U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–397 PDF 2017

THE FUTURE OF FEMA 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, 

RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 14, 2017 and FEBRUARY 28, 2017 

Serial No. 115–3 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

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


Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

WILL HURD, Texas 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York 

J. LUIS CORREA, California 

VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida 

NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGA ́ N, California 

BRENDAN P. SHIELDS, Staff Director 

JOAN V. O’HARA, General Counsel* 

MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

I. LANIER AVANT, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND 

COMMUNICATIONS 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York, Chairman 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona 

JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas (ex officio) 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (ex officio) 

KERRY A. KINIRONS, Subcommittee Staff Director 

MOIRA BERGIN, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director 

* Joan V. O’Hara served the committee through February 17, 2017 at which 

point Kathleen Crooks Flynn began service as Deputy Chief Counsel. 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2017 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., a Representative in Congress From 

the State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10 

The Honorable Donald M. Payne, Jr., a Representative in Congress From 

the State of New Jersey, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 12 

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

the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 

Security: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 12 

WITNESSES

Captain Chris A. Kelenske, Deputy State Director/Commander, Emergency 

Management and Homeland Security, Michigan State Police, Testifying 

on Behalf of the National Governors Association: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16 

Chief John Sinclair, Fire Chief, Kittitas Valley Fire And Rescue (WA), President and Chair of the Board, International Association of Fire Chiefs 

(IAFC), Testifying on Behalf of the International Association of Fire Chiefs: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 20 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 22 

Mr. Richard F. Bland, J.D., M.T.S., National Director, Policy, Advocacy, and 

Development, Save The Children: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 27 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 29 

FOR THE RECORD

The Honorable Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., a Representative in Congress From 

the State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications: 

Statement of Wendy Smith-Reeve, President, National Emergency Management Association and National Director, Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs (DEMA) Emergency Management Division, 

On Behalf of the National Emergency Management Association ................. 3 

Statement of NAEMT .......................................................................................... 8 

Statement of Lanita Lloyd, CEM President, International Association of 

Emergency Managers ....................................................................................... 9 

APPENDIX

Questions From Chairman Daniel M. Donovan, Jr. for Chris A. Kelenske ........ 41 

Question From Ranking Member Donald M. Payne, Jr. for Chris A. Kelenske . 42 

Page

IV 

Questions From Honorable James Langevin for Chris A. Kelenske ................... 42 

Questions From Chairman Daniel M. Donovan, Jr. for John Sinclair ................ 43 

Question From Ranking Member Donald M. Payne, Jr. for John Sinclair ......... 45 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2017 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., a Representative in Congress From 

the State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 47 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 48 

The Honorable Donald M. Payne, Jr., a Representative in Congress From 

the State of New Jersey, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 49 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 50 

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

the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 

Security: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 51 

WITNESSES

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

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 52 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 54 

Mr. Robert David Paulison, Former Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 58 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 59 

APPENDIX

Questions From Ranking Member Harold M. Payne, Jr. for W. Craig Fugate .. 79 

Questions From Honorable James R. Langevin for W. Craig Fugate ................. 79 

Question From Ranking Member Donald M. Payne, Jr. for Robert David 

Paulison ................................................................................................................ 80 

Questions From Honorable James R. Langevin for Robert David Paulison ....... 80 

(1) 

THE FUTURE OF FEMA: STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NEXT ADMINISTRATOR 

Tuesday, February 14, 2017 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, 

RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 

Room HVC–210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Daniel M. Donovan, 

Jr. (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Donovan, Rutherford, Garrett, Payne, 

Langevin, Watson Coleman, and Rice. 

Also present: Representative Jackson Lee. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, 

Response, and Communications will come to order. 

The subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on the 

efforts necessary to ensure a strong Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

I now recognize myself for an opening statement. Before I do so, 

I would like to welcome a new Member, a Republican Member joining our committee. Congressman John Rutherford represents Florida’s 4th Congressional District. He began his career in law enforcement in 1974—John, that was the year I graduated high 

school—most recently serving as sheriff of Duval County, a position 

he has held for 12 years. 

This hearing is the first in a series that the subcommittee will 

hold to consider the future of FEMA. We will use what we learn 

at these hearings along with the findings of past subcommittee 

work to make recommendations for the next FEMA administrator, 

a road map of success, of sorts. 

I think Captain Kelenske may have said it best in his submitted 

testimony that we must, ‘‘recognize past progress at FEMA, but 

embrace innovative approaches for future policy development.’’ 

That is why we are here today. 

We want to hear from you, the practitioners, about what we need 

to do to stay on the path of a strong FEMA. What are those innovative approaches? What is going well at FEMA and should be continued? What can be improved? 

At the heart of issue is leadership. As I discussed with Secretary 

Kelly last week, it is vital that the administration move quickly to 

appoint a qualified FEMA administrator. We have already had 

2 

seven major disasters declared this year. There is no doubt that 

FEMA has disaster-tested officials in place to get the job done, but 

it is important to install permanent leadership as soon as possible. 

The job requires an experienced emergency manager capable of 

navigating the National Preparedness System. For more than a 

decade, billions have been invested across the United States to enhance capabilities and achieve the National Preparedness Goal. It 

is to FEMA’s credit that such investments are making the United 

States stronger and safer in the face of emergencies. We have an 

obligation to keep this momentum going. 

Hurricane Katrina’s devastation in 2005 demonstrated the significance of FEMA’s mission and the failures that can occur when 

FEMA is unable to execute it. The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, coupled with effective leadership at 

FEMA, strengthened FEMA’s capability to lead the National emergency management efforts. These capabilities are tested each time 

the National Response Coordination Center at FEMA headquarters 

is activated. 

My district in New York City saw first-hand in 2012 the need for 

strong Federal, State, and local coordination when Superstorm 

Sandy caused wide-spread destruction. It should be noted that 

FEMA did make stark improvements from 2005 to 2012, but challenges still remain. This subcommittee looks forward to continuing 

its engagement with FEMA to support continued progress. 

According to the Committee on Homeland Security’s Terror 

Threat Snapshot, the terrorist threat environment worsened in 

2016. The number of home-grown jihadist cases and lone-wolf attacks continues to surge with attacks ranging from Ohio State University to Orlando and San Bernardino. FEMA has awarded over 

$40 billion in preparedness grants to States and localities since 

2001 to build, sustain, and enhance their capabilities to protect the 

public from acts of terrorism and other hazards. 

It is important that we ensure resources and training remain accessible to communities across the country. The critical importance 

of these programs and how to continue to improve them is not lost 

on this subcommittee. 

We truly are a resilient Nation. This is a testament to our first 

responders, emergency managers, and community partners at 

every level of government and their ability to continually adapt to 

ever-changing threats and vulnerabilities. Together, we can ensure 

our Nation’s continued ability to prevent, prepare for, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards that we face. 

Before I yield to the Ranking Member, I would like to ask unanimous consent to include statements in the record from stakeholder 

organizations, including the National Emergency Management Association, the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians, and the International Association of Emergency Managers. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

3 

STATEMENT OF WENDY SMITH-REEVE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGE- MENT ASSOCIATION AND NATIONAL DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EMER- GENCY AND MILITARY AFFAIRS (DEMA) EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION, ON

BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

FEBRUARY 14, 2017 

INTRODUCTION

Thank you Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee for allowing me to submit this statement for the record 

to discuss the future of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and 

recommendations for the next FEMA administrator. My name is Wendy SmithReeve and I am the director of the Arizona Department of Emergency and Military 

Affairs (DEMA) Division of Emergency Management and serve as the president of 

the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA). NEMA represents the 

State emergency management directors of the 50 States, territories, and District of 

Columbia. NEMA’s members, many of whom serve as Homeland Security Advisors, 

are prepared to deal with an ever-changing and increasingly complex set of challenges that test traditional approaches to natural and man-made disasters. 

As you heard former FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate say throughout his tenure, emergency management is a ‘‘whole community’’ endeavor. While preparedness, 

response, recovery, and mitigation capabilities are critical on the Federal level, it 

is important to emphasize that they are only a part of the National capability and 

must supplement, not supplant robust State and local capacity. The context and environment in which our system must succeed is constantly evolving and intersecting 

with other domains of public health, safety and security. Climate adaptation, health 

threats, population migration, advanced technologies, economic shifts, and many 

other trends and drivers are all forcing the emergency management community to 

adjust, if not reinvent, its business practices, resource requirements, and focus areas 

like never before. 

Even so, there remain some constant themes that NEMA cannot overemphasize 

as a new administration assumes stewardship of the safety of our Nation. The next 

FEMA administrator will have numerous opportunities to: 

BUILD UPON FOUNDATION OF BEST PRACTICES THAT ACHIEVE EFFICIENT USE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND LEVERAGE INVESTMENTS MADE AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT

Emergency Management Performance Grants.—States and locals build capacity 

and enhance their capability to respond to disasters when they utilize the Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG). EMPG is the only source of Federal funding directed to State and local governments for planning, training, exercises, and key professional expertise for all-hazards emergency preparedness. Recipients of this grant continue demonstrating a strong commitment; for every dollar of 

Federal funds invested, at least that much is matched by both grantees and subgrantees. In the absence of these funds, State and local governments would struggle 

to maintain the capabilities necessary to build and sustain an effective emergency 

management system. Fiscal year 2015 represented a range of hazards which required an unprecedented amount of emergency management professionalism and 

preparedness: 

• 30,275 events required State assets, but did not reach the level of a gubernatorial declaration 

• 19,415 local and Tribal events were supported using EMPG-funded staff or assets without State or Federal support. 

These numbers include only those incidents in which no Federal assets were utilized during the response and there was not a Presidential or emergency declaration. Without a strong and robust emergency management system at the State, 

local, and Tribal levels, many of the 49,690 State and local responses would falter 

or require Federal support. Capabilities afforded through EMPG allow these events 

to be managed without additional Federal expenditures. Ensuring robust State and 

local emergency management programs is the best way to reduce the Federal cost 

of disasters. 

EMPG funding has remained level since fiscal year 2014, yet emergency management is being asked to respond to a growing number of non-traditional events such 

as the Ebola and Zika viruses, unaccompanied minors crossing borders, active-shooter incidents, Avian Flu (HPAI), drought, wildland fires, and water contamination 

emergencies. Even for those events in which emergency management is not the lead 

agency, their expertise is still required to coordinate the various response entities. 

There is a critical need for additional EMPG funding to ensure the State and local 

4 

capabilities that have been built are not only sustained, but are able to grow and 

adapt to meet the emerging threats facing our Nation. 

EMPG stands as the beacon of Congressional commitment to ensuring communities and States are better equipped to prepare, mitigate, respond, and recover 

from any number of emergencies and disasters. 

Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC).—EMAC has played an important role in facilitating collaboration among States and enabling them to share 

resources and capabilities. Established by the States and ratified by Congress in 

1996 (Public Law 104–321), all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 

Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have enacted EMAC legislation. Through EMAC, 

States are able to share resources with other States during Governor-declared emergencies and disasters. Resolved upfront are key issues such as tort liability and immunity, license reciprocity, workers’ compensation, and reimbursement. 

State-to-State mutual aid often allows for more timely and cost effective disaster 

response than the use of Federal resources. Further, EMAC is evolving to include 

virtual missions that can be carried out by personnel working in their home States 

rather than deploying into the disaster area. Examples of virtual EMAC missions 

include GIS, cyber and social media monitoring. Virtual mutual aid reduces mission 

costs resulting in cost savings to Government. EMAC leverages Federal emergency 

management and homeland security grant dollars invested in State and local capabilities to conduct response and recovery operations across the Nation. Because of 

these increased capabilities, the vast majority of disasters are handled without Federal assistance and when a State does become overwhelmed, EMAC is available to 

provide supplemental support. 

Recommendations: 

• The administration should recognize and continue to enhance the value of 

EMAC and incentivize the use of inter-State mutual aid as an efficient and costeffective approach to disaster response, as well as a cost savings to the Federal 

Government. 

ENCOURAGE INVESTMENT IN RESILIENCY THROUGH MITIGATION AND PRIORITIZE RISK

REDUCTION IN ALL PHASES OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

Mitigation activities can take many forms and the use of mitigation programs 

often differ by region. What does not differ, however, is the return on investment 

of these programs. FEMA’s mitigation programs have been effective in reducing the 

property damage, personal and commercial hardship, as well as long-lasting monetary burdens. There is opportunity to shift the business model from reactive to 

proactive. Currently 94% of funds allocated to buy down risk happen post-disaster. 

Between fiscal year 2011–2014, the Federal Government allocated roughly $222 million for pre-disaster mitigation as compared to $3.2 billion for post-disaster mitigation. Shifting away from the current spending model and towards a system that emphasizes proactive pre-disaster resilience activities is what demonstrates and promotes resiliency Nation-wide. 

Mitigation is the first and the last step in a jurisdiction’s overall readiness. While 

many communities have the desire to harden their infrastructure, they lack the resources and technical ability necessary to do so. If we are to truly ensure that we 

are prepared as a Nation, we must increase our efforts to prepare our built environment for future disasters by incentivizing and facilitating mitigation. The best way 

to reduce the cost of disasters is to design and harden the built environment to 

match the threat environment and create continued, localized resilience. Hazard 

mitigation is a demonstrably cost-effective effort with a documented return on investments. Federal spending, however, does not reflect this priority. 

From 2003–2013, FEMA spent $71.2 billion in Public Assistance and Individual 

Assistance to help communities recover from disasters. In that same time period, 

only $5.2 billion was spent on Hazard Mitigation Grants to reduce the impact of future events. While the HMGP program is essential as a component of recovery, mitigation efforts before the disaster can reduce the physical damage and economic impact of an event. In addition, Federal investments in mitigation through the PreDisaster Mitigation Grant Program can encourage State and local communities to 

make progress in the areas of mitigation planning. These plans assure communities, 

large and small, are prepared for to address risk and manage the influx of grant 

dollars designed to help rebuild smarter and safer. 

Recommendations: 

• FEMA, in concert with other critical Federal stakeholders, must undertake a 

comprehensive review of Federal statutes, regulations, and policies most likely 

to have an impact on investments (before or after disaster), to identify programs 

5 

and grants that could be amended to better incentivize risk reduction specific 

to infrastructure and housing. 

STREAMLINE DISASTER OPERATIONS TO REDUCE COSTS ACROSS THE FEDERAL FAMILY

AND SUPPORT EFFICIENT AND SUSTAINABLE RESPONSE AND RECOVERY EFFORTS

Reducing the overall costs of disasters, at all levels of government, is necessary 

for the continued economic and social equilibrium of the Nation. While there continues to be concern from Congress, OMB, DHS OIG, and others related to the rising number and cost of disasters, careful study and data-driven action must focus 

on the real drivers of cost increases. Simply reducing the total number of disaster 

declarations made by the Federal Government may not significantly bring down the 

total costs associated with Federally-declared disasters. Based on data from a House 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing in May 2016 (Controlling the 

Rising Cost of Federal Responses to Disaster): 25% of all disasters cost more than 

$41.8 million and account for 93% of Federal disaster spending, while 75% of all disasters cost less than $41.8 million and account for 7% of Federal disaster spending. 

In other words, a quarter of disasters account for 93% of Federal disaster costs since 

1989. This data makes it clear that following the money and crafting solutions that 

target actual cost drivers is paramount. 

While the future of the current Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related 

to a ‘‘Disaster Deductible’’ concept is uncertain, NEMA has been working actively 

to assess the impact of the proposal and identify alternatives that may achieve true 

cost reduction. National efforts to reduce the costs of disasters through legislation 

or rulemaking must: 

• Recognize that State, local, and Tribal governments already handle the vast 

majority of disasters and emergencies on their own and without Federal assistance; 

• Refrain from simply shifting costs from the Federal level to State, local, and 

Tribal governments which does not achieve meaningful disaster cost reduction; 

• Utilize the best available science and predictive analysis tools to illustrate datadriven return on investment calculations; 

• Provide for transparency and accountability without increased complexity and 

administrative burden. 

• Identify and address the current challenges that exist to speeding up disaster 

declarations and breaking down delays in the request process. These delays 

cause increases in administrative costs and can have long-term impacts on strategic recovery. FEMA should incentivize the adoption of new technologies, modeling techniques, and predictive analysis to help get assistance to affected areas 

quicker. 

• Recognize and address the disjointed nature of disaster recovery programs. The 

sequence of delivery of the numerous disaster assistance programs across the 

Federal Government (HUD, SBA, DOT, etc) can impact the efficiency and effectiveness of those programs in assisting in long-term recovery. When communities receive injects of funding from Federal programs on different time tables, 

recovery can be bifurcated and may actually increase costs over time due to unnecessary delays. 

As a Nation, we are currently limited in our ability to take meaningful action to 

reduce costs because we lack a reliable awareness of the total costs borne at all levels of government and across various agencies in relation to disaster costs. FEMA 

is not the only agency that funds disaster response and recovery activities. In 2016, 

GAO released a report that says ‘‘during fiscal years 2005 through 2014, the Federal 

Government obligated at least $277.6 billion across 17 Federal departments and 

agencies for disaster assistance programs and activities. 

Recommendation: 

• The new administrator should, in concert with key Federal leadership, initiate 

a study to determine the true costs of disasters be conducted that captures not 

only those direct financial costs borne by FEMA, but also those costs, both direct and indirect that are paid by other Federal agencies, State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. This should not only account for economic costs related to a disaster, but the opportunity cost for economic activities 

that were impacted by the disaster. Such a study will paint a much clearer picture of what the true cost of natural and man-made disasters is to the United 

States, and allow us to develop a more comprehensive and ultimately successful 

program to reduce those costs. 

6 

SUPPORT PRACTICAL BUDGETING SOLUTIONS THAT SUSTAIN A VIABLE DISASTER RELIEF

FUND (DRF) AND MAINTAIN A FOCUS ON STATE AND LOCAL RESPONSE AND RECOVERY

ACTIVITIES

The DRF is a no-year account that is used to fund response activities and pay 

for on-going recovery programs resulting from declared major disasters, emergencies, and Fire Management Assistance Grants (FMAGs). The majority of its 

funding goes to pay for response to and recovery from major disasters. The DRF is 

a critical source of funding for State and local governments and when funding levels 

are inadequate, community recovery can be delayed. Through the Budget Control 

Act of 2011 (BCA, Pub. L. 112–25), caps were placed on discretionary spending for 

the next 10 years, beginning with fiscal year 2012. Special accommodations were 

made in the BCA to address the unpredictable nature of disaster assistance while 

attempting to impose discipline on the amount spent by the Federal Government 

on disasters. The BCA created an allowable adjustment specifically to cover disaster 

relief separate from emergency appropriations. 

The limit established by the BCA on adjustments to the caps for disaster relief 

is based on the average funding provided for disaster relief over the previous 10 

years, excluding the highest and lowest annual amounts, calculated by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB). If Congress spends less than that average on 

disaster relief in a given fiscal year, the caps can be further adjusted upward by 

the unspent amount in the following year. The existence of this ‘‘allowable adjustment’’ for disaster relief has influenced the way that the DRF is structured, allowing 

a larger overall funding stream to be provided in annual appropriations without it 

counting against the bill’s allocation of discretionary spending. 

The methodology used by OMB to calculate the allowable adjustment may not 

capture the full range of disaster relief spending, and the structure of the formula 

for calculating the average provides smaller allowable adjustments in future years. 

The sizeable initial disaster relief expenditures for Hurricane Katrina and the other 

2005 storms will begin to lose relevance in calculating the allowable adjustment for 

disaster assistance for fiscal year 2016, and will no longer impact calculations for 

the allowable adjustment in fiscal year 2017. Once fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 

2006 rotate out, there will be a corresponding drop in the allowable disaster assistance adjustment. This could put FEMA in the position it often found itself in prior 

to 2011, waiting for a Congressional supplemental to fund response and recovery operations for major disasters that exceeded the amount in the DRF at that time. 

In addition to the drop in the allowable adjustment, there is another pending 

issue that impacts the DRF. Congress is considering legislation that would allow 

other Federal agencies to utilize the disaster allowable expense cap to pay for their 

response activities such as wildfire suppression on Federal land. This could put further stress on the amount of funding available before requiring a Congressional supplemental in the event of a major disaster which could ultimately delay community 

recovery efforts. 

Recommendations: 

• FEMA must work with Congress and arm them with key data to illustrate the 

impacts of the Budget Control Act on the long-term health of DRF. Congress 

should consider changing the formula for calculating the allowable adjustment 

for the DRF under the BCA. 

• FEMA should continue to educate and inform Congress of the impact of proposed changes to the process for funding Federal agencies’ disaster response efforts outside of the Stafford Act. Congress should provide direct funding to Federal agencies to support their emergency response activities rather than allowing access to the DRF. 

CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION AND EVOLUTION OF PPD–8

Presidential Policy Directive/PPD–8: National Preparedness recognizes that preparedness is a shared responsibility. At its core, PPD–8 requires the involvement 

of everyone—not just the Government—in a systematic effort to keep the Nation 

safe from harm and resilient when struck by hazards, such as natural disasters, 

acts of terrorism and pandemics. 

The National Preparedness System (NPS) is a practical and effective approach to 

building and sustaining capabilities. State and local stakeholders were consulted extensively in its development and have fully implemented into their planning efforts. 

As the foundation of the NPS, the Threat Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) process informs emergency operations planning, mutual aid agreements, and hazard mitigation planning. Key stakeholders at the State and local 

level have been incorporated into the THIRA process to ensure the full range of 

threats and hazards facing communities are addressed. While not perfect, we believe 

7 

THIRA and the larger NPS structure has provided a baseline against which we can 

now measure progress towards a common goal. Improvements and tweaks will always be needed to ensure the process represents and incorporates the best available 

data and measures key indicators that communicate the gaps that exist and 

progress made over time. 

Recommendations: 

• The administration should support and build upon the existing National Preparedness Goal and its support components as they become fully implemented 

by State and local governments. • FEMA should engage stakeholders in future updates to ensure the National 

Preparedness System is reflective of and supports the whole community. 

HEAVILY ENGAGE WITH CONGRESS AND THE ADMINISTRATION IN PURSUIT OF A STRONG

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

In order to address the most common disaster risk and continue to support community awareness and action around flood risk, FEMA must continue to review and 

reform the National Flood Insurance Program. FEMA must engage Congress and 

other critical stakeholders to protect and defend the intent of the NFIP while simultaneously recognizing the need to explore innovative and unique solutions that complement a broader strategy of risk reduction and incentives for individual and community action. We as a Nation must redouble our efforts to design a system that 

helps people evaluate their individual risk and plan accordingly while simultaneously reducing our collective risk. 

Without a strong insurance structure, uninsured risk could skyrocket and the impact will reverberate across various industries such as the housing market. Uninsured risk is a burden on communities and stresses local, State, and Federal disaster recovery budgets. Insurance payments are significantly higher than average 

Individual Assistance payments and can help communities recover much faster. Insurance is a key component of the recovery framework and the role of insurance in 

bringing down overall disaster costs cannot be overstated. 

The NFIP is in jeopardy of not being able to meet the needs of the country in 

recovering from floods. The program is over $23 billion in debt with no clear path 

towards solvency. Additionally, enrollment in the program has declined by nearly 

10% over the last several years as rate changes designed to shore up the program 

have resulted in policy holders dropping their coverage. This makes debt settlement 

even more unlikely. The NFIP is up for reauthorization by Congress in 2017 and 

the program’s insolvency must be addressed. 

Recommendations: 

• The administration and Congress should address affordability and financial stability within the NFIP and work to subsidize mitigation and risk-reduction activities, not insurance, to promote safety and affordability. 

• Encourage participation of the private market without limiting the success of 

the NFIP. 

UNDERSTAND WHAT WORKS AND BUILD OFF SUCCESS

A new administration and a new FEMA administrator will certainly identify activities, reforms, and priorities they wish to pursue that align with their overall 

strategic goals. Innovative ideas are always needed to assure the emergency management community is always moving forward and incorporating new strategies 

that best serve communities around the country. While we still have work to do, 

FEMA has undertaken efforts to improve many processes and programs and we 

hope the new administrator builds off their success. 

• The Public Assistance Reengineering is an excellent example of FEMA working 

to improve and maximize existing programs. While it is still too early to determine the effectiveness of the change, we are pleased with the effort and urge 

that similar reforms be considered by other programs that impact our ability 

to mitigate, prepare, and recover. 

• FEMA should continue to build trust and keep open lines of communication between the State emergency management and homeland security community and 

FEMA leadership through honest dialogue and meaningful interaction and review. FEMA’s willingness to reach out early in the process of policy and rule 

development has created a culture of engagement that we look forward to continuing under a new administrator. 

• Through their strategic plan, FEMA has made it a priority to build capability 

for catastrophic disasters. They have moved the focus away from being singularly focused on Stafford Act programs and instead looked at the Nation’s resources to recover. Through the National Disaster Recovery Framework, we 

8 

hope to see continued outreach across the Federal family to leverage all disaster 

programs to achieve our unified goal of meaningful recovery that serves the 

long-term goals of communities across the country. 

CONCLUSION

It’s important to acknowledge that increasing the Nation’s preparedness and response capabilities doesn’t mean increasing FEMA’s capabilities. Going forward, 

FEMA should encourage and incentivize greater investments as States work with 

one another to reduce the need for Federal assistance, reduce Federal administrative costs, reduce property damages, and most importantly save lives. 

We appreciate the continued support of this subcommittee to the emergency management community as we work together in forming new policies and procedures 

aimed at making these disasters less impactful on our communities and constituents. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony for the record. 

STATEMENT OF NAEMT 

THE IMPORTANCE OF EMS IN PREPAREDNESS PLANNING

NAEMT believes that emergency medical services (EMS) has a vital role in the 

response to all threats to our Nation and is a critical element in every facet of preparedness planning. These threats include, but are not limited to, natural disasters, 

health care crises, accidental catastrophes, public health emergencies, and acts of 

violence. EMS practitioners also serve as an invaluable source of support to the public and an effective resource for building strong community resilience. To eliminate 

the current gaps in our emergency response network, the EMS community must be 

provided with: 

• Inclusion and integration as a primary partner in all aspects of preparedness 

planning. 

• Equitable and stable funding comparable to other partners within the emergency response network. 

• Resources and training opportunities to that are accessible to all EMS providers 

and EMS organizations. 

Background.—The Institute of Medicine (now the National Academies of Medicine) has noted that EMS is one of five pillars of medical surge response that are 

critical elements of a disaster system. EMS must be well-integrated with the other 

four pillars, which include hospital care, public health, out-of-hospital care, and 

emergency management and public safety organizations, to create a unified disaster 

care response system. An independent or poorly-integrated pillar may delay, deter, 

or disrupt medical care delivery during a disaster. 

Despite the acknowledgement that EMS is critical in preparedness planning on 

all levels, the shortcomings to transform the current framework into the system envisioned by the Institute of Medicine remain glaring. The NASEMSO report of January 2015 on EMS domestic preparedness notes that EMS receives a mere 4 percent 

of Federal disaster preparedness funds from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In addition, there 

is no mandate of minimum funding of EMS required for other organizational recipients of these grant programs. The paucity of preparedness funding of EMS is a 

weak link that may result in the collapse of our emergency response and health care 

systems during disaster. 

The outreach of EMS within and outside of the medical community and beyond 

the confines of an ambulance has repeatedly demonstrated to be beneficial to the 

public and to other response organizations. As allied health care professionals, the 

evolving utility of the EMS community in mass vaccination campaigns, rescue task 

forces, mobile integrated health care, and other initiatives of prevention, mitigation, 

and response serve as undeniable evidence that the pillar of EMS can no longer be 

considered ancillary or ignored. 

9 

STATEMENT OF LANITA LLOYD, CEM PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

EMERGENCY MANAGERS

FEBRUARY 14, 2017 

THE FUTURE OF FEMA: STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NEXT

ADMINISTRATOR

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the 6,000 members of the International Association 

of Emergency Managers USA, I want to thank you for the opportunity to submit 

a statement for the record to help guide the management and policy decisions of 

the next FEMA administrator. 

Let me start by thanking you and your colleagues on the Homeland Security Committee for working with IAEM and other stakeholder organizations last year to incorporate our recommended savings clause into the Defense Reauthorization legislation. The legislative language was necessary to ensure the current protections of 

FEMA’s authority to manage disaster response will be applied to the joint task 

forces that the Defense Authorization bill established. Following the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina, IAEM and our peer organizations worked hard to ensure FEMA’s responsibility, authority, and capability to coordinate the Federal Government’s response to disasters was restored and protected from future dismantlement. By including the savings clause in the Defense Authorization bill, this committee wisely reaffirmed Congressional commitment to safeguarding these provisions that have proven to be successful and have enabled FEMA to become the effective emergency management leader that we all depend upon when disaster strikes 

our States and communities. 

Local emergency managers are the front line in the battle to minimize the loss 

of life and the destruction of property when natural and man-made disasters occur. 

We are responsible, day in and day out, for the development of comprehensive, allhazards emergency management programs in our communities. This involves the 

development of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery programs for every 

community across the country. However, even with all of the forethought we put 

into preparing for crisis, the severity and costs continue to escalate. We need and 

rely upon the support of the Federal Government when our local ability to handle 

a disaster is overwhelmed by its magnitude. 

At IAEM, we work hard to improve emergency management coordination at all 

levels of government, and we are proud of the improvements we have made, working in conjunction with our Federal partners at FEMA, to build and develop our 

emergency management capability and infrastructure. There is always room for improvement, but we feel Administrator Fugate—a professional emergency manager 

with unquestioned credentials—did a phenomenal job turning the agency around 

after Hurricane Katrina. The next administrator, as set forth in the Post-Katrina 

Emergency Management Reform Act, must also be a professional emergency manager with unquestioned crisis management credentials and should manage FEMA 

as a partner with State and local stakeholders, just as his/her predecessor did. 

From the lessons learned in the failed Hurricane Katrina response, the PostKatrina Emergency Management Reform Act implemented legislative changes based 

on the following principles: 

1. Consolidate emergency management authority, coordination, and decision 

making with emergency management professionals in FEMA, giving the FEMA 

administrator the authority to advise the President directly in times of disaster. 

2. Maintain an all-hazards focus on the complete disaster life cycle—Preparedness, Response, Recovery, and Mitigation. 

3. Strengthen and protect FEMA’s core response capabilities and authorities. 

IAEM still strongly believes these principles are ironclad, and we feel all decisions 

about the future of FEMA should start and end with a commitment to maintaining 

the sanctity of all three of these principles. 

I also want to take a moment to briefly highlight a few of our key policy positions 

for you to consider as the Homeland Security Committee works to improve our Nation’s emergency response system . . . 

• Congress should work with President Trump to reinstate the administrator of 

FEMA as a designated member of the President’s Cabinet as provided for in 

Pub. L. 109–295. 

• The FEMA administrator must have the authority to coordinate Federal Government disaster response on behalf of the President, with the elevated role as 

principal advisor to the President for emergency management. The authority is 

critical for effective disaster management and coordination of the entire Federal 

Government. 

10 

• All functions of the emergency management cycle (preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation) must remain intact within FEMA. Duplicate offices 

should not be created in other parts of DHS or other Federal agencies. • Congress should protect the use of the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) for its intended purpose of providing disaster response and recovery assistance to State 

and local governments by opposing efforts to amend the Stafford Act to allow 

redirection of funds to other departments and agencies for Federal activities. • Congress should continue to build emergency management capability and infrastructure at the State and local levels by increasing funding for the Emergency 

Management Performance Grant (EMPG) for fiscal year 2018. EMPG, the backbone of local government emergency management, has been appropriated $350 

million annually since fiscal year 2014 and should be increased as soon as it 

is feasible to do so. In addition, EMPG is and should continue to be a separate 

grant program that should not be combined with any other grant allocation or 

application process. • Congress should increase funding for the Emergency Management Institute 

(EMI) to deliver high-quality emergency management training through EMI’s 

academies. The pending appropriation for EMI for fiscal year 2017 is $20.5 million, the same amount as fiscal year 2016. 

I thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the record about the 

future of FEMA. We at IAEM look forward to working with you throughout the 

115th Congress to further build America’s systems for emergency response. 

Mr. DONOVAN. I would also like to submit my formal statement 

for the record. 

[The statement of Chairman Donovan follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR. 

FEBRUARY 14, 2017 

This hearing is the first in a series the subcommittee will hold to consider the 

future of FEMA. We will use what we learn at these hearings, along with the findings from past subcommittee work, to make recommendations for the next FEMA 

administrator—a roadmap for success of sorts. 

I think Captain Kelenske may have said it best when he stated in his written 

testimony that we must ‘‘recognize past progress [at FEMA], but embrace innovative 

approaches for future policy development.’’ 

That’s why we’re here today. We want to hear from you, the practitioners, about 

what we need to do to stay on the path of a strong FEMA. What are those innovative approaches? What is going well at FEMA and should be continued? What can 

be improved? 

At the heart of the issue is leadership. As I discussed with Secretary Kelly last 

week, it is vital that the administration move quickly to appoint a qualified FEMA 

administrator. 

We have already had 7 major disaster declarations this year. There is no doubt 

that FEMA has disaster-tested officials in place to get the job done, but it is important to install permanent leadership as soon as possible. The job requires an experienced emergency manager capable of navigating the National Preparedness System. 

For more than a decade, billions have been invested across the United States to 

enhance capabilities and achieve the National Preparedness Goal. It is to FEMA’s 

credit that such investments are making the United States stronger and safer in 

the face of emergencies. We have an obligation to keep this momentum going. 

Hurricane Katrina’s devastation in 2005 demonstrated the significance of FEMA’s 

mission and the failures that can occur when FEMA is unable to execute it. The 

Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, coupled with effective 

leadership at FEMA, strengthened FEMA’s capability to lead National emergency 

management efforts. These capabilities are tested each time the National Response 

Coordination Center at FEMA headquarters is activated. 

My district in New York City saw first-hand in 2012 the need for strong Federal, 

State, and local coordination when Superstorm Sandy caused wide-spread destruction. It should be noted that FEMA did make stark improvements from 2005 to 

2012, but challenges still remain. This subcommittee looks forward to continuing its 

engagement with FEMA to support continued progress. 

According the Homeland Security Committee’s Terror Threat Snapshot, the terrorist threat environment worsened in 2016. The number of home-grown jihadist 

cases and lone-wolf attacks continues to surge with attacks ranging from Ohio State 

University to Orlando and San Bernardino. 

11 

FEMA has awarded over $40 billion in preparedness grants to States and localities since 2001 to build, sustain, and enhance their capabilities to protect the public 

from acts of terrorism and other hazards. It is important that we ensure resources 

and training remain accessible to communities across the country. The critical importance of these programs and how to continue to improve them is not lost on this 

subcommittee. 

We truly are a resilient Nation. This is a testament to our first responders, emergency managers, and community partners at every level of government and their 

ability to continually adapt to ever-changing threats and vulnerabilities. Together, 

we can ensure our Nation’s continued ability to prevent, prepare for, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards we face. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

New Jersey, Mr. Payne, for an opening statement that he may 

have. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. Good morning. I would like to thank 

Chairman Donovan for holding today’s hearing. I look forward to 

working with the Chairman to take the feedback we receive at today’s hearing as well as the follow-up hearing later this month and 

use it to help FEMA better serve its State and local partners and 

disaster survivors. 

For the first time in 8 years, FEMA is in transition, and we are 

awaiting the nomination of a new administrator. I have no doubt 

that FEMA is in capable hands with the interim administrator, but 

I am concerned that the Trump administration has issued Executive Orders that affect the agency’s activities before permanent 

leadership has been put in place. 

For example, Executive Order 13768 on public safety in the interior of the United States directs DHS to make ineligible for FEMA 

grants sanctuary jurisdictions except for law enforcement purposes. 

The Executive Order was clearly drafted without the advice of anyone who has to implement it. 

Certainly, a permanent FEMA administrator would have sought 

to clarify whether the President meant to block funding to jurisdictions in need of resources from the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, the Assistance to Fire Fighters Grant 

Program, the Post-Disaster Public Assistance Grant Program, or 

the Post-Disaster Individual Assistance Grant Program, among 

others. 

In an era of evolving threats, increased weather events, and 

stretched budgets, we cannot send our State and local governments 

and our first-responder communities into a tailspin as they try to 

figure out whether or not the Federal Government will continue to 

help them build and maintain preparedness capabilities. 

I would be interested in understanding whether the Trump administration conducted any outreach to the first-responder community before or after issuing Executive Order 13768 and how the uncertainty caused by President Trump’s Executive Order is affecting 

planning activities. 

To keep America safe, prepared, and resilient, the emergency response community must have a voice in informing the administration’s policies and priorities. I urge the Trump administration to be 

inclusive in this regard and to continue Administrator Fugate’s 

whole-community emphasis on disaster preparedness. 

I invited Save the Children to testify today because too often the 

special needs of children are overlooked in disaster planning activities. Administrator Fugate designated an individual at FEMA to be 

12 

the National Advisor on Children and Disasters to tackle that challenge, but that position has not formally been authorized. 

I am hopeful that the future FEMA administrator will maintain 

this position. This period of transition is an appropriate time to 

take inventory of the progress FEMA has made over the past 8 

years and to become a more capable organization and to gather recommendations for the best path forward. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Payne follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER DONALD M. PAYNE, JR. 

FEBRUARY 14, 2017 

I look forward to working with the Chairman to take the feedback we receive at 

today’s hearing, as well as the follow-up hearing later this month, and use it to help 

FEMA better serve its State and local partners and disaster survivors. For the first 

time in 8 years, FEMA is in transition and we are awaiting the nomination of a 

new administrator. 

I have no doubt that FEMA is in capable hands with the interim administrator, 

but I am concerned that the Trump administration has issued Executive Orders 

that affect the agency’s activities before permanent leadership has been put in place. 

For example, Executive Order 13768 on Public Safety in the Interior of the United 

States, directs DHS to make ineligible for FEMA grants ‘‘sanctuary jurisdictions,’’ 

except for ‘‘law enforcement’’ purposes. The Executive Order was clearly drafted 

without the advice of anyone who would have to implement it. 

Certainly, a permanent FEMA administrator would have sought to clarify whether the President meant to block funding to jurisdictions in need of resources from 

the Emergency Management Performance Grant program, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, the post-disaster Public Assistance Grant program, or the 

post-disaster Individual Assistance Grant program, among others. 

In an era of evolving threats, increased weather events, and stretched budgets, 

we cannot send our State and local governments and first-responder communities 

into a tailspin as they try to figure out whether or not the Federal Government will 

continue to help them build and maintain preparedness capabilities. 

I will be interested in understanding whether the Trump administration conducted any outreach to the first-responder community before or after issuing Executive Order 13768, and how the uncertainty caused by President Trump’s Executive 

Order is affecting planning activities. 

To keep America safe, prepared, and resilient, the emergency-response community 

must have a voice in informing the administration’s policies and priorities. I urge 

the Trump administration to be inclusive in this regard, and to continue Administrator Fugate’s ‘‘whole community’’ emphasis on disaster preparedness. 

I invited Save the Children to testify today because too often the special needs 

of children are overlooked in disaster planning activities. Administrator Fugate designated an individual at FEMA to be National Advisor on Children and Disasters 

to tackle that challenge, but that position has not been formally authorized. I am 

hopeful that the future FEMA administrator will maintain that position. 

This period of transition is an appropriate time to take inventory of the progress 

FEMA has made over the past 8 years to become a more capable organization and 

to gather recommendations for the best path forward. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The gentleman yields. 

Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that opening 

statements may be submitted for the record. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER BENNIE G. THOMPSON

Good morning. I would like to thank Chairman Donovan and Ranking Member 

Payne for holding today’s hearing. 

I thank the witnesses for appearing today. 

During the Obama administration, FEMA benefited from the steady leadership of 

former Administrator Craig Fugate. 

Although there is still work to be done to make FEMA the disaster response agency that our country needs and our constituents deserve, I can tell you with conVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:52 Sep 29, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17EP0214\17EP0214.TXT HEATH
13 

fidence that FEMA is a better place than it was 11 years ago when Hurricane 

Katrina pummeled the Gulf Coast. 

While I credit Administrator Fugate with much of the progress FEMA has made 

in becoming a more reliable disaster response partner to State and local governments, I believe that rigorous oversight from this committee—informed by the emergency response community—helped hold FEMA accountable. 

I can say with certainty that we will continue to hold FEMA’s feet to the fire to 

ensure that the Trump administration builds upon the Obama administration’s 

progress. 

Although President Trump has not yet nominated a FEMA administrator, the 

qualifications and criteria for the position established by the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act should provide the administration the guidance necessary to select an individual equal to the task. 

Nevertheless, the new administration has taken some actions whose implications 

on first responders are not fully understood. 

For example, Executive Order 13768 on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior 

of the United States directs the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that 

‘‘sanctuary jurisdictions’’ are ineligible for Federal grants, except for ‘‘law enforcement’’ purposes. 

Setting aside the fact that this Executive Order could make some of our largest 

cities that are at greatest risk of terrorist attacks ineligible for grant funds, the 

sloppy drafting of the Executive Order also suggests emergency response activities, 

such as fire suppression, may be ineligible. 

I was a Member of Congress when terrorists struck the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and my district is in a State that was devastated by Hurricane Katrina, so 

I can tell you with a great degree of confidence that emergency response is too serious of an issue to be handled haphazardly. 

Additionally, the administration has made conflicting statements about its plans 

for the countering violent extremism program, with some suggesting that the word 

‘‘Islamic’’ will be integrated into the title. 

The rumored title change has reverberated throughout the country with at least 

four groups that were awarded funds during the Obama administration under the 

Countering Violent Extremism Program saying they will not accept the grant 

awards because of the rumored title change. 

To date, the Trump administration has not provided clear answers about how the 

implementation of the President’s Executive Orders will impact public safety grantees or its plans for how to refer to efforts to counter violent extremism. 

What is clear is that the Trump administration acted cavalierly and failed to do 

outreach to anyone who would be impacted by its actions. 

Moving forward, I would hope the Trump administration treats emergency preparedness and response with the seriousness it deserves. 

With that said, I look forward to hearing the witness’ thoughts on the confusion 

caused by the Executive Orders. 

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chair? I ask unanimous consent that Sheila 

Jackson Lee be permitted to participate in today’s hearing. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Yes, without objection. 

Welcome. 

We are pleased to have a very distinguished panel before us 

today on this important topic. Captain Chris Kelenske serves as 

the deputy state director of emergency management and homeland 

security and deputy homeland security adviser for the State of 

Michigan. As such, he is responsible for the State-wide management and administration of emergency management and homeland 

security programs as well as the supervision of the division’s employees. The captain chairs the Michigan Homeland Security Advisory Council, the Homeland Security Preparedness Committee, and 

the Michigan Citizen Community Emergency Response Coordinating Council. He is testifying today on behalf of the National 

Governors Association and the Governors Homeland Security Advisers Council. 

Welcome, Captain. Thank you for your service. 

14 

Chief John Sinclair serves as the fire chief of Kittitas Valley— 

and I know I said that wrong, Chief, and they phonetically spelled 

it for me—Valley Fire Rescue and emergency manager for the city 

of Ellensburg, Washington. Chief Sinclair represents the fire service on the National EMS Advisory Council. Chief Sinclair is the 

president and chairman of the board of the International Association of Fire Chiefs and he is testifying in that capacity today. 

Thank you for your service, and thank you for coming today, 

Chief. 

Mr. Richard Bland, who is a New Yorker, welcome, serves as the 

national director of policy, advocacy, and development at Save the 

Children. Prior to joining Save the Children, Mr. Bland served in 

positions at the YMCA and with Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. 

Welcome. 

The witnesses’ full, recorded statements will appear in the 

record. The Chair now recognizes Captain Kelenske for a 5-minute 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN CHRIS A. KELENSKE, DEPUTY STATE 

DIRECTOR/COMMANDER, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND 

HOMELAND SECURITY, MICHIGAN STATE POLICE, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION 

Captain KELENSKE. Good morning, Chairman Donovan, Ranking 

Member Payne, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee. 

It is my honor to appear before you today. 

My name is Captain Chris Kelenske, and I serve as the deputy 

state director of emergency management and homeland security 

and deputy homeland security adviser to Michigan Governor Rick 

Snyder. 

I appear before you today on behalf of the Nation’s Governors 

and their homeland security advisers. My testimony today will 

offer recommendations for how the next administrator of FEMA 

can succeed in his or her role. Specifically, I am going to focus on 

the State/Federal partnership in disaster preparedness and response, the need for dedicated Federal investments in homeland security and emergency management, and issues on the horizon facing the next administrator. 

I would like to summarize my remarks and ask that my full, 

written testimony be submitted for the record. 

Emergency management is a shared responsibility between 

States, localities, and the Federal Government. Governors are 

charged with the safety and security of the residents within their 

borders, and the FEMA administrator plays a critical role in shaping the direction of National emergency management efforts. 

The new FEMA administrator should establish a strong relationship with Governors to honor this shared responsibility and recognize the role of the State. This relationship may be further developed through organizations, such as the National Governors Association, NGA, and the Governors Homeland Security Advisors 

Council. 

Another way the new FEMA administrator may demonstrate 

commitment to the State/Federal partnership is ensuring that Federal grant programs for States remain fully funded. The Homeland 

15 

Security Grant Program, HSGP, and the Emergency Management 

Performance Grant, EMPG, assists States and localities in developing capabilities that have a shared Federal benefit. 

These capabilities have supported disaster response efforts and 

thwarted potential terrorist attacks. Any reduction in Federal funding for these programs could jeopardize the effectiveness of our Nation’s disaster preparedness and response. 

Grant reform is necessary to sustaining progress and building capacity to address new threats. Governors continue to support comprehensive grant reform and have developed principles to help 

guide the new administrator and Congress in developing those efforts. Governors believe that any reform should create a program 

that is sustainable, flexible, and risk-based. 

As FEMA seeks to reduce costs for disasters, the next administrator will determine how to proceed with the disaster deductible 

concept. Governors share the Federal Government’s role of reducing costs of disasters. However, it is imperative that the new deductible concept does not result in a cost shift to the States. Governors are already investing in activities to reduce the overall risk 

and costs of disasters. FEMA should look to the States for innovative solutions. 

Another challenge awaiting the next FEMA administrator is the 

emerging threat of cybersecurity. The next administrator should 

work with the Secretary of Homeland Security to clarify FEMA’s 

role in cyber incident response. Significant time and effort have 

been made by State, local, and Federal officials to establish solid 

frameworks that can serve as a guide in the event of a cyber incident. The next FEMA administrator should utilize these existing 

frameworks to ensure National emergency management policies remain consistent. 

Separately, Governors have dedicated significant time and resources to combat this growing threat. For example, in 2011 Michigan Governor Rick Snyder introduced the Michigan Cyber Initiative to encourage a State-wide effort among public and private 

partners to defend Michigan’s critical networks. Under that initiative, Michigan created the Cyber Response Strategy in 2013 and 

later implemented the Michigan Cyber Disruption Plan in 2015. 

Nation-wide, Governors are working to address this critical issue. 

Under the leadership of Michigan Governor Rick Snyder and 

former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, NGA created the Resource Center for State Cybersecurity which has helped bring this 

issue to the forefront across the Nation. 

Governor Snyder’s continued focus on cybersecurity from a State, 

National, and international perspective, along with the NGA chair 

and Resource Center co-chair, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe’s 

initiative, ‘‘Meet the Threat: States Confront the Cybersecurity 

Challenge,’’ States have received increased guidance on how to 

tackle cybersecurity challenges in numerous areas to include emergency management. 

As our Nation continues to face severe weather events and other 

emerging threats, FEMA will need sound leadership at both the 

National and regional level to oversee National emergency management activities. Governors are vested in the success of the FEMA 

16 

1 ‘‘About,’’ National Governors Association, accessed February 7, 2017, https://www.nga.org/ 

cms/about. 

administrator and look forward to working with whomever assumes that role. 

On behalf of the National Governors Association and the Governors Homeland Security Advisers Council, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I welcome any questions the subcommittee Members may have. 

[The prepared statement of Captain Kelenske follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRIS A. KELENSKE

FEBRUARY 14, 2017 

Thank you, Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee for allowing me to appear in front of you today to discuss 

the future of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). My name is 

Captain Chris Kelenske and I serve as the deputy State director of emergency management and homeland security and deputy homeland security advisor for Michigan 

Governor Rick Snyder. I am here today on behalf of the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Governors Homeland Security Advisors Council (GHSAC). 

The NGA is the bipartisan organization of the Nation’s Governors. Through the 

NGA, Governors share best practices, speak with a collective voice on National policy, and develop innovative solutions that improve State government and support 

the principles of Federalism.1 The GHSAC serves as a forum for Governors’ principal homeland security advisors from each State, commonwealth, and territory. The 

GHSAC’s mission is to provide a unified voice on National homeland security policy, 

keep Governors abreast of the current threat environment and Federal homeland 

security legislation, and share best practices. My testimony today will focus on three 

goals the next administrator of FEMA should strive to achieve. These goals are 

maintaining strong State-Federal partnerships, supporting State and local grant 

programs fully, and embracing innovative solutions to both emerging and chronic 

emergency management challenges. 

Emergency management has made significant improvements in the last decade. 

Since Hurricane Katrina, the all-hazards, whole-community approach to disasters 

resolved many of the devastating consequences realized during the Hurricane 

Katrina response effort. Both States and the Federal Government have committed 

vast resources to institute sound preparedness, response, and recovery activities to 

minimize the impact of disasters. Governors are committed to seeing these efforts 

continue for years to come and believe the next FEMA administrator is instrumental in achieving that goal. 

Governors have a vested interest in having a strong FEMA administrator who respects the role and authority of States in disasters and recognizes past achievements. Equally important, Governors want a FEMA administrator who encourages 

a collaborative approach to emergency management and not one that imposes strict, 

burdensome mandates on States. 

The next administrator will set the direction of emergency management for the 

next decade. Whomever inherits the role must sustain momentum built to improve 

emergency management activities across all levels of government. For the next administrator to be successful, he/she should: 

• Embrace States as key partners in emergency management; 

• Align investments to better match current threats, hazards, and capability 

gaps; and 

• Recognize past progress, but embrace innovative approaches for future policy 

development. 

EMBRACE STATES AS KEY PARTNERS

States are the linchpin for emergency management activities. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act places the responsibility of requesting Federal assistance on the Governor, a responsibility that underscores the 

essential role of the State. Governors and their key advisors also serve as a connective node to local government, Federal Government, nongovernmental, and privatesector officials. FEMA can use this knowledge base and rely on the State as a resource when working with communities. 

17 

Yet, FEMA has not reached out to States consistently in the past. Instead FEMA 

has reached out to specific communities without consulting the Governor or State 

emergency manager. Direct outreach to local officials with limited or no State involvement can cause FEMA to miss larger contextual issues. Local governments 

have the specific and nuanced context for their individual communities, but Governors have an enterprise-wide, holistic view of the State emergency management 

operation. FEMA should consult with Governors to understand the broader impact 

of Federal investments and the investments smaller communities make on the overall State preparedness picture. Not engaging State officials alongside local representatives can undermine emergency response efforts and shift resources away 

from where they are needed most. The next administrator needs to recognize that 

the State plays a critically important intermediary role between the Federal and 

local governments. FEMA must ensure that State officials are present in disaster 

response and recovery activities so that they have maximum effect for the State. 

Similarly, the next administrator should understand the consequence of not working 

through the State is less effective emergency management. 

The partnership between FEMA and the States has improved dramatically in the 

last decade. Not only with leadership at FEMA headquarters but also with the regional offices. Governors want to see this partnership continue to thrive under the 

new administrator. The next FEMA administrator can accomplish this goal by continuing to engage with Governors often and early. State stakeholder groups such as 

the NGA and the GHSAC provide a platform for the administrator to use. These 

forums allow the administrator to learn about State concerns and provide consistent 

and timely responses. Additionally, this engagement enables States to provide direct 

feedback on FEMA policy and planning documents early in the process. 

In the past, FEMA has not meaningfully engaged with States in policy making 

and any engagement has occurred late in the process. Recently, FEMA has actively 

solicited State feedback. Governors want to see this outreach continue as it offers 

them the ability to provide detailed and thoughtful analysis that FEMA may incorporate into their policies. Ensuring that Governors’ voices are reflected in FEMA’s 

policymaking process will demonstrate that the new administrator values the StateFederal partnership and will actively work to support it. 

ALIGN INVESTMENTS BETTER TO CURRENT THREATS, HAZARDS, AND CAPABILITY GAPS

States, locals, and the Federal Government have spent billions of dollars through 

the FEMA grant programs to ensure all levels of government are prepared for any 

event. Those grants have helped States and localities build capabilities such as 

emergency communication networks and information-sharing networks like the National network of fusion centers. State and local capabilities have a Nation-wide 

benefit. They help build capacity and resources that the Federal Government does 

not have to build itself but can rely on in the event of a crisis. Because State and 

local capabilities are in place the Federal Government may focus efforts on more 

critical gaps and vulnerabilities. 

Over the past several years, cuts to Federal grant programs for States have made 

it difficult to sustain progress and build new capabilities. Moreover, these cuts have 

come at a time of new, emerging threats, such as home-grown violent extremism 

and cyber network breaches. While Federal expectations of States have increased 

to accommodate these new threats, there has been no increase in Federal financial 

support, reflecting a lack of meaningful Federal assistance. This dichotomy highlights foundational issues and inefficiencies within the current grant structure. The 

homeland security grant program (HSGP) is a prime example of this issue. 

Created in the wake of the September 11 attacks to prevent a similar attack from 

occurring, the HSGP has remained unchanged since its inception. At its peak, the 

program consisted of almost 20 different grant programs intended to address a very 

narrow, specific threat. While some consolidation of programs has occurred over 

time, the HSGP remains an amalgamation of many different priorities. That structure along with decreased funds and increased responsibilities have stressed the 

program’s limits and highlighted inefficiencies that include burdensome administrative requirements and redundancies. In its current form, States struggle to utilize 

the HSGP to sustain existing capabilities and build new ones simultaneously. More 

importantly, the funding restrictions on how and what grant recipients may use the 

funds toward creates significant difficulty for States to adjust activities to match the 

current threat environment. 

Reform is necessary to ensure the long-term viability of the HSGP and maintain 

the Nation’s homeland security. The HSGP requires a more flexible framework that 

is adaptable to a dynamic threat environment. This will allow States to act more 

nimbly and focus on capabilities that match current threats. The next administrator 

18 

2 ‘‘We the States: Governors’ Recommendations for President Trump,’’ National Governors Association, accessed February 7, 2017, https://resources.nga.org/cms/wetheStates/hsps.html. 3 ‘‘Recommendations for Strengthening National Emergency Management Programs,’’ National 

Emergency Management Association, accessed February 7, 2017, https://www.nasemso.org/ 

Projects/DomesticPreparedness/documents/NEMA-Recommendations-for-Strengthening-National-EM-Programs.pdf. 

should work with States and Congress to identify ways to reform the HSGP. Governors support comprehensive grant reform and have developed principles to help 

guide those efforts. As outlined in NGA’s recommendations for the new administration, any ‘‘reform should focus on creating a sustainable funding program that eliminates inefficiencies, provides greater flexibility, streamlines administrative requirements and prioritizes outcomes that reduce risk and improve overall preparedness, 

response, and recovery.’’2 Federal grants for homeland security and emergency management activities are an efficient way to build capabilities Nation-wide and reduce 

overall expenditures, which provides a return on investment to the Federal Government. States and locals respond to numerous disasters without Federal support. In 

2016, States responded to more than 30,000 disasters without requesting a Stafford 

Act declaration.3 These capabilities are possible because the Federal grant programs 

help States establish core functions to handle the less extreme events so the Federal 

Government can focus on responding to the catastrophic events. 

Reductions in Federal grant funding will further erode State and local capabilities. Moreover, reductions in Federal funding jeopardize State investments in emergency management activities. For example, the Emergency Management Preparedness Grant Program requires States to match Federal investments dollar for dollar. 

Similarly, the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC)—the interstate 

agreement for mutual aid—allows States to share resources among each other. 

EMAC supports the notion of regional assets and capabilities, which allows States 

to lean on each other rather than on the Federal Government. Both these examples 

demonstrate State-owned resources such as personnel, funding, and equipment to 

support emergency management functions. Although FEMA supports these programs through yearly appropriations, States bear the brunt of the responsibility for 

implementation. 

On-going, dedicated Federal support is crucial to ensure States and localities have 

sufficient capacity to handle more routine disasters. Governors and the Federal Government share the responsibility of ensuring the safety and security of the citizens 

of the country. States have continued to respond efficiently to disasters even with 

decreased Federal support. However, States cannot maintain the status quo indefinitely. The next FEMA administrator must ensure that States and localities receive 

dedicated, on-going funding commensurate with the level of Federal expectations 

and requirements. Without it, the Nation’s overall preparedness will suffer and 

progress made squandered. 

RECOGNIZE PAST PROGRESS, BUT EMBRACE INNOVATIVE APPROACHES FOR FUTURE

POLICY DEVELOPMENT

FEMA’s recent history serves as an important guide for the next administrator. 

Following Hurricane Katrina, States, localities, and the Federal Government implemented reforms to emergency management activities to emphasize all-hazards planning among all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. FEMA spent time, effort, and manpower to develop a new, comprehensive emergency management foundation. These reforms have led to the creation of 

standards for incident response that previously did not exist or were executed inconsistently. For example, the National Incident Management System (NIMS) provides 

the whole community with an approach to manage the after-effects of disasters in 

a collaborative and consistent way. Previously, no true standard existed. NIMS provides that standard and helps identify what progress has been made and what challenges remain. 

The development of the National Preparedness Goal and the National Preparedness System (NPS) has helped to deepen those efforts. Having a vision for preparedness and defined Nation-wide capabilities necessary to meet that goal helps to establish expectations. Improvements to the NPS may be necessary, however States 

have spent considerable time and effort to contribute and align policies to the NPS. 

States want to continue those efforts, improve upon them, and ensure the NPS 

thrives in the long-term. The next administrator should view items like the NIMS 

and the NPS as foundational to FEMA and ensure the Secretary of Homeland Security fully understands FEMA’s capabilities and position within the U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security. A Federal commitment to honor these programs will demVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:52 Sep 29, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17EP0214\17EP0214.TXT HEATH
19 

4 Nixon, Jay and Hutchinson, Asa, FEMA Disaster Deductible Concept, National Governors Association, https://www.nga.org/cms/home/Federal-relations/nga-letters/homeland-securitylpublic-safety/col2-content/main-content-list/fema-disaster-deductible-concept.html (March 

21, 2016). 5 ‘‘We the States: Governors’ Recommendations for President Trump.’’ 

6 ‘‘Disaster Relief Fund: Monthly Report,’’ Federal Emergency Management Agency, last updated January 25, 2017, https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/31789. 

onstrate to Governors that the administrator recognizes past progress and wants to 

make further advancements. 

The existing emergency management system has made impressive progress. However, more opportunities for improvement exist. For example, the Threat Hazard 

Identification Risk Assessment (THIRA) and State Preparedness Report (SPR) created under the NPS are still evolving and require additional fine tuning. States 

need further clarity on how THIRA and SPR inform FEMA’s threat picture and 

what effect, if any, that has on the allocation of financial resources and other types 

of support to States. 

Previous gains are at risk of regression or neglect. The next administrator will 

have a profound role in steering the future course of emergency management, which 

will require innovative approaches. However, that must be balanced with the need 

for change to improve outcomes versus the desire for change solely for the sake of 

change. Several areas that will require innovative solutions from FEMA include: • Public Assistance Changes.—Proposed changes to the public assistance program, 

specifically, the disaster deductible, represent a cultural shift in emergency 

management. Governors appreciate the goal of trying to reduce risk and overall 

costs. Governors, like the Federal Government, want to be good stewards of 

Federal investments. However, this concept will require time for States to fully 

understand the intended and potentially unintended adverse consequences. In 

the initial rollout, Governors appreciated FEMA’s outreach for feedback. Governors also encouraged FEMA ‘‘to maintain the current threshold requirements 

without imposing additional financial burdens on State and local governments 

through a deductible.’’4 Many questions remain about the proposal and it is unclear whether the deductible can achieve its primary goal to improve disaster 

outcomes. Therefore, the next administrator should take careful consideration 

in moving forward and consider how the concept will affect States in the short 

and long term. NGA will review the revised notice and provide additional feedback on behalf of the Nation’s Governors. 

• Cybersecurity.—The Nation’s cyber networks are vulnerable to attack from both 

State and non-State actors. States own a great deal of personal identifiable information and have witnessed the theft of those records in Utah and South 

Carolina. Additionally, the increasing reliance on the internet for everyday functions has created additional vulnerabilities to essential industries, such as finance, health care, and energy. Under the leadership of Michigan Governor 

Rick Snyder and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, NGA created the 

Resource Center for State Cybersecurity, which has helped bring this issue to 

the forefront across the Nation. Governor Snyder’s continued focus on cybersecurity from a State, National, and international perspective, along with NGA 

Chair and Resource Center co-chair Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe’s initiative Meet the Threat: States Confront the Cybersecurity Challenge, States have 

received increased guidance on how to tackle cybersecurity challenges in numerous areas to include emergency management. The possibility of a cyber breach 

with significant physical and non-physical consequences to States is real. What 

remains unclear is what Federal support, if any, States would receive from 

FEMA if the damage exceeds State capabilities. In addition to reforming the 

HSGP to help States build the necessary capabilities to prepare for cyber incidents, FEMA should clarify the use and application of the Stafford Act for both 

disasters with physical consequences and those without.5

• Disaster Relief Fund.—The disaster relief fund (DRF) allows FEMA to ‘‘direct, 

coordinate, manage, and fund eligible response and recovery efforts associated 

with domestic major disasters and emergencies that overwhelm State resources’’ 

as allowed under the Stafford Act.6 This fund ensures FEMA can provide adequate relief to States and localities affected by disasters. However, recent attempts to make the fund available for other purposes outside of its original 

scope, such as wildfire suppression activities on Federal lands, threaten its core 

mission and availability for emergencies. Any expansive use of the DRF outside 

the scope of the Stafford Act may have an adverse impact on disaster response 

by slowing down activities and preventing States from accessing critical resources. Governors believe in the importance of the DRF and want to ensure 

20 

7 Reinert, Greg and Pellerin, Virginia, ‘‘NJ Energy Resilience Bank Now Accepting Applications,’’ New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, October 20, 2014, http://www.State.nj.us/bpu/ 

newsroom/announcements/pdf/20141020lerblpress.pdf. 

it serves its intended purpose. The FEMA administrator should work to preserve the fund for State and local emergency management response and recovery as well as encourage other agencies to work with Congress to identify alternative resources to meet their needs to the fullest extent possible. • Disaster Resiliency.—Disasters have increased in severity and frequency in recent years, resulting in an increase in disaster costs. Congress has charged 

FEMA with identifying ways to reduce those costs. Simultaneously, States— 

who share in disaster expenditures—are working to bolster resiliency, a mission 

made more challenging because of the Nation’s aging infrastructure. Congress 

should include resiliency as a factor in any proposals to improve the Nation’s 

infrastructure to ensure our vital structures can withstand future disasters. 

FEMA should look to the States for innovative resiliency solutions. For example, 

the Colorado Governor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency has developed a resiliency 

framework that analyzes changing risks and vulnerabilities and guides long-term 

resiliency investments. New Jersey established an energy resilience bank (ERB) 

that supports the development of distributed energy resources at critical facilities 

so that they remain operational in future outages. The financing provided in the 

ERB will help to incentivize the implementation of resiliency solutions and minimize the impact of future major power outages caused by severe weather or manmade events.7

Emergency management is constantly evolving and must quickly adapt to new 

threats and hazards. The next administrator will be responsible for shaping our Nation’s emergency management priorities. The Nation’s Governors are committed 

supporting that effort and stand ready to assist. 

I look forward to working with the next administrator and welcome additional dialog with subcommittee Members concerning the importance of maintaining a robust National emergency management system. Thank you again for the opportunity 

to appear in front of you today. I welcome any questions you may have. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you for your testimony, Captain. 

The Chair now recognizes Chief Sinclair for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CHIEF JOHN SINCLAIR, FIRE CHIEF, KITTITAS 

VALLEY FIRE AND RESCUE (WA), PRESIDENT AND CHAIR OF 

THE BOARD, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE 

CHIEFS (IAFC), TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS 

Chief SINCLAIR. Good morning, Chairman Donovan, Ranking 

Member Payne, and Members of the subcommittee. I am John Sinclair, fire chief of Kittitas Valley Fire and Rescue Department in 

Ellensburg, Washington. I am also the president and chairman of 

the board of the International Association of Fire Chiefs. I thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today about the future of FEMA. 

The Nation’s fire and EMS departments are FEMA’s partners during National emergencies. We provide the resources to help communities respond and recover. We also rely upon FEMA’s training 

and grant programs to respond to all hazards. 

The IAFC believes that the President should appoint an experienced fire service leader or emergency manager as administrator. 

As experienced leaders, both Dave Paulison and Craig Fugate 

transformed FEMA into a more proactive organization. We urge 

the President to appoint an experienced FEMA leadership team 

soon. Included on this team would be a U.S. fire administrator who 

can follow in Chief Ernie Mitchell’s exemplary recent service. 

Across the Nation, local fire and EMS departments respond to a 

multitude of threats. As a local fire chief, I must prepare for fires, 

medical emergencies, earthquakes, wildland fires, landslides, floodVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:52 Sep 29, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17EP0214\17EP0214.TXT HEATH
21 

ing, and the potential for a mass casualty event. With limited 

budgets, fire and EMS departments must prioritize training, equipment purchases, staffing, and exercises to meet these missions. 

The fire and emergency service needs FEMA’s help in identifying 

risks, prioritizing threats, and preparing to meet them. FEMA 

must work with DHS, the FBI, and the intelligence community to 

get vital threat information to local fire chiefs. This information 

should be actionable, written with the local fire chief in mind as 

an audience, and unclassified. 

Programs like NCTC’s Joint Counterterrorism Assessment Team 

and the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis provide essential 

information to local first responders. Also, FEMA’s grants fund intelligence fusion centers which must provide critical information to 

local fire departments. In addition, the U.S. Fire Administration 

can provide specific training to help fire and EMS departments integrate intelligence into their preparedness programs. 

FEMA should continue to maintain the National Preparedness 

Goal and the National Preparedness System. The IAFC is pleased 

to see that fire management and suppression was added as a core 

capability in a recent National Preparedness Goal revision. 

In support of the NPG, FEMA must ensure a strong National 

mutual aid system in the face of tight National budgets. A robust 

mutual aid system is a cost-effective way to protect our citizens’ 

lives and property. However, local fire departments bear the cost 

of these inter-State deployments until they are reimbursed. FEMA 

must ensure that fire departments are reimbursed in a timely 

manner. 

FEMA can take other steps to maintain the National Preparedness System. It should work with FirstNet and the DHS Office of 

Emergency Communications to improve our public safety communications capability. In addition, FEMA should support efforts to 

build State-wide mutual aid systems that can effectively complement the EMAC during National emergencies. 

FEMA’s grant programs are critical foundations of the National 

Preparedness System. Federal grants like the UASI and SHSGP 

program bring Federal, State, and local emergency response organizations together to train and plan for potential acts of terrorism. 

FEMA grants also support a regional response framework that 

can mobilize resources quickly and effectively during a terrorist attack. We request that Congress reject cuts to these programs for 

fiscal year 2017. 

The IAFC is concerned about the effects of the President’s recent 

Executive Order regarding sanctuary jurisdictions. The IAFC board 

has not adopted a position on this issue of sanctuary cities; however, we are concerned that major metropolitan fire and EMS departments might lose eligibility for FEMA grants if they are in designated sanctuary jurisdictions. 

We recommend that the President and Congress extend the current law enforcement exception to include all public safety organizations. The fire and SAFER grants programs also support National preparedness systems. These matching grant programs directly help fire departments develop their baseline emergency response capabilities. For example, I have used AFG grants to replace old bunker gear and SCBAs. The fire and SAFER grant proVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:52 Sep 29, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17EP0214\17EP0214.TXT HEATH
22 

grams face a statutory sunset next year. We urge Congress to reauthorize these programs for an additional 5 years. 

We would also ask Congress to reauthorize the U.S. Fire Administration. This agency provides important leadership and training 

for local fire departments. We request $44 million for USFA in fiscal year 2017. 

Finally, I would like to emphasize the IFCA’s support for an enhanced mitigation for FEMA. We ask Congress to pass legislation 

that will bolster our Nation’s pre-disaster and post-disaster mitigation efforts. We want to work with this committee, the administration to help make America safe. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Chief Sinclair follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN SINCLAIR

FEBRUARY 14, 2017 

Good morning, Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and Members of the 

subcommittee. I am Chief John Sinclair, fire chief of the Kittitas Valley Fire and 

Rescue department in Ellensburg, Washington and president and chairman of the 

Board of the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC). The IAFC represents 

approximately 12,000 leaders of the Nation’s fire, rescue, and emergency services. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify about the future of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA). 

From a stakeholder’s perspective, FEMA faces a number of major challenges. 

Overall, the costs and severity of disasters continues to increase. Meanwhile, the variety of hazards that the Nation faces continues to escalate. In my State, I have to 

prepare for earthquakes, wildland fires, landslides, and flooding, and the risk of a 

mass casualty event. FEMA has to address all of these issues—and more—in a tight 

budgetary environment. 

The Nation’s fire and emergency services are important partners of FEMA and 

consumers of critically important FEMA programs. The local fire department is an 

all-hazards response force that must provide fire suppression; Emergency medical 

response; hazardous materials response; multi-casualty/civil unrest/terrorism response; urban search and rescue; train derailment response; and technical, highangle, swift water, building collapse, confined space and deep trench rescue. Most 

fire departments are tied closely to their communities. In some cases, the local fire 

department serves as the closest thing to government that provides service to them, 

their families, and their friends. 

When States request mutual aid assistance, local fire departments provide the fire 

apparatus, firefighters, paramedics (and an array of other specialized resources) 

that arrive on scene. In addition, when an incident occurs, the local fire department 

usually is the first agency on scene and the last to leave during the recovery period. 

From our perspective, FEMA must address a number of challenges in the future. 

They can be addressed along the framework of improving information sharing; 

strengthening the National Preparedness System; supporting Federal efforts to improve public safety communications; and supporting mitigation efforts. 

First of all, the IAFC would like to see experienced leaders with fire and emergency service leadership and emergency management experience appointed to leadership positions at FEMA and the U.S. Fire Administration. Both of the last two 

FEMA administrators, R. David Paulison and W. Craig Fugate, were able to transform the agency based on their experiences at the local and State levels. The PostKatrina Emergency Management Reform Act (Pub. L. 109–295) set specific requirements for the FEMA administrator, including a ‘‘demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security’’ and at least 5 years of 

management experience. The IAFC recommends that the FEMA administrator, the 

deputy administrator, any assistant administrators, and the U.S. fire administrator 

all meet these criteria. The FEMA leadership also should understand the roles of 

State and local partners during National emergencies. It is important to have experienced leaders who are ready to respond to the various National challenges on Day 

1. 

INFORMATION SHARING

Local fire chiefs need help in deciding how to focus resources to prepare for the 

most serious risks to their community. Effective information sharing between FedVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:52 Sep 29, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17EP0214\17EP0214.TXT HEATH
23 

eral, State, Tribal/territorial and local partners is a key component to this challenge. 

FEMA grants, such as the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) and the State 

Homeland Security Grant program (SHSGP), support funding for intelligence fusion 

centers and planning and exercise efforts. These efforts play an important role in 

addressing this dilemma, but much work remains to be done. 

Fire chiefs still struggle to get actionable intelligence from their fusion centers. 

While there is a greater quantity of information flowing among the different intelligence partners, it can be focused more on quantity than quality. Information may 

be more law enforcement-focused or include extraneous Classified information. Fire 

chiefs need to receive information that is written from a fire and emergency medical 

services (EMS) perspective and that only includes the tactics, techniques, and procedures that they may face, so that the fire and emergency service community can 

develop and implement the countermeasures necessary to save lives. In addition, it 

would help to have an estimated prioritization of the risk that the local jurisdiction 

might face. 

There are solutions to this dilemma. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s 

Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) is more focused today on working with 

local partners representing all of the law enforcement and emergency response disciplines. The National Counterterrorism Center’s Joint Counterterrorism Assessment Team brings local first responders to the Washington area as fellows to help 

produce intelligence products targeted to local first responders as an audience. 

FEMA and the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) can work with I&A to ensure 

that intelligence products meet the needs of local fire and EMS responders. In addition, USFA can provide classes at the National Fire Academy (NFA) to educate local 

fire and EMS personnel about the intelligence community, how to handle Classified 

and Sensitive information, and how to incorporate this information into planning, 

training, and exercises. FEMA also should ensure that grantees are meeting the 

funding requirements for fusion centers by ensuring that fire and EMS personnel 

are represented at State and local fusion centers. 

Fire and EMS departments have important responsibilities as information-sharing 

partners. They must take part in the ‘‘See Something, Say Something’’ campaign 

and the Nation-wide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative. They also must make 

sure that their personnel are trained to report suspicious activity appropriately. 

Most importantly, fire and EMS departments must start incorporating the intelligence and information-sharing disciplines into their promotion and career-track 

systems. Fire chiefs must ensure that their departments are engaged and actively 

participating with their fusion centers. Finally, fire and EMS departments should 

be using intelligence and threat and risk information continuously to guide their 

planning, training, and exercises. 

THE NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS SYSTEM

The IAFC is very supportive of the National Preparedness Goal (NPG) and its role 

in guiding the National Preparedness System. The Federal, State, Tribal/territorial, 

and local agencies all have important roles to play in the complex requirements to 

protect the American public. The IAFC particularly was pleased to see that Fire 

Management and Suppression was added recently as a Core Capability in the NPG. 

As FEMA continues to develop and revise the NPG, it must begin to explain how 

the NPG relates to local first responders. The Threat and Hazard Identification and 

Risk Assessment (THIRA) should help drive the requirements of the NPG down to 

the State and local levels. Across the Nation, fire and EMS departments are participating more in the THIRA process. 

Information sharing is a critical component of the THIRA process, because Federal, State, and local intelligence assessments should be driving how threats are 

prioritized and critical infrastructure is identified. As States use THIRAs to identify 

risks and capabilities and allocate resources, the THIRA’s analysis should be transparent and easy for local fire chiefs to comprehend. A fire chief should be able to 

access his or her State’s THIRA and understand how threats and risks are 

prioritized and how resources are allocated to build capabilities to address these 

threats and risks. 

In order for the National Preparedness System to remain effective, fire and EMS 

departments must be reimbursed in a timely manner for inter-State mutual aid deployments. When a State requests fire and rescue response through the Emergency 

Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), local communities send their firefighters 

and apparatus to respond. These costs are borne by the communities until they are 

reimbursed. If a community has to wait years for reimbursement through the complicated Federal/State process, local leaders will face fiscal challenges requiring 

them to stretch budgets; raise taxes; or take on debt until the community finally 

24 

is reimbursed. FEMA should be directed to review the reimbursement process for 

mutual aid deployments to ensure that local communities are reimbursed in a timely manner. 

An effective mutual aid system is essential to the National Preparedness System. 

Every day, local communities use mutual aid agreements between neighboring communities to provide emergency response at incidents. These incidents can include 

large fires, hazardous materials spills, major traffic accidents, or any other type of 

emergency incident. Many major States, like Illinois and California, have proven 

State-wide mutual aid systems. FEMA should continue to work with the IAFC and 

the States to ensure that they have strong fire and EMS mutual aid systems. These 

State-wide systems can help to provide resources effectively as the States request 

and provide aid through interState compacts or the EMAC system. Having strong 

mutual aid systems in place is not only cost-effective, it is essential to the preservation of life and property. 

In addition, FEMA must continue to ensure that Federal, State, and local response agencies continue to utilize the National Incident Management System 

(NIMS). FEMA revised NIMS last year, and States are now expected to develop an 

alternate set of protocols and training curricula to align with the new National 

standards. The FEMA administrator should ensure that these NIMS revisions remain consistent with the Incident Command System, and that the State emergency 

operations centers are able to interoperate with the first responders in the field. 

GRANTS

In discussing the National Preparedness System, it is important to discuss 

FEMA’s grant programs. The Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program and 

the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant program 

provide matching grants to local jurisdictions for equipment, training, and staffing, 

including the recruitment and retention of volunteer firefighters. The Urban Areas 

Security Initiative (UASI) helps States prepare for the threat of terrorism by encouraging planning and exercises and funding intelligence fusion centers. The State 

Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) also helps fund fusion centers and, in 

some States, funds State-wide mutual aid systems. 

Because local fire departments provide the response resources during National deployments to address terrorist incidents and other National emergencies, the AFG 

and SAFER programs are vital components of the National Preparedness System. 

These programs bolster local fire departments’ baseline capabilities to respond to all 

hazards. While the programs have been successful, there still is a lot of work to be 

done. Please consider these examples from the National Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA) Fourth Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service: 

• Fifty percent of all departments (that answered the NFPA survey) do not have 

enough portable radios to equip all emergency responders on a shift. 

• Fifty-three percent of all departments (that answered the NFPA survey) cannot 

equip all firefighters on a shift with self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). 

• An estimated 60 percent of all departments (that answered the NFPA survey) 

provide hazmat response but have not formally trained all of their personnel involved in hazmat response. 

• Almost three-quarters (72 percent) of departments (that answered the NFPA 

survey) reported that some of their personal protective clothing was at least 10 

years old, which exceeds the life cycle of the equipment. 

As these statistics demonstrate, many fire departments still lack the most basic 

requirements for a safe and effective response. In fire departments around the Nation, firefighters still must share personal protective equipment and gear. In addition, many fire departments across the Nation are operating with severely outdated 

and sometimes inoperable apparatus. A neighboring jurisdiction of mine has only 

one fire engine that does not start. The AFG and SAFER programs help local fire 

departments meet their direst needs. 

In 2006 and 2007, my department received AFG funding in order to purchase personal protective equipment and SCBAs. We used these grants to replace 20-yearold turnout gear, which had far exceeded its 10-year service life. In addition, the 

purchase of new SCBAs allowed us to replace an old system with the current contemporary gear that neighboring departments had. This equipment helped us to regionalize our local fire and emergency service and provide more effective emergency 

response to our communities. 

The AFG and SAFER grant programs are authorized through the end of fiscal 

year 2017. The IAFC requests that Congress consider and pass legislation this year 

to reauthorize funding for these programs over the next 5 fiscal years. In addition, 

we have concerns about the sunset provision in each program’s authorizing statute, 

25 

which would eliminate the programs in early January. We ask that Congress remove this sunset date in order to ensure that the programs can continue to support 

the Nation’s fire departments. 

The SHSGP and UASI grant funds play an important role in helping communities 

plan for the response to acts of terrorism. One of the benefits of the programs is 

that the Federal funds provide an incentive for fire, EMS, law enforcement, public 

health and other Federal, State, and local agencies to work together to plan and exercise for the response to mass casualty incidents, acts of terrorism or chemical and 

biological events. In addition, these grant funds are used to support intelligence fusion centers and information sharing between Federal, State, and local officials. The 

grant programs also support training and equipment for specialized response such 

as the response to chemical, biological, or radiological incidents. 

For example, the IAFC endorsed the Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act 

(H.R. 437), which passed the House on January 30. This legislation would allow 

grantees to develop a program using SHSGP and UASI funds to provide home medkits to first responders and their families. These med-kits are important to provide 

the necessary protection for first responders as they respond to biological or chemical incidents. 

We also have some concerns about the President’s recent Executive Order regarding immigration and sanctuary jurisdictions. The order would authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate sanctuary jurisdictions, which would prohibit them from eligibility for FEMA grants. There is an exception to this requirement for law enforcement, but not for other public safety disciplines. This language 

threatens to cut off funding to local fire departments and deeply affect their ability 

to plan for and respond to acts of terrorism. The IAFC Board has not adopted a position on the issue of sanctuary jurisdictions. However, my organization would recommend that the Secretary and Congress use discretion to recognize a broader exception for public safety purposes, when reviewing grant eligibility. 

PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS

Public safety communications will remain an important issue requiring FEMA’s 

focus. After-action reports have determined that problems with public safety communications operability and interoperability plagued the responses at 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and multiple incidents in the following years. The Middle Class Tax 

Relief and Job Creation Act (Pub. L. 112–96) authorized the creation of the First 

Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) to establish a Nation-wide, public safety 

broadband network. This year, we expect FirstNet to announce its commercial partner, and begin to work with the States to build the network. As State Governors 

contemplate opting out of FirstNet, the IAFC recommends that the FEMA Administrator remind them of the integral role that interoperable communications play in 

mutual aid deployments during National emergencies. 

It is important to point out that FirstNet initially will provide mission-critical 

broadband data communications. Legacy mission-critical, land-mobile radio systems 

will remain vital to the fire and emergency service and public safety in general. The 

IAFC thanks the committee for its continued support of the mission of the Office 

of Emergency Communications (OEC). The OEC continually demonstrates its value 

by training first responders through its Communications Unit Leader training, 

which integrates communications into the command structure during major disasters. The IAFC encourages the FEMA Administrator to work with OEC to ensure 

that its recommendations are included when localities use Federal funds to purchase communications systems, and to ensure that OEC is involved in planning for 

major disasters. 

Since land-mobile radio will remain an important component of public safety communications, Congress must address the requirement that first responders return 

their spectrum in the T Band (470–512 MHz). Pub. L. 112–96 also required the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to begin auctioning public safety T Band 

spectrum by February 2021 and clear all public safety operations from the band 

within 2 years. This spectrum hosts public safety communications in 11 major urban 

areas of the United States. These 11 urban areas are Boston; Chicago; Dallas/Ft. 

Worth; Washington, DC. (including parts of Virginia and Maryland); Houston; Los 

Angeles; Miami; New York City/Northeast New Jersey; Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; 

and San Francisco/Oakland. For example, Boston hosts its interoperable communications channel on the T Band. It’s estimated that it will cost $5.9 billion to migrate these jurisdictions to other alternative spectrum, and, in some cases, there is 

no spectrum to which to migrate. The IAFC recommends that the FEMA administrator work with the FCC Chairman to resolve this issue, and not jeopardize public 

26 

safety communications operability and interoperability for everyday use and major 

emergencies. 

MITIGATION

Mitigation remains an important challenge for FEMA. Over the years, we have 

seen a steady increase in the number of disaster declarations. For example, the average number of disaster declarations issued from 1960 to 1969 was approximately 

19 per year. This number of declarations has skyrocketed to 56 per year from 2000 

to 2009, with a record 99 major disaster declarations in 2011. The IAFC expects to 

see the intensity and cost of National disasters and emergencies to continue to increase. For example, the average Federal wildland fire suppression cost from 2009 

to 2012 was $1.25 million. For the following 4 years, the number increased to $1.84 

million, a 32 percent increase. 

The IAFC encourages FEMA to promote mitigation efforts and community preparedness planning to reduce the cost of National disasters and emergencies. For 

example, the adoption of State-wide building codes can help reduce the cost of disasters. The IAFC has supported legislation in the last Congress, such as the Safe 

Building Code Incentive Act (H.R. 1748) and the National Mitigation Investment 

Act (H.R. 5177), which allows FEMA to incentivize the State-wide adoption of consensus-based building codes, like the International Residential Code. We also support FEMA’s pre-disaster mitigation programs, which help communities reduce the 

threat of wildland fire with fuels reduction projects. 

In my State, we have seen the importance of post-wildland fire mitigation work 

to reduce landslides and post-wildland fire flooding. We support legislation that was 

included in both the FEMA Disaster Assistance Reform Act (H.R. 1471) and the 

Wildfire Prevention Act (H.R. 1009) in the last Congress that would allow States 

that receive Fire Management Assistance Grants to also receive hazard mitigation 

funding. FEMA-funded projects, such as the establishment of erosion barriers and 

re-seeding burned land, will help communities recover more quickly from wildland 

fires and prevent disasters as a consequence of major wildland fires. 

THE U.S. FIRE ADMINISTRATION

I would like to highlight the importance of the USFA as I conclude my testimony. 

The United States still has an overall fire problem that must be addressed. According to the NFPA, there were more than 1.3 million fires in our Nation in 2015. 

These fires resulted in more than 3,200 deaths, more than 15,000 injuries and approximately $14.3 billion in property damage. 

The USFA continues to lead efforts to combat this problem. It helps local fire departments develop programs to educate the public about fire prevention. USFA also 

administers the NFA, which has trained more than 1.4 million students in emergency leadership issues and specialized emergency response tactics since 1975. Most 

importantly, NFA helps local fire chiefs to learn about how to integrate their departments into the National Preparedness System through training about NIMS. The 

USFA also hosts the National Fire Incident Reporting System, which is one of the 

world’s most comprehensive National fire data systems. The U.S. Fire Administrator 

leads the USFA. 

The IAFC requests that the President move quickly to appoint an experienced fire 

and emergency service leader to the position of U.S. Fire Administrator. In addition, 

the authorization for USFA expires at the end of the fiscal year. The IAFC urges 

Congress to reauthorize the USFA this year, so it can continue its important mission. 

CONCLUSION

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the future of FEMA. The 

Nation’s fire and emergency service faces an operating environment that is changing 

at a rapid and alarming pace. The wide variety of emergencies that we respond to 

are increasingly more dangerous to our citizens and responders. The economic impacts of these incidents to our Nation are escalating. The quality of the service provided by firefighters and EMS providers influence the citizens’ feelings of safety and 

security, yet the ability to train firefighters—from our volunteers in rural regions 

to all-career firefighters in major cities—is a major challenge. The cost of procuring 

vital firefighting apparatus, tools, and firefighter personal protective equipment has 

increased well beyond the rate of inflation and beyond communities’ abilities to pay. 

The challenges require experienced fire and emergency management leadership. 

We urge the new administration to nominate an experienced leader in the fire and 

emergency service or emergency management disciplines to lead the agency. We also 

27 

recommend that the other leadership of FEMA, including the U.S. Fire Administrator, also be experienced leaders. 

In addition, we urge the administration and the committee to work together to 

help FEMA address the numerous challenges that the Nation faces. It is important 

that Federal information sharing and public safety communications programs continue to be funded and supported in their missions. In order to ensure a strong National Preparedness System, FEMA must review its mutual aid and reimbursement 

systems. Also, FEMA should be given stronger authority to incentivize the Statewide adoption of building codes and the implementation of community efforts to 

mitigate the effects of disasters. In addition, the IAFC recommends that Congress 

continue to support FEMA’s grant programs, and reauthorize the AFG and SAFER 

grant programs. We also recommend that Congress reauthorize the USFA. 

The new administration and the new Congress present an opportunity to review 

FEMA’s programs and policies. The IAFC continues to support FEMA’s mission and 

the National Preparedness System. We look forward to working with the committee 

to ensure that the Nation is prepared to respond to any of the potential threats that 

we face and keep America safe. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you very much, Chief. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bland for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. BLAND, J.D., M.T.S., NATIONAL DIRECTOR, POLICY, ADVOCACY, AND DEVELOPMENT, SAVE 

THE CHILDREN 

Mr. BLAND. Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and esteemed Members of the Homeland Security Committee, thank you 

for the opportunity to testify on the future of FEMA. 

My name is Rich Bland, and I am the national director of policy, 

advocacy, and development at Save the Children. 

At Save the Children, we believe that every child deserves a 

healthy start, the opportunity to learn, and protection from harm. 

It is in this last vein, protection from harm, that I want to talk to 

you today. 

My hope is to cover three broad issues: First, the problem, how 

Katrina and subsequent disasters have been a wake-up call on children’s needs. Second, the solutions, the role of the National Commission on Children and Disasters and Save the Children’s 10 

years later follow-up report, which you all have with you today. 

Third, one action we can take today, one concrete action, the importance of creating a permanent children’s needs advisor at FEMA. 

Imagine where you were 12 years ago in the late summer of 2005 

when you first heard about Hurricane Katrina. Remember how 

shocked you were when the levees broke, when the death toll began 

to mount, and when you saw the seemingly endless images of people on rooftops, wading in water, struggling to survive? It was a 

watershed moment, not just for our country, but also for Save the 

Children. 

You see, Save the Children has been responding to emergencies 

around the world for nearly a century, but never domestically. In 

war-torn and developing countries, yes. In the United States, no. 

The thinking was the richest Nation in the world had it covered, 

so no need to worry. But the reports started coming in, the TV images, the cries for help, and no shortage of children in need. 

So just in case, we began to call responders along the Gulf Coast, 

Government, agencies, nonprofits. We asked the heads of shelters, 

how many children do you have and at which shelters? The response was we have no idea—no idea. 

28 

Many more of our questions went unanswered in the days that 

followed. As a result, Save the Children decided to deploy to the 

Gulf Coast in its first major disaster response effort here within 

the United States. 

Since Katrina, we have deployed to every major disaster, serving 

more than 1 million children, including 6 disasters in 2016 alone. 

As of yesterday, we deployed to California in the Oroville area regarding the evacuation there. 

Katrina was a shocking moment for all of us; yet today, children 

are still facing many of the same risks from an emergency as they 

did 12 years ago. Thus, my second issue, solutions. 

After Katrina, Congress and the President created the National 

Commission on Children and Disasters. Save the Children was 

honored to lead it along with an incredible group of expert commissioners. The commission created a detailed road map of needs and 

solutions with 11 chapters on 11 functional areas related to the 

gaps, and then came up with 81 recommendations. 

I am here to tell you today that nearly 80 percent of those recommendations yet remain unfulfilled. Do we really want to wait for 

the next Katrina-type event to get back to this work? Now, to be 

fair, much progress has been made and much of it at FEMA. But 

those steps are far from complete, and there is nothing to guarantee any focus on children’s needs in the future. We need accountability. Our children deserve it. 

The report you have in your hands is the first effort to hold Government accountable for the recommendations of the National commission. All levels of government have a role to play. You will see 

11 chapters and it says, where the recommendations were not met, 

that is red, where they were met, that is green, and then where 

they are underway, that is yellow. 

Yet the results are startling. Nearly 80 percent of the recommendations have not been met. In addition, we now know that 

less than one-tenth of 1 percent of all Federal preparedness grants 

go to children’s needs. Thankfully, Congressman Payne, you have 

been a stalwart champion raising attention to these needs. So 

thank you for that. Most recently, your ability to pass H.R. 4509 

will go a long way toward connecting emergency management to 

children’s needs representatives at the State level. So thank you for 

that. 

Thank you, Mr. Donovan, for cosponsoring the PREPARE Act 

with Mr. Payne last Congress. This would indeed make the children’s needs coordinator permanent. So I look forward to working 

with you on that. 

As for what comes next, to this day when we deploy, Save the 

Children is a witness to the fact that children are still more an 

afterthought than a priority. 

I would like to leave you with two facts. Recall that children are 

25 to 50 percent of the population, depending on the community. 

This is no fringe group. Furthermore, as the pediatricians remind 

us, children are not merely small adults. Consider how unique 

their needs are, protection needs at shelters, specialized supply 

needs and response efforts, tailored medical needs and treatment. 

The list goes on. 

29 

So let’s just take one of the recommendations that we think we 

can make permanent and concrete, the permanent children’s needs 

advisor at FEMA. Of course, it is no one-size-fits-all solution, but 

we have come here today to suggest that we take that one big step. 

We believe each of these gap areas, be it mental health, shelter 

standards, or preparedness, starts with Government accountability 

and having someone at the highest level of FEMA with the power 

to remind the administrator and all the departments of FEMA 

about the unique needs of children is vital. 

While some administrators, including Mr. Fugate, have had a 

stellar track record at prioritizing children’s needs, and in fact temporarily appointing a children’s needs coordinator, that position is 

not required and it could fade to obscurity. That cannot and should 

not happen. So we are here today to ask you to join with us in addressing these gaps and taking the first step, which is to make the 

children’s needs adviser at FEMA permanent. Thank you very 

much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bland follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. BLAND

FEBRUARY 14, 2017 

Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and esteemed Members of the 

Homeland Security Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the future of FEMA. 

My name is Richard Bland and I am the national director of policy, advocacy, and 

development at Save the Children. 

At Save the Children, we believe that every child deserves a healthy start, the 

opportunity to learn, and protection from harm. It is in this last vein, protection 

from harm, that I want to talk to you today. 

Imagine where you were 12 years ago, in the late summer of 2005, when you first 

heard about Hurricane Katrina. Remember how shocked you were when the levees 

broke? When the death toll began to mount and when you saw the seemingly endless images of people on rooftops and in boats and wading in water struggling to 

survive? It was a watershed moment not just for our country, but also for Save the 

Children. 

You see, Save the Children has been responding to emergencies around the world 

for nearly a century but NEVER domestically. The thinking was the richest nation 

in the world had it covered, so no need to worry. But then the reports started coming in. The TV images. The cries for help. And no shortage of children in need. So 

just in case, we began to call responders along the Gulf Coast. Government, agencies, nonprofits. We asked the heads of the shelters how many children they had 

and at which shelters. The response was, ‘‘we have no idea.’’ NO IDEA. 

Many more of our questions went unanswered in the days that followed. And as 

a result Save the Children decided to deploy to the Gulf Coast in its first major disaster response effort within the United States. 

Since Katrina, we have deployed to every major disaster (including 6 disasters in 

2016 alone); while at the same time, we have also advocated strongly with Federal 

and State officials to ensure children are adequately prioritized in governmental 

planning, response, and recovery. 

Katrina was a shocking moment for all of us. 

• As many as 300,000 children were forced from their homes. 

• 5,000 children were separated from their parents. • Did you know it took 7 months to reunite the last child with her parents? 

But the problem of reunification is not restricted to mass-scale emergencies like 

Katrina. Today, children are still facing many of the same risks from an emergency 

as they did 12 years ago. 

• Just remember: Every single day 70 million children are separated from their 

parents. And disasters can strike anywhere at any time. 

Fortunately, we know how to address many of these risks—Congress and the 

President created the National Commission on Children and Disasters. And Save 

the Children was honored to lead it, along with an incredible group of experts in 

30 

1 Retained in the Committee files and available at: http://www.savethechildren.org/atf/cf/ 

%7B9def2ebe-10ae-432c-9bd0-df91d2eba74a%7D/DISASTERREPORTl2015.PDF?v=5. 

disaster response and child protection who served as commissioners. The Commission created a detailed roadmap. • But, as of today, nearly 80 percent of the recommendations remain unfulfilled! 

Do we really want to wait for the next Katrina-type event to get back to this 

work? 

Now to be fair, much progress has been made. Child care and school preparedness 

have come light years. Pediatric medical health saw Federal legislation that included comprehensive requirements around medical countermeasures and a medical 

advisory committee. At FEMA, we saw Administrator Fugate make major efforts to 

integrate children’s needs into every FEMA regional administrator’s job and appoint 

a temporary children’s needs coordinator. But those steps are far from complete, and 

there’s nothing to guarantee any focus on children’s needs in the future. We need 

accountability. Our children deserve it. 

The Report you have in your hands (Still At Risk: U.S. Children 10 Years After 

Hurricane Katrina1) is the first effort to hold Government accountable for the recommendations of the National Commission. All levels of government have a role to 

play. Federal. State. local. All Federal agencies. HHS. FEMA. Justice. ED. What you 

have in front of you is that effort. And today, we are happy to focus on FEMA. 

As to the structure of the Report, you may recall that the National Commission’s 

Final Report arranged their recommendations in 11 functional areas, 11 chapters. 

81 Recommendations and sub-recommendations. 

This report is our effort, through an objective, third-party, outside research firm, 

to assess how many of those recommendations have been met (GREEN), how many 

are being addressed (YELLOW), and how many have not been met at all (RED). 

The results are startling. 

• Nearly 80 percent of recommendations have not been met. • That means 4 in 5 of the original recommendations has not been met. • In addition, we now know less than 1/10 of 1 percent of all Federal preparedness grants go to children’s needs. • Put another way, less than 1 cent in every $10 spent on preparedness goes to 

children’s safety. 

You may hear people say well, just addressing the recommendation is good 

enough. Some agencies will say we cannot afford to single out children as a priority 

or for funding, due to all of the other priorities. We are here to say you must!! And 

we hope you will join us in that effort. Thankfully, Congressman Payne, you have 

been a stalwart champion in raising attention to these needs. So thank you for that! 

Most recently, your ability to pass H.R. 4509 will go a long way to connecting Emergency Management to Children’s needs representatives at the State level. 

As for what comes next, let’s think back to Katrina, or to Sandy, or the Oklahoma 

tornadoes for that matter, time and time again when we deploy, Save the Children 

is a witness to the fact that children are still more an afterthought than a priority. 

And not just in response—in planning too! • Let’s not forget that Children are 25–50 percent of the population depending on 

the community. This is no fringe group. • And furthermore, the experts remind us Children are NOT merely small 

adults—consider how unique their needs are. Safety needs in shelters. Specialized supply needs in response efforts. Tailored medical needs in treatment. The 

list goes on! 

Thankfully the commission took a comprehensive look at all of those needs, 11 

functional areas, and made detailed recommendations in each. 

Let’s get to work to see that more of them are met! 

Fortunately, we are also not alone. Your interest in heartening, and more importantly we are joined by organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics 

(AAP), Child Care Aware (CCA), and the National Center of Missing and Exploited 

Children (NCMEC) that spend each and every day trying to address these gaps! 

In addition the National Advisory Committee at FEMA, the ‘‘NAC’’ made three 

key recommendations to FEMA, and the administrator agreed! He agreed to try to 

get all three done. But now we have a new administration and you will be meeting 

with a new administrator. So we are asking for you to have him or her followthrough on those promises. • Let’s take just one: The need for a permanent Children’s Needs Technical Expert at FEMA. 

Of course it is no one-size-fits-all solution, to all 11 chapters of recommendations 

to address the gaps in children’s needs. But we have come here to today to suggest 

that we take that one big step. 

31 

We believe each of these gap areas, be it mental health, shelter standards, or preparedness, starts with Governmental Accountability. And having someone at the 

highest level of FEMA with the power to remind the administrator and all departments of FEMA about the unique needs of children is vital. 

While some administrators including Mr. Fugate have had a stellar track-record 

at prioritizing Children’s Needs, and in fact temporarily appointing a children’s 

needs coordinator, that position is NOT required and could fade to obscurity. 

That CANNOT and SHOULD NOT happen, so we are here today to ask you to 

join with us in addressing these gaps, and taking the first step, which is to make 

the Children’s Needs Technical Expert at FEMA permanent. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Bland. I thank you all for your 

testimony. 

I recognize myself now for 5 minutes of questioning. 

As I told all of you before we began, this committee, one of the 

things I am proud of my good friend, Don Payne, and I don’t waste 

people’s time. We don’t hold committee hearings every week just to 

have committee hearings. We hold them for a purpose and then we 

take the information that is derived from the hearing and put it 

to work. So your testimony today, your suggestions, your answers 

to our questions will go into some form of evaluation that we will 

give to the new administrator as recommendations of what she or 

he should do. 

With that in mind, and all of you have brought out various concerns that you all have, the new administrator is going to come in 

and have a lot of things before her or before him. In each of your 

specific areas, what do you think is the first thing the new FEMA 

administrator ought to address, something that cannot wait, something that time is of the essence, for each of you? 

Captain KELENSKE. Well, first and foremost, I believe the interaction and engagement with the State’s Governors and their key officials, that is key right off the bat. Then to look to the States to 

see what specific needs that they collectively have that need to be 

addressed. Working through organizations, such as the NGA and 

the Governors Homeland Security Adviser Council, is also a good 

way to get that information. But I think it is necessary to reach 

out to the States and find out what those issues are. 

Some of the ones that are out there are, what innovative solutions, whether they are innovative solutions to grants or technology 

or the intelligence and information sharing that is going on, those 

are some key issues that need to be looked into, as well as the 

grant reform concept that we talked about earlier, sir. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Captain. 

Chief. 

Chief SINCLAIR. Yes. Chairman Donovan, thank you very much 

for the question. It is incumbent that whoever comes into this position knows and understands that it is a partnership, that it is vital 

that they know that the first responders that are out there, the law 

enforcement community, police, fire, EMS, public health, the first 

receivers, the hospital systems are all folks that are going to be onscene long before the Federal Government can begin to ramp up 

and begin to take action. So everything that we can do to help that 

response community be ready for an all-hazards environment is 

vital. 

Some of that includes simple things like information sharing 

through the fusion centers. I will give you one very specific examVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:52 Sep 29, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17EP0214\17EP0214.TXT HEATH
32 

ple. In Nice, France on Bastille Day, we had a significant event 

where somebody took a big truck and ran it through a bunch of 

people. We should have had somebody in the fusion centers taking 

a look at that and providing information out to every law enforcement and fire and EMS jurisdiction across this Nation saying here 

is a new tactic, here are some ideas on how to prepare for that. 

But the big issue is recognizing that there is a partnership and 

that it is a partnership all the way down to the local level. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Chief. 

Mr. Bland. 

Mr. BLAND. Thanks for the question. I think it is really the children’s needs advisor. The former administrator, Mr. Fugate, just 

did a remarkable job, and he really personally felt the priority of 

children’s needs as a vulnerable community. But as he himself 

would admit, that is not required. It is not required by statute, and 

so it can’t be personality-driven by the administrator. 

In addition, that role has this kind-of internal auditing function 

where whatever they are going to roll out or whatever new proposal they come across, to have this technical expert to say, but 

how is it going to affect kids, have you thought about that? They 

are not just small adults. In addition, we have got a lot of momentum. So your bill, the PREPARE Act, endorsed this idea and the 

National advisory committee, which is required by PK–EMRA, actually this was their No. 1 recommendation on children’s needs. 

So we have got some momentum. Mr. Fugate agreed with the 

National advisory committee in his official response and said I 

agree, but I am leaving. So I think for all of those reasons and just 

on top of that, I guess I would say let us keep up the momentum. 

I don’t mean to paint too stark a picture because we have come 

a long way since Katrina. But there were 11 chapters and there 

were 11 big gaps. This concrete step would be a good first step. So 

I hope that is helpful. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Wonderful. I thank all of you. I had 6 more questions, but we will submit those in writing. My time is up. 

The Chair now recognizes my friend from New Jersey, Mr. 

Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate working with 

you once again. I think your statement is absolutely correct. We try 

not to waste people’s time. The information that we do receive at 

these hearings eventually turns into legislation. So I want to thank 

you for your leadership. 

Let me just ask—first of all, thank you for all being here and 

your testimony. 

You know, with FEMA being in transition, you know, a new administrator, as I stated, has not been named, and the Trump administration’s priorities in the emergency management space are 

unclear, has the Trump administration engaged you or your organizations during this transition process? 

Captain KELENSKE. I know that there have been discussions with 

other associations involved in this area, but I don’t know specifically. We would have to follow up later with that answer, sir, from 

individual organizations. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. Chief. 

33 

Chief SINCLAIR. We met with both campaigns prior to the election to give them our opinion about certain issues, certain issues 

as it related to key positions within the Federal Government. Subsequent to that, we have not had, I have not had a meeting with 

them. 

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Bland. 

Mr. BLAND. Our organization, as you know, has kind-of health 

priorities, education priorities, and protection priorities. We met 

with both campaigns and went really and focused on early childhood education priorities. We haven’t spoken to them about protection in emergencies yet. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK, thank you. We will definitely make sure that we 

encourage the administration to reach out to make sure that you 

do have input in that area. 

Let’s see. Chief Sinclair, President Trump’s sanctuary cities Executive Order requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that sanctuary jurisdictions are ineligible for Federal grants 

except for law enforcement purposes. The Executive Order makes 

no clear exception for public safety or fire management. 

Did the Trump administration contact the International Association of Fire Chiefs to learn how losing access to these Federal dollars would affect their ability to carry out their mission? 

Chief SINCLAIR. Ranking Member Payne, no, we have not been 

contacted directly from the administration relative to that. We 

would, as I stated in my testimony, request that the law enforcement exception be extended to the entire public safety community. 

We do believe that because that the SHSGP and UASI grants go 

to fund fusion centers, it is going to be very difficult to isolate just 

the law enforcement component to that because they are going to 

work with key pieces that affect all of public safety. So we believe 

that a public safety exception is certainly appropriate to do. 

Mr. PAYNE. Sure. Especially in this new environment, you know, 

the public safety community has come together in such a great way 

that it would absolutely be difficult to separate them. Thank you. 

Chief SINCLAIR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Bland, in your testimony you talked about the 

need for a permanent child’s need technical expert at FEMA. Can 

you talk about how Save the Children works with the current children’s needs technical expert? 

Mr. BLAND. Sure. The technical expert, as I mentioned, serves as 

this kind of internal auditing function. So when there is something, 

whether it be a response, like in California right now, that expert 

actually can go and respond and be the expert to people in the 

field. 

So they come to us and we work with American Red Cross in 

that deployment, but they come to us and we coordinate all the resources. I mean, it is a nice, fluid function that says, well, what 

does HHS, what does ACF, what does OCFR have to offer? 

So that without that kind of hub reaching out to us, American 

Academy of Pediatrics, NCMEC, National Center for Missing and 

Exploited Children, that would be a gap, that kind of hub. Then 

also that then back when they are rolling out an idea or an initiative, to come to us and other stakeholders and say, but remember, 

34 

how does this affect kids, what is your input on that? So those are 

two critical functions that they engage with us on. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. BLAND. Thank you. 

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The gentleman yields back. The Chair will now 

recognize other Members of the subcommittee for questions that 

they may wish to ask of our witnesses. In accordance with committee rules and practice, I plan to recognize Members who were 

present at the start of the hearing by seniority on the subcommittee. Those coming in later will be recognized in the order of 

arrival. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rutherford. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, panel, for being here today really to help us address 

this very important National issue. 

One of the things that I would like to ask very quickly, and I 

don’t know the answer to this, but I would like to find out. The National preparedness report that identifies the 32 core capabilities, 

those are not designated by law, correct? It came out of policy. So 

I would like to ask you, Director Bland, if we were to put child 

needs into a 33d preparedness goal, wouldn’t that be possible 

through the policy that already exists? 

Mr. BLAND. As I understand it, that would be a great idea. We 

would look to work with you on that. One idea that came up is to 

have the children’s needs coordinator report back to the National 

advisory committee. 

So instead of reporting to external groups, but also not necessarily reporting in statute to the administrator, to have this kind 

of accountability on, and say, on a 33d standard I think is a great 

idea. But what has happened is you don’t really have a built-in accountability structure to say to each administrator or each department, how are we doing on this gap? So if that person could report 

to the NAC, which PK–EMRA—sorry about the acronyms—— 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. That is OK. 

Mr. BLAND [continuing]. I think that would be a great idea and 

in addition, on the preparedness framework to work on that, too. 

So thank you. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. OK. Also, I would like to ask, Chief, has IACP 

had any conversations with the leadership in sanctuary cities to 

make clear to them the dangers that they have put their constituents in by potential loss of Federal funding? 

Chief SINCLAIR. Representative Rutherford, the IACP or the 

IAFC? 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. I am sorry, IAFC. 

Chief SINCLAIR. No, sir, we have not. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. OK. You know, I think those would be conversations worth having as well. Sanctuary cities, that is a choice 

that those cities are making. There are consequences that flow 

from all decisions, so I think it would be wise to highlight for them 

exactly what that impact would be. 

If I could ask the panel as a whole, one of the things we continue 

to hear about, and, Chief, you actually touched on this, is the inVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:52 Sep 29, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17EP0214\17EP0214.TXT HEATH
35 

ability to really get good, actionable intelligence out of the fusion 

centers. We have the same issue on the law enforcement side sometimes. That actually scores low, cybersecurity and recovery capabilities of those systems scores low almost every year Nationally. 

Do you have any specific ideas on how we can better make that 

happen? 

Chief SINCLAIR. Thank you for the question. I think that there 

are a couple of different things, having had the opportunity to work 

with the DHS Office of Health Affairs as it related to fusion centers, with the EMS issue and fire department involvement. 

I think one of the things is that the local community needs to 

make sure that they have got that expertise in the fusion center. 

That is going to then help make sure that when the raw data 

comes in that they can take a look at it and make sure that that 

application is there. So making sure that there are people in the 

fusion center that come out of the disciplines of the fire service, 

emergency medical services, public health, and the impacts, I 

think, is going to be very helpful. 

Some of the fusion centers have that capability, some don’t. But 

sort-of putting that into the culture of it is something that is going 

to be very helpful. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. I agree. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 

back. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes 

the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank our witnesses for your testimony here today. 

In 2006, Congress created the position of disability coordinator at 

FEMA to provide guidance to both FEMA staff and State and local 

partners on how to incorporate people with disabilities into disaster 

planning. 

So, Captain Kelenske and Chief Sinclair, how do you account for 

people with disabilities in your disaster planning? Do you find 

guidance from FEMA in this regard to be helpful at all? 

Captain KELENSKE. Thank you for the question, sir. Absolutely, 

one of the great things about FEMA is that they know how to work 

across multidisciplines. So when we have an emergency or disaster, 

regardless of what the cause is, FEMA is there to provide that 

technical assistance as well as the overall management for these 

events. 

Specifically in the disasters that I have handled, they have provided an enormous amount of information and assistance with access and functional needs and any disabilities, steps we have to 

take, whether it is ensuring that things printed are done with 

American Sign Language, and just every aspect that typically we 

may not see at a State level as much. 

But during these events it is critical to have them there and to 

bring them on early with liaison officers before even a declaration 

by the President has been received. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you. 

Chief. 

Chief SINCLAIR. Thank you very much for the question. The State 

of Washington over the last 5 years has had a lot of wildland 

events. We have also had flooding events. We work very closely 

36 

with FEMA Region 10 on these particular issues to make sure that 

those communities that are going to be affected are well-informed. 

What we try to do is make sure that we have got information out 

there. They work with us. They do a lot of work in getting information out through the major media markets and information all the 

way down to the local emergency manager at the city and county 

level. 

We also update our plan once every 5 years, and they give overview, between FEMA Region 10 and our State emergency management organization, on how to make sure that we are dealing with 

the needs of that particular community. So it has been very helpful. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you. 

Mr. BLAND. Congressman, and if I could just add that Save the 

Children ran, since 2008, we have run a report card that assesses 

the States on how they are doing on preparedness. One of the factors, there are 4 criteria, and 1 is, how are you doing on preparing 

for children with special needs, with access and functional needs? 

In 2008, only 4 States met our standards. Thanks to work with 

Congressman Payne and others, by the end of 2017, all 50 States 

will meet all 4 of our standards. But it was a long way coming. 

One other small point is there is a fantastic disability needs coordinator at FEMA. And Mr. Fugate, when we first started talking 

to him about this, Marcie Roth, he said you all should pattern 

yourself after the disability community because that is what he did. 

He learned from them in more-inclusive planning. 

He will tell you, if you have an annex for the disabled, if you 

have an annex for the children, if you have an annex for pets, you 

are doing it wrong. You need to be more inclusive. So we are trying 

to learn and Marcie Roth has been a great asset. Unfortunately, 

because of personnel reasons and a snafu with OPM, she is not 

there right now. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Well, thank you for adding those comments in. 

You know, I want to make sure that people with disabilities are a 

forethought, not an afterthought. There is special planning that 

needs to take place and better to do it ahead of time than in the 

middle of a disaster. So thank you for the work you are doing on 

that. 

Captain KELENSKE. for the last better part of a decade, I have 

spent a great deal of time focusing on cybersecurity. It has been 

one of my chief concerns here in Congress. In my capacity as cochair of the congressional Cybersecurity Caucus, I have been impressed by your State’s commitment to innovation in combating 

cyber threat. 

In your capacity testifying on behalf of the National Governors 

Association, I also want to commend Chairman McAuliffe for his 

dedication on this issue as well. 

So in your experience, what is the maturity level with respect to 

incorporating cybersecurity incident response into all-hazards planning? 

Captain KELENSKE. I think it is different in every State. Some 

States are further ahead than others. The nice thing is, with organizations such as NGA, we are able to share that information. In 

37 

my testimony, I spoke to some of the things that have been put in 

place and we are helping other States along. 

For our State, we are co-located. We have our cyber command 

center, our computer crimes section, our fusion center, State emergency operations center as well as emergency management and 

homeland security division all co-located. That is just the way one 

system operates. 

Every State is a little bit different, but the cyber disruption plans 

and the different items that have been put through the resource 

center, that is what is going to help us get to that point we all need 

to be individually as States, because every State is going to probably look a little bit different. 

But those frameworks are in place and it is critical that we just 

build on those existing frameworks, sir. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Very good. Thank you, Captain. You know, this 

is an issue that is not going to go away anytime soon, especially 

the fact that now with, you know, in the past would have been 

achieved through use of kinetic weapons, for example, could be 

done with a few keystrokes. We need to do what we can to be prepared for those incidents and then also have a resiliency plan. So 

thank you for what you are doing in that space. 

I know my time expired. I have a few more questions on cyber. 

I will submit those for the record and hope you can get back to us 

on those. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The gentleman yields back. 

Before I recognize him, I would like to welcome Congressman 

Tom Garrett to the committee. He represents Virginia’s 5th Congressional District. Prior to joining Congress, he served in the 

Army as the Commonwealth’s attorney and State senator of Virginia’s 22d District. 

Welcome, Congressman, and I recognize you for 5 minutes for 

questioning. 

Mr. GARRETT. I am curious, Chief Sinclair, you are obviously a 

member of IFCA, also I presume IAFF. I want to piggyback for a 

moment on Mr. Rutherford’s questions. Essentially, what you have 

testified to here this morning is that you have not gone to the cities 

with sanctuary policies and warned them of the potential of a loss 

of Federal funding. 

Chief SINCLAIR. That is correct, sir. We have not. 

Mr. GARRETT. But you have come here and asked us not to act 

to enforce Federal law. 

Chief SINCLAIR. Sir, what we are asking for is that there is an 

exclusion for law enforcement. What we are asking is that that exclusion be broadened to the entire public safety community because 

of the fact that the fusion centers that are being funded are going 

to be giving information to not just law enforcement, but we work 

very collaboratively at the local level. 

Mr. GARRETT. Right. So among other things not included on the 

brief resume that the Chairman shared was my membership on the 

Commonwealth preparedness board and work with the Virginia fusion center and my work as a Federal prosecutor as well as a State 

prosecutor. 

So these are some things that I am familiar with. 

38 

It just strikes me, and I make this by way of a suggestion, that 

perhaps if you are going to suggest to us that we broaden the exemption as it relates to groups that would continue to receive Federal funding should localities intentionally choose not to enforce 

Federal law, that you might also go back to those localities and 

warn them of the potential impact on them, the loss of resources, 

et cetera. 

I would target this next question, and probably my choice of 

words is poor, to Captain Kelenske. 

Captain KELENSKE. Kelenske, sir. 

Mr. GARRETT. Kelenske. Work with me. 

Captain KELENSKE. I will, sir. 

Mr. GARRETT. So I know you are not an attorney. I presume you 

are not, but your work career is presumably with the State police? 

Captain KELENSKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GARRETT. So you are familiar with the equal protection 

clause of the Constitution? 

Captain KELENSKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GARRETT. OK. So help me here, because I have been trying 

to wrap my brain around this for a long time. If an individual is 

picked up on a Federal detainer, let’s say for identity theft, and 

they are a U.S. citizen, and a locality, let’s say San Francisco, holds 

them for Federal pick-up so that that detainer can be executed and 

they can be tried for identity theft, that is the execution of justice, 

right? 

Captain KELENSKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GARRETT. Now, if that same individual happens to be here 

illegally and, therefore, that locality, San Francisco, refuses to hold 

them, have we not violated the equal protection clause under the 

14th Amendment by virtue of creating a different standard by 

which we apply justice to those who are here legally versus illegally? 

Captain KELENSKE. Well, what I would say, sir, is that States 

recognize that immigration is a Federal responsibility. The Governors ask that the Federal Government continue to work with 

States and localities as partners to address all the different components of this very important issue. 

Mr. GARRETT. Right. But the equal protection clause provides 

that no State shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the 

equal protection of the law. So if a locality chooses to hold someone, 

a U.S. citizen charged with a particular offense, but release someone who is not a citizen charged with the exact same offense, does 

that not violate the equal protection right of American-born criminal defendants? 

Captain KELENSKE. I don’t know if I am prepared to answer that 

question here, sir. I am more than willing to discuss and follow up 

after the fact. Not being engaged with it on a day-to-day basis, I 

would be very hesitant to opine. 

Mr. GARRETT. Well, you know what, and I will give you something of an apology because you kind-of are the guy closest to the 

guy I am looking for, who is not sitting on the dais there. But 

thank you for what you do, all of you. 

The final question, I think I have time, is to Mr. Bland. You outlined your 4 standards or you mentioned your 4 standards. I was 

39 

wondering if you could articulate what the 4 standards are that 

you are hoping that States and localities will meet. 

Mr. BLAND. Sure. So if you will recall, the National commission 

had those 11 chapters. They were kind-of functional areas. Then 

our follow-up report tackled those 11 chapters. We had to walk before we could run, so we took one chapter, which was child care 

and school preparedness, and we said, OK, what are the 4 standards that at a baseline States should uphold in their regulations 

for schools and child care? 

It was evacuation and relocation, a reunification plan, a relocation site, those are all for child care, and then the special needs, 

as I mentioned before, in child care, and then the fourth is for 

schools, a multi-hazard plan to make sure they are not just doing 

fire, they are doing lockdown drills and also preparing for a natural 

emergency, like a tornado, so a multi-hazard plan for schools. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you. I found it in your publication up here 

thanks to my colleague, Mr. Rutherford. 

Mr. BLAND. Yes. 

Mr. GARRETT. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would comment that 

the thing that bothered me most from my time on the Commonwealth preparedness board in Virginia was that we had pretty good 

plans that none of the citizenry knew about. It is hard to implement and execute a plan when there is no information disseminated to the end-user, the citizens. 

I yield back my negative 13 seconds. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony. My 

goal was to get you out of here in an hour and we achieved that. 

I would like to thank my fellow Members of the committee for their 

questions. The Members of the subcommittee may have additional 

questions, as many of us do, for the witnesses. We will ask that you 

respond to those in writing. 

Pursuant to committee rule VII(D), the hearing record will be 

held open for 10 days. 

Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:01 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(41) 

1 Jeffrey S. McLeod, ‘‘Testimony on FirstNet Oversight: An Update on the Status of the Public 

Safety Broadband Network,’’ (June 21, 2016), available at: https://www.nga.org/cms/home/ 

Continued 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR. FOR CHRIS A. KELENSKE

Question 1. What role do you envision for FEMA’s law enforcement advisor? 

Answer. Law enforcement plays a critically important role in homeland security 

and emergency management operations. The FEMA law enforcement advisor must 

create clear channels of communication to make certain that State and local law enforcement officials are meaningfully engaged in the Federal policy-making process. 

It is imperative that the information received from State and local law enforcement 

officials be communicated by the FEMA law enforcement advisor to FEMA leadership to ensure there is a clear understanding of how Federal policies will impact 

the law enforcement community Nation-wide. 

Question 2. In order to buy down risk, we need to identify risk. As the Threat 

and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) process matures, are you 

seeing States better incorporate the input of local emergency response providers in 

their THIRAs? 

Answer. The THIRA is a valuable tool that bolsters State preparedness by increasing understanding of risks and ensuring necessary investments are prioritized. 

In Michigan, State officials engage with regional urban area coordinators each year 

to prepare the State THIRA and Urban Area Security Initiative THIRA submissions. Appropriate subject-matter experts account for known regional and local capabilities during assessment meetings. Additionally, Michigan officials have implemented a regional THIRA and ‘‘Regional Preparedness Report (RPR)’’ process for 

local emergency response providers through the creation of Regional Homeland Security Planning Boards. This process was initiated in 2016 with formal rollouts in 

each of the State’s 7 regions held in early 2017. 

In January 2017, the Michigan State Police Emergency Management and Homeland Security Division (MSP/EMHSD) hosted the Texas A&M Engineering Extension Service (TEEX) course ‘‘Jurisdictional Threat and Hazard Identification and 

Risk Assessment,’’ MGT310, for stakeholders in Michigan. The MSP/EMHSD hosted 

the course free of charge and paid lodging expenses for local participants in an effort 

to attract as many participants as possible to ensure an effective THIRA process in 

each region. Following the course, the MSP/EMHSD staff traveled to each region to 

explain the THIRA process to Regional Homeland Security Planning Board members. At present, each region has completed or is in the process of completing a regional-level THIRA that will be included in the State’s THIRA submission for 2017. 

The Regional THIRA and RPR have allowed State officials to go a step further in 

incorporating regional and local gaps in the State assessment. 

Question 3. This month marks the fifth anniversary of the enactment of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, which established the First Responder 

Network Authority (FirstNet) with the responsibility to develop and implement the 

Nation-wide public safety broadband network. Are you satisfied with FirstNet’s outreach to State and local first responders to get a true sense of user needs for the 

system? 

Answer. Governors endeavor to partner with the Federal Government to ensure 

the successful build-out and deployment of the public safety broadband network. 

Governors share concerns, however, regarding the mandated FirstNet State consultation process. NGA Center for Best Practices Homeland Security and Public 

Safety Division Director Jeff McLeod highlighted these concerns while appearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on June 21, 

2016, at a hearing entitled ‘‘FirstNet Oversight: An Update on the Status of the 

Public Safety Broadband Network.’’1 During his testimony, Director McLeod exVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:52 Sep 29, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17EP0214\17EP0214.TXT HEATH
42 

federal-relations/nga-testimony/hsps-testimony/col2-content/main-content-list/testimony-- 

firstnet.html. 2 National Governors Association, ‘‘Recommendations for Engaging States as Full Partners,’’ 

(November 7, 2016), available at: https://www.nga.org/ems/home/federal-relations/nga-letters/ 

homeland-security--public-safety/col2-content/main-content-list/firstnet-recommendations.html. 

plained that State officials have described FirstNet State engagement as largely focused on satisfying the statutory consultation requirement, rather than developing 

genuine partnerships. Further, State officials remain concerned that they are 

viewed as mere customers of an eventual National broadband network. 

Meaningful collaboration between FirstNet and States is paramount to ensuring 

the successful build-out of a Nation-wide network. NGA representatives delivered a 

list of recommendations to FirstNet officials last fall regarding ways to improve 

State engagement efforts.2 NGA officials will continue to encourage FirstNet officials to follow through on those recommendations. 

In Michigan, over the past year, State officials have been pleased to see a more 

concerted effort by FirstNet representatives to keep States informed and engaged 

in the build-out process through invitations to participate in State and association 

conferences, open dialogue between key FirstNet personnel at SPOC meetings, assistance with Tribal outreach and face-to-face consultation meetings with State public safety leadership. Michigan officials look forward to prompt action by FirstNet 

personnel following the recent court ruling to finalize the FirstNet contract award 

and deliver the plan for deployment of the Nation-wide Public Safety Broadband 

Network (NPSBN) in Michigan. 

Michigan officials are confident that the NPSBN for Michigan will meet identified 

objectives; however, it is concerning that 5 years following the enactment of the 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, the Federal Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration have 

not formally published the qualifications, procedure, and time line for review of the 

minimum technical interoperability requirements, and demonstrations of comparable security, coverage, quality of service, and cost-effectiveness of the Stateowned Radio Access Network in accordance with the Act in an opt-out scenario. 

QUESTION FROM RANKING MEMBER DONALD M. PAYNE, JR. FOR CHRIS A. KELENSKE

Question. Captain Kelenske, helping State and local governments build and maintain interoperable communications capabilities has been one of my biggest priorities 

since joining this subcommittee. The grant program that used to support that capability no longer exists and, as you noted, grant funding is not what it used to be. 

What can FEMA—working with the Office of Emergency Communications at DHS— 

do to help State and local first responders preserve and build upon the emergency 

communications capabilities they have built? 

Answer. Federal, State, and local governments have invested billions of dollars in 

improving emergency communication networks for first responders since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It is imperative for FEMA to continue to provide 

State and local governments the flexibility to allocate limited Federal grant funding 

to emergency communications based on each States’ unique needs. Moreover, as the 

FirstNet Nation-wide Public Safety Broadband Network is implemented, FEMA officials should remember that legacy land mobile radio systems will remain the primary tool for mission-critical voice for the next several years. The FirstNet Nationwide build-out will not immediately meet the needs of first responders. State officials must be given flexibility to utilize Federal grant funding to maintain and update existing radio systems, even as the public safety broadband network build-out 

is finalized. Supporting State and local decisions to apply Federal grant funding to 

existing radio systems will continue to ensure seamless communications in the event 

of a disaster or emergency. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE JAMES LANGEVIN FOR CHRIS A. KELENSKE

Question 1. When incorporating cybersecurity incident response into all-hazards 

planning, how do you currently work with FEMA? 

What Federal partners beyond FEMA do you work with in these efforts? 

Answer. Cybersecurity incidents are integrated into Michigan’s Disaster-Specific 

Procedures within the Michigan Emergency Management Plan (MEMP). This 

MEMP provides an organizational and operational framework for Michigan officials 

to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies, threats, or incidents that could adversely impact the State. The MEMP is consistent and compliant 

with the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and generally supports recommendations by FEMA. While a cyber incident may be the cause of an emergency 

43 

or disaster, State officials work with FEMA personnel regularly to plan for consequences from any event regardless of the cause. FEMA personnel provide technical assistance and courses to assist with these planning efforts to include development of continuity planning for cyber incidents. The State also benefits from assistance by FEMA personnel with the development of cyber incident exercises in Michigan. These exercises allow State officials to practice Michigan’s cyber disruption 

plan with all stakeholders including interaction and integration with Federal partners. Federal partners include, but are not limited to, the Department of Homeland 

Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Energy, Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US–CERT), Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis 

Center (MS–ISAC), Department of Defense and FEMA Region V. 

Question 2. How has the National Cyber Incident Response Plan changed your cybersecurity planning approach, if at all? 

Answer. In drafting the next revision of Michigan’s Cyber Emergency Response 

Plan, State officials will craft it to align with the National Cyber Incident Response 

Plan. State officials will also inform Security Operations Center activities based on 

best practices in the National Plan. 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR. FOR JOHN SINCLAIR

Question 1. What expectations do you have for the U.S. Fire Administration 

(USFA) over the next 10 years? 

Answer. The USFA will face a number of challenges over the next 10 years, especially if it must contend with a declining budget, as is expected. In addition, the 

environment facing the Nation’s fire and emergency service continues to change. 

For the next 10 years, I would recommend the following goals: 

• Improve and Sustain the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS).— 

The NFIRS plays an important role as a National warehouse of fire data. However, it is an old system and has trouble dealing with the DHS/FEMA IT architecture. In addition, it can be hard to compare the data in my department with 

data from a similarly-sized fire department. Also, concerns have been raised 

about its ease-of-use. 

As a 10-year goal, we would like to see NFIRS technology component modernized, 

so it operates better within the DHS/FEMA IT system. We also would like to see 

NFIRS develop a more intuitive system for entering data and a better ability for 

comparative fire data to be accessed from the system. 

• Develop New Courses at the National Fire Academy (NFA) to Address Emerging 

Issues.—The NFA is the Nation’s premier fire service educational institution 

and its training is developing a new generation of fire service leaders. As new 

issues emerge, the NFA should teach courses to address these issues. For example, my testimony highlighted the need for NFA to teach courses about information sharing and how to integrate this new discipline into a fire department’s 

mission. In addition, NFA could develop training to address other emerging 

issues, including how to address firefighter mental health issues; how to mitigate the threat of cancer; and how to foster a diverse workforce to address the 

changing demographics within the United States. 

• Address Emerging Fire and EMS Issues.—Over the next 10 years, the Nation’s 

fire and emergency service will have to address a number of important issues, 

where the USFA can provide leadership and guidance. As fire departments link 

to FirstNet, USFA can help fire chiefs and incident commanders integrate the 

large flow of new data and information into their standard operating procedures. As the population ages, USFA can help fire departments plan to serve 

older communities through new concepts in EMS, like community paramedicine. 

USFA also can help fire departments address personnel issues, like an aging 

population of volunteers, a more diverse workforce and group of constituents, 

and the need to recruit new volunteers. In addition, USFA will have to work 

with DHS and FEMA to develop training and policy guidance to help fire departments respond to emerging terror threats, much like it has developed guidance on responding to active-shooter incidents. 

Question 2. With respect to interoperable communications, your testimony highlighted the importance of FEMA’s engagement with the Office of Emergency Communications (OEC). At this committee’s urging FEMA signed a memorandum of understanding with the Office of Emergency Communications delineating roles and responsibilities for communications and grant expenditures. To your knowledge, has 

this MOU led to greater engagement of OEC by FEMA? 

Answer. The MOU has led to greater coordination between OEC and FEMA. However, there is currently no existing grant to specifically fund emergency communications interoperability, which has led to decreased investments in public safety comVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:52 Sep 29, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17EP0214\17EP0214.TXT HEATH
44 

munications. Communications is now one of hundreds of eligible investments for a 

diminished number of grants. 

The Interoperable Emergency Communications Program was a stand-alone grant 

that was authorized for $400 million a year and appropriated at $50 million. It focused on only interoperable communications. Having a dedicated grant for emergency communications will allow public safety to continue to support communications requirements. As you know, FirstNet, while providing public safety with much 

needed mission-critical broadband data, will not provide mission-critical voice communications. Land mobile radios will continue to be used daily by the fire and EMS 

departments as well as law enforcement for years to come. Section 6103 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act (Pub. L. 112–96) requires the FCC to reallocate public safety’s T-Band spectrum for commercial use, begin auctioning it by 

February 2021, and clear public safety from the band within 2 years after the auction closes. This will potentially create a homeland security risk and negatively impact interoperable communications in those metropolitan areas. 

Question 3. This month marks the fifth anniversary of the enactment of the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, which established the First Responder 

Network Authority (FirstNet) with the responsibility to develop and implement the 

Nation-wide public safety broadband network. Are you satisfied with FirstNet’s outreach to State and local first responders to get a true sense of user needs for the 

system? 

Answer. As a veteran fire chief, and as a firefighter who has responded to numerous large-scale events including natural disasters and wildland fires, I know firsthand the benefits that the FirstNet network stands to offer in terms of improving 

communications, coordination, and situational awareness during public safety operations. Just as smartphones have changed our personal lives, FirstNet devices and 

applications ultimately will change the way public safety operates. The ability for 

a single communications network to be used to dispatch EMS personnel, a medical 

helicopter, fire personnel, and other emergency responders from different jurisdictions all at the same time, while enabling video, text, and data communications at 

broadband speeds will save critical minutes when it matters most. 

As circumstances and technology continue to make our world smaller, situational 

awareness, real-time information, and data are critical to the safety of America’s fire 

and emergency service and the public we are sworn to protect. In terms of daily operations, America’s firefighters deal with an increasingly complex environment that 

requires ever-increasing amounts of information and data to keep citizens and themselves safe. The FirstNet network will make it possible to gain quick access to new 

tools and applications that provide location data and other vital information for firefighting. It will enable the exchange of real-time data and audio/video feeds on the 

fireground to assist incident commanders with operational decision making and 

maximize search-and-rescue and fire suppression effectiveness. 

FirstNet had an ambitious agenda in 2016 which included expanding outreach to 

involve more local-level first responders; collecting actionable information and feedback from Federal, State, and Tribal agencies; and preparing decision makers for 

State plan delivery in 2017. In 2016, FirstNet connected with more than 40,000 

stakeholders through outreach activities, including meetings at the IAFC’s annual 

conference, Fire-Rescue International, and many IAFC division conferences. 

One of the results of FirstNet’s efforts has been an increase in public safety’s 

awareness, understanding, and preparation for FirstNet. FirstNet has seen the 

types of questions and topics evolve from the basics—‘‘What is FirstNet?’’—to network operations and availability, such as ‘‘When will FirstNet be in my town?’’ ‘‘How 

will FirstNet provide coverage in the rural parts of my State?’’ ‘‘How much will it 

cost?’’ and ‘‘What types of devices and apps will I be able to use?’’ It is reassuring 

to see so many State and local public safety officials engaged in the process. Their 

input is invaluable as FirstNet moves from planning to implementation and further 

defining the answers to these questions. The Public Safety Advisory Committee 

(PSAC)—composed of representatives from public safety and State, territorial, local, 

and Tribal organizations—continues to provide FirstNet with expert advice on key 

network issues. 

This year will be critical for FirstNet. We are encouraged by the progress and 

partnerships we have seen at all levels of Government to prepare for full network 

deployment, which we expect to begin as soon as 2018. The IAFC Board of Directors 

issued a position statement in September, 2016, publicly endorsing and recognizing 

the importance of FirstNet. 

45 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER DONALD M. PAYNE, JR. FOR JOHN SINCLAIR

Question 1. Chief Sinclair, helping State and local governments build and maintain interoperable communications capabilities has been one of my biggest priorities 

since joining this subcommittee. The grant program that used to support that capability no longer exists and, as you noted, grant funding is not what it used to be. 

What can FEMA—working with the Office of Emergency Communications at DHS— 

do to help State and local first responders preserve and build upon the emergency 

communications capabilities they have built? 

Answer. As I have stated, and as your question recognizes, there is currently no 

existing grant to specifically fund emergency communications interoperability. This 

has led to decreased investments into public safety communications. Communications is now one of hundreds of eligible investments for a diminished number of 

grants. 

As you know, the Interoperable Emergency Communications Program was a 

stand-alone grant that was authorized for $400 million a year and appropriated at 

$50 million. Having a dedicated grant for emergency communications will allow 

public safety to continue to support communications requirements. A key point of 

which I believe many Members in Congress may not be aware is that FirstNet— 

while providing public safety much-needed mission-critical broadband data—will not 

provide mission-critical voice communications. Land mobile radios will continue to 

be used daily by the fire and emergency medical service as well as law enforcement 

for years to come. 

Both FEMA and OEC’s budgets are stretched and not having a grant program focused on interoperable communications makes the job that much harder. Over the 

last 5 fiscal years, OEC’s budget, for example, has been cut from approximately $44 

million a year to approximately $32 million a year. The Assuring a Safer America 

Through Effective Public Safety Communications (SAFECOM) program, a bottomup program between public safety and OEC, has had its in-person meetings cut 

from 4 to 2 meetings per year. Also, a proposed reorganization last year of the National Protection and Programs Directorate would have diminished OEC in visibility 

and importance. Public safety opposed this proposed diminution of the office. Everyone understands that there are other highly important issues, but being able to 

have an effective OEC is more critical than many recognize. As you know, while not 

perfect, mission-critical interoperable voice communications worked well during 

Hurricane Sandy as compared to wireless carriers’ networks. The gains that have 

been made over the years can easily be lost if a focus with resources and funding 

is not maintained. 

The OEC and FEMA can continue with their limited resources to be sure the message gets out to emergency responders. Many local responders are dealing with diminished budgets at the State, county, and local levels. SAFECOM has worked the 

National Association of State-wide Interoperability Coordinators, and coordinated 

with FEMA, to provide local responders with information and key documents on 

interoperability. Recently, for example, a SAFECOM presentation was provided to 

help State and local responders educate local officials about the budgeting needs for 

interoperable communications. 

To assist States in improving emergency communications capabilities, OEC, in 

partnership with the National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices, awarded 5 States the opportunity to participate in an NGA Policy Academy 

on Enhancing Emergency Communications Interoperability. The 5 States invited to 

participate were Alaska, Hawaii, Illinois, Utah, and West Virginia. The NGA believed that interoperable emergency communications are essential to effective public 

safety, response, and recovery operations in the wake of disasters. As the emergency 

communications landscape continues to evolve, first responders and public safety 

agencies are forced to rely on systems and equipment that are often incompatible 

with each other. With the continued use of Land Mobile Radio networks for the foreseeable future, as well as the build-out of the FirstNet network and development 

of Next Generation 9–1–1 (NG 9–1–1) systems, the need for enhanced interoperability is more critical than ever. 

Question 2. Chief Sinclair, FEMA administers both the Assistance to Firefighters 

Grants and the SAFER Grants. Funding for these important grant programs has 

been delayed repeatedly in past years because we have not adhered to a regular 

budget and appropriations schedule. Indeed, fiscal year 2017 money is on hold because we have not enacted full year appropriations yet. Can you talk about how 

these funding delays affect fire departments across the country? 

Answer. Representative Payne, you raise an important issue. In the mid-late 

2000s, the AFG application period would start in the spring, the SAFER application 

period would take place in the summer, and the Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) 

46 

grant application period would take place in the fall. Now that the DHS appropriations bills seem to be passing later in the fiscal year, it can be tough for FEMA to 

hold a criteria development meeting; draft and get approval for the grant guidance; 

hold the application process; hold the peer review and award the grants within that 

fiscal year. For example, FEMA has yet to start the application process for the fiscal 

year 2016 FP&S grants. 

This delay in the grant application processes can be a problem for local fire departments. They still have to meet their local budget deadlines. If the application 

process is not predictable, it can be tough for a fire department to budget for the 

local match required by the AFG, SAFER, and FP&S grants. It would be better if 

Congress were able to pass the DHS appropriations bills by October 1. Then FEMA 

could go back to starting the AFG application process in the spring, the SAFER application process in the summer, and the FP&S application process in the fall. 

(47) 

THE FUTURE OF FEMA: RECOMMENDATIONS 

OF FORMER ADMINISTRATORS 

Tuesday, February 28, 2017 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, 

RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 

HVC–210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Daniel M. Donovan, Jr. 

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Donovan, Rutherford, Garrett, Payne, 

Thompson, and Watson Coleman. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, 

Response, and Communications will come to order. The subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on the efforts necessary to ensure a strong and effective Federal Emergency Management Agency. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

Today’s hearing is the second in a series of hearings on the future of FEMA and an effort to help set the next administrator up 

for success. Earlier this month, the subcommittee received testimony from FEMA’s stakeholders to hear first-hand about the critical relationship between FEMA and first responders at the State 

and local level. 

FEMA’s success is directly related to the relationships the agency 

has with State and local partners to promote a culture of preparedness within communities. Part one of this series of hearings reinforced the need for an experienced emergency manager to lead 

FEMA. 

Today’s distinguished and weather-tested witnesses know better 

than anyone the significant transformation FEMA has made in 

achieving and maintaining National preparedness and response capabilities over the past 12 years. Both administrators were responsible for implementing about 350 individual requirements enacted 

by Congress in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform 

Act. 

With the tools Congress gave them, they took steps to ensure 

FEMA developed and implemented the complex National preparedness system made up of Federal, State, local, private, and non-profit emergency management partners. Significant resources have 

been invested at all levels of Government to reach the current level 

of National preparedness. 

48 

As we move forward, those in positions of authority have an obligation to build on the critical progress that has been made. This 

subcommittee has consistently followed FEMA’s progress. 

Without strong leadership in place, FEMA would not have 

achieved the level of transformation currently in place. The FEMA 

of 2005 is not the FEMA of 2017, and that is a very good thing. 

Looking to the future in working with FEMA, its stakeholders, 

and our colleagues in Congress, it is this subcommittee’s intention 

to ensure the FEMA of 2017 is continuing to make the United 

States safer and stronger. 

Those watching this hearing know that the threats to the United 

States continue to grow and evolve. Since our last meeting the 

number of major disasters declarations that were made this year 

have nearly doubled. 

We must ensure that the investments we make today will work 

to better address the threats and hazards we face tomorrow. 

Whether it is ensuring first responders have the necessary training 

to prevent a terrorist attack with mass casualties like we saw in 

San Bernardino, or notifying communities to prepare for the next 

Superstorm Sandy, FEMA must remain at the top of its game. 

We are fortunate to have Administrator Fugate and Administrator Paulison here with us this afternoon. We look forward to 

hearing their insights and lessons learned that can be shared with 

the next leader of FEMA. 

[The statement of Chairman Donovan follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL M. DONOVAN

FEBRUARY 28, 2017 

Today’s hearing is the second in a series of hearings on the future of FEMA and 

an effort to help set the next administrator up for success. Earlier this month, the 

subcommittee received testimony from FEMA’s stakeholders to hear first-hand 

about the critical relationship between FEMA and first responders at the State and 

local level. 

FEMA’s success is directly related to the relationships the agency has with State 

and local partners to promote a culture of preparedness within communities. Part 

one of this series of hearings reinforced the need for an experienced emergency manager to lead FEMA. 

Today’s distinguished and weather-tested witnesses know better than anyone the 

significant transformation FEMA has made in achieving and maintaining National 

preparedness and response capabilities over the past 12 years. Both administrators 

were responsible for implementing about 350 individual requirements enacted by 

Congress in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act. With the tools 

Congress gave them, they took steps to ensure FEMA developed and implemented 

the complex National Preparedness System made up of Federal, State, local, private, and non-profit emergency management partners. Significant resources have 

been invested at all levels of government to reach the current level of National preparedness. As we move forward, those in positions of authority have an obligation 

to build on the critical progress that has been made. 

This subcommittee has consistently followed FEMA’s progress. Without strong 

leadership in place, FEMA would not have achieved the level of transformation currently in place. The FEMA of 2005 is not the FEMA of 2017, and that is a very 

good thing. 

Looking to the future, and working with FEMA, its stakeholders, and our colleagues in Congress, it is this subcommittee’s intention to ensure the FEMA of 2027 

is continuing to make the United States safer and stronger. 

Those watching this hearing know that the threats to the United States continue 

to grow and evolve. Since our last hearing, the number of major disaster declarations this year has nearly doubled. We must ensure that the investments we make 

today will work to better address the threats and hazards we face tomorrow. Whether it is ensuring first responders have the necessary training to prevent a terrorist 

49 

attack with mass casualties, like we saw in San Bernardino, or notifying communities to prepare for the next Superstorm Sandy, FEMA must remain at the top of 

its game. 

We are fortunate to have Administrator Fugate and Administrator Paulison here 

with us this afternoon. We look forward to hearing their insights and lessons 

learned that can be shared with the next leader of FEMA. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

New Jersey, my friend, Mr. Payne, for an opening statement that 

he may have. 

Mr. PAYNE. Good afternoon. I would first like to thank Chairman 

Donovan for holding today’s hearing. I would also like to thank 

former Administrator Paulison and former Administrator Fugate 

for being here today, and I don’t ever remember such bigger smiles 

in our last few times in front of each other than now. I wonder 

why. You know. Also for being here today and subjecting themselves to a Congressional hearing even though after leaving Government. 

Earlier this month, the subcommittee asked various stakeholders 

to provide their insights on what FEMA is doing well and what 

issues the next FEMA administrator must address. 

I was pleased that in general the stakeholder community had 

positive things to say about how FEMA is carrying out its emergency preparedness mission and the manner in which it engages 

with its State, local, and non-Governmental partners before, during 

and after disaster strikes. Every witness that testified before the 

panel earlier this month identified FEMA’s continued engagement 

with the stakeholder community as its top priority. 

Although it is unclear to what degree, if at all, the new administration has engaged with State, local, and non-Governmental partners on issues related to disaster preparedness and response, I am 

hopeful FEMA’s outreach and coordination will continue once the 

administration has named a permanent FEMA administrator. I 

hope that the administration will name a permanent administrator 

soon. 

The witnesses also testified regarding the progress FEMA has 

made encouraging State and local governments to ensure that the 

unique needs of children and individuals with disabilities are integrated into emergency planning, training, and exercises. 

Save the Children in particular lauded FEMA’s efforts to tackle 

the challenges involved in ensuring that emergency plans are designed to accommodate children and express support for making 

Children’s Technical Expert a permanent position at FEMA. 

On the day of September 11 attacks, I was responsible for student transportation, essentially ensuring that 10,000 children made 

it home from school safely each day. On that day, my last student 

did not get home until 11:30 at night because of the attack. Now, 

we have made a lot of progress integrating children into disaster 

planning activities since then, but we must do better. 

As Save the Children pointed out earlier this month, 80 percent 

of the recommendations made by the National Commission on Children and Disasters in 2010 remain open. I commend Administrator 

Fugate for accepting the FEMA National Advisory Council’s recommendations to designate a children’s technical expert to ensure 

that children remain a priority in disaster preparedness, response, 

and recovery planning. 

50 

I hope to work with members of this panel to formally authorize 

FEMA’s children’s technical expert this Congress. Once again, I 

want to thank both of you for being here today and I look forward 

to your testimony. 

With that, I yield back. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Payne follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER DONALD M. PAYNE, JR. 

FEBRUARY 28, 2017 

Good morning. I would like to thank Chairman Donovan for holding today’s hearing. 

I would also like to thank former Administrator Paulison and former Administrator Fugate for being here today—and subjecting themselves to a Congressional 

hearing even after leaving Government. 

Earlier this month, this subcommittee asked various stakeholders to provide their 

insights on what FEMA is doing well and what issues the next FEMA administrator 

must address. 

I was pleased that, in general, the stakeholder community had positive things to 

say about how FEMA, under the Obama administration, carried out its emergency 

preparedness mission and engaged with its State, local, and non-Government partners before, during, and after disaster strikes. 

Each witness that testified before the panel earlier this month identified stakeholder engagement as a top priority for the incoming administration. 

I am hopeful that FEMA’s outreach and coordination will continue once a new administrator takes the helm at FEMA and that President Trump will act swiftly to 

nominate a new person with the wealth of experience that the past two administrators before us today had. 

Over the past month, we have seen infrastructure failure compound the impact 

of heavy rain at the Oroville Dam spillway and a spike in vandalism Jewish Cemeteries and harassment at Jewish Community Centers. 

At the same time, Federal support for emergency responders has become uncertain in light of President Trump’s politically-charged Executive Order that could 

render communities ineligible for certain DHS grants. 

First responders and their community partners need a steady hand at the helm 

of FEMA to provide guidance and clarity on how the administration’s policies will 

affect them. 

And the administration needs the expertise of a FEMA administrator who can ensure that any future infrastructure development proposals include adequate resiliency measures. 

I look forward to a new administrator carrying the torch on many of the important issues the previous administrators made progress in addressing. 

In particular, earlier this month, Save the Children lauded FEMA’s efforts to 

tackle the challenges involved in ensuring that emergency plans are designed to accommodate children and expressed support for making the ‘‘Children’s Technical Expert’’ a permanent position at FEMA. 

On the day of the September 11 attacks, I was responsible for student transportation, essentially ensuring that 10,000 children made it to and from school safely 

each day. 

On that day, my last student did not get home until 11:30 at night because of 

the attack. 

We have made a lot of progress integrating children into disaster planning activities since then, but we must do better. 

As Save the Children pointed out earlier this month, 80 percent of the recommendations made by the National Commission on Children and Disasters in 2010 

remain open. 

I commend Administrator Fugate for designating a ‘‘Children’s Technical Expert’’ 

to ensure that children remain a priority in disaster preparedness, response, and 

recovery planning. 

I hope to work with Members of this panel to formally authorize FEMA’s Children’s Technical Expert this Congress. 

I thank both of you for being here today, and yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The gentleman yields the remainder of his time. 

51 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson for any 

statement that he may have. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In the interests of waiting to hear our two former FEMA directors’ comments, I will put my statement in the record and just let me thank 

both of them for their years of service. I can tell from their looks 

they are in a better place. 

I yield back. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER BENNIE G. THOMPSON

FEBRUARY 28, 2017 

Good morning. I appreciate Chairman Donovan and Ranking Member Payne for 

holding today’s hearing so the committee can continue to examine FEMA. 

I would also like to thank Former Administrator Paulison and Former Administrator Fugate for being here today. 

At the outset, I would like to acknowledge the important contributions both 

Former Administrator Paulison and Former Administrator Fugate made toward restoring FEMA’s competence and reputation. 

I served as Ranking Member of the full committee when Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita devastated the Gulf Coast, and as Chairman as the long, protracted recovery 

process began. 

A little over a decade has passed, and I am proud to say that FEMA is not the 

same agency it was in late summer 2005. 

You both are to thank for that. 

Since Hurricane Katrina, we have seen improvements in how we integrate vulnerable populations into emergency plans, first responder interoperable communications capabilities, and proactive disaster response activities—from pre-positioning 

supplies to expedite disaster response, to establishing recovery doctrine to ensure 

that roles and responsibilities among Federal, State, local, and private-sector partners are clear. 

We reaped the benefit of the authorities set forth in the Post-Katrina Emergency 

Management Reform Act following Hurricane Sandy in 2012, but the aftermath of 

this devastating storm illustrated that challenges still remained. 

Congress—working with FEMA—passed the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, 

which gave FEMA flexibility to expedite aide and hazard mitigation to disaster survivors, among other things. 

The important progress FEMA has made in carrying out its mission since Hurricane Katrina demonstrates the good that can come of a positive relationship between Congress and FEMA. 

Despite the well-documented progress FEMA has made since 2006, there are still 

challenges that undermine FEMA’s ability to carry out its mission. 

FEMA’s workforce morale problems are well-documented. 

In the past, I have expressed concern regarding the state of FEMA’s disaster 

workforce with respect to both its training and size. 

The last time Administrator Fugate testified before this subcommittee in October 

2015, I asked whether our reserve workforce was as robust as it would need to be 

to respond to a disaster the scale of Hurricane Katrina. 

At the time, Administrator Fugate candidly told the subcommittee that ‘‘We’re not 

there,’’ because of changes to the disaster workforce program, limited deployment 

and training opportunities, and limited retention mechanisms. 

I am interested in understanding what progress FEMA has made in bolstering its 

disaster workforce since 2015 and how Congress can help FEMA continue that 

progress. 

I also share concerns Administrator Fugate has expressed in his written testimony regarding the politicization of disasters and the impact of the irregular budget 

and appropriations cycle. 

As we speak, it is unclear who will be able to receive grant funds under the President’s ‘‘sanctuary cities’’ Executive Order, and the Federal Government is operating 

under a continuing resolution until at least April 28. 

This kind of uncertainty and unpredictability undermine progress, and I will be 

interested in hearing our witness’ thoughts on how to address these troubling 

issues. 

52 

Once again, I thank the witnesses for being here today, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Sure. The gentleman yields back. Other Members 

of the committee are reminded that opening statements may be 

submitted for the record. 

We are pleased to have very distinguished members of the panel 

today before us on this very important topic. Craig Fugate served 

as the administrator of FEMA from May 2009 to January 2017. 

Prior to leading FEMA he served as director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management. During this time, he served as the 

Florida State coordinating officer for 11 Presidentially-declared disasters, including the management of $4.5 billion in Federal disaster assistance. 

Administrator Fugate began his emergency management career 

as a volunteer firefighter, paramedic, and a lieutenant with the 

Alachua County Fire Rescue. Craig, they put it in phonetic spelling 

for me. 

David Paulison served as the administrator of FEMA from September 2005 to January 2009. He served as administrator of the 

United States Fire Administration from 2001 to 2005. During this 

time he also served as the director of preparedness at FEMA from 

2003 to 2004. 

Additionally, he spent 30 years in the fire service and 9 years as 

fire chief of Miami Dade County, Florida where his responsibilities 

included the Office of Emergency Management and the Urban 

Search and Rescue team. 

The witnesses’ full written statements will appear in the record. 

I thank you both for attending today and for the input you will 

have to further this agency to better protect our country. 

The Chair now recognizes Administrator Fugate for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF W. CRAIG FUGATE, FORMER ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. FUGATE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Members. 

I always thought I was smiling at our hearings. I always thought 

we had good conversations, even when I was in a bit of a hot seat, 

but I always enjoyed it. 

Mr. Chairman, you said I think something that is important. 

What are the things that we are currently doing or not doing that 

we need to codify in legislation? So I want to start off with where 

we began with the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform 

Act. 

A lot of people define FEMA by the Stafford Act, and I think that 

is short-sighted. The real authorization of FEMA came out of the 

Homeland Security Act as amended, and first of all, required that 

that FEMA administrator be a professional, have that background. 

This is not a good job to do on-the-job-training. It is too brutal and 

the citizens deserve better. 

The second thing was it is all-hazards. Most people think of 

FEMA when you get a declared disaster from the Stafford Act. Yet 

in my time at FEMA, we supported the USAID’s response to Haiti. 

We supported border and custom protection with unaccompanied 

53 

children across the Southwest Border. We supported the Center for 

Disease Control during the Ebola outbreak. 

These were all capabilities that were enabled and authorized by 

that act that FEMA can serve as the crisis manager for the Federal 

Government, not just in support to States and local governments 

during disasters. 

So that is one of the things we have learned is you have invested 

a lot of money in the organization. We don’t always make utilization of it because we define it by natural hazards instead of disasters and crisis management require certain skill sets that unless 

you are doing it frequently, you are not always proficient at it. 

So in looking at some of the ways that FEMA was used to support other agencies, this is not about putting FEMA in charge. It 

is about FEMA and its support role to either a State or a Tribal 

executive or to a lead Federal agency. Has a lot of capabilities, and 

I think we, in times of cutting budgets and looking at how to get 

better efficiencies, we should not overlook the fact that FEMA 

should not be defined by the Stafford Act. 

It should be defined by the all-hazards mission as a support 

agency to either the Governors or Tribal executives when they request assistance, or Federal agencies who may have a lead in a disaster, but may not always have the immediate staffing required to 

manage that in the onset. 

The second thing I wanted to—other than Post-Katrina Reform 

Act—is what we were doing at FEMA, and I think you kind-of 

mentioned it in looking at various constituency groups was really 

emphasizing something we called the whole of community, but it 

is short-hand for this. 

We need to plan for the communities we live in, not what fits our 

plan. If you have to write in the index because you have elderly 

folks that you can’t meet through your plan, if you have children 

and you got to write in the index for the children because you don’t 

plan for children in your shelters, if you have to write in the index 

for people with disabilities because they cannot get your emergency 

communication because you are not anticipating that there may be 

deaf or hard-of-hearing or visually-impaired people, if you are assuming everybody has got a car and can drive, then who did you 

really plan for? 

So we tried to change our doctrine, move to this idea that we 

should be planning for the communities we live in, not what fits 

our plan. 

So Ranking Member Payne, I very strongly support and I have 

talked to the, you know, the Save the Children. By practice we 

have a child advocate because sometimes I think in FEMA you got 

to shine a light on problems to keep visibility on it because it is 

not something that is in the DNA yet. I would strongly support 

moving that from something we were doing to something that Congress agrees with and would direct. 

But it really comes back to this idea that there are some basic 

principles that get us in trouble. If you go back to Hurricane Andrew, you go back to Katrina, you know, we always like to talk 

about individuals. I don’t think it was individuals. Here is what 

really happened. 

54 

We as a Nation, State and local governments made a decision to 

plan for what we were capable of doing or what we were willing 

to spend money on, and then hope it was never any worse and that 

our systems would scale up. And they don’t. 

You have to plan what can happen. That is not always going to 

be based upon your history or your experiences. So we at FEMA 

began changing the discussion to not what we are used to doing or 

what we are capable of doing, but planning against things that can 

happen. 

Planning for the communities we live in, not what fits our plan, 

and moving us out of our comfort zone. At that whole time at 

FEMA, we didn’t come to you and say we need new money. It was 

about utilizing our resources against problems and recognizing that 

Government-centric solutions may not always be the answer. 

You have to give a seat to the table for your NGO’s and volunteers, but also the private sector who too oftentimes are kept at 

arm’s length in our planning. In many cases we have greater issues 

with bringing the private sector in than we do with separation of 

church and State. 

So basically we have to plan for what can happen, not what we 

can afford. It doesn’t always mean more Federal dollars. It means 

more inclusion of all of our community resources. The most important thing is we should never make our community fit our plans. 

Our plans should be inclusive, not exclusive to the citizens who we 

serve. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fugate follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF W. CRAIG FUGATE

FEBRUARY 28, 2017 

Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and distinguished Members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today as you continue your work to provide recommendations to the next administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

I had the honor of being selected by President Obama to lead FEMA and served 

as the Agency’s administrator from May 19, 2009, until January 20, 2017. Immediately before my time at FEMA, I served as director of the State of Florida’s division of emergency management for former Governors Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist, 

from 2001 until 2009. Prior to that, I served in various emergency management and 

first-responder roles at the local and county government level in Florida. 

Having watched your February 14 hearing with State, local, and non-profit stakeholders providing their recommendations to the next administrator, I generally 

agree with what the witnesses had to say. 

My testimony today is going to focus on some larger issues that I believe the incoming administrator must be aware of in order to succeed: Protecting the Agency’s 

authorities; ensuring adequate funding for Federal disaster relief; preserving the 

commitment of the Federal Government in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 

and Emergency Assistance Act to States and Tribes; and ensuring that the Federal 

Government is properly investing in resilience and not subsidizing risky behavior. 

First and foremost, emergency management should never be partisan, but disasters will always get politicized. As we have seen time and again, disaster strikes 

regardless of political affiliation. It is the job of emergency managers at all levels 

of government—State, local, Tribal, territorial, and Federal—to work with the whole 

community to successfully manage the consequences of any disaster or hazard 

event. 

It’s vitally important that the new leadership team at FEMA understands the 

unique relationship of FEMA during times of crisis in support of States and Tribes, 

at the direction of the President and per the Stafford Act. Additionally, the FEMA 

administrator has a unique operational relationsip among Department of Homeland 

55 

Security (DHS) components to report directly to the President during times of crisis, 

as Congress mandated in the Homeland Security Act as amended by the PostKatrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PK–EMRA, Pub. L. 109–295). 

Despite its primary responsibility to Governors and Tribal leaders who can request Federal assistance from the President, the agency is wholly reliant on the 

Congress for its authorities and appropriations. I cannot speak for my predecessors, 

but FEMA was relatively effective during my term as administrator when it came 

to Congressional engagement and successful when there was a need for legislative 

action. I’d encourage my successor and his or her leadership team to continue that 

relationship with the Congress in good faith. 

In my time at FEMA, there was not a single year when FEMA operated under 

an on-time appropriation. That year-to-year instability—while consistent—makes 

running the organization more challenging. 

When Chief Paulison was tapped to lead the agency in 2005, it was in the days 

immediately following Katrina’s impact along the Gulf Coast and there were clear 

failures at all levels of Government in the response to that event. In the aftermath 

of Katrina, Congress conducted vigorous oversight of the Federal Government’s response to Katrina. 

The outcome of this oversight was PKEMRA. It was landmark legislation drafted, 

debated, and ultimately enacted, out of frustration with FEMA’s performance in response to Hurricane Katrina. 

Congress designed PKEMRA to support and strengthen FEMA, and its sweeping 

restructuring requirements benefited the agency greatly. Today, FEMA has the authority and the autonomy it needs to assist communities as they prepare for, protect 

against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate against all potential hazards. 

In 2005 when Katrina struck, FEMA was no longer an autonomous agency. As 

a part of the 2-year-old Department of Homeland Security, FEMA’s programs were 

split apart. Most of its disaster assistance activities were inside DHS’ Emergency 

Preparedness and Response Directorate (EP&R) while FEMA’s other programs were 

siloed elsewhere throughout the Department. 

Congress used PKEMRA to permanently restructure FEMA’s functions back 

under a single operating component to improve the Federal function of emergency 

management. 

PKEMRA required FEMA to be a distinct entity and prohibited—by statute—any 

future changes to FEMA’s mission by the Department. The law also returned the 

Preparedness Directorate to FEMA, including the Fire Administration, and the programs under the Office of Grants and Training. 

Congress also made permanent changes to FEMA leadership. PKEMRA mandates 

that to hold the position of FEMA Administrator, certain qualifications and experience are necessary (6 U.S.C. § 313(c)2). In addition, PKEMRA ensures that the 

FEMA administrator is the principal advisor to the President on all matters relating 

to emergency management that the administrator is assured a seat in the Cabinet, 

as required (6 U.S.C. § 313(c)4 and 6 U.S.C. § 313(c)5). 

PKEMRA was enacted just 13 months after Katrina made landfall. It was under 

Chief Paulison’s leadership that the agency began the tasks necessary to rebuild the 

agency. 

Unfortunately, as recently as last year, there were attempts to undermine the 

protections Congress provided FEMA in PKEMRA when the full House Homeland 

Security Committee advanced ‘‘Unity of Effort’’ legislation with the intent of giving 

the Secretary of Homeland Security more control over the various operating components of the Department. 

While some language was ultimately added to preserve the PKEMRA protections 

in the language that was added to the National Defense Authorization Act, future 

agency leadership should be aware that there are still efforts in Congress and at 

the Department that would hinder FEMA’s abilities to effectively respond, especially 

to a catastrophic event such as a Cascadia Subduction Zone or New Madrid earthquake. 

The other great challenge that the agency faces in the coming years is budgetary. 

Following the enactment of the Budget Control Act (BCA), FEMA became an extremely lean operation; outside of the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), there’s not much 

fat left to trim. We took sequestration seriously and looked at ways to maximize organizational efficiencies without sacrificing the agency’s mission essential functions. 

As for the DRF, the BCA was actually a short-term boon. Prior to BCA, the DRF 

had been inadequately funded through the regular appropriations process. Instead, 

the agency relied on supplemental appropriations bills to be quickly enacted in the 

wake of significant events to replenish the DRF and fund recovery from emergencies 

and disasters. 

56 

In 2011, as the agency was responding to Hurricanes Irene and Lee, the balance 

in the DRF got so low that the agency implemented ‘‘immediate needs funding’’ 

(INF), meaning States and locals that were expecting FEMA funds to pay for recovery work stopped receiving Federal dollars. The agency had barely enough money 

to pay for on-going response activities and had to stop funding recovery in communities all across the Nation. 

Appropriators knew that INF was a potential problem and the situation led to a 

formula being included in the Budget Control Act that would provide more stable 

and significant funding to the Agency based on a rolling 10-year average of disaster 

response and recovery costs. 

This worked well for several years, but once the years that included Katrina, Rita, 

and Wilma dropped off the formula’s average, the annual appropriation for the DRF 

ratcheted down. 

At the end of fiscal year 2016, the agency successfully managed response and recovery spending to the point that—even with Hurricane Matthew bearing down on 

the southeastern United States—FEMA still had adequate funds to get through the 

fiscal year appropriation under which the Federal Government was operating without the need for a supplemental appropriation expressly for the DRF. 

At the close of fiscal year 2016, there was less than $100 million in the portion 

of the DRF set aside for major disasters. To put that in perspective, FEMA spent 

$1 billion in the first month following Sandy’s landfall, so $100 million would not 

have lasted long had there been another significant disaster in addition to Matthew 

prior to the expiration of the fiscal year. 

In the Budget Control Act framework, Congress designed a fail-safe for supplemental disaster spending that would count toward the DRF’s formula and then another fail-safe for ‘‘emergency’’ spending beyond the disaster space that would not 

count toward the DRF formula, but the subcommittee is likely very aware of the 

difficulty to pass any appropriations measure in regular order. 

Following Sandy, the 112th Congress adjourned after its disaster supplemental 

attempt was blocked. It took the newly-installed 113th Congress 3 weeks to pass 

a supplemental to replenish the DRF. While FEMA had the resources needed to continue with response and recovery operations, there were many Federal departments 

an agencies with disaster-related recovery needs that were left unfinished while 

needed funds were debated and ultimately appropriated by the Congress. 

Congress must re-evaluate the formula that drives the DRF’s annual appropriation as well as the potential budgetary space beyond the appropriation for disaster 

supplementals, and then the space for ‘‘emergency’’ supplementals beyond the disaster supplemental space. 

This disaster supplemental space also became an area of contention during the 

last few years as the House Natural Resources Committee looked for ways to fund 

wildfire suppression on Federal lands for the Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

and the Department of the Interior (DOI). 

Congress must not amend the Stafford Act to provide a Presidential declaration 

for an event that would give a Federal department or agency access to the Disaster 

Relief Fund or the disaster budget space to meet their own mission. Congress established the Stafford Act framework of Federal assistance expressly to support State, 

local, Tribal, and territorial governments, not to serve as a backstop for legislative 

gridlock preventing an appropriations and budgeting solution to challenges that 

other Federal entities may face. 

In November 2016, the Obama administration proposed a legislative fix that 

would have solved the issues that USDA, DOI, and DHS/FEMA all faced, but Congress did not act on the proposal given the reluctance to amend the Budget Control 

Act. 

It is imperative that this issue is dealt with soon, otherwise you and your colleagues will again be forced to debate supplemental disaster appropriations bills on 

a recurring basis, all while FEMA’s ability to respond and recover is hindered. 

This leads to the issue of the Federal Government subsidizing risky behavior that 

ultimately drives the need for increased spending for disaster relief. It does so with 

significant Federal investment in infrastructure that is not built with resilience in 

mind—the ability for it to quickly recover from known and predictable hazards— 

and the Congress enables it via the statutorily-mandated National Flood Insurance 

Program (NFIP). 

Whether this administration and Congress want to chalk it up to climate change 

or not, the Federal Government is spending billions of dollars annually to deal with 

the effects of extreme weather and not nearly enough to combat future risk. I’ve included for the record an op-ed published in The Hill on January 30, 2017 which 

highlights a few of the many significant examples. 

57 

The solution is easy: Factor in building for resilience on the front-end of these 

Federal investments. There’s a four-to-one benefit cost to the taxpayer and the outcome is that disaster relief spending should ultimately be reduced in the out years 

because it costs significantly less to fund recovery for resilient construction following 

a disaster. 

As for the NFIP, the Congress tried to charge all policy holders rates that reflect 

their true risk of flooding with the passage of Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. It then repealed those changes less than 2 years later when interest groups waged a campaign alleging wide-spread premium increases of tens of 

thousands of dollars. 

While there were a handful of policy holders who may have legitimately seen very 

high premiums, it was because their properties were in extremely high-risk areas. 

The Federal Government has been subsidizing that risk and incentivizing future 

risk in areas we know will be impacted by extreme weather and sea-level rise. 

Another difficult conversation that the Congress must have about risk subsidization regards the affordability of the NFIP for its policyholders. When the Congress 

established the NFIP, it did so to create a risk backstop for the mortgage industry; 

it was not looking at future development or the fact that the Federal Government 

was going to be running an insurance company for a pool of high-risk policy holders. 

While the NFIP has many policy holders who can afford to live in high-risk areas 

in desirable coastal communities, there are many other policy holders who live in 

or near floodplains because they are lower income and that is where affordable 

housing is located inland. 

The NFIP must be reauthorized by the end of fiscal year and I hope that the committees with jurisdiction over the program will take into consideration the findings 

of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine—which Congress 

commissioned to study the matter to better inform the Congress on premium affordability—ahead of the next major reauthorization. 

The FEMA team today is fully aware of past shortcomings, current challenges, 

and is continually assessing itself and making improvements. 

The agency’s mission is 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. That 

serves as a guide to the entire staff on any given day and should also provide focus 

to the next administrator. 

Further, it’s important that the incoming administrator not get bogged down in 

bureaucracy. My parting advice for the FEMA team was to continue going big, going 

early, going fast, and being smart about it. The agency currently has the authorities 

and resources needed for success, but they are both in jeopardy. It is vitally important for the next administrator to continue building upon the strides the agency has 

made since Katrina and working with Congress to ensure authority and funding are 

not diminished. 

Challenges in emergency management are a constant. Also, failure is not an option and is not well-received by the American public; we’ve seen time and again how 

failures related to Federal emergency management contribute to or even establish 

a narrative of ineffective leadership of a President. The next FEMA leadership team 

must continue leaning forward, pushing the agency to improve outcomes for disaster 

survivors, planning and training for the unimaginable, and enhancing the capabilities of the whole community that is essential to successfully accomplishing the 

emergency management mission. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Fugate. 

Before I ask Mr. Paulison for his opening statement to let you 

know this committee is not about wasting people’s time. All of the 

testimony that we gather here and what we gathered in the first 

hearing will be compiled in some type of report that we will give 

to the new administrator so that they are aware, she or he are 

aware of your recommendations and give them a starting point. So 

I thank you for your input. 

The Chair now recognizes Administrator Paulison for 5 minutes. 

58 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT DAVID PAULISON, FORMER ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. PAULISON. Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne and 

the distinguished Members of the panel, I want to thank you for 

holding this hearing. It is very important for us for the future of 

FEMA, and so I thank you for the opportunity to allow me just to 

share some of my ideas and hopefully assist in the goals of this 

committee. 

Some of my ideas may be controversial, but I wish this panel 

would hear them out and consider those, because I have over 40 

years of experience dealing with natural disasters at the Federal, 

State, and local levels. I have a very deep appreciation of our tremendous service of our Nation’s first responders and our emergency management officials. 

This has really given me a unique understanding of the inherent 

problems of our Nation’s disaster preparedness and response system, how we can better positon FEMA to respond when disaster 

strikes. This understanding is largely influenced by my experience 

first-hand in the aftermath of multiple catastrophic disasters. I 

clearly remember the devastation of both Hurricane Andrew in 

1992 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005. 

It is through this lens that I sit here today to tell you that the 

United States must reform its disaster spending model to save lives 

and property, and I think the first step we must take is consolidating disaster spending under FEMA. 

Following the Presidential disaster declaration, FEMA and a 

vast array of other agencies are engaged to distribute Federal relief 

funds. In the case of Hurricane Sandy, there were over 19 different 

agencies involved, and not only was this response fragmented and 

confusing for the disaster-stricken communities I work with, but it 

was also highly ineffective. 

To fix this, my recommendation is to give the FEMA administrator control over disaster response spending. FEMA now uses the 

cost/benefit analysis, which is a strict numerical assessment, to determine where the benefits of a project are sufficient to justify the 

cost in implementing it. 

If we consolidate the disaster spending through FEMA that will 

significantly reduce our post-disaster waste. But I think more importantly than that is stopping the damage and loss of life in the 

first place. 

Natural disasters are rapidly increasing in frequency and severity. Between 1996 and 2005 there were on average only 39 disaster 

declarations a year. That number has more than tripled now in the 

last two decades, and now we average over 121 declared disasters 

a year. 

These disasters come at an enormous price tag. Since 1980, the 

United States has been struck by over 200 natural disasters that 

cost more than $1 billion a year each. The cost of these events has 

now been over $1 trillion we have spent just since 1980. The taxpayers are on the hook for these expenses that we repeatedly put 

more and more exorbitant disaster recovery stuff. 

As American lives continue to be put on the line and Federal disaster spending skyrockets, United States needs to assess what we 

59 

can do before the disaster strikes. Adoption and enforcement of 

model State-wide building codes is an essential step in this process. 

In fact, a study conducted by the LSU Hurricane Center estimated that model codes would have reduced wind damage by Hurricane Katrina by over 80 percent, as well as saved over $8 billion 

just by having model building codes in place. 

So instead of spending money on the front end to improve resiliency of structures, preventing the monumental damage I witnessed during my career, the United States continues to build insufficient codes that leave our communities vulnerable to future 

disasters. This result is an unnecessary loss of life and an incredible destruction. That is why I strongly believe that the United 

States must balance its broken disaster spending model. 

I also believe that when you can begin leveraging our cost-saving 

power or pre-disaster mitigation by shifting significant Federal resources from post-disaster reactive and wasteful spending to preventive mitigation that will bend the runaway Federal cost curve 

for disasters. 

The Federal level shift toward pre-disaster mitigation must be 

supported by a corresponding shift at the State level. This can be 

accomplished by creating a couple programs to incentivize the 

States to do a better a job at their level. 

We need to create a post-disaster hazard mitigation grant, and 

I recommend that we give those States 4 extra percentage points 

on the post-disaster side to put the model building codes in place 

to better fortify their facilities. 

I also believe that the 75 percent minimum cost share that we 

use right now should be broken down into two parts. One to giving 

80 percent to those departments or those States to put into model 

building codes and do the pre-disaster mitigation efforts that 

FEMA recommends. The States that don’t do that, the States that 

don’t put those model building codes in place and don’t prepare 

their States like they should, we reduce their cost by 15 percent. 

Now make it clear, I am not advocating we stop assisting communities in following a disaster. That is a vital act of our community and what we should be doing. However, we need to be smarter 

about allocation of existing finite resources, and these policy proposals will mitigate overall damage which will lead to a decrease 

in loss of life and save the taxpayer dollars at the same time. 

As you work together with the Trump administration with our 

new infrastructure package coming out, I urge you to look at these 

recommendations very carefully. If we are going to rebuild our 

country, we need to make sure we put these proposals in place. 

Thank you for this opportunity and I will be glad to answer any 

questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Paulison follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT DAVID PAULISON

FEBRUARY 28, 2017 

Chairman Donovan, Ranking Member Payne, and distinguished Members of the 

committee, I would like to thank you for holding this important hearing today regarding the future of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). I am 

grateful for the leadership of the Chairman and the Ranking Member for the opportunity to share my expertise and assist with the goals of this committee. 

60 

I have over 40 years of experience dealing with natural disasters at the Federal, 

State, and local levels. During my career, I served as administrator of FEMA from 

2005 to 2009, administrator of the U.S. Fire Administration from 2001 to 2005, director of preparedness at FEMA from 2003 to 2004, and fire chief of the MiamiDade Fire and Rescue Department from 1992 to 2001. I spent the 21 years prior 

to that rising through the ranks of the Miami-Dade Fire Department, beginning my 

career as a rescue firefighter in 1971. I have a deep appreciation for the tremendous 

service of our Nation’s first responders and emergency management officials. I also 

have a unique understanding of the inherent problems with our Nation’s disaster 

preparedness and response system and how we can better position FEMA to respond when a disaster strikes. 

This understanding was largely influenced by experiencing first-hand the aftermath of multiple category 5 hurricanes. I remember the devastation of both Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005. One of the many things that 

stands out in my mind following these experiences was walking down the street and 

finding that where once stood a home was now only a concrete slab. This continued 

down the street—slab after slab, on and on. It was only every now and then that 

we would come across a home still standing. 

It is through this lens that I sit here today to tell you that the United States must 

reform its disaster spending model to save lives and property. The first step we 

must take is: 

1. CONSOLIDATING DISASTER SPENDING ADMINISTRATION UNDER FEMA

Following a Presidential Disaster Declaration, FEMA and a vast array of other 

agencies are engaged to distribute Federal relief funds. In the case of Hurricane 

Sandy, there were 19 different agencies involved. Not only was this response fragmented and confusing for the disaster-stricken communities I’ve worked with, it is 

also wasteful and ineffective. To fix this, the United States should give FEMA administrative control over all disaster response. FEMA uses a Cost-Benefit Analysis 

(CBA), a strict numerical assessment to determine whether the benefits of a project 

are sufficient to justify the cost of implementing it. Consolidating disaster spending 

administration under FEMA (thus requiring a BCA for all disaster spending) would 

significantly reduce post-disaster waste. 

Even more important is preventing the damage and loss of life in the first place. 

Natural disasters are rapidly increasing in frequency and severity. Between 1976 

and 1995, there were, on average, 39 major disaster declarations annually. This 

number more than tripled over the next two decades, rising to a startling annual 

average of 121 disasters. 

And these disasters come with an enormous price tag. Since 1980, the United 

States has been struck by 203 natural disasters costing more than 1 billion dollars 

each. The total cost of these events is over $1.1 trillion. 

And taxpayers have been put on the hook to repeatedly foot more and more of 

this exorbitant disaster recovery bill. The percentage of post-disaster recovery paid 

by taxpayer dollars has increased from 5 percent in 1955 to 50 percent in 2005 all 

the way to 80 percent in 2012. 

As American lives continue to be put on the line and Federal disaster spending 

skyrockets, the United States needs to assess what the we can do before disasters 

strike. 

Research has repeatedly demonstrated the life and cost-saving power of pre-disaster mitigation. Studies have shown that every $1 invested proactively pre-disaster 

saves $4 or more on post-disaster recovery. 

Adoption and enforcement of model State-wide building codes is an essential step 

in this process. In fact, a study conducted by the LSU Hurricane Center estimated 

that model codes would have reduced wind damage from Hurricane Katrina by 80 

percent, saving countless lives as well as $8 billion. Having witnessed the devastation from Hurricane Katrina first-hand, this research hits home for me. 

Today, FEMA has a program in place that leverages the power of pre-disaster 

mitigation. FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grant Program helps States and 

communities fortify homes and structures before the next disaster. However, the 

PDM is vastly underutilized. In fact, in recent years, the United States has spent 

over $14 on post-disaster mitigation for every dollar it invested in pre-disaster preparation. 

Instead of spending money on the front end to improve resiliency in structures, 

preventing the monumental damaged I witnessed during my time as FEMA administrator, the United States continues to build to insufficient codes that leave our 

communities vulnerable to future natural disasters. This results in the unnecessary 

loss of life and incredible destruction I witnessed during my time working in emerVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:52 Sep 29, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17EP0214\17EP0214.TXT HEATH
61 

gency management. This is why I strongly believe that the United States must balance its broken disaster spending model. Our Nation can accomplish this via: 

2. ENHANCED PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION FUNDING

Leveraging the cost-saving power of pre-disaster mitigation (remember: $1 dollar in prevention saves $4 in losses) by shifting significant Federal resources from postdisaster, reactive, and wasteful spending to preventative mitigation spending that 

will bend the runaway Federal cost curve on disasters. The FEMA PDM program 

would receive a new, automatic funding formula enhancement via an automatic 

mitigation surcharge from the Disaster Relief Fund to the Pre-Disaster Mitigation 

grant program. There should also be explicit statutory clarification in the PDM program of eligibility for building code development and enforcement. 

This Federal-level shift toward pre-disaster mitigation must be supported by a 

corresponding shift at the State level. This can be accomplished by: 

3. CREATING TWO PROGRAMS TO INCENTIVIZE STATES TO INVEST PRE-DISASTER

a. Establishing a Post-Disaster Mitigation Incentive.—Creating a Post-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Federal incentive of 4 percent extra funding for 

States who have FEMA-qualified State-wide building codes in place. There 

should also be explicit statutory clarification in the HMGP program of eligibility 

for building code development and enforcement. 

b. Reforming the Federal Disaster Minimum Cost Share.—Instead of the flat 75 percent minimum Federal cost share post-disaster, the Federal Government should 

break post-disaster relief funding into two tiers. In tier one should be States 

that implemented FEMA-approved pre-disaster mitigation actions, including 

State-wide model building code adoption and enforcement. These States should 

be provided with an additional 5 percent in post-disaster relief funding. In tier 

2 should be States that left their residents and structures vulnerable and failed 

to engage in proactive activities. These States should receive 15 percent less 

Federal funding post-disaster. 

To be clear, I am not advocating that we stop assisting communities in need following a disaster. It is a vital act of public service in our country. However, we need 

to be smarter about the allocation of our existing, finite resources. These policy proposals would mitigate overall damage, which would lead to a decrease in loss of life 

and save taxpayer dollars. 

As the Trump administration and Congress embark on the critical task of rebuilding America’s infrastructure, taking steps to fix our broken disaster spending model 

is more important than ever. While the appropriate representatives work to create 

that plan, Congress should insist on reforms to Federal disaster spending that put 

pre-disaster mitigation at the forefront and position FEMA on the edge of the effort 

to rebuild our infrastructure in a way that is fortified against natural disasters. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here and testify before you today. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Paulison. I am going to recognize 

myself now for questions. Through the rules of the committee, we 

will go back and forth according to seniority for those who were in 

attendance at the start of the hearing, and then continue with 

those who have come afterward. 

We are a law-making body, and many times Congress will tell 

the folks who have to implement what we pass what they need. I 

was always a believer in asking you what it is that you need so 

that we then can pass the legislation that makes your job easier, 

more efficient, allows you to protect our citizens and our lands better. 

So what I would like to ask each of you, aside from your testimony, is what would you have liked to have seen when you were 

in office, when you were the administrator of FEMA? What would 

you have liked Congress to have passed so that you could accomplish the goals that you set out as your responsibility of protecting 

our Nation from either terrorist attacks or natural disasters? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, Mr. Chairman, to be honest with you, much 

of what, even what Dave proposed, is actually within the adminisVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:52 Sep 29, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17EP0214\17EP0214.TXT HEATH
62 

tration’s authority. The only thing that is not in the authority 

would be to reduce the cost share below 75 percent in the Stafford 

Act because the law says not less than 75 percent. 

But in many ways the Post-Katrina Reform Act and then the 

Sandy Recovery Improvement Act gives the administration broad 

authorities to execute the mission. But I did have technical issues. 

Again, this committee, the House was very supportive of fixing 

some technical glitches with our USAR teams to get them some authorities they needed. 

One of the things I am still wrestling with was as I was walking 

out the door was in our reserve work force. We run about 5,000, 

usually less than that, permanent work force. The majority of people that you see out in disasters are temporary hires. 

They are people that—no, it is not temporary hires. They are 

called itinerant. But what they are is they are a reserve to FEMA. 

They work when we have disasters. We bring them in, we train 

them, we equip them. Then there is really no cycle other than disaster work to get called up and deployed. 

It turns out those people are oftentimes the most experienced, 

best trained people we have. Yet when we go to post a position, because they are not considered career, they have no status. As we 

post these positions for permanent positions, you would think this 

would be a very diverse, well-educated, well-trained group to recruit from. In many cases they don’t even make the certification 

list when we hire. 

So as one of the tools we were looking to enhance and maintain 

recruitment of reservists in our core positions, the non-permanent 

work force that is paid for out of the Stafford Act. We had asked 

for similar provisions that Congress had granted to the Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service for their part-time and 

seasonal firefighters, that when you had a positon posted, they 

would have status so that you could post a position internally that 

they could apply for. 

This isn’t about being exclusionary, but it is about taking advantage of the dollars that were already spent to train them. They 

have already deployed on disasters. We know the caliber and quality of their work. I think it would save money. 

I understand there are concerns about screening out veterans 

and others, but we try to apply veteran’s preference when we do 

our reservist hiring in the first place. I think that if we put those 

on the reservists, our requirements on the front end, that would 

further strengthen and diversify our work force. 

But it would be an additional enhancement and tool at very low 

cost from what is already being spent as an incentive to retain 

highly-qualified people knowing that when we did post permanent 

positions, they would have an opportunity to apply for that versus 

having to compete against the general population for the same job. 

Mr. DONOVAN. These are people that we have trained? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Correct? 

Mr. FUGATE. You have spent money—— 

Mr. DONOVAN. We have already invested in them? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. They have their qualifications. Many of 

them have deployed numerous times. Congressman Thompson 

63 

probably knows some of them on a first-name basis from the floods 

and tornados in his State. A lot of times they are people that start 

out locally and grow through the system. 

The current acting administrator for FEMA, Bob Fenton, started 

out in one of these part-time jobs. So we know there are great people out there. This would make sure that we maintain that relationship, but I think strengthened our relationship with reservists 

by giving them status when we post positions for internal hires. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Paulison. 

Mr. PAULISON. Well, one, I would like to echo what Administrator Fugate commented on because it is extremely important. 

The disaster work force, particularly our temporary employees, is 

a huge issue. It became a huge issue during Katrina getting the 

right people in the right places, and the amount of time they put 

in and oftentimes we can’t get the same people back again. 

The other issue I want to, and I am not sure it is a legislative 

issue, but I think still important, that, like I mentioned earlier in 

my opening comments, we only have 16 States with State-wide 

building codes and that are enforceable. We have to deal with that 

because I see the damage that we have in a storm. 

We build the houses back exactly the same way they were and 

then they blow down exactly the same way they did before, and we 

continue to do it over and over again. It is almost like Groundhog 

Day. We have got to stop that because we are just wasting our dollars by not putting in strong building codes and build our homes 

and our businesses back like they should. 

The third piece I think that is extremely important is the fact 

that we have got to make sure that whatever we have to do that 

we have the right people managing FEMA. We don’t want to go 

back to the way it was before I came in and Administrator Fugate 

came in. The people that are managing FEMA have to have the 

qualifications. Like Craig said, this is not an on-the-job-training 

type of position. 

We need to make sure we are bringing in qualified, experienced 

people with years and years of dealing with disasters. So I think 

those are the three issues that I would point out that we need to 

really stop and look at as the next administrator comes in. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you very much. My time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. 

Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let us see here. 

So Mr. Fugate, now in your testimony you note that budget constraints have caused FEMA to become an extremely lean operation. 

Given its limited budget, is FEMA sufficiently resourced to nimbly 

respond to, you know, a major disaster or terrorist attack? 

Mr. FUGATE. It is getting better. Some of the things we did was 

we got rid of a lot of rental space. We went from 9 buildings that 

we were leasing here in the National Capital region to everything 

is now at 500 and 400 C Street. We made a decision it was more 

important to have people than to have doors. So we went to an 

open floor plan and focused on that. 

64 

The second thing is we did something that I thought was rather 

important. Turned out a lot of people at FEMA did not have to deploy to a disaster. Did you know that, sir? 

Mr. PAYNE. No. 

Mr. FUGATE. You would think that working at FEMA you were 

deployable. But it turned out if it wasn’t in their position description, it wasn’t enforceable. So we changed that. Every employee 

now has to go through a 2-week orientation and begin their emergency management training, and sign a statement saying they understand that 24 hours a day, 7 days a week they have to have an 

emergency function. 

We did all that and reduced our cost, better utilizing our resources. So I think we are close to where we need to be as far as 

our day-to-day. I think there are still efficiencies within the systems that we have to focus on. 

But I would be concerned that, particularly as we start talking 

about how to pay for FEMA’s disaster response costs, a lot of debate should that come out of the DRF or should that be in the base 

cost? That is Congress’ preference. 

But it costs money to have deployable capabilities. It costs money 

to have generators ready to go. It costs money to have reservists 

to go. It is not cheap. So hold FEMA accountable to make the maximum utilization of those resources, but understand the days of us 

getting easy saves by cutting 10 percent to 15 percent without impacts on capabilities is over. 

We are now having to make decisions about what capabilities do 

we not need to maintain and to what quantity and time frames we 

expect those resources to arrive in a disaster, because that dictates 

what the costs are. 

Mr. PAYNE. Yes. Now, and from your vantage point, could FEMA 

absorb, you know, new wide-scale cuts as President Trump has indicated may be proposed? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, you know, in general, what I have found the 

best way for FEMA to operate is for Congress to do a budget, appropriate funds, and describe those activities that we should be 

doing with those funds and hold us accountable. 

When you say across-the-board cuts and other things, I think the 

appropriations process has been to me the most effective way. As 

an administrator I always liked to know what Congress expected 

me to do and how much money they are expecting me to do it with. 

Then I had a duty to tell you whether that was possible or not, and 

you were there to hold me accountable if I wasn’t getting the job 

done because I wasn’t efficiently utilizing the resources. 

Mr. PAYNE. Do you believe that FEMA was sufficiently financially equipped while you were there as administrator? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes. We dealt with a lot of challenges on the financial side. We had one shut-down, but FEMA never furloughed employees except at that shut-down. We cut a lot of travel, a lot of 

other expenses to focus on our people. That was our commitment. 

I think that is the greatest asset FEMA has is its people. So that 

is where we made our decisions. 

You know, it would be nice to be in a world where everybody got 

everything they always wanted. I don’t know where that exists. I 

have never found it. So I think it is the job of the administrator 

65 

to make sure that they inform the appropriators what cuts mean, 

make sure we all agree to what that results in. But also take advantage of some of the flexibility that FEMA had in how we did 

our mission to fit the budget. 

But it is past the point where the largeness that was built up 

after Katrina can continue to be whittled away. You are at the 

point now where you are going to have to make decisions and 

trade-offs. 

If you want to reduce this funding, how much more time will you 

allow for urban search-and-rescue teams to deploy? How much 

longer will you wait for the first incident management team to arrive on scene? How much longer will recovery take place because 

we won’t have adequate staff or the financial management systems 

to manage that? 

Those are things that you have to make informed decisions 

about. I think it is the, you know, responsibility of the administrator to give you that information to make those choices. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. 

Mr. Paulison, with, you know, the major natural disasters increasing in frequency and severity, Federal Government has spent 

more and more time on disaster relief. You mentioned the importance of pre-hazardous mitigation in your testimony. Which activities should the Federal Government invest in and promote resiliency on State and local level? You have got 5 seconds. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PAULISON. I think that, like I said in my written testimony, 

that FEMA does have a pre-disaster mitigation program in place. 

I think it needs to be enhanced. I think there needs to be more 

money provided to the States to do that, and if we do that, we will 

spend less money on the post-disaster response side. 

I think providing an incentive for the States to put State-wide 

building codes in place to do pre-disaster mitigation functions to 

make sure their States are ready to deal with a disaster. We know 

what disasters we are going to have. Every State knows what they 

are going to have. Yet time and time again we fail to prepare for 

that, but we wait for the disaster to happen and then we respond. 

Now, we are going to have to do that anyway, but if our buildings—we did it in south Florida, after Hurricane Andrew. We saw 

the type of damage we had to our new housing stock. This 

shouldn’t have happened because we had the wrong building codes 

in place. We are using a southern standard building code instead 

of a building code designed for south Florida. 

We changed our building codes. We changed how we put our 

roofs on. We have changed how we tie them down. We changed the 

type of materials. Now we don’t have that type of damage. Every 

new home has to have storm shutters. The roofs have to be plywood, not pressboard. We don’t allow that anymore. We don’t allow 

gable ends. It all has to be a hip roof. 

All the things we learned, and we took that and it was hard. It 

wasn’t easy, believe me. We had a lot of people didn’t want to support this. A lot of the homebuilders fought it tooth and nail, but 

we pushed it through. 

But if we can do that across this country, when we do have catastrophic events we are going to have less and less damage. You are 

66 

going to have less numbers of people have to be sheltered somewhere else where they can stay in their own home. 

So I think that is what I think this committee can help us support to do, and to do that type of a look at our building codes, our 

pre-disaster mitigation, giving the States an incentive to do these 

type of things, I think that will make a huge difference on our response side. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. DONOVAN. It was amazing you did all that in 5 seconds, Mr. 

Paulison. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Minority Member 

of the full committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, for questions. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You know, 

both these gentleman really demonstrate the quality of people we 

have had running FEMA over the last few years, and I compliment 

both of them. But I want to move into an area that would help us. 

I have been involved in a number of disasters, but one that 

comes to mind is dealing with the Federal Flood Insurance Program, and how I see insurance companies shifting the burden and 

liability onto the backs of that program. Ultimately we end up having to replenish that fund before the disaster is for the most part 

resolved. Have you all looked at that and would you care to offer 

your unbiased opinion? 

Mr. FUGATE. Congressman Thompson, thanks for that question. 

We got to quit subsidizing risk below which behavior will change, 

and the Flood Insurance Program is basically designed at too low 

a point. I think, you know, former Administrator Paulison is right 

on the money. 

The question is: How do we drive better building codes and better standards? What we have done with the Flood Insurance Program is we are underwriting risk and we are growing the risk, and 

we can’t afford to grow that risk. At the same time we have not 

provided the incentives for the private sector to better manage risk. 

I believe what Dave is talking about can be done if we went back 

to really looking at what is insurable risk for the private sector so 

that we don’t continue to grow the Flood Insurance Program, understanding we have got a built environment that is not going to 

change. The private sector is not going to be able to write those 

homes. 

But why do we keep growing the risk? Why do we keep insuring 

new construction? Why do we keep allowing risk to get transferred 

to the taxpayer? Think about it. FEMA only pays for uninsured 

losses. 

Those billions and billions of dollars that you see going out the 

door is because jurisdictions don’t insure schools, fire stations, community centers. People didn’t have flood insurance or didn’t have 

enough insurance on their home. Some people can’t afford it, and 

I think that is where our programs should be kicking in. 

But we as a Nation have transferred so much of the risk of disasters and the frequency of disasters to the taxpayers, there has been 

very little incentive for State and local governments to do what 

they should be doing, which is reducing risk through the adoption 

of codes appropriate for the risk and land use planning. 

67 

I think it is just time we stop subsidizing risk and really look at 

and ask a very basic question. If the private sector won’t insure it, 

why are you building it the way you are building it where you are 

building it? Why is the taxpayer picking up the bill? Because the 

thresholds for disaster declaration is so low. 

That is why, Mr. Chairman, you know, as I was leaving we were 

proposing a deductible similar to what Dave is, what are the incentives to get State and local governments to take greater ownership? 

My reaction was quit going back to the first dollar. I mean how 

many people have car insurance with no deductible? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Not many. 

Mr. FUGATE. But the Disaster Relief Fund, you get a disaster 

declaration, we go back to that first dollar. What if we stopped 

going back to the first dollar and saying your threshold is your deductible, and unless you have codes or other things to buy down 

the risk, you know that State of Florida is going to own that first 

$23 million to $24 million. But if they have got a State-wide building code, which they do, they ought to get credit for that, buy their 

deductible down. 

But I agree with you, Congressman Thompson, we have got to 

quit growing risk and quit providing more and more going back on 

the taxpayers without looking at how do we quit transferring risk 

when we are not seeing the benefit from it? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I assume there is no disagreement? 

Mr. PAULISON. No, none whatsoever. Administrator Fugate is 

right on target. Again, we keep building it back to the same place 

in the same way, and we are going to flood again and flood again, 

and just like our wind damage. We have to stop and think what 

are we doing up front that we are not doing now? I think that is 

the way to deal with it. 

Mr. THOMPSON. You know, one of the comments is it doesn’t matter what area the disaster in, FEMA has created a reputation that 

they will always be there for help. So State and locals have kindof passed that burden on to FEMA to deal with, and I think at 

some point we are going to have to figure out a way at least to 

share that burden in some equitable manner. 

Apart from that, we will, Mr. Chairman, continue to subsidize 

the disaster vehicle that we put in place to address. But it is not 

a bottomless pit, and so I think we have to take some of the advice 

of gentlemen like we have here that it is a problem and one that 

this committee could choose to tackle in some form of legislation or 

another. 

One simple thing would be a uniform set of codes that if you 

want to participate in the disaster offerings that we have, you must 

have these on the books and enforced which would go a long ways 

toward addressing that. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, you have 

been very kind. I yield back. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize the other Members of the subcommittee for questions they may wish to ask the witnesses. In accordance with the committee rules and practice, I plan to recognize 

Members who were present at the start of the hearing by seniority 

on the subcommittee. Those coming in late will be recognized in the 

order of arrival. 

68 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rutherford. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 

both of the panelists here. I know both of you started at local and 

State levels and worked your way through this when the country 

was really first dealing with this issue. You know, first we were 

looking at sea-borne events and then it grew into all-hazards. So 

I appreciate your service through all of that. 

Let me ask this question. As you both know, recipients of our 

Homeland Security grant programs, they are required to complete 

that annual Threat and Hazard Identification of Risk Assessment, 

the THIRA, and that is a way for them to identify certain gaps in 

their capabilities that may exist. 

But I hear a lot that localities are not really sufficiently engaged 

in the State THIRA planning. I mean could you respond to that 

and how you might make the THIRA program more successful? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. I will use Florida as an example because 

we have some unique tools there. It is a common concern from local 

governments that the States when they do the THIRAs which, you 

know, and the contracts, the way it works is the State is the recipient, then the local governments are the sub-grantees. 

So we see some variability how well that is done, and you probably saw that, too, when you were sheriff with the Regional Domestic Security Taskforces. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Right. 

Mr. FUGATE. Some seem to be more successful at getting grant 

dollars than others, not always based upon who had the best 

threats, but who told the best story. 

So the THIRAs were really trying to get around people saying it 

is bad, we need something, to what are, looking at a series of 

threats, capabilities, and where the gaps occurred. The tendency is 

for States to do that because it is aggregated up at the State, and 

then we fund the State. The State really works where it is going 

to go locally outside the urban security area initiatives. 

So that is something, again, for the next administration. You got 

to do more than just talk to your State counterparts. You got to engage. What we found is—and it is they are not always happy, but 

at least we are willing to talk—National Sheriff Association, Police 

Chiefs, International Association of Fire Fighters, International Association of Fire Chiefs, because a lot of times their members will 

have concerns. 

That helps us go, well, maybe we didn’t get what we wanted to 

when talking to that State. But the overall fire is what is setting 

the stage based upon State-wide gaps and capabilities. 

So it tends to be State-centric because we are funding the State 

to then make the decisions on where it is going locally, unlike the 

urban security areas which are set-aside specifically for those 

areas. But I hear it. I heard it when I was at the State level. 

Again, it is part of it. You got to keep the dialog and communication, and some days you agree to disagree. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Yes. 

Mr. Paulison. 

Mr. PAULISON. One thing we tend to forget sometimes is all disasters are local. That is where—— 

69 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Yes. 

Mr. PAULISON [continuing]. The first responder is. Oftentimes we 

try to second-guess what the needs are at the local level. Sometimes they will say we need this, and they say, nah, you don’t need 

that. I think that is an issue. 

So I think the communities have to be involved with the State 

in making the decisions of where those dollars are going to go because it is when there are not a lot of dollars out there when you 

divide it all up. So we have to make sure we spend it wisely. But 

they have to listen to the people on the ground at the local level 

of what they see their needs are. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Well, and, you know, that is why I agree with 

you, Mr. Fugate, completely that, you know, you have to plan for 

what can happen, not what resources you have. I have seen that 

too often as well. Then you have these glaring gaps in capability 

that nobody wants to really address. 

Let me ask this because I thought Mr. Paulison came up with 

a great idea on not just the, you know, forcing the building codes 

by raising or lowering the 75 percent through statute, but you 

could do the same thing if they were not meeting their gaps, correct? 

Mr. PAULISON. My proposal was if they are not willing to put 

State-wide building codes in effect, if the State is not willing to do 

pre-disaster mitigation where they know they are going to have 

issues, then they shouldn’t get that percentage on the response 

side. 

Why should we, like Congressman Thompson just said, you 

know, we are subsidizing the local when they should be doing—or 

the States—when they should be doing some of the stuff themselves? If we put the incentive out there, we are going to give you 

the X, Y, Z if you do this, so that is the carrot, but maybe there 

should be a little bit of a stick also if you don’t do it. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Yes. Yes. Well, I think it is a carrot because 

they are getting the money from FEMA anyway. 

Mr. Fugate, you want to add anything to that? 

Mr. FUGATE. No. As you go through the carrots and the sticks 

some of that is, again, unintended consequences, but I think if you 

drive it toward this idea that we know what the science tells us 

how to build, we incentivise that. We also to a certain degree using 

the THIRA to drive the grants is where are the gaps in what we 

are seeing? I mean at some point, how many more bomb robots 

does a jurisdiction need? But they don’t have more capabilities. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Right. 

Mr. FUGATE. So part of this was to get back to the things that 

we know we have to build capacity for, but there hasn’t been, I 

think, sometimes always the perfect feedback of if they are not 

doing that and they are prioritizing other things, how do we penalize them more than just, you know, you are going to get that allocation, this is what the priorities are? 

So as much as we could steer funding, we try to steer it. But it 

wasn’t really about if you didn’t do something, you weren’t going 

to get funding. It was more of we were trying to incentivize good 

behavior. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. If you do something you get money. 

70 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Thank you both very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The gentleman yields. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New Jersey, Mrs. 

Watson Coleman. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am from New Jersey, and I would like to talk 

to you a little bit about our experience with Sandy in 2012. 

There are people that I come in contact with who say that there 

are still families who have not been made whole, whose properties 

had been devastated by Sandy, and it is 2017. I was wondering if 

you can just give me some insight into why that would be the case. 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, I think one of the things that Dave Paulison 

pointed out, and this is one of the things that Congressman 

Thompson will tell you. People think that when they get a Presidential disaster declaration from FEMA, that we will make people 

whole. 

Our max grant for individual assistance is around I think 

$34,000 now, and very few people max out. I think in New Jersey 

we are probably averaging about $6,000 to $7,000 plus renter’s assistance. 

Even the people with flood insurance, and we had a lot of challenges there that still need to be addressed, because those are 

capped out at a certain amount and their property was more expensive than that, it was still hard to rebuild. 

Then as Dave pointed out, there is a lot of other funding that got 

appropriated, mainly through HUD and other type of community 

block grant dollars. In many cases States have used that to try to 

address the housing issues. 

FEMA doesn’t control that. In fact, most of our individual assistance was pretty much done with in the first year of our assistance 

and renter’s assistance, and then the follow-on was going to be 

other programs. 

So one of Dave’s, you know, Director Paulison’s comments or Administrator Paulison’s comments was, you know, it is hard to keep 

visibility on all those dollar streams, and then the State and the 

survivors have now got to navigate various Federal agencies to 

work through the recovery versus we start the process. But it has 

really never been Congress’ intention that FEMA makes somebody 

whole. We are basically starting the process. But it—— 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. So let me ask you a question then because I think what I heard is that there are a lot of agencies that 

have a piece of the solution to a various problem. Is there any coordinating entity, or is that driven down to the State and the State 

decides how to parcel out? Is that what happened in New Jersey 

that—— 

Mr. FUGATE. States have, particularly with the HUD dollars, the 

dollars go to the State and then the State will prioritize. We have 

done a better job on the Federal side through the long-term recovery frameworks that were required by Congress for the PostKatrina Emergency Management Reform Act, but it is still a learning process when we are dealing with large disasters to areas that 

71 

haven’t dealt with it before to get that translated into outcomes. 

So—— 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. So then does it become each department 

that has its dollar in the pot, each department’s responsibility to 

monitor how well the State does with its particular piece? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, ma’am, and it also means it comes with that 

department’s regulatory requirements and their grants process, 

which tend to be different based upon how they are authorized and 

what the intention of those programs are. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Let me just pick your brain for a second, 

and Mr. Paulison, is there a need under circumstances like this, 

like a Katrina, like a Sandy, where there is a coordinating agent 

from the Federal Government that not only coordinates what you 

all do and what each Department does, but also has that monitoring, holistic monitoring responsibility over the State? Because in 

my State we had several problems. 

We had problems giving contracts to the wrong people. We have 

problems with that administration giving contracts to friends. So 

we had a lot of wasted money. So I would like to know what would 

your recommendations be in situations like that that would help to 

make it more efficient, easier for people who are affected to get 

some resolution, and to ensure that there is uniform accountability? Thank you. 

Mr. PAULISON. We had 19 different agencies providing disaster 

relief in New Jersey, in your State. It was confusing for the people 

who were receiving these different things. It was like Administrator Fugate said. There are different regulations for each department. 

It was inefficient. There are still moneys that have not been 

spent. So I think, yes, there should be an agency that all the dollars flow through, or at least coordinate. I think it should be 

FEMA. FEMA has a cost-benefit—— 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I do, too. 

Mr. PAULISON [continuing]. Analysis system in place that it is 

very good. Is this project worth rebuilding or is it not? I know the 

other departments aren’t going to like what I am saying but I don’t 

work here anymore so I can say it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. That is why we have you 

here. 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes. You know, I think it should be if not the 

money flowing through each agency, at least the approval and oversight of the projects going through one agency, and FEMA is the 

one to do that. I know the new FEMA administrator may not like 

it whenever they come in, but I think that we have to do something. It was too uncoordinated, and you are seeing it first-hand. 

You live there. You know. It needs to be fixed. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. My time is up; I appreciate 

it. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin. 

72 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want thank our witnesses for being here today, and I want to thank you both particularly for your many years of public service. 

So I want to touch on a topic that is perhaps easy to overlook 

but growing in importance, and that is dealing with cyber. So in 

my role as co-chair of the Congressional Cyber Security Caucus, I 

have encouraged emergency planners to incorporate cybersecurity 

response into their disaster planning. 

For instance, in Rhode Island, I have worked with our excellent 

Emergency Management Director Pete Gaynor to incorporate cyber 

as part of the State’s Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. 

So planning is particularly important as NIST has emphasized 

that our response recovery functions of cybersecurity risk management are often underdeveloped. So in your experience what is the 

maturity level with respect to incorporating cybersecurity incident 

response into all-hazards planning? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, my experience is we deal with the consequences of a cyber event, and when you start talking about cyber, 

most people go to electricity and other systems. We deal with 

power outages long-term and have some history there. The areas 

of cyber that from an emergency management perspective that I 

think we don’t have a lot, because we don’t really respond in those 

areas, is threats to the financial system. 

I was at the Cleveland Federal Reserve and I said what happens 

if there is a run on the ATMs because people lose confidence in 

their bank accounts because of a cyber attack? They said we don’t 

have enough cash. Financial systems, loss of confidence in those 

systems and the collateral impacts are one of the things that for 

an emergency manager, that is a lot different than planning for a 

power outage. 

The other things is our total dependence upon the public switch 

network or the internet. We have found that we have created single points of failure for our communications systems. If you go to 

most dispatch centers, very few actually talk to their radio by RF. 

It is all going through the phone system. 

So the thing that I found for emergency managers is they tend 

to look at disruptions caused by natural hazards. When you start 

asking about cyber, they don’t know what they don’t know. 

They are not on the fixing side of this. They are on the consequence side. But they need to understand the vulnerabilities, 

that this will not be a geographically placed, it could be occurring 

multiple places across the country simultaneously. In some cases 

as a direct impact like power going out, but it may be a loss of confidence in critical infrastructure and people doing things that now 

become a crisis of itself. 

So I think from the emergency management standpoint, it is part 

of the all-hazards, but I think the cyber community really needs to 

get better information out to emergency managers. Not so much on 

what has got to be fixed but what the vulnerabilities are, what 

kind of systems can be affected, and then begin exercising those 

consequences, because every exercise I have been involved in cyber, 

they were always able to fix the problem. 

In my line of work, that is not what we plan for. We plan for it 

didn’t get fixed, it went bad, it went worse than anybody thought. 

73 

Now what does that do to our ability to manage that crisis with 

our resources and understand that some of the systems we depend 

upon may be under attack themselves? 

Mr. PAULISON. Thank you. I just came back from a cyber conference in London. Countries from all over the world came and a 

huge issue, and their thought process is just what Administrator 

Fugate said. This is a critical infrastructure issue, and I definitely 

think it should be part of our purview inside of FEMA to help protect that system and put it back in place when things go wrong. 

We are definitely not the only country worried about it. It is a 

world-wide issue. So we are talking about banking systems. We are 

talking about security issues. We are talking about power grids and 

our whole communication system. So it is a system that can shut 

down and a problem that can shut down an entire country. 

So yes, I definitely think it is we really have to step back and 

take a look at this and how are we going to protect and how are 

we going to respond to it? 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Yes. I think it is important that we make it a 

forethought, not an afterthought. I mean, we can do mitigation 

planning and that can help forestall problems or cut them off before they become more serious. 

Let me switch you to another topic before my time expires. Mr. 

Fugate, in our panel 2 weeks ago I asked stakeholders about their 

experience incorporating people with disabilities into planning up 

front. So the panel universally praised your work in helping it ensure that the disabled were not an afterthought, particularly 

through your efforts with the disability coordinator and the Office 

of Disability Integration and Coordination. 

With that in mind, what recommendations do you have for your 

successor in continuing to make improvements in this space, and 

what role, if any, do you see for Congress in promoting inclusive 

planning? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, the first thing is the Americans with Disabilities Act is a law. Some people still don’t get that. They think there 

are allowances during a crisis. That you cannot meet reasonable 

expectations. So the first thing is everybody has got to understand, 

the Americans with Disabilities Act says that it is an inclusive 

process, not exclusive. 

Second thing is don’t try to make your solutions fit your population. We had a history of putting people with disabilities into categories, going, this is a special needs shelter or this is a special 

this. 

So we started asking a different question. Why are we putting 

barriers up because we may not have the luxury of picking out 

which shelter we get to? We get to a shelter, why isn’t it accommodating to us? Why am I being told that I have to take my stepdaughter to another location? Or I got to take my father somewhere else because that shelter isn’t inclusive. It is an exclusive 

shelter. People with disabilities should not go there. 

Now a lot times people think, well, that is the way to concentrate 

our resources and to provide for people with disabilities. What I 

found and the history is it becomes exclusionary. It is violating the 

law and the spirit of the law. But more importantly, we are not 

prepared for the communities we live in. 

74 

So I think the thing is you need to understand the law and the 

requirements, but don’t think that providing specialized services is 

doing anybody a favor. Your systems should have been inclusive on 

the front end because a lot people don’t identify with disabilities, 

a lot of people are in aging communities. 

If we are inclusive to everyone, we have gotten rid of the barriers, because in a crisis the more complex our systems are, the 

more likely they are going to fail our most vulnerable at their time 

of need. We need to break this down into being an inclusive, not 

exclusive, in how we deliver our services. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you. Well said. I know my time is expired, 

but that was really how the world was before ADA, and then after 

ADA, right? Before ADA if something was accessible, it was accommodating, you were doing somebody a favor. 

Now we see it as a civil right and that really needs to kind-of 

carry through in disaster planning as a forethought, not an afterthought. So thank you for your work in that space and other work 

that you have done. Thank you both for your testimony. I yield 

back. 

Mr. DONOVAN. The gentleman yields. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Garrett. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentleman, for being here today. I want to try to ask questions and not 

engage in soliloquy but there are a couple of observations that I 

want to make from life experience having survived some incidents 

that were interesting, a couple of which were designated disasters 

and a couple which weren’t. 

That is my observation has been that the vast bulk of disasters 

manifest themselves locally and the vast bulk of responders are indeed locals, right? But it is tough to get on the ground the number 

of people you need from a Federal entity into an area that might 

be, in fact oftentimes is, very wide-spread. 

What are we doing to ensure communications with the bulk of 

those first responders so that essentially they can know the roles 

that they need to play on the ground as the literal first folks on 

the scene? 

I will start with Mr. Fugate. 

Mr. FUGATE. I would go further than that. The faster response 

ain’t the guys with the lights. It is your neighbor. So that is the 

first reason why we really push preparedness. It ain’t about just 

being ready for you and your family, it is being able to help your 

neighbors. 

Second thing is, you know, FEMA gets, and Dave is a local guy 

and then I work local and State, a lot of times think FEMA is going 

to be able to reach down to the locals. We are reaching down 

through the Governors. 

What we are finding is it is the relationship between our State 

and our local partners and how their interoperability and how they 

communicate on a day-to-day basis, because that is what is going 

to happen in a disaster. If there is friction or bad communications 

day-to-day, it does not get better in a disaster. 

So part of this is building these relationships and getting rid of 

these definitions of local, State, and Federal because when it is 

75 

really bad, you got to collapse and run as one team. But the first 

ones there should not be the ones that get bypassed. It is about 

building support for the locals through the State, and then FEMA’s 

job supporting the State as the locals. But my observation has always been if they are not talking before a disaster, it don’t get better during a disaster. 

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Paulison, I am going to sort-of preempt you, 

and I apologize, but so what we need to do then is create a circumstance where the first time the sheriff’s deputy sees somebody 

from FEMA isn’t the day after the hurricane or the tornado? 

Mr. PAULISON. We have a saying that that is the worst time to 

exchange business cards is in the middle of a disaster. You should 

know these people up front, and it should be coordinated together. 

In every disaster we have, even at the local level, there are local 

people, there are State people, there are FEMA people there from 

all the agencies are at the local command post making sure we are 

sharing information. That is the only way it is going to work. 

Mr. GARRETT. Is there a metric, and I am not trying to interrupt 

you to be rude. 

Mr. PAULISON. I know, sir. 

Mr. GARRETT. Is there a metric by which you can measure the 

performance of your people in the field because here is what I know 

from life. There is a guy or a gal out there who knows all the sheriffs and fire chiefs and, you know, in their area and there is another one who, you know—but that is so important. 

I had the honor of serving on the Virginia Commonwealth Preparedness Board. We had great contingency plans that half the 

end-users didn’t know about, which meant we had no plans, right? 

Is there a metric to measure the efficacy of individuals and sortof making that face-to-face that will be so valuable on the deck, 

too? 

Mr. PAULISON. So that is really the role of the local emergency 

manager is to make sure that all of those agencies are talking to 

each other, exercising together. They all know what the plan is. 

We found that in Hurricane Andrew that did not happen at the 

local level or the State level or the Federal level. There was really 

poor communications in place. Our emergency management system 

just totally collapsed during Andrew and it fell on the different 

agencies, particularly the fire department at the time, I think I was 

the fire chief 3 weeks—— 

Mr. GARRETT. Yes. 

Mr. PAULISON [continuing]. To take on that task. So it shouldn’t 

have fallen on the fire department. It should have been at the 

emergency management level. So that is the key first—that is the 

kingpin for that local disaster response is that local emergency 

manager. Then it is up to the State to make sure that we are all 

these different counties are talking. 

Craig Fugate when he was our State emergency manager did an 

outstanding job of making sure that all 67 counties were talking 

to each other. Even if part of the counties were not affected directly, they would be by moving supplies in and out. So he made 

sure that every day, twice a day, all 67 counties were on a conference call sharing information. 

76 

Mr. GARRETT. So you make an excellent point—I got about 40 

seconds—and that is that if there are 67 counties and 30 are impacted, the other 37 are very important because they have resources that can be brought to bear and that communication matters. 

So then the next question I have, and this might be ignorance 

on my part having been a prosecutor for a long time and working 

closely with law enforcement, is what are we doing to ensure coms 

interoperability across jurisdictional lines? 

We always have a county contract for your 9–1–1 or your radio 

coms or what have you. There were times where we couldn’t talk 

to State police from this county from—and is there anything being 

done to sort-of get to a uniform standard where everybody can actually literally talk to one another? 

Mr. PAULISON. Right now it is up to each individual State. There 

is a program that actually you are funding called FirstNet that is 

just putting together a State-wide—I mean, excuse me, a Nationwide emergency management communication system. Now that is 

in its very infancy right now, but if this plays like it should play 

out, we will have a communication where somebody in New Jersey 

can talk to somebody in California directly. 

Mr. GARRETT. Then we have just got to have some net discipline. 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, that is true. But right now it is just like in 

the State of Florida, we have a State-wide communication system 

that people can tag into to share information around the State 

where law enforcement should be talking to the fire department 

should be talking to EMS should be talking to emergency management. I don’t know if you want to—— 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you. Well, I am want to yield back, my negative 36 seconds. 

Mr. DONOVAN. We will take them. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Before we end, there may have been things that 

you wanted to express to us that weren’t in your written remarks 

and that we didn’t ask you. As a last thought for the next administrator, if that woman or man was sitting here, what do you want 

to tell them? 

Mr. FUGATE. You have got a lot of great people that work at 

FEMA, but like all organizations, they will do what will give them 

greatest success for the least amount of risk. FEMA cannot be an 

organization of people who won’t take risk because we are going to 

get it wrong from time to time. 

But the problem is if you are not taking risk because you can’t 

wait for the all the facts and information to make decisions in a 

crisis, action is your preferable strength, not waiting for all the 

facts. But you will make mistakes. 

The next administrator has to understand that they need to empower their team to make quick and bold decisions in the opening 

moments of a crisis when not all the facts are in. And be prepared 

to take the arrows when things don’t go well, because what I found 

at FEMA, the more I demanded and pushed my staff to do the 

things they didn’t think were possible, the better they got. 

But that meant when things went wrong, I had to be prepared 

to come here before you for the hearings and explain why, not 

77 

chuck people under the bus or allow staff to take the fall. When 

we make mistakes for the right reason, you are going to have a 

hearing. When you make mistakes for the wrong reason, you fail 

our citizens and you should be fired. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you. 

Administrator Paulison. 

Mr. PAULISON. You know, I just have to echo that, too. I had 

something else I was going to say. But I think that is so important, 

particularly for the morale inside the organization itself. This goes 

through agency, but just we are talking about FEMA, is people are 

going to do what they think is best based on the information they 

have at the time. 

During Katrina, and probably rightfully so, so I am not saying 

that the media was terrible, but every little thing that FEMA did 

wrong was on the front page of the Washington Post or the Miami 

Herald or wherever you happened to be. 

Sometimes they were decisions that were made for the right reasons that may not have been—the outcome may not have come out 

like it should have come out. I will give you an example. 

We did a yeoman’s job of housing 100,000 families. It was the 

largest migration in the history of this country, most of them in 

mobile homes and travel trailers. Then we found out we had formaldehyde in them. You know, no fault of FEMA for this. We were 

buying them off the lot like you would go buy one. But we got 

thrown under the bus for that. 

I took the heat for that. We surely did not blame the people buying the mobile homes. So I think it is a matter of letting people 

make the right decisions that they think at the time. Then like Administrator Fugate said, you know, we will come here and take the 

heat for it and not throw our employees under the bus. 

Now if they did something intentionally wrong, well, that is a 

different issue. But when they are trying to make the right decision 

based on in the heat of the moment, sometimes they make mistakes. But we will handle that part and we will take the heat for 

that and still support that employee because that is a good lesson 

to learn. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you both for your valuable testimony and 

for my fellow Members of the committee for their questions. The 

Members of the committee may have some additional questions for 

the witnesses, and we ask you to respond to those in writing. Pursuant to the committee rule VII(D), the hearing record will be held 

open for 10 days. Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you both. 

[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(79) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER HAROLD M. PAYNE, JR. FOR W. CRAIG FUGATE

Question 1. As you know, ‘‘climate change’’ have become dirty words in Washington. But as you acknowledge, we are experiencing more frequent, more severe, 

more costly weather events. How can we depoliticize the cause so we can proactively 

address the challenges ahead? 

Answer. The conversation must shift from ‘‘climate change’’ to a discussion about 

how we, as a Nation, manage risk. 

Current practice has seen too much risk liability—which is essentially a stealth 

tax—placed on the taxpayer. This burden is realized through more frequent Stafford 

Act disaster declarations and the associated Federal dollars that flow out of the Disaster Relief Fund, as well as disaster-related CDBG dollars that come from HUD. 

Additionally, in events that may not warrant a Stafford declaration, there can still 

be National Flood Insurance Program claims or SBA loans for impacted businesses. 

There are other departments and agencies that bear costs for these liabilities, as 

well. From 2005–2014, the Government Accountability Office found $277 billion in 

disaster spending across the Federal Government (GAO 16–797). 

The goal should be to move away from the taxpayer subsidizing the risk, to the 

private insurance markets subsidizing the risks. If the private sector cannot—or will 

not—provide affordable insurance, then the Federal Government is effectively 

incentivizing building in the wrong places or to the wrong codes and standards. 

If we, as a Nation, decide to subsidize risk (i.e. 20% of existing NFIP policy holders who have grandfathered or subsidized premium rates), it should be done in the 

public interest and not just for the benefit of a few. 

Question 2. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am committed to ensuring 

that addressing the unique needs of children before, during, and after a disaster remains a priority at FEMA. Do you support legislative efforts to formally authorize 

the Children’s Needs Technical Expert at FEMA to help ensure that children’s 

needs are accommodated during disaster response and recovery? 

Answer. Yes, I support legislative efforts to authorize the Children’s Needs Technical Expert at FEMA. But, having led a Federal agency for nearly 8 years, I would 

also caution you that it can be difficult to implement Congress’ intent when it comes 

to a specific position within a large organization. 

I embraced the requirements for functions that Congress established to exist within FEMA when it passed the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act in 

2006, and I would encourage you to work closely with the agency to ensure that any 

legislation you are drafting provides clear direction on expectations while also giving 

the agency flexibility in managing its personnel. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE JAMES R. LANGEVIN FOR W. CRAIG FUGATE

Question 1. Cyber attacks can have physical effects that mimic conventional disasters. How well-prepared are emergency managers to ensure that malicious actors 

are cleaned off of networks to prevent them from causing more chaos? 

Put another way, is FEMA—and emergency managers more broadly—prepared to 

treat the underlying cause of cyber incidents (e.g., malware) rather than just the 

symptoms (e.g., a power outage)? 

Answer. Emergency management, in general—and FEMA, more specifically—are 

not in a position to address the root causes of cyber attacks. It is not a core competency of emergency managers. That said, there is a need to train emergency managers on the potential impacts of these threats in order to adjust emergency plans 

to address any outcomes of a cyber attack that may or may not mimic other infrastructure disruptions. Historically, emergency management has focused on consequence management for all hazards. FEMA has very close working relationships 

with sister organizations at DHS and other entities both inside and outside the FedVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:52 Sep 29, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\115TH CONGRESS\17EP0214\17EP0214.TXT HEATH
80 

eral Government that are working at the National level to prevent cyber attacks 

from happening. This ensures that if there is an incident that cannot be prevented, 

Federal emergency management officials have already established needed connections with appropriate officials. Further, non-Federal emergency managers must 

have an understanding of the potential threats so that they can plan for all consequences and communicate with their chief executives about the need for resources 

to prepare for potential consequences. 

Question 2. What process would an emergency manager rely on to determine a 

cyber physical attack had a cyber component at all, particularly if manifestation was 

largely physical? 

Answer. In my opinion, State, local, and Tribal emergency managers are left out 

of the loop in most cyber events. While they may deal with the disruptions resulting 

from a cyber attack, until facts are shared with them by those Federal agencies who 

have the information that the event is a cyber attack, State, local, and Tribal partners are more likely to read about the fact that it is a cyber attack from open-source 

news. Non-Federal emergency managers must have an understanding of the potential threats in the cyber realm so that they can effectively plan for all consequences 

and communicate with their chief executives about the need for resources to prepare 

for potential consequences. 

Question 3. What role do you see for FEMA as part of the National Cyber Incident 

Response Plan? The recently-released plan makes reference to using FEMA infrastructure but does not seem to address incorporating FEMA into planning directly. 

Answer. There has been much resistance to clearly defining FEMA’s role and utilizing existing tools to manage cyber events. Other than looking at the Stafford Act 

to fund cyber attack recovery and mitigation costs, FEMA is not seen as part of the 

response team in the cyber/virtual envronment. FEMA already has: (1) Relationships with the States that few other Federal agencies have, and (2) a well-developed 

crisis response capability. I proposed that FEMA support those lead Federal agencies which have cyber attack roles under the National Response Framework so that 

FEMA can bring to bear the tools and capabilities that it already has—given its allhazards mission—and which have already been funded by the taxpayer. 

QUESTION FROM RANKING MEMBER DONALD M. PAYNE, JR. FOR ROBERT DAVID

PAULISON

Question. As you know, ‘‘climate change’’ have become dirty words in Washington. 

But as you acknowledge, we are experiencing more frequent, more severe, more 

costly weather events. How can we depoliticize the cause so we can proactively address the challenges ahead? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE JAMES R. LANGEVIN FOR ROBERT DAVID PAULISON

Question 1. Cyber attacks can have physical effects that mimic conventional disasters. How well-prepared are emergency managers to ensure that malicious actors 

are cleaned off of networks to prevent them from causing more chaos? 

Put another way, is FEMA—and emergency managers more broadly—prepared to 

treat the underlying cause of cyber incidents (e.g., malware) rather than just the 

symptoms (e.g., a power outage)? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2. What process would an emergency manager rely on to determine a 

cyber physical attack had a cyber component at all, particularly if manifestation was 

largely physical? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3. What role do you see for FEMA as part of the National Cyber Incident 

Response Plan? The recently-released plan makes reference to using FEMA infrastructure but does not seem to address incorporating FEMA into planning directly. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Æ