:** Establishes in DHS the **Directorate for Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection**, headed by an Under Secretary
for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.

-   **Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002** - Exempts from
    the Freedom of Information Act and other Federal and State
    disclosure requirements critical infrastructure information
    voluntarily submitted to a covered Federal agency for its use
    regarding the security of critical infrastructure and protected
    systems, analysis, warning, interdependency study, recovery,
    reconstitution, or other informational purpose.

-   Requires the Secretary to: (1) establish procedures for sharing
    information; and (2) appoint a senior Privacy Officer to assume
    primary responsibility for privacy policy.

-   **Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002** - Directs the U.S.
    Sentencing Commission to amend Federal sentencing guidelines and
    otherwise address crimes involving fraud in connection with
    computers and access to protected information, protected computers
    or restricted data in interstate or foreign commerce or involving a
    computer used by or for the Federal Government. Exempts from
    criminal penalties any emergency disclosures to a governmental
    entity by an electronic communication service and specified
    disclosures made in good faith.

-   Abolishes the Office of Science and Technology of the National
    Institute of Justice and transfers its functions to an Office of
    Science and Technology hereby established within the Department of
    Justice.

-   Requires the Director of the Office to operate and support National
    Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers.

**Title III:** Establishes in DHS: (1) a **Directorate of Science and
Technology**, headed by an Under Secretary for Science and Technology;
(2) a Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency; (3) a
Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee; (4) a
Homeland Security Institute; (5) technology clearing house. Within one
year of enactment, the Secretary is to establish a coordinated,
university-based center or centers to enhance homeland security.

-   Transfers to DHS the programs of the DOE regarding chemical and
    biological national security, nuclear smuggling, nuclear assessment,
    life science programs on microbial pathogens, and the advanced
    scientific computing research program at Lawrence Livermore National
    Laboratories.

-   Transfers to DHS from DoD the National Bio-Weapons Defense Analysis
    Center.

-   Authorizes the Secretary under certain circumstances to make the
    U.S. Government assume all civil liability for anyone suffering
    personal injury or death by contracting cowpox (vaccinia) from the
    administration of smallpox vaccine in response to a bioterrorist
    incident or potential public health emergency.

-   DHS may establish or contract with one or more federally funded
    research and development centers to provide independent analysis or
    to carry out other responsibilities.

**Title IV:** Establishes in DHS: (1) a **Directorate of Border and
Transportation Security**, headed by an Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security; and (2) the U.S. Customs Service (transferred
from the Department of the Treasury, but with certain customs revenue
functions remaining with the Secretary of the Treasury).

-   Transfers to DHS certain agricultural inspection functions of the
    Department of Agriculture.

-   Maintains the Transportation Security Administration, transferred to
    DHS from the Department of Transportation, as a distinct entity.

-   Vests in the Secretary of DHS all authority relating to U.S.
    consular officials to grant or refuse visas for entry into the Unite
    States.

-   Establishes in DHS an Office for Domestic Preparedness to prepare
    the United States for acts of terrorism.

-   Transfers to Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security
    from the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization (INS
    Commissioner) all functions performed under the Border Patrol,
    detention and removal, intelligence, investigations, and inspections
    programs.

-   Establishes in DHS: (1) a Bureau of Border Security, headed by an
    Assistant Secretary; (2) a Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
    Services, headed by a Director; and (3) a Citizenship and
    Immigration Services Ombudsman.

-   Transfers from the INS Commissioner to the Director of the Office of
    Refugee Resettlement of the Department of Health and Human Services
    (HHS) functions under Federal immigration law with respect to the
    care of unaccompanied alien children.

-   Abolishes the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) of the
    Department of Justice.

-   Authorizes the Attorney General and the Secretary to: (1) make
    voluntary separation incentive payments to employees of the INS, the
    DHS Bureau of Border Security, and the DHS Bureau of Citizenship and
    Immigration Services; and (2) conduct a demonstration project to
    determine whether changes in the policies or procedures relating to
    methods for disciplining employees would result in improved
    personnel management.

-   Establishes within the Office of Deputy DHS Secretary a Director of
    Shared Services to coordinate resources for the Bureau of Border
    Security and the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services.

**Title V:** Establishes in DHS a **Directorate of Emergency
Preparedness and Response**, headed by an Under Secretary, to manage the
Federal Government's response to terrorists or major disasters. This
includes developing comprehensive programs for inter-operative
communications technology and helping ensure that emergency response
providers acquire such technology.

-   Transferred to DHS includes FEMA, NOAA's Integrated Hazard
    Information System, The FBI's National Domestic Preparedness Office,
    DOJ's Domestic Emergency Support Teams, and several offices from
    HHS.

-   Declares that, at the direction of the DHS Secretary (in connection
    with an actual or threatened terrorist attack, major disaster, or
    other emergency in the United States), the Nuclear Incident Response
    Team shall operate as an organizational unit of DHS.

**Title VI: Treatment of Charitable Trusts for Members of the Armed
Forces of the United States and Other Governmental Organizations.**
Provides for Johnny Michael Spann Patriot Trusts for surviving spouses,
children, or dependent parents, grandparents, or siblings of members of
the U.S. Armed Forces, certain personnel (including contractors) of
elements of the intelligence community, Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) employees, and Federal officers, employees, or contract employees
whose deaths occur in the line of duty and arise out of terrorist
attacks, military operations, intelligence operations, or law
enforcement operations or accidents connected with activities occurring
after September 11, 2001, and related to domestic or foreign efforts to
curb international terrorism.

**Title VII:** Specifies the duties of the DHS Under Secretary for
Management.

-   Requires the Secretary to appoint an **Officer for Civil Rights and
    Civil Liberties** to assess information alleging abuses of civil
    rights, civil liberties, and racial and ethnic profiling by DHS
    employees and officials.

**Title VIII: Coordination With Non-Federal Entities; Inspector General;
United States Secret Service; Coast Guard; General Provisions.**
Establishes within the Office of the DHS Secretary an Office for State
and Local Government Coordination to oversee and coordinate departmental
programs for and relationships with State and local governments.

-   Subjects the DHS Inspector General to the Secretary\'s authority
    with respect to audits or investigations, or issuance of subpoenas
    that require access to sensitive information concerning specified
    matters the disclosure of which would constitute a serious threat to
    national security. Specifies the law enforcement powers of Inspector
    General agents.

-   Transfers the United States Secret Service to DHS.

-   Prohibits the Secretary from entering into contracts with any
    foreign incorporated entity treated as an inverted domestic
    corporation (corporate expatriate).

-   Authorizes the Secretary to establish a human resources management
    system for the organizational units of DHS.

-   Declares that no agency or agency subdivision transferred to DHS
    shall be excluded from coverage of Federal civil service
    labor-management relations law unless: (1) the agency\'s (or
    subdivision\'s) mission and responsibilities materially change;
    and (2) a majority of the employees within such agency (or
    subdivision) have as their primary duty intelligence,
    counterintelligence, or investigative work directly related to
    terrorism investigation.

-   Prescribes requirements, including expedited procedures, for
    procurements for defense against or recovery from terrorism or
    nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack.

-   **Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of
    2002 or the SAFETY Act** - Authorizes the Secretary to designate
    anti-terrorism technologies that qualify for protection under a
    prescribed system of risk management (including mandatory liability
    insurance). Creates a Federal cause of action for claims arising out
    of, relating to, or resulting from an act of terrorism when
    qualified anti-terrorism technologies have been deployed in defense
    against or response or recovery from such act and such claims result
    or may result in loss to the Seller.

-   Directs the Secretary to appoint a senior DHS counternarcotics
    officer to coordinate policy and operations within DHS and between
    it and other Federal agencies with respect to interdicting the entry
    of illegal drugs into the United States, and tracking and severing
    connections between illegal drug trafficking and terrorism.

-   Establishes within the Office of the Secretary an Office of
    International Affairs.

-   Prohibits all Federal activities to implement the proposed component
    program of the Citizen Corps known as Operation TIPS (Terrorism
    Information and Prevention System).

-   Establishes within the Office of the Secretary an Office for
    National Capital Region to oversee and coordinate Federal programs
    for and relationships with State, local, and regional authorities in
    the National Capital Region Coordination.

-   Requires DHS to comply with Federal laws protecting equal employment
    opportunity and providing whistleblower protections.

-   Authorizes the Secretary to establish a permanent Joint Interagency
    Homeland Security Task Force composed of representatives from
    military and civilian Federal agencies to anticipate terrorist
    threats and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States.

-   Declares the sense of Congress reaffirming the continued importance
    and applicability of the Posse Comitatus Act prohibiting the use of
    the Armed Forces as a posse comitatus to execute the law except as
    expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.

-   Transfers the Coast Guard to DHS, but prohibits the Secretary from
    substantially or significantly reducing the missions of the Coast
    Guard or its capability to perform them, except as specified in
    subsequent Acts.

-   **Homeland Security Information Sharing Act** - Directs the
    President to prescribe and implement procedures under which relevant
    Federal agencies: (1) share relevant and appropriate homeland
    security information with other Federal agencies, including DHS, and
    appropriate State and local personnel; (2) identify and safeguard
    homeland security information that is sensitive but unclassified;
    and (3) to the extent such information is in classified form,
    determine whether, how, and to what extent to remove classified
    information, as appropriate, and with which such personnel it may be
    shared after such information is removed.

-   Amends the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to authorize the
    disclosure of grand jury information: (1) to personnel of a foreign
    government; and (2) to appropriate Federal, State, local, or foreign
    government officials to prevent or respond to specified hostile
    foreign power or domestic or international terrorist threats or
    actions, or foreign intelligence gathering activities.

-   Authorizes Federal investigative or law enforcement officers to
    share electronic, wire, and oral interception information with
    foreign investigative or law enforcement officers.

**Title IX:** Establishes within the Executive Office of the President a
**National Homeland Security Council** to: (1) assess U.S. objectives,
commitments, and risks in the interest of homeland security; (2) oversee
and review Federal homeland security policies; and (3) make
recommendations to the President.

**Title X: Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002** -
Amends Federal law to revise requirements for the coordination of
Federal information policy to require: (1) the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to oversee agency information security
policies and practices; and (2) each Federal agency head to provide
information security protections. Requires the Director to prescribe
standards for Federal information systems based on proposals by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology.

-   Renames the Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Board the
    Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board.

**Title XI: Department of Justice Divisions** -Transfers the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) from the Department of the Treasury
to the Department of Justice.

-   Establishes within ATF an Explosives Training and Research Facility
    at Fort AP Hill, Fredericksburg, Virginia.

-   **Safe Explosives Act** - Amends the Federal criminal code to
    provide for \$50 one-year limited permits to receive explosive
    materials no more than six times during the permit period, and only
    from licensees or permittees whose premises are located in the State
    where the limited permittee resides. Prohibits limited permit
    holders from transporting, shipping, or receiving explosive
    materials in interstate or foreign commerce.

-   Prohibits knowing distribution of explosive materials to or
    possession by: (1) certain illegal aliens; (2) persons with a
    dishonorable discharge from the Armed Forces; or (3) anyone who has
    renounced U.S. citizenship. Authorizes the Secretary to grant relief
    from specified prohibitions, depending on the relief applicant\'s
    record and reputation.

-   Extends through calendar 2003 the authority of the Secretary of
    Transportation to declare an air carrier a victim of terrorism not
    liable for third party claims arising out of acts of terrorism.

**Title XII: Airline War Risk Insurance Legislation:** Grants the
Secretary of Transportation authority to extend through calendar 2003
the termination date of any insurance policy issued to an air carrier.

**Title XIII: Federal Workplace Improvement** -- Chief Human Capital
Officers Act of 2002 - Amends Federal civil service law to require the
heads of specified agencies to appoint or designate Agency Chief Human
Capital Officers to set agency workforce development strategy.

-   Establishes a Chief Human Capital Officers Council.

-   Requires OMB to design a set of systems for assessing the management
    of human capital by Federal agencies.

-   Amends Federal civil service law to authorize OMB to establish
    alternative ranking and selection procedures for the competitive
    service hiring process.

-   Provides for permanent extension and revision of authorities for use
    of voluntary separation incentive pay and voluntary early
    retirement.

-   Amends Federal civil service law to repeal recertification
    requirements of the Senior Executive Service. Revises requirements
    with respect to employee academic degree training and the National
    Security Education Program.

**Title XIV: Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act** - Amends Federal
transportation law to require the Under Secretary of Transportation for
Security to establish a program to deputize volunteer pilots of
passenger air carriers as Federal law enforcement officers to defend the
aircraft flight decks with firearms or less-than-lethal weapons against
acts of criminal violence or air piracy (Federal flight deck officers).
Provides for flight crew training. Creates tort claim liability against
the U.S. Government under 28 USCZ 171 for purposes of actions brought
against such officers for their acts or omissions.

**Title XV: Transition** -- Requires the President to transmit a DHS
reorganization plan to the appropriate congressional committees within
60 days after enactment of this Act.

**Title XVI: Corrections to Existing Law Relating to Airline
Transportation Security** -- Revises Federal transportation law with
respect to airline transportation security.

-   Allows U.S. nationals, as well as U.S. citizens, to serve as airport
    screeners.

**Title XVII: Conforming and technical amendments** -- Transfers to the
DHS Secretary the mandate to protect Federal Government officers,
employees, and property of certain security and law enforcement
functions and authorities.

-   Establishes in the Department of Defense a National Bio-Weapons
    Defense Analysis Center.

-   Amends Federal transportation law to extend certain requirements
    with respect to railroad and hazardous materials (hazmat) safety to
    railroad and HAZMAT security.

Source: http://thomas.loc.gov

# Case 7.3: The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000: A Shift to Pre-Disaster Mitigation

## Introduction

Natural disasters in the United States have cost American citizens and
the national economy a considerable amount. According to a US Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report "federal disaster assistance costs
have totaled more than \$39 billion (in fiscal year 2001 dollars)" from
1990 to 2001 (GAO, 2002). This figure represents a five-fold increase
over the twelve-year period preceding it -- a rate greatly exceeding
that of real inflation. And, as the years following 2001 have shown, the
annual cost from disasters only continues to grow. Natural disasters
have done more than cause significant physical and economic impacts --
they have devastated whole communities throughout the United States.
These growing costs, thankfully, have elicited a wider recognition of
the fact that without mitigation plans to reduce the impacts of
disasters -- especially in those communities most frequently affected --
that nation will only continue to suffer greater and greater losses. The
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 is a tangible representation of that
recognition.

Several legislative actions in the past few decades have paved the way
for state and local disaster mitigation activities. These precursors to
modern mitigation activities were forward thinking, but short-sighted.
From the Disaster Relief Act of 1950 to the Robert T. Stafford Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, legislation on mitigation has
primarily focused on post-disaster mitigation -- addressing hazards
primarily in areas where disasters have already occurred. While it is
important to address these post-disaster mitigation needs, such as
retrofitting buildings in newly-identified seismic zones following an
earthquake on a previously-unknown fault, mitigation plans have
traditionally been considered an after-action response activity. A
classic emphasis of this philosophy is characterized in the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) of the Stafford Act -- which provides
mitigation funding as a percentage of disaster relief funding. A
highly-notable exception is the FEMA *Project Impact: Building
Disaster-Resistant Communities*. But, although Project Impact was an
initiative-based program, there existed no legislation authorizing
funding for pre-disaster mitigation planning or programming.

In a reversal of trends, Congress enacted the Disaster Mitigation Act of
2000, which provided the necessary funding and authorized the
initiative-based Project Impact into a pre-disaster mitigation planning
program. This paper discusses how federal mitigation policies went from
post-disaster mitigation policy towards pre-disaster mitigation policy.
An analysis is provided to address the impact that pre-disaster
mitigation benefits have had on state and local communities.

## Background: Natural Hazards and their Consequences

Over the past several decades, natural hazard disasters have caused
significant amounts of damages to communities in terms of loss of lives
and destruction of property. The numbers of fatalities and injuries are
astounding. From 1975 to 1994, natural hazards in the United States and
its territories killed over 24,000 people, and injured about 100,000
(Mileti, 1999). In addition to these casualties, the destruction of
property has resulted in great financial losses. From 1970 to the late
1990s, estimated dollar losses to property and crops from natural
hazards fall between \$230 billion and \$1 trillion (Mileti, 1999).
Among the causes of these lost lives, injuries, and damages, are:

Droughts

dust storms

earthquakes

extreme cold

floods

fog

heat

hurricanes

landslides

lightning

hail storms

ice/sleet

snow

avalanches

snowstorms

tornadoes

tropical storms

tsunamis

wildfires

wind

volcanoes

Each year, an increasing percentage of the nation's population migrates
to the urban centers, where major disasters are most likely to occur.
Due to the availability and ease of commerce, cities tend to be built on
ocean fronts, river banks, or in the case of California, in seismically
active zones. This trend in population movement is increasing the
vulnerability of the overall population of the country, and is
concentrating lives in property such that each disaster has greater
consequential potential than the last. In sum -- people are becoming
more susceptible to the effects of natural hazards.

### Impact of Lives and Property

The impacts of natural disasters in terms of lives lost and property
damages sustained severely impact communities, regardless of their size.
Hurricanes, which tend to be especially destructive, serve as a good
example of this point. From 1975 to 1994, hurricanes were the second
most costly natural hazard in terms of property losses and the third
most injurious"(Mileti, 1999). Typically, hurricanes strike on the Gulf
Coast and up the East Coast, but areas in Hawaii, along the West Coast,
and into the Midwest have all experienced hurricanes (Dacy, 1969). One
of the most devastating disasters in the nation's history occurred in
1900 when a hurricane struck Galveston, Texas, killing 6,000 people.
More recently, Hurricane Ivan -- which occurred during the 2004
hurricane season -- struck Florida and other East Coast states, killing
approximately 56 people (giving it the ranking of fifth most deadly
hurricane since 1960) (Leinwand, 2004).

Over the course of the entire 20th century, floods were the number-one
disaster in the United States in terms of lives lost and property
damage, according to statistics gathered by the United States Geological
Survey (USGS). Flooding has caused the deaths of more than 4,000 people
since 1900 (more than 10,000 if the storm surge from the 1900 Galveston
hurricane is categorized as a flood event). Property damage from
flooding now totals over \$1 billion each year (Science Daily, 2005). In
the spring and summer of 1993 alone, flooding in the upper Mississippi
River Basin caused 48 deaths and resulted in record losses of more than
\$20 billion - about half of which were to residences, businesses,
public facilities, and transportation facilities. More than 55,000 homes
were damaged or destroyed and 532 counties received federal disaster aid
(Perry, 2000). Flood damage totals are rising. From 1950 to 1964, floods
caused losses of approximately \$300 million annually (Dacy, 1969).
However, flood damage estimates for the period of 1975 to 1994 range
from \$19.6 billion and \$196 billion -- or \$1-\$10 billion per year
(Mileti, 1999).

Earthquakes are another hazard from which disasters often arise. Though
earthquakes are most common in the West Coast and in Alaska, the entire
United States is vulnerable to seismicity. In 1989, the Loma Prieta
earthquake, which occurred in California, killed 66 people, and caused
over \$10 billion in damages. The Northridge, California, earthquake in
1994, struck a modern urban environment designed to withstand the forces
of earthquakes. Its economic cost was estimated at \$20 billion.
Fortunately, relatively few lives were lost. Estimates of losses from a
future earthquake in the United States approach \$200 billion (NEHRP,
2004).

## Mitigation Defined

In order to address the advances that have occurred in terms of
mitigation policy in the United States, it is first necessary that
mitigation be defined. According to David Godschalk in "Natural Hazard
Mitigation: Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning", the Robert T.
Stafford Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 defines mitigation
as an "advance action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to
human life and property from natural hazards" (Godschalk, 1999). In
Dennis Mileti's "Disasters by Design", mitigation is defined as "the
policies and activities that will reduce an area's vulnerability to
damage from *future* natural disasters" (Mileti, 1999).

While the first definition can be interpreted as one that addressing
recognized and calculated risk, the second definition clearly focuses on
pre-disaster mitigation. The common focus of all mitigation, however, is
the performance of actions to reduce the hazard risk itself -- not
prepare for it should it happen. In essence, a mitigation activity
reduces or eliminates the consequences that may occur if a hazard risk
is realized. Preparedness, conversely, refers to the taking of an action
that allows for adequate reaction to the disaster once it has occurred.
For example, while evacuation planning helps building occupants
*prepare* for what to do should an earthquake occur, seismic
retrofitting to the building helps to ensure that the occupants never
face any danger in the first place.

## History of Federal Mitigation Legislation 

Federal legislation to reduce the impacts of natural disasters first
appeared in the form of patchwork, event-driven and location specific
legislation. Whenever a specific natural disaster would strike a
community or communities, causing great human suffering and/or property
damage, legislation would be drafted to fit the peculiarities of that
particular hazard type. Furthermore, the legislation would be written
primarily to address the recovery of the State and local communities,
such as was often the case during the repeat flooding problems of the
1930s (Huffman, 1986). It was not until Congress passed the Disaster
Relief Act of 1950 that Federal powers to respond to natural disasters
was both expanded and formalized. However, this act maintained that the
State and local governments were still ultimately responsible for all
disaster response activities that befall them.

The Disaster Relief Acts of 1966, 1969, and 1970 provided greater aid
benefits to States, local communities, and individuals (Huffman, 1986).
Specifically, the Disaster Relief Act of 1966 authorized grants to state
and local governments which could be used to repair or reconstruct State
and city infrastructure damaged or destroyed by natural disasters. The
Disaster Relief Act of 1970 extended these benefits to include the
repair or reconstruction of medical facilities, and gave increased
authority to the President to dedicate the assistance of federal
agencies to State and local governments (Bea, 2003).

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed Executive Order 12148 creating
FEMA. The creation of FEMA helped to solidify the system by which the
Federal government provided assistance in the response to disasters that
overwhelm the capacity of the States to respond. Various Federal
agencies had provided individual types of assistance prior to 1979, but
President Carter created FEMA to centralize this Federal emergency
management capacity into a focused, coordinated unit (GAO, 2002). After
FEMA's establishment, disaster response became increasingly federalized,
most significantly as dictated by the text of the Stafford Act of 1988
(The Stafford Act).

The Stafford Act provided federal aid to state and local communities who
had been impacted by a major, 'Presidentially declared disaster." Both
the communities and the State in which they were located would
presumably have been overwhelmed by the event, and unable to pay for the
cost of response and recovery (Bea, 2000). But, what is most notable
about this act is that it addressed the issue of Mitigation through the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).

The HMGP was at the time, and still is, the largest source of Federal
funding for State and local mitigation activities. It is also, as
reported by the GAO, the oldest. The HMPG provides grants to state and
local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation programs
after a major disaster has been declared by the President. The Stafford
Act stipulates only that HMGP projects reduce the overall risk from the
hazard, and that the benefits of the project exceed the costs.

The original HMGP was not very successful, however, because it involved
a heavy cost share for the states. In 1988, the Stafford Act allowed for
HMGP funding to equal a total of 15% of the amount given in public
assistance disaster relief to the State. For the projects, however, the
state had to pay 50% of the cost, and the Federal government covered the
other 50%. This policy lasted until 1993, and during this time many
states found that they could not put forth sufficient funds to take
advantage of the program.

Following the 1993 Midwest Floods, which were devastating to the states
affected, Congress changed the match requirement such that States were
responsible for only 25% of the HMGP project costs. To increase the
amount of funding available for the program, Congress also changed the
Stafford Act such that the HMGP would receive up to 15% of all disaster
relief funding, not just the public assistance. After those changes were
made, the program enjoyed wide success, most notably in the area of
buyouts of homes located within the floodplain.

The HMGP allowed wide leeway to the states in their determination of
what constituted mitigation. Examples of projects that were conducted in
the aftermath of disasters include:

-   Retrofitting buildings to be more structurally resilient to the
    effects of earthquakes

-   Establishing vegetation management programs

-   Designing and implementing building code enforcement mechanisms

-   Developing public education and awareness

-   Modifying building structures to resist specific hazards (raising
    structures, for example)

-   Building safe rooms in tornado-prone areas

-   Relocating structures to sites away from more hazard-prone areas

Additionally, the HMGP allowed state and local governments to hire staff
to work on mitigation issues in communities.

During the late 80's and the 90's, other Federal programs were created
that either indirectly addressed mitigation or did so by targeting
specific vulnerabilities. For instance, the National Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 1994 was enacted to rework lender compliance requirements
and notification to borrowers about purchasing flood insurance in flood
zone areas (Godschalk, 1999). Other natural hazard-specific mitigation
programs included:

-   The National Earthquake Hazard Program

-   The National Hurricane Program

-   The National Dam Safety Program

-   The Fire Prevention and Assistance Act (Haddow, 2003).

These mitigation programs focused on a particular natural disaster, and
did not assess the overall natural disaster risks of the community.

## The Beginnings of Pre-Disaster Mitigation 

### Project Impact: Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Initiative

Despite a predominant focus on post-disaster mitigation programs that
existed at the Federal level, such as was true with the HMGP, some
legislative steps were taken that did address pre-disaster mitigation.
The first major advance occurred when, in the mid-1990s, FEMA created a
Mitigation Directorate within its organizational structure. This
directorate could not concentrate on the research and policy study
required to understand the full benefits of pre-disaster, as well as
post-disaster, mitigation activities (Godschalk, 1999).

Then, in 1997, FEMA announced an initiative program called *Project
Impact: Building Disaster-Resistant Communities*, which was a
pre-disaster mitigation program aimed at encouraging local communities
to develop mitigation programs tailored to the specific natural disaster
profiles that existed within their communities. Project Impact provided
"small, one-time grants directly to communities, which ... were designed
to develop mitigation plans, build effective partnerships, and encourage
private sector participation" (GAO, 2002). Furthermore, Project Impact
worked to bring the local business community and the emergency
management community together. FEMA's initiative program sought to
achieve the following pre-disaster mitigation program goals:

-   To building a community partnership

-   To identify hazards and assess risks

-   To prioritizing risk-reduction actions

-   To develop communication strategies (Wachtendorf, 2000)

Project Impact began with seven pilot communities. By 2001, the program
had expanded to over 225 cities, counties, and regions in the United
States. These communities received grants ranging from \$60,000 to
\$1,000,000. In total that year, Congress appropriated \$25 million to
the program. All communities were eligible to benefit from the program
because funds could be disbursed regardless of whether or not a disaster
had recently, or ever, occurred within the community.

The value of the program was made widely apparent when both Seattle,
Washington, and Tulsa, Oklahoma, were impacted by disasters and fared
well as result of participation in the program. Through these and other
successes, the idea of pre-disaster mitigation (PDM) began to enjoy a
growing support base. Congress responded to the need by working on
legislation that would authorize much greater funding for the program.
The funding, however, never came, and in 2002 the Project Impact was
discontinued.

## Legislation Leading to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000

In 1998 and 1999, the U.S. Congress began developing legislation that
would authorize FEMA's Project Impact program. During this time,
Congress initiated a bill titled The Disaster Mitigation Act of 1998.
Lawmakers were seeking to create a program that funded disaster
mitigation that was not dependent upon a disaster declaration. This bill
was introduced in the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and passed in the House of Representatives. However, the
bill only went as far as the Senate committee before the session ended.
The Senate subsequently introduced the Disaster Mitigation Act of 1999,
S. 1691. This bill moved out of committee on March 4, 1999, but stopped
there. The House reviewed a new version of the bill on October 10, 2000,
and the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 was finally passed through
conference committee.

### Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000

After the U.S. Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 on
October 10^th^, President George W. Bush signed it into practice on
October 30, 2000 (Public Law 106-390). This Act amended several parts of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of
1988. Its primary purposes were to authorize a pilot program for a
pre-disaster mitigation program, and to provide funding for a
pre-disaster mitigation program (GAO, 2002).

## Provisions of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000

Title I of the Disaster Mitigation Act discusses the problem addressed
by the act and the purpose of the act. In addressing the problem of
disasters - such as earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes,
flooding, and wildfires - which cause harm to people and their property,
the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 established a national hazard
mitigation program and provided mitigation funding to state, local, and
tribal governments through a "National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund"
(U.S. Congress, 2000). The act gave the President the authority to
establish a grant program to provide state and local governments
financial and technical assistance in pre-disaster mitigation measures.
This ensures cost-effective strategies and reduces loss of life and
destruction of property.

The State governors were tasked with selecting at least five local
communities to participate in the program. If the governor does not
select five, the President has the option to select the communities.
Once the pre-disaster mitigation proposal is approved, funds can be
allocated to state and local governments through the National
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund. State, local, and tribal governments can
apply the pre-disaster mitigation measures in the following ways:

> To support effective public-private natural disaster hazard mitigation
> partnerships
>
> To improve the assessment of a community's vulnerability to natural
> hazards
>
> To establish hazard mitigation priorities and an appropriate hazard
> mitigation plan for the community

Once a State, local, or tribal government has developed and sent a
mitigation plan identifying the natural hazards, risks, and
vulnerabilities, the President (or FEMA, acting on behalf of the
president) may approve the plan. According to the law, the President can
increase federal funding by seven percent of the contributions after a
state, local, or tribal government has developed a pre-disaster
mitigation plan.

In addition to setting up a National Pre-disaster Mitigation Grant
Program and a National Pre-disaster Mitigation Fund, an Interagency Task
Force was established to coordinate these programs. The Director of FEMA
was stipulated as the chair of this task force, and the members of the
task force were to be composed of representatives from the State, local,
and tribal governments, and the American Red Cross.

Title II of the Disaster Mitigation Act outlines how cost reduction
measures can be funded through the pre-disaster mitigation program. This
section gives the President the authority to "establish management cost
rates... that \[would\] determine contributions" to State, local, and
tribal governments. The President can also make contributions to State,
local, or tribal governments "for repair to facilities damaged or
destroyed by a major natural disaster and for associated expenses
incurred by the government." The Act also gave the President the
authority to make contributions to private "non-profit facilities."

## Implementation and Funding of the Act

### Implementation

While FEMA already had a hazard mitigation planning program set up
before the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, the act provided greater
emphasis on state and local *pre-disaster* mitigation planning
interaction. The revised hazard mitigation program emphasized
performance measures rather than "prescriptive" measures to measure
progress (FEMA, 2000). The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 also
emphasized the idea of having Standard and Enhanced State Mitigation
Plans. With regard to Standard State Mitigation Plans, state governments
would be able to receive "7.5% of the total estimated eligible Stafford
Act disaster assistance" of HMGP funding. In order to receive funding,
the states are required to follow these requirements:

-   Describe how the state coordinated with local mitigation planning
    efforts

-   Develop a mitigation strategy based on local and state vulnerability
    analyses and risk assessments

-   Describe how the state provides funding or technical assistance to
    local governments

-   Establish a plan maintenance process

With regard to Enhanced State Mitigation Plans, state governments could
receive HMGP funds of up to "20% of the total estimated eligible
Stafford Act disaster assistance" right after a natural disaster
declaration has been declared. States must also follow these
requirements to receive funding:

-   Demonstrate a broad, programmatic mitigation approach

-   Demonstrate a systemic and effective administration and
    implementation of existing mitigation programs

Local Mitigation Plans also exist, for which local governments "must
also demonstrate that proposed mitigation actions are based on a sound
planning process that accounts for the inherent risk and capabilities of
the individual communities."

### Approval Process

To implement pre-disaster mitigation plans from the Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000 into FEMA's current mitigation program, FEMA published
several Interim Final Rules, which stipulated the criteria for approval
of the mitigation plans by the Federal Government for various government
types (local, State, and tribal). Extensions to the deadline have been
repeatedly granted, and as of mid-2005, no Final Rule has been released.

During the interim rule period, mitigation grants may be disbursed only
after a tribal, local, or state government has had their mitigation plan
approved by FEMA. FEMA requires state mitigation plans be "reviewed and
re-approved by FEMA every three years," while local mitigation plans be
"reviewed and re-approved by FEMA every five years" (FEMA, 2000). For
tribal governments, because they are sub-grantees of a state or local
government grant, tribal governments must follow review and re-approval
processes of whichever grant for which they are sub-grantees of the
particular grant.

To be approved for a Standard State Mitigation Plan grant, a state
government must receive a satisfactory score for each requirement of the
plan before it is approved. For the Enhanced State Mitigation Plan
grant, the State government must receive a "score of satisfactory...
\[on\] all Standard and Enhanced requirements." Local Mitigation Plans
must also meet all satisfactory score requirements before a local
community receives funding. For any requirement for which the State or
local government does not receive a satisfactory score, they would
receive a "needs improvement" score which would include FEMA comments
and feedback on how to improve that particular deficiency. The program
was clearly designed to be interactive and to allow for a transfer of
technical knowledge.

### Funding

Upon completing the Interim Rule, FEMA began funding pre-disaster
mitigation plans in fiscal year 2003. During that year, FEMA provided
\$150 million under the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund to initiate a
competitive grant program for pre-disaster mitigation activities (FEMA,
2004). The following is a list of states that received PDM funding in FY
2003:

Alabama

Arkansas

Arizona

California

Florida

Georgia

Iowa

Idaho

Illinois

Kansas

Kentucky

Massachusetts

Maryland

Michigan

Missouri

Mississippi

Montana

North Carolina

New Hampshire

New Mexico

New York

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Puerto Rico

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Washington

Wisconsin

West Virginia

Wyoming

The range of aid provided to each local community was from as little as
\$1131 to as high as \$3 million.

## Evaluations of the Hazard Mitigation Programs

Because the PDM program is still in its infancy, it is difficult to
evaluate the progress of pre-disaster mitigation programs. However, the
GAO provided a comparative evaluation of FEMA's mitigation programs: the
HMGP and Project Impact programs. In their report, "Hazard Mitigation:
Proposed Changes to FEMA's Multi-hazard Mitigation Programs Present
Challenges," the GAO described their evaluation of the HMGP and PDM
(specifically Project Impact). The report was based on the evaluations
of 24 state hazard mitigation officials who participated in both HMGP
and PDM programs (GAO, 2002). In addition, the GAO conducted site visits
in Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina that have been involved in both
programs. Overall, the GAO reported state mitigation officials
considered both programs to be successful.

### HMGP Evaluation

According to the GAO report, between FY1996 and FY2001, FEMA funded over
\$2.2 billion in the HMGP. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 increased
state HMGP funding from 15% to 20%. Typical HMGP funded projects
included improving structural building and property, such as the
reinforcement of walls, roofs, and foundations.

State officials determined the HMGP was successful because the focus was
on post-disaster mitigation activities. The idea behind the success of
the HMGP was based on the fact that people have a desire and incentive
to develop mitigation procedures after a natural disaster occurs, when
the effects of a natural disaster are most visible. University studies,
like the 1997 study conducted by Georgetown University, found this
conclusion to be valid. What made the HMGP successful was that it
"provided funding in the aftermath of a \[natural\] disaster" -- when
mitigation measures to protect the local and state communities was on
the forefront of the minds of the citizens in the community (GAO, 2002).

Several examples have been used to illustrate HMGP's success. For
instance, when North Carolina was hit by Hurricane Floyd in 1999, the
state government was awarded a HMGP fund of \$228 million removed homes
from "flood-prone areas." Additionally, a small town in Ohio was struck
by a tornado in 2000, which killed one person and injured over 100.
After the tornado, and because of the HMGP funding, 50 families' homes
were reconstructed with residential "safe rooms" which would protect
those occupants from future tornadoes (GAO, 2002).

Despite some of the success stories of the HMGP, there were also some
concerns about the program. Cost effectiveness was difficult to
determine on some projects. A report from the FEMA Office of Inspector
General (OIG) in 1998 and 2001 indicated that analysis had not been
conducted to determine the validity of a program. Furthermore, many
hazard mitigation projects did not have any analysis conducted at all on
the cost-effectiveness of the project -- a requirement of funding.
According to an administration budget request, "45% of the HMGP projects
undertaken from 1993 to 2000 were minimally cost effective or not cost
effective at all. The lack of cost-effective studies made it difficult
to conclude how successful the HMGP was in those areas (GAO, 2002).

### Project Impact/ PDM Program Evaluation

While there have not been many PDM program evaluations of funded
projects resulting from the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, the GAO did
evaluate the success of Project Impact. According to the GAO report,
from FY 1997 to FY 2001, Project Impact provided a total of \$77 million
to communities in every state and several US territories." One of
Project Impact's most notable benefits was the private and public
partnerships that were created to address the community's mitigation
needs. An example provided described a business in Florida that
installed impact resistant glass and concrete roofs to homes of elderly
residents, at its own expense. Another benefit of Project Impact was
that it provided funding for State and local hazard mitigation officials
to identify risks and vulnerabilities, used by the community in
developing mitigation plans. Third, Project Impact provided "seed money"
to state and local communities, so local businesses would have an
incentive to provide additional funding. In 1998, for example, \$500,000
was granted to Utah to hosting meetings and outreach sessions with the
local business community, to solicit additional funding. Through the
meeting, State emergency managers were able to meet with the local
business community leaders and raise approximately \$2 million (GAO,
2002).

### Changes in FY 2003

With the success of Project Impact and other legislation supporting
pre-disaster mitigation, FEMA proposed in 2003 to abolish the HMGP in
favor of a fully-competitive PDM program. Though this did not occur, the
program was changed from being formula-based to competitive. The
administration cites the reason behind their drive to push all
mitigation 'pre-disaster,' is to bring more stability to the program, as
well as bring "a consistent level of mitigation assistance ... available
to states and communities." These proposed changes are also based upon
the belief that states would no longer be dependent on disaster
declarations to obtain mitigation grants.

The GAO report examining mitigation programs in the United States
considered this argument, and arrived at the conclusion that American
communities might be better served by programs that address both pre-
and post-disaster mitigation. Their primary concerns, as listed in the
report, were that:

-   FEMA and states may not be able to take advantage of interest in
    participating in mitigation activities that often emerge after a
    natural disaster has struck

-   Some states might be entirely excluded from mitigation funding

-   Outreach and planning activities that help increase participation in
    mitigation might be curtailed, and

-   FEMA might face challenges, such as establishing a process for
    comparing the costs and benefits of projects, in implementing the
    new program (GAO, 2002)

### Pre-Disaster Mitigation Loans Program for Small Businesses

The Small Business Association (SBA), in partnership with FEMA, created
a business-targeted pre-disaster mitigation initiative -- the
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Loan Program (FEMA, N/D). The loan program's
purpose is to make low-interest; fixed-rate loans to small businesses so
that they are able to implement mitigation measures that protect their
property from damage from future natural disasters (SBA, N/D). In 2000,
the program was authorized as a pilot, with \$15 million in funding for
each of the five years from 2000 to 2004. The pilot stipulated that, to
be eligible, the businesses must be located in a flood hazard area, and
as of November 1, 2003, they had to be located in a community that has a
FEMA approved mitigation plan. Each applicant could apply for a loan of
up to \$50,000 per fiscal year. At this time the pilot has completed,
though there are no reports as of yet concerning its outcome.

## Pre-disaster Mitigation Program Reauthorization Act of 2003

Congress is taking steps to continue efforts towards pre-disaster
mitigation. In the 108^th^ Congressional session, the U.S. House of
Representatives worked to amend the three year deadline to the HGMP, and
extended the deadline to September 30, 2005. The Pre-disaster Mitigation
Program Reauthorization Act of 2003, H.R. 3181, sought to extend the
Disaster Mitigation Act for three years, (and to restore the HMGP
formula to 15%). The U.S. House of Representatives referred H.R. 3181,
Pre-disaster Mitigation Program Reauthorization Act of 2003, to House
committee on November 4, 2003; The bill was then referred to the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works on December 9, 2003. However,
because Congress adjourned without voting on the bill, it did not move
forward. In December of 2004, a one-year extension of the PDM program
was included in the Omnibus Appropriations bill.

## Conclusion

Federal mitigation policies have grown significantly during the last
fifty years. The most significant change has been the shift towards
vulnerability reduction at the community level. Mitigation policy has
begun to move away from the treatment of individual disasters towards
more comprehensive programs supporting hazards risk assessment. With
such tools at their service, communities are better able to define their
needs accurate in relation to the portfolio of risks they face.

Federal mitigation policy has also sought to treat hazards before
disasters occur rather then taking those same mitigation actions only as
a reactionary measure. Under such policies, towns and cities must no
longer suffer needlessly before State and Federal Government support is
provided. With the benefit of hazards risk assessments, communities can
identify these hazard risks and reduce them without needing to have an
established history of disaster events. Several communities have already
reaped the benefits of pre-disaster mitigation, and their increased
resilience paid off in lives saved and property preserved.

Unfortunately, because pre-disaster mitigation funding is still very
new, and only limited research exists on the absolute monetary benefits
it provides, some communities may be skeptical of committing funds to
its practice despite evidence that suggests cost-effectiveness. However,
as more programs are funded, and more disasters are mitigated as a
result, these figures will become available. In 2005, the argument for
pre-disaster mitigation received a significant boost when a report was
released by the Multihazard Mitigation Council (MMC), a public/private
partnership designed to reduce the economic and social costs of natural
hazards. The Council proclaimed "money spent on reducing the risk of
natural hazards is a sound investment" (MMH, 2005). The MMC study
determined that, on average, every dollar that FEMA had spent on hazard
mitigation had produced about \$4 in future benefits. What is more
impressive is that these results are not limited purely to the financial
consequences. According to the study, FEMA's mitigation grants were
directly linked to the prevention of an estimated 220 lives, and also
appear to have prevented almost 4,700 injuries.

Armed with these findings, more emergency managers will be able to
convince their constituents, and their community executives, that
pre-disaster mitigation is as sound an investment as those managers have
long believed. Such findings will also be key to furthering the drive
towards Federally- and state-supported mitigation policies. After all,
with an 300% observed rate of return, investment in pre-disaster
mitigation is a fantastic sell.

**References**

Bea, Keith. 2000. Disaster Mitigation Assistance Bills in the 106^th^
Congress: Comparison of Provisions. Congressional Research Service
Report RL30543. May 5.

Bea, Keith. 2003. Federal Disaster Policies after Terrorists Strike:
Issues and Options. New York. Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Dacy, Douglas and Howard Kunreuther. 1969. The Economics of Natural
Disaster: Implications for Federal Policy. New York. The Free Press.

FEMA. N/D. "Mitigation Grant Programs: List of Fiscal Year 2003
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive Grant Recipients." FEMA Website.
[www.fema.gov/fima/pdmclist.shtm](http://www.fema.gov/fima/pdmclist.shtm)

FEMA 2. N/D. "Pre-Disaster Mitigation Loans for Small Businesses." FEMA
Website. <http://www.fema.gov/fima/planning_sba_loan.shtm>

Godschalk, David R., Timothy Beatley, Philip Berke, David Brower, and
Edward Kaiser. 1999. Natural Hazard Mitigation: Recasting Disaster
Policy and Planning. Washington, DC. Island Press.

Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2002. "Hazard Mitigation:
Proposed Changes to FEMA's Multihazard Program Present Challenges."
Washington, DC. September. <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d021035.pdf>

Haddow, George and Jane Bullock. 2003. Introduction to Emergency
Management. New York. Butterworth Heinemann.

Huffman, James. 1986. Government Liability and Disaster Mitigation: A
Comparative Study. Lanham, MD. University Press of America, Inc.

Leinwand, Donna, and Gregg Zoroya. 2004. "Hurricane's Toll Grows Heavier
in Eastern USA." USA Today. September 20.
<http://usatoday.com/weather/hurricane/2004-09-20-ivan-1a_x.htm>

Mileti, Dennis S. 1999. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural
Hazards in the United States. Washington, DC. Joseph Henry Press.

Multihazard Mitigation Council (MMC). 2005. Natural Hazard Mitigation
Saves: An Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation
Activities. Volume 1.
<http://nibs.org/MMC/MitigationSavingsReport/Part1_final.pdf>

National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP). 2004. What is an
Earthquake? November 22.
<http://www.fema.gov/hazards/earthquakes/nehrp/earthquake_backgrounder.shtm>

Perry, Charles A. 2000. Significant Floods in the United States During
the 20^th^ Century -- USGS Measures a Century of Floods. United States
Geological Survey (USGS) Fact Sheet 024-00. March.

Science Daily. 2005. USGS Measures a Century of Floods. May 12.
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000512083928.htm>

Small Business Administration (SBA). N/D. "Pre-Disaster Mitigation Loan
Program." SBA Website.
<http://www.sba.gov/disaster_recov/loaninfo/pre_disaster_mitigation.html>

United States Congress. 2000. "Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000." Public
Law 106-390. October 30.
<http://www.dem.dcc.state.nc.us/PA/Assets/Forms/dma2000.pdf>

United States Senate. 2000. "Disaster Mitigation Act of 1999." S. 1691.
May 17.
<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:3:./temp/~r106fPPlYP>:

Wachtendorf, Tricia. 2000. "Building Community Partnerships Toward a
National Mitigation Effort." Disaster Research Center. Newark, DE.
University of Delaware.

**Image 7.3.1: House Raised to Mitigate Flood Risk**

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="4.752777777777778in"
height="3.1055555555555556in"}

Source: FEMA - <http://www.fema.gov/fima/planning.shtm>

**Additional Sources of Information on NEHRP**

FEMA NEHRP Home Page - <http://www.fema.gov/hazards/earthquakes/nehrp/>

SAC Steel Project: <http://www.sacsteel.org/project/index.html>

The NEHRP Coalition - <http://www.nehrp.org/>

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) Position on NEHRP
Reauthorization - <http://www.eeri.org/news/nehrp/>

USGS Earthquake Hazards Program "Largest Earthquakes in the United
States" <http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/10maps_usa.html>

USGS Earthquake Home Page - <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/>

HAZUS - <http://www.fema.gov/hazus/>

####### Additional Sources of Information on the Homeland Security Act of 2002

Department of Homeland Security -- [www.dhs.gov](http://www.dhs.gov/)

White House Homeland Security Page -
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/>

Full Text of the Act -
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=5&q=http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/hsa2002.pdf&e=10313>

GAO Report on Nunn Lugar Domenici Act -
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt%3FGAO/T-NSIAD-99-16&e=10313>

Terrorism Annex to the Federal Response Plan (Now the National Response
Plan)
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39_frp.htm&e=10313>

FEMA September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack Page -
<http://www.fema.gov/diz01/d1391.shtm>

####### Additional Sources of Information on DMA 2000

SBA Pre-disaster mitigation program -
<http://www.sba.gov/disaster_recov/loaninfo/pre_disaster_mitigation.html>

DMA 2000 Planning Resources

<http://www.fema.gov/fima/resources.shtm>

Approved Hazard Mitigation Plans
<http://www.fema.gov/fima/approved_plans.shtm>

Full List of 2003 Approved PDM Projects
<http://www.fema.gov/fima/pdmclist.shtm>

FEMA Mitigation Division Website - <http://www.fema.gov/fima/>

**Glossary of Terms**

ASCE Standard -- Building or other engineering / architectural code
accepted by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Microzonation - The identification of separate individual areas having
different potentials for hazardous earthquake effects

Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale - a scale used to classify the
intensity of an earthquake by examining its effects on people and
structures at the Earth\'s surface. It was created by Italian
volcanologist Giuseppe Mercalli in 1902. It is often used to classify
the magnitude of historical earthquakes that occurred before seismic
measurements were possible.

Richter Scale -- A logarithmic scale, invented in 1935 by United States
geophysicist Charles Richter, for representing the energy released by
earthquakes

Sarin -- a man-made chemical warfare agent classified as a nerve agent

WMD -- Weapon of Mass Destruction -- Refers to a weapon designed to kill
or injure large numbers of people. These weapons tend to be made out of
Nuclear, radiological, biological, chemical, or highly explosive
materials.

**Acronyms**

ASCE -- American Society of Civil Engineers

ATF -- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

BTS -- Border and Transportation Security

CBP -- U.S. Customs and Border Protection

CIA -- Central Intelligence Agency

CUREe -- California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering

DHS -- Department of Homeland Security

DOJ -- Department of Homeland Security

EERI -- Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

EP&R -- Emergency Preparedness and Response

FEMA -- Federal Emergency Management Agency

FBI -- Federal Bureau of Investigation

FOIA -- Freedom of Information Act

FRP - Federal Response Plan

GAO -- General Accounting Office / Government Accountability Office

HAZUS -- Hazards U.S.

HAS -- Homeland Security Act

HMGP -- Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

HSARPA - Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency

HSOC -- Homeland Security Operations Center

HSPD -- Homeland Security Presidential Directive

IAIP -- Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection

NEES -- Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation

NEHRP -- National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

NESW -- National Earthquake Strategy Working Group

NEP -- National Earthquake Loss Reduction Program

NHSA -- National Homeland Security Agency

NIMS -- National Incident Management System

NIST -- National Institute for Standards and Technology

NSA -- National Security Agency

NSF -- National Science Foundation

OIG -- Office of the Inspector General

OSTP -- Office of Science and Technology Policy

PBSD -- Performance Based Seismic Design

PDD -- Presidential Decision Directive

PDM -- Pre-Disaster Mitigation

PHSAC -- President's Homeland Security Advisory Council

S&T -- Science and Technology

SBA -- Small Business Administration

TIPS -- Terrorism Information and Prevention System

TSA -- Transportation Security Administration

TTIC -- Terrorist Threat Information Center

USAR -- Urban Search and Rescue

USCIS - U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

USCNS/21 -- United States Commission on National Security / 21^st^
Century

USGS - United States Geological Survey

USSS -- United States Secret Service

WMD -- Weapon of Mass Destruction

**Discussion Questions**

General

1.  Why is statutory authority important to disaster management?

2.  Is the Stafford Act an effective piece of legislation? Why or why
    not?

3.  Should the Federal Government be able to intervene in the response
    to a disaster without a request from the governor of a state? Why or
    why not?

4.  In a disaster that requires response from local, State, and Federal
    resources, who should be in charge, and why?

5.  Is emergency and disaster management legislation event driven?
    Explain.

NEHRP

1.  Are earthquakes a hazard every American should spend time and money
    preparing for? Why or why not?

2.  Should the Federal Government be responsible for Earthquake early
    warning system design, funding, and operation? Explain your answer.

3.  What role do individuals play in the mitigation from the earthquake
    hazard in the United States?

4.  Do you believe that NIST is better equipped or better positioned to
    be the lead agency for NEHRP? Why or why not?

5.  What more could be done to mitigate the earthquake risk in the
    United States?

Homeland Security Act of 2002

1.  Was the creation of the Department of Homeland Security a knee-jerk
    reaction or a much needed change? Explain.

2.  In your opinion, why weren't the recommendations of the three
    commissions followed until after an event like the September 11^th^
    attacks occurred?

3.  What benefits are gained by housing the 22 agencies included in DHS
    under one roof? What are the risks?

4.  Why do you think that FEMA was permitted to retain the FEMA name?

5.  Does the legislation behind the creation of the Department of
    Homeland Security give ample consideration to non-terrorist hazards?

DMA 2000

1.  Why is pre-disaster mitigation important? Is it more or less
    effective than post-disaster mitigation? Explain your answers.

2.  Should money allocated to mitigation be required to show a positive
    return in the long run? In other words, should \$1 spent on
    mitigation be required to prevent at least \$1 in future damages?
    Why or why not?

3.  Why are the financial costs of disasters rising while the fatalities
    and injuries are falling? Will there come a time where both
    decrease? Why or why not?

4.  Should legislation that addresses mitigation be hazard specific or
    address all hazards? Explain.

5.  Is moving all Federal funding into pre-disaster mitigation programs
    wise? Explain.

**Suggested Out of Class Exercises**

1.  Contact your local office of emergency management, and find out if
    your community has a FEMA-approved Hazard Mitigation Plan. If so,
    ask to view the plan, and offer your analysis to the class. If not,
    suggest what could be done to address your community's hazards.

2.  Read the National Response Plan. Become familiar with its components

3.  Find out if your community is receiving grant money from the various
    Federal emergency management programs. Find out if there are any
    programs for which your community is eligible but has not applied.
    Help them to create a grant application or to design a program for
    which the funds will be applied.

4.  Choose one of the programs funded by the PDM program in 2003, and
    follow up on its progress (either through the media or by contacting
    representatives from the program). Report your findings to the
    class.

5.  Find out what statutory authority exists in your community for the
    management of disasters. Report what you find to the class.