U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

62–541 PDF 2011

FEMA’S FISCAL YEAR 2011 PRIORITIES AND 

BEYOND: ALIGNING BUDGET, MISSION, AND 

VISION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY 

COMMUNICATIONS, 

PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 27, 2010 

Serial No. 111–64 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

JANE HARMAN, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

VACANCY

PETER T. KING, New York 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

I. LANIER AVANT, Staff Director 

ROSALINE COHEN, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

ROBERT O’CONNOR, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, PREPAREDNESS, 

AND RESPONSE 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California, Chairwoman 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

EMMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (ex officio) 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

MICHAEL T. MCCaul, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York (ex officio) 

STEPHEN VINA, Staff Director 

RYAN CALDWELL, Clerk 

AMANDA HALPERN, Minority Subcommittee Lead 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Laura Richardson, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response .............................................................. 1 

The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Alabama, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response .............................................................. 3 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security .. 4 

WITNESSES

Mr. W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 6 

APPENDIX

Questions From Chairwoman Laura Richardson .................................................. 35 

Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson ................................................. 39 

Questions From Ranking Member Peter T. King ................................................. 41 

Questions From Honorable William L. Owens ...................................................... 44 

(1) 

FEMA’S FISCAL YEAR 2011 PRIORITIES AND 

BEYOND: ALIGNING BUDGET, MISSION, AND 

VISION 

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, 

PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:04 p.m., in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Laura Richardson [Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Richardson, Thompson, Cuellar, Pascrell, Cleaver, Titus, Rogers, Olson, and Cao. 

Ms. RICHARDSON [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Emergency 

Communications, Preparedness, and Response will come to order. 

The subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on 

‘‘FEMA’s 2011 Priorities and Beyond: Aligning the Budget, Mission, 

and Vision.’’ I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

I would urge both myself and all my colleagues—my understanding from staff, we might have votes coming up somewhere 

around the 3 o’clock hour, so if we can try and get through as much 

as possible, I think Mr. Fugate would appreciate that, as well. 

Good afternoon. I want to welcome our witness to today’s hearing, the Honorable Craig Fugate, administrator of FEMA. I would 

like to thank the administrator for working with us to reschedule 

this hearing in light of some of the weather and other issues that 

we had here in Washington. You were very kind to work with us 

and to come and discuss the budget request before us today for 

FEMA. 

My colleagues and I on this subcommittee look forward to working with you. 

Before we get started, I would like to take a moment to pass 

along my sincerest condolences to the good people of Mississippi, 

including many in the Chairman’s district, and the neighboring 

States that were impacted by last weekend’s tornado. My thoughts 

and prayers go out to all the families affected by the devastating 

storms, and we will make sure that we get them and you all the 

help that you absolutely need. 

Given the current economic environment, I was pleased to see 

the administration requested $10.5 billion for FEMA in full year 

2011, an increase of $168 million for the full year 2010 enacted 

level. 
2 

Over the last several months, we have witnessed the destruction 

caused by some of the most powerful earthquakes to hit our neighbors to the south. Not only do these disasters serve as humbling 

reminders of the massive responsibilities that come with your job, 

they require us to ask whether FEMA has the resources to carry 

out its mission here at home today. 

While I am—excuse me—while I am supportive of the overall 

proposed budget increase for FEMA, I do have several concerns. 

First, the budget processes—when you consider about a 4 percent 

reduction for State and local grants, training, and technical assistance, is an issue. In particular, the budget request includes a $200 

million cut to vital firefighter grant programs, much of which I 

have heard many of my colleagues express in our own appropriations meetings here on the Hill. 

Collectively, these two programs are often the last lifeline for fire 

departments struggling to sustain their capabilities in this economic downturn. I would like to hear from you why—of all the 

grant programs, especially given your background—that FEMA 

manages, these two programs would be singled out to be cut to 

such a large degree. 

I am also extremely concerned about the proposal to consolidate 

several freestanding grant programs, such as the Citizen Corps, the 

Interoperable Emergency Communications within the State Homeland Security Grant Program. 

I saw first-hand the devastation in American Samoa after the 

tsunamis last fall, and we must ensure that our citizens are just 

as equally prepared for a serious disaster. Programs like Citizens 

Corps are key to this effort and must remain adequately funded. 

The same holds true for interoperability grants. I believe 

lumping these grants into State Homeland Security Grant Programs might only dilute the amount of funding for the integration 

of the State and local emergency communication systems. 

I am also troubled by the elimination of the separate funding for 

emergency operation centers. I understand that it is an eligible expense under the Emergency Management Performance Grants, but, 

again, I am concerned that these centers will lose critical funding 

by being combined. 

The budget is a very good indication of your vision for the upcoming year, Administrator Fugate, but we also know you have taken 

many other steps in your first year to build a stronger FEMA for 

years to come. I was pleased to review your administrator’s intent 

for fiscal years 2012 and 2016. I think it speaks to your background and you knowing what is really needed in this organization. 

This document outlines critical FEMA priorities, such as community resilience and performance metrics, but the overarching principle of the administrator’s intent memo is the regional office empowerment. I support this overall strategy; however, questions do 

remain about how FEMA intends to provide the regions with the 

resources necessary to fulfill their duties, especially in light of that 

you didn’t request any additional FTEs for this section. 

The subcommittee did not get a lot of answers from FEMA last 

month, so I hope it is something you can address today. 

I also know your vision for FEMA includes a shift away from 

‘‘Government-centric’’ disaster management to a more multi-sector 
3 

collaborative approach. While there is certainly some strength in 

this strategy, I caution that FEMA must not shy away from its 

leadership role in disaster management. 

For instance, I was very disappointed that FEMA’s role was not 

more clearly defined in the draft National Disaster Recovery 

Framework, and I expect that the final version to emphasize 

FEMA’s leadership capacity. 

As we approach your 1-year anniversary as administrator—and 

I think you should be happy you got through being appointed before some of the other folks are still waiting—I believe FEMA has 

a long way to go under your leadership, but I am sure you will 

agree that that work is doable that lies ahead. 

The recent $3.9 million contract to Partnership for Temporary 

Housing to build only anywhere between 8 and 15 homes in American Samoa is just one example of the challenges that I expect you 

to address immediately. This contract is not justified in my opinion, 

and there must be accountability, starting from the top. 

I look forward to hearing how you will address this matter and 

my concerns with the budget. Thank you again for being here 

today, and I also want to give a good kudos to our staff, who have 

done an amazing job preparing for this. 

With that, I would now like to recognize the Ranking Member of 

the Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, 

and Response, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Rogers, for his 

opening statement. 

Mr. ROGERS. I would like to thank the Chairwoman for holding 

the hearing. 

I want to thank Administrator Fugate for his time and being 

here and your preparation. I also want to let you know how much 

we appreciate your flexibility, given the inconvenience of canceling 

last month’s hearing. It was—I know it was not easy for you to rearrange things, so I appreciate you doing that. 

A year has passed since Mr. Fugate began as the administrator 

of FEMA. Over the past year, this agency has made good progress 

in strengthening its capabilities and improving its performance. I 

would like to thank Mr. Fugate for his on-going dedication and 

service. 

This hearing provides an opportunity to examine the current and 

future direction of FEMA and to address whether the agency has 

the resources and support it needs to carry out its mission. 

Recently, the administrator expressed his intent to utilize performance and implementation plans to drive the FEMA budgeting 

process in order to ensure that the budget request is in line with 

FEMA’s overarching strategic plan. I look forward to hearing more 

about the administrator’s intent and his vision for achieving the 

agency’s priorities and improving its operations. 

FEMA’s budget request for fiscal year 2011 shows a continued effort to strengthen preparedness and response and to implement the 

reforms in Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act. I am 

glad to see that the budget includes $62.5 million for the Center 

for Domestic Preparedness, for example, and the additional funds 

for CDP’s facility repairs and capital improvements. Those were 

long overdue, so I appreciate that. 
4 

That being said, there are some areas of FEMA’s budget, as well 

as some policy decisions being made which raise serious concerns 

with me. For example, the significant cuts to State and local homeland security grant programs in my view are unjustified. These 

cuts present a major challenge to State and local governments as 

they work toward establishing and maintaining critical security capabilities, as well as fostering a prepared citizenry. 

This is also the second year in a row that this administration has 

requested a major cut to the assistance to firefighters grant program. This cut is just indefensible, particularly when fire departments are hard-pressed to find the money in this difficult economic 

climate to pay for necessary equipment and training. 

The budget also acknowledges FEMA’s plan to reform the National Exercise Program, but it is lacking any detail on what this 

will look like. Exercises are a key proponent to preparedness, and 

so more information is needed on FEMA’s long-term vision and 

commitment to exercises. 

It is essential the FEMA start to produce faster and more useful 

after-action assessments of these exercises and continuously build 

on the lessons learned. We are all mindful of the important mission 

that FEMA is charged with, and we want to ensure the agency is 

allocating resources efficiently and effectively. 

I look forward to the witness’s testimony, and I yield back. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. The Chairwoman now recognizes the Chairman 

of the Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, for an opening statement. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Richardson, 

for convening such an important hearing this afternoon. Excuse 

me. Let me also thank you for your comments about the good people in my State who had significant damage done by a tornado this 

Saturday. 

Mr. Fugate, I appreciate your call. It meant a lot to me. 

But I also thank you for coming today to talk about FEMA’s fiscal year 2011 budget priorities and beyond. You bring a wealth of 

on-the-ground emergency management experience to FEMA, which 

is critically important to understanding the needs of first responders and communities. 

Let me also add that there are many demands on FEMA’s scarce 

resources. Many of these demands can be a matter of life and death 

to Americans who live in every corner of the country. 

On Saturday, as I indicated, I saw firsthand the devastation 

caused by a string of tornadoes. Scores of my constituents will need 

the help of your agency, and I look forward to your leadership. 

I believe this budget request reflects your vast experience, and 

I am pleased to see that FEMA received more than a 2 percent increase in net discretionary spending. With roughly $10.5 billion in 

total budget authority, FEMA should be able to adequately carry 

out its mission. 

I was particularly pleased to see the $23 million request for the 

regional facility construction. I know these funds will help you 

carry out your vision for empowering the regions. However, these 

new facilities will provide little benefit if FEMA does not have 

strong policies in place or adequate staff with the right expertise. 
5 

Last month, I was dismayed to learn that FEMA still does not 

have a robust 5-year human capital plan. I urge you to complete 

that strategic plan and send it to this committee as soon as possible. 

Despite the overall increase in FEMA’s budget, I do have serious 

concerns about some of your vital programs. Like the Chairwoman, 

I am concerned about cuts to the firefighter grants and the consolidation of several freestanding grants into the State Homeland Security Grants Program. 

I am also, as a matter of fact, alarmed by the 14 percent cut in 

the Urban Search and Rescue Program. We saw several examples 

of this team performing heroically in Haiti, and they deserve our 

Nation’s support. In addition to this request, the administration is asking $5.1 billion in supplemental funding to the Disaster Relief Fund. These 

monies will be used to fund previous disasters, including very valuable arbitration claims from Hurricane Katrina, and I urge the 

Senate to move quickly to restore these vital funds. As the committee will remember, we passed H.R. 4899 in the House just before the Easter recess. 

Mr. Fugate, there are a number of issues outstanding. One that 

concerns me greatly is that we have failed to close out nearly 800 

disasters in FEMA since 1989. I understand that there are some 

$16 billion attached to those closeout figures because we have not 

closed them out. I urge you to do whatever you can to close the 

ledgers on those situations. 

In today’s paper, we have the NextGen contract, which is in itself 

a real problem. Hopefully you can explain a little bit of that, because all of us are getting calls from people talking about their 

flood insurance going up. If we wasted several million dollars on 

a program we didn’t even use, it doesn’t speak well for us. 

So there are a lot of things we can work at. I know the Chairwoman is interested in the Samoan housing situation. I look forward to getting the information on that. 

I am not certain that we can afford a $400,000 three-bedroom 

house. I just think that is a bit much. Hopefully you can provide 

us the explanation we need to say what the real costs are. If that 

is the cost, then perhaps we need to do something else. I just don’t 

think we can justify those kind of numbers in this day and time. 

I yield back, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that, under the committee rules, opening statements may 

be submitted for the record. 

I welcome our sole witness today, the Honorable Craig Fugate, 

the administrator of FEMA. 

Mr. Fugate began serving in the position as administrator of 

FEMA in May 2009. Prior to coming to FEMA, Mr. Fugate served 

as director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management. Mr. 

Fugate began his emergency management career as a volunteer 

firefighter and emergency paramedic and spent 10 years as the 

emergency manager for this county. We thank the administrator— 

not this one, Alachua County. 

We thank the administrator for his service and for being with us 

today. 
6 

Without objection, the administrator’s—Fugate’s statement, full 

statement, will be inserted into the record, and I now ask the administrator to summarize his statement for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF W. CRAIG FUGATE, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT 

OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Richardson and 

Ranking Member Rogers, and also Chairman Thompson, and the 

other Members of the committee. It is a great honor to serve in this 

role. 

I have this opening statement. To be honest with you, Madam 

Chairwoman, I think it is better just to get to your questions, and 

I am not sure how you want to do this, because there was a list 

of them. 

But let me just caveat the administration’s request this way. We 

work under the premise that, in going forward in this fiscal year, 

there were tremendous pressures to look at expenditures. It was 

the direction to submit a request based upon last year’s request. I 

realize that is not what was appropriated, but that was what the 

goal was in looking at our program, just looking at the request 

from last year, and that was what we submitted in most cases. 

It does reflect that those numbers were less than what was ultimately appropriated, but in looking at the fiscal constraints we 

had, that was the decision that was made to submit based upon the 

request last year, and it did not factor in the appropriation 

amounts, and that would be—again, as you point out—one of the 

areas that you want me to address. 

But in all, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Again, I will 

defer, Madam Chairwoman. Do you want to do these questions one 

at a time by different Members or try to go back to the list? Or 

how would you like me to do that? 

[The statement of Mr. Fugate follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF W. CRAIG FUGATE

APRIL 27, 2010 

INTRODUCTION

Chairwoman Richardson, Ranking Member Rogers and Distinguished Members of 

the committee, it is a privilege to appear before you today on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) to discuss the agency and our fiscal year 2011 budget request. The budget 

the President has proposed acknowledges the austere budget climate in which we 

find ourselves, and recognizes that FEMA also must be a good steward of taxpayer 

funds. In the development of our budget, we have considered the challenges faced 

by our State and local partners, and the reality that the Federal Government must 

meet its responsibilities while staying within its means. 

The agency’s fiscal year 2011 budget requests $7.294 billion in net discretionary 

budget authority, which is an increase of $186 million above the fiscal year 2010 

enacted level. This budget will help ensure that FEMA can continue to: 

• Empower and strengthen local communities and individuals; 

• Invest in our human capital and facilities; 

• Mitigate against hazards; 

• Enhance the preparedness of our Nation; 

• Provide effective emergency response; and 

• Assist communities in recovering rapidly from disasters. 
7 

EMPOWERING AND STRENGTHENING LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND INDIVIDUALS

FEMA’s budget request builds on a core principle that I believe is critical to not 

only FEMA’s success, but also the success of our Nation in managing disasters: 

FEMA is only part of the emergency management team; we are not the entire team. 

We need to move away from the mindset that Federal and State governments are 

always in the lead, and build upon the strengths of our local communities and, more 

importantly, our citizens. We must treat individuals and communities as key assets 

rather than liabilities. This principle drives our agency’s priorities, programs, policies, and budget. The principle was also reflected in the first ever Quadrennial 

Homeland Security Review (QHSR), which defines the future direction of homeland 

security in the United States. 

The QHSR, which was recently released by the Department, recognizes that despite our best efforts to protect this country and our citizens, disasters, accidents, 

and even deliberate attacks are inevitable. Our collective challenge is to build our 

National capacity to be resilient in the face of disasters at all jurisdictional levels, 

beginning at the local level with our citizens. 

As Secretary Napolitano and I have repeatedly said, citizens often play a far larger role in disasters than is typically recognized. Family members, friends, co-workers, and neighbors help with evacuations, search and rescue, food, water, shelter, 

and medical care, and undertake many other critical response functions well before 

professional emergency responders arrive. Partnerships that reflect this reality are 

fundamental to achieving resilience. These partnerships must be formally recognized and strengthened before an incident occurs, to help ensure that we are maximizing our combined strengths and have the capacity to reach those in need of assistance. 

FEMA will foster an approach to emergency management Nationally that is built 

upon a foundation of proactive engagement with neighborhood associations, businesses, schools, faith-based community groups, trade groups, fraternal organizations, and other civic-minded organizations that can mobilize their networks to build 

community resilience and support local emergency management needs. 

INVESTING IN OUR HUMAN CAPITAL AND FACILITIES

The administration’s fiscal year 2011 request includes an increased Management 

and Administration (M&A) appropriation budget that will help FEMA invest in both 

our employees and our facilities. Our employees are our most valuable resource, and 

we need to ensure FEMA has the institutional knowledge and expertise needed to 

fulfill our mission. 

The M&A appropriation provides core mission funding across all FEMA organizations at both the regional and headquarters levels. In the wake of Hurricane 

Katrina, FEMA expanded its temporary workforce known as the Cadre of On-Call 

Response Employees (CORE) to support new and expanded mission requirements, 

including programs supporting logistics management, individual assistance to disaster survivors, mitigation, disaster telecommunications, as well as business support 

functions across the workforce. These temporary but full-time employees have been 

paid through the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) appropriation both for direct charge 

disaster and non-disaster specific allocations. Those that are essential to FEMA’s 

ability to execute its daily mission requirements are proposed to be funded in the 

M&A appropriation, which supports all of FEMA’s mission areas. FEMA is currently 

in the process of moving these essential full-time temporary CORE positions to fulltime permanent Federal positions and we will complete these moves in fiscal year 

2010. After this action is completed, FEMA will no longer use its temporary CORE 

workforce for base FEMA programs. In our fiscal year 2011 request, only the CORE 

employees charged directly to specific disasters will remain funded by the DRF. 

We have also proposed a modest increase of $23.3 million in our fiscal year 2011 

M&A appropriation request for improvements to support neglected facilities. By 

2011, FEMA will reach the point where our facilities will be unable to continue to 

absorb projected and necessary staffing increases and mission responsibilities. 

FEMA also faces a critical need for adequate resources to maintain and repair our 

aging and deteriorating facilities. To address these needs, FEMA has developed a 

5-year capital plan. $23.3 million is required in fiscal year 2011 to begin critical regional facility acquisitions and repairs, as well as to support critical and long-overdue capital improvements. Of this amount, $11.4 million would be allocated for additional facilities to provide adequate space for our workforce and the remaining 

$11.9 million would be allocated to facility repairs and capital improvements for existing facilities. 

To support all M&A activities, FEMA requests $902.9 million, which represents 

a net increase of $105.3 million or 13.2 percent. This request will annualize the 
8 

$105.6 million that was transferred in fiscal year 2010 from the DRF into the M&A 

account and will fully fund all M&A employees within the M&A account, eliminating the need to seek a transfer authority as has been necessary in the past. 

MITIGATING AGAINST HAZARDS

Although some disasters are inevitable, we can and must take steps to reduce 

their impact. Achieving this goal requires a thorough assessment of risks and robust 

efforts to reduce vulnerabilities. Mitigation provides a critical foundation to reduce 

loss of life and property by avoiding or lessening the impact of a disaster, and seeks 

to break out of the cycle of disaster damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage. 

Mitigating vulnerabilities reduces both the direct consequences and the response 

and recovery requirements of disasters. 

The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Fund provides technical assistance and Federal funding to State, local, and Tribal governments to support the development and 

enhancement of hazard mitigation plans aimed at instituting policies and practices, 

and mitigation projects that involve physical measures to avoid or reduce damage 

from natural disasters. Operating independently of the DRF, which provides postdisaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding, the PDM Fund offers 

an annual source for qualified mitigation activities that are not dependent upon a 

Presidential disaster declaration. The 2007 report from the Congressional Budget 

Office found that for every dollar invested prior to a disaster, $3 in future losses 

to taxpayers are avoided, based on an analysis by CBO of mitigation investments. 

In addition, the Multihazard Mitigation Council of the National Institute of Building 

Sciences did a Congressionally mandated study and found that every dollar spent 

on disaster mitigation saves society an average of $4. Mitigation helps to save lives 

and reduce property damage. 

In fiscal year 2011, FEMA seeks to incorporate pre-disaster mitigation and sustainability principles into both the PDM program and the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development’s (HUD) Sustainable Communities Initiative through a 

partnership with HUD. This will help support strategic local approaches to sustainable development by coupling hazard mitigation with related community development goals and activities that reduce risks while protecting life, property, and the 

environment. In support of this effort, the administration requests $100 million in 

fiscal year 2011 for the PDM Fund, the same amount enacted in fiscal year 2010. 

The Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis Program addresses flood hazard 

data update needs and builds upon the successful Flood Map Modernization program. This effort began in 2004 as a Federally funded initiative to improve and 

modernize the process for updating, maintaining, storing, and distributing the flood 

hazard and risk information portrayed on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Federal statutory requirements direct FEMA to review the flood hazards maps on a 5- 

year cycle and address flood hazard data update needs. 

To meet this requirement, FEMA requests $194 million in fiscal year 2011 for the 

Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis Program, a net decrease of $26 million 

from the level enacted in fiscal year 2010. However, this reduction will be offset by 

fees collected through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and efficiencies 

created through the implementation of Risk Mapping, Assessment and Planning 

(Risk MAP) and through FEMA’s use of digital rather than paper maps. 

The National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF) is a premium revenue and fee-generated fund that supports the NFIP. The NFIP provides flood insurance on a National basis to owners of properties located in vulnerable areas. Currently the NFIP 

insures more than 5.6 million residential and commercial policyholders, totaling approximately $1.1 trillion in insurance coverage. By supporting the flood hazard reduction grant programs and floodplain management efforts, the NFIP estimates 

that more than $1.2 billion in flood-related losses are avoided annually. 

FEMA requests $169 million in fee authority in fiscal year 2011 for the discretionary NFIF funding which is a $23 million increase from the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, based on estimated fee collections resulting from increases in policy fees 

that will go into effect by May 1, 2010. 

FEMA also requests $3.0 billion in fee authority in fiscal year 2011 for mandatory 

NFIP funding, which is a $50.5 million increase over the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level based on estimated policy rate increases effective in October 2009 and October 

2010. The mandatory NFIP fee authority will fund the Flood Mitigation Assistance 

and Repetitive Flood Claims programs, in addition to the NFIP operating expenses. 

ENHANCING THE PREPAREDNESS OF OUR NATION

Active participation by all segments of society in planning, training, organizing, 

and heightening awareness is an essential component of National preparedness. Al-
9 

though efforts have traditionally focused on preparedness of the Government and 

official first responders, we must start with our citizens. The preparedness of our 

citizens, and the enhancement of their ability to care for themselves and assist their 

neighbors in emergencies, is critical to response and recovery success. When safely 

provided, neighbor-to-neighbor assistance decreases the burden on emergency responders. Our citizens should be seen as force multipliers who can offer specialized 

knowledge and skills, and allow emergency responders to focus on the most vulnerable segments of society. 

After neighbors, law enforcement, emergency services, and fire personnel are the 

first to respond to an incident, and are usually the first to identify and commence 

preparation for an emerging event. We must continue to ensure that these organizations and personnel are properly trained, and fully supported. 

Through grants, training, exercises, and other support, the State and Local Programs (SLP) appropriation enables FEMA to fulfill its role as the principal component of DHS responsible for assisting State and local governments in the prevention 

of, protection against, response to, and recovery from natural and man-made disasters. 

FEMA requests $4 billion in fiscal year 2011 for the SLP appropriation, which is a decrease of $164.61 million from the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The request 

also proposes to consolidate several current grant programs into a larger State 

Homeland Security Program (SHSP) and Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI). 

This consolidation gives States and urban areas the flexibility to spend grants funds 

through SHSP and UASI according to their identified priorities, rather than tailoring their needs to ‘‘fit’’ the multiple grant programs that currently exist. State, 

local, and Tribal partners have stated that they would like to see some consolidation 

of similar grant programs, in order to reduce the administrative and application 

burdens. This budget is responsive to this important stakeholder feedback. 

Proposed funding levels within the SLP appropriation are as follows: 

• State and Regional Preparedness Program.—This program includes four grant 

programs—the SHSP; the Emergency Management Performance Grants 

(EMPG); the Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grants Program (RCPGP); 

and the Firefighter Assistance Grants Program. The Firefighter Assistance 

Grants Program actually consists of three individual programs: the Assistance 

to Firefighter Grants (AFG) program, the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) program, and the Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) 

program. In fiscal year 2011, FEMA requests $2.04 billion for the State and Regional Preparedness Program, which is the same amount as requested in fiscal 

year 2010, but is a decrease of $313.7 million from the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level. The administration also proposes to realign the Firefighter Assistance 

Grants and the Emergency Management Performance Grants into the SLP appropriation. 

• Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Preparedness Program.—The proposal for 

this program includes four grant programs—the Urban Areas Security Initiative 

(UASI); the Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP); the Port Security Grant 

Program (PSGP); and the Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP). In fiscal 

year 2011, FEMA requests $1.75 billion for the MSA Preparedness Program, 

which includes an increase of $201 million from the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level. 

• Training Measurement and Exercise Program.—This program funds the National Exercise Program, the Continuing Training Grant Programs, the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, and the Technical Assistance and 

Evaluation and Assessment Program. In fiscal year 2011, FEMA requests 

$210.59 million for the Training Measurement and Exercise Program, which is 

the same amount as requested in fiscal year 2010. 

• Management and Administration.—Funding for this activity includes traditional 

operational and program management support resources for the Grants Program and National Preparedness offices. This funding supports the salaries and 

benefits for headquarters and regional staff, travel, rent, printing and supplies, 

related preparedness activities, and the business processes and systems necessary for all stages of grants management. The proposal is for program management and administration costs not to exceed 4.7 percent of the total funding 

of the State and Local Programs (including the Firefighter Assistance Grants 

and Emergency Management Performance Grants). In addition, we are also proposing that funding for Grants Program and National Preparedness management and administration be transferred to the FEMA M&A appropriation account after enactment. 

The mission of the United States Fire Administration (USFA) is to provide National leadership to foster a solid foundation for fire and emergency services stake-
10 

holders for prevention, protection, preparedness, and response. USFA prepares the 

Nation’s emergency responders through on-going and, when necessary, expedited 

training, to help evaluate and minimize community risk, improve protection of critical infrastructure, and better prepare to react to all types of emergencies. USFA 

coordinates with other Federal, State, and local emergency service agencies, the private sector, and with colleges, universities, and other DHS educational consortium 

participants. To continue to build these preparedness capabilities, FEMA requests $45.93 mil- lion for USFA in fiscal year 2011, which is an increase of $342,000 for pay inflation, 

as compared to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

The Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program (REPP) assists State, local, 

and Tribal governments in the development of off-site radiological emergency preparedness plans within the emergency planning zones of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensees of commercial nuclear power facilities. The REPP fund is 

financed from user fees assessed and collected from NRC licensees to cover budgeted 

costs for radiological emergency planning, preparedness, and response activities in 

the following year. FEMA requests $33 million in fee authority for REPP in fiscal year 2011, which is an increase of $361,000 for pay inflation, as compared to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

PROVIDING EFFECTIVE EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Because it is impossible to eliminate all risks, a resilient nation must have a robust capacity to respond when disaster strikes. This response must be grounded in 

the basic elements of incident management. When an incident occurs that is beyond 

local response capabilities, communities must be able to obtain assistance from 

neighboring jurisdictions and regional partners quickly, making a robust regional 

capacity vital to effective emergency response. 

Strong FEMA Regions are critical to our ability to maintain and sustain robust 

partnerships with our stakeholders within the public and private sector that will 

help ensure the most efficient leveraging of National expertise, resources, and capabilities in future responses to all-hazard events. FEMA will continue to further empower our regional offices to improve quality and consistency in all aspects of disaster preparedness and management, including disaster response. Regional situational awareness of operations must be used to properly shape policy and planning. 

The FEMA team has continued to improve coordination and connectivity with 

interagency, military, and DHS partners through upgrades to our network of operation centers, including the National Response Coordination Center, Regional Response Coordination Centers, the Response Watches, and the FEMA Operations 

Center. 

FEMA’s Operational Teams—the Incident Management Assistance Teams 

(IMAT), the Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Task Forces and Mobile Emergency 

Response Support (MERS) teams—continue to be deployed in support of disasters 

and National Security Special Events. 

The IMAT can rapidly deploy to an incident or incident-threatened venue, provide 

leadership in the identification and provision of Federal assistance, and coordinate 

and integrate inter-jurisdictional response in support of affected State(s), Tribe(s) or 

U.S. territory(s). IMAT teams support efforts to meet emergent needs, provide initial situational awareness for Federal decision-makers, and support the initial establishment of a unified command. Moreover, the IMAT can establish an effective 

Federal presence within 12 hours of notification and are self-sufficient for a minimum of 48 hours to augment potentially scarce local resources. 

The US&R system is comprised of 28 Task Forces that provide a coordinated, National, all-risk capability for locating, extricating, and stabilizing victims of structural collapse incidents resulting from natural or manmade causes, including terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. These Task Forces are highly trained and 

possess the necessary expertise to provide medical treatment to victims in heavy 

rescue situations. FEMA distributes readiness grants to each of the US&R Task 

Forces to provide the US&R system crucial funding for equipment and training. 

Within the FEMA M&A appropriation, there is funding for the US&R Task 

Forces. FEMA requests $28 million for the US&R Task Forces in fiscal year 2011, 

which is the same amount as requested in fiscal year 2010. 

HELPING COMMUNITIES RECOVER RAPIDLY FROM DISASTERS

The Robert T. Stafford Act Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act authorizes the President to provide Federal assistance to supplement State and local governments’ disaster response, recovery, readiness, and mitigation efforts. Under the 
11 

Homeland Security Act, as amended by the Post Katrina Emergency Management 

Reform Act, the FEMA Administrator has been delegated the responsibility for administering the Stafford Act’s Federal assistance program. Through the DRF, FEMA 

can fund authorized Federal disaster support activities as well as eligible State, territorial, Tribal, and local actions, such as providing emergency protection and debris 

removal. The DRF also funds: 

• The repair and rebuilding of qualifying disaster-damaged infrastructure; 

• Post-disaster hazard mitigation initiatives; 

• Financial assistance to eligible disaster survivors; and 

• Fire Management Assistance Grants for qualifying large wildfires. 

Major disasters and emergencies may be the result of natural or man-made hazards, and are normally declared by the President in response to gubernatorial requests for assistance. States request Federal assistance to supplement their available resources and certify that a given disaster is beyond their capacity or capability 

to respond. 

FEMA requests $1.95 billion for the DRF in fiscal year 2011, which is a net increase of $350 million from the fiscal year 2010 enacted level to support the 5-year 

average obligation level for non-catastrophic disaster activity. 

The administration is submitting, concurrent with the fiscal year 2011 request, 

a $5.1 billion supplemental request for the DRF. These funds are needed due to continuing obligations associated with previous disasters including hurricanes Katrina, 

Rita, and Wilma in 2005 and 2006, the 2007 California wildfires, and hurricanes 

Gustav and Ike in 2008, among others. These supplemental funds are needed immediately to allow us to continue our response and recovery efforts from these large 

catastrophic events. 

The Emergency Food and Shelter Program provides grants to nonprofit and faithbased organizations at the local level through a National Board to supplement their 

programs for emergency food and shelter. Nearly 12,000 nonprofit and local government agencies in over 2,500 cities and counties across the United States receive 

grant awards. Emergency Food and Shelter funds are used to supplement food, shelter, rent, mortgage, and utility assistance for people with non-disaster related emergencies. FEMA requests $100 million for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program 

in fiscal year 2011. This is the same amount as requested in fiscal year 2010. 

Working with partners and stakeholders, FEMA, together with our Federal partners, will continue to support recovery programs that more seamlessly support affected communities and balance the assistance needs of the States, communities, 

and individuals with the agency’s need to serve as a good steward of taxpayers’ 

funds. In the coming year, FEMA will build upon the results of the Catastrophic 

Event Preparedness effort and the direction provided by the Long Term Disaster Recovery Working Group, the National Disaster Recovery Framework, the National 

Disaster Housing Task Force and other related taskforces and workgroups to implement a more robust, efficient and cost-effective Federal program to meet the needs 

of survivors. 

CONCLUSION

Madam Chairwoman, I believe that the administration’s fiscal year 2011 budget 

proposal represents a thoughtful, responsible approach to improving our Nation’s resilience to all hazards. The budget proposal will enable the entire emergency management team to achieve our strategic goals to mitigate hazards, enhance our Nation’s preparedness, ensure an effective emergency response capability and assist 

those communities that do experience disasters to rapidly recover. 

But more importantly, our budget will help us empower and strengthen communities and individuals. As I noted at the outset, Madam Chairwoman, FEMA is not 

the entire team. We are only part of the team—a team that includes all Americans. 

The more that we can do to ensure that each individual and family is prepared for 

disasters, the better prepared we will all be as a Nation. I look forward to working 

with you, distinguished Members of this subcommittee, and other Members of Congress to communicate this message to the American people so that we can become 

a more resilient Nation. 

This concludes my testimony today. I am prepared to answer any questions the 

committee may have. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. We do have a process, and we will follow the 

normal process that we have. 

In light of that, my script says here I will thank you for your testimony, although it be brief. I will remind each Member that he or 
12 

she will have 5 minutes to question the witness, and I will now recognize myself for questions. 

So, Mr. Fugate, in light of what you just said, without those restrictions, how would you have presented your budget differently? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, I have never been given a situation where I 

was given unlimited funds. So I am not sure what the appropriate 

response would be other than, we based our request upon what this 

administration had done. I believe prior to this, the administration 

budget request had not even factored in many of these programs. 

We at least are trying to recognize the importance of these programs and make recommendations upon base-level funding, but we 

did not—looking at this year—feel that the recommendation above 

the President’s previous request was warranted, given our current 

fiscal situations. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Fugate, some committees might agree with 

that general response. However, with being in charge of FEMA, 

you have a unique responsibility. Our entire homeland security— 

and when you look at the entire homeland’s response—is sitting on 

your shoulders. 

So I think in your particular assignment, we really want to hear 

from you of what you need. I think dependent upon what you need 

are the recommendations that we should be making. 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, the President’s recommendation is what I 

agree we need to go forward with. There is an interesting question 

here in the firefighting grants, particularly SAFER. That is, are we 

trying to address in the short term the difficulties that we are having at the local level versus long-term funding? 

I don’t think that I know what that answer is. I think that this 

is—as you go through an economic crisis that some say may be 

abating—at what level do we need to continue to fund that support 

and for how long? This was a recommendation based upon what we 

had previously requested, but I am not sure how to answer that 

question on what is the proper balance between local funds versus 

Federal dollars, given the current economic cycle. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, I would say to you, since the local funds 

are not in abundance, us relying upon the short term to have their 

contribution is probably not effective. In light of your first—the 

thing you just alluded to, the SAFER grants, what I would say to 

you, one of my biggest concerns is why we would have a cut in the 

SAFER grants, and yet you would have an increase of $200 million 

for terrorist training. 

Mr. FUGATE. Again, these were factored as far as looking at previous recommendations, previous funding, and looking at where we 

saw our needs at. In looking at the Federal mission—not State and 

local response—those were areas we looked at. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So how many terrorist trainings have you already had? 

Mr. FUGATE. I would have to get a list for you and provide that 

in writing. I would not have on the top of my head that number. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. I would venture to say to you, I can at 

least speak for my own personal opinion that if this is a couple 

more terrorist trainings versus the actual response of our first responders being able to help us in the event something were to happen, my $200 million would be for the SAFER grant program or 
13 

the firefighter grant program and not the one that you have recommended. 

My next question would be, the budget eliminates several standalone grant programs and lumps them in with the homeland security grant program. I do not support the elimination of any of these 

programs, but I am especially troubled by the decision to eliminate 

the Citizens Corps grant, also—and some of the others, particularly 

with the emergency operations communications. 

Last month, FEMA told us that they still did not have a strategy 

for promoting community awareness. Without a blueprint or a dedicated grant program to support Citizens Corps councils, how does 

FEMA expect to promote individual community preparedness? 

In terms of interoperability grants, how will you ensure that the 

Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program remains 

adequately funded and a priority if it is consolidated within the 

homeland security grant program? 

Mr. FUGATE. The answer is, this was not the intention, to eliminate these grant programs. It was to reduce the paperwork in applying for these grant programs. 

The money is still there. It is just being combined into one grant 

application process and giving local and State officials, particularly 

the State administrative agency, more flexibility in administering 

these grants. So the intention was not to eliminate the funds, but 

I understand the concern that, in doing that, it also loses the identity as singled out as a grant program, not as a merged pot of 

money. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So are you prepared to commit that the current 

funds that those various grant programs have, that they will stay 

remained in the new consolidated program? For example, I think 

the interoperable was $50 million to $60 million. Are you prepared 

to commit that those funds stay allocated in those sections? 

Mr. FUGATE. It is the intent to provide flexibility, so before I 

would commit to what State and local governments may do, it is 

the intention to give them more flexibility in these funds, but that 

is something that we would take under advisement. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. For the next round of questions, I will go there, 

but I will tell you, Mr. Fugate, those two don’t add up. You either— 

you said you are not intending to cut the funding, and yet you are 

saying, well, it will be in a flexible pot and they can do what they 

want. You can’t have both apples. It just won’t work. 

Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. I thank the Chairwoman. 

Mr. Fugate, last time you testified before this committee, I submitted a question to you about disaster declarations and the lack 

of transparency. You told me you were going to review that and see 

if you thought maybe there was some more information that should 

be passed along to the States to make sure that they feel comfortable, they understand the process. 

Can you tell me what your review has yielded, if you have made 

any changes in the way you disseminate information? 

Mr. FUGATE. That one turns out that, in doing it, we have been 

doing more briefings. We brought in declaration folks to sit down 

with States and go over the process. 
14 

But I think part of the challenge we have had in some of the requests that we see from States is, their information—as we demonstrated one time, we had to go back and get more information, 

and that sometimes slows down the process. Ultimately we make 

a recommendation. That recommendation is then something the 

President acts on. Then at the end of that process, we can then release the information. 

We have responsibility after so many days after that to report 

back to Congress, but in doing that, it is, I think, still—for the 

State perspective—a lot of questions. We are currently working 

with White House staff to try to clarify some of that. But it is a 

work in progress, and it is—in my opinion, it is moving in the direction we want to go to, but we are not there yet. 

Mr. ROGERS. Do you have a time line that you think you will 

have resolved these problems? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, I think in the area of individual assistance, 

this is one area we are working with the White House on, because 

in declarations requiring that there is no threshold, but you have 

to demonstrate how much of an impact that has that would exceed 

the capability of State and local governments to manage. 

We have examples in the CFR, but they don’t always correlate 

into clear delineations of what would be the threshold, since there 

is no set threshold. It is actually prohibited under the Stafford Act 

to have an arbitrary number as the determining threshold for individual citizens. 

So we are looking at, how do we clarify? What are the factors 

that we are looking at, such as the impacts, incomes on employment, disadvantaged community, uninsured losses, as giving a better understanding of what reasonably you could expect if you were 

making that request? 

On the State side, when I was a State director, it is pretty difficult to know what is the exact threshold for individual assistance. 

Public assistance tends to be more driven by the type of damage 

that was eligible—the capability of State and local governments, 

but individual assistance is much more difficult to quantify. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I understand it is complicated. I am really 

more interested in knowing when you think you will have resolved 

these problems and have, you know, some clear resolution with the 

States. Will it be 6 months from now, a year from now, 3 months? 

Mr. FUGATE. Probably on individual assistance, we are looking at 

when the next—it depends upon the conversations we are currently 

having with the States and also working back with the White 

House, but I think that will be the first one that will have additional guidance, and that may be as early as 3 months to 6 months. 

Public assistance, I think we are still looking at, is—will probably come up with some questions. Snow policy and other areas we 

are having to look at again after this recent round of snow events, 

so that may take longer. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. I want to talk to you about the Center for 

Domestic Preparedness. Last week, we had weapons of mass destruction commissioners in here testifying about their review, and 

one of the things they emphasized was that it is very likely that 

we are going to have a WMD attack in this country by 2013. 
15 

In light of that prediction, is there something that you are doing 

to be proactive in that field to prepare for the consequences of an 

attack such as that? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. We put more emphasis on our weapons of 

mass destruction activities at the headquarters level and also at 

the region levels. Part of this goes back to an area that has been 

pointed out in these reports is, how do we do public preparedness 

and public messaging? That is an area that we are looking at now 

based upon those reports. 

We have done more exercises. We are doing more training. We 

have teams that are a part of multi-agency, Federal agency teams 

that would respond in the event of this threat. Many of those 

teams go through the Center for Domestic Preparedness for their 

training. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, and I am glad you mentioned that, because 

you are right. I am wondering what we can do to expand that. But 

more importantly, as you know, I represent a very rural Congressional district. We have some mobile training that can go out to 

these rural first responders. Can you do something to enhance that 

role at the CDP? 

Mr. FUGATE. I will take that back to Tim Manning, the administrator over those areas, and ask him to take a look at that and report back. 

Mr. ROGERS. Great, thank you. 

I yield back. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Chairman Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mr. Fugate, I referenced the NextGen contract. Inspector general 

basically has indicated that, after $7.5 million invested in an IT 

system for National flood insurance, it did not meet security or 

technical requirements. Is that your understanding? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. THOMPSON. What have you done in light of that? 

Mr. FUGATE. I was the one that requested the IG review in the 

first place. This was one of the situations I found upon my arrival 

at FEMA that initial reports did not convey to me that, (A) we had 

a good understanding of what we were trying to do, and (B), I was 

concerned about the fact that many of the people working on this 

project were actually former employees and had actually switched 

from a contractor role into a Federal role. 

I felt at that point that any attempt on our part to determine 

what had happened would not be credible, and I requested the IG 

to come in and do that audit. 

The other thing that I found at that time was we did not have 

strong internal management controls for these types of projects and 

had no oversight from our chief financial officer or chief procurement officer or our IT infrastructure, which you would have 

thought would have been a natural fit for a project of this size 

within the mitigation directorate. 

We are taking all of the IG findings seriously. We are in the 

process of implementing them. We are going to probably at this 

point move that project from out from underneath the mitigation 

staff which do not have the IT or technical background for man-
16 

aging that type of system and have our management directorate 

with the IT oversight to manage this project. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Can you briefly tell us whether or not the ethical 

conflicts that the IG raised in the—in the report, whether or not 

you will take action, have taken action? 

Mr. FUGATE. The COTARs that were involved in this project 

were taken off of this project. We tried to provide separation between those staff that previously had potential conflicts of interest 

out of this process. 

But, Mr. Chairman, that was exactly why, when I started reading this, I said, there is no credible way I can deal with this problem given the fact that I have immediate conflict of interest just 

from reading the documents I saw. So I felt the only way to get 

a good feedback on what needed to be done was to have outside 

counsel—in this case, IG—provide that oversight. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I would say—look at who put the COTARs 

on the contract. That is your problem. So I—and I am sure you will 

do that. Do you nod, say you will, or—— 

Mr. FUGATE. Mr. Chairman, we are going to fully take advantage 

of the IG findings to ensure that this is addressed. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. Thank you. 

The human capital plan, you have talked about pushing more authority down to the regional office level. Can you tell us when we 

can expect that 5-year human capital plan? 

Mr. FUGATE. Mr. Chairman, I can tell you where we are at in 

this process. We have finished our reviews within homeland security to go back to OMB for final approval before we transmit. 

We were, I think, in our last budget given funds to bring in the 

Homeland Security Institute to help us work this issue and put together what the staffing plans would look like. Part of this was 

looking at what scenarios we would respond to based upon our existing response structures using Katrina and staffing for Katrina 

as an example of a catastrophic disaster response. So we are in the 

process of pouring that model. 

I am not sure I can give you an exact time frame, but I would 

say in months we should have this back to Congress based upon 

where we are at in submitting this through OMB. 

Mr. THOMPSON. The problem I think some of us have is we are 

moving toward a new business model, but yet still we are not sure 

who the drivers and other people will be. So I think it would help 

you if you had that human capital plan in front of you geared toward the new business model. 

Mr. FUGATE. I would agree, Mr. Chairman, but as we noted, we 

did not have new FTEs in this budget. But we do have some that 

are being converted from contractors. 

We also had in this previous year a lot of assistance from this 

body helping us move temporary positions—what we call core positions—and convert those to full-time that were doing full-time 

work, that we had some bad habits, to be honest. We were doing 

a lot of things using the disaster recovery fund for continuation of 

business, not tied to a disaster. 

So part of this was already being done, was looking at where we 

had positions that were being funded out of the DRF, the disaster 

recovery fund, that were not tied to a specific disaster. This body— 
17 

as well as the Senate—agreed to help fund those positions to convert them to full-time equivalents. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Can you tell us how you plan to close out over 

800 disasters? 

Mr. FUGATE. That process has already begun. To a certain degree, we are already seeing the success of that. 

We brought in through the acquisition coordination of our budget 

shop to look at, how many current mission assignments did we 

have that had not been closed out? These are mission assignments 

to other Federal agencies, some of which as you point out were 

open for a long period of time. 

We have been able to recover and de-obligate over $400 million 

in the past month of these open disasters. We also are looking at 

a lot of these disasters that may have residual amounts left in mission assignments that have not been closed out, making determinations of how to close those out. 

So it is our goal to reduce the backlog of closing out disasters, 

de-obligate those funds that can go back and replenish the DRF, 

and move to the closure on many of these older disasters that do 

not have any complicated issues or on-going recovery activities, but 

just have not been closed out due to lack of effort. 

Mr. THOMPSON. If you have put together a plan to close it out 

or whatever is presently underway, can you provide the committee 

with that document? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. That would come from our 

chief financial officer, who took the lead on this, and we can provide that. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

Madam Chairwoman, one more question. 

FEMA awarded very recently a major risk map production and 

technical services contract, P&TS, to a joint venture, 

BakerAECOM, LLC, about a $600 million contract. That is—that 

is a lot of money. 

I understand, in light of the President’s announcement yesterday 

on opportunities for small businesses, this is a good example of a 

contract that could have gone to a lot of small businesses that some 

of us think got bundled and it cut out a lot of good, hardworking 

folk. 

Can you assure us that, in light of the President’s Executive 

Order yesterday, that FEMA will look closer at giving small businesses a shot at some of this work? 

Mr. FUGATE. Mr. Chairman, and I know that other Members of 

this committee have tasked or asked that we do very similar 

things. To the best of our ability, I have asked my acquisition shop 

to embrace a philosophy of buy local, hire local, that both in our 

disaster and our contracting, to try to look at purchasing the needed goods or services in the area we are working. 

I think that we are too leveraged to these larger contracts that 

are National in scope. In some cases, there are very valid reasons. 

But when there is not a valid reason and opportunity, I think that, 

in the name of efficiency, we oftentimes will aggregate up large 

contracts and maybe miss the opportunity to get good work done 

locally by a local provider. 
18 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I will tell you what we hear. If the person 

gets paid for managing one contract, why should he go out and put 

8 or 10 on the street, and we pay them the same thing? Now, that is how we end up with a $600 million contract, because you have one contract. I think it is the mindset that we have 

to change within our agencies to look at the backbone of this country is small businesses. If we are going to cut them out like we do, 

it really goes against the grain. 

For the work that is being done, I don’t think it is so technical 

that we don’t have small businesses who can do it. 

Mr. FUGATE. Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate any help we can 

get in this area, because I think you hit upon the crux of it. We 

have looked for efficiencies in doing our contracting for so long, trying to change that dynamic and look at contracting so that it is 

more based upon where we are doing the work and getting to the 

issue of: Is it always in the best interests of the country to have 

the most efficient administration of the grant or provide opportunity for smaller businesses that would not normally be competitive on a National level? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Thank you for being so patient, Madam Chairwoman. I yield 

back. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. The Chairwoman now recognizes other Members for questions they may wish to ask the witness. In accordance 

with our committee rules and practices, I will recognize Members 

who were present at the start of the hearing based on seniority on 

the subcommittee, alternating between the Majority and Minority. 

Those Members coming in later will be recognized in the order of 

their arrival. 

The Chairwoman now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman 

from Louisiana, Mr. Cao. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mr. Fugate, I am one of the few Members who probably plays 

FEMA every time I see the group working in the New Orleans 

area. I believe that you have assembled a very responsible, a very 

competent team in the Second District, and we have made great 

strides in the past year-and-a-half in dealing with the many recovery issues that we have down there. 

But I still have one very serious concern with respect to FEMA 

in regards to the community disaster loans. Before FEMA issued 

the regulation, you all requested comments, and we held a roundtable in which we gathered comments and submitted them to 

FEMA. 

It seems to me that many of those comments were not considered, so that there are potential problems for many of the entities 

in requesting for community disaster forgiveness, especially in 

areas—with respect to Jefferson Parish, with respect to St. Tammany. 

I spoke to, for instance, Sheriff Newell Norman of Jefferson Parish who conveyed to me that his concern with respect to the 3-year 

requirement, which is not only problematic for the sheriff, but also 

problematic for New Orleans school board, problematic for Jefferson, problematic for St. Tammany, because right after Hurricane 

Katrina, there was a tremendous influx of population into Jefferson 
19 

Parish from the people moving into the parish from New Orleans, 

so that there was a spike in revenue, and then that spike quickly 

disappeared after people began to move back to New Orleans. 

So that is one of my concerns, and I have asked the Secretary 

to address the issue. I just want to know whether or not FEMA 

will submit revised regulations to address the issue of the CDL. 

That is one issue in connection with the community disaster loans. 

The other one in regards to the special CDL, which I have asked 

FEMA to look into for over a year now, and I have not received a 

response, or at least not an accurate response, in connection with 

Osner’s request for a special CDL. It seems to me that reading 

their letters, reading their memorandum that they submit to you, 

that they conform to the law and that under the law they would 

be eligible for special CDL. 

So far, I believe that FEMA either denied or have not provided 

them with a special CDL. Can you address those two questions? 

Mr. FUGATE. I will start with Osner. I know that that one was 

one that we had a lot of difficulty with. I don’t know if there has 

been a final determination. I think there was, but I will have the 

administrator for region VI, Tony Russell, confirm that. 

As far as the community disaster loan forgiveness that the rules 

were designed to help, we are looking at that at the Secretary’s direction. We are seeing as to the unintended consequences of that 

rapid population growth and what that means to the actual intent 

of the rule. So we are continuing to work that issue. 

Mr. CAO. Can you give me a time line with respect to when any 

revised rules would be issued? 

Mr. FUGATE. At this time, we have not begun any revised rules. 

I think we are looking at the applications to actually go through 

the applications to see where we are going to have the problems 

versus acting before that. 

So as we go through that, we are going to see how many of the 

communities will go through that process and what those outcomes 

are and then determine from there what additional steps we would 

have to take. 

Mr. CAO. Okay. Have you at least in the past year—what plans 

or what reforms have you implemented in order to better prepare 

FEMA for recovery, to better effectively and efficiently work with 

local—with State and local municipalities in rebuilding, because as 

you can see from the arbitration panel’s decisions on charity and 

other projects that were submitted or were delayed by FEMA, they 

were able to make the decision in a span of 2 to 3 weeks, while 

it took FEMA years to make any kind of decision whether or not 

they made a decision. 

Have you made any kind of plans to reform FEMA in those regards? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir, and part of it was—I believe in all of the 

arbitration hearings, the only ones that I know of that have gone 

in favor of FEMA have actually been on technicalities. Almost all 

of the other ones were, again, if we had followed our procedures, 

we would not have reached that point. 

So it reaffirmed that, in many cases, FEMA had the authority. 

It was the application of the Stafford Act and the CFR. So part of 

what we were able to do, when Tony Russell was managing the 
20 

Louisiana recovery office, was to move a lot of projects through that 

had previously been backlogged that would have otherwise been in 

arbitration. 

I think the ones that were in arbitration were so far along—one 

of which, we actually, I believe with Jefferson Parish, came back 

on roads and we settled, because after reviewing it, we were asking, why were we even challenging this? This is something we 

could do. Why hadn’t we done it? 

So part of it is coming back and making sure that we are actually applying the Stafford Act and the CFR in the manner it was 

intended and getting past some of the challenges we saw in the 

Katrina response. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The Chairwoman now recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Cleaver, 

from Missouri, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mr. Fugate, I want to return somewhat to the beginning of the 

questions that came from Chairwoman Richardson with regard to 

the Citizens Corps. Actually, I tend to think that standalone emphasizes the significance of an entity. In your budget, you talked 

about the importance of the Citizens Corps program. 

I am on Financial Services. I am one of the proponents of a 

stand-alone financial consumer protection agency, because I think 

it says to the consumers, this is—you are important, and we wake 

up every morning and this is our job, to protect you. 

So with regard to the Citizens Corps program, do you—is it your 

belief that this program is important enough, significant enough 

that the public will understand that you intend to engage citizens 

in preparation for natural disasters at the highest level possible, 

No. 1? 

I am—if it is—if it is ranked so highly, as you have ranked it, 

I don’t understand how it could then lose its stand-alone status. 

Can you help me a little, please, with that? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir, again, it was not the intention to demote 

programs, but to consolidate the grant application and grant management of those programs. That was the intention. The intention 

wasn’t to demote programs. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Okay. Does that enhance the program if you consolidate the grant process? I am trying to—I mean, I want to be 

supportive of what you are doing, but it doesn’t register. 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, as a State, when I was a State administrative 

agent, each one of these grants would be a separate grant application. It would be my same staff. We would literally go through and 

submit for all of these grants the same type of documentation, but 

for each different category. The intention is not to demote or to end 

up in a situation where we are taking away from programs, but to 

streamline the grant application process, rolling them together. 

As the Chairwoman points out, that does, though, carry the caveat that they lose their identity. There is some flexibility for the 

States. That may not be the intention of Congress in a stand-alone 

funding. 

But the intention was not to demote them. It was to reduce the 

amount of grant applications and the grant management for each 

one of those grants separately. 
21 

Mr. CLEAVER. But how are we going to increase citizen participation with less emphasis on the Citizens Corps? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, again, sir, I don’t think it was our intention 

that less emphasis. It was more on the grant process. 

Mr. CLEAVER. So are you saying that we are going to have optimum emphasis and that the only recognizable change will be on 

the grant application? 

Mr. FUGATE. That is the intention of doing this, this way. It is 

not my intention that we would somehow not put emphasis on 

these programs. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I am sorry. I didn’t mean to—can you understand, 

you know, how this might not come across that it is as important 

as it once was? 

Mr. FUGATE. Absolutely. Having been on the other side, I have 

also shared concerns when programs were merged together with a 

grant guidance equally described the programs that were being 

merged, and would they continue their role? It is a balancing act. 

Again, it is a recommendation to reduce the number of grant applications, but it is also—as you were pointing out—a balancing act 

between the intent of the program and the funds and not losing 

that clarity and trying to combine the grant application process. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Okay. I am still not really happy, because, I mean, 

if you consolidate me and Ms. Titus on this committee, one of us 

is not necessary. You know, I mean—I just—my fear is that this 

program is maybe unintentionally de-emphasized. Maybe we can 

talk about this later. 

I yield back, Madam Chairwoman, the balance of my time. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr. Olson 

from Texas. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Thank you for coming today, Mr. Fugate. Good to see you again. 

Quick question for you, sir. My question concerns an interest of 

mine in the Shoreacres town that was affected by Hurricane Ike 

about a year-and-a-half ago. They have recently been notified that 

they are going to have to be charged rent for the FEMA trailers 

that they are occupying and they have been occupying since the 

storm. 

This is only six families in these trailers, so it is not a big part 

of the community, but it is a small little community. Unfortunately, 

they have gotten caught in this pickle. Right now, HUD has yet to 

release the second round of CDBG funds. So, because of that, they 

can’t rebuild their homes and move out of the trailers, and they are 

stuck in the trailers right now. 

The controlling CFR states that FEMA may charge rent after 18 

months. As I read it, it doesn’t say that they must charge rent, but 

unfortunately, that is the way it has been interpreted. They are 

looking at the situation right now. They are going to have to be 

charged rent. 

They are going to be paying rent that they really don’t have and 

shouldn’t be—shouldn’t have it imposed upon them, because we 

have heard from interest in—that were affected by Katrina in New 

Orleans in particular. They are still living in some FEMA trailers, 

you know, 4 years after the fact. 
22 

I just wanted to get your opinion or get the commitment to you 

to look into this situation and treat these people—because, again, 

it is a small group of six people, but very—six families, I should 

say—but very important to them that they get this interpreted— 

as I read it, you know, FEMA may charge for rent, but, again, 

what we are hearing from the people within the region that they 

must charge rent. 

Again, any help I can get to alleviate this financial burden until 

they get the CDBG funds, I would greatly appreciate that. 

Mr. FUGATE. I will ask staff to work with your staff. The intention is to begin after a certain time frame, start moving to a rentbased process. As you point out, that is something we did, but I 

will ask staff to work back with you on this particular case with 

these six families. 

Mr. OLSON. Great. I thank you very much for that commitment. 

I ask you to expedite that to the greatest extent you can, because 

their rent is going to be due next week, from what I understand, 

and they have gone through a lot. We don’t need to pose an additional financial burden on them, especially when other people in 

the country are getting a deal that they are not getting. 

Thank you so much. I yield back the balance of my time, Madam 

Chairwoman. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. The Chairwoman now recognizes for 5 minutes 

the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pascrell. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you. 

Mr. Fugate, before I get to the main subject of my questions 

today on contracting, I need to respond to a couple of the answers 

that you provided the Chair, as well as the Ranking Member, on 

the fire grants in the SAFER grants. 

Your response was to the latter that this could be in response 

since the economy is getting better. The SAFER Act was enacted 

before the recession. The 9/11 legislation—excuse me, the Fire Act 

became law before 9/11. 

So when we look at how many applications—because I am very 

familiar with both of these; I wrote both of them. Now, if you understand how many applications—and I know you do—come in for 

both of those, we can only fund a small percentage. 

Unless I was to conclude that there is a huge charade going on 

in our fire departments about what they really need, but knowing 

quite well what the needs were—what was requested back in the 

year 2000, I can assure you that these are very concrete needs, and 

the administration does not know what it is talking about. I don’t 

know how else I can say it. 

Mr. FUGATE. Understood. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Now, I want to say this about FEMA. We just had 

a pretty big disaster up in my neck of the woods, in north Jersey. 

We suffered the worst flooding we have had in God knows when. 

The President made an expedited declaration—we thank him for 

that—on April 2, which will allow the victims to make claims for 

Federal aid. 

I want to express my sincere appreciation to you and to the team 

that came into our areas. I was with them. I walked the streets. 

They were professional. You know when people say nice things 
23 

about the Federal Government now, you take note, because you 

don’t hear it too frequently, Mr. Fugate, correct? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PASCRELL. But I want to tell you, they did a great job, and 

they are doing a great job in responding to what is a very difficult 

situation. I hope we can count on being able to work with your office to help resolve some of the problems that have occurred. 

Now, Administrator Fugate, the issue I want to bring to your attention is the way in which FEMA has been handling the contracting of flood mapping. We have talked about this before. It is 

essential to the way that floods are anticipated, handled, and the 

way in which aid is disbursed. 

I have one letter here which was sent on April 22. It was signed 

by 65 Members of Congress, including myself and full committee 

Chairperson Thompson, which expresses a litany of concern with 

how the flood map modernization program is being handled. 

I also have here letter two from March 12 of this year sent by 

Chairman Thompson to you expressing concern with how the 

award for the Risk MAP production and technical services was decided by FEMA, which seems to favor very large National firms, 

while pushing out more local firms, small contractors. 

On March 16, the record will show that David Garratt, associate 

administrator for FEMA, testified in this subcommittee on your initiative to delegate authorities from FEMA headquarters to the 10 

FEMA regional offices. I support that. In fact, I asked him specifically on my belief that FEMA National should be giving regional 

offices greater control over choosing local contractors for regional 

projects. 

His response—and I am quoting from the transcript—‘‘I think it 

is a great idea, Mr. Pascrell.’’ He went on to say that there is ‘‘a 

plan to put an individual in each region who would be part of an 

essentially collective team, but located in each region, which would 

be local business engagement personnel for the right purpose of 

reaching out to and engaging local contractors in a way that we 

haven’t necessarily done before.’’ He concluded by saying, ‘‘We 

think that is a terrific idea.’’ 

So my question to you is this: Do you agree with the associate 

administrator’s assessment of the proposal regarding the selection 

of local contractors? Don’t you believe that local FEMA people on 

the ground better understand what is needed than decision-makers 

in Washington, DC? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir, I gave him that direction. 

Mr. PASCRELL. So, therefore, we can hope that this is going to be 

implemented, is being implemented? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PASCRELL. When? 

Mr. FUGATE. I will have the time line on that—one of the things 

we are working on is identifying existing open positions within 

FEMA that do the contracting work that could be certified as a certified contracting officer, reallocate those positions to each one of 

the FEMA regions, and then hire a position into that that would 

be under the acquisition office and would be certified to do acquisitions within the regions. 
24 

Mr. PASCRELL. Well, if you do that, Mr. Fugate, that is going to 

be revolutionary, and I wish you the best, and I thank you for 

keeping your word. 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. The Chairwoman now recognizes for 5 minutes 

the gentlewoman from Nevada, Ms. Titus. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Thank you, Mr. Fugate, for being back with us. I have two issues 

I would like to raise with you. One is at last year’s budget hearing 

I brought up the point that the massive size of Region IX, which 

is where Nevada fits, causes some problems. Not only is it so large, 

but it is also very diverse. You noted that it would be worthwhile 

to revisit this regional structure. 

It seems to me that the response has been now to give more authority to the regional offices, which I certainly support, but I wonder if that alone does address the size problem, and if you are now 

over that, or you have done all you are going to do, or if that is 

still something that we can look at or how you think maybe these 

power changes will counterbalance the massive size. 

Then the second thing I would ask you to address is that this 

year’s National level exercise was scheduled to be conducted in Las 

Vegas, and it was canceled for a lot of reasons, both political and 

policy. I wrote to the Secretary at the time to voice some of the concerns of my constituents. 

You know, many leaders in the tourism industry just didn’t think 

the timing was quite right, when we were trying to get that industry back up on its feet to have something that was going to kind 

of be billed as DHS prepares for a nuclear attack on the Las Vegas 

strip. 

So it was moved, but I wonder if, as you look at having these 

tests in the future—which I think are very valuable. We have got 

to be sure our communities are protected—if you learned anything 

about what happened last year that dealing with unintended consequences and how you plan to incorporate what you learned into 

future plans for these tests? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, ma’am, I will go to the first question, which 

was on the regions. That is actually something that we are addressing within DHS as part of our bottom-up review process. So 

rather than FEMA look at this individually, we are looking across 

all of the DHS components. 

Many of our regions are based upon our mission with the Coast 

Guard and Customs and Borders. Others are geographical regions 

that were established previously. FEMA’s regions were established 

in 1979 when FEMA was formed, so we are looking at two issues. 

One is, can we realign regions within DHS? The second thing we 

are looking at is, if we cannot do that, can we align any of the 

headquarter elements? 

So we are not going to address this as a FEMA-specific issue, but 

as part of the bottom-up review within DHS and take a look at our 

regional structures and looking at that across all of the DHS components. 

As far as the National level exercise, not only was it the change 

in venue, but it was also the scope and the intention of these exercises. One of the things that Secretary Napolitano was concerned 
25 

about when she interviewed me in our first meeting was the very 

essence of these exercises. How well are they doing their job? Afteraction reports that take too long to get into the hands of the participants. Also, what was the objective of these exercises? Was it 

just to do, you know, everything is going to happen, or are we really trying to test the system? 

We have looked at this year’s exercise. We have adjusted it based 

upon the guidance. We have had change. But we have also submitted the Secretary a way forward that, upon her approval, we 

would be happy to share with the committee on how we are going 

to look at our National level exercise program and do a better job 

of integrating that with State and locals, as well as the private sector and the public. 

Ms. TITUS. The unintended consequences, like the impact on the 

local economy? Is that going to be part of the consideration? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, ma’am. Again, it comes back to if the—what 

are we trying to do with the exercise? What are we testing in this 

exercise? Then how does that impact the communities? 

Next year’s exercise will be an earthquake scenario based upon 

the New Madrid earthquake. So, again, we have to factor in, from 

the standpoint of Governors team, what they see as their issues, 

their concerns, and, again, in doing these, putting the focus back 

on the participation that these are not just a DHS-generated exercise. It actually impacts local and State governments when we do 

these exercises. 

Ms. TITUS. I appreciate that. 

Thank you. I would yield back. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Fugate, let me come back to my first two points, and then 

I have several others. It looks like we are going to have time for 

other Members to chime in, as well. 

Let’s go back to the SAFER grants, as well as the firefighting 

grant. You mentioned that, you know, in considering local funding 

versus long-term Federal funding, I think it is no hidden secret 

that currently when you look at State and local governments, some 

of the biggest areas that are under tremendous pressure are the 

possibility of laying off firefighters, teachers, and so on. 

So in light of that, are you prepared to reconsider the recommendation of cutting by $200 million, since when we know these 

States and the local governments do not have the money in this 

short-term perspective to fund adequately these programs that are 

needed? 

No. 2, I want to re-clarify again that the question I asked you 

was to provide us with the number of terrorist trainings that had 

already occurred, and the (B) part of that would be to let us know 

if any of the new plans—new terrorist trainings that you are planning, have they already been done someplace else? 

Mr. FUGATE. Back to the first question, we are committed to the 

President’s request for the amount of funds that R&D requests of 

the President’s budget. As to the second part, we will provide that 

information based upon your clarification of what has occurred, 

what is occurring, and what would have been done elsewhere, and 

we will get that information to you. 
26 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So in your opinion, are you saying it is more important to do the $200 million terrorist trainings, even though 

you can’t tell me right now how many you have already done, than 

providing funding for our local first responders? 

Mr. FUGATE. I will submit the questions as you have asked for 

the numbers; I don’t have those. But we are, again, based upon the 

President’s recommendation, that is our recommendations for the 

budget. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. My second question is, let’s get back to 

the consolidation of the homeland security grant program, building 

upon what I said, Chairman Thompson, and Mr. Cleaver, as well. 

You have said a couple times now that it is not your intention 

to demote the programs, and yet I will come back to my question 

to you. If your intention is not to demote the programs themselves, 

are you prepared to commit to ensure that those programs still receive the funding that they have had in the past? According to my notes, it is $13 million for the Citizens Corps, $41 million for medical response, $50 million for interoperable 

emergency communications, and $50 million for driver’s license security grants. 

Mr. FUGATE. I would have to go back and make sure that those 

numbers add up to our current request before I could commit to 

that. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I am sorry. Could you repeat that? I was talking to Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. FUGATE. I would have to add those numbers up and make 

sure that those numbers reflect the actual request that the administration had for the consolidated grants, but that ratio sounds like 

the right ratio. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. Do you—if it is possible, staff, this is 

pretty important, because for many of us here—I don’t know. I see 

some of your staff that is here present, and I think the number was 

a difference of 6 million, is the notes that we have. 

It gets to the core of the question. If, in fact, what you are saying 

is all you are intending upon is to make the grant application process run smoother, less duplication, and all that, I think from what 

I have heard of the comments so far, people are supportive of that. 

However, if it means eliminating programs, eliminating the 

focus, and reducing the funding, the commitment of the funding of 

what those programs will have, I don’t think you are going to have 

support of every Member here, and maybe Members on the floor, 

as well. So the question is very basic and it is very important. 

Mr. FUGATE. As soon as we can add the numbers up, I would not 

have a problem with that. I just want to make sure that the numbers add up to the total request. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay, Mr. Fugate, I would like to, if possible, 

this committee to have the information tomorrow morning. The 

reason why we don’t have a lot of time here, as you know, the appropriations is before all these committees, and we have to make 

decisions, and we can’t wait. 

I do think—I would push back—I think it is something your staff 

that is right behind you could do right now, if you chose. 

My next question has to do with the budget decreases for 

FEMA’s urban search-and-rescue teams, which have done a heroic 
27 

job. Most recently we saw what they did in Haiti. Why has the administration chosen to cut funding for this program, when we know 

how valuable they are to the rescue mission? Also, can you state 

for the record whether States will continue to be allowed to use 

homeland security grants to maintain and strengthen their USR 

teams’ operational readiness? 

Mr. FUGATE. The request for funding for the urban search-andrescue teams is concurrent with the request the administration 

made last year. To the commitment of using homeland security dollars, we continue to do that, and that will be one of the areas that 

we continue to support as one of the things that is eligible under 

urban security, as well as for State homeland security grants. 

Many States have additional teams that go beyond the existing 

urban search-and-rescue teams, and many of those actually deploy 

in both the Alabama and Mississippi tornado touchdowns. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers is asking the question 

that I was asking regarding the consolidated. Were they intended 

to be cut? My understanding—and Mr. Fugate can clarify—it is not 

that they were being cut. What he is saying is, of the—I think it 

is $160 million—they were going to put it in another bucket in the 

overall category of the homeland grants. 

But the problem is that, by putting it in that overall category, 

that would give the State then the discretion to say, I am not going 

to do any Citizens Corps. I am only going to do driver’s license. 

That is the problem, and that is at the heart of what the question 

is. 

Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much. 

In looking at your written testimony, Administrator Fugate, you 

talk a lot about the important role that individuals play in disasters, and I fully agree with that. However, it is difficult to see how 

your budget actually prioritizes individual preparedness. The RITI 

campaign budget is cut and only requests three FTEs. The Citizens 

Corps grant program is eliminated. FEMA hasn’t developed a 

workable strategy for community preparedness. 

How do you recognize those shortfalls with your No. 1 objective? 

Mr. FUGATE. Again, working within the budget that we have and 

looking at what we are requesting, we are trying to work in a fiscally austere environment and make recommendations based upon 

where we need to invest our dollars. The investment strategy is not 

always going to reflect putting money in all these programs. 

We have to make some decisions about where we are going to 

make—reductions. Unfortunately, that was what we faced this 

year. 

Mr. ROGERS. Let me ask this, then. What can you point—money 

in individual preparedness? 

Mr. FUGATE. In the overall budget, that is not going to show up. 

We put our money this year for the first time in our infrastructure 

for the Federal facilities that were not being maintained, and we 

didn’t have growth then. 

Mr. ROGERS. So individual preparedness is no longer your No. 1 

stated goal? 

Mr. FUGATE. No, sir. 
28 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. How can we help with that? I want to help 

you get to your No. 1 stated goal. What could this committee do 

to help you? The Chairwoman has already talked to you about her 

desire to do it. I want to do the same. 

Mr. FUGATE. Again, I see your guidance on the grant programs. 

If it is the intention that—and the consolidation reduces visibility, 

and you keep it in individual funding pots, that is certainly something that this committee could recommend. We will administer it 

as it is appropriated. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. 

Mr. FUGATE. But I understand the desire to keep funds available 

and to be able to track what dollars are going where. Again, we 

had to make recommendations based upon guidance that suggested 

that we were not going to be able to fund everything at levels that 

had been appropriated and stay within recommendations for the 

request from last year as our guidance. 

Mr. ROGERS. You know, that surprises me to hear you—and I 

don’t doubt that that is true. I am just surprised, because the 

President has said earlier this year that, while there is going to be 

austere cuts made, defense, homeland security, and veterans affairs were going to be left alone because of the unique challenges 

we face as a nation right now in this dangerous world. 

So I am surprised to hear that you are being directed from the 

White House, when the President has said homeland security is off 

the wagon, as far as those cuts. 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, considering where my counterparts are at the 

State level, I think we were very fortunate, and we are very much 

appreciative of the recommendations that we did get to go forward 

with. Again, it is a situation where we have the funding request 

before you. We will seek the approved budget. We will operate 

within our budget. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I think you have told me what I need to know. 

We need to help you help yourself, right? 

Mr. FUGATE. The system and the process of building budgets is, 

we make the recommendations, but it is ultimately the Congress 

that makes the decision and the appropriations that we will then 

follow. 

Mr. ROGERS. Understood. Thank you for the good job you do, Mr. 

Fugate. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Cleaver is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Again, thank you. I just have one final question, 

Mr. Fugate, and thank you for being here today. I appreciate it. 

I have been on the subcommittee for two field hearings in Louisiana and Mississippi as a result of Katrina and Rita. It turns out 

that minority communities and, in some cases, new or poorly 

speaking English communities end up getting the worst of it, and 

there are probably a lot of sociological and even political reasons 

for it. 

But I am wondering whether or not you have plans or are working on plans on how to address the unique problems caused by a 

natural disaster and its impact on minority communities and nonEnglish-speaking communities? 

Mr. FUGATE. The first step we have been engaging in is more 

outreach to constituency groups through the White House. We have 
29 

several opportunities to speak to different constituency groups 

about these issues. 

Philosophically, the way I approach this is this way. We have 

this tendency to plan for disasters based upon certain assumptions. 

If you fit those assumptions, our plans work very well. 

What I keep finding is, we are planning for generally middleclass, high school or higher education, English as the primary language, and they have enough resources that generally the Federal 

programs can help augment that. 

But that is not the targeted population that we are most concerned about. Our most vulnerable citizens tend to be those that 

have the fewer resources, they’re poor, they have language challenges, they maybe are children, they may be elderly, they may be 

people with disabilities. 

So in doing our planning, what we have historically done is, after 

a disaster, we will write an annex to our plan to deal with that atrisk population. I am trying to change that dynamic and go, well, 

that is who we should be planning for it in the first place. 

When I talk about people need to get a plan and be responsible 

for themselves, it is getting at the crux of that. If 80 percent of us 

should have taken care of ourselves, the 20 percent that didn’t 

have a chance—and that is just an arbitrary number, because it 

depends upon the community you are in—why should they compete 

with me for resources when I should have taken care of myself, if 

I am able to? 

This goes back to looking at and planning for the whole community, not just what is easily seen, not just is what is presented in 

a disaster. You oftentimes have to actually go out and find folks 

that may have been overlooked in that disaster. 

But if I am in a situation, we are working with State and local 

governments, so many people who didn’t get ready in the first place 

are now competing with that population, it is very difficult to get 

to them in time. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Well, you are—I agree with everything you said, 

100 percent. So are we going to see some—are you going to internally deal with this issue or try to figure out how to address it? 

In New Orleans, for example, all the public housing just wiped 

out, just gone. I guess, is there an internal group that is working 

on how we address those problems? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir, the first group we—right after I got in, one 

of the things that came out of the Katrina response was the fact 

that most of the programs in our delivery were not designed for infants and children. We weren’t meeting their needs. 

The request from the children’s commission was to actually go 

out and write a new plan to add to our existing plans on dealing 

with children issues. I suggested, why don’t we come back and 

work this into our program itself, instead of writing a separate 

plan? There was not a lot of confidence that that could be done, because they wanted to have that issue identified in a way that 

would present these challenges. 

I said, well, my history tells me, though, that for local and State 

government, every time they have to write another annex to the 

plan, they don’t get to it. But if they do it on the front end and 

they build it into their plan, it gets done. 
30 

So we took the issue of children, building that into our planning 

guidance so that children—or in our grants. It was like supplies for 

shelters. We and Red Cross will provide supplies for shelters. Well, 

the commission for children actually came up with a list of things 

from bassinets to bathtubs that we are building into our contracts 

for shelter supplies that the Red Cross is using so that if we have 

to provide supplies to a State, we actually have supplies for children. 

So we are trying to address it in that way and recognize that, 

if we are not working through constituency groups and identifying 

that Government entities may not have all the information in a 

disaster area, we may not get to the most vulnerable. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. Fugate, I am going to—let me first ask the general question. 

Has any work been done so far looking at cuts in terms of waste, 

fraud, and abuse amongst contracts and outside services that are 

being done in FEMA? 

Mr. FUGATE. There are, I believe, some—as you saw with one of 

the examples with the National Flood Insurance Program, where 

we specifically asked for an IG report on that. There are several 

others that are looking at those various things. 

Internally what we found was that we did not have—as much as 

we are trying to empower our regions, that within the various programs of FEMA, we did not have any centralized management 

structures to oversee complex projects. IT infrastructure, chief financial officer acquisitions and management was actually being 

done in many of the various pieces of FEMA without any coordination across FEMA. 

So we took the recommendations from the IG, and one of the 

steps we took was to form at FEMA headquarters a management 

council that has responsibility for overseeing projects of a certain 

size to eliminate one duplication within FEMA, but also to make 

sure that they had the right institutional controls, whether they be 

fiscal, whether they be IT, and that they conform to Federal regulations and DHS policy and guidance. 

That was not occurring. It has started to show some results. 

Where we can find savings and we can eliminate duplication, we 

are trying to use those funds to put them back into the system. 

One example is we have very few training dollars for our staff. 

Well, one of the things that had happened in looking at some of our 

efficiencies—and this isn’t so much fraud and waste. It is just bad 

business. 

We would turn on numerous cell phones. We would put in IT 

lines for disasters that after the disaster nobody turned off. So we 

went through a process of just shutting down—this goes all the 

way back to Hurricane Isabel, back, I think, you know, around 

2003, that we had IT, you know, T1 phone lines installed that nobody had turned off. We kept paying the bill, because the bill came 

in, because the acquisition folks got a bill. It was—it looked good. 

They paid it. But the operational folks that had put in that phone 

line or that T1 line had never turned it off. 

That alone saved us millions of dollars which we took $3 million 

to put that back into training for our staff, because we didn’t have 

enough money for our training staffs. 
31 

So it is looking at not only waste or looking at fraud, but really 

looking at, just how are we running these disasters and making 

sure that, when we close a disaster out, it isn’t just we are done 

physically, we actually recover our property, we actually turn off 

things, we recover cell phones. When we can’t recover the cell 

phones, we turn them off. 

These were things that we were not doing consistently. Just coming in and looking at this, we have already seen—and these are 

millions of dollars—the only unintended consequence was I turned 

off my deputy administrator’s cell phone twice, but it is working 

again. 

But in some cases, we actually got to the point where nobody 

would take ownership of a certain IT infrastructure, so we just 

turned it off. Surprisingly, nobody claimed it, and it was being paid 

for year after year after year because nobody questioned it. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So, Mr. Fugate, I think I recall reading somewhere in the maps material that we had that you did have a slight 

increase for management and some of the things that needs to be 

done. Would you be willing to consider looking at a possible audit 

or some sort of evaluation similar to what you are doing with the 

disasters, with some of your contractors? 

DHS, that Department as a whole, I think, has the largest 

amount of contractors of anyone besides the Defense Department 

and would venture to say that we could probably save about $200 

million for fire grants if we did some of those basic things. 

Mr. FUGATE. I understand that there are legitimate cases to be 

made for using contractors to do work that is not inherent in Government, but I also look at my organization and I see much work 

being done by contractors that I have to ask the question, is there 

not a conflict of interest, particularly in areas like acquisition? 

So in this request, we have requested converting contracting positions into full-time equivalents for FEMA based upon the current 

allocation of funding. So we would welcome a look at this. It is one 

that I have found myself wrestling with, as what is the right balance of contract support versus what should be inherently done in 

Government? 

I don’t start off with a premise that all contracts or all contractors are inherently not good, but I do want to make sure that, as 

we as Government officials have not contracted out our responsibilities, that merely those things that the private sector can provide 

better, cheaper, and with less start-up time than necessarily would 

be invested by Government and staff doing it. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Rogers. Okay. I have just a couple more, 

and then I believe we had requested time from 2:00 to 3:30, so we 

are doing pretty good. 

I wanted to talk a little bit about American Samoa. As you know, 

I had an opportunity to go there. Recently last week, the inspector 

general came out with a report that showed that there was a $3.9 

million award to partnership for temporary housing, PATH, to 

build as many as eight homes. In a meeting I just had prior to this 

one, I was told it was eight homes with seven something under construction. 

Either math, that gives you spending either $487,000 per home or $260,000 per home, which I think any American, particularly 
32 

across the United States, would say that that is an abuse. Can you 

discuss PATH’s experience in building single-family homes and 

why we could not find a suitable—more appropriate contractor? 

Prior to awarding the contract, what type of due diligence did 

FEMA perform to determine exactly what it would cost to rebuild 

homes in American Samoa? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, based upon the original tsunami and estimates on the island that it would be about 150 homes that would 

need rebuilding or replacement versus repair, we looked at what 

existing contracts we had that could provide those services. The 

Federal coordinating officer based upon that, supported by the 

FEMA headquarters, issued a contract up to, but not to exceed— 

nor was it the intention that those $3.9 million would be used to 

construct the pilot houses—to see what it was going to take. 

That number for total number of homes being built now has 

dropped down to 50. Based upon that, and the IG’s report, I asked 

my deputy administrator, Rick Serino, to go to American Samoa 

last week, look at what was going on, talk with the Governor and 

the staff, and seek other recommendations, which include at this 

point, do we continue with this contract? Or because there are 

fewer homes that require rebuilding, will there be an opportunity 

to do one or two home contracts with some of the companies that 

are on American Samoa and re-bid the contract based upon the reduced scope of work? 

So we are looking at this. Those numbers are very large. It is a 

project that we are investing ourselves in to make sure we have a 

way forward. 

But the initial goal was, how could we get homes built on American Samoa when we looked at approximately 150 homes? What existing tools did we have at that time? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, with all due respect, Mr. Fugate, when you release an award that says up to $3.9 million for approximately eight homes, that allows that contractor the discretion to 

spend $3.9 million for eight homes. As I said, I don’t think you will 

find too many people in the American public who would agree that 

that was an appropriate allocation. 

If you were talking about $3.9 million for 150 homes, that might 

be a different story. But to specifically say eight homes, $3.9 million, whether you say up to, you know, just below, the point is still 

the point. There is no reason why in American Samoa, where you 

also had an agreement where you gave people $30,000 in replacement of building a home, that you would suggest to me that you 

would need anywhere between $200,000 and $400,000 for a home. 

So let’s just suffice to say, I have a very serious concern with 

this. I look forward to working with you and other Members of the 

committee on this issue, but I think it is quite serious, and I think 

it is an example of my first question. What are we doing regarding 

waste, fraud, and abuse? Because this is a very real point. 

My second one, regarding American Samoa, what is FEMA doing 

to help American Samoa and other Pacific islands to build and 

maintain a robust alert warning system? 

Mr. FUGATE. The tsunami occurred—and the question I asked 

was, what was the existing warning system? There had been plans 

done, but nothing implemented. The National Weather Service has 
33 

a program I thought that would be a good project to utilize in 

American Samoa—called tsunami-ready communities, which is a 

combination of the ability to warn the public, but as well as that 

the public information to support steps to take, signage, and public 

information. 

So using that—it is not a certification program. But it is something the Weather Service created to help communities build good 

plans. So we have been working with the Governor of Samoa and 

the homeland security adviser there to build a program that would 

be recognized as tsunami-ready for the American Samoa island. 

That is a project we do in conjunction with the Weather Service, 

and that is something we set out after the tsunami to reach that 

goal. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So is it plans for them to get ready? Or is it 

an actual alert warning system? 

Mr. FUGATE. It is a combination of, you have to have a warning 

system. You have to have education. You have to have the ability 

to receive those warnings and communicate those to the public. 

There has to be public information to support that designation, so 

these are all the things we are working with the island to build 

that capability. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Who is going to pay for it? 

Mr. FUGATE. We are utilizing FEMA grant dollars and working 

with the Governor, because they will also receive hazard mitigation 

dollars, some of which can be used for this warning system to implement this on the island. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay, last question, and then I will submit the 

rest for the record. 

I am going to say something that is pretty alarming for me to 

say, but I think you need to hear, because it is not just unique to 

my situation. I think it is unique to many people. 

One of the things I would like to work with you on is continuity 

of Government. I can honestly tell you that, in my 6 years of being 

a city council member in a community of the largest ports in the 

Nation, Alameda Corridor, airports and so on, a member of the 

State legislature, and now a Member of Congress, no one has ever 

told me, if something happens, what is it that is my responsibility 

to do? 

So what I would say to you is, I would like to work with you to 

better understand, what are we doing with continuity of Government? How can we make sure that that situation is changed? 

Because if I can tell you that as a Member, now Subcommittee 

Chairwoman of Emergency Communications and Preparedness and 

Response, that is an alarming fact. I think if you were to ask a 

whole lot of other people, they would say the same thing. 

So I don’t know what we do in that system. We are looking into 

it. But I would seriously like to work with you on that area, because I don’t think that it is working effectively, and I think situations like Hurricane Katrina, American Samoa, and so on, we could 

really reduce confusion and maximize our response if the continuation of Government was better in place. 

Which leads me to the American Samoa point. I also—I understand with Hurricane Katrina that with FEMA we needed to establish a point of contact, someone who could make decisions. But I 
34 

think we also have to have a very serious discussion of—if there 

are issues relating to that, what are the next steps and what are 

the things available to us? 

So, for example, if a Governor is more concerned about the debt 

that they owe to the United States Government, in terms of accepting various services, that is a problem, because that decision 

shouldn’t be made based upon a prior debt that they have or what 

they think they are going to be able to afford. They should be providing the services that are necessary for the people that they 

have. 

So I personally witnessed many issues in particular regarding 

continuity of Government that I have found to be quite alarming 

and need your immediate attention. 

Mr. FUGATE. Look forward to working with you on it. The challenges in American Samoa, as you know, we had pre-existing grant 

issues. It was our intention to not impede our response based upon 

that prior history, but it did provide some challenges, given some 

of the previous disasters and outstanding issues we were faced 

with at the time of the declaration. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So there should be some thought? I mean, it 

is not like we don’t know who out there already owes us, so there 

probably should be some forethought that, if a disaster happens in 

Louisiana or American Samoa or wherever it is, what do we do if 

something happens, they already owe us? The Governor is concerned, ‘‘I can’t even pay what I already owed you.’’ What do we 

do in those situations? 

What happens if the Governor refuses and really something different needs to be done? Who else has the ability to override and 

then make that decision? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, that is a question that we would struggle 

with, as well, because in our system, unless the Governor is not 

performing their functions and protecting the civil rights of their 

citizens, that is a very difficult question as to how the Federal Government would intercede. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. But it needs to be discussed, because it is happening. 

Okay, Mr. Fugate. I want to thank you for your valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The Members of this 

subcommittee may have additional questions. I actually do have 

some. But out of respect to you of you arranging and being so kind 

to adjust and come to us again, I am going to submit them for the 

record. 

We would ask that you would respond expeditiously in writing to 

those questions, preferably within 2 weeks. Hearing no further 

business, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(35) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRWOMAN LAURA RICHARDSON OF CALIFORNIA FOR W. CRAIG

FUGATE

Question 1. The committee would like to understand how you intend to build on 

the successes of your first year and address the challenges still facing FEMA. With 

that in mind, what do you consider to be the agency’s major successes in the first 

year of the Obama administration? 

Answer. FEMA and our intergovernmental partners have undertaken a number 

of initiatives to improve FEMA’s ability to support our citizens and first responders 

to ensure that as a Nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from and mitigate all 

hazards. At the same time, we believe it is critical to remember that FEMA is only 

part of the emergency management team; we are not the entire team, and we must 

build upon the capabilities of our State, local, and private sector partners as well 

as our individuals and communities to meet the Nation’s emergency management 

needs. Following are descriptions of some of the initiatives we have undertaken in 

Administrator Fugate’s first year to address the challenges facing FEMA and its 

partners. 

To better meet the needs of grant applicants and States and to simplify the perceived complexity of the FEMA program guidelines, FEMA recently completed an 

aggressive review of all disaster assistance policies in the Individual Assistance (IA) 

and Public Assistance (PA) Divisions (apart from the normal 3-year cyclical review), 

to ensure we are providing these entities with the most appropriate and effective 

guidance. We also sought to identify policies that may be more restrictive than the 

law and regulations require and to ensure none of the policies maintain this restrictiveness or are in conflict with each other. In addition, an effort was made to identify any current policies that provide procedural information that could be better 

provided in a different form, such as a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). 

Since January 2010 FEMA has reviewed 84 disaster assistance policies. 

We have also revised the policy-making process itself to increase public involvement and ensure FEMA staff apply guidelines in a consistent fashion. In addition, 

except in emergency situations, all revised Recovery Directorate disaster assistance 

policies are posted in the Federal Register for a 5- to 30-day public comment period. 

The policy development effort includes regular input from the National Advisory 

Council (NAC). 

FEMA has established pilot programs under the Public Assistance program to reduce Federal costs of providing assistance to State and local governments, increase 

flexibility in grant administration, and expedite the provision of assistance to States 

and local governments. FEMA was also able to undertake a pilot program under the 

Individual Assistance program that funded repairs to existing multi-family rental 

housing units in order to provide more cost-effective temporary housing to individuals and households affected by a disaster. The lessons learned from these pilots 

are being incorporated into FEMA’s programs in order to improve performance and 

responsiveness in meeting the needs of disaster survivors in the years ahead. 

Another area in which FEMA has moved to improve agency performance is by reorganizing to support greater program integration and empowering its regional offices to ensure that program resources, responsibility, and authority are moved closer to our partners for more effective program delivery. The regions will be the focal 

point for interaction with our partners while headquarters will be more involved in 

providing guidance and resources to the regions. 

FEMA has also undertaken a number of initiatives that will provide direction for 

our efforts to meet the needs of disaster survivors and support recovery of communities that have been affected by disasters. These initiatives include the Long Term 

Disaster Recovery Working Group, the National Disaster Recovery Framework 

(NDRF), and the National Disaster Housing Strategy to provide a more robust, effi-
36 

cient, and cost-effective Federal program to meet the Nation’s disaster recovery 

needs. 

In September 2009, the President charged the Secretaries of DHS and HUD along 

with 20 other Federal departments, agencies, and offices to examine issues associated with long-term recovery from disasters through the establishment of a LongTerm Disaster Recovery Working Group. The Working Group joined an effort started by FEMA in August 2009, to develop the NDRF to establish a National structure 

for optimally coordinating recovery assistance. 

In keeping with the President’s commitment to transparency and openness in 

Government, the Working Group launched an intense outreach effort to engage Federal agencies, State, Tribal, and local government leaders, recovery assistance providers, non-governmental organizations, private sector representatives and interested citizens from across the Nation in the shaping of the NDRF. This effort included: 

• 12 Video Teleconferences (VTCs) in 10 HUD and FEMA Regions; 

• 5 Stakeholder Forums in New Orleans, New York City, Los Angeles, Salt Lake 

City, and Memphis; 

• Discussion Roundtables for professional associations and academic scholars with 

expertise in disaster recovery; and, 

• Establishment of a dedicated website: www.DisasterRecoveryWorkingGroup.gov, 

to allow 24/7 access to learn about the initiative and submit comments. 

This public engagement initiative has helped to inform the development of the 

NDRF. The draft NDRF, which was released for public comment on February 5, 

2010, is designed for all who are or might be involved in disaster recovery, and addresses the need for improved leadership, a coordinating structure, and pre- and 

post-disaster planning. 

FEMA has also been making use of numerous Web 2.0 tools including Facebook, 

Twitter, and YouTube, to provide the ability to create a social network before an 

incident. FEMA’s strategy centers on cultivating a network of partners and the general public through useful preparedness information, agency updates, and missionspecific announcements. We have developed, and continue to foster and increase our 

network of fans and followers comprised of emergency management partners, the 

general public and FEMA employees prior to National and local incidents. Through 

daily informational posts, links, videos, and images, we describe the FEMA mission 

and share critical preparedness, response, and recovery information with a broad 

audience. This effort requires a persistent engagement through multiple site administrators who develop original content, strategically cross-market FEMA.gov initiatives and moderate public responses on the sites. There are valuable analytics inherent in these platforms. Most notably are the direct responses to content on the 

pages. These responses provide valuable insight into public reception of the message 

and the need for more information in specific areas. 

FEMA has started several technological initiatives focused on support to disaster 

survivors to include the following: 

• A National Shelter System (NSS).—This is a comprehensive web-based, data 

system created to support Government and non-Government agencies responsible for shelter management and operations. FEMA is working with and in 

support of State and local agencies to implement a single Nation-wide shelter 

system for managing information related to shelter facilities, capacity, and population counts. The NSS provides a common system for all levels of government 

and non-governmental agencies to manage shelter facility data and provides a 

standardized tool for establishing baseline shelter data that is vital for comprehensive shelter planning and operational support. The information shared in 

the database enables local agencies to better manage all phases of the shelter 

process (planning, alert, stand-by, opening, and closing), which can have a direct effect on the disaster survivor. 

• The National Emergency Family Registry and Locator System (NEFRLS).—This 

is a system that can be accessed through the internet or by phone and can facilitate the reunification of families following disasters or emergencies. The 

NEFRLS will allow adults who have been displaced from their homes due to 

a Presidentially declared disaster to register their own locations electronically 

via the Internet or by telephone via a toll-free number (1–800–588–9822). Registration is entirely voluntary. The system will be used during catastrophic disasters or those disasters with large numbers of displaced persons. 

FEMA is also making critical data accessible in the form of data feeds. These data 

feeds are used to inform the public of the status of FEMA’s emergency management 

efforts and provide FEMA management with improved situational awareness. Newly 

developed data feeds include: 
37 

• Individual Assistance (IA) and Public Assistance (PA) financial information.— The amount of IA and PA funds obligated and approved, per disaster, is 

viewable and sharable over the internet in the form of a widget. • Disaster Recovery Center information, such as location, is viewable on the internet using a web mapping application. • PA total obligated grants and Project Worksheets per applicant for all disasters 

since 1998 (NEMIS) is available on data.gov. • PA Project Worksheet grants awarded for all disasters since 1998 (NEMIS) will 

soon be available on data.gov. 

FEMA also participated in an interagency task force responsible for developing 

and delivering a Disaster Assistance Improvement Plan (DAIP) that outlines a coordinated, actionable strategy to implement a consolidated and unified disaster application. Our interagency efforts have led to the development of the 

DisasterAssistance.gov website, which consolidates information about disaster assistance from multiple Government agencies in one place, making it easier for disaster survivors to research and apply for disaster assistance. DisasterAssistance.gov 

also provides news, information and resources to help individuals and families prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. If access to the internet is not 

available, disaster survivors still have the option to register for assistance by calling 

the Disaster Assistance Call Center at 1–800–621–3362, or 1–800–462–7585 (TTY) 

for people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech disabilities. 

FEMA continues to lead the 17 Federal partner agencies (please see attached list: 

‘‘Disaster Assistance Improvement Plan Partners’’), who are developing the DAIP, 

to expand the capabilities of the DisasterAssistance website, improve user interface, 

and add new forms of assistance to help disaster survivors. An additional 22 forms 

of assistance have been added to DisasterAssistance.gov, for a total of 69 forms of 

assistance now available. Additional forms of assistance accessible at the Federal, 

Tribal, State, regional, and local levels, as well as from private nonprofit organizations will be added to the portal in the coming months. 

In collaboration with FEMA’s Web 2.0 team, DAIP developed a 

DisasterAssistance.gov widget for deployment to other local and National sites 

hosting disaster information. The widget directs survivors to disaster information 

and the application for assistance. DAIP recruited 47 State library associations to 

promote DisasterAssistance.gov and make informational materials available to disaster survivors across the country. Lastly, DAIP provided the finalized Business Requirements Document to the development contractor to optimize the Individual Assistance Registration Intake application process for smartphones. This initiative will 

direct mobile users to a version of DisasterAssistance.gov optimized for smartphones 

and will also provide an option for smartphone users to access the full 

DisasterAssistance.gov site. 

In addition, DAIP received one of five ‘‘Best of NIEM’’ awards for 2009. The award 

was presented by the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) Program Office. The awards are given to NIEM implementation projects that ‘‘demonstrate how 

intergovernmental collaboration and innovative technology deliver results that increase government transparency, improve performance, and enable civic engagement.’’ 

DAIP was also recently selected as a finalist for the American Council for Technology (ACT) Intergovernmental Solutions Awards which recognizes Federal, State, 

and non-profit agencies that ‘‘clearly demonstrate collaboration between two or more 

government agencies, and innovative use of technology to improve citizen service delivery.’’ 

Related to the efforts outlined above are the three major strategic initiatives 

FEMA launched last year. The first of these is a workforce development initiative 

creating a new approach to developing the agency’s existing talent into future leaders, recruiting and hiring the best available talent, and strengthening the skill sets 

across the FEMA workforce in support of the agency’s core mission. The next initiative is focused on improving existing catastrophic event preparedness through collaboration with partners, establishment of shared preparedness objectives across the 

Federal/State/local continuum, and strengthened efforts to plan for extreme events— 

the ‘‘maximum of maximums’’—including an increased focus on integrating the public as a resource and part of the solution for addressing the risks associated with 

large, complex events. Finally, FEMA has launched an effort to create capstone doctrine for the agency that will reflect organizational purpose, history, values, and 

guiding principles which will confirm for FEMA employees a common sense of purpose and guidance to govern agency activities. 

FEMA has also initiated efforts to strengthen the Nation’s resilience to disasters 

by fostering an approach to emergency management based on the foundation of 

proactive engagement with neighborhood associations, businesses, schools, faith- 
38 

based community groups, trade groups, fraternal organizations, ethnic centers, and 

other civic-minded organizations that can mobilize their networks to build community resilience and support local emergency management needs. 

As to how we will build on the successes we have had so far to address the challenges of the future, FEMA remains committed to regional empowerment as an 

overarching principle. In order to continue our progress in meeting that challenge, 

we have established five priorities for the years ahead. First, FEMA will continue 

to work to strengthen the Nation’s resilience to disasters by fostering a National approach to emergency management built upon a foundation of proactive engagements 

with neighborhood associations, businesses, schools, faith-based and trade groups, 

fraternal organizations, ethnic centers, and other civic minded organizations to build 

a community of resilience in support of local emergency management. Second, we 

will build greater unity of effort among the entire emergency management team. 

Third, we will implement a more robust, efficient and cost-effective Federal program 

to work with our State, local, private sector, community, and individual partners to 

meet the needs of citizens/survivors. Fourth, we will work with our partners to address our most significant risks. Finally, we will build, sustain, and improve 

FEMA’s mission support and workforce capabilities. 

Attachment.—Disaster Assistance Improvement Plan (DAIP) Partners 

Department of Agriculture 

Department of Commerce 

Department of Defense 

Department of Education 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Department of Homeland Security 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Department of the Interior 

Department of Justice 

Department of Labor 

Department of State 

Department of Transportation 

Department of the Treasury 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

Office of Personnel Management 

Small Business Administration 

Social Security Administration 

Question 2. On March 16, 2010 the subcommittee held a hearing to discuss Regional Offices. While we agree that strengthening the Regions is critical, the committee wants to make sure that with this increase in responsibility comes an increase in resources. 

Does the budget request provide additional staff to the Regions and, if so, how 

many positions? 

If not, how do you intend to ensure the Regions are capable of assuming the new 

responsibilities you have delegated to them? 

Answer. The delegation of new authorities and responsibilities to the Regions will 

not impose additional personnel requirements to the agency as a whole and no additional personnel were requested in the fiscal year 2011 budget proposal. However, 

some personnel, budget, and mission support resources may need to be re-located 

to where the authorities are executed. At present, the FEMA Regions are leading 

the process to assess the types of positions that may be needed in any given area 

and to develop and propose Regional budgets to implement new and existing authorities in the Regions. FEMA is also in the process of analyzing and identifying 

existing vacancy positions at headquarters to determine what positions may need 

to be transitioned to the Regions. The number of positions to be transferred will depend upon precise requirements, but Deputy Administrator Serino has expressed a 

target goal to transition about 25 percent of the agency’s current vacancies at headquarters to the Regions. 

FEMA will commence reallocating vacancies to the Regions once its recommendations have been approved. While the initial identification of these positions will be 

concluded prior to hurricane season, recruitment and hiring will take longer, and 

depend on various geographic factors. 

Question 3. Of the $1.1 billion requested for the Urban Area Security Initiative 

(UASI) grant, $200 million is set aside to reimburse local governments for securitycosts resulting from terror-related trials. 

Why was UASI chosen as the set-aside funding source for the terror-related 

trials? 
39 

Provided FEMA is appropriated the requested funds, will FEMA seek to reallocate 

the funds if the trials do not take place in civilian courts or in large metropolitan 

areas? If so, what account or programs would FEMA seek to reallocate the funding? 

Answer. The Urban Area Security Initiative funding request reflects a set-aside 

to be used in the event a trial was to be held in an urban area. The funding is consistent with Part IV, Section E (page 36) of the fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security 

Grant Program application and guidance kit, which includes language on National 

Special Security Events (NSSEs). Under ‘‘Organizational Activities (SHSP and UASI 

only),’’ it states the following, ‘‘Section 2008 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 

as amended by the 9/11 Act, includes the following allowable activities: • Responding to an increase in the threat level under the Homeland Security Advisory System, or needs resulting from a National Special Security Event; 

• Establishing, enhancing, and staffing State and Major Urban Area fusion centers; 

• Paying salaries and benefits for personnel to serve as qualified intelligence analysts.’’ 

In planning for the possibility that trials do not take place in civilian courts or 

in large metropolitan areas, FEMA included ‘‘up to’’ language in its 2011 request. 

This language allows for any of the $200 million not used for additional security 

costs involved in hosting terror-related trials to be included in the general UASI 

program. FEMA would have to request reprogramming authority from Congress to 

move the money from the UASI account to another account in the event the funding 

is not needed for NSSEs. 

Question 4. The Gulf Coast’s long journey back from Hurricane Katrina demonstrates that the Nation needs a strong plan for coordinating community recovery 

efforts that clearly defines leadership roles. The National Disaster Recovery Framework is supposed to be that plan, but the committee is concerned that the draft 

Framework lacks clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and authorities for the Federal agencies involved, particularly FEMA. 

Why wasn’t the role of FEMA or your position as administrator more clearly defined in the Recovery Framework? 

Do you expect clearer roles and responsibilities to be defined in the final Framework, particularly as it relates to FEMA? 

When do you anticipate the administration completing and publishing the final 

Framework? 

Answer. We will clearly define the roles and responsibilities in the National Disaster Recovery Framework of all key recovery agencies, including FEMA. We anticipate publishing the final Framework this summer, but recognize that the extraordinary demands of the Deep Horizon Oil Spill, the Tennessee flooding disaster, and 

other unknown events may alter that timeline. 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN BENNIE G. THOMPSON OF MISSISSIPPI FOR W. CRAIG

FUGATE

Question 1. The committee remains concerned that the Grants Directorate does 

not have the staff and resources to optimally manage the full suite of DHS grant 

programs. As a result, the Grants Directorate overly relies on contractors to perform 

inherently Governmental functions. 

What steps are you taking to make certain the Grants Directorate can meet its 

mandate to be the one-stop shop for all DHS grant programs? 

Answer. The Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) has worked extensively with the 

Human Capital Division to recruit and hire additional Federal staff and is working 

with the Office of Personnel Management on other hiring efficiencies. Additionally, 

GPD personnel have attended events such as the Presidential Management Fellow 

job fair to attract qualified job seekers to the agency. 

In addition, the following actions have been taken by FEMA and GPD leadership: 

• Concentrated efforts on personnel issues, for both recruitment and retention 

(R&R); 

• Announced 18 vacancies May 7, 2010; 

• Announced remaining vacancies by May 17, 2010; 

• Introducing performance management culture with a focus on developing and 

enhancing supervisory, managerial, and leadership skills at all levels of organization; 

• After strategically examining resource requirements, GPD will, as warranted, 

in-source current contractor positions as current contracts expire; 

• Have developed short-term staffing plan to address obligation of all fiscal year 

2009 expiring funds; 

• Investigating use of USCG reservists to assist with PSGP; 
40 

• Utilizing detailees from FEMA Regions; • Will solidify Mid/Long-term planning for R&R. 

Question 2. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has been conducting 

a multi-year project to re-examine flood zones by creating newer and more detailed 

digital flood maps. While the committee recognizes the importance of these new 

flood maps to help citizens protect their homes and businesses from potential flooding, these more detailed maps have also caused more individuals to be placed in 

flood zones than before. 

What steps is FEMA taking to make sure homeowners are aware of their change 

in flood risk? 

What type of recourse do localities or citizens have to challenge the new flood 

maps? 

Since an increase in flood risk often leads to much higher prices for flood insurance, has there been any thought on how homeowners, including senior citizens on 

fixed incomes and low-income households, could receive some form of help with 

these costs? 

Answer. FEMA conducted an assessment that determined, while some properties 

have been newly identified to be within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) (an 

area having no less than a 1 percent annual chance of flooding in any given year) 

based on newer science, in aggregate, more have been removed. Where FEMA has 

finalized maps, we estimate a net decrease of about 1 percent in the number of 

housing units in the SFHA. 

FEMA is required by law to publish notice of proposed map changes in two places: 

(1) The Federal Register and (2) a Predominant Local Newspaper. FEMA often exceeds those two legal requirements, particularly when the flood hazards are found 

to be much greater than widely known. In many cases we have additional meetings 

with local communities, ask the State to assist in outreach, contact media, and distribute press releases, hold public meetings, develop flyers, and more. 

In addition to these efforts, because the Federal Government does not have private property information or resources to contact individuals that might be impacted, FEMA also relies on its State and local counterparts to assist in getting the 

word out. 

In regard to what type of recourse do localities or citizens have to challenge the 

new flood maps, because conditions on the ground change over time, anyone can 

challenge a flood map at any time. FEMA has processes to incorporate more current 

or detailed data any time it becomes available. It is important to recognize that 

FEMA makes its maps based on data and science and therefore challenges to them 

need to also be based on data and science. Communities or individual homeowners 

may present this data through the map revision process at any time. 

In terms of a FEMA-initiated restudy for an area, FEMA is required by law to 

provide a 90-day appeal period for any proposed changes to flood elevations. Beyond 

that however, FEMA’s mapping process from start to finish takes 2 to 3 years and 

is very open, transparent, and collaborative. Examples include meetings with local 

officials to kick the study off, where there is opportunity to shape the study before 

it starts, and meetings to present preliminary findings which provide an opportunity 

to challenge the results before the maps become final. 

Importantly, even after a particular map is final it can still be revised. 

FEMA is also engaged in a comprehensive effort to address the concerns of a wide 

array of stakeholders involved in an on-going dialogue about the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The initiative is a multi-stage process designed to engage 

stakeholders and consider the largest breadth of public policy options. FEMA believes this important process will ensure the program can efficiently and effectively 

meet the needs of the public. The results of this analysis will inform future decisions 

regarding the NFIP. 

Question 3. According to a recent Inspector General report, an astonishing $16 billion in unspent monies still remains at FEMA for 744 unclosed disasters. The report 

indicates that delays are largely attributable to a shortage of regional staff and a 

lack of uniform close-out standards and centralized leadership at FEMA. The report 

indicates that FEMA agreed with the IG’s recommendations and established a working group in November to address the close-out delays. 

Can you please explain what FEMA’s plan is for closing out the disasters and the 

progress the working group has made to date on disaster close-out? 

To what extent does the working group seek input from and involve senior Regional officials? 

Answer. As of April 30, 2010, there were 882 open FEMA-State Agreements 

(FSAs), including Major Disaster (DR), Emergency (EM), and Fire Management Assistance (FS/FMA) declarations since 1989. This includes declarations made in the 

current fiscal year. 
41 

The FEMA administrator launched an initiative in October 2009 to expedite the 

closure of older disasters. The Disaster Closeout Initiative includes disasters (‘‘DRs’’) 

declared in fiscal year 2002 and prior years as well as EM/FS/FMAs declared in fiscal year 2007 and prior years. The number of open FSAs under the initiative’s timeframe was 357 on October 1, 2009, and was 292 as of April 30, 2010 (in other words, 

65 FSAs, or 18 percent of the open FSAs, have been closed to date in fiscal year 

2010). The un-liquidated obligations (ULOs) associated with open disasters is less 

than $500 million, excluding a $2.2 billion ULO associated with an Interagency 

Agreement (IAA) with DOT/FTA to support rebuilding of the lower Manhattan 

transportation infrastructure as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. With that exception, FEMA plans to liquidate the majority of the remaining ULOs by the end 

of fiscal year 2010. 

The administrator directed the FEMA Chief Financial Officer (CFO) to establish 

a Disaster Closeout Workgroup and designate a senior official to coordinate this effort. The Disaster Closeout Workgroup has membership from all FEMA Regional Offices and headquarters program and staff offices. The CFO issued guidance in January 2010 to the Regional administrators to conduct a thorough review of the open 

older disasters and provide target dates for closure of their open FSAs to the OCFO 

by April 1, 2010. 

The Regional administrators submitted assessments of their open FSAs and proposed target closure dates (by fiscal year quarter) for each of their open disasters. 

The Regions have targeted the closure of an additional 164 disasters in fiscal year 

2010 resulting in a 64 percent reduction in open older disasters. The remaining 128 

older open disasters will be closed in fiscal year 2011 except for a handful of disasters that have extended Public Assistance and/or Hazard Mitigation permanent 

projects to be completed. The Regions also identified on-going activities holding up 

immediate closeout as well as systemic issues that need to be addressed agencywide. The OCFO, through the Disaster Closeout Workgroup, is assisting the regions 

with closeout activities to deal with issues that are impeding closeout. Improvements to the closeout process as a result of this initiative will be applied to the entire universe of open disasters across FEMA. 

The Regional administrators were given authority in April 2009 to establish and 

fill temporary CORE positions that are performing disaster-related work, including 

closeout activities. Most of the regional offices have utilized this authority to add 

additional closeout staff. 

A collateral goal of the closeout initiative is to identify and de-obligate all ULOs 

associated with the older disasters. To date, the amount of funds de-obligated and 

returned to the Disaster Relief Fund under this initiative in fiscal year 2010 is over 

$350 million. In addition, a dedicated team of Office of Chief Procurement Officer 

and OCFO staff recently de-obligated $443 million associated with 514 open contracts in less than 4 weeks. The CFO also issued a CFO Directive in June 2009 on 

Managing Open Obligations to require quarterly reviews and annual certification of 

open obligations by all HQ and regional offices. The OCFO will continue this focused 

effort to review and de-obligate all invalid obligations. 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER PETER T. KING OF NEW YORK FOR W. CRAIG

FUGATE

Question 1. The President’s fiscal year 2011 budget request cuts Firefighter Assistance Grants by $200 million, or 25 percent from last year. This proposed cut ignores the on-going needs of fire departments around the country and the serious 

budget crises that these departments continue to face. 

Why was the decision made to cut funding for this important program? 

Did FEMA consider the significant need for such funding, as demonstrated by 

over $3 billion in applications in a single year, or the strong effectiveness of the program as reported by the Office of Management and Budget? 

Did FEMA consider the on-going budget constraints at the local level when determining an appropriate funding level for the program? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2011 budget request is $20 million higher than last year’s 

request, and is higher than any of the Department’s last five budget requests for 

Firefighter Assistance Grants. In addition, over $850 million has been awarded to 

fire departments but remains unspent. While this unexpended balance is high, it 

should be noted that it does not even include the $810 million appropriated to Firefighter Assistance Grants in fiscal year 2010 that have yet to be awarded. Based 

on these figures, FEMA feels that the $610 million requested for fiscal year 2011 

is appropriate. 

Regardless of the funding level, FEMA continues to address programmatic issues 

identified by stakeholder groups. Of critical importance to our fire service partners, 
42 

we have significantly expanded eligibility for our fire programs such as the Staffing 

for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant, making it much easier 

for local departments to put these security dollars to work quickly to bring back 

laid-off firefighters and retain their current forces. Moreover, we changed the 4-year 

term of SAFER grants to 2 years, giving departments much more flexibility in the 

short term; eliminated the $100,000 per position cap, enabling departments to retain veteran firefighters and maximize their funding across their workforce; eliminated the local match; and allowed departments to keep SAFER funding during normal attrition (previously they had to return the funding). 

Question 2. Most experts agree that if the trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammed is 

held in a highly populated area, it will become a prime target for a terrorist attack. 

Has the FEMA administrator been involved in contingency planning for any terror trial? 

Answer. As the lead Federal agency for consequence management, FEMA is responsible for ensuring that the Nation works together at all levels to build, sustain, 

and improve the capability to plan and prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the consequences of all hazards disasters. This would include providing all-hazards planning support and supporting State and local governments during a terror trial, and if requested, to manage the consequences of a disaster event that overwhelms their capabilities to respond. FEMA also manages a 

network of operations centers and information-sharing capabilities with all levels of 

government around the clock 365 days/year. This capability allows the agency to 

closely interact with and provide internal and external stakeholders a consolidated, 

consistent, and accurate status of responses to on-going incidents and to monitor 

evolving or potential events to be prepared to manage any consequences that may 

ensue. Question 3. I am concerned that your budget proposal for the UASI program in- cludes up to $200 million for terror-trial security. I, along with many other Members 

of Congress, oppose importing terrorists to the United States for trial in civilian 

courts. Beyond the funding request for terror trials, the budget proposal includes a 

minimal increase for UASI of only $13 million. What is your justification for including up to $200 million for terror-trial security? 

How did the administration arrive at this figure when it currently does not have 

a plan for such trials? 

Don’t you think that if the administration did not impose civilian trials of terror- ists on local communities, that cities would be better able to use the $200 million 

in UASI funding to meet their current and specific homeland security needs? 

Answer. The UASI funding request represents a set-aside to be used in the event 

a trial was to be held in an urban area. The funding is consistent with Part IV, 

Section E (page 36) of the fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security Grant Program application and guidance kit, which includes language on National Special Security 

Events (NSSEs). Under ‘‘Organizational Activities (SHSP and UASI only),’’ it states 

the following, ‘‘Section 2008 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended by 

the 9/11 Act, includes the following allowable activities: 

• Responding to an increase in the threat level under the Homeland Security Advisory System, or needs resulting from a National Special Security Event; 

• Establishing, enhancing, and staffing State and Major Urban Area fusion centers; 

• Paying salaries and benefits for personnel to serve as qualified intelligence analysts. 

In planning for the possibility that trials do not take place in civilian courts or 

in large metropolitan areas, FEMA included ‘‘up to’’ language in its 2011 request. 

This language allows for any of the $200 million not used for additional security 

costs involved in hosting terror-related trials to be included in the general UASI 

program. FEMA would have to request reprogramming authority from Congress to 

move the money from the UASI account to another account in the event the funding 

is not needed for NSSEs. 

Question 4. In preparation for this year’s hurricane season, what type of joint 

planning activities is FEMA conducting with other Department of Homeland Security components, such as the U.S. Coast Guard? 

How have these joint activities strengthened FEMA’s overall preparedness and response capabilities? 

How can Federal, State, and local governments measure whether they have increased overall preparedness capabilities? 

Answer. The FEMA 2009 Hurricane Concept of Operations document (CONOPS) 

is the interagency disaster response document that will be used to coordinate response activities during the upcoming hurricane season. After a review of the events 

of last year’s hurricane season, it was determined that no changes to the existing 
43 

CONOPS were needed. FEMA recently participated in the Region IV Tri-state Hurricane Exercise in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama in May and is facilitating the following National and regional level hurricane exercises with DHS components and 

interagency partners: the DHS Senior Leader Hurricane Facilitated Discussion; the 

Emergency Support Function Leadership Group (ESFLG) TTX; and the 2010 FEMA 

HQ Hurricane Plan Seminar and Execution Workshop. FEMA’s overall preparedness and response capabilities have been strengthened through interagency and 

intra-agency exercises and planning activities. In addition, preparations such as preidentifying key leadership positions including the Federal Coordinating Officers, the 

Defense Coordinating Officers, the Senior Health Officials, and the State Coordinating Officers; organizing Incident Management Assistance Teams available to deploy to link up with States to initiate the coordination of the Federal response; encouraging early decisions to facilitate action on pre-disaster emergency declaration 

requests and evacuation and sheltering; and exercising with other DHS components 

such as the Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Coast Guard, and the States have also strengthened overall 

preparedness and response capabilities. 

Additionally, the Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP) within the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) works closely with FEMA before and during hurricane season. For instance, IP identifies the most critical infrastructure preand post-landfall to prioritize restoration efforts and identify cascading impacts from 

hurricane-damaged infrastructure. This work includes extensive analysis involving 

National Laboratories, on-the-ground assessments, and geospatial production. IP’s 

Protective Security Advisors serve as Infrastructure Liaisons in the FEMA Joint 

Field Office during incidents, including hurricane strikes. And, IP maintains a permanent liaison at FEMA’s headquarters operation center and provides 24/7 coverage 

during hurricane response. 

The National Communications System (NCS), which resides within NPPD’s Office 

of Cyber Security and Communications, has worked with FEMA Regions 4 and 6 

and the regional, State, and local planners to strengthen awareness of communications planning for restoration and reconstitution of communications critical infrastructure. FEMA and the NCS partnered to ensure that personnel identified to respond to ESF–2 (Communications) activations were appropriately trained and prepared. 

FEMA also coordinates regularly with the NPPD’s Federal Protective Service 

(FPS) to provide disaster facility and force protection after hurricanes and other disasters. FEMA and FPS conduct operational and tactical planning sessions for each 

declared emergency for deployment of FPS law enforcement officers to establish security at disaster facilities, and to protect disasters relief assets. FEMA has also 

identified an FPS Disaster Liaison Officer through strategic planning sessions conducted to review capabilities and recognize challenges. 

Measuring preparedness is a cyclical and continuous process, and starts with the 

identification and assessment of the entity or jurisdiction’s threats and hazards. 

After that, an entity/jurisdiction must do a few fundamental things as they assess 

their levels of preparedness. 

• Assess the hurricane threat for your community. 

• Assess the existing capabilities to address this threat. 

• Determine the capabilities needed to fully and effectively address the threat. 

• Determine the gaps between existing capabilities and the capabilities needed to 

fully and effectively address the threat. 

• As funding allows, close the gaps. 

• Conduct training and exercise programs, capture results in After Action Reports 

(AAR), and then further refine your capabilities. 

Question 5. I would like to thank FEMA for the critical assistance that was recently approved for Nassau and Suffolk Counties following the devastating 

Nor’easter that hit Long Island in March. 

Can you provide a status update as to what level of assistance will be provided 

under the President’s disaster declaration and how quickly Federal funds will be 

made available? 

Answer. The Presidentially-declared disaster (FEMA–NY–1989) authorized FEMA 

to provide all categories of Public Assistance (PA) in the designated areas. Following 

the Presidential declaration, an Applicants’ Briefing is conducted by a representative of the State for all potential Applicants for PA grants. This Briefing was held 

on May 7. Upon identifying potential Applicants, the Applicant, FEMA, and the 

State participate in a Kickoff Meeting. This meeting is a project-oriented meeting 

which provides the Applicant with a more detailed review of the PA program and 

focuses on eligibility and documentation requirements. The Kickoff Meeting is the 

starting point of the PA process and is also the marker for key deadlines. Kickoff 
44 

Meetings have been held in Suffolk County, and the rest of the affected areas of 

New York, throughout the month of May, and most have been completed at this 

time. Following the Kickoff Meeting, the Applicant, FEMA, and the State begin the 

process of identifying and formulating projects. Once formulated projects are approved, funding can be made via the State (grantee) to the Applicant (sub-grantee) 

for use in completing projects. The availability of funds is directly related to the 

complexity of project submitted. This process is currently underway. FEMA’s regulations indicate that the project completion deadline for emergency work (debris removal and emergency protective measures) is 6 months from the date of the declaration. The project completion deadline for permanent restoration work is 18 months. 

Extensions may be made by the State and by FEMA if necessary based on extenuating circumstances. 

Question 6. It is my understanding that a preliminary audit finding by FEMA related to the City of Buffalo’s response on the ‘‘October Surprise’’ storm of 2006 may 

lead to the financially-strapped city being forced to repay $3.9 million to the Federal 

Government because your agency determined that the city overspent for the removal 

of storm debris. I am concerned that the methodology used to arrive at this conclusion is faulty because it directly compares the removal costs in an urban environment to those incurred in the neighboring suburbs. 

Not only are there major complicating factors to performing these tasks in a city, 

but in this case a lower cost was secured by Buffalo’s suburban neighbors by delaying their response by a week. Such a delay was not a feasible option in Western 

New York’s medical, emergency services, and governmental center. 

Therefore, what is your view on whether the most reasonable response to this situation would be to end this inquiry based on the fact that Federal regulations allow 

for flexibility in awarding grants when ‘‘the public exigency or emergency... will 

not permit a delay’’ (44 CFR 13.36(d)(4))? If you disagree, please explain. 

Please also provide the committee with a report on the status of FEMA’s review 

of this situation. 

Answer. The City of Buffalo was audited, and we are awaiting a final report from 

the DHS OIG on this matter before making any decisions. FEMA will provide a report to the committee after the final OIG report is received and reviewed. 

Question 7. The President’s fiscal year 2011 budget requests $28 million for the 

Urban Search and Rescue System, which is a $4.5 million cut from last year’s enacted level. Some Urban Search and Rescue teams have already suggested that 

their operational costs are even higher than the funding level provided last year. 

We all recognize and appreciate the vital role these teams play, evidenced most 

recently by their important work in Haiti following the devastating earthquake 

there earlier this year. Given these realities, why is the Urban Search and Rescue 

program request lower in fiscal year 2011? 

How many Urban Search and Rescue Teams exist currently? 

Does FEMA have any plans to expand and strengthen Urban Search and Rescue 

with additional resources in the future? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2011 budget request for Urban Search and Rescue 

(US&R) is the same as the fiscal year 2010 budget request. Currently there are 28 

FEMA-sponsored National US&R teams strategically located across the country. Additionally, a roughly equal number of State and local-sponsored US&R teams exist 

that may be available to assist the impacted States through the EMAC mechanism. 

As stated in the fiscal year 2009 Report to Congress titled ‘‘Feasibility of Additional Urban Search and Rescue Task Forces,’’ dated June 30, 2009, based on the 

National Program Office review and analysis, the current 28 National US&R Task 

Forces are sufficient to provide adequate coverage and capability to respond to the 

search and rescue needs of the Nation. Increasing their number would dilute the 

available funding and impede on-going enhancement efforts. FEMA will continue to 

focus on maintaining and improving the capabilities and functionality of the existing 

Task Forces. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE WILLIAM L. OWENS OF NEW YORK FOR W. CRAIG

FUGATE

Question 1. Northern border communities have historically benefitted from Operation Stonegarden, and in fiscal year 2009 six counties in my district and the St. 

Regis Mohawk Tribe received funding awards. The President’s budget proposal for 

fiscal year 2011, which requests setting aside $50 million for Operation 

Stonegarden, would restrict eligibility for the grant program to States along the 

Southwest Border. 

I recently sent a letter along with four of my colleagues from the New York delegation to the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee to request that this 
45 

funding for northern Border States be reinstated. We believe this shift in funding 

fails to recognize the illegal activities along the northern border that present a serious threat to our National security. New York’s northern border alone has eight 

bridges with points of entry and there have been numerous reports of criminal networks using certain tribal lands along New York’s northern border to conduct illegal 

activity, including the smuggling of people, illegal drugs, and political terrorists. 

To that end, I recently introduced legislation with Senator Schumer calling on the 

Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to work with the Secretary of 

Homeland Security to develop a northern border counternarcotics strategy. 

Please explain the agency’s thinking with respect to why these funds are being 

shifted away from northern border communities at a time of such critical need. 

Answer. In determining funding allocations for Operation Stonegarden (OPSG), 

the Department considers all information available regarding eligible communities. 

OPSG was initially established as a separate grant program in fiscal year 2006, and 

targeted only the four southwest border States. While eligibility for OPSG has expanded over the past several years, the emphasis remained along the southwest border with over 75 percent of the fiscal year 2009 OPSG allocation and 100 percent 

of the fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding for OPSG being awarded to the southwest border States. 

The southwest border is a dynamic operational environment that represents about 

80 percent of the enforcement activity volume that CBP faces on a year-to-year 

basis. Mexican drug cartel-related violence continues to represent a serious threat 

to the National security of the United States as well as to the U.S. citizens that 

live along our southwest border. As a result, the President’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2011 reflects a renewed emphasis on enhancing border security efforts 

along the southwest border. However, other sources of funding, such as the State 

Homeland Security Program (SHSP), remain available to all States to support border security-related efforts. 

Æ