DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina, Chairman 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

BEVERLY PHETO, STEPHANIE GUPTA, JEFF ASHFORD, SHALANDA YOUNG, 

JIM HOLM, and ADAM WILSON, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 4 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Page 

Office of Health Affairs—Department of Homeland 

Security .................................................................................. 1 

Federal Emergency Management Agency: Is the 

Agency on the Right Track? .............................................. 53 

Homeland Security Grants: Supporting a National 

Preparedness and Response System ............................... 501 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

43–384 WASHINGTON : 2008 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

ROBERT E. ‘‘BUD’’ CRAMER, JR., Alabama 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C.W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

RALPH REGULA, Ohio 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JAMES T. WALSH, New York 

DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio 

JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania 

VIRGIL H. GOODE, JR., Virginia 

RAY LAHOOD, Illinois 

DAVE WELDON, Florida 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

ROB NABORS, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009 

TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2008. 

OFFICE OF HEALTH AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

WITNESS 

JEFFREY W. RUNGE, M.D., ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS AND CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PRICE

Mr. PRICE. Good morning. Today we have Dr. Jeff Runge, the Department of Homeland Security’s Assistant Secretary for Health 

Affairs and the Chief Medical Officer. 

Dr. Runge, welcome again to the subcommittee. We appreciate 

your service to the country, and we appreciate the challenging and 

important role you are playing. This is the first hearing when we 

have only one witness, so we hope that is going to give us time to 

engage in extensive discussions of the work of your office. 

Today we will cover the Office of Health Affairs fiscal year 2009 

budget request, which includes the BioWatch program, the Office 

of Health Affairs coordination with other federal agencies on 

Project BioShield and the office’s overall role within the Department. 

The fiscal 2009 budget request for the Office of Health Affairs is $161 million, an increase of $44.8 million or 38 percent above the 

fiscal year 2008 level. The majority of this increase is for BioWatch, 

which would receive $111.6 million or $34.5 million above the fiscal 

year 2008 level of $77 million. 

While part of that increase would be used to expand the field testing of Generation 3 technology, the bulk of the increase, $20 

million, would be used to procure and deploy 150 automated pathogen detection systems. These systems are also known as BioWatch 

Generation 2.5. 

Dr. Runge, I would like to hear more from you about the rationale for investing tens of millions of dollars in these Generation 2.5 

systems when OHA is in the process of field testing Generation 3 

technologies and before the National Academies of Science assessment of BioWatch that Congress directed is complete. In answering, our ability to detect biological attacks is a high priority, and 

for that very reason it is important not only to do it quickly, but 

to do it right. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
2 

During last year’s bioterrorism hearing I expressed concern that 

the federal government’s bioterrorism strategy is spread across a 

multitude of agencies. In August of last year the Government Accountability Office expressed a similar concern regarding the clarity of federal roles and responsibilities for pandemic flu preparedness, so I am pleased to see that the request for planning and coordination is almost $10 million, an increase of $5.4 million from 

the fiscal year 2008 level of $4.4 million. 

I do not have a good sense, however, about the extent to which 

your office has improved the coordination of the federal government’s bioterrorism strategy over the last year or how you plan to 

further improvement in the coming years. 

Do you have specific goals and timelines against which to measure your progress in this area? I look forward to hearing your frank 

assessment about what it will take to overcome the many jurisdictional obstacles that you face. 

One of the more important coordinating roles that you play is associated with Project BioShield. We understand you have no direct 

authority over this Health and Human Services program, but it 

was funded through Homeland Security and you are the lead for 

the Department’s biodefense interactions with other departments 

and agencies, so we look to you for opinions and solutions on how 

DHS and other agencies can ensure that the nation’s medical system is capable of managing national biological emergencies. 

Since last year, unfortunately, there has been only minor 

progress in this program. Smallpox and anthrax countermeasures 

have been purchased, but the program has not lived up to the 

President’s assertion that it would ensure that ‘‘our drug stockpile 

remain safe, effective and advanced.’’ Of the $3.4 billion available under the program, only $1.9 billion has been obligated. An additional $2.175 billion is set to become 

available in fiscal year 2009. Dr. Runge, we want your frank assessment of whether the threat assumptions that led us to appropriate these funds in the first place to make these advance appropriations still hold, and if they still hold I would like your assessment of why Project BioShield has failed to live up to expectations. 

Is there some flaw in the structure that we could fix? What can 

this committee do to ensure that this $2.2 billion in fiscal 2009 

funding does not sit unused, but is applied to its intended purposes? 

In a moment I will ask you to summarize your written statement 

and ask that you limit your oral statement to five minutes. The full 

statement will of course be put in the record. 

Let me first yield to Mr. Rogers for any statement he wants to 

make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Dr. 

Runge. 

The Office of Health Affairs and the Chief Medical Officer are 

functions that seem to be continuously evolving. Just three years 

ago the Office of the Chief Medical Officer started with only 10 

FTEs and $2 million. When compared to your 2009 request for the 

Office of Health Affairs of more than $161 million supporting 80 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
3 

FTEs, I would say you have come a long way in a short period of 

time. 

With this sizeable increase comes considerably more responsibility. What started out as a medical advisor role appears to be 

growing into DHS’s principal agent for all medical and health matters charged with several vital tasks, including leadership of DHS’s 

biodefense responsibilities, including early threat detection and biosurveillance integration, development of a coordinated and unified 

national architecture for medical preparedness, WMD planning and 

catastrophic consequence management and ensuring DHS employees are supported by an effective occupational health and safety 

program. 

I do not need to tell you or anyone else that these are important 

missions, missions that not only involve multiple DHS components, 

but other cabinet agencies such as HHS and Agriculture, so your 

job as I believe you are defining it is not just to support the internal workings of DHS, but also to support medical preparedness 

across the federal government, and that is certainly no small chore. 

Which leads us to the very question posed by today’s hearing, the 

role of the Office of Health Affairs. In some ways I see your office 

as an expanded technical resource for the Secretary, but on the 

other hand I see it as an emerging office with an expansive mission 

across multiple agencies and departments. 

In either case, I am not sure if you are properly equipped with 

sufficient staff or authority to fulfill the mission requirements you 

are being assigned. This is something I hope we can discuss in 

greater detail in your testimony today because as I read down the 

list of program areas that are maturing under your watch, a list 

that includes BioShield, BioWatch, biosurveillance, biodefense, 

chemical defense and a whole host of medical readiness programs, 

I am somewhat concerned that an office, an emerging office that is 

but a few years old and located within a Department, whether it 

can effectively coordinate such tasks across jurisdictional boundaries and inherent bureaucratic obstacles. 

These are tough problems that do not have easy solutions. Despite that fact, Dr. Runge, we are looking to you for answers. We 

are looking to understand the role you and your office plays in the 

larger picture of homeland security and how the 2009 budget request moves you toward fulfilling that role. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Dr. Runge, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JEFFREY W. RUNGE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR

HEALTH AFFAIRS AND CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Dr. RUNGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rogers, 

for your incredibly insightful comments. I think you seem to know 

a tremendous amount about us already. I will try and fill in the 

gaps as best I can. 

First of all, I would like to express my appreciation for your support of our new office and its mission. Yesterday, March 31, 

marked our first anniversary of the Office of Health Affairs. We became official exactly one year ago. I am really gratified by the supVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:12 Aug 28, 2008 Jkt 043384 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A384P2.XXX A384P2

dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
4 

port we have received to get the program off the ground, but I also 

recognize that we are still in the early stage of development. We 

are evolving. We have a great deal of work to do. 

As of December 26, when the President signed the fiscal year 

2008 appropriation, which was our first budget, we set about putting that first budget to good use. We have already hired nearly all 

of the slots for which we were funded for federal employees. The 

NBIS 2.0 software is now operational as of yesterday and powering 

the Biological Common Operating Picture, which I promised you 

last year. 

We have executed a contract to purchase the first cache of automated biodetection equipment for our biodefense arsenal, and now 

we have a critical mass of employees. We are doing a much better 

job of discharging the duties for which we were authorized in the 

Post-Katrina Act, and I believe we are on track to meet the goals 

that I discussed with you last year at my hearing. 

As you said, Mr. Rogers, the Office of Health Affairs has grown 

very quickly during our first year. We actually came in as the CMO 

with two people and a budget of $2 million; authorized for 10 but 

not funded for 10. We were able to get 10 on board by about a year 

ago, and we are now at 41 federal employees plus 26 officers the 

Public Health Service detailed to us and a bunch of support contractors that are standing up our various BioWatch and the National BioSurveillance Integration Center. Seven of those 41 were 

hired in the last few weeks and will be on board as soon as they 

get through security clearance. 

This fast, and I would say, efficient growth was possible because 

this subcommittee supported our mission and provided the funding 

to hire people to get the job done. So again, I would like to thank 

you all for the support that you have given us in this past year. 

This year we are going to focus on our strategy to protect our nation from the threat of bioterrorist attacks or a pandemic, as well 

as our efforts to enhance our medical readiness and to protect the 

health and safety of the Department’s workforce. 

We recognize also that there will be the unexpected, and we will 

handle it as we did last year, whether it was formaldehyde in temporary housing in the Gulf region, whether it was tuberculosis coming over the border, threats to the food supply, which we can do 

only with critical expert manpower. 

Prior to the office standing up, there was no principal agent for 

the Department’s biodefense responsibilities, including our obligations under HSPDs (Homeland Security Presidential Directives) for 

biodefense and agriculture and food. This year we are closer to having this covered. We are deploying automated biodetection technology, providing an integrated biosurveillance capability, and we 

are working to secure the nation’s food, agriculture and veterinary 

defenses. 

We are fulfilling our responsibility to the Secretary to manage 

DHS’s role in Project BioShield, and we are also able to manage 

the Department’s role in the President’s Import Safety Working 

Group, which was issued up with an Executive Order last August, 

recognizing that managing this issue is not the job of any single 

federal agency, but requires an integrated response approach just 

like any other major incident. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
5 

Before the creation of the Office of Health Affairs, the Department had no element responsible for subject matter driven end-toend planning for bioterrorism and other catastrophic scenarios involving threats to the health of the population. This year we have 

brought aboard some highly qualified and trained staff of professionals who work across the interagency with states, local governments and the private sector to devise plans that span the entire 

continuum from threat awareness through surveillance and detection, prevention and protection and finally response and recovery. 

Before OHA was established the Department had no consistent 

policy standards or metrics for occupational safety and health or 

for tactical operational medicine. Today, we work very closely with 

the Under Secretary for Management to develop departmentwide 

best practices for occupational health and tactical and operational 

medical support for our folks in the field. 

In the next couple of weeks we are to be joined by a physician 

specialist in occupational medicine who will guide that program as 

soon as she clears security clearances. We think this is a core element in employee satisfaction which, as you know, we have had 

some difficulty in the past, which the Secretary very much wishes 

to enhance. 

The President has requested $161.3 million for fiscal year 2009, 

an increase of $44.8 million over fiscal year 2008. This increase will 

allow for our current level of services to continue plus the necessary enhancements for automated biological detection and biodefense planning, as well as a very modest increase for a few people to improve our financial management. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize the importance of the program that is the bulk of the President’s requested increase. I have 

come to you and briefed you on what I believe the urgency of reducing the ‘‘time-to-warning’’ of our BioWatch detectors and the vulnerability we face to certain agents of bioterrorism as a result of 

our current manual processes. 

At my hearing last year Ranking Member Rogers raised some serious concerns about the pace of the development of Generation 3 

or the automated BioWatch systems. Since then we have identified 

a bridging technology that is out there that will enable us to deploy 

automated detection in certain high-threat locations appropriate to 

these devices while we await the development of Generation 3 technology from S&T. 

We are collaborating with S&T to ensure that this bridging technology ready for deployment will reach an improved state of advanced commercialization so that it might actually meet the same 

Generation 3 requirements that the S&T program does so that the 

government will have a choice in 2009 as to which systems to buy, 

rather than putting all our eggs in one basket. We think it is important to have a choice of performers when it is time to spend 

more money on this particular problem. 

So as you both alluded to, we are small in size, but our mission 

is widespread across DHS and the interagency. The program dollars we receive are essential, and every dollar we have is put to 

good use. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
6 

I want to thank you again for your support of us in Homeland 

Security, and I would be happy to answer all the questions that 

you have. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much for that statement, and we will 

proceed now to questions. 

I will start where you left off with the BioWatch effort. It is an 

important part of your budget and your budget’s requested increases, so it is appropriate that we focus on this. 

In my opening statement I questioned the current BioWatch 

strategy of operating BioWatch Generation 2.5 in addition to the 

current system when your goal is to have a BioWatch Generation 

3 system in place in the near future. One of our problems perhaps 

is that we do not fully understand how similar or dissimilar these 

systems may be and how easily or how with great difficulty perhaps one system could be replaced by the other. 

In any case, this is not a new concern. In the context of the 2008 

appropriations we expressed concern that OHA is not field testing 

and piloting similar technologies together and urged you to incorporate all systems into the field testing and pilot program. It seems 

that instead of doing that these Generation 2.5 systems have become fully operational in at least one city. 

So my initial question is, where does this fit into your overall 

strategy, this Generation 2.5 system? $20 million of the $34.5 million increase is to procure and deploy Generation 2.5 or BioWatch 

2.5 systems. Are we investing all of this money to have to turn 

around perhaps and purchase Generation 3 systems next year or 

the year after to replace them? 

What would you say about the kind of transition you envision 

and particularly for what seems to be a sizeable investment in a 

system that will at some point be superseded? 

BIOWATCH GENERATION 2.5

Dr. RUNGE. This is worth spending some time on, and I hope I 

can fully develop this discussion. 

First of all, you should know, Mr. Chairman, and it has been testified to before; however, we will not get into the details of the classified stratification of the biothreats. It has been testified to before, 

and it is well known, that anthrax is our number one biological 

threat by an order of magnitude above the others. 

It is not difficult to procure, and the methods of spreading anthrax in a major city are fairly well known. This puts us at a tremendous vulnerability. To save people’s lives from anthrax, we 

have to deliver antibiotics to them before they get sick, so after exposure but before they get sick, and that period of time is about 

72 hours. 

Without post-exposure prophylaxis in that 72-hour window we 

will have tens of thousands of cases of untreatable pneumonia, an 

overwhelmed health care system, and I dare say, a problem of civil 

order of a magnitude we have not seen before. 

I think Dr. O’Toole testified last year at this hearing that this 

would have as significant an impact as a nuclear detonation on the 

numbers of people killed, particularly since it is easy to acquire, 

lends itself to a multiple city attack rather than just one 10 pounds 

of highly enriched uranium, which would make one bomb. This can 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
7 

be grown and disseminated simultaneously. This is a very serious 

issue. 

Without an environmental warning, the first notification that we 

have been attacked will be when those tens of thousands of people 

start getting sick and go to the emergency departments and their 

doctor offices. By then, the game is up. Too late. We will have lost 

that war. 

We are hanging a tremendous amount of our national security on 

environmental detection. As you well know, BioWatch stood up in 

32 days under order of the President five years ago, and the technology is fairly primitive. 

At that point, when I was still happily over at the National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration, the folks at Homeland Security were busy figuring out the technology that would take that potentially 30-hour delay and drive that decisionmaking down to a 

few hours so that the time left in that 72 hours could be used to 

get antibiotics into the bodies of people. Without that, we are dead, 

literally. 

I heard your frustration last year. The Ranking Member took us 

to task for the slow pace of this development. Dr. Vitko, who was 

here, made the case that no one has ever done this before. Well, 

we left that hearing, and I think I talked to you later about this, 

about our pace. 

There is a system that has been developed by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories that is actually using the same technology that the post offices have used since the anthrax attacks. 

This is the same assay approved by the CDC. It is public health 

actionable, but the box is big. It is not weatherproof. 

It really is not appropriate for outdoor use, but there are certain 

applications in certain cities of tremendous vulnerability where it 

would be appropriate in an indoor location where the machines, 

and they are not as sensitive as the Generation 3 machines will be, 

but it does not matter in an indoor location such as transportation 

hubs in some major cities. 

So we procured six of these, what we call Block 0. They are not 

fully commercialized, but they are sufficiently commercialized, so 

that we were able to deploy them in New York City, and they have 

been running now since December. The people in New York City 

are very happy with them. The public health folks who will make 

the call on whether the signal is real are also happy because the 

assays are the same CDC assays that they use in the laboratory. 

To get to the next commercialization phase, the vendor that 

Livermore is working with went into a joint venture with them to 

make a Block 1 unit, which has a greater sensitivity, is more 

weatherproof. The box is a bit smaller. The reagents are used more 

efficiently. That Block 1 unit is what we intend to—well, we are 

purchasing 24 of those this year in fiscal year 2008 to deploy in 

operational field tests in Chicago and one other city that is not yet 

disclosed. 

BIOWATCH GEN 2.5 CONT’D

Before we will deploy those we will have a thorough technology 

readiness assessment done by an independent third party. S&T has 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
8 

an ex-DOD acquisitions expert on board that already has been engaged here that will tell us when this technology is ready. 

Now, the other thing you should know is that I stole away a fabulous professional from S&T who was the director of their Technology Transition Office, Mr. Bob Hooks, who is now the Deputy 

Secretary for WMD Biodefense, who is responsible for this program. He understands the technology. I think we have the management in place to get this done. 

The fiscal year 2009 request is to procure more of those Block 1 

units to deploy in appropriate locations, which may be indoors if 

they are not weatherproof, but there are transit systems around 

and airports that are clearly at risk, and we believe we would have 

significant benefit by deploying these systems there. We will also 

gain a tremendous amount of knowledge about how they work. 

What we have not solved yet is whether their Block 2 unit will 

meet all of the requirements that the Generation 3 machines are 

contracted to meet, and we are hoping that in 2009 we can actually 

have a fly-off between a more advanced version of this bridging 

technology and whatever Generation 3 contractors are able to field 

a Generation 3 box. 

Our target is April of 2009 to do that head-to-head fly-off with 

whoever is ready because we need to get technology ready tested, 

thoroughly evaluated boxes into the field in a larger volume in 

2010 and 2011. We cannot do that without a good head-to-head 

operational test in environments that are appropriate in cold climates and hot climates, to make sure that whatever you all authorize for us to purchase next year will in fact be ready for that deployment. 

So this is a bridging technology to meet the Ranking Member’s 

concern and clearly my concern, given the anthrax con ops problem 

that we are up against with a 72 hour window, and right now we 

are eating up almost half of that with our rather primitive technology. 

I do not look at this as discretionary, Mr. Chairman. I think 

given what we know about the threat, we owe it to our highest 

threat cities to get something out there that will meet the requirement until this Generation 3 is ready, whenever it is ready. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, your sense of urgency comes across very clearly. 

I want to make sure I understand though the relationship of the 

2.5 systems and the 3.0 systems. You say that the 2.5 systems will 

be mainly in indoor locations. Is that true? 

Dr. RUNGE. We think so right now. Now, the developer knows 

how to make the box weatherproof, and it may be that they could 

get to a stage of development that will allow for some testing in 

an outdoor location, but they will be in the same cities where we 

currently have the Generation 1 and 2 technologies so that we will 

be able to test them against each other. 

Mr. PRICE. So what you are saying is that the 2.5 technologies 

are suitable for certain kinds of environments and would not be immediately replaced when the better technology comes along? I want 

to make sure I understand. 

Dr. RUNGE. That is correct. You know, we do not know the longevity of these things, but there is no reason to suggest that, and 

this manufacturer also makes all the post office machines that 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
9 

have been in operation now for seven years or six years, six and 

a half years, and doing very well. 

So we do have confidence that they will last long enough until 

the next generation and some smart guy in Silicon Valley or in 

Osaka figures out how to make it this big and so forth, but those 

things are not meant to be thrown away if we put them in the locations appropriate for the application. 

Mr. PRICE. For these locations that are being covered with these 

Block 1 machines, will the later machines offer enhanced capabilities or is it mainly a matter of the 3.0 machines letting you go into 

outdoor environments and more challenging situations? 

BIOWATCH GENERATION 3

Dr. RUNGE. Well, that is clearly one, but also the cost of operations and maintenance is too high on these Block 0 and Block 1 

machines, so that has to be made more efficient. The target that 

S&T has set for the band contractors—band is their name for the 

S&T Gen 3 program—is much, much lower than what the bridging 

technology can meet right now. 

So that is a problem for us. It is a problem for appropriators too. 

We cannot spend money on operations and maintenance when 

there is a more efficient operations and maintenance technology 

that is down the road. We have to balance our need for urgency 

with a more efficient and potentially less expensive Generation 3 

machine. 

By the way, also the Generation 3 ones will be more sensitive so 

if you think about the spread of anthrax, if you do it in an indoor 

location you will have a more concentrated spread of spores. Sensitivity is not that big of an issue. 

If it is spread outdoors clearly we want the machines to signal 

when there are any spores. Obviously you cannot get down to zero, 

but we can get down to in the hundreds. What this does is that 

it will allow us to geographically map, hopefully to pinpoint a point 

source for the spread, which the folks at the FBI and in law enforcement are very interested in. If it happens in New York and if 

we have the point source there is an excellent source that they can 

figure out where it came from, and that is very important in preventing second attacks and third attacks. 

This is not a scenario where we can bring all the planes out of 

the sky at once to keep them from flying into buildings. Solving 

this issue of second and subsequent attacks is a much more complex thing, and it requires everything from good intelligence to the 

use of these BioWatch assays to figure out, ‘‘where did this come 

from?’’, so the sensitivity is very important in an outdoor environment not only for public health, but for law enforcement. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, let me ask you a big question and ask you for 

a brief answer, and we can maybe elaborate later. 

Dr. RUNGE. I am not very good at those. 

Mr. PRICE. I am sensitive to our time situation here, but this 

budget request and your discussion just now does raise questions 

about where we are headed with this. 

Are we going to be do you think in the Congress confronted now 

for years to come with research budgets that go to Generation 4, 

Generation 5? I mean, what is the trajectory here that you would 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
10 

envision in terms of continuing needs to update this technology, 

and then what about deployment? 

I mean, clearly there are physical limitations as to where you can 

deploy these machines no matter how large our budget is. How 

much funding is it going to take? Are there natural limits to this 

strategy of choice, or is the need just endless? 

LONG TERM OUTLOOK ON BIOWATCH

Dr. RUNGE. Well, not to segue prematurely into BioShield, but 

this is why it is so important to have a vaccine. This stuff always 

is tied up together. 

As long as there is a threat from Al-Qaeda, and we know that 

they are very interested in this particular organism, and as long 

as we have to rely on post-exposure prophylaxis after exposure to 

save people’s lives, we are going to have a problem with environmental detection. 

When we have a universal vaccine—and I say when because I do 

think that it is possible to have a universal vaccine that does not 

require six doses or four doses and does not hurt like crazy when 

you put it under your skin and people will actually comply—we can 

take this problem off the table, so the job that HHS has in developing a vaccine is a key adjunct to this long-term strategy. 

If that does not happen we are going to have a long-term problem in covering areas, some cities that are very near to you and 

me, that are currently not covered. The states and local folks are 

going to start asking the question, ‘‘Gee, how do we protect ourselves?’’

Eventually, Mr. Chairman, and this is my opinion, and I do not 

think we have policy on this, but the federal government is responsible for an architecture. We should be designing the architecture 

for states and local or private sector owners to plug into. If they 

wish to purchase biodetection, we should furnish a place for them 

to plug into so that when the signal goes off we are assured that 

that signal means something and we will be coming. 

I do not know how long we are going to be able to sustain buying 

gizmos and deploying them across the country. You know, you all 

have appropriated billions in grant funds. I think scrutiny would 

have to admit that perhaps the priorities of how those grant funds 

are spent maybe are not consistent with what we know about our 

national security needs, and we may be able to steer states and 

locals into taking responsibility for their own equipment. That is 

one point of view. 

Another point of view is wait a minute. This is a national security issue, and we would not give Mayor Bloomberg missile radar 

and antiballistic missile technology and tell him to shoot down the 

incoming, which is what we are essentially doing with BioWatch. 

We have centralized this and pushed it out into the community and 

said this is a local security issue. 

I am not sure that I agree with that. I am sort of walking on 

both sides of this fence here. This is, as you suggested, not a sustainable model. We have to get the vaccine done or we are going 

to be buying these things for a long time either through grant 

funds or in a budget like mine. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. I am sure we will return to this. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
11 

Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Briefly to follow up on that. In last year’s bill we 

provided $2 million for you to enter into a grant or contract with 

the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the effectiveness of 

BioWatch, and I am reading from the report, including the reliability of monitoring data and the ability of hospitals and public 

health officials to respond based on information received from those 

systems. 

As part of the analysis, NAS should compare the benefits of cost 

of Generation 2 BioWatch technology with Generation 3 technology. 

They should also assess the cost and benefits of an enhanced national surveillance system that relies on U.S. hospitals and the 

U.S. public health system and compare the effectiveness of such a 

system with the current BioWatch approach. 

A final report, it says, should be completed before the end of fiscal 2008 and provided to the committee. Do you know anything 

about where they are with that? 

NAS STUDY ON BIOWATCH

Dr. RUNGE. We have been negotiating with them about the statement of work. It is in Contracts, I believe. I think we are on track 

to do that. We have met with them. We also came over and briefed 

the Chairman on the language. I think I have done that for you 

for free. It did not cost $2 million. 

We have briefed them on the issue. You know, they do not have 

a lot of people in-house that understand this completely and so 

they are putting together a committee of people who are familiar 

with technologies like this, with assays, with environmental detection, with biosurveillance and the pathology of anthrax, so they are 

on track. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, we are six months away or less. 

Dr. RUNGE. That is right. 

Mr. ROGERS. It sounds to me like you are just sort of beginning 

the conversation. 

Dr. RUNGE. We started the conversation with them on December 

27 I think, the day after the bill was signed. We met with them 

in February. Dr. Pope, who is the staff person in charge of this for 

the Institute of Medicine, and I have been on the phone constantly. 

I have to tell you, sir. I have serious doubts that they are going 

to be able to do any kind of a full evaluation in six months. I have 

talked to the folks that I know who do cost benefit work, and they 

have come in and they have said, first of all, it is an incalculable 

benefit. You know, the numbers, the sheer numbers of an attack 

would dwarf any cost that you could think of. 

The NAS has said we are not going to do a cost/benefit analysis. 

We are going to look at the cost and we are going to look at the 

benefit, but we are not going to do a cost benefit analysis. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, we are interested to hear what they have to 

say, but I sort of am absorbing that this is not a critical matter 

with you, the NAS report. 

Dr. RUNGE. I think that it will add additional fire to our zeal on 

this. It will provide a third party credibility to what we are shouting right now. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
12 

Mr. ROGERS. We both alluded in our opening statements to the 

question of who is in charge of health for the federal government. 

I subscribe to the theory that two people in charge means nobody 

is in charge. 

One of the Department of Health and Human Service’s strategic 

goals is, and I am quoting, ‘‘Public health promotion and protection, disease prevention and emergency response,’’ which according 

to HHS includes protection of the public from infectious and terrorist threats and preparedness for natural and manmade disasters. I thought that was what you were doing. 

ROLE OF NAS VERSUS HHS

Dr. RUNGE. My view of this, sir, and this is also a long and somewhat protracted policy discussion about the nature of Homeland 

Security. 

I view our Department as the architects and building managers 

for the building. With respect to human health, HHS is one of the 

contractors. That is their job. It is not my job to provide human 

health. My job is to make sure, as part of the Secretary of Homeland Security’s Office, that that is being done; that the wiring and 

the HVAC and the plumbing all have to be done by people who are 

specialists in that field. 

HHS has been given authority through PAHPA to develop countermeasures, to do advanced development and to acquire medical 

countermeasures through Project BioShield as long as the Secretary of Homeland Security signs off on use of the special reserve 

fund. 

They control the stockpile. We do not control the stockpile. They 

control the national disaster medical system. We do not. They are 

responsible for ESF–8, which is the emergency support function for 

public health and medical services. We do not do that. That is their 

job. 

As best I can explain it, HHS is not a shadow DHS for health 

care. They have a role to perform in the great architecture of homeland security, and I think they do that. They are working very, 

very hard on doing that well. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I am confused, and I suspect others are, about 

the respective authority and responsibility of each of these agencies. You have not allayed my concerns. 

Dr. RUNGE. Okay. I mean, I can go on. You know, we have three 

buckets of activity. WMD and biodefense is pretty straightforward. 

We are responsible for BioWatch. We are responsible for setting up 

the National Biosurveillance Integration Center. DHS has responsibilities under HSPD–9 now for food and ag, so we have a Food, 

Agriculture and Veterinary Defense Office. 

We have a role in Project BioShield, a very narrow role. I have 

one person who is devoted to making sure that the threats and 

countermeasures are delivered to HHS and then to make the decisions about what countermeasures to buy. That is a very clear role. 

Another bucket of activity in our office is the occupational safety 

and health. Right now, I have four or five people who are focused 

on the development of policy requirements and metrics for occupational safety and health and tactical and medical support. It has 

nothing to do with HHS. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
13 

The place where there is a tremendous amount of interaction is 

in the medical readiness area. I can divide that up into two lanes. 

One is end-to-end planning, and this is everything from intelligence 

and biosecurity all the way through environmental, physical and 

psychological recovery. 

HHS has a piece of that plan: The delivery of medical care to 

people in the wake of a disaster and the development of countermeasures in order to fulfill that task. They do not do intelligence. 

They do human biosurveillance, but they do not integrate biosurveillance across the spectrum. They have prevention activities 

through the CDC’s grants to states to do public education. 

We do not do that. We try to coordinate what we do. We have 

another grants officer in our Office of Medical Readiness who then 

sits down every week with HHS to discuss the grants that they 

have and the grants that DHS has to make sure that there is synergy in how they are used. It is not an easy task to coordinate, but 

we have to do that. 

Now, I would say that I am probably not the only person in DHS 

that has that issue with respective agencies, whether it is Justice 

or Transportation or another department. The Secretary of Homeland Security, if something fails, if something goes wrong and we 

lose thousands of people, he is going to be held accountable. 

We saw this in Katrina where it was not just Secretary Chertoff’s 

problem, and yet the focus of the problem seemed to be on him for 

some reason. There were other cabinet secretaries that had an 

equal share of responsibility, but somehow it came back to Homeland Security. 

I have taken that to heart, and we are doing everything we can 

to make sure that they are successful in that mission of health care 

delivery on behalf of my boss who wants that role to be done well, 

who wants that contractor to fulfill that function with aplomb. 

We do not supplant HHS. We do not duplicate anything that 

they do. We are very much in support of their operation and very 

hopeful of their success. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, compared to HHS your agency with 42 

FTEs—— Dr. RUNGE. Precisely. 

Mr. ROGERS [continuing]. Is a fly on their windshield. 

Dr. RUNGE. Right. 

Mr. ROGERS. I mean, they are a huge bureaucracy. I wonder 

whether or not we need to clarify legislatively even more so the 

precise roles of each of these agencies because we cannot afford to 

have confusion and nothing happening because of that divided authority. 

Dr. RUNGE. That is very insightful, sir. I would support that, and 

I will be happy to help you any way I can. 

Mr. ROGERS. BioShield. Are we making progress? 

BIOSHIELD PROGRESS

Dr. RUNGE. This is also worthy of a discussion. I believe that 

some progress is being made. However, we have a long ways to go, 

and it is no secret to you. The numbers are out there. It is important to understand what DHS’s role is in Project BioShield, and 

just so there is no mistake about this, this has been clarified over 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
14 

a series of MOUs and meetings and so forth that have gone on over 

the last year and a half that my office has been very much a part 

of, as well as our counsel and others. 

We are responsible for determining what constitutes a material 

threat to national security with respect to biological agents. We 

have issued 13 material threat determinations signed by the Secretary of DHS, and the second piece is to then use the best possible 

science and economical scenario to estimate the threat to a population so that gives it a size, gives a magnitude of the problem. 

So we give them the what and the how much. That information 

is given to HHS, and then, from there, they say, ‘‘Okay, what have 

we got on the shelf that we can put in the Stockpile that did not 

have to be part of BioShield? What do we have to go through basic 

development with the NIH? What do we need advanced development for that BARDA should handle? And, finally, what can we acquire out there?’’ BioShield, as I understand it, was thought of as an acquisition 

program, but that presupposed that there were things to acquire, 

and some of the needs that we have for some of these agents do 

not have a countermeasure and, therefore, require countermeasure 

development. The NIH is well funded to do the basic development, 

I think. Others might dispute that, but they have been very productive in doing so, but the problem is, is that once they do the 

basic development of a molecule, there really is no advanced development that is operable right now to get it to a point where it can 

be acquired by BioShield funds. 

So the so-called ‘‘valley of death’’ that the drug companies talk 

about is still unaddressed. BARDA was authorized by Congress, I 

think, around a billion dollars to do this. A science board was created to bring in people who know how to do advanced development. 

They have put that together. 

There is money for acquisition, and there is money for basic development, but it still lacks the wherewithal to do advanced development, whether that is partnering with the right companies or 

whether that is somebody else doing it, partnering with the DoD 

and their advanced development process, that really is BARDA’s 

problem, an HHS issue. 

We are rooting for them, but we do not have authority over that, 

and sometimes it is a bit frustrating, and it is frustrating, frankly, 

to Assistant Secretary Vanderwagen and Deputy Assistant Secretary Parker. They want to get this job done, but it is very difficult. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, there is another example of two agencies of 

the government with ill-defined responsibilities both telling us it is 

the other guy’s fault, and this is something we cannot afford. 

Dr. RUNGE. I would be curious to know how they characterize 

that because we have issued material threat determinations, we 

have issued population risk assessments, and we are participating 

in their governance process as an ex-officio, nonvoting member, by 

the way. That is our responsibility, and we are fulfilling that. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have some military 

installations in my community, through the Federal Partners proVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:12 Aug 28, 2008 Jkt 043384 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A384P2.XXX A384P2

dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
15 

gram. How are we coordinating those efforts? How are we making 

sure that we get some results in those efforts? I know one of the 

main difficulties is the coordination with other agencies and localities, and how do we make sure that, as we have that Federal Partners program, how do we coordinate with the other federal agencies? 

FEDERAL PARTNERS PROGRAM

Dr. RUNGE. Mr. Rodriguez, I am not sure what Federal Partners 

program you are referring to. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In the process of doing what you need to do in 

securing this nation, I gather that you have some efforts, in terms 

of reaching out and coordinating. 

Dr. RUNGE. Certainly. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And my understanding is that there is some 

Federal Partners program to help in that process of getting data 

and information. 

BIOWATCH COORDINATION WITH DOD

Dr. RUNGE. Within the scope of my responsibility, I can tell you 

that, for environmental detection, the Defense Department’s counterpart to BioWatch is called Guardian, and this year we have 

made an agreement with the DoD on assays so that whatever signal they produce will be public health actionable by the civilian 

sector, whatever signals BioWatch produces will be public health 

actionable by the defense sector. 

So we have put the two programs on equal footing, and they are 

collaborating very closely. That is one area. 

Another area is in response, and, as you know, NORTHCOM is 

the combatant command that has been made responsible for response for disasters in North America. Captain Jim Terbush, who 

is the command surgeon there, is on my speed dial. We talk to each 

other all of the time. We actually are concocting a scheme to do 

some joint training, or finding a place to do joint training, so that 

civilian folks can know what the inside of a C–130 looks like, and 

defense folks know what a civilian federal medical station looks 

like that the CDC deploys. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. How do we tie it in? For example, you mentioned initialing your discussions with the anthrax situation. How 

do we tie into the community to be able to pick that up as quickly 

as possible? 

BIOSURVEILLANCE

Dr. RUNGE. Well, again, the DoD system, they do have an environmental detection system of their own. We are in constant communication. 

Now, another way that we are cooperating, and I left this out, 

is in biosurveillance. The Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center 

at Fort Detrick does intelligence. They do the classified side of biosurveillance, but they are a direct input into our National Biosurveillance Integration Center that we are setting up that the 

common operating picture, that became live yesterday. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
16 

So the data feeds that will come from AFMIC will go into the 

common operating picture in a sensitive but unclassified setting so 

that every decision-maker will be able to know what AFMIC knows 

about outbreaks around the world, and they will know what we 

know domestically, which comes from the CDC and from the USDA 

and the Department of the Interior. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The president requested, I think, about 700 or 

less than $800,000 for the food and agriculture, and veterinarian. 

What are we expected to do with those seven or $800,000? What 

are the implications? 

FOOD, AGRICULTURE AND VETERINARY COORDINATION

Dr. RUNGE. Our job there, again, USDA has authority over meat 

and eggs. FDA has food authority over everything else, and we 

have some problems. We have had an import-safety issue that we 

have dealt with. HSPD–9 is the President’s Homeland Security 

Presidential Directive on food and agricultural security, and this is 

a list of all of the items that have to be done under HSPD–9. The 

first column is homeland security, and the things in red are the 

things that we are in the lead for. 

So, yes, it is a daunting challenge for this small band of passionate veterinarians and food experts to tackle this issue, but that 

is their primary goal, and it is one of coordination and, again, cooperating with the National Biosurveillance Integration Center to 

make sure that food and agriculture information is part of the common operating picture, working with the FDA on their issues, 

whether it was the melamine incident or——

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Excuse me. Is this $700,000 supposed to do that 

for the country? 

Dr. RUNGE. It is challenging, but we have a set of objectives that, 

we believe, will considerably advance where we are right now. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I know I had an incident some time back, in 

terms of some cattle that had some kind of tuberculosis or something, and I think, you know, I had the hardest time just trying 

to find out if anybody knew about it. It was a little article that I 

had run into about that issue. I know that, on the border down 

there, we have a series of things, items such as rabies and ticks 

and other items that occur, that impact the livestock as well as the 

animals in the area. 

Dr. RUNGE. Yes, sir. We will be one-stop shopping for you. If you 

want to just call us, have your staff call over, we will get you all 

of the information that is available on anything going on with food, 

ag., and vet. in the country. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. So what are the other agencies? Is it the Department of Agriculture that is overseeing some of that? 

Dr. RUNGE. Well, certainly, they have responsibility for veterinary health, for maintaining the health of the U.S. food supply 

when it comes to meat and eggs. They work very closely with their 

state agriculture departments on implementing regulations at the 

state level. That is their issue. 

Ours is more to be the eyes and ears of the Secretary when it 

comes to threats to the nation’s food supply, which is the same 

issue that we had with FDA, which is why our little ambassadorial 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
17 

office here spends all of its time coordinating and collaborating 

with primarily those two agencies, as well as the private sector. 

I should point out that my eyes were opened. I went to North 

Carolina, and I went to visit Goldsboro Milling, which is one of the 

largest pork producers in the country. The amount of information 

that they have on diseases, viruses that are in their hog houses 

and in their chicken houses far exceeds what we know in the public 

sector. 

So we have to figure out a way to collaborate and get the information, in a proprietary, sensitive way, from the private sector so 

that we can have a better picture of what is going on in the country 

with potential outbreaks that are out there. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Ms. Roybal-Allard. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Dr. Runge, as you know, early recognition 

of bioterrorism is an inherently complicated matter because the 

health and medical information on a situation could be delayed, or 

perhaps it could be presented in a manner that looks like a regular 

disease pattern. 

One critical way to help sort through this challenge is to ensure 

that the information that law enforcement may have on a particular case or situation is shared in a timely manner with public 

health officials. However, it is my understanding that DHS guidelines for labeling and sharing documents that are marked ‘‘law enforcement sensitive’’ can result in excluding public health officials 

from receiving information that is critical to determining whether 

there is an emerging health threat. 

It is also my understanding that the decision to share information labeled as ‘‘law enforcement sensitive’’ is often made by law 

enforcement personnel who lack the knowledge needed to determine what information should be useful to public health officials in 

determining the existence of a health threat. 

So my question is, being that your office is charged with leading 

the response to bioterror incidents, what is being done to ensure 

that law enforcement officers share relevant information with public health agencies in a timely manner so that they can effectively 

assess and respond to a bioterrorism threat? 

SHARING LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE INFORMATION

Dr. RUNGE. That is an eloquent statement of the problem. There 

is a solution. As a matter of fact, three weeks ago, I was talking 

with Secretary Chertoff about this exact problem, and he looked 

over at the Deputy Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis 

and said, ‘‘you know, where are we with getting public health people into the fusion centers?’’

This has been a goal of ours that we have been working on not 

hard enough. We have been raising this on the radar screen of the 

I&A folks, and they actually, as of a few weeks ago, now have a 

program to begin to incorporate public health into the fusion centers. This is useful for us in a couple of ways. 

Number one, it is great to have those eyes and ears out there 

that can let us know what they are seeing at the local level in a 

coordinated fashion with law enforcement. It is also an advantage 

to us to have them there to push information out when the time 

comes. They have typically not had security clearances. Public 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
18 

health folks, for a myriad of reasons, have a difficult time designating somebody who will be around for years who will go through 

all of the necessary security clearances and information analysis 

training to be able to be an effective fusion center participant over 

a period of time. So those issues are worked on. 

HSPD–21, which was signed by the President a few months ago, 

actually has a mandate in there for our I&A office to go out and, 

with our help, do briefings for local public health on the threats. 

Now, a one-time thing is going to be okay, but it is not ideal. What 

they need is a constant presence in those fusion centers so that 

when new information comes down the pike, they will be privy to 

it, and they can apply their knowledge to it. So we are on this case. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Am I understanding that you are saying 

you cannot find qualified public health people to be a part of that? 

PARTICIPATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS

Dr. RUNGE. No. That is not what I said. It is difficult to find 

someone who a public health system can designate for three or four 

years, who will go through the security clearance process, who will 

get the analytical training, and then will be part of the system for 

a period of years. It is hard for them to commit to that, and we 

have heard this from NACHHO folks with whom we have talked 

to about this. 

They will solve that problem, but, you know, there has been an 

issue with security clearances for police officers, for instance, that 

Charlie Allen has solved. We will set about solving the problem for 

public health people as well, but we cannot have people coming in 

for six months and then being reassigned to do some other public 

health chore. We have to have a commitment at the local level that 

they will actually be part of this fusion cell for the long haul. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Do you have any sense of how long or how 

close you are to solving the problem so that we do have these public health people in place? 

Dr. RUNGE. It is a high priority. Let me get back to you on that. 

We will actually come in and brief you on the plan that we have. 

I appreciate your support for that. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Okay. 

Dr. RUNGE. It is one more thing that we need to do, but we need 

to do it. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Let me return, Dr. Runge, to the BioShield discussion. Congressman Rogers was focusing on some of 

the interagency divisions of responsibility, which, as he said, sometimes amounts to the buck stopping nowhere, but I know you 

watch this closely. I know you are concerned about it. You have 

certainly left no doubt about that. 

So I do have some questions about this intergovernmental aspect, 

the kind of coordination that is required, but then we also have 

this matter of a budget, a sizable budget, item to deal with. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, an additional $2.2 billion is coming available in Fiscal Year 2009 for Project BioShield. 

That decision was made back in 2004, and those assumptions that 

govern that decision may or may not still be operative. We have 

had close to four years to assess the viability of this program. We 

know that right today almost two billion has not been obligated. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
19 

We know some of the reasons for that money not being obligated. 

There have been shortfalls in acquiring advanced countermeasures, 

as you indicated, for most of the threats, really, that have been 

identified by DHS, and there is a debate under way, which you 

have alluded to. Is this just a matter of failures of management 

and coordination, or is it just not properly designed? Have we 

somehow failed to put the incentives in place to bring this development process along? 

The bottom line is that BioShield has not been able to develop 

the countermeasures, as originally intended. This raises obvious 

questions about the present money available and the money coming 

online. 

So I would welcome any comments that you have about this, but 

I want to ask you how we should direct these funds when they do 

come online. Are we talking here about putting money into 

BARDA, for example? Would that be a better strategy, as opposed 

to having this unused money out there for drug acquisition? Can 

you help us with the obvious budgetary issues that we are facing? 

PROJECT BIOSHIELD

Dr. RUNGE. Mr. Chairman, you have asked a bunch of questions 

there. I certainly have opinions on most of them. 

Your understanding of the budget issue is accurate, I think. The 

fact that it is in the coffers of the Office of Health Affairs is just 

a function of where the money was appropriated, to begin with. 

Right now, I have one financial person, Rich Aaronson, a fabulous 

guy, sitting back there, but he is one guy. He has another one in 

the pipeline who will be coming at the end of April, and there is 

a third one being advertised. So that cadre of three financial people 

will be who we have. 

The President has proposed four more in our budget. That will 

be the delta in our FTEs for this year, which we desperately need. 

But there is no way that we can exert any sort of financial management or any credible financial control over $2.8 billion and how it 

is spent. 

The accountability of DHS for how this is spent is illusory. It is 

a figment of our imagination. The fact is, is that when we issue a 

material threat, and the Secretary of HHS determines that they 

are going to spend money from the special reserve fund on that material threat, a letter comes to Secretary Chertoff and asks for his 

concurrence to use the special reserve fund to deal with that 

threat, and that is the co-signature that then goes to the head of 

OMB, who has the President’s delegation for the use of the special 

reserve fund. At that point, that is pretty much it, as far as our 

co-management of those funds. 

When HHS does a procurement and—countermeasure, they send 

over a note that says, ‘‘Pay the bill,’’ and that is what we do. 

So the way it is set up is not ideal, and I am not sure what the 

crafters of the legislation initially had in mind. When I opened up 

the budget in brief and saw that I had $2.8 billion in my budget 

line, I was slightly taken aback because it is illusory, and we cannot exert financial control over this in any reasonable way. 

So this is also a fund that does not allow an administrative takedown. Whatever you do with BioShield funds, you do it out of hide, 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
20 

so that is a bit of a problem for us, unlike other grant funds that 

allow administrative overhead. This is not one that does that. Did 

that answer your question? 

Mr. PRICE. It answers part of my question having to do with how 

this coordination takes place and what your role is. You did not 

really address my question, and I would appreciate your trying to 

do so, about whether these funds are misplaced in the first place, 

whether these assumptions still hold, whether, for example, the annual appropriation for BARDA is $102 million, way, way below the 

kind of sums we are talking about. You cited, in your answer to 

Mr. Rogers, the ‘‘valley of death’’ problem as a major component of 

this. It apparently is. Obviously, these drugs have not been developed. The program has not moved forward. 

Are we dealing here with a misallocation of funds that we need 

to correct? 

Dr. RUNGE. I think that part of it is where we are in the phase 

of things. Initially, there was some low-hanging fruit that BioShield actually was able to acquire. For instance, botulinum is one 

of the things on the threat list, and there was actually a technology 

for making botulinum antitoxin that did not require a lot of advanced development, so they were able to pick that fruit. 

Smallpox vaccine; they were able to deal with that. 

Anthrax antitoxin was already somewhat through the advanced 

development process. They were able to buy a couple of hundred 

thousand doses of that. 

So, initially, it seemed to be working okay, but we plucked that 

fruit. The higher hanging fruit is dependent on advanced development, so now it looks like it may be a little bit out of sequence, 

where we funded the acquisition and did not fund the advanced development. 

You know, the big cop-out that I used to use on Chairman Rogers 

when he was the chairman of my oversight committee at NHTSA 

was, ‘‘You all make the law; we just administer it.’’ This is a tough one. I hesitate to suggest that we diminish the 

acquisition money because it needs to be there. On the other hand, 

there is a need for some creative advanced development that HHS 

has to do, whether it is through joint ventures or whether it is 

funding their own advanced development, like DoD does in some 

ways. I do not know much about the DoD model, but they do advanced development a little bit differently, and it may be wise to 

look at best practices. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey, you came in just as the first 

round was ending, and having been in your situation, I think we 

should turn to you because we are now into the second round, but 

with Mr. Rogers’s concurrence, we would like to turn to you for 

your questions. 

Mrs. LOWEY. I really appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, 

we are pulled in many directions with many hearings, and I thank 

you for understanding. 

I also appreciate, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rogers’s focus on coordination, as well as yours, so I will not continue on that issue. But I 

would like to talk about the hospital surge capacity. 

This is an issue I have been interested in for quite a while because, in the case of a public health emergency, such as bioterVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:12 Aug 28, 2008 Jkt 043384 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A384P2.XXX A384P2

dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
21 

rorism or a pandemic, one of the critical elements necessary for an 

effective response is adequate surge capacity at hospitals or other 

medical facilities. 

We all know, certainly in my district and many of the other surrounding districts, many hospitals are currently having difficulty 

dealing with the emergencies coming through their doors on an average Saturday night, let alone what would happen in a bioterrorism or pandemic scenario. 

So before I get to specific questions, Mr. Chairman, I do not 

know whether Mr. Rogers or you ever visited that command center 

that Tommy Thompson put together. Now, I have checked with 

several staff people, and no one knows anything about it. Megamillions was spent on that command center. Perhaps you can tell 

us if you know something about that command center. Whatever 

happened to that command center? 

HHS SECRETARY’S OPERATIONS CENTER

Dr. RUNGE. Would this be the Secretary’s operations center at 

HHS? 

Mrs. LOWEY. Yes. It was an incredible thing. A lot of money was 

spent on all of the TV screens, and he could pinpoint exactly where 

my hospital is or your hospital is, and, supposedly, in an emergency, they would absolutely know what was happening. Are you 

aware of this? 

Dr. RUNGE. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Are you using it? 

Dr. RUNGE. Well, the Secretary’s operations center gives us daily 

situation reports that go both to us in our office as well as the National Operations Center. Secretary Leavitt, this past year, at our 

request, filled the chair of the National Operations Center with one 

of his Secretary’s operations center people so that there is a realtime, common operating picture with the National Operations Center and the Secretary’s operations center at HHS. 

So, yes, there is definitely connectivity, and they have been working very, very hard since they stood up the Secretary’s Preparedness and Response Office in increasing their operational efficiency. 

Mrs. LOWEY. I think it just might be helpful if someone came 

down and briefed people on that center because no one seemed to 

be able to follow up on it, but I am glad that all of those millions 

of dollars are currently being used effectively to keep, God forbid, 

there is an emergency. 

Now, the President, in the budget, proposed to cut the HRSA 

Hospital Preparedness program, which is designed to increase hospital surge capacity, by more than $61 million for Fiscal Year 2009. 

From your position at DHS, does this mean that the administration 

believes that states and hospitals are adequately prepared for bioterrorism or another medical catastrophe? 

HHS HOSPITAL PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM

Dr. RUNGE. I really cannot comment on the decisions that were 

made around the HHS budget, so I will pass on that. 

Mrs. LOWEY. You just have to accept it. 

Dr. RUNGE. That would be a question that you would more appropriately pose to them. However, I do not think anybody who has 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
22 

looked at the news, looked at the IOM report on the state of emergency care in the country, would be under the mistaken notion that 

we are adequately prepared for a hospital surge. We have squeezed 

all of the capacity out of hospitals’ budgets, and it is just not there. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Has the federal government estimated the cost of 

creating a minimum level of surge capacity? 

HOSPITAL SURGE CAPACITY

Dr. RUNGE. Well, any time we create surge capacity, it gets filled 

up with patients that would be boarding in the emergency department. So it is a fallacy to suggest that we can actually create surge 

capacity any more than any business can afford to have a bunch 

of people that are sitting around not working. 

By the way, way up in the 90 percent of health care in this country is delivered by the private sector, so we have not asked the private sector to make an investment in unused beds or unused people or unused equipment. It is not a very practical solution. I do 

not have a practical solution for you, but this is the state that we 

are in. 

Mrs. LOWEY. But it would seem to me that the Chief Medical Officer at DHS should have an estimate of what is needed to achieve 

a minimum level of surge capacity. How do you make us feel secure 

on health matters if we do not have those figures? I know that is 

a difficult position to put you in. 

Dr. RUNGE. It is, and, as a matter of fact—— Mrs. LOWEY. But you are in that position. 

Dr. RUNGE. As a matter of fact, HHS would say, and I would 

agree with them, that that is their issue, that is their problem. You 

sort of missed my analogy of where Homeland Security is in the 

great scheme of things. If we are the building manager and the 

prime contractor, HHS is a subcontractor for the health care piece. 

They do ESF–8. They are responsible for the emergency-support 

function for public health and medical care in the event of a disaster. 

I know that this is very much on their radar screen. This is a 

problem that we talk about, but we, frankly, do not have a lot of 

solutions for it, other than surging federal assets when it comes 

time to answer a call with field hospitals and volunteer national 

disaster medical system of people, medical reserve corps. The Uniform Public Health Service is available, with 6,000 people. 

So there is some surge capacity through federal resources, but 

surge capacity does not exist in the world of private or quasi-public 

hospitals. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Well, let me just say, because the Chairman is looking at me, which must mean my time is up, but I know Mr. Rogers 

was talking before about coordination. One of the main problems, 

as you know, in Louisiana was the lack of coordination, and we 

heard that from everybody, after you, after you, after you. 

Dr. RUNGE. Absolutely. 

Mrs. LOWEY. So I would hope that, as the Chief Medical Officer 

at the Department of Homeland Security, that there is adequate 

coordination and that there is some planning, and there is some estimate on what is an appropriate surge capacity number and that 

you ask for it because we certainly have to be ready, and it seems 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
23 

to me, this is an important part of your responsibility. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Pandemic influenza: A formidable challenge, not to 

mention the devastation to the country, but a real challenge to the 

continuity of critical government operations, as well as the public 

health. 

To date, over $6 billion has been provided to support the National Strategy on Pandemic Influenza, most of that to stockpiling 

vaccines out of our Office of Medical Equipment by the federal government and the states, as well as to support response plans. What 

I want to ask you about is how do we protect the essential governmental services during that kind of an attack? 

DoD has reportedly stockpiled over six million courses of 

antiviral treatments for essential military personnel, and the State 

Department has bought 100,000 courses of antiviral treatments to 

protect its employees worldwide. What are we doing to protect 

what a lot of us consider to be one of the most important government agencies, yours, DHS, from that kind of pandemic attack? 

Not just influenza perhaps but——

PANDEMIC INFLUENZA CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT

Dr. RUNGE. Your question is a very potent one. I will deal first 

with the issue of a pandemic. By the way, of the $6 billion, DHS’s share was about $47 million. 

About a third of that we spend on stuff, on buying and stockpiling 

things. We bought $6 million in respirators, $10 million in pairs of 

gloves, hand gels, goggles, disposable suits. They are stockpiled 

with the operating components in 52 locations throughout the U.S. 

We are in the process of purchasing 135,000 courses of antivirals, 

which would be used for treatment and not prophylaxis under current guidelines. The funding for that was about $2.7 million. There 

is a contract in OPO for execution that falls within that amount 

for some more tens of thousands, or perhaps hundreds of thousands, of doses. I will get you the exact number, if you are interested. 

It is clearly a concern of ours. Continuity of government is extremely important, and we took that very, very seriously and put 

a significant amount of the money that we were allotted into a provision for that purpose. 

We are also buying surgical masks that provide a little lower 

level of protection, but CDC has given us some guidance that they 

will be useful in some applications. 

So we are on the case. Now, with respect to the larger issue, our 

workforce-protection issue is a huge deal for us, and Dr. Bill Lang, 

who has been a detailee from DoD that I have had in that slot because I have not had an FTE for it, has done a fabulous job in 

scoping out what these requirements are. We have put in a travel 

medicine system so that our deployed forces will know what diseases are present in the places that they are going to, what sort 

of immunizations and antibiotics they need to take with them. 

For other biological events, we are behind the curve. If we were 

attacked by anthrax, our workforce does not have medication kits 

with the necessary antibiotics in them. We are trying to identify a 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
24 

cadre of people who have had previous anthrax vaccine that we 

could give a booster to so that we could have a cadre of people who 

would be willing to respond who are vaccinated in an anthrax 

emergency. But as you might imagine, it is a very complex issue. 

There is a funding issue, and there is also an operational issue that 

we are tackling. 

Mr. ROGERS. Tell me how this works. We have got a pandemic 

influenza outbreak across the country. What do you do? What does 

DHS do? What does FEMA perhaps do, and what does HHS or 

anyone else do? Who does this work, and what kind of work is it? 

Dr. RUNGE. To the extent that there is an outbreak across the 

country, Secretary Chertoff has a predesignated Principal Federal 

Official, Vice Admiral Vivian Crea, the Deputy Commandant of the 

Coast Guard, who is the predesignated PFO for a pandemic. 

We have also identified five regional PFOs and 10 deputy PFOs, 

all of whom now are trained in the management of this particular 

incident. We have had communications exercises where we have 

been present at an assistant secretary level, governmentwide exercise. 

So we believe that our response capacity is how we would handle 

any other major event, with the exception that this event would 

occur across the entire country, so we need a bunch of PFOs 

for——

Mr. ROGERS. What I am trying to get at is what is the role of 

HHS, what is DHS, and what is FEMA’s role, or anybody else? 

Dr. RUNGE. HHS’s role is to take care of the people. Their role 

is to take care of sick people. So, in preparation for that, they have 

invested three-plus billion dollars in vaccine technology, and they 

are working very, very hard at that. The have given $500 million 

in a couple of tranches out to states to do state and local planning, 

to public health. The issue of public health and health care is their 

responsibility. That is not DHS’s responsibility. They are the contractor for that element. 

However, we recognize that it is not just a health problem, as 

you well know. This is an issue of critical infrastructures, it is an 

issue of continuity of government, and it is an issue of potential 

civil unrest. There are issues of quarantine enforcement and so 

forth, all of which will be dealt with by DHS through its HSPD–

5 authorities. 

Mr. ROGERS. That includes protecting essential personnel——

Dr. RUNGE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS [continuing]. Not only in DHS but in other departments. 

Dr. RUNGE. That is correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. Are you the sole agency for that kind of effort? 

Dr. RUNGE. The pandemic planning lives with us, and so our 

Medical Readiness Office has been working diligently with HHS, 

and the CDC which is part of the HHS, on things like community 

mitigation strategies. What will people do before they have the vaccine in order to minimize their risk of exposure? 

We have developed a set of priorities for vaccine usage, when 

vaccine is available, by critical infrastructure sector, with the help 

of our sector coordinating councils at DHS, to identify how many 

critical people are in the 17 critical infrastructures key resources. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
25 

So we have been building a matrix around that to help HHS 

prioritize who will get the vaccine first. 

There have been public meetings on the subject, so our office is 

very much involved with that coordinating role with them and the 

VA and DoD with respect to how this sort of care is delivered. 

Mr. ROGERS. Does your responsibility go toward the White House 

as well, to protect their personnel? 

Dr. RUNGE. The White House has its own ability to maintain its 

workforce. 

Mr. ROGERS. Does FEMA have a role in this? 

Dr. RUNGE. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROGERS. What role? 

FEMA ROLE IN A PANDEMIC

Dr. RUNGE. Well, insofar as when there is a national event, and 

Homeland Security will surge its forces, FEMA then stands up the 

National Resource Coordination Center, and all of the various 

ESFs then are discharging their responsibilities. Whether it is 

transportation or law enforcement or public health and medical 

care or communications, they are the hub for response. 

Mr. ROGERS. Who distributes the vaccines and that type of thing 

around the countryside? 

VACCINE DISTRIBUTION

Dr. RUNGE. That is a stockpile issue. HHS is responsible for the 

Strategic National Stockpile. 

Mr. ROGERS. And they deliver it? 

Dr. RUNGE. Yes, sir. We are in the process of purchasing our own 

for our workforce, as do many private companies, but they and the 

states are responsible for that distribution. 

Mr. ROGERS. For the public distribution. 

Dr. RUNGE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Mrs. Lowey. 

Mrs. LOWEY. One of the issues I would like to follow up on from 

Mr. Rogers’s comments is regarding the state stockpiles. Many of 

us have been talking about this for quite a few years, not only on 

this Committee but on Labor-HHS, and we know that, to date, the 

federal government has purchased the 50 million courses of treatment, as recommended under the NSPI. States, on the other hand, 

have still only stockpiled approximately 19 million of the 31 million 

courses of antivirals called for in the NSPI, leaving us 12 million 

courses short of the National Preparedness Plan. 

As you are aware, some states have completed their stockpiles, 

some states are partially done, and others have yet to act. My own 

state of New York has purchased about 1.27 million courses of 

treatment as of November 2007, which is about 63 percent of the 

state’s allocation. It should reach 80 percent of its allocation by the 

end of 2008. 

What are you doing to encourage more states to purchase enough 

antivirals to cover their populations, and if you could provide the 

Committee with an update on progress by each state to complete 

their purchases, it would be very helpful to us. So what are you 

doing about that? 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
26 

VACCINE STOCKPILES

Dr. RUNGE. Well, first of all, we will be happy to get the data 

from HHS and pass it on to you. We will take care of you there. 

Under a program that they administer, states were able to purchase and stockpile antivirals at a favorable price and with a subsidy. They are encouraged to come to the full $30 million. All we 

have is the bully pulpit on this issue. We do not control that program. That is an HHS–CDC issue. We can cheerlead and hoop and 

holler, but that is HHS’s responsibility. 

Mrs. LOWEY. So, from the Department of Homeland Security, and 

I know Mr. Rogers was trying to clarify that, in the event of a pandemic influenza outbreak, you have no responsibility in ensuring 

that states who do not make preparations are going to be in a difficult situation versus those that have failed to act. That is all 

HHS? 

Dr. RUNGE. That is. Unfortunately, we understand that that puts 

us at risk, and it is just like, you know, this is the contractor analogy. We are dependent on their success, so we encourage, we can 

issue requirements, we can discuss with them relative merits of encouragement or bully pulpit or strong-arm techniques. We have 

had this discussion around community-mitigation strategies. 

If you look back at the 1918 pandemic, St. Louis, which employed 

very effective community-mitigation strategies, had a very low mortality curve, whereas Philadelphia, that did not, had a very high 

mortality curve. So I look at this, and I am saying, well, it is pretty 

darned important to make sure we have more St. Louises than 

Philadelphias in a 2011 pandemic, and yet there is a hesitancy to 

tell states what to do. I, frankly, do not have that problem, but 

there are people who are responsible for these sovereign entities 

that do have that problem, and they are not going to do what you 

tell them to do, no matter what, because they are sovereign entities. 

So we have the bully pulpit. We can issue, this is the standard, 

this is what the CDC has said is best practice, and we encourage 

you to comply. But that is where we are stuck, and we also know 

that if they do not, they become our problem, just like any community that does not prepare, does not have a good evacuation plan, 

does not have a communications plan, does not have interoperable 

communications, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. They become our 

problem. 

So it is in our interest to do what we can to make sure that they 

do have 30 million courses of antivirals, but we do not control that. 

It is a tough spot to be in. 

Mrs. LOWEY. It is because the plan calls for 25 percent of the 

population, if I am correct, to be covered, so I would think that the 

Department of Homeland Security that has the overall primary responsibility, working with HHS, would be able to use some extraordinary persuasiveness. 

Dr. RUNGE. Unfortunately, we do not have that authority, and 

we will use the bully pulpit, and we will encourage them, and, 

again, working with HHS, we will do whatever we can do to——

Mrs. LOWEY. Should you have more authority? 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
27 

Dr. RUNGE. That is perhaps a much longer, protracted discussion. The Secretary of Homeland Security, as I said before you 

came into the room, really is on the hook for making sure that everyone else fulfills their responsibility and is successful. It is a 

tough spot to be in when you do not have authority over that. 

I think there are some similarities to what you all did with the 

DNI, for instance, with budgetary authority over intelligence. As I 

leave government next year, I will write about that. I think that 

we have seen the deficiencies that we have in trying to coordinate 

and collaborate with various entities that are reticent, and that is 

where we are. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think this would be very 

helpful. I understand there are certain things you may not be able 

to give us for the record until you leave the government, but we 

would not want to wait until, God forbid, there is a real emergency 

to get your advice, and I think that would be very helpful. 

Dr. RUNGE. I think the Congress is understanding that there are 

some tweaks that need to be made to the Homeland Security Act 

at some point, and, certainly, from your point of view as a subcommittee Appropriations Committee for Homeland Security, I 

think you probably sense some of the issues that we have. We simply are totally dependent on other people’s success, and yet we 

have no authority over ensuring that that happens. 

Mrs. LOWEY. That is the problem, and I think that is something 

that Mr. Rogers and the Chair have been trying to get to. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Serrano. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being 

late. I was chairing my own subcommittee. 

It is a combined issue here. I spent quite a bit of time speaking 

about fairness to the territories—Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, Samoa—and I have noticed throughout the years that there 

seems to be an indifference to how the federal government deals 

with the territories: Not including them in legislation, making assignment of dollars as sort of an add-on. 

But now, under the issue of homeland security and the War on 

Terror, that indifference could be very dangerous to the 50 states, 

as it is to the folks that are there in the territories. 

So my question to you is, especially when it comes to food safety, 

items coming into the territories and items leaving that originate 

in the territories; are we doing what we should be doing? Do we 

have the manpower and womanpower to deal with this issue? 

Secondly, if you might slightly or wholly agree with me that 

there has been an indifference to the territories, is there an indifference also when it comes to homeland security in terms of securing them and, therefore, securing ourselves from, in this case, 

items coming through the territories? 

INDIFFERENCE TO THE TERRITORIES

Dr. RUNGE. Mr. Serrano, I am probably guilty as charged with 

respect to my area. We say, you know, the politically correct term 

‘‘states, territories, and tribal governments’’ all of the time, and yet 

I have not visited a territory to sit down with the officials to find 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
28 

out what their concerns are. This is just a part of the slow evolution of our office. 

So I would not say ‘‘indifference’’ as much as an issue of 

prioritization, in general. Now, that is not true of DHS in general. 

FEMA is very involved with the territories, particularly in the Caribbean region. They very much watch very, very closely what goes 

on with Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, obviously, because 

of their role in hurricane relief. 

When I was at the Department of Transportation, I had a regional office that actually had responsibility for traffic safety in 

Puerto Rico, and we had a very close relationship on that issue. We 

have not had a regional presence. We do not have anybody in the 

regional office to support the FEMA administrator, which I hope to 

correct in the out years. 

OHA SUPPORT TO THE SECRETARY, FEMA, FDA AND USDA

It is very important. Our authority, under PKEMRA, said that 

we are to support the Secretary and the FEMA Administrator in 

public health and medical matters. Well, in order to do that, we actually, by extension, need to support the regional FEMA administrators, and they all have different, very unique needs. Since 

NDMS was pulled out, they have no health people advising them 

on VX nerve gas or anthrax or their kid’s ear infection. So we 

would like to do that in the out years, and I think that is part and 

parcel of the requirement that you are setting. 

With respect to food safety, that is a huge issue, and Dr. Tom 

McGrinn, who is the head of our Food, Ag. and Veterinary Defense 

Office, I am sure he would love to come brief you on what we are 

doing in that area in coordination with FDA and USDA. 

The Secretary made the observation to me, the other day, that 

this is a difficult problem to enforce our way out of, and Secretary 

Leavitt has said the same thing as the head of the President’s Import Safety Working Group. CBP cannot stop what it does not 

know is coming in, and the solutions to food safety have to occur 

on the other side of the oceans, whether it is adulterated 

chondroitin and pork heparin or whether it is lead in toys or if it 

is bad tires or drugs and devices. This is an issue that CBP cannot 

stop at our border, and there is a lot of anxiety about that. 

So we have to have a more systemic, global solution to this. It 

has to involve the private sector. It has to involve the food importers and the grocers. When there is a recall, FDA has to have the 

authority to actually enforce a recall, which they do not have right 

now. If you have a VIC card from Harris Teeter or a favorite customer card from any grocer, they know if you bought Castleberry 

chile, and yet we do not have the institutions in place to be able 

to contact people to say, ‘‘Do not eat that chile. It is contaminated.’’

So we have a long way to go in this area, and it does involve the 

interagency, and it involves authorities for them, not necessarily 

for us. We would love to come talk to you about this at great 

length. It is a vulnerability. The President recognized it when he 

signed HSPD–9, and we have a long way to go. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, I appreciate that, and I would like to continue our conversation. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
29 

Mr. Chairman, I have discussed this, throughout the years, with 

Mr. Rogers also, and it is the lack of thinking globally under the 

American flag. In other words, we think 50 states, and then there 

are the territories. So it is not just the issue of protecting the territories from items coming and people, in the case of Homeland Security and the War on Terror, people coming into the territories, but 

then how easy it is for those items and those people to just, in the 

case of people, get on a plane in San Juan and be in New York in 

three hours. 

We do not seem to look at it as one global network. We seem to 

say, we will protect the 50 states, and then maybe we will protect 

the territories. At the expense of being self-serving here, if you do 

not protect the territories, you are not protecting yourself because 

those items and those folks travel here freely. 

Mr. PRICE. I think, if I may interject, the concept is deficient, if 

we are simply looking at this as a kind of distributional problem 

among the states in terms of available protection. You are right. 

The territories are a point of entry into this country, and we should 

be concerned about them but also about the ease of transition then. 

Mr. SERRANO. Absolutely. When you enter a territory, you know 

you are entering the United States. A study is being done now, for 

instance, of how many people become American citizens, never 

stepping into a state, whereas they applied for that citizenship in 

the territories, and they get it, and they become American citizen 

foreigners. You sometimes wonder just how tight do we handle all 

of this stuff, so this is a concern, and I am glad that, at least, we 

have brought it up, and maybe some people will think about it. 

COORDINATION WITH TERRITORIES

Dr. RUNGE. Thank you very much. I would also point out that 

we learned a lot by including Guam in the TOPOFF 4 exercise 

where there was a radiological dispersion device notionally detonated there. Our Coast Guard is all over the place, and they have 

a huge presence in the territories because most of them are maritime. But we learned a tremendous amount with how they respond 

and what they do, and I think it would be a model for future exercises. 

Mr. SERRANO. Very briefly, to close, Mr. Chairman, it happens at 

every level. It is not just us. The well-renowned Wolf Blitzer was 

reporting on the primaries in Samoa, and his comment was, ‘‘Why 

are they voting?’’ So I called up and said something about citizenship and the fact that they are fighting in Iraq at this very moment. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. It looks like, on the Democratic side of the equation, 

the Puerto Rican primary might yet be more important than anyone assumed. I have been attentive of that because North Carolina 

happens to be in the same category as is Kentucky. That is right. 

You never know. 

Mr. SERRANO. They had better listen to this Committee. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, as we undertake a final round here, Dr. Runge, 

let me ask you one brief question, back on this organizational 

theme and in the pandemic flu area that Mr. Rogers raised. Then 

I would ask you about environmental exposure and what kind of 

responsibility you and the Department are taking on for that. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
30 

You know about the GAO report last year that did recommend 

further clarification of leadership roles and responsibilities across 

agencies for pandemic flu. GAO recommended that the secretaries 

of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services work together to develop and conduct rigorous testing, training, exercises 

for pandemic flu to ensure that the roles are clearly defined. 

Now, the Homeland Security Department agreed with that recommendation and stated that its Incident Management Planning 

Teams were addressing the shortfalls identified by GAO. Now, 

these teams are part of the DHS Operations Directorate. 

I would think, as principal medical adviser, you would be responsible for this kind of coordination with HHS and other DHS components, so I just wonder what explanation you would have as to why 

the Operations Directorate is taking the lead, and then I would appreciate any clarification you could offer as to your role in this 

overall strategy. 

INCIDENT MANAGEMENT PLANNING TEAMS COORDINATION

Dr. RUNGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are very, very involved with this. We have spent countless hours. Dr. Til Jolly, my 

Assistant Chief Medical Officer for Medical Readiness, and his 

team have worked arm in arm with the Ops Coordination folks, the 

IMPT—the Incident Management Planning Team—as part of that, 

and they developed a plan, an operational plan, submitted it to the 

White House Homeland Security Council. There are some unresolved policy issues that they are continuing to work on before that 

plan is actually blessed. So we are way into this. 

I would also point out that the planning system at DHS is still 

a bit unsettled right now because of the various levels of planning. 

Under the National Response Framework, Annex 1 talks about a 

Strategic Planning Guidance Statement, which is a short document 

that basically says what the desired end-state is and who the players are. It is issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security. 

Then a strategic plan is done, which basically defines the actions 

to be taken, the ends, ways, and means; the actions to be taken, 

the roles and responsibilities of the various departments, agencies, 

state and local governments, and then gaps that need to be addressed. 

From that, FEMA takes and works with the states and locals on 

developing operational planning at the state and local level in 

order to do that. So it is a pyramid, kind of a cascade of plans that 

need to emanate from the Strategic Planning Guidance Statement. 

We are finished with the one for anthrax, for instance, that 

needs to be blessed by the appropriate parties. We have a draft 

Strategic Plan for anthrax. That is our number-one deal. 

We, as subject matter experts, believe that we own the assurance 

that these plans get done for the biological scenarios and for the 

ones that really nobody else owns, like nerve agents, for instance. 

So we cannot do everything at one time. We have got two feds, 

FTEs that are devoted to this and a couple of hundred thousand 

dollars in contract support for this fiscal year to be able to generate 

these plans. 

We then give them to the Ops Coordination Directorate and work 

closely with them. We pull in subject matter experts from the 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
31 

Interagency to make sure that their concerns are addressed during 

the process, so it is quite iterative when this is done. 

We believe that we do own that responsibility to get these things 

out for animal diseases—foot-and-mouth disease is our next one. 

Anthrax, as I said; endemic food-borne illness; and plague are the 

ones that are on our radar screen. 

Mr. PRICE. So you portray a collaborative process, an ‘‘iterative 

process,’’ as you call it, but the office in charge is the Operations 

Directorate. Is that right? 

Dr. RUNGE. Yes. The Director of the Operations Coordination Directorate is our representative to the Domestic Readiness Group at 

the White House. That is where the plans are delivered. His Incident Management Planning Team is the one that actually takes 

the plan and gets it into the shape, the format, for being taken to 

the White House and blessed by the appropriate authorities. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Well, it does raise a question, where your 

place in this is or should be, given the fact that the subject matter 

expertise resides in your office. So we need to, I would say, monitor 

that pretty carefully and would appreciate any further information 

you wish to furnish. 

Let me briefly raise an additional issue. You and I have discussed this briefly. My thinking about it was stimulated by a panel 

discussion I participated in last year, hosted by the International 

Society of Exposure Analysis, and interdisciplinary, interagency 

group. 

It is worth noting that while we focus on biological and chemical 

attacks, and properly so, that the 9/11 attacks were neither biological nor chemical, but they had huge public health effects. There 

were long-term public health effects as a result of the toxic cloud 

of dust that was inhaled by New Yorkers, first by the first responders, then by civilians. I doubt that the terrorists intended this to 

be a major impact, but that is the way it has turned out. 

Now, the problem in 2001 was that we were not prepared to 

quickly characterize the content of that dust cloud to determine its 

impact on public health and to respond accordingly, and, from what 

I can tell, this has not been an area of much progress since then. 

Hurricane Katrina was another example. We were insufficiently 

prepared to quickly characterize and react to environmental contaminants that threatened public health. 

Now, GAO has addressed this. They have identified some flaws 

in the characterization or risks following Katrina, and they have 

noted that the three key reports on EPA sampling in New Orleans 

were limited by a lack of timeliness and insufficient disclosures 

about the EPA sampling program. 

So this is an area where several federal agencies have a role to 

play, another one of these challenges to coordination and collaboration. EPA would certainly be on the list, NIEHS, ATSDR, OSHA. 

It seems like an area that is ripe for the kind of coordination role 

for which your office was designed, and that is why I ask you the 

question, what role do you think you can play in bringing coherence to the federal government’s exposure characterization preparedness and response efforts? 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
32 

EXPOSURE PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

Dr. RUNGE. Mr. Chairman, I did read the executive summary of 

that meeting that occurred. I had to read it a couple of times, but 

I think I got it. 

Exposure science really is a basic underpinning of epidemiology. 

To understand the population effects of anything, you have to have 

an understanding of how people are exposed. 

Dr. Til Jolly has asked for a meeting with those people to bring 

them in and try to better understand how they think the federal 

government should be using this discipline. We will engage our 

Science and Technology Directorate and the folks who do this sort 

of work in the University Centers and others to help understand 

this better. 

This clearly is an issue that is not surprising. Clearly, when you 

are determining how a population is affected of any disease, we 

need to understand the exposure. So whether it is a cloud of anthrax spores, or whether it is human-to-human transmission of 

smallpox, it is a basic underpinning. So we will talk with them and 

see how they can contribute to the dialogue. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further. We could go 

on all day. Some people think we have. You cover such a huge spectrum of issues, and it is a challenge to you, and you are so dependent upon what other agencies do, not to mention individuals, and 

I know it is frustrating. We appreciate your service to the country. 

Dr. RUNGE. Thank you, sir. I should point out that we talked a 

lot about HHS. As we do this end-to-end plan, and if you read the 

strategy, you will see how dependent we are on everybody, whether 

it is EPA for environmental cleanup, or whether it is the IC for 

overseas biosecurity. Whoever it is, there is this interdependence 

that we have to figure out how to make this work, if this homeland 

security concept is actually going to work. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, we have had six years at it. We have not figured it out yet? 

Dr. RUNGE. I think I have got it figured out, but implementing 

it is another matter. 

Mr. ROGERS. It is a matter of execution, not policy. 

Dr. RUNGE. Yes, sir, I think so. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Serrano. 

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further, now that 

I have put the territories back on the map. 

Mr. PRICE. You consider that a day’s work. 

Mr. SERRANO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, with that, we will adjourn, with thanks to you, 

Dr. Runge, for your testimony and for your work. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
33 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 43384A.001
34 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 43384A.002
35 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 43384A.003
36 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 43384A.004
37 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 43384A.005
38 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 43384A.006
39 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 43384A.007
40 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 43384A.008
41 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 43384A.009
42 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 43384A.010
43 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 43384A.011
44 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 43384A.012
45 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 43384A.013
46 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 43384A.014
47 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 43384A.015
48 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 43384A.016
49 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 43384A.017
50 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 43384A.018
51 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 43384A.019
52 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 43384A.020
(53) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008. 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY: IS THE 

AGENCY ON THE RIGHT TRACK? 

WITNESSES 

DAVID PAULISON, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

AGENCY 

DAVID MILLER, LEGISLATIVE CHAIR, NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 

LARRY J. GISPERT, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

EMERGENCY MANAGERS 

MATT JADACKI, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PRICE

Mr. PRICE. The Subcommittee will come to order. Good morning, 

everyone. I would like to welcome our witnesses: FEMA Administrator David Paulison, back for a second appearance this week, 

along with Mr. Matt Jadacki, DHS Deputy Inspector General; 

David Miller, the Legislative Committee Chairman of the National 

Emergency Management Association; and Larry Gispert, the president of the International Association of Emergency Managers. 

We are glad to have you here this morning, and we are going to 

focus on the other part of FEMA’s portfolio, having discussed the 

grants budget earlier this week. We are now going to look at other 

FEMA programs, including the Disaster Housing program and the 

Flood Insurance program, the implementation of the Post-Katrina 

Reform Act, Gulf Coast recovery, and FEMA management challenges. 

However, I am sure that some of our witnesses may want to provide their position on grant programs, such as the Emergency Management Performance Grants, and we will welcome those comments as well. 

The Fiscal Year 2008 appropriation increased FEMA’s manage- ment and operations budget by $175 million, an increase of 24 percent. That increase was aimed at strengthening FEMA’s core competencies, including logistics, financial management, operational 

planning, and service to disaster victims. With that funding comes 

expectations. 

FEMA has made progress in some areas. It still has work to do, 

however, to reassure state and local governments that it is a reliable partner when their capabilities are overwhelmed by a disaster. 

FEMA must step up its game, and this additional operations 

funding should help the agency do that. We want to hear from you 

about how those funds are being productively used, and we will 

want to know how you are measuring the agency’s performance in 

these core areas. We cannot want until a major disaster strikes to 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
54 

find out whether FEMA’s investments in core competencies are 

paying off. 

FEMA’s Fiscal Year 2009 budget seeks an additional $46 million 

to modernize the agency’s information technology and strengthen 

its disaster workforce. I have no doubt that this funding is needed, 

but, again, I am concerned about how you plan to evaluate whether 

those funds are productively used. 

FEMA must have a strategic vision that is communicated to its 

own personnel and to its many stakeholders. It must have clear 

goals and way of measuring progress toward reaching them. 

At the hearing two days ago, we wanted some method of showing 

how our investment in grant funding is helping to prepare state 

and local governments. We need the same information and the 

same performance-and-evaluation tools for FEMA itself. 

Our Subcommittee has tried to push FEMA in this sort of planning-and-goal-setting direction in the past by requiring reports to 

the Committee on particular program activities. Unfortunately, 

FEMA has not always been responsive in meeting the planning requirements we set. 

FEMA was supposed to deliver a plan to improve its workforce 

to this Committee 11 months ago. Why do not we have that? 

There have been improvements in personnel. We know that. Last 

year, you were able to have 95 percent of positions filled. However, 

you have, or will soon have, big holes in senior leadership. The 

chief financial officer is leaving. There are already vacancies at the 

heads of the Offices of Acquisition and Information Technology. 

Another example is the Comprehensive Housing Plan that was 

due seven months ago. Where is that plan, and how is it going to 

address the Centers for Disease Control finding of elevated levels 

of formaldehyde in occupied trailers in the Gulf Coast? How is it 

going to address the still-nagging problem of people without housing alternatives? We know FEMA is not supposed to be in the 

housing business, but the handoff to HUD and to other housing alternatives continues to lag. 

Last year, you said, ‘‘We are actively engaging federal, state, and 

local partners and are establishing a working group to develop the 

strategy.’’

If those steps were taken in April of last year, I am not sure why 

there is still no strategy for FEMA to provide to us. 

Another critical element for FEMA operations that needs urgent 

attention is the agency’s financial system, which is one of the worst 

performing in the Department. In the DHS inspector general’s testimony on financial audits, he concluded that conditions at FEMA 

actually deteriorated in Fiscal Year 2007, with FEMA now contributing to six material weaknesses to the overall DHS evaluation. 

This is compared to Fiscal Year 2006, when FEMA contributed to 

only two material witnesses. 

Administrator, I know you are working hard, and I know FEMA 

is working hard, to address the many challenges it faces, but without aggressive and proactive planning and evaluation, I am not 

confident that you can be successful. So we want to work with you 

to address these concerns. 

We will begin in just a moment with Mr. Paulison first, following 

by Mr. Gispert, Mr. Miller, and then Mr. Jadacki. In the interest 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
55 

of time, we are going to ask all of you to limit your oral statements 

to five minutes. Your prepared testimony will be entered into the 

record, but, that way, we can move on to, I hope, a productive discussion. 

Let me, first, yield to Mr. Rogers for any statement that he 

would like to make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Chief 

Paulison, and our other distinguished guests. 

It was a little over two and a half years ago that FEMA was literally on life support. In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, 

words like ‘‘broken,’’ ‘‘failure,’’ ‘‘dysfunctional,’’ ‘‘mismanaged’’; those 

words were used to describe what is supposed to be our nation’s 

preeminent preparedness and emergency-management agency. 

But now FEMA is in the midst of a major recapitalization in 

terms of both personnel and capabilities. The Congress has given 

you the direction, through the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act. It has also given you the means by way of a significant influx of both annual and supplemental appropriations. 

Now, it is up to the men and women of FEMA to make this resurrection a reality, and we are seeing hints of progress, Mr. Chief, 

evidenced by FEMA’s largely positive response to the recent southern California wildfires and the tornadoes that devastated Arkansas, Tennessee, western Kentucky; positive signs for sure but also 

a sobering reminder that our nation is constantly under the threat 

of natural disasters, as well as acts of terrorism, which brings us 

to today’s hearing, which is posing the question of whether FEMA 

is on the right track. 

A fair question perhaps, but a wise man named Will Rogers, no 

kin, once cautioned such an approach when he said, ‘‘Even if you 

are on the right track, you will get run over if you just sit there.’’

So, today, Chief Paulison, I find myself asking you a question 

that I asked just two days ago: What is your plan? What is your 

plan for moving forward and turning what you described as the 

‘‘FEMA Vision’’ into real capabilities? What is your plan for connecting the millions of dollars’ worth of infrastructure and information technology improvements, as well as hundreds of additional 

employees, into a more functional preparedness and emergencymanagement organization? 

Difficult questions to answer, of course, but answers that should 

link funding to results, and that is the touchstone of this Subcommittee. That is what we are supposed to do. 

Now, I fully recognize, and truly value, the important mission of 

FEMA and its vital role in our homeland security, but we could literally throw billions at the FEMA Vision Initiative and not necessarily be more prepared. 

So, today, I am interested in understanding your progress at rebuilding FEMA and what the enhanced operating capability will 

look like in terms of staffing and capital investments. 

Today, I am interested in understanding how far the 2009 budget 

request moves FEMA towards the post-Katrina vision that we all 

supported. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
56 

No one ever said that the rejuvenation of FEMA would be easy, 

but that does not relieve you of the responsibility to provide this 

Subcommittee a plan that clearly demonstrates how the funding 

you are requesting will materialize into real improvements for 

what has been a beleaguered agency. 

We are your partners in this endeavor. We are here to support, 

and I can assure you that no one wants to see you succeed more 

than this Member, as well as the other Members of this Subcommittee. 

So, Mr. Chief and all of you, we welcome you here, and we look 

forward to hearing from you. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Paulison, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF R. DAVID PAULISON, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Mr. PAULISON. Thank you, Chairman Price and Ranking Member 

Rogers and other Members of the Committee. 

When I was asked to lead FEMA, my mission was very clear: Rebuild and strengthen FEMA’s ability to plan, prepare, and respond 

to disasters in light of natural and man-made disasters that have 

struck our country. The new leadership at FEMA brought in experts to discuss assessments and incorporated these lessons 

learned into a new vision for this agency. 

The President, Secretary Chertoff, and you in Congress supported this effort and have provided resources and other tools to 

make these improvements. 

In my first appearance before this Committee, together, and I 

say that, ‘‘together,’’ we began repairing the damage to what was, 

quite frankly, a very challenged agency. 

Last year, we implemented our new FEMA with this vision initiative, and you, this Committee, and Congress provided the tools 

that we needed to get back on our feet, use lessons learned to set 

a new course, and begin that journey. 

Today, I am here with a budget that will build on our work for 

these last two years and will definitely put FEMA on track for a 

brighter and stronger future. Today, I am here to tell you that, 

with the President’s and the Secretary’s backing and your continued support, we are laying the groundwork for a better tomorrow. 

Our goal is to leave FEMA stronger than we found it. It is for this 

reason that my testimony today is entitled ‘‘The Way Forward.’’

Let me take a moment to say something that we do not often 

hear in Washington. I want to say, ‘‘Thank you.’’ You have done 

more than just note the challenges facing us. You have provided 

the resources and the tools necessary to overcome these challenges. 

So I want to thank you for your support and in working with us 

jointly to build this new FEMA. 

This is not the FEMA of two years ago, as our responses to recent disasters have demonstrated. We have made major changes 

over the year as we have integrated the National Preparedness and 

Grants Program Directorates into the FEMA fold. We have added 

capabilities and strength through our existing Preparedness and 

Assistance program. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
57 

We have built out our capabilities. We have brought in new leaders and expanded our professional staff with experienced professionals. 

I want to stress that these improvements and reforms are only 

as effective as the men and women at FEMA that we have to execute them. Our existing staff provided a firm foundation as we expanded. I am very proud of the people at FEMA, both those new 

to the organization and its veterans, for the great work they have 

done in moving this organization forward, and they have supported 

me every step of the way. 

When disaster strikes today, FEMA moves early and often. Our 

response to events ranging from last year’s California fires to the 

floods and storms that struck this winter to this year’s tornadoes 

across the Mississippi Valley, I think we have demonstrated the 

abilities of this new FEMA. 

In each case, we saw the potential for disaster. We began planning and moving even before it struck. When a disaster was declared, resources were already there, and FEMA was ready to support them. 

The American people, like you, deserve to have high expectations 

of FEMA, and we have to continue this progress. 

We have a way forward that uses tools and resources that you 

have previously provided and those proposed this year so we can 

continue this transformation. We will continue to strengthen our 

nation’s abilities. 

This budget adds $25.7 million to strengthen core capabilities, 

planning competencies and capacities, our regional operations, our 

partnerships with states, and our National Emergency Management System. We will continue to build our capabilities and integrate our efforts with all of our partners, public and private, in a 

holistic approach that will strengthen the National Emergency 

Management System and improve this nation’s abilities to address 

disasters, emergencies, and even terrorist events. 

This budget includes resources to improve our ability to deliver 

assistance, with additional funding and new staff for our Disaster 

Assistance and Logistics Management Directorates. 

FEMA is focused on providing assistance, both before and after 

events, in an easily accessible, coordinated manner through simple 

and effective delivery mechanisms while also minimizing the possibility of waste, fraud, and abuse that we saw in the past. 

To be able to accomplish this on the ground, we also need to 

strengthen FEMA as an organization by investing in our people, 

developing a capable, motivated workforce who will ensure mission 

success, and building a culture that rewards performance through 

personal stewardship, innovation, and accountability. 

The budget includes added resources for training: $10 million for 

basic infrastructure needs that will give us the space and equipment we need to expand the workforce to do its job. It also includes 

$20 million to bring FEMA into the 21st Century in terms of information technology and financial management, as both of you all 

have pointed out. 

When Congress passed the Post-Katrina Emergency Reform Act, 

together we set a vision for what FEMA could become, but, as the 

author and innovator, Joe Barker said, ‘‘Vision without action is 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
58 

merely a dream, action without vision just passes the time, and vision with action can change the world.’’

The budget shows that President Bush, Secretary Chertoff, and 

I are committed to this vision with action, and I know, by your actions, that you are committed also. I look forward to working with 

you as we make the vision for the new FEMA a reality. Thank you 

very much, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you 

have. 

[The information follows:] 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
59 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 43384A.021
60 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 43384A.022
61 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 43384A.023
62 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 43384A.024
63 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 43384A.025
64 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 43384A.026
65 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 43384A.027
66 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 43384A.028
67 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 43384A.029
68 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 43384A.030
69 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 43384A.031
70 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 43384A.032
71 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 43384A.033
72 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 43384A.034
73 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 43384A.035
74 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 43384A.036
75 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 43384A.037
76 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 43384A.038
77 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 43384A.039
78 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 43384A.040
79 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 43384A.041
80 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 43384A.042
81 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 43384A.043
82 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 43384A.044
83 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 43384A.045
84 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 43384A.046
85 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 43384A.047
86 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 43384A.048
87 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 43384A.049
88 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 43384A.050
89 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 43384A.051
90 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 43384A.052
91 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 43384A.053
92 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 43384A.054
93 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Gispert. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY J. GISPERT, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF EMERGENCY MANAGERS

Mr. GISPERT. Good morning. Let me apologize. I usually have a 

very strong speaking voice, but I have got some sinus problems, but 

we will get through it. 

Chairman Price, Ranking Member Rogers, and distinguished 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to provide testimony on this critically important topic. 

I am Larry Gispert, and I serve Hillsborough County on the west 

coast of Florida as director of emergency management, a position 

I have held for 14 of my 27 years in the career field. I have the 

privilege of serving nearly 1.2 million folks who call Hillsborough 

County and the City of Tampa home. I am currently serving as the 

president of the International Association of Emergency Managers. 

I want to express my sincerest gratitude to this Subcommittee 

for your support for increasing the funding for the Emergency Management Performance Grant program, the major source for building 

state and local emergency-management capabilities, and for your 

support for reforming the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

We urge you to continue that support by increasing EMPG funding to $487 million for Fiscal Year 2009 and maintaining its status 

as a separate account within FEMA. 

We urge you to continue your funding limitation on the principal 

federal official position. 

We strongly support the Emergency Management Institute, once 

the crown jewel of emergency management. A lack of funding and 

a loss of focus on the primary objectives of the Integrated Emergency Management System have left EMI adrift, without an up-todate, cohesive, professional, EM curriculum. 

We respectfully request that you establish a separate line item 

for EMI in the FEMA budget and provide $2.2 million annually for 

developing and revising courses. 

The EMI Higher Education Project is an investment in the future. This underfunded project has reached over 130 colleges and 

universities. We urge the Committee to provide additional funding 

to this project for two additional positions and, at least, an additional $400,000 annually for course development and related activities. 

The stated purpose of this hearing is to determine whether 

FEMA is on the right track. We think FEMA wants to be on the 

right track, but it is still not clear that they have the full authority 

to drive the train. 

IAEM wants to see a revitalized FEMA, and we are seeing improvements. The leadership is working with us more closely. However, we remain concerned about the role of FEMA within DHS, 

whether FEMA truly has been given all of the responsibilities for 

preparedness in managing disaster response, as the law requires, 

and whether DHS has truly bought into the all-hazards doctrine, 

which is so vital to us. 

With these caveats in mind, I think it is possible to say that improvements have been made, but many more are needed. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
94 

I would like to extend our appreciation to our colleagues at 

FEMA for increasing the level of involvement and communication 

with IAEM on key initiatives. Documents impacting how we plan, 

exercise, train, respond, and recover should not be written without 

the involvement of state and local government emergency managers. 

If you expect us there during the crash landing, please make 

sure we are part of the take-off. 

We urge FEMA to include key stakeholders in an open discussion 

of the Integrated Planning System, IPS, which you will hear lots 

about. While it is being developed, IAEM and FEMA share the 

same goal: To develop the best product, which is only possible when 

state and local emergency managers are included. 

The failures manifested during Hurricane Katrina were not entirely rooted in the lack of planning. Many would say the failure 

was due to the lack of execution of existing plans. 

IAEM realizes that there are differences in the way we approach 

things, based on our perspectives. DHS and OMB are at the 

50,000-foot level, and the local governments, down where the boots 

meet the ground. The view is different. 

An example is the EMPG program. The guidance for Fiscal Year 

2008 appears to be overly restrictive, by requiring 25 percent be devoted to planning. EMPG is authorized by the Stafford Act, and the 

authorization is broad for a reason: It recognizes that one size does 

not fit all. 

Another troubling element is the explanatory language in the 

president’s budget that EMPG is for state and urban areas. That 

is, in fact, not correct and needs to be retracted. 

We are concerned about the national planning scenarios, which 

are narrowly focused, primarily on terrorism. They do not reflect 

the full range of threats to which we are subject. The solution to 

the situation is not to develop more scenarios but to use the scenarios properly in the development of a single emergency operations plan identifying the functions and capabilities common to all 

emergencies, as well as the roles and responsibilities of government. 

Utilizing a multiplan, military-style approach is great if you are 

the military and funded and equipped with the resources of the 

military. State and local governments do not have the luxury, nor 

ever will they. 

Congress made it clear, in the Post-Katrina Reform Act, that 

they wanted a strong FEMA with an administrator with clear authority for managing all aspects of disasters and emergencies. We 

believe that parts of this act are not being followed and have specific examples in our written testimony. 

We are concerned about the Office of Operations and Coordination, which was created after the Post-Katrina Reform Act and was 

signed into law and whether the role that this office will perform 

is consistent with the implementation of the act. 

The Post-Katrina Act clearly assigned the FEMA administrator 

responsibility for the National Preparedness System. 

Emergency management is the broader, overarching, and systemof-systems approach to the issue of dealing with all disasters and 

emergencies, whether natural, technology, or homeland security. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
95 

Incident management is a narrowly focused, subelement of response, one of the four phases of emergency management. 

To insist otherwise, as DHS is currently doing, shows a lack of 

understanding of the overall Emergency Management System. 

In summary, we urge the Committee to increase the EMPG to $487 million for Fiscal Year 2009, to insist on the full implementation of the Post-Katrina Act, increase support to EMI and its Higher Education Project. 

Finally, we would remind our colleagues at DHS and FEMA that 

success is an equal-opportunity vendor. There will be enough for 

reason, as long as we coordinate and cooperate in our joint responsibility to our citizens. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
96 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 43384A.055
97 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 43384A.056
98 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 43384A.057
99 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 43384A.058
100 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 43384A.059
101 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 43384A.060
102 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 43384A.061
103 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 43384A.062
104 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much, Mr. Gispert. Mr. Miller, we 

will now turn to you. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID MILLER, LEGISLATIVE CHAIR, NATIONAL

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Chairman Price, Ranking Member Rogers, and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for 

allowing me the opportunity to appear before you today. In my 

statement, I am representing the National Emergency Management Association, whose members are the state emergency association directors of the U.S. territories and the District of Columbia. 

As we discussed the Department of Homeland Security and the 

role of FEMA, I would like to briefly discuss three issues with you 

today. 

First is the need to address the shortfall and the total need for 

funding of the emergency management programs through the 

Emergency Management Performance Grant. 

Second is the needed federal support of the Emergency Management Assistance Compact. 

Third is the need to address significant deficiencies for improving 

state and local emergency operations centers. 

EMPG grants are primarily used to support the emergency-management activities of state and local governments to include planning, training, and exercise activities, as well as assisting in covering the costs for equipment and administration. 

EMPG is the only DHS FEMA grant dedicated to emergency 

management. Activities achieved under this grant represent the 

backbone of an all-hazards emergency-management system. EMPG 

requires a matching contribution by state and local governments. 

Every federal dollar received must be matched by a nonfederal dollar. In fact, a recent survey shows that state and local contributions exceed the federal commitment by a ratio of 80 percent state 

and local to a 20-percent federal contribution. 

According to the NEMA 2006 Biannual Report, there is a significant shortfall in the funding provided to state and local governments. The current total need is $487 million. The 9/11 Implementation Act authorized EMPG at $535 million for Fiscal Year 2009. 

In addition, we feel that EMPG must be maintained as a separate line item account and not be subsumed into other grants. Congress has affirmed this position since 2003. EMPG funding must 

retain its flexibility, and the method of distribution should be similar to the language provided in the Fiscal Year 2006 appropriation. 

The Emergency Management Assistance Compact, ratified by 

Congress in 1996, continues to be one of the success stories for 

emergency management. This compact, which provides for a system 

of mutual aid between states and territories and has proved its 

worth repeatedly in disasters, including the terrorist attacks of 

September 11th and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, has demonstrated the need and provided the model for a unified mutual aid 

system, intrastate to interstate. 

We continue to examine the lessons learned from our prior applications of EMAC and have established a strategic plan to put those 

lessons learned into practice. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
105 

In 2006, under the Post-Katrina Reform Act, Congress author- ized FEMA to appropriate up to $4 million annually in support of 

EMAC operations and coordination activities. NEMA is seeking the 

reauthorization at $4 million annually to 2009 and beyond, and we 

are seeking an annual $2 million line item for building EMAC capabilities and growing our nation’s mutual aid system. 

During emergencies and disasters, EOCs, Emergency Operations 

Centers, serve as the nerve centers for state, local, and, at times, 

federal coordination. After the 2001 terrorist attacks, Congress provided some funding to support the update of state EOCs. 

In 2008, Congress recognized the continued need for EOC im- provements and appropriated $15 million towards those efforts. 

While we appreciate these actions, the 2006 NEMA Biannual Report estimated that almost $393 million would be needed to sufficiently build, retrofit, and upgrade EOC facilities. We urge Congress to make a $160 million commitment as a separate line item 

to begin to address this significant shortfall. 

In closing, I want to mention two further issues of major concern 

to NEMA. First, NEMA remains concerned about the language that 

is included in the FEMA Reform Bill that allows for, but limits the 

role of, the principal federal official in times of emergency or disaster. 

NEMA continues to urge that Congress abolish the position and 

role of the PFO and reaffirm the role of the federal coordinating officer, as it is clearly established and defined in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Relief Act. 

Second, the Predisaster Mitigation Act, as authorized by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, is scheduled to sunset on September 

30, 2008. Mitigation continues to be a vital function in the cycle of 

emergency management, and reauthorization of the Predisaster 

Mitigation Act would help to ensure that resources are provided to 

lessen the effects, impacts, and consequences of future disasters. 

We thank Congress and the Members of this Committee for their 

continued commitment to emergency management and for supporting our efforts to ensure we are prepared to respond to, and recover from, any disaster, regardless of whether caused by man or 

nature. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
106 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 43384A.063
107 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 43384A.064
108 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 43384A.065
109 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 43384A.066
110 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 43384A.067
111 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 43384A.068
112 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 43384A.069
113 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 43384A.070
114 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 43384A.071
115 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Mr. Jadacki. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MR. MATT JADACKI, DEPUTY INSPECTOR

GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Mr. JADACKI. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Price, Ranking Member Rogers, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you 

for the opportunity to be here today to answer the question: Is 

FEMA on the right track? 

To answer, I will focus my remarks on FEMA’s progress to prepare for the next catastrophic incident. 

FEMA is in the process of addressing many of the areas identified in Katrina reports issued to date and is in various stages of 

implementing the requirements of the Post-Katrina Reform Act. 

The work we have conducted shows that FEMA is making some 

progress in preparedness areas. However, since much of the work 

has not been completed, and many statutory deadlines have been 

missed, overall progress is limited. 

There are a number of critical preparedness areas that FEMA is 

currently addressing. By remaining focused on these areas, FEMA 

will be able to improve its overall preparedness posture. 

To begin on a positive note, the development and issuance of the 

National Response Framework is an important milestone, but is 

also important to keep in mind that the framework is only a single 

component in the national preparedness architecture, and much 

more needs to be done, particularly with respect to developing operational plans that describe specific federal department and agency 

resources, personnel, and asset allocations. It should also be noted 

that the framework has yet to be tested or exercised. 

Communication among those responding to a disaster is an essential element of a successful response-and-recovery effort, yet it 

is generally recognized that the inability to communicate effectively 

was one of the major impediments to the Hurricane Katrina response efforts. 

The 9/11 Commission had previously identified interoperable 

communications between emergency responders as a major challenge. Multiple components within DHA and FEMA are taking an 

active role and responsibility for improving interoperable communications. 

That takes us to evacuation planning, which is complex and must 

consider a number of scenarios. Local and state officials are in the 

best position to develop evacuation plans based on local demographics. However, it is critical that the federal government can coordinate with state and local governments because, in a catastrophic event, it is likely that the federal government will play a 

major role in evacuation. 

FEMA is now working with state and local officials to identify 

shortcomings in existing evacuation plans and looking to find ways 

to address those shortcomings prior to a disaster. 

After a presidential disaster declaration, FEMA leads the federal 

response by coordinating federal resources and providing houses to 

those displaced by disaster. One of the major criticisms of FEMA 

after Hurricane Katrina focused on FEMA’s inability to provide immediate, short-term housing assistance to evacuees and then 

transitioning to more permanent forms of housing. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
116 

FEMA is nearing completion of the National Disaster Housing 

Strategy. This long-overdue strategy needs to focus on sheltering, 

interim or permanent housing, as well as addressing the needs of 

the various populations to be served. The strategy should not only 

guide FEMA and other federal agencies during disasters but help 

identify operational gaps and additional authorities needed to improve sheltering and housing operations. The strategy should be 

flexible and scalable to meet the unique needs of individual disasters. 

FEMA needs to improve communications with state and local 

governments and other agencies with respect to disaster housing 

assistance, as well as to improve program guidance for state and 

local governments. These efforts should improve housing coordination but, again, remain untested. 

The need for a trained, effective disaster workforce is one issue 

mentioned consistently in reports regarding FEMA’s response to 

Hurricane Katrina. FEMA’s disaster workforce consists mainly of 

reservists who serve temporarily during the disaster. The shortage 

of qualified staff for key positions responding to Hurricane Katrina 

negatively impacted the effectiveness of FEMA’s response-and-recovery operation. FEMA is in the process of developing a strategic 

human capital plan, but it is not yet final. 

FEMA uses mission assignments to coordinate the urgent, shortterm emergency deployment of federal resources to address disaster 

needs. Past audits and reviews have concluded that FEMA’s management controls were generally not adequate. FEMA put into 

place a working group to try to address these shortcomings and has 

developed a number of prescripted mission assignments. 

Acquisition is another important area in disaster response. In the 

wake of Hurricane Katrina, we focused substantial work on FEMA 

acquisitions. FEMA was not well prepared to provide the kind of 

acquisition support needed for a catastrophic disaster. FEMA’s contract actions went from about $1 billion in Fiscal Year 2004 to over 

$4.6 billion in 2005, the year Katrina struck. 

In Fiscal Year 2006, FEMA’s contract actions grew to $7 billion. 

This growth occurred without a commensurate increase in contracting personnel and resources, which increased FEMA’s vulnerability to waste, fraud, and abuse. 

Post-Katrina, FEMA management has focused on developing the 

acquisition workforce to a level that can better respond to another 

catastrophic disaster. When Hurricane Katrina struck, FEMA had 

35 contracting staff. There are now 136 contracting staff on board. 

Additionally, the contract-writing system is being upgraded. The 

Emergency Acquisition Field Guide, which helps disaster team 

members follow proper acquisition procedures, has been updated, 

and more than 700 program officials have been trained and certified as COTRs. 

FEMA has also developed the Contract Administration Plan, 

which provides guidance for post-award contract execution. 

In conclusion, we are currently working on a more in-depth review and evaluation of FEMA’s preparedness efforts for effective 

disaster response, particularly for a catastrophic event. 

The project stems from a July 31, 2007, hearing before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The hearing objecVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:12 Aug 28, 2008 Jkt 043384 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A384P2.XXX A384P2

dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
117 

tive was to review FEMA’s preparedness to handle a future catastrophic event. During that hearing, I testified that the new FEMA 

has made progress in many areas related to disaster preparedness 

but that, generally, FEMA was not prepared for a catastrophic disaster. 

The Committee, in turn, requested that we provide a high-level 

assessment of FEMA’s preparedness for the next catastrophic disaster. Our plan is to issue a report in April. We hope the report 

will provide additional insight on what can be done. 

In closing, the title of this hearing asks: Is the agency on the 

right track? We believe the answer is yes. However, I would like 

to mention three broad concerns that merit attention and the interest of this Committee. 

One is strategic planning. As FEMA engaged in a comprehensive 

planning effort that spans directorates, prioritizes needs and actions, and maximizes federal resources, does FEMA require more 

full-time personnel and a larger budget so that it can plan, mitigate, and respond all at the same time? 

If planners and responders are one and the same, when a disaster strikes, and responders are deployed to the field, planning is 

often delayed or stopped. 

The second is sustainability. Can the agency maintain momentum and continue to implement the needed changes, particularly in 

light of the budget and personnel challenges? 

And, finally, staffing: In an environment rife with turnover, especially in leadership positions, how can FEMA retain experienced 

staff and also recruit and train new staff to build a highly qualified 

disaster-management workforce? 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be 

happy to answer any questions that you or Committee Members 

may have. 

[The information follows:] 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
118 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 175 43384A.072
119 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 176 43384A.073
120 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 177 43384A.074
121 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 178 43384A.075
122 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 179 43384A.076
123 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 180 43384A.077
124 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 181 43384A.078
125 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 182 43384A.079
126 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 183 43384A.080
127 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 184 43384A.081
128 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 185 43384A.082
129 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 186 43384A.083
130 

DISASTER HOUSING

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. Thanks to all of you. 

Chief Paulison, let me begin with the housing issue. There has 

been a great deal of publicity, a great deal of concern, over the 

trailers and the discovery that there were dangerously high levels 

of formaldehyde in those trailers. I know your agency has been 

moving people out of those trailers. Can you report on the progress 

of that? 

But this morning, I want to put that question into a broader context of housing and the ability of people to find affordable housing 

in the Gulf area. There was to be a report, by July of 2007, on this 

issue, and we are distressed that that report is not available. I 

want to give you a chance this morning to talk orally and to submit 

for the record whatever you have to report about the successful 

housing transition that people have made or the frustrations in 

finding good housing. 

We asked, last year, for the best figures that you and the Gulf 

Coast coordinator could provide about the before-and-after utilization of various HUD programs. We got some partial data in that 

regard, but we need this report. We need to have some precision 

about this and some understanding about what is going on in the 

housing situation in the Gulf Coast. 

So it is not a plan for a plan’s sake; it is a plan so that we can 

work with you in monitoring progress and figuring out how the 

slack is going to be taken up here in the available housing. 

This is serious. This is costly. We cannot let it linger. So I would 

like to know what you can tell us about the housing situation, as 

you have monitored it, and I know you are not solely responsible 

for this, but you are the one who has been left with these trailers 

and with this dilemma, and also, of course, about the timeframe 

within which we can expect a more systematic report. 

Mr. PAULISON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The questions you are asking are right on target and very timely. 

It has been a major issue for FEMA. Right after Katrina, as Mr. 

Jadacki reported, we were challenged that we were not providing 

enough housing. We wanted more and more trailers, more and 

more travel trailers, more and more mobile homes, and putting 

them down as quickly as we could. 

Now that we have them down there, and people are in them, now 

we are finding out that some of the trailers and mobile homes we 

bought have high levels of formaldehyde. A lot of them do not, but 

some of them do. 

The answer is to move people out of those as quickly as possible, 

and we are doing that. Eight hundred to nine hundred families a 

week are being moved out into either, first, hotels and motels and 

then available apartments, as we find them. The shortage of apartments is primarily a Mississippi issue. We are finding more apartments in New Orleans and Louisiana than we thought we would 

find. However, there is still a shortage of affordable housing for 

people who were primarily renters before Hurricane Katrina hit. 

That is the population right now that seems to be the most vulnerable. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
131 

One of the reasons for the delay in the housing strategy is because things have been changing so rapidly: The transitioning of 

our long-term housing from FEMA, where it does not belong, into 

HUD, where it does belong. 

We have a new governor in Louisiana, and they have got a different philosophy of how to work with us, and that is starting to 

work extremely well. 

The fact is that now we have the formaldehyde in travel trailers 

and in some of the mobile homes. 

So we are working with a housing strategy, and we should have 

it out fairly soon. I have got some rough drafts, and we sent it back 

a couple of times because I was not quite happy with where we 

were with it. But it is coming, and we should have it to you in a 

short manner. 

The issues that we are dealing with are beyond FEMA’s control, 

and that is affordable housing in areas that have been hit by this 

storm. The Louisiana-New Orleans area and Mississippi, where the 

hurricane went through, there simply is not enough affordable 

housing for the people that need them. It is not within FEMA’s authority, nor within its budget capacity, to build affordable housing. 

That has to fall somewhere else. 

However, we are not turning our backs on it. We are trying to 

put people into housing as quickly as possible. We are paying for 

it, and we are funding it, but we know that some of the units we 

are putting people in, should FEMA walk away, they would not be 

able to stay where they are; they could not afford it. It is a longterm issue that requires a joint housing authority that we have put 

together, working with the state, working with the local community, working with HUD, and working with other people to try to 

find a solution that, quite frankly, there is not a simple answer for. 

So that is kind of where we are. We are committed and are moving very quickly to focus on several areas. 

One, people who have health concerns or are at risk: elderly, people very young, or people who have complained about effects of 

formaldehyde in the trailers, or just the fact of living in the trailers. Those are being moved out first. 

The second group is the people who are in the group sites. Those 

are the most vulnerable. Those are the ones who, almost 100 percent, were renters before. They cannot either move back into their 

apartment that they had before because it has not been rebuilt, or, 

in a lot of cases, they have been rebuilt, but the monthly cost of 

that unit has raised so much, they can no longer afford it. 

Then, in the third group, is people who were renters but are in 

mobile homes or travel trailers on private property. 

And then the last group is going to be those who literally have 

a travel trailer or mobile home backed up into the driveway and 

are in the process of rebuilding their homes. That group is going 

to be very difficult to move out. They are not going to want to 

move. They are not going to leave their homes. 

So that is the priority we have, and we are on track and have 

a very rapid removal of people out of those trailers, again, into hotels and motels first, and then they are there a few weeks or so 

until we can find an apartment for them. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
132 

That is where we are. It is what it is. I think one of the things 

that I have not said too much in the past but, I think, needs to 

be said publicly: We bought travel trailers and mobile homes in 

good faith from manufacturers. A lot of them, particularly the mobile homes, were bought right off the lots. The mobile home issue 

is larger than Katrina. There are some eight million families living 

in these across the country, and they are not any different than the 

ones FEMA has purchased. 

So that is another issue that we are going to have to look at, 

again, outside of FEMA’s purview, but this whole process of having 

travel trailers, finding a formaldehyde issue, finding them in mobile homes is going to be a long-term issue that we are going to 

have to look at as the federal government and as the state government. 

I am happy to tell you that we are now testing every mobile 

home. We are no longer using travel trailers. We are testing every 

mobile home before we give it out to states. The last group that we 

just tested for the State of Oregon came in very, very low on the 

formaldehyde level, so that is a good sign. 

So, I think the manufacturers are recognizing that they have an 

issue that they have to deal with also, but they need to be partners 

with us. This is not something that should fall in FEMA’s lap 

alone. 

AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE FOR THE REPAIR AND IMPROVEMENT OF

MULTIFAMILY RENTAL PROPERTIES

Mr. PRICE. On the issue of the authority which FEMA has, there 

is a provision in the Post-Katrina Reform Act, which expires at the 

end of this calendar year, that does allow you to provide for the repair and improvement of multifamily rental properties in disaster 

areas to increase the rental stock. Is that an authority that you 

have utilized? 

Mr. PAULISON. No, sir, not yet. We have not done any of the rebuilding itself. We feel like that is primarily a HUD issue. We are 

working with them so that, as we transition people out of these 

travel trailers into apartments, then we can transition them into 

a HUD program to provide for rental assistance, but we have not 

done any rebuilding of apartments. 

Mr. PRICE. That was a grant of authority, though, with a purpose. I think we would agree with you that the provision of longterm, affordable-housing alternatives is a HUD responsibility, but 

this is not an ordinary situation, and the Congress has looked at 

it and has provided this authority temporarily to FEMA. So it is 

puzzling that you would just totally fail to act. I do not think it is 

just a negative grant of authority. There is implied here a positive 

responsibility. 

Mr. PAULISON. It is my understanding that this authority was 

not retroactive but a pilot program to start for future disasters. I 

will look into that, Mr. Chair. If I am wrong with that, then we 

will go back and look at that very carefully. 

GULF COAST COORDINATION

Mr. PRICE. That is not our understanding, so we have——


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
133 

Mr. PAULISON. Again, that is my understanding now, and I will 

go back and look at that. I am not adamant about it. That is just 

what is my understanding now. I will look at that very carefully. 

Mr. PRICE. Can you be more precise about when we might expect 

this report? 

Mr. PAULISON. I am sorry, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. This report. You said you would get it moved along. 

Mr. PAULISON. We are working on it very carefully. Again, there 

have been several things, events, that have happened along the 

way that have caused us to go back and relook at that report as 

we are working on it. 

I do not want to tell you two weeks or 30 days because I want 

to make sure we get it right, but it will be coming out shortly. I 

do have it in draft already, and I am making changes to it as we 

move along and as we get new information. 

But it should be out. It should not have been as long as it is, but 

there have been reasons for that, not excuses, but some reasons, 

and we will get that out as quickly as possible. 

Mr. PRICE. We understand that the report is not just about 

FEMA activity, but it requires some tracking of people and families 

and some accounting of how other agencies have performed and 

where these people have found housing where they have 

transitioned, and to what extent the array of HUD programs have 

been restored to their pre-Katrina levels. 

So it is a cooperative venture, and, along those lines, I know you 

are aware that the Gulf Coast coordinator has resigned, and the 

budget for his office is a mere $291,000 for Fiscal Year 2009. I wonder what that request means for the Gulf Coast. 

If you will remember, at last year’s hearings, we had the coordinator in here, and we talked a good deal about the challenge of coordinating with your agency and other federal agencies. Of course, 

that was a major part of the coordinator’s job. How does his departure affect that prospect of coordination, and what are the implications for FEMA’s future role when it comes to such issues as the 

transition to non-FEMA housing? 

Mr. PAULISON. Well, losing Gil Jamison is, obviously, a loss for 

all of us. He did an outstanding job there. You are talking 

about——

Mr. PRICE. I am sorry. I agree with you that the loss of Gil 

Jamison is to be regretted. He did great work. But I am talking 

about Donald Powell, the Gulf Coast coordinator. 

Mr. PAULISON. I am sorry. Yes. Chairman Powell was an asset 

for us while he was down there. He is leaving, and I am assuming 

they will replace him with someone. We have gotten some very 

clear direction. We have a great relationship with the governor and 

with the governor’s staff. I do not see his leaving as having an impact on us moving forward with what we are going to do. His staff 

is still there. We work with them very closely, and I do not see that 

having a major impact. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, the office is basically being phased out. The office was specifically charged with the kind of interagency/interdepartmental coordination that we are talking about here. That coordination still appears to be falling far short, so it does appear to 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
134 

me, just on the face of it, that the obligations falling on you are 

going to be even greater. 

Mr. PAULISON. The dynamics have changed in Louisiana. I had 

a great relationship with Governor Blanco, but there is a new staff 

there, a new philosophy of working together, a new philosophy of 

cooperation, particularly with the parish presidents, and we have 

better cooperation now, better working together, and more meetings than we have ever had before. 

I can predict that, in this next year, you are going to see a lot 

more things fall in place faster than you have seen in the past, particularly with the project worksheets, particularly with some of the 

appeals processes, and how we can make those move much quicker. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, I want, in the second round, to continue on this, 

particularly looking at the post-disaster mitigation and the way 

that program is interacting with Road Home and other efforts, but 

let me turn now to Mr. Rogers. 

ROLE OF FEMA AND STATE AND LOCAL ROLES

Mr. ROGERS. I think there is a big misunderstanding amongst 

the public at large about the role of FEMA and the role of state, 

city, and local governments, that Katrina exacerbated. Tell us what 

is the role of—first, when a disaster occurs, first what is the role 

of the city or the county or parish and the state versus the federal 

FEMA relationship. How does that work? 

Mr. PAULISON. All response is local and my fellow people sitting 

here will tell you that our job, the state’s job, and the Federal Government’s job is to make sure that they have the things they need 

to do their job. The system that we used in the past, for the last 

30 years, of waiting for a local community to become overwhelmed 

before the state steps in and waiting for the state to become overwhelmed before the Federal Government steps in does not work. 

We saw it at its worst during Katrina. What we have to do and 

what we are doing now and what FEMA’s new philosophy is, the 

new culture is, is we are going in as partners. And if you talk to 

the state, the governors, the state emergency managers that have 

had disasters these past 18 months or two years, they will tell you 

that FEMA is there by their side, oftentimes even before the storm 

hits. And if it is a tornado or—if it is not noticed, then shortly 

thereafter, before they get a declaration. 

We have better visibility of what the needs are going to be. We 

have better communication than we have ever had. Our——

Mr. ROGERS. You misunderstood my question. I want a simple 

explanation of what it is that cities, counties, state, and then federal, what is each of their responsibility when a disaster occurs? 

Katrina was different. It overwhelmed everybody at the outset. But 

for the normal disaster——

Mr. PAULISON. The normal disaster, it is the local responsibility 

to handle that disaster. If they become overwhelmed, the state is 

there to supply resources and personnel to help them and then the 

next step is for the Federal Government to provide what they need 

that they do not have, whether it is money, whether it is communication’s equipment, whether it is any type—food, water, those 

type of things. But, it all boils down to the local community managing that disaster. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
135 

Mr. ROGERS. Then we have the Katrina type of disaster, the one 

that overwhelms the local and state at the outset. How does your 

role differ in that kind of a disaster? 

Mr. PAULISON. The role, itself, does not differ. Our level of participation does differ. We still do not go in and take over. We do 

not take over a local community and we do not take over for the 

state. We work with them to—again, the needs are going to be 

much, much greater than they were if it is just a local disaster. 

But, if it is a big event, it is going to be bringing in the military. 

It is going to be bringing in some of our big contracts that we have, 

that we will talk about later I am sure, ambulance contracts, bus 

contracts, airframe contracts to transport people that they do not 

have the resources to do. But, the roles stay the same and that is 

why it was so important, as Matt Jadacki pointed out, that the response framework get out, so that people understand how that fits 

together and how we work together. And my two colleagues can 

correct me, if they do not agree with me, but still it is the responsibility of that local government to manage those resources and for 

the state and us to make sure they have what they need to do it. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, that is where all the manpower is. The local 

police, the local fire departments, the local first responders of all 

sorts, the state police, the national guard that the governors control, all of that massive amount of manpower is local. You do not 

control those people. 

Mr. PAULISON. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. In fact, you have relatively few people, if you want 

to count it in that regard, do you? 

Mr. PAULISON. We have the ability to bring people in to assist 

them through mission assignments, the EMAC system, as you 

heard them talk about, where they get assistance from other 

states. All of that rolls in, but it primarily goes to support that 

local government. 

LOGISTICS

Mr. ROGERS. Well, perhaps the biggest thing that you can add to 

the help that a community needs is logistics, supplying of material, 

food stuff, and recovery material. In fact, one of the areas that 

FEMA was most criticized out of Katrina was logistics management or the lack of it. As reported by the GAO, FEMA could not 

maintain visibility over relief supplies from order through delivery. 

They were unable to accurately identify, dispatch, track, and record 

available critical resources. 

But, you have made a lot of headway, I think, in that regard. 

Tell us what is going with I think probably your main mission and 

that is logistics help for a local community. 

Mr. PAULISON. I think, first of all, the GAO report was right on 

target and what you just said is accurate, also. We have made significant changes in what we are doing with logistics. We are bringing logistics into the twenty-first century. We have a loaned executive from UPS working with us. We work with people at Wal-Mart 

and others on how they do logistics. So, it is a combination of having our own supplies, having contracts in place, and having what 

we call 3PL, third-party logistics, and also bringing in experts. Eric 

Smith, we stole from the Defense Logistics Agency to run our logisVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:12 Aug 28, 2008 Jkt 043384 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A384P2.XXX A384P2

dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
136 

tics division. I took logistics and raised it from a branch to a division where it reports directly to me, to make it more important and 

more visible in the organization, because, Mr. Rogers, what you are 

saying is right on target. That is a big key on how FEMA is going 

to be perceived to perform by the locals and by the states and how 

it actually performs. Are we going to have a modern logistics system that operates in a business-like manner? That is what we are 

doing. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, you have partnered with the Defense Logistics 

Agency. What is that? 

Mr. PAULISON. We do partner with them to—— Mr. ROGERS. What is that? 

Mr. PAULISON. Defense Logistics Agency is the agency that does 

all logistics for the military and they are the experts in the world 

on moving stuff from here to there. 

Mr. ROGERS. So, you have formed a partnership with DLA? 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Defense Department. You created a logistics directorate. What is that? 

Mr. PAULISON. The logistics was inside of operations, buried 

down in the organization. I created an entire division that reports 

directly to me, to raise the visibility of that in the organization and 

raise the importance of it in the organization. I turned around and 

hired one of the top experts in the country to come in to run it and 

he, in turn, is bringing in experts from around the country to run 

it, not only here, but also out in the regions, to make sure that we 

have a professional organization that is filled with people, who 

have years of experience of dealing with logistics in a modern society. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP

Mr. ROGERS. In your work, you apparently have partnered with 

the Department of Transportation to improve emergency transportation services and evacuations. Tell us about that. 

Mr. PAULISON. There are several mission assignment capabilities 

we have and prescripted missions assignments with the Department of Transportation, with the military, to provide airframe service, ground transportation, and we have all of those contracts in 

place ahead of time, instead of waiting for a disaster to happen and 

then trying to put them in place, where we end up with contracts 

like we had with Katrina, where it was not well thought out. We 

did not have time to sit down and negotiate with them. You just 

paid whatever they asked, and we saw what came out of that. So, 

FEMA has those prescripted mission assignments with, I think, 27 

different federal agencies. FEMA had, I think, four or five 

prescripted mission assignments. We now have over 100 with all 

these different private and public and federal agencies to provide 

those types of services that you are talking about. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, now, you have had several disasters since 

Katrina, of course. Have you utilized these new procedures and 

partnerships that you formed, have you utilized those in any of 

these disasters since then? 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir, almost every one of them. The one we 

probably used it for the most was when hurricane Dean, a category 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
137 

five storm, was predicted to come into Texas. There is a group of 

people along the Texas border called colonists, and pretty much 

they are squatters—Mr. Carter knows what they are—it is 400,000 

of them along the border and there was a potential to have to evacuate 150,000. We used those prescripted mission assignments prior 

to a presidential declaration to amass hundreds of buses, hundreds 

of ambulances, six urban search and rescue teams, supplies. We set 

up the military with airframe to help transport these people and 

people with medical needs, like nursing homes. All those were in 

place prior to the storm hitting. Now, lucky for us, the storm 

turned and went into Mexico. But, those things were in place and 

all of those prescripted mission assignments that you just mentioned allowed us to do that. We did not have the capability of 

doing that prior to Katrina. 

Mr. ROGERS. Now, you maintain that states and localities are responsible for being relatively self-sufficient for the first 72 hours 

after an onset of a disaster. Is that accurate? Is that correct? 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

LOGISTICS SUPPLIES

Mr. ROGERS. Now, do you stockpile supplies or do you make arrangements for them to be supplied by contract? 

Mr. PAULISON. We do both. We have logistic supplies around the 

country strategically located. We, also, have contracts in place with 

people like the Defense Logistics Agency, which has three million 

MREs they hold for us and other companies across, private and 

public, to provide the supplies. So, we do both. We can either use 

our supplies, if they are close, or we can use somebody else’s. 

Mr. ROGERS. So, you have emergency supplies stockpiled today? 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. In places where you anticipate disasters? 

Mr. PAULISON. That is correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. Like where? 

Mr. PAULISON. We have them in Texas. We have them in New 

York. We have them in California. I think there are probably 15 

supply depots around here. How many? 

Male VOICE. Sir, we have eight total. 

Mr. PAULISON. Eight total, I am sorry, eight total around the 

country. 

Mr. ROGERS. And those are stockpiled right now? 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. They are ready to be delivered immediately? 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Now what should local communities do for this 72 

hours that you are saying to them, you are on your own until we 

can get there? What should they be stockpiling or doing in preparation? 

Mr. PAULISON. They should have enough items in place—there 

are two things and I am sorry that I answer longer—sometimes I 

give you a longer answer than you want. One is make sure that 

the public takes personal responsibility for having—be able to take 

care of themselves and their family for three days and they should 

have supplies, also, in place, in case we cannot get there if something happens. But what we have done in these last two years is 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
138 

changed the philosophy of how FEMA is going to respond. We are 

moving in quickly and it has been very subtle and it has been 72 

hours. In several instances, we have moved supplies and equipment and people into the state prior to presidential declaration. We 

started moving them early. So when the governor asks for those 

supplies, most of the time in the last 18 months, particularly, they 

have been there waiting for them. We did that in Kansas City, with 

Greensburg, Kansas. We did it in the California wildfires. We did 

it in Texas. We just did it recently with the tornados we had in the 

Gulf Coast. But, it is the locals and the states that both need to 

take care—have supplies in place to take care of themselves for a 

few days, in case we cannot move quickly. 

Mr. ROGERS. So, they need to stockpile meals ready to eat, water, 

basic medical supplies for themselves? 

Mr. PAULISON. That would be my recommendation, yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. But, now, I understand that your regulations prohibit states and municipalities from allocating federal Homeland 

Security grant monies to procure those stockpile provisions. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. How come? 

Mr. PAULISON. That is just the way the regulation is written. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, I understand that. But why are they written 

that way? 

Mr. PAULISON. I do not have an answer for you right now, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, we are looking for an answer. 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir. I will get you one. 

Mr. ROGERS. You are the man. 

Mr. PAULISON. I know. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, we need to know why we are balancing that 

72-hour critical period of time against when you can get there and 

why they cannot use the grant monies they receive to buy supplies 

to stockpile for that emergency. 

Mr. PAULISON. My grant manager just told me that the way the 

grants are written is those grants are for protection and prevention, not for response and recovery. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, that is something we need to look at. 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey. 

FEMA PROGRESS

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again for 

your presentation. And before I get to my questions, I want to give 

my answer from Westchester community to the topic of the hearing. Last April, my district was devastated by widespread flooding 

following a nor’easter, and Director Paulison toured the affected 

area with Senator Clinton and myself and a disaster declaration 

was issued. So, while this is an example of successful response, I 

do agree that there are problems that do remain. However, my 

view is the view of the first responders in my district, is that while 

there is much that remains to be accomplished, FEMA certainly is 

in better shape today than it was on Director Paulison’s first day 

of the job and I, personally, want to thank you. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
139 

INTERIM FINAL RULE MODIFYING ADMINISTRATIVE ALLOWANCE

I do want to bring an important issue to our attention. In November, FEMA published an interim final rule, which modified the 

distribution of the administrative allowance. John Gibb, the director of New York State Emergency Management Office estimates 

that this would cost New York six million dollars in state management administrative costs per disaster declaration. Last year, there 

were four presidentially declared disasters in New York, meaning 

that the change could cost the state 24 million dollars each year, 

and this is happening at the same time that FEMA is proposing 

to cut the emergency management performance grant by 100 million dollars. I think we all agree that we want as many dollars as 

possible to go to the recovery programs. But, it is crucial that 

states have the ability to properly manage the funds and further 

limitation would eliminate management staff, leave the state, local 

governments, and non-for-profits without the necessary support to 

manage the disaster declaration requirements and responsibilities. 

So, I am recommending that our subcommittee examine this issue 

and consider taking action. 

Director Paulison, could you tell me why FEMA published the interim final rule, given that this idea was proposed in 2002 and 

then withdrawn after it was widely criticized at the time? And, Mr. 

Miller or Mr. Gispert, will the rule have a harmful effect on the 

ability of state and local governments to respond to disasters? Mr. 

Paulison. 

Mr. PAULISON. I will give you the short answer. We feel like the 

rule is going to cover the management costs that are needed. We 

feel like the dollars would be the same. However, the rule is out 

for review and we are open to comments from state and local governments on how this would have an impact on them. Craig 

Fugate, the state emergency manager for Florida, headed up that 

committee and we heard him say very clearly that state emergency 

management, you have to tell us and show us if this is going to 

cost you money, so we can submit comments. So, we are—it is out 

for comment. We are waiting for those comments to come in. I 

think they had 90 days. I am not sure where we are in that process 

right now. But, we are open to that. 

Mrs. LOWEY. I appreciate that you are open and after Mr. Miller 

and Mr. Gispert comment, I am just curious after all the criticism 

why you did it again. Is there additional information that proves 

otherwise? 

Mr. PAULISON. Again, we feel like the interim rule we put out is 

fair. It gives certain percentages for management costs. It is right 

around three-and-a-half percent. There are a couple of different 

variables in there. And for the public assistance, it is over four percent. We feel like that is enough of a percentage to cover the cost 

of managing the disasters. Again, it is open for comment. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Miller. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, ma’am. When we discussed this as 

NEMA, I think a couple of things have come to bear. We felt that 

the rulemaking process was stale. There was an action a number 

of years ago when the rule first came out to interact with NEMA 

and members of NEMA and I sat on one of those committees to 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
140 

study what management cost should be, to try to collect the data 

about how disasters were managed and submit that and share that 

information with FEMA and establish an adequate rate. Many of 

us feel that the current rate is not adequate to manage disasters. 

It will impair our ability to do so. We felt that even that data that 

we gathered a number of years ago has become stale in the new 

environment of FEMA. It is something that we want to re-engage 

and we encourage the rescinding of the current rule and, frankly, 

going through a new rulemaking process that allows us to gather 

the data and information to support a firm decision on what true 

management cost should be. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you. Mr. Gispert. 

Mr. GISPERT. We stand in support with our friends at the state. 

It does cost money to manage these things. It is hard to put an 

exact costing on it. We are often putting local monies up against 

in salaries and time spent. We want a fair return for the fact that 

it took us time, effort, and manpower to manage the disasters and 

the disaster funds. And we, also, support that wipe the rule out, 

redo it, and let us see what it actually costs and then put it into 

effect and get the actual transactions going. 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Miller and Mr. Gispert both mentioned problems with the fiscal year 2008 EMPG grant guidance and the statements, particularly the requirement that 25 percent of an award 

must be used for planning purposes. I understand the importance 

of having thorough plans, but in many areas, these plans already 

exist. And I recently sent a survey to first responder chiefs in my 

district, nearly all responded that they felt confident that the department, municipality, county, and state had good plans in place, 

but the vast majority said that they needed additional resources to 

exercise those plans. So, I support the ability of the department to 

focus on certain priorities, but local emergency managers are the 

only ones who know their needs. So, Director Paulison, why is the 

planning requirement in the fiscal year 2008 EMPG guidance? 

Mr. PAULISON. When we did our GAP analysis of the hurricane 

prone states last year, it became apparent that—and we are now 

in the process of putting this across the rest of the states—it became apparent that there is a significant lack of planning across 

this country. So, we put that guidance in there, because people 

kept saying they did not have the money for planning. So, now we 

have made it available to them. 

However, this is a state-wide requirement. If there is a particular 

community that has a good set of plans in place, they do not have 

to spend that 25 percent, as long as it is spent 25 percent statewide. And we are giving the regional director, who approves this 

planning process, a lot of leeway in determining what is actually 

planning. So, we are trying to keep it as flexible as possible, but 

at the same time making it very clear that one of our priorities is 

making sure the state and local communities have rock solid plans 

in place. 

The GAP analysis we are using came out of New York for Joe 

Bruno, working with him to put this GAP analysis system in place. 

And it raised a lot of issues, as we went from state to state, to talk 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
141 

about do you have evacuation plans in place, do you have shelter 

plans in place, what are you going to do with pets, where are you 

going to house people if you lose a lot of housing, what about the 

food supplies, what are you going to do with people in nursing 

homes? So, there is a lot of things out there that people do not necessarily think about unless they literally sit down and do a very 

thorough planning process with the guidelines that we are giving 

them. So, that is why we did that. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Miller. Mr. Gispert. 

Mr. PRICE. Just very quickly. The time for—— Mrs. LOWEY. Oh, okay. 

Mr. PRICE [continuing]. The gentlewoman has expired. But, 

please respond quickly. 

Mr. GISPERT. Congresswoman Lowey, we do planning at the local 

level all the time. What the chief was talking about, primarily, we 

are focusing in on catastrophic planning. When they were talking 

about evacuation, they were talking about evacuating the entire 

citizens of an entire county. We kept coming back to them and saying we do not contemplate ever having to do that. In other words, 

my county is 1.2 million people. Unless I know that there is going 

to be a comet that is going to hit Tampa Bay, I am not ever going 

to evacuate totally 1.2 million people. 

The reason that we balked at the 25 percent was the EMPG 

works because the original guidance from the framework was very 

broad. It gave you some very broad categories. Use this money and 

this will increase the capacity. We like to keep that guidance as 

broad as possible. But by the way, every year we get EMPG, we 

do not get it for free. Our state partners come down and say here 

is a scope of work. You will do this item, this item, this item, that 

item for the grant monies and there is always planning issues in 

there. Special needs may be one. Pet evacuation may be the other. 

So, we are doing the planning. We just do not want it wired into 

a certain percentage, because it takes away the flexibility. 

Mr. MILLER. We concur with Larry. The issue is frankly not always the 25 percent. As Larry said, many of us are engaged in 

planning on a daily basis. We see it as a process. It is something 

that we continue to invest in. It is something we emphasize to local 

governments and work with our state partners on. The question is 

one about the flexibility of the use of limited funds. And what we 

feel is that begins to stovepipe those funds and disallow states and 

local governments the flexibility they need to target those resources 

on what their highest priorities are. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Carter. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think they just 

called a vote, so I will move as fast as I can. 

Mr. PRICE. I believe with reasonable restraint, we can get you 

and the vote both in. 

FEMA STAFFING TURNOVER

Mr. CARTER. Well, I heard something that bothered me and I 

would like to know from Mr. Jadacki, when you mentioned staffing, 

you said in a turnover rife environment. I would like to know what 

that turnover rife environment is and why it is a turnover rife environment. The CFO is leaving. I am reading an article about mulVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:12 Aug 28, 2008 Jkt 043384 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A384P2.XXX A384P2

dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
142 

tiple people leaving, Tina Burnett, the Office of Management and 

Acquisition, Tony Cira, Deidre Lee. And as we have heard testimony from this department, it just seems like the door opens, one 

walks in, and then before you know it they are slamming the door 

and walking out. What is the turnover rife environment and why 

is it—or, in your opinion, how is it created? 

Mr. JADACKI. Well, I think it is a couple of things. One is that 

the number of senior folks in FEMA are starting to age now, so 

there is a natural attrition because of retirement and better opportunities on the outside. But what is troubling is the fact that we 

have seen a number of people either announcing or leaving in the 

last couple of months in senior level positions. And I continue to 

harp on the fact that you have all of these great plans, you have 

these programmatic reviews and all that stuff, but the behind-thescenes people are people that have to do the work. They have to 

get the acquisitions in place. They have to do the accounting, the 

financial management, those types of things, human resources. 

Those are the types of people that hold—they are the glue that 

holds the whole organization together. 

So, when I see a lot of those folks leaving, in some cases, over 

a short period of time, it does become problematic. So, there are a 

number of reasons like that. It is a very difficult environment. I 

have worked for a number of years at FEMA, both on the Inspector 

General side and for a stint at the Chief Financial Officer side. It 

is a very difficult environment. Overall, I find the people that work 

there are very dedicated and loyal and they know the work real 

well. But, on the other hand, it is a very troubling environment 

sometimes, especially when there are major disasters and a lot of 

uncertainties, reorganizations, and those types of things that have 

been going on over the past couple of years since Katrina. 

Mr. PAULISON. Mr. Carter, we have no senior career people positions that are open. They are all filled. And, in fact, we just had 

a Region VIII director leave, which is a political, and even with 

only nine months left, I was able to fill that with a rock solid person, or it is in the process of being filled. We have not announced 

it yet. So, we do have people that are retiring. I cannot stop them 

from doing that and I cannot stop people from taking much more 

lucrative jobs sometimes, like Tony Cira, who was highly sought 

after in the private sector, moving to California. I think he went 

to work for Lockheed. But, I cannot stop that from happening. But 

what I can tell you is all of our senior career positions are filled 

and as soon as people left, I filled them right away. We have more 

people in FEMA than we have ever had in the history of the organization. We reached like—as Mr. Price said, we reached almost 97 

percent of our fill rate and now that we have new positions, I feel 

like I have proven I can fill those positions. And this committee 

had enough faith in me to give them to me and we will get them 

filled. 

Mr. CARTER. And I agree with you, you have filled the positions. 

But, you will agree with me that as we have sat in these hearings, 

we have heard just about a whole lot of people that are leaving 

FEMA all the time. And I was wondering if there is something that 

we are doing or somebody else is doing that is creating such a 

stressful environment that someone like Deidre would come in, in 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
143 

2006, and be gone in 2008, come in highly touted. And I do not 

know the lady from the backside of the moon. But, I am just saying 

that is what they reported in this article, that she was hard to replace, but yet she came in 2006, left in 2008. We used to draft people in the army for longer than that. So, it kind of makes you concerned about whether the operations—there is something we are 

creating in that environment. And if there is, we need to fix it. 

That was my only issue. 

Mr. PAULISON. And I do not think so. I know Mr. Price is ready 

to go, but I see—the morale inside my staff is very high. We work 

hard, put in long hours, and Deidre Lee was putting in a lot of long 

hours and she was eligible for retirement and she took that. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, you have a tough job. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Ms. Roybal-Allard. 

FORMALDEHYDE

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Paulison, I would like to go back to the 

formaldehyde trailer crisis. On February 14, two-and-a-half years 

after the first trailer occupants began reporting breathing difficulties, headaches, nosebleeds, and almost two years after the Sierra 

Club began warning about formaldehyde levels in trailers, you 

issued this statement, ‘‘I think we have moved very quickly based 

on what we knew. We did the best we could do with the information we had.’’ Given the seriousness of the problem, why did it take 

two-and-a-half years from the first report to address this public 

health problem? In other words, what were the obstacles that you 

faced that made a two-and-a-half year delay ‘‘the best that you 

could do’’? 

Mr. PAULISON. I do not think we made it two-and-a-half years to 

do anything. But, there were several obstacles in place and, I 

mean, I am glad you asked that question. One, we were getting 

trickling reports in. Again, if you look at things in the rearview 

mirror, there is a pattern there, there is no question about it. But, 

at the time, just getting trickling reports in of people complaining 

about certain things, we did not recognize we had a major problem. 

If you look back now, obviously, it is very clear. 

But just getting someone to tell me what is a safe level, is it zero 

or is it one part per million, you know, we still do not have a standard for that. I am testing trailers or mobile homes now, new ones 

that we are going to put in place, and all I can do is tell the state 

what the levels are. There is no standard out there that I can tell 

that state that this is guaranteed a safe mobile for you to move in. 

Now, they did test very low, much lower than we actually thought 

they were going to test. So, I am comfortable that they are. 

But, scientifically, I cannot do that. We brought in CDC. We 

brought in HUD. We brought in everyone we could think of to help 

us with this issue. We immediately started moving people out. We 

have been very aggressive with that, regardless of what the tests 

were. Even before we had CDC testing, my goal was to get people 

out of those group sites. Nobody in their wildest imagination 

thought that people were going to be in these travel trailers as long 

as they have been there. Those are not good places to stay for a 

long period of time. We know that. The people living there know 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
144 

that. I have been in them with them. So, we have been moving 

very aggressively to get those people out of there. So, regardless of 

whether we have formaldehyde or not, we have been moving to do 

that. So, we have not stopped trying to get people into some better 

housing than what we have been providing to them. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND PUBLIC HEALTH

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Let me ask, is this, in part, a problem that 

you are facing because FEMA—does not have a public health focus, 

that it is more constrained now since it has been placed under 

Homeland Security? Because, I understand what you are saying, 

but at least based on the reports that I have seen, that it took a 

federal judge to order FEMA to have CDC to do this testing. It was 

not something that you responded to on your own. I am not trying 

to put you on the spot on this, I am simply trying to understand 

if having FEMA under Homeland Security ‘which has a different 

focus’ has taken the focus away from responding to the health 

issues that are raised many times by disasters and is that something that we, as a committee, have to look at? 

Mr. PAULISON. And I do not think so. I know we get a lot of questions about being inside of Homeland Security. But the fact that 

Homeland Security does have a health office now, with Dr. Runge, 

has helped me tremendously and one with his contacts in the CDC 

and knowing the people there, that has really been an assist for 

me, to be able to understand the whole formaldehyde issue, what 

is it, what are the causes. I mean—— Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. But why did it take a federal judge, then, 

to order FEMA—— Mr. PAULISON. We were not waiting for a federal judge to do testing. We were waiting—what we were doing was setting up what 

are we going to test to. I mean, what does a test mean once we get 

it and that is why we brought in CDC to do that. We did not need 

a federal judge to tell us to do that. He may have preempted us, 

but——

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. My understanding of the testing that you 

did make initially was on unoccupied trailers, trailers that had 

been aired for some time. The testing was not done on trailers that 

had an environment where people were living. That, in itself, is 

questionable and the logical thing would have been to immediately 

ask CDC, which has that responsibility, to do the testing. So, it is 

concerning that CDC did not come into play until a federal judge 

actually ordered you to have them do the test. 

Mr. PAULISON. And, again, I am not aware of any federal order 

for us to do the testing that we did. I do not think we are under 

any order to do testing. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. That was in the report and I would be 

happy to get any information that you have. 

Mr. PAULISON. And even CDC testified at a meeting a week before last that they should have moved much more quickly. They did 

not understand the issue either and they had a lot of other things 

on their plate. Again, in hindsight, this is—yes, maybe—no maybe, 

we could have, should have moved much faster than what we did. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Like I said, I am not trying to put you on 

the spot. I am just trying to identify——


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
145 

Mr. PAULISON. I know you are not. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD [continuing]. Where the breakdown was, 

whether FEMA, CDC, so that we can fix it, so that we do not put 

people in danger. That is all I am trying to find out, where was 

the breakdown and what needs to be fixed, so this does not happen 

again. 

Mr. PAULISON. I think the—and, again, I am not sure—I think 

we just did not recognize early on that we had a wide scale problem. You know, we had onesies and twosies and things like that 

and when people complained, we moved them out. We are not recognizing we had such a huge issue as we did. And even when CDC 

tested the first 500 hundred trailers last month, most of them came 

in fairly low. It was only a handful that came in high. But, regardless of that, we are not making any distinctions. We are moving everybody out as quickly as possible. And I am not being defensive. 

I know you are not putting me on the spot. There are issues that 

we—I think this whole process with the formaldehyde is going to 

create something we have not had in this country before and that 

is a standard air quality standard in our homes, that we have to 

go—because we simply have not had that before. 

Mr. PRICE. I am going to have to call a recess because of the 

votes on the floor. We will return as quickly as we can. 

[Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.] 

Mr. PRICE. Subcommittee will resume. We apologize for the disruption, but Mr. Rogers and I will have a final round of questions. 

Mr. Paulison and all of you, thank you for your indulgence. 

POST-DISASTER MITIGATION

Mr. Paulison, I want to turn to you again and, as promised, raise 

the issue of post-disaster mitigation. This is a program of FEMA 

that I have had a good deal of personal experience with in my 

home state and it is one that I believe is very sound and one that 

needs to be applied and not be folded into other programs, but that 

it be implemented in a way that it was intended. That is not to say 

it has worked very well on the Gulf Coast, although I hope there 

is some progress to report today. In the fiscal 2008 House report, 

we noted that FEMA had only obligated 42 million of the 1.9 billion 

dollars available to the states of Louisiana and Mississippi for postdisaster mitigation. I wonder what kind of progress you have made 

since then. 

We did require another report on this and the report was due 30 

days after the enactment of the omnibus bill. And so there, too, we 

are wondering when that information will be available. It should 

not be a very complicated report. We did ask for a couple of things, 

though. We asked for an update on the obligation of these funds. 

But, we, also, asked for your candid assessment of why this had 

been an apparently difficult program to implement in the postKatrina environment. Plus, it has been underutilized. I do not 

think we can dispute that. And, yet, this is critical assistance. This 

is very sound, I think, to give communities after a disaster a strong 

incentive to build back in a more sensible way. 

It, also, is a program that covers neighborhoods. It covers whole 

areas. So, it gives assurance to individuals that they are not just 

on their own out there. But, if they are thinking of buying or renVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:12 Aug 28, 2008 Jkt 043384 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A384P2.XXX A384P2

dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
146 

ovating or repairing a home, it gives them some assurance that the 

surrounding neighborhood will be restored. 

So, we did ask you for this report. I wonder what you have to 

offer us today. But, we do look for a more formal report and would 

like to know when that will be coming. I want to ask you, though, 

how much has been obligated to date. I want to know what you 

have to say about the integration of the Hazard Mitigation program, the post-disaster mitigation program, with the Road Home 

program in Louisiana. Some suggested at certain points that we 

just throw all the money in one pot. We resisted that, as you know, 

because we thought that the kind of standards to which dwellings 

would be built, the kind of planning that post-disaster mitigation 

encourages, that that was something that should not be sacrificed. 

But, clearly, there has been some confusion and efforts should be 

complementary have not always been that way. So, I would like 

your evaluation of that. And then I do understand you have 

changed policies to some degree, to allow payment for mitigation 

activities already begun by homeowners. So, I would like to have 

you comment on that, as well, and where that partly accounts for 

whatever progress you have made in obligating these funds. 

Mr. PAULISON. Thank you. I was not aware we were behind in 

that report. So, I will follow-up on that as soon as I get back to 

the office today, make sure you get that. It should not be a difficult 

report to give you those numbers and I will make sure you get 

those. 

Mr. PRICE. We are, however, looking for the kind of assessment 

that I mentioned, as well as the numbers. 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. But, I still think it should be fairly straightforward. 

Mr. PAULISON. It should be, that is correct, yes, sir. Tying the 

post-disaster hazard mitigation funds to the Road Home program 

created some obstacles for us, as far as getting those monies out 

the door. We were very firm in supporting what you just said, what 

those dollars are to be used for. And with the initial proposal with 

the Road Home program, we did not have assurances that that was 

going to happen. The new governor, my understanding, after having a conversation with him, says that they are going to separate 

those back out. We expect those dollars to start flowing much more 

rapidly now than we have seen in the past. And I do not have those 

numbers in front of me. We will get those to you very quickly. 

So, we feel like this is going to move much smoother. It is going 

to be much more quickly. There was a different philosophy between 

the two governors on the things that they wanted to put in place, 

as far as accountability. The new governor still holds people accountable, but they are not holding things up, as much as it was 

in the past. So, we think we are going to move much faster, much 

smoother. We are excited about the new philosophy. We think this 

is going to work. Again, get those dollars out the door. And I will 

get those numbers to you. I just do not have them in front of me, 

sir. 

[The information follows:] 

Specific funding numbers relating to post-disaster hazard mitigation funds and 

the Road Home program, including how the funds are ‘‘flowing’’ i.e. disbursed: 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
147 

The total amount of HMGP funds available to the State of Louisiana as a result 

of Hurricane Katrina and Rita is $1.47 billion. As of April 1, 2008 FEMA had obligated approximately $104 million in federal funds (DR1603—$68,547,308, DR1607— $35,273,366). The current deadline for the State to submit applications for all 

HMGP funds is September 1, 2008. 

In October of 2007, FEMA approved the State’s initial application to use HMGP 

funds to elevate residential structures as a complement to the State’s Road Home 

program. Since that time FEMA and the State have been working closely together 

to develop a streamlined and efficient process to implement this project. Although 

the State is re-evaluating the budget for this project, currently $1.1 billion in HMGP 

funds is set aside for this purpose. FEMA anticipates significant progress in the 

coming weeks. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. We do want to track this carefully—— Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE [continuing]. Because it is a program we believe in 

and one that we think has a great deal to offer still to the Gulf 

Coast area and one that has been seriously, seriously underutilized. 

PRE-POSITIONING EQUIPMENT

Mr. PAULISON. We are on the same page with you. These are important dollars that can have a significant impact on the future of 

that whole community. 

Mr. PRICE. Now, let me move ahead to the question of how 

FEMA leans forward before disasters. There has been much discussion, some fanfare from FEMA about the pre-positioning of equipment or the leaning forward of FEMA prior to disasters. This policy, of course, was in part a reaction to Katrina, what we saw 

there. The agency has tried to make the necessary corrections. I 

guess my question is have you over corrected or is there some danger of over correcting the problem? 

There are unsubstantiated reports that as much as 200 million 

dollar was spent on Hurricane Dean, a hurricane that never landed 

on U.S. soil. Staff has asked how much Hurricane Dean cost and 

has been unable to find out from your agency. So, I wonder if you 

would give us a definite figure today, hopefully. If not today, then 

for the record, on how much FEMA spent on leaning forward for 

Dean. And I want to know whether FEMA employs a cost benefit 

process to determine how much investment in leaning forward is 

reasonable. Can you describe that process and can you give us an 

assessment of whether we have reached the kind of balance that 

we need to reach, in terms of a reasonable pre-positioning, reasonable policy of leaning forward, as opposed to redundant efforts or 

efforts that just are not cost-effective? 

Mr. PAULISON. Thank you. Those are some of the same issues 

that we are looking at. I think we have reached a balance. We did 

spend a lot of money on Hurricane Dean. But considering the 

threat to loss of life, we made Katrina pale, compared to what the 

threat really was. Had a hurricane five storm, that Dean was at 

that time, moved into that area, right along the Rio Grande in the 

Brownsville area, it would have been significant. So we did spend a lot of money. It was not $200 million. I think we are in the range of around $50 million. But I will get you the 

exact numbers, and there is no reason you should not have those. 

We did spend a lot of money on pre-positioning buses with drivers. We spent money putting ambulances down there. We spent 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
148 

money having airplanes to move people who are invalid out of 

nursing homes. We pre-positioned urban search and rescue teams. 

At that particular point, the hurricane center was fairly confident that this was going to go into that Southeast Texas area. So 

we did take a lot of precautions. I was not going to let another 

Katrina happen on my watch. 

However, the leaning forward that we have been doing since 

then has been a little more modest. In moving people into the state 

emergency management centers, we have very good visibility on 

what their needs are; holding the video conferences with sometimes 

50 to 60 people on there, giving us an update on exactly what is 

happening on the ground, what the needs are; moving those supplies in early; moving things in early. 

I believe it was in Missouri. I believe we moved generators in before the Governor asked for them, because we knew they were 

going to be needed. There were not many people without power. 

We moved communications equipment in. We moved that in 

early. When the Governor did ask for declaration, those things 

were already there. 

I am going to continue to do that. It does cost money to do that. 

But I firmly believe that going in as a partnership, with the local 

and the state community is much more effective, it protects more 

property. It protects more lives than if we wait for that sequential 

failure that I talked about earlier. 

So it is a new culture for us. It is the new paradigm shift, if you 

will, on how I think this agency should respond to state and local 

governments. We are going to spend more money than we did in 

the past. But we are not going to have another Katrina, either. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Jadacki, have you looked at this issue at all? 

Mr. JADACKI. We are in the process of reviewing some of the activity in the Disaster Relief Fund right now, and we are collecting 

the information. 

You know, over the years, FEMA has had the ability, and they 

have done it using what they call their surge account. When disasters are imminent or ready to strike, and you know there is going 

to be some sort of a declaration, either emergency or Presidential 

declaration, then those costs are usually covered by that. 

The concern I have though, from being involved in FEMA for a 

number of years in oversight, is that different states varied; and 

Mr. Paulison talked about that before, using the GAAP analysis for 

Hurricanes and those types of things. 

You know, to blanketly provide all those resources to every single 

state as if they are all even, may be a different story. Some states 

maybe have a robust emergency management system, where they 

have contracts in place and those types of things ready to go, and 

you hate to see the Government come in and sort of take over those 

contractual agreements and upset some of the vendors that they 

have had on standby. 

So the concern I have is that if we are treating every single state 

the same way, that would be an issue. But to get back to your 

question as far as what these pre-deployments or these leaning forward things are costing, we are in the process of looking at that 

right now. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
149 

Mr. PAULISON. I just got a note from my financial manager. It said we spent $40 million on Hurricane Dean. 

Mr. PRICE. $40 million—that is considerably a variance from estimates others have made. 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes. 

Mr. PRICE. So maybe for the record you could help us reconcile. 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir, I will say for the record, we spent $40 

million. 

Mr. PRICE. All right; Mr. Rogers. 

FEMA VISION

Mr. ROGERS. The 2009 budget request, Chief, includes an in- crease of $64.5 million for what is called the FEMA Vision Initiative. Including the 2009 request, a total of $187.4 million is devoted 

to the FEMA Vision Initiative over the last couple or three years. 

It is unclear to me just what that means, and what the specific 

goals of what you are asking the money for. It is unclear to me 

where the FEMA Vision Initiative meets clearly defined steadystate capability, consistent with the requirements of the postKatrina Act. Can you help us out with that? 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir, I can; and I can give you a list of everything we are spending for our FEMA Vision. 

There has been a consistent theme with the Government Accountability Office and the IG’s Office on things that are broken at 

FEMA. The reports that come out really just codify what I see, as 

far as what I can get out of FEMA’s systems and what I cannot 

get out of FEMA’s systems. 

Our financial accountability system, our procedures, the IT system, are terribly broken. They have got to be re-built. Our facilities, we are way behind in upgrading our facilities and also providing space for the new people we are hiring. 

Our disaster operations, the National Response Communications 

Center, is being set up to operate 24/7, so I can have better visibility of what is happening around this country. 

The regional offices are being set up 24/7. Our incident management teams that were put into place are ones that will give us a 

defined workforce that responds to disasters, instead of pulling people out of offices and shutting down FEMA while we respond to disasters. 

Our logistics that we have talked about—bringing in professionals, having the right amount of people in there, having operational planners to work in there; our disaster assistance program, 

where we can provide a better way of providing and individual assistance; our Chief Financial Officer, giving them the tools so that 

when we have a GAO audit again next year, we will not have these 

deficiencies that you saw, and the deficiencies that the GAO pointed out are right on target. They are absolutely correct. But we need 

to fix those, and I cannot fix those without the dollars. A couple 

of the General Counsel management positions, bringing in better 

people into management, so we have oversight of what we are 

doing. Those are the items for the FEMA vision, and I will give you 

a list of those in the questions for the record, if you would like. 

We are very clear on where we are going. We have a good plan 

in place. This 2009 budget, I feel, will really put this organization 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
150 

on the right track, as we transition into the next administration 

and give it the leg up that it needs, so it will continue on. 

What I do not want to do is to have the things that we have put 

in place to fall by the wayside; and I feel like this 2009 budget that 

we have put in front of you will help us do that. 

IMAT

Mr. ROGERS. Now last year, you told us that you were building 

a 24/7 incident management capability. Tell us how far you have 

come with that. 

Mr. PAULISON. This year, we have one national incident management team and one regional incident management. By the end of 

this year, we will have four regional teams and two national teams 

that respond. Those will be operating 24/7. 

Again, our communications center, which is the hub of FEMA, is 

already operating 24/7; and we are setting up regional office centers to operate 24/7 also. 

Mr. ROGERS. What are those teams? 

Mr. PAULISON. The incident management teams are teams that 

will respond out to disasters. They will be trained to do that. They 

will be trained in incident command. They will be trained in all of 

our FEMA programs to work with the state and local communities 

to help them set up a system of how we are going to work with 

them to manage that disaster. 

They will move quickly. It will have to move within four hours, 

and be on the ground within 12 hours, anywhere in the Continental United States. 

Mr. ROGERS. How large are those teams? 

Mr. PAULISON. Again, help me out, guys. I think the regional 

teams are 15 and the national team is 23. 

NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NIMS)

Mr. ROGERS. Now you already used the National Incident Management System [NIMS], which was developed so responders from 

different jurisdictions and disciplines can work together in responding to natural disasters and emergencies, including acts of terrorism. How has NIMS benefitted FEMA? 

Mr. PAULISON. It is remarkable; not just for FEMA, but for the 

entire Federal Government. The local communities and the states 

have used the National Incident Management System, the ICS system, for a long period of time. The fire service has probably used 

it for 25 years. 

When I came into FEMA as a fire administrator, one of my goals 

was to get the Federal Government to adopt that. We put a plan 

together to put that in place. 

We made a presentation to the President’s Cabinet, and the 

President signed off on this. This would be the system we operate 

under. It allows all of us here to work together under the same system. We understand it. We understand what the roles are, and we 

understand who is going to do what. That, tied in with the national 

framework, we do have the best emergency management system in 

place now that this country has ever had. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, thank you, Chief; and thanks to all of you for 

your work and your sacrifice for this country. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
151 

Mr. PAULISON. These guys have a lot to play in that. They were 

really instrumental in us pushing that through for all of us to use. 

Mr. ROGERS. Good; thank you. 

PRESIDENTIAL DECLARATION

Mr. FARR [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. 

I want to follow up on some of these questions. First of all, I 

heard you say that FEMA now does not have to wait for a disaster 

declaration. You can respond without that. 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir, we do have the authority to deploy people. We cannot employ some of these things until we get a declaration. 

Mr. FARR. Is that declaration level, do you have problems with 

that? Because I recall, it took several days in order to get all the 

information, and sometimes a week, to trigger a declaration. 

Mr. PAULISON. Quite frankly, there was an issue with the timeliness of getting the declaration. We have cut that time down significantly. 

In the case of Greensburg, Kansas, it was less than 24 hours. In 

some of the other storms we have had, it was a matter of just three 

hours to get the President to sign the declaration. So for those that 

are no-brainers, those big events that have a major impact, we can 

move right away. 

Mr. FARR. That is just sort of budgetary authority, right? 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. FARR. You can still respond with what resources and manpower you have? 

Mr. PAULISON. And what we have been doing in the past also is 

moving things in, and the state can use those if there is an agreement that they reimburse us, replace that, if they do not get a declaration. 

We did that, I believe it was in New York, where they wanted 

MREs and water. We had tractor trailer loads sitting outside their 

offices. The lawyers were saying, well, they cannot use it because 

there is no declaration. 

So what we did was, here, you just take it and you use it, and 

if you do not get a declaration, just replace it. That system has 

worked out pretty darn well. 

Mr. FARR. Well, Mr. Rogers’s question is about this team that 

you have. As I understand the incident command system, whoever 

is there first manages the incident, as long as they have qualifications to manage it for whatever, as in fire levels, that it goes up. 

You have local folks that have been trained now to have the 

qualifications to handle major incidents. If your team comes in 

there, they are not replacing that incident command system. 

Mr. PAULISON. No, sir, not at all—they are not replacing them 

at all. They are to augment them; to coordinate our Federal response and how we are going to set up. 

We have several teams now that respond. We have our first 

teams that give us the on-ground visibility. We have emergency response teams that move in to help work with the state. They are 

the ones that would set up the joint field offices. These incident 

management teams will eventually replace both of those. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
152 

Mr. FARR. Do you see FEMA moving to a point where you almost 

work yourself out of a job, because the first responders can handle 

it? 

Mr. PAULISON. I would hope so. I do not see that happening any 

time soon though, sir. I think there is always going to be a need 

for Federal assistance in major operations. 

Mr. FARR. So the point of that Federal assistance is that, you 

know, for our military, we have 400 operating bases; and we have 

the personnel and the equipment there. We do not have to fly all 

that stuff from Washington. 

It seems to me that what has happened with Homeland Security 

is, essentially it has this knowing, and everybody comes in here 

and says the locals are going to be the first to respond to anything: 

terrorist incident, disaster, accidents, anything. The idea of setting 

up this Homeland Security was to allow the entire country to be 

able to be capable first responders. So a lot of money was set up 

and this whole agency was set up. 

But it seems to me there is an awful lot of sort of bureaucracy 

building in Washington, in all aspects of Homeland Security; and 

we have had all kinds of problems with the law enforcement being 

able to get intelligence information, because there is bureaucracy 

with that. 

I mean, Ms. Roybal-Allard and I were talking that we are very 

proud to be in a state that because of natural disasters has learned 

a lot—California. The Incident Command System came out of a 

California fire. 

I think that a great example of where you had that capability at 

the local level is the difference between the fires in Los Angeles 

and the response to Katrina. I think the fire response was essentially mostly all locally handled and locally managed. Wherever the 

resources came in, they were additional, too. 

But the bulk of that whole system was locally done. I do not 

think you would have a more professional group of people who 

could respond to those things than the people that are in California 

now. 

What I see FEMA’s role is that all these local and state governments are required to have disaster plans. Those plans are supposed to be reviewed. In our zoning process in California, every 

community has to create an element to their general plan. It is a 

disaster plan. They have to know what all kinds of disasters might 

happen; whether they have earthquake faults or flood zones or 

wildland fires or toxics or whatever it may be. 

Out of that, those plans are reviewed by the State Office of 

Emergency Services. They are kind of looking at these counties and 

say, oh, you know all the problems. But then the question is, do 

you have the resources to respond to them? 

It seems to me, that is FEMA’s role. Where I am really critical 

of FEMA in Louisiana is, it was essentially your responsibility, 

FEMA’s responsibility, to know that those plans were not going to 

work. Because the brains of being able to tell whether they had the 

capability of responding to them were here, and that is the role. 

I am really concerned that in doing that, we do not follow up 

then with the implementation, which is what I think Mr. Gispert 

was talking about; that we have got these plans, but we do not 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
153 

have the resources—training resources, equipment resources, interoperability capabilities. That is the missing gap that is still trying 

to be met. 

I would hope that you would be much more involved in responding to those needs at the local level, because as you said, your 

opening statement is that all response is local. So is all politics in 

this Congress, and I think the frustration we have is why are our 

locals not better equipped to handle the problem? 

Mr. GISPERT. Mr. Farr, may I jump in please? They are ready, 

and I want to challenge you to come down and visit us in Tampa, 

and look at our Emergency Management Response System down 

there. 

Our whole purpose in life is that FEMA never has to come to 

Tampa. We are going to get on it right away. We are going to jump 

on it, we are going to handle it, and we are going to do the best 

we can. 

My whole task in life is to bring every resource within 50 miles 

to bear against the problem. If I do that in a timely and efficient 

manner, almost every major event becomes minor. There will be an 

occasion that an event will be so grand and so large, that I cannot 

handle it with local resources. That is when the State of Florida 

comes in, and brings the resources of the other 66 counties. 

Now if we get beyond that, we are talking about a big deal, and 

that is when Chief Paulison and his people come in. But once 

again, 99.9 percent of those little problems should be handled at 

the local level, and you should never hear them. The EMPG money 

that you are spending, and the SHSGAP and the UASI and all 

those other Federal acronyms for grant monies, that is what that 

capacity is being bought at. We have equipment, we are training 

on it, we are talking the language, which is called NIMS, and we 

are just doing everything we can. 

Florida has put together a logistics center. We are stockpiling capabilities for Florida. So we are trying the best we can. You know, 

the problem that we have is, not every community in the United 

States has taken it as serious. 

Many communities never see any natural disasters. I might want 

to go live there one day. But many of them do not. So we, in Florida, take it very, very serious, because every summer, we are challenged by Mother Nature. 

Mr. FARR. Well, they are all suffering from global warming. You 

cannot escape that. One of the tests, and I am trying to find it 

here, indicated that we do not adequately fund the pre-litigation. 

Mr. GISPERT. That is the smart money, yes. 

Mr. FARR. Do you feel you get enough money out of that? 

Mr. GISPERT. No, sir; that is a program that has been laying fallow. It is very, very bureaucratic. It takes a long time to get, and 

a lot of people have been discouraged and no longer apply for it, 

because of the length of time. 

But it is built strong now. So when Mother Nature blows, it will 

not blow your roof off. There are ways to build. That is what predisaster mitigation is all about. 

Mr. FARR. Does FEMA overlook the planning requirements of 

these disaster-prone areas, to see whether their building codes are 

meeting disaster standards? 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
154 

Mr. PAULISON. We do not set building codes. That is a local and 

state responsibility. 

Mr. FARR. I know that. 

Mr. PAULISON. But we do look at their disaster plans. The GAP 

analysis that we did last year on the hurricane-prone states is now 

being used across the country. Like Mr. Jadacki said, one size does 

not fit all. So by doing this GAP analysis, we will know what the 

strengths and the needs are in each particular state. So we do not 

have to respond to everything in the same manner. 

I do not have to work with the State of Florida on evacuation 

planning, because they have got it down pat. They know how to do 

that. I do have to work with other states like Louisiana on evacuation planning, because they did not have it down pat. So we can 

tailor our response needs to what the needs of the state are. 

Mr. FARR. The last request here before I adjourn is that we put 

language in your bill last year that reads, ‘‘On any given night, 

there are 200,000 homeless veterans in the United States. The 

Committee is aware that there are unused surplus trailers. The 

committee directs FEMA to work with the Department of Veterans 

Affairs and other relevant Federal agencies on a feasibility study 

to determine how these unused surplus FEMA trailers can be used 

to house homeless veterans. FEMA shall report its findings to Congress within six months after the enactment of this act.’’ Do we 

have that report? 

Mr. PAULISON. No, sir, I do not think we have that report ready. 

Mr. FARR. Do you know when we will have it? 

Mr. PAULISON. I will find out and get back to you. I will find out 

where it is. 

[The information follows:] 

The status on a report relating to FEMA’s efforts to work with the VA and other 

Federal agencies on the use of surplus FEMA trailers for homeless veterans: 

On July 31, 2007, the disposal of FEMA’s excess mobile homes, travel trailers, 

and park model housing units was temporarily suspended to test for formaldehyde 

before releasing any units. Under normal circumstances, FEMA disposes of its excess and surplus property via the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Office of 

Personal Property Management pursuant to 40 USC Sec. 525(b)(2) and 41 CFR 

parts 102–35 thru 102–38. Prior to the suspension, FEMA reported available excess 

and surplus property from our inventory for disposition through various GSA disposition programs, including GSA’s Utilization and Donation Program (U&D), GSA 

Exchange Sales, and GSA Surplus Sales. Under the U&D program, GSA notifies all 

Federal agencies (‘‘utilization’’) and State agencies (‘‘donations’’) of the availability 

of units from FEMA. Agencies that house homeless people, including veterans, generally fall under the ‘‘donations’’ category, i.e., donations to State Agencies for Surplus Property (SASPs). The SASPs in turn would donate to state and local housing 

agencies when appropriate. Each receiving agency determines the utility of the 

units received, in accordance with Federal and state property management regulations. In addition, auctions/sales are advertised on GSA’s online auctions Web site. 

FEMA is also authorized to use ‘‘direct transfer’’ authority to transfer units to 

other Federal agencies if the requesting agency submits a letter of interest. 

When the suspension is lifted, the agency can resume the disposal of excess units, 

but only after a unit has been tested for levels of formaldehyde. The FEMA Assistant Administrator, Logistics Management Directorate has made contact with the 

VA’s Senior Policy representative to the U.S. Interagency Council and will work 

through GSA to help determine the process for meeting the VA’s potential requirements. 

Mr. FARR. All right. 

Mr. PAULISON. I know we have contacted Veterans Affairs, and 

talked to them about housing issues. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
155 

Mr. FARR. And for the committee, could you respond to those requests that Mr. Gispert put in his testimony of the unmet needs. 

Mr. PAULISON. Do you mean, in writing or now? 

Mr. FARR. No, in writing. 

Mr. PAULISON. Okay, I will be glad to do that; yes, sir. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PAULISON. Thank you. 

Mr. FARR. With that, the committee is adjourned. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
156 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 246 here 43384A.084
157 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 247 here 43384A.085
158 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 248 here 43384A.086
159 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 249 here 43384A.087
160 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 250 here 43384A.088
161 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 251 here 43384A.089
162 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 252 here 43384A.090
163 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 253 here 43384A.091
164 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 254 here 43384A.092
165 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 255 here 43384A.093
166 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 256 here 43384A.094
167 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 257 here 43384A.095
168 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 258 here 43384A.096
169 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 259 here 43384A.097
170 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 260 here 43384A.098
171 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 261 here 43384A.099
172 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 262 here 43384A.100
173 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 263 here 43384A.101
174 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 264 here 43384A.102
175 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 265 here 43384A.103
176 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 266 here 43384A.104
177 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 267 here 43384A.105
178 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 268 here 43384A.106
179 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 269 here 43384A.107
180 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 270 here 43384A.108
181 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 271 here 43384A.109
182 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 272 here 43384A.110
183 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 273 here 43384A.111
184 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 274 here 43384A.112
185 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 275 here 43384A.113
186 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 276 here 43384A.114
187 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 277 here 43384A.115
188 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 278 here 43384A.116
189 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 279 here 43384A.117
190 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 280 here 43384A.118
191 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 281 here 43384A.119
192 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 282 here 43384A.120
193 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 283 here 43384A.121
194 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 284 here 43384A.122
195 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 285 here 43384A.123
196 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 286 here 43384A.124
197 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 287 here 43384A.125
198 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 288 here 43384A.126
199 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 289 here 43384A.127
200 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 290 here 43384A.128
201 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 291 here 43384A.129
202 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 292 here 43384A.130
203 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 293 here 43384A.131
204 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 294 here 43384A.132
205 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 295 here 43384A.133
206 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 296 here 43384A.134
207 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 297 here 43384A.135
208 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 298 here 43384A.136
209 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 299 here 43384A.137
210 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 300 here 43384A.138
211 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 301 here 43384A.139
212 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 302 here 43384A.140
213 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 303 here 43384A.141
214 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 304 here 43384A.142
215 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 305 here 43384A.143
216 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 306 here 43384A.144
217 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 307 here 43384A.145
218 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 308 here 43384A.146
219 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 309 here 43384A.147
220 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 310 here 43384A.148
221 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 311 here 43384A.149
222 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 312 here 43384A.150
223 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 313 here 43384A.151
224 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 314 here 43384A.152
225 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 315 here 43384A.153
226 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 316 here 43384A.154
227 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 317 here 43384A.155
228 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 318 here 43384A.156
229 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 319 here 43384A.157
230 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 320 here 43384A.158
231 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 321 here 43384A.159
232 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 322 here 43384A.160
233 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 323 here 43384A.161
234 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 324 here 43384A.162
235 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 325 here 43384A.163
236 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 326 here 43384A.164
237 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 327 here 43384A.165
238 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 328 here 43384A.166
239 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 329 here 43384A.167
240 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 330 here 43384A.168
241 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 331 here 43384A.169
242 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 332 here 43384A.170
243 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 333 here 43384A.171
244 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 334 here 43384A.172
245 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 335 here 43384A.173
246 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 336 here 43384A.174
247 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 337 here 43384A.175
248 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 338 here 43384A.176
249 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 339 here 43384A.177
250 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 340 here 43384A.178
251 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 341 here 43384A.179
252 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 342 here 43384A.180
253 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 343 here 43384A.181
254 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 344 here 43384A.182
255 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 345 here 43384A.183
256 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 346 here 43384A.184
257 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 347 here 43384A.185
258 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 348 here 43384A.186
259 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 349 here 43384A.187
260 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 350 here 43384A.188
261 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 351 here 43384A.189
262 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 352 here 43384A.190
263 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 353 here 43384A.191
264 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 354 here 43384A.192
265 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 355 here 43384A.193
266 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 356 here 43384A.194
267 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 357 here 43384A.195
268 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 358 here 43384A.196
269 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 359 here 43384A.197
270 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 360 here 43384A.198
271 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 361 here 43384A.199
272 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 362 here 43384A.200
273 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 363 here 43384A.201
274 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 364 here 43384A.202
275 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 365 here 43384A.203
276 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 366 here 43384A.204
277 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 367 here 43384A.205
278 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 368 here 43384A.206
279 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 369 here 43384A.207
280 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 370 here 43384A.208
281 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 371 here 43384A.209
282 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 372 here 43384A.210
283 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 373 here 43384A.211
284 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 374 here 43384A.212
285 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 375 here 43384A.213
286 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 376 here 43384A.214
287 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 377 here 43384A.215
288 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 378 here 43384A.216
289 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 379 here 43384A.217
290 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 380 here 43384A.218
291 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 381 here 43384A.219
292 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 382 here 43384A.220
293 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 383 here 43384A.221
294 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 384 here 43384A.222
295 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 385 here 43384A.223
296 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 386 here 43384A.224
297 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 387 here 43384A.225
298 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 388 here 43384A.226
299 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 389 here 43384A.227
300 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 390 here 43384A.228
301 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 391 here 43384A.229
302 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 392 here 43384A.230
303 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 393 here 43384A.231
304 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 394 here 43384A.232
305 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 395 here 43384A.233
306 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 396 here 43384A.234
307 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 397 here 43384A.235
308 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 398 here 43384A.236
309 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 399 here 43384A.237
310 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 400 here 43384A.238
311 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 401 here 43384A.239
312 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 402 here 43384A.240
313 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 403 here 43384A.241
314 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 404 here 43384A.242
315 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 405 here 43384A.243
316 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 406 here 43384A.244
317 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 407 here 43384A.245
318 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 408 here 43384A.246
319 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 409 here 43384A.247
320 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 410 here 43384A.248
321 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 411 here 43384A.249
322 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 412 here 43384A.250
323 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 413 here 43384A.251
324 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 414 here 43384A.252
325 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 415 here 43384A.253
326 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 416 here 43384A.254
327 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 417 here 43384A.255
328 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 418 here 43384A.256
329 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 419 here 43384A.257
330 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 420 here 43384A.258
331 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 421 here 43384A.259
332 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 422 here 43384A.260
333 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 423 here 43384A.261
334 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 424 here 43384A.262
335 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 425 here 43384A.263
336 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 426 here 43384A.264
337 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 427 here 43384A.265
338 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 428 here 43384A.266
339 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 429 here 43384A.267
340 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 430 here 43384A.268
341 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 431 here 43384A.269
342 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 432 here 43384A.270
343 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 433 here 43384A.271
344 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 434 here 43384A.272
345 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 435 here 43384A.273
346 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 436 here 43384A.274
347 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 437 here 43384A.275
348 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 438 here 43384A.276
349 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 439 here 43384A.277
350 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 440 here 43384A.278
351 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 441 here 43384A.279
352 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 442 here 43384A.280
353 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 443 here 43384A.281
354 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 444 here 43384A.282
355 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 445 here 43384A.283
356 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 446 here 43384A.284
357 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 447 here 43384A.285
358 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 448 here 43384A.286
359 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 449 here 43384A.287
360 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 450 here 43384A.288
361 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 451 here 43384A.289
362 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 452 here 43384A.290
363 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 453 here 43384A.291
364 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 454 here 43384A.292
365 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 455 here 43384A.293
366 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 456 here 43384A.294
367 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 457 here 43384A.295
368 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 458 here 43384A.296
369 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 459 here 43384A.297
370 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 460 here 43384A.298
371 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 461 here 43384A.299
372 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 462 here 43384A.300
373 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 463 here 43384A.301
374 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 464 here 43384A.302
375 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 465 here 43384A.303
376 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 466 here 43384A.304
377 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 467 here 43384A.305
378 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 468 here 43384A.306
379 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 469 here 43384A.307
380 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 470 here 43384A.308
381 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 471 here 43384A.309
382 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 472 here 43384A.310
383 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 473 here 43384A.311
384 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 474 here 43384A.312
385 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 475 here 43384A.313
386 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 476 here 43384A.314
387 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 477 here 43384A.315
388 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 478 here 43384A.316
389 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 479 here 43384A.317
390 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 480 here 43384A.318
391 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 481 here 43384A.319
392 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 482 here 43384A.320
393 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 483 here 43384A.321
394 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 484 here 43384A.322
395 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 485 here 43384A.323
396 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 486 here 43384A.324
397 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 487 here 43384A.325
398 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 488 here 43384A.326
399 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 489 here 43384A.327
400 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 490 here 43384A.328
401 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 491 here 43384A.329
402 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 492 here 43384A.330
403 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 493 here 43384A.331
404 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 494 here 43384A.332
405 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 495 here 43384A.333
406 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 496 here 43384A.334
407 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 497 here 43384A.335
408 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 498 here 43384A.336
409 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 499 here 43384A.337
410 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 500 here 43384A.338
411 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 501 here 43384A.339
412 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 502 here 43384A.340
413 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 503 here 43384A.341
414 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 504 here 43384A.342
415 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 505 here 43384A.343
416 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 506 here 43384A.344
417 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 507 here 43384A.345
418 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 508 here 43384A.346
419 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 509 here 43384A.347
420 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 510 here 43384A.348
421 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 511 here 43384A.349
422 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 512 here 43384A.350
423 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 513 here 43384A.351
424 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 514 here 43384A.352
425 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 515 here 43384A.353
426 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 516 here 43384A.354
427 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 517 here 43384A.355
428 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 518 here 43384A.356
429 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 519 here 43384A.357
430 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 520 here 43384A.358
431 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 521 here 43384A.359
432 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 522 here 43384A.360
433 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 523 here 43384A.361
434 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 524 here 43384A.362
435 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 525 here 43384A.363
436 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 526 here 43384A.364
437 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 527 here 43384A.365
438 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 528 here 43384A.366
439 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 529 here 43384A.367
440 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 530 here 43384A.368
441 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 531 here 43384A.369
442 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 532 here 43384A.370
443 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 533 here 43384A.371
444 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 534 here 43384A.372
445 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 535 here 43384A.373
446 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 536 here 43384A.374
447 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 537 here 43384A.375
448 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 538 here 43384A.376
449 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 539 here 43384A.377
450 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 540 here 43384A.378
451 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 541 here 43384A.379
452 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 542 here 43384A.380
453 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 543 here 43384A.381
454 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 544 here 43384A.382
455 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 545 here 43384A.383
456 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 546 here 43384A.384
457 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 547 here 43384A.385
458 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 548 here 43384A.386
459 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 549 here 43384A.387
460 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 550 here 43384A.388
461 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 551 here 43384A.389
462 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 552 here 43384A.390
463 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 553 here 43384A.391
464 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 554 here 43384A.392
465 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 555 here 43384A.393
466 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 556 here 43384A.394
467 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 557 here 43384A.395
468 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 558 here 43384A.396
469 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 559 here 43384A.397
470 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 560 here 43384A.398
471 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 561 here 43384A.399
472 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 562 here 43384A.400
473 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 563 here 43384A.401
474 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 564 here 43384A.402
475 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 565 here 43384A.403
476 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 566 here 43384A.404
477 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 567 here 43384A.405
478 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 568 here 43384A.406
479 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 569 here 43384A.407
480 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 570 here 43384A.408
481 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 571 here 43384A.409
482 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 572 here 43384A.410
483 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 573 here 43384A.411
484 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 574 here 43384A.412
485 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 575 here 43384A.413
486 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 576 here 43384A.414
487 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 577 here 43384A.415
488 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 578 here 43384A.416
489 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 579 here 43384A.417
490 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 580 here 43384A.418
491 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 581 here 43384A.419
492 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 582 here 43384A.420
493 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 583 here 43384A.421
494 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 584 here 43384A.422
495 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 585 here 43384A.423
496 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 586 here 43384A.424
497 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 587 here 43384A.425
498 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 588 here 43384A.426
499 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 589 here 43384A.427
500 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 590 here 43384A.428
501 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 501 here 43384P2.001
502 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 502 here 43384P2.002
503 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 503 here 43384P2.003
504 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 504 here 43384P2.004
505 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 505 here 43384P2.005
506 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 506 here 43384P2.006
507 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 507 here 43384P2.007
508 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 508 here 43384P2.008
509 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 509 here 43384P2.009
510 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 510 here 43384P2.010
511 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 511 here 43384P2.011
512 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 512 here 43384P2.012
513 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 513 here 43384P2.013
514 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 514 here 43384P2.014
515 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 515 here 43384P2.015
516 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 516 here 43384P2.016
517 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 517 here 43384P2.017
518 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 518 here 43384P2.018
519 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 519 here 43384P2.019
520 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 520 here 43384P2.020
521 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 521 here 43384P2.021
522 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 522 here 43384P2.022
523 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 523 here 43384P2.023
524 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 524 here 43384P2.024
(525) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2008. 

HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS: SUPPORTING A 

NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE SYSTEM 

WITNESSES 

R. DAVID PAULISON, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

RAYMOND C. SCHEPPACH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE NATIONAL 

GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION 

WILLIAM O. JENKINS, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND SOCIAL 

JUSTICE ISSUES, THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PRICE

Mr. PRICE. The Subcommittee will come to order. We are happy 

to hear this afternoon from Mr. Paulison and his colleagues about 

Homeland Security Grants. 

We will have testifying today David Paulison, the Federal Emergency Management Agency administrator; Mr. Raymond 

Scheppach, the executive director of the National Governors Association; and Mr. William Jenkins, the director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues at the Government Accountability Office. 

Gentlemen, we welcome all of you. I look forward to discussing 

the Fiscal Year 2009 Homeland Security Grants Budget—that will 

be our focus today, the grants programs—and the implications of 

that budget for state and local governments to prepare for and respond to disasters. 

Administrator Paulison, I want to start out by thanking you and 

the FEMA personnel who work under you for your service to the 

country. You and they have responsibilities that are among the 

most important and most difficult in the federal government. A 

great deal depends on FEMA’s ability to help the nation both prepare for and respond to disasters of every kind. 

The failures associated with Hurricane Katrina made the importance of your mission as clear as it could be, and we know those 

failures went beyond FEMA and would likely have overwhelmed 

FEMA even on its best day. That event did define a low point in 

the agency that we must never allow to be repeated. 

While FEMA still faces many challenges, the agency has made 

encouraging progress in a number of areas. This Subcommittee intends to be supportive of FEMA’s attempts to build on that 

progress. 

Unfortunately, the administration’s proposed Fiscal Year 2009 

budget would again offer no progress when it comes to the request 

for state and local grant funding. In fact, the budget before us 

would reduce grants and training programs by $2.2 billion, or 46 

percent, from the Fiscal Year 2008 enacted levels. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
526 

I believe this budget sends the wrong signals to our state and 

local governments about the federal government’s level of commitment to the partnership with them, and I just have to wonder how 

accurately these request levels reflect your own unmediated assessment of state and local needs. 

The budget request before us today is largely a repeat of the Fiscal Year 2008 request that Congress flatly rejected and, I must say, 

in the bipartisan history of this Committee, of which we are now 

in Year 6. There has been a pattern each year of not just criticizing 

but rejecting the grants budget offered by the administration. 

There is not much new about what we are seeing this year. The 

same programs have been repeatedly targeted for significant cuts 

or even elimination. Two hundred million dollars is requested for 

Emergency Management Performance Grants. That is a cut of $100 

million. 

When I talk to emergency management professionals, they continually cite this as perhaps the most important grant program because it is focused on coordinating an all-hazards approach to preparedness and response at the state and local level. 

SAFER Grants are completely zeroed out of the president’s budg- et while FIRE Grants are slashed by 60 percent, from $750 million 

to $300 million. According to the second needs assessment done by 

the U.S. Fire Administration, roughly 17,300 fire stations—that is 

36 percent of the total number—are estimated to be at least 40 

years old, and roughly 26,000 fire stations have no backup power. 

The needs in this area are well known to you. 

The Metropolitan Medical Response System program is also zeroed out of the president’s budget. Now, this program allows local 

governments to purchase equipment and supplies, such as local 

stockpiles of medical countermeasures, and it requires the development of plans showing how different government entities will coordinate responses to events. 

Now, I am not simply saying here ‘‘more is better.’’ More grant 

funding for its own sake is not the answer to the challenges that 

we face. But the truth is that the state and local governments do 

continue to have significant unmet preparedness and response 

needs, and these grants are critical to helping them play the strong 

role the nation needs them to play. They are, after all, on our front 

lines of Homeland Security. 

The grant-funding equation depends on several variables, including our ability to measure and reduce risk and on how the requirements we place on our state and local partners are defined. 

So one thing I would like to explore today is whether the federal 

government has given a clear message to the states and local governments about their role in the nation’s Homeland Security mission. 

The federal government must clearly articulate the minimum capabilities and requirements expected of them and the first responders, and the grant funding we provide must be related to help them 

meet these capabilities and requirements. 

During last year’s hearing, Mr. Paulison, FEMA was preparing 

to officially become responsible for the Department’s preparedness 

mission. This Subcommittee worked with FEMA to help facilitate 

that transition by approving last year’s reprogramming to hire fedVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:12 Aug 28, 2008 Jkt 043384 PO 00000 Frm 00526 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A384P2.XXX A384P2

dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
527 

eral preparedness coordinators and grants management officials to 

work in the regions. 

We also used the Fiscal Year 2008 bill to direct the National 

Academy of Sciences to review the integration of preparedness and 

response programs, a study that is intended to give FEMA and the 

Subcommittee constructive feedback about how things are going 

and how they need to go. 

We look forward to hearing from you this afternoon about agency’s progress in integrating this preparedness mission. 

In a moment, we will start with Administrator Paulison, followed 

by Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Scheppach. Because we have limited time, 

I am going to asked each of you to try to keep your oral statements 

to five minutes. Your full testimony will be printed in the record, 

but that will give us time for exploring a number of issues in an 

exchange. 

First, let me yield to Mr. Rogers for any statement he wishes to 

make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and welcome 

to Chief Paulison and your assistants. 

As we continue to debate how much is the right amount to spend 

on Homeland Security, a debate, by the way, that started well before we created DHS, even ongoing today, the appropriate funding 

level for First Responder Grant programs finds itself at the center 

of that argument. Just by looking at the Fiscal Year 2009 budget 

request and its proposal to basically cut grant funding in half, it 

is certainly fair to say that there is a considerable difference of 

opinion on the subject. 

But before we can talk about overall funding levels for First Responder Grants, I believe we need to discuss two overarching 

issues. 

First, how much more prepared is the nation, given the $23.7 billion we have appropriated for First Responder Grants since 2002? 

Considering the size of this investment, we ought to know how 

much we have improved the capability of the nation’s first responders or not and how much vulnerability we have reduced, but, unfortunately, we do not know. 

Secondly, the unexpended balance of First Responder Grants is 

growing. It now stands at over $7 billion. I realize this is somewhat 

of a tired argument and that the bulk of funds we have appropriated are, indeed, obligated, but nothing changes the fact that 

the money is not getting spent and is languishing in the coffers. 

So no matter how much we appropriate on top of these stagnant 

funds, we have billions of dollars worth of unrealized capability 

stuck in government accounts, dollars that are not supporting our 

public safety agencies across the nation. 

I recognize that the only way we are going to achieve a higher 

state of preparedness is by fully supporting the state and local officials who serve on the front lines of every response across the country. Whether it is firefighters, police officers, or paramedics, all 

first responders play an unquestionably vital role in our Homeland 

Security. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
528 

I fully support funding a portion of their work that, in fact, supports federal Homeland Security efforts. But in every major investment across the Department, and I certainly view billions of dollars 

in first responder capabilities as an investment, we require plans, 

strategic plans, expenditure plans, implementation plans. You 

name it, and this bill requires it because major funding requires 

major planning. 

Why should grant programs be any different? I firmly believe in 

the old adage: ‘‘Plan your work, work your plan.’’ So, Chief Paulison, what I want to know today is pretty simple. 

I want to know your plan. As I see it, it is time for us to figure 

out a plan for determining the return on our grant investments. As 

I have said before, it is time to plan your work and work your plan. We certainly have target capability lists, but with the $23.7 billion we have appropriated, how close are we to meeting those targets? We have a national response framework, but how does this 

$23.7 billion, to date, as well as the 2009 budget request of $2.2 

billion in grants, how does that support the structure of this framework? Difficult questions, I know, the questions FEMA must answer as the steward of these grant programs. 

The way I see it, First Responder Grant programs are but one 

very important element of the nation’s overall preparedness, and 

that is something that should certainly improve with each yearly 

installment of appropriations. 

The American people expect us to be getting more prepared, 

more ready, to handle all hazards and all threats. Today, I hope 

we can discuss this issue and understand your plan for measuring 

the contribution of First Responder Grant funding to our nation’s 

overall Homeland Security. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Paulison, we will begin with you. 

STATEMENT OF R. DAVID PAULISON, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Mr. PAULISON. Thank you, Chairman Price and Ranking Member 

Rogers. It is an honor to be here, and I appreciate the opportunity 

to speak in front of you. 

When I was asked to lead FEMA, my mission was clear: rebuild 

and strengthen FEMA’s ability to plan, prepare, and respond to 

disasters in light of the natural and man-made disasters that 

struck our country. The new leadership at FEMA brought in experts to conduct assessments and incorporated these lessons 

learned into a new vision for the agency. The President, Secretary 

Chertoff, and, quite frankly, you in Congress have supported this 

effort and provided resources and other tools to help us make these 

improvements. 

In my first appearance before this Committee, together we began 

repairing the damage to what was, quite frankly, a challenged 

agency. Last year, we implemented a New FEMA with its Vision 

Initiative, and you provided the tools we needed to get back on our 

feet, use the lessons learned to set a new course. We began that 

journey together. 

Today, I am here to tell you that with the President’s and the 

Secretary’s backing and your continued support, we are laying the 

groundwork for a better tomorrow. Our goal is to leave FEMA 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
529 

stronger than we found it. It is for this reason that my testimony 

today is entitled ‘‘The Way Forward.’’

This is not the FEMA of two years ago, as our response to recent 

disasters has demonstrated. We have made major changes over the 

past year as we integrated the National Preparedness and Grants 

Programs Directorates into the FEMA fold and added their capabilities and strength to our existing preparedness and assistance 

programs. With this new structure, we will get better return on investments and be able to leverage our resources that you provide 

so they will have a bigger impact. 

Since 2003, as Mr. Rogers said, the Department of Homeland Security has invested over $23.7 billion in critical funding for our nation’s first responder community. These grant programs have increased our nation’s capability to prevent and, if necessary, to respond to acts of terrorism. This could not have been achieved without strong ties to our state and local partners. 

This year’s budget, as in Fiscal Year 2008, requests $2.2 billion 

to support FEMA’s state and local programs and assistance to firefighters grants. These important grant programs help prepare the 

state and local governments to prevent or respond to instances of 

terrorism and other catastrophic events. 

The budget supports the existing Homeland Security Grant program, Port and Rail Security Grants, Emergency Management Performance Grants, and also proposes a new discretionary grant program targeted towards high-priority security initiatives, including 

the REAL ID implementation. 

The budget also mirrors the Fiscal Year 2008 request for $200 

million for State Homeland Security Grants and increases funding 

for the Urban Security Area Initiative to $825 million. 

The $300 million funding request for the fire grants is identical 

to the President’s Fiscal Year 2008 budget request, and, by the 

way, brings that total to over $5 billion that we have given to the 

firefighters over the last few years. 

With these grants now administered by FEMA, we have 

transitioned the former Office of Grants and Training into FEMA 

and augmented grants staff with additional grants experts from 

FEMA’s legacy programs. The new Grants Program Directorate is 

working with a greater emergency-management framework to 

make sure that we are getting the best value for investment. We 

are truly leveraging funds to improve their effectiveness. 

The establishment of FEMA’s Grants Program Directorate will 

provide a one-stop shop for grants. The new office will help us to 

enhance fiduciary management as we standardize grants management policies, procedures, our processes of reporting, and accountability across all FEMA grant programs. 

We are releasing grant guidance earlier to allow applicants more 

time to plan and apply for funding so we can award those funds 

sooner. We are continuing to emphasize customer service and interaction throughout the process, including providing a new mid-term 

review. 

Funds are being directed to enhance specific outcomes in areas 

such as strengthening preparedness planning and improvised explosive devices deterrence, prevention, and protection capabilities. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
530 

Based on the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, 

the Department’s regional offices will have an enhanced role in administering grant programs. This year alone we have transitioned 

the grants management function of three key programs to the regions. We have also set up our Grants Management Branch in all 

10 of our FEMA regional offices. 

As we move into 2009, grants management functions across more 

of our programs will transition to the 10 FEMA regions, where 

they belong. 

When Congress passed the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, together we set a vision of what FEMA could become, but as the author and innovator, Joel Baker, said, ‘‘Vision 

without action is merely a dream. Action without vision just passes 

time. Vision with action can change the world.’’ The budget we have proposed shows that President Bush, Secretary Chertoff, and I are committed to vision with action, and I 

know you are committed, too. You have proven that. 

I look forward to working with you as we make the vision of a 

new FEMA a reality. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
531 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 531 here 43384P2.025
532 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 532 here 43384P2.026
533 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 533 here 43384P2.027
534 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 534 here 43384P2.028
535 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 535 here 43384P2.029
536 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 536 here 43384P2.030
537 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 537 here 43384P2.031
538 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 538 here 43384P2.032
539 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 539 here 43384P2.033
540 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 540 here 43384P2.034
541 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 541 here 43384P2.035
542 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 542 here 43384P2.036
543 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 543 here 43384P2.037
544 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 544 here 43384P2.038
545 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 545 here 43384P2.039
546 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 546 here 43384P2.040
547 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 547 here 43384P2.041
548 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 548 here 43384P2.042
549 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 549 here 43384P2.043
550 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 550 here 43384P2.044
551 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 551 here 43384P2.045
552 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 552 here 43384P2.046
553 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 553 here 43384P2.047
554 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 554 here 43384P2.048
555 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 555 here 43384P2.049
556 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 556 here 43384P2.050
557 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 557 here 43384P2.051
558 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 558 here 43384P2.052
559 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 559 here 43384P2.053
560 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 560 here 43384P2.054
561 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 561 here 43384P2.055
562 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 562 here 43384P2.056
563 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 563 here 43384P2.057
564 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 564 here 43384P2.058
565 

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND C. SCHEPPACH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Scheppach, let us hear from you next. 

Mr. SCHEPPACH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to 

appear before you today on behalf of the nation’s governors. I have 

submitted my written testimony, and I will take three or four minutes to summarize it very quickly. 

I would like to, this afternoon, touch on four issues: The need for 

federal resources, the REAL ID, the so-called ‘‘pipeline question,’’

and state and local Homeland Security priorities. 

With respect to the need for federal resources, in order for states 

to officially spend Homeland Security funds, it needs to be stable, 

predictable, and certain. Each state should receive a base allotment 

to ensure that all jurisdictions maintain a base capacity. Federal 

funding for state and local governments must increase as federal 

requirements increase through various initiatives, such as the National Preparedness Goals, the National Incident Management System, and the National Response Plan. 

Above a base allocation, Federal Homeland Security funding 

should be distributed based on comprehensive statements or analysis of risk which should be developed in close coordination with 

states. Risk assessments must be fully disclosed to governors and 

their designated representatives and should be updated regularly. 

States should have maximum flexibility in how these homeland 

funds are spent, as long as funds are used to mitigate risks and 

enhance the level of preparedness. 

One of the primary sources of funds to offset federal mandates 

is through the State Homeland Security Grant program. Unfortunately, funding for this program has decreased from its original 

level of $1.1 billion in 2005 to $550 million in Fiscal Year 2006, 

down to $515 million in 2007, and the president has asked for only 

$250 million for the program in 2008 before Congress increased the 

funding. The administration’s Fiscal Year 2009 budget again calls 

for a mere $200 million. 

To meet the ever-increasing demands placed on states, governors 

called for the Congress to restore funding to the initial 2005 level 

of $1.1 billion. 

With respect to REAL ID, we want to thank the Subcommittee 

and you, in particular, Mr. Chairman, for the amount that you 

have appropriated, the $90 million for REAL ID. The administration did not request any funds for REAL ID in Fiscal Year 2008, 

and its Fiscal Year 2009 budget does propose a $110 million competitive grant program for states, in part, to assist with REAL ID, 

and $50 million for DHS to develop verification capabilities. 

I want to publicly acknowledge the fact that the Department of 

Homeland Security did listen to the comments on the draft regulations from the state motor vehicle people and the state legislators, 

and NGA. They made major changes in the regulations and lowered the cost from $11 billion, our original estimate, to $4 billion, 

by their estimate, and we are in the process of now trying to verify 

that. 

It is also true that this moved the REAL ID implementation from 

the category of impossible to perhaps the possible over the next 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
566 

several years. However, governors feel strongly that the Congress 

should provide an additional billion to cover the up-front cost of the 

REAL ID this year and additional funds to cover the out-year costs. 

With respect to the pipeline question, unfortunately, there is a 

lot of misinformation on the budget issues that surround state 

grants. On the one hand, many local officials are critical of states 

for not accelerating the rate of funds to be spent. On the other 

hand, others argue that there are sufficient unspent funds in the 

so-called ‘‘pipeline.’’ It is interesting that this term ‘‘pipeline’’ is used to indicate that 

states do not need additional funding. For example, the secretary 

of DHS testified, on February 14th, that there is essentially $13 

billion in the pipeline for state and local Homeland Security needs. 

I would argue that neither local officials’ nor the secretary’s interpretation is correct. With respect to the federal budget, it is really 

budget authority outlays and obligations which are the appropriate 

concepts, not pipeline. 

The pipeline actually combines obligated and unobligated funds, 

as well as some unappropriated funds against nine different programs. The state grants are essentially a very unique program. 

They include capital, and they include operating components in an 

80-percent pass-through to local governments. 

When you look across other particular programs, particularly in 

the capital area, you will find that they often pay out four, five, six, 

and some even for seven years. Most of the funds appropriated 

have been obligated, although not yet outlined. It seems that the 

key here is to keep your eye on the efficiency of increasing Homeland Security, not on how fast the money can be spent—it is not 

a jobs program—nor on how much is in the so-called ‘‘pipeline.’’ With respect to state and local Homeland Security needs, the 

NGA actually organizes the governors’ Homeland Security people, 

and we bring them into Washington to meet a couple of times a 

year, and we are, in fact, in close connection with them on their 

priorities. 

Last year, we surveyed them, and essentially what they felt was 

that they emphasized the need for all hazards approach and planning and using federal grants. The whole question of public safety 

interoperability communications topped the list of other priorities. 

The other areas that were mentioned essentially were coordinating 

state and local efforts protecting critical infrastructure, developing 

state fusion centers, and strengthening citizen preparedness. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you as you develop 

your final budget. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. Mr. Jenkins. 

[The information follows:] 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
567 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 568 43384P2.059
568 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 569 43384P2.060
569 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 570 43384P2.061
570 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 571 43384P2.062
571 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 572 43384P2.063
572 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 573 43384P2.064
573 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 574 43384P2.065
574 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM O. JENKINS, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

OFFICE

Mr. JENKINS. Chairman Price, Ranking Member Rogers, Representative Serrano, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today 

to discuss the Department of Homeland Security’s grant programs. 

This afternoon, I would like to briefly touch on DHS’s risk methodology for grant allocation, grant expenditure reporting, and performance measures for emergency preparedness and response. 

Both by statute and presidential directive, DHS is charged with 

developing and implementing methodologies for assessing and 

managing risk across a broad spectrum of programs and assets. 

DHS’s grant-risk methodology is continually evolving and has focused on risks from international terrorism and includes both a 

risk assessment and an effectiveness assessment. 

Because we cannot protect against all risks, trade-offs are necessary. Risk management is a structured means of assessing risks, 

evaluating and choosing investments to reduce risk, and assessing 

the results of those investments, all under conditions of uncertainty 

and change. 

Risk is not a static concept but evolves with changes in threats 

and implementation of actions that reduce vulnerabilities and consequences. Risk assessments, of necessity, are based on data of 

varying certainty and reliability. Thus, professional judgment is an 

inherent part of risk management. However, the basis for those 

judgments should be clear and carefully analyzed. 

With regard to grant reporting, there has been considerable discussion on the Hill and DHS and in the press about management 

of DHS grants at all levels, including the ability to use the funds 

quickly and to demonstrate the results achieved with grant funds. 

From Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007, DHS distributed more 

than $19 billion in grants, of which about $7 billion was unexpended as of January 2008. Not surprisingly, the highest balances 

are for the two most recent fiscal years. 

In 2005, we reported that the ability of states and localities to 

spend grant funds quickly was slowed by the need to fulfill state 

and local legal and procurement requirements. Because of inconsistencies in DHS’s reporting of grant expenditures over time, we 

are unable to analyze expenditure trends by grant and fiscal year 

to determine how funds are being spent and if they are being spent 

more quickly for some purposes than others. Nor is it possible to 

compare DHS grants with preparedness grants from other federal 

agencies. 

As directed by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8, since 

2005, DHS has produced an annual report on preparedness funding 

that includes non-DHS grants. But because the reporting agencies 

use different definitions of ‘‘obligation,’’ ‘‘expenditure status,’’ and 

‘‘use of funds,’’ the report is of very limited use for comparative 

analysis. 

Although management of the grant dollars is important, success 

is not measured by dollars spent, how quickly they are spent, or 

even what is purchased. Ultimately, the goal of the grants is to enable state and local governments to prepare for and respond to disVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:25 Aug 28, 2008 Jkt 043384 PO 00000 Frm 00574 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A384P2.XXX A384P2

dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
575 

asters of any size, type, or cause with well-planned, well-coordinated and effective actions that save lives, reduce property loss, 

and set the stage for a quick recovery. 

DHS has not developed performance measures that enable it or 

state and local governments to assess whether they have achieved 

this goal. According to FEMA officials, this is a high-priority issue 

for DHS, and we realize that developing useful performance measures is not easy but is essential to have recognized benchmarks for 

measuring effective preparedness and response. 

Last March, we testified before this Subcommittee that a comprehensive and in-depth oversight agenda requires, one, assessing 

state and local capabilities against established performance goals; 

and, two, determining how federal grants have been used to build 

the capabilities to meet those goals. 

In other words, we need to have a means of consistently, reliably, 

and validly measuring our ability to achieve and sustain success in 

emergency management. 

The Post-Katrina Reform Act requires an annual preparedness 

report from all states. After an extension of the original deadline, 

the first reports are due at the end of this month. Also under the 

act, the FEMA administrator, in conjunction with the National Advisory Council and the National Council on Disability, must establish a comprehensive assessment system for overall preparedness, 

including operational readiness. This was to include clear and 

qualifiable performance metrics, measures, and outcomes. To date, 

this has not been completed. 

The task of developing and sustaining first responder capabilities 

to meet specific performance goals is a complex and daunting one. 

As the principal federal agency now responsible for preparedness 

and response, FEMA has a unique opportunity and responsibility 

to evaluate how it can effectively target and integrate the grants 

into its overall strategy to develop an effective, all-hazards preparedness and response system, and this can best be done, in our 

view, by viewing the grants collectively rather than individually in 

a stovepipe fashion. 

We look forward to working with Congress, FEMA, and others to 

build an effective national emergency preparedness and response 

system that we all want and the nation deserves. 

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would be 

pleased to respond to any questions you or other Members of the 

Committee may have. 

[The information follows:] 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
576 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 577 here 43384P2.066
577 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 578 here 43384P2.067
578 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 579 here 43384P2.068
579 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 580 here 43384P2.069
580 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 581 here 43384P2.070
581 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 582 here 43384P2.071
582 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 583 here 43384P2.072
583 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 584 here 43384P2.073
584 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 585 here 43384P2.074
585 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 586 here 43384P2.075
586 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 587 here 43384P2.076
587 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 588 here 43384P2.077
588 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 589 here 43384P2.078
589 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 590 here 43384P2.079
590 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 591 here 43384P2.080
591 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 592 here 43384P2.081
592 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 593 here 43384P2.082
593 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 594 here 43384P2.083
594 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 595 here 43384P2.084
595 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 596 here 43384P2.085
596 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 597 here 43384P2.086
597 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 598 here 43384P2.087
598 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 599 here 43384P2.088
599 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 600 here 43384P2.089
600 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 601 here 43384P2.090
601 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 602 here 43384P2.091
602 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 603 here 43384P2.092
603 

REAL ID GRANT FUNDING

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Jenkins. Thanks to all of you. We will 

proceed with questions, and I will begin with Mr. Paulison and a 

question about the REAL ID grant funding. 

Mr. Scheppach made the case in his testimony for more REAL 

ID grant funding for the states. What he did not say, but what I 

know to be true from talking to leaders in my state and in other 

states is that there is not perfect agreement among the states on 

the merits of this program and on the parameters of the program 

as they have been enacted. 

I have shared this. I voted myself against the version of the 

REAL ID Act that we had before us in early 2005 because I had 

significant concerns about its costs and about how it was going to 

be implemented and the protection of privacy and other matters. 

So these are still live concerns among us and in the states. But 

what I think there is no disagreement whatsoever about among the 

states, and this is reflected, I believe, Mr. Scheppach, in action 

taken two weeks ago. What there is no disagreement at all about 

is that if this is going to be a requirement the states have to meet, 

that they should have federal financial support for their efforts, 

some serious cost sharing. 

Now, to date, $90 million has been appropriated specifically to 

help states comply with the unfunded mandates of the REAL ID 

Act, and that was provided, I must say, only as a result of leadership by this Committee. 

I know that does not even approach meeting the needs of the 

states, but I remind you that it is 100-percent more than was ever 

requested by this administration for REAL ID. 

Now, Secretary Chertoff has said that ‘‘there will be another 

$150 million in grants that will be potentially available to states 

for REAL ID in Fiscal Year 2009.’’ Now, where does that come 

from? 

Well, for one thing, he is assuming that states will use a good 

portion of their State Homeland Security Grants for REAL ID, and 

I remind you that the administration has proposed that these 

grants be reduced by 79 percent. Are we asking states to divert 

funding away from other priorities to pay for REAL ID, particularly when their state grants are going to be decimated to begin 

with? 

Then there is this matter of an amalgamated program. The 2009 

budget proposes to fund a joint REAL ID, Buffer Zone, Other grant 

program at $110 million. REAL ID, Buffer Zone, Other, $110 million. I guess that is where the Secretary assumes the balance of 

this funding will come from. I am not sure what assumption he is 

making about the allocation within this new program among REAL 

ID and Buffer Zone and Other, but I have some questions about 

it, Chief Paulison. 

First of all, is this amalgamated grant program authorized? 

Secondly, can you explain why you are proposing to group buffer 

zone protection with REAL ID grants? I just cannot imagine what 

the rationale is, and then what is this ‘‘other’’ all about? What are 

you thinking is going to be in the picture here, and what kind of 

funding allocation do you envision? Why is there no dedicated 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
604 

source of funding for REAL ID at a level that would accurately reflect the implementation costs to the states? 

NATIONAL SECURITY AND TERRORISM PREVENTION GRANTS

Mr. PAULISON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Those are very good questions. 

The National Security and Terrorism Prevention program is a 

category that the Secretary has created to put funding to States for 

those emerging priorities as the Secretary determines them. REAL 

ID falls in these priorities. They do not have to be grants that necessarily go together. The buffer zone is in there and also the REAL 

ID Grants for the states to use as they apply for those grants. 

Also, 20 percent of the State Homeland Security Grants program 

can be used for REAL ID, which would take that number to the 

$150 million that the Secretary committed to fund for that program. 

On top of that, there is $50 million that is put in the 2009 CIS 

budget to assist with the formation of the hub. What the Secretary 

is asking the states to do is to put the program together on how 

they are going to share information with each other. The Secretary 

has committed that there will not be a national ID. 

There will not be a place where we gather all of that information. 

It will be kept with each state, just like it is now, with the regular 

driver’s license, and, to do that, they want the states to own the 

hub, but the Secretary did put $50 million into CIS because of their 

relationship with the DMVs around the country to put in that particular department. So that is why that is there. 

As far as this grouping of grants, this last year, on February 1st, 

we announced the grants. We put them out in time within the 25 

days that you have mandated we do that. That is the first time 

that we have been able to accomplish that, and we did that, put 

it together, did a good job. We made some mistakes in some of 

those grants; some we fixed within a few hours. 

What we are trying to do is to put that down into three major 

categories. 

One, it will make it a lot easier for us to get that out within the 

25 days but also make it a lot easier for the states. The states will 

not have to review and depend on 16 different grant guidances to 

provide their grants. There will only be three or four of those in 

these three major categories right here. We think this is going to 

simplify the grant process for us getting those out the doors quickly 

but also make it much simpler for the states. When they start applying for these grants, there will be a lot of consistency as they 

pick and choose in those categories of what they want to apply for. 

I hope I answered your question. If I missed anything, I will go 

back and get it. 

Mr. PRICE. We did raise the issue of this proposed hub at CIS 

with Dr. Gonzales this morning, rather inconclusively, I would say. 

That is not a very well-fleshed-out proposal. But even if you add 

that to the mix, we are talking about a very small fraction of the 

estimated state needs to begin to implement this program. You are 

not suggesting that this amalgamated program is actually authorized in law. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
605 

Mr. PAULISON. I am missing what you are asking. As far as what 

we have done? All we have done is move those into different categories. We have not really changed any of the grants. They are all 

the same. They are still there, just like they were. We just grouped 

them in groups to help us to, one, make it a lot simpler to put 

these out, make them more accurate, and get them out faster, but 

also make it easier for the states. 

These same grants that are in 2008 are in 2009, just in different 

groupings. 

Mr. PRICE. You do not have an estimate of how much of that 

total would likely go for the REAL ID function. 

Mr. PAULISON. Right now, for the REAL ID, what is available is 

$150 million that is in this particular budget, and then the $50 

million that is in CIS for 2009. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. But the 150 does assume that the states are 

going to use up to 20 percent of their State Homeland Security 

Grants for REAL ID. 

Mr. PAULISON. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. That assumes that of this $110 million for this new, 

what you call the Emerging Priorities program; how much of that 

goes for REAL ID? 

Mr. PAULISON. The entire $110 million could go for that. The 

states could apply for those dollars off of REAL ID, or if they had 

buffer zone issues, they could apply for that also. 

Mr. PRICE. Whose decision is it? 

Mr. PAULISON. That would be up to the state to apply for that. 

Mr. PRICE. Up to the state to apply, but let us say, as usually 

happens, the states apply for both and more. What is the decision 

rule in terms of how that 110 would be allocated? 

Mr. PAULISON. That particular category is a competitive process, 

and the Secretary will make those choices based on who has the 

best proposal and what has the biggest impact. 

Mr. PRICE. It would essentially be at the Secretary’s discretion. 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Scheppach, you have already expressed your view 

on this from the states’ perspective. Is there anything you would 

like to add? 

Mr. SCHEPPACH. My understanding is, of the $80 million that was appropriated over the last couple of years, about $10 million 

of that has been spent on pilot projects and other things, which 

gives you about $70 million residual. Our sense is that the Secretary really wants to use that $70 million to do this portal that 

is necessary for states to talk to states and exchange information 

but also to interact with the five federal databases. 

I think where the governors are is, although that is a high priority, there is no money here that is really allocated across two 

states to offset some of the cost of implementation. All of it so far 

is for special needs, which are competitive bids, which a lot of it 

is on what I would consider federal responsibility. To me, to allow 

states to talk to one another and exchange information is an interstate component which should be funded by the federal government, not out of an unnecessary pot that would go to states. 

So I think you are right that the governors met a couple of weeks 

ago and were very upset, essentially, that this is going to cost 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
606 

states $4 billion or so to implement, and there is no money yet that 

is being allocated across states to, in fact, help offset that. Most of 

the money that has been appropriated so far is for this portal or 

other special needs. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. 

MINIMUM ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A few years ago, we 

were trying to come up with what we called at that time the ‘‘minimum essential requirements.’’ That is to say, we wanted every fire 

department, every police department, every first responder unit, 

and there are thousands of these across the country, of course— every one of them needed at least a minimum of training and 

equipment to prepare them to respond to the minimum problems 

that had a federal connection to them. 

That concept has been massaged over the years. I do not know 

where that stands now. Maybe you could help me with that. 

Then, in addition to those communities that require a minimum 

of training and equipment to respond to a federal piece of some 

problem that they might have locally, there were communities, obviously, that needed a bit more than that. Those whose jurisdiction 

included a nuclear power plant needed more preparation. One with 

a dam there maybe needed some more different types of training 

and equipment, until we get to the very large cities, like New York, 

L.A., and so on, which, obviously, need a lot more of perhaps different types of training and equipment. 

I have never seen the results of that thinking. The bottom line 

is I do not know that there is a plan out there that allocates these 

grants based on some logical scheme. Prove me wrong, Chief. 

Mr. PAULISON. I am assuming you are talking about the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program. 

Mr. ROGERS. And many of the other programs. 

Mr. PAULISON. And some of the other programs, too. I think 

there is a logical plan in place, and what we have already started 

doing is we inherited these grants 12 months ago last year, and 

this was really our first grant cycle. We recognized very clearly 

that there was no mechanism to measure this $23.7 billion that we 

have given out, is it having an impact, and where is it having an 

impact? 

So we have put a program in place to start to do that, and Ross 

Ashley, who is sitting behind me, is going to be briefing your staff 

over the next couple of weeks to put this thing in place and have 

some tangible results by August or September of this year, so that 

is one piece of it. 

The other piece is tying all of these grants together, and that is 

what we have been looking at, and one of the reasons we tried to 

group these together was to do just what you are talking about. 

The Assistance to Firefighters Grants, if the 2009 budget is 

passed, as the President submitted it, will be a little bit over $5 

billion that we put into fire service. Now, the range has been all 

over the place, from buying fire trucks to buying turnout gear, selfcontained breathing apparatus, building training facilities, a lot of 

different things like that. It is having an impact on the fire service. 

When I go around and talk to people and talk to fire departments, 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
607 

I see pretty much every department that I have been in, they have 

gotten something out of these grants. 

I think what we really have to do now is step back, and we are 

going to need your assistance in it because a lot of the guidelines 

we follow come out of Congress. We decided we had better focus the 

grants on some of the other issues, like preparing for terrorism, 

and maybe focus on some issue, Mr. Rogers, you talked about, 

where those departments have particular problems, particularly 

nuclear power plants or have large chemical plants or any other 

major critical infrastructures to get training on. 

Our training program that we have is bigger than just the 

grants. There are exercises we have inside of Homeland Security. 

The grants are just one piece of that. 

So there is a plan in place, and what we are doing is putting all 

of these together to make sure they mesh, and we are not having 

stovepipes of things to do as separate things. That is really starting 

to work. 

The 9/11 Bill helped us really focus on the risk assessment on 

grants. It is much clearer now than it was a year ago, two years 

ago. It will be much more visible to the governors as we continue 

to improve this process. We want it as transparent as possible. 

So, yes, there is a plan in place of how we are going to do this. 

The National Response Framework is going to help us do that also, 

and all of that fits together—Mr. Price, you mentioned in your 

opening statement—how does it all fit in with the national framework? And it does. Every piece is falling in line to make sure we 

have a very comprehensive emergency management system in this 

country that, quite frankly, we did not have. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, if it exists, I have not seen it. We have been 

asking for it now for—what is it?—six years, seven years. Six 

years. We always get an answer just like you gave, which I did not 

fathom. But we have not been able to fathom any of your predecessors on that as well. 

You know, with the numbers we are talking about, the dollar figures plus the numbers of units out there, you have got to have 

some sensible, logical plan, if it is going to be fair at all, or forfeit 

your authority over it and let the Congress decide where those 

funds go. I do not think that is a smart idea. 

Mr. PAULISON. Understood. I understand, and we will do that. I 

think the assessment that we are going to be doing to find out 

what impact we have is going to help us get more in line with what 

you want; the fact that out of the EMPG dollars, the states have 

set aside 25 percent of that for planning. The gap analysis planning we are doing, we have done with all of the coastal states, and 

now we are going to move into the rest of the country. It is going 

to help us put together, I think, really what you want and to work 

on that over this next year. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, we will see. 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. You know, there are 53,000 state and local public 

safety agencies and federal agencies, 53,000 of them; 32,000 fire 

and ambulance units, and there are 1,185 cities with over 30,000 

population. We are talking about a huge universe here of needy fire 

departments, police departments, all whose budgets are not adeVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:25 Aug 28, 2008 Jkt 043384 PO 00000 Frm 00607 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A384P2.XXX A384P2

dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
608 

quate from the city council, and they are looking for free dollars 

somewhere, and guess who they like to look at, ‘‘Uncle Sucker,’’ because we can write a check, regardless of the balance in the bank, 

which they cannot do. We are a real juicy target up here. 

So we have got to have some sensible plan by which fairness can 

be meted out to these 53,000 jurisdictions. 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. We catch the heat. We try to pass it on, but it 

bounces off. 

Mr. PAULISON. I do not know. I think I get quite a bit of heat. 

GRANT GUIDANCE

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I guess you do. But, nevertheless, on this subject, it is something that has been bugging me now for six years, 

that we cannot get a sensible plan in place. 

However, I want to compliment you on one thing especially, and 

that is improving your process for issuing grant guidance to state 

and local governments. In fact, the 2008 bill that we enacted on 

December 26th, by the end of January, the Grant Programs Directorate was briefing the Subcommittee staff and disseminating 

grant guidance and applications, which is a great improvement 

over previous years, where FEMA simply dragged its feet, did not 

effectively nor promptly communicate with state and local governments about the availability of funds. 

Mr. Scheppach may want to comment on this or not. But we cannot allow those funds to just languish there due to slow communications or nonmanagement of the system. Tell me how you developed your grant guidance and if the state and local emergency 

management professionals provided suitable input into those guidances. 

Mr. PAULISON. One, it is very important what you just mentioned. We do get a lot of guidance from state and local governments in making sure that the grants are going where they need 

to go. I meet quarterly with the National Emergency Managers Association. I meet quarterly with the International Emergency Managers, which are the local communities, and others to make sure 

that we are getting input. 

I have a law enforcement advisor brought on board to make sure 

that those law enforcement grants that we are putting out are 

doing what they need to do, and we use that information we get 

from the governors and others to tweak that guidance every year. 

Just for the record, this is the first year that FEMA has really 

had the grant guidance from Day One to move out, and I think 

that is why it is out on time. But, yes, we are doing that, and we 

are working very hard. Like I said, this is the first year, I think, 

that grant guidance met your 25-day threshold from Day One to 

get those grant guidances out the door, and we did that. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Serrano. 

PROTECTION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just preface my 

comments by saying that some of the things that Mr. Rogers has 

stated are the same frustrations I have had for the time I have 

been on this Committee, which is since the beginning, and that is 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
609 

that this whole Homeland Security setup, and there is no other 

way to discuss it, has gotten so much money allocated to it, and 

I do not know what is the bigger issue: Trying to have Members 

of Congress understand this whole setup or finding out why, on so 

many occasions, we seem to get answers that indicate that somehow tomorrow we are going to get the answer we are looking for, 

and these budgets keep growing and growing and growing. 

Let me mention one of my favorite issues, the whole issue of civil 

liberties. Fusion centers, shortly after 9/11, began to pop up in 

every state to improve information sharing between state and federal authorities. Now it seems that many of these centers are focusing not only on counterterrorism but on all crimes instead of just 

the one that we thought they were supposed to go after. 

I am afraid that this expansion leads to the accumulation of a 

lot of data which we misused and abused, and some folks are beginning to complain about that. Do we have a formal and systematic means of auditing whether each center is appropriately protecting civil liberties or using federally funded intelligence analysts 

in a manner that is consistent with national goals and objectives 

for the fusion centers? 

Let me just finish up by saying that the whole issue of Homeland 

Security and its predecessor, the Patriot Act, still leaves many of 

us very nervous about what our country and our civil liberties are 

going to look like 20 years from now. So any chance we have to curtail abuse, I think, is important. What can you tell me about this 

now new role that the fusion centers are taking? 

Mr. PAULISON. Congressman, I can tell you very clearly that the 

Secretary is very protective of civil liberties. He is very concerned 

about this, and he is making sure that we do not abuse that. We 

want to protect this country. We have to protect this country, and 

we know we have bad people that want to do bad things. 

So we are going to gather information, but, at the same time, we 

are going to protect the civil liberties of the citizens of this country. 

Mr. SERRANO. How you do that, when you are gathering information that is not related to the initial mission? What would be the 

purpose of that? 

Let me say that we always hear this phrase, which is correct, 

‘‘there are bad people who want to hurt this country.’’ I hope, at 

the end of the day, 20 years from now, it does not turn out that 

it was some of us who hurt the Constitution, and, in the process, 

let the terrorists win. There is more than one way of winning. One 

is attacking us and hurting us and winning that way; the other one 

is scaring us into a point where we throw away the Constitution. 

Certainly, they have hurt us badly in the fact that we have to 

spend so much money now on protecting ourselves, but at what 

point do we say that we do not want to give them that victory of 

throwing away our rights? And why would they be gathering all of 

this information that has nothing to do with these particular 

crimes? 

Mr. PAULISON. The fusion centers are following the privacy 

guidelines that are set forth on 28 CFR for criminal intelligence 

and the FOIA for criminal records, and they are following those 

guidelines. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
610 

The fine line you talk about is a concern of everyone, and I know 

for sure that the Secretary is very aware of that and very cognizant 

of that. He is not going to cross that line. 

Mr. SERRANO. I always get that answer, with all due respect, and 

answers are very short, and they do not go into any elaboration because that is considered top-secret stuff, but I know we are hurting 

ourselves here. 

HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS FUNDING LEVELS

Just one quick question. We have cuts to the grants that go to 

the states. New York City, which remains the number one target 

of terrorists, depends heavily on Homeland Security Grants, yet 

this budget wants to cut these grants by $2 billion. Is this a statement that the way these dollars are being used has not been proper? 

Mr. PAULISON. No, not at all. We think the budget has been 

spent wisely. The President’s budget is the same as what it was 

last year. During the 2008 grants, New York City received more 

money than anybody else, obviously, and more money than it got 

in 2007. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CATEGORIES OF GRANTS AND NUMBER OF GRANT PROGRAMS

Mr. PRICE. All right. Thank you. Mr. Farr, we hope to get your 

questions in before the vote. 

Mr. FARR. I will be quick. First of all, if you do not know the answer, get it for me. How many grants are given in the whole Department of Homeland Security for all of the subagencies? 

The other thing that I would like you to do is the governors submitted their testimony and, Mr. Scheppach, with three key principles. I wonder if you would respond in writing because those are 

essentially the general policy issues that we would be asking questions on, of how you are going to implement those four principles—

excuse me—six principles, as stated here. 

In this grant funding, what we heard last year was that America 

ought to approach its management of terrorist and natural disasters from a risk-management standpoint and use FEMA as the 

basis because we had the responder network traditional with 

FEMA. It does not seem like we use these languages, and it is even 

used in your testimony, and the governors used it, but there is no 

sense of prioritizing what those risks are. When it gets down to you 

saying, well, we have three or four grant categories, in your own 

testimony, I got lost after about 12. 

You have got subcategories of Homeland Security Grants. There 

are four different grant programs of that. You have Ports and Rail 

Security Grants, and I do not know how many there are within 

that. You have the Emergency Management Performance Grants. 

You have Response and Recovery programs. You have got core 

grants for different kinds. 

The list goes on and on, and I think that is the frustration of this 

Committee, is that everybody is upset because they are not getting 

funding, but you have got so damn many grant programs, and 

maybe they are going to the wrong door. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
611 

Where is that kind of one stop based on risk management of how 

we are going to try to implement the training in an ongoing infrastructure development? I would really love to have you respond to 

that. I do not think we have time because we have to go for a vote, 

but maybe we could put some of that in writing. 

Mr. PAULISON. We can do that. We put these into three categories to try to simplify it to make it easier. 

[The information follows:] 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
612 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 633 here 43384A.429
613 

Mr. FARR. But then you do not because simplifying is essentially 

one stop. What you are saying to somebody is, ‘‘Well, you have got 

to fit into these three our four categories, and then within each of 

them there is a dozen or so.’’ So you have not really eliminated any 

grant programs; you have just wrapped them in different packages. 

Mr. PAULISON. We have not eliminated any grant program. That 

is correct. But we did try to put them into categories that would 

give the states much more flexibility, and we did put a very comprehensive risk program in place, and I think the GAO did comment on that, that it is much clearer, much more visible than it 

has been, and we are going to continue to make it much more 

transparent so that the states know exactly what the risk we are 

looking for is so they can apply for—— Mr. FARR. Just within your department, how many grant programs are there, total? 

Mr. PAULISON. I would have to give you that in writing, go back 

and count them. 

Mr. FARR. You do not even know, there are so many, and then, 

within Homeland Security—— Mr. PAULISON. There are three basic chapters of grants, and——

Mr. FARR. No, not chapters, just total grant programs because 

each one of them gets administered differently. 

Mr. PAULISON. But the three chapters stop them from being administered differently. It puts them into categories where it makes 

it easier for the states to apply. Last year, we did 16 grants, and 

there were 16 different grant guidances. 

[The information follows:] 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
614 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 636 here 43384A.430
615 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 637 here 43384A.431
616 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 638 here 43384A.432
617 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 639 here 43384A.433
618 

Mr. FARR. So how many jobs did you eliminate when you put 

them all in these neat little packages? 

Mr. PAULISON. With the same amount of money and the same 

amount of work, it does not really eliminate jobs. 

Mr. FARR. There is less money to go to the states because there 

is still the bureaucracy here in Washington. That is what I am getting at. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. We will adjourn briefly. We have Members coming back momentarily from the vote, so we will try to minimize the break. Thank you. 

HIGH-THREAT HIGH-RISK AREAS

Mrs. LOWEY [presiding]. Okay. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Before I begin my questions, I would like to say that I think Director 

Paulison has implemented several positive reforms at FEMA. We 

all know a great deal remains to be done, but your experience and 

your leadership have really helped this agency, which had so many 

problems before you took over. So I am very grateful. 

Mr. PAULISON. Thank you. 

Mrs. LOWEY. However, the White House does not provide adequate support, which is really disappointing. November’s lead passback budget document from OMB highlights the efforts of some in 

the administration to dismantle local grant programs, and while 

DHS, and, presumably, you, had requested to either level fund or 

increase funding in many areas, OMB sought to eliminate nearly 

every existing grant program and, despite the rhetoric, providing 

support for first responders has never been a priority of the White 

House. 

I know that you and I truly agree that supporting the first responders is absolutely critical. So, hopefully, we will be able to do 

better in this Committee. 

At the Subcommittee’s first hearing on management issues, 

Ranking Member Rogers expressed dismay over the inability of 

DHS to track First Responder Grants to determine our capabilities 

and match those against our preparedness and response objectives, 

and I strongly agree. 

As Mr. Rogers stated, many First Responder Grants are used for 

purposes that do not directly contribute to national security. However, I do not think this is the fault of Congress. This is a failure 

of the administration, which has consistently failed to allocate 

grants in a manner that improves our national security. 

First, every bill that this Subcommittee has passed has said that 

funding for the Urban Areas Security Initiative is for high-threat, 

high-population-density urban regions, yet the Department repeatedly awards funds to places like Toledo and Omaha, cities that, 

lucky for them, are neither high threat nor high risk. 

Second, the Department needlessly dilutes funds for likely targets by increasing the number of UIC areas. When the program 

began, there were seven cities receiving funds. In Fiscal Year 2008, 

that number will likely balloon to 60. There is nothing in current 

law that specifies a floor for the number of areas that can receive 

funds, but the Department has taken it upon itself to fund boondoggles in areas that terrorists could not find on a map instead of 

providing adequate support to vital programs in New York. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
619 

Third, for the second consecutive year, the Department has 

placed a cap on funds for the most at-risk areas. You safeguard 45 

percent of the funds for areas not in the top risk tier, and that 

means that New York and Washington, D.C., compete against one 

another while nearly half is held back for areas that face less risk. 

The Department’s failures have very real consequences. In New York, Mayor Bloomberg spends $200 million a year on 1,000 

counterterrorism and intelligence officers. Your Fiscal Year 2008 

grant guidance runs contrary to previous years and H.R. 1 by stating cities cannot use funds for intelligence personnel other than for 

newly hired analysts, and this does not make any sense to me. Police Commissioner Kelly is not going to rely on green officers to do 

this critical task, which includes undercover work, intelligence 

gathering. 

This program clearly benefits national security, but the Department’s grant guidance hampers it. 

So, Director Paulison, to all the compliments I gave you, why 

does DHS consistently ignore congressional mandate and award 

UIC funds to areas that are not high-threat, high-population-dense 

cities, and why are you increasing, instead of decreasing, the number of UIC areas, and why do you prevent the most likely targets 

of a terrorist attack from competing for all of the funds in the one 

program dedicated to high-risk areas? 

By the way, my colleagues who represent these other wonderful 

places should get funding for those wonderful places, but just not 

out of a fund that is clearly for high-risk areas. I would love you 

to respond. 

Mr. PAULISON. Thank you, Madam Chair. There are a couple of 

things. A couple of the grant programs that you talked about earlier—the EMPG and the Firefighter Grants—are not really authorized as terrorist grants, so I need to take those out of that particular category. 

The minimum standards for the states are really set by Congress. In UIC, the number of 60 is consistent with 2007, based on 

the fact that the metropolitan statistical areas changed, and that 

allowed us to add more cities to the thing. 

Mrs. LOWEY. They are all high risk, those 60 cities? 

Mr. PAULISON. They are all part of the UASI cities and part of 

that MSA grouping. 

Mrs. LOWEY. But you would classify them as high risk, in the 

same category as New York and Washington, D.C. 

Mr. PAULISON. They are not all in the same categories. There are 

different tiers. Obviously, to cities like New York, that group did 

not change. The second tier changed. We added more into the second tier, but the top tier did not, and I know, last year, New York 

City not only received more money than anybody else but received 

more money than it did in 2007. 

Mrs. LOWEY. That is a good thing. 

Mr. PAULISON. That is a good thing because it is a high-risk city. 

We also have to remember that the Oklahoma City bombing was 

a terrorist attack, and that was not necessarily a city like New 

York. So we have to do the best we can to spread the money out 

as fairly as we can to provide those other large cities, although 

they are not the New Yorks, not the L.A.’s, not the Houstons, not 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
620 

the Washington, D.C.s, but they still need some level of assistance 

also, based on the threat that we have. 

The terrorists would obviously love to go to New York City. We 

saw that, and I lost 341 of my friends there. And they would love 

to go into L.A. or Houston or Washington, D.C., but those other cities are vulnerable also. 

So what the Secretary is trying to do with our risk-based approach is to, yes, hit those big cities but also provide dollars to the 

other ones. There is only so much to go around, and I know that, 

and this Secretary is really trying to be as fair as he can, covering 

the cities that we think we need to cover and give those that are 

most at risk some dollars to protect themselves. 

Mrs. LOWEY. I just want to make my position clear. I understand 

that some of those cities which I have referenced should get money, 

and they certainly should. They need a strong fire department, a 

strong police department, EMS, et cetera, and the first responders 

have to be prepared, but it should not come from a high-risk program. What is the name of this program? 

Mr. PAULISON. Urban Areas Security Initiative. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Is it not defined as a high-risk area? 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Okay. That is all I am saying. The others should 

get money, but they should not get it from a program that is specifically defined as high risk. 

Mr. PAULISON. Understood. 

Mrs. LOWEY. I am glad you understand. So what can we do about 

it now before I turn the chair back over to my good friend. 

Mr. PAULISON. Thank goodness you came back. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Go right ahead, Mr. Price. 

Mr. PRICE [presiding]. You probably need somebody from a nonurban area here, too, to bring a little balance to this hearing. All 

right. 

Has your time expired, or do you want to continue? 

Mrs. LOWEY. I think so. 

Mr. PAULISON. Thank you. The Secretary is committed to work 

with Congress, and he understands some of these issues that you 

have. 

Mrs. LOWEY. There is no problem with them getting the money, 

but——

Mr. PAULISON. Understood. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Ms. Lowey. Mr. Carter. 

FEMA GRANTS MANAGEMENT

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am trying to get a handle on grant management and spending. 

DHS, at the department level, in 2009, is requesting $3.4 million 

plus 10 FTEs, half of the new grant programs are managing over 

CDs covering all of the grants in DHS, but in FEMA there are 

many reforms and initiatives that are underway, but no specific 

funding has been requested for Fiscal Year 2009. It is unclear 

whether FEMA is actually staffed [off mike] to effectively manage 

[off mike]. 

It is important, and we are concerned about whether or not there 

is going to be staffing to have the oversight and management of 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
621 

these grants. This is something that is a high priority, I think, with 

the American people as it is with this Committee. So I would like 

to know if those systems are in place, and, if not, why we are not 

asking for the resources to put them in place? 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir. They are in place. The money that we 

use—we take a percentage of the grants. We are allowed to take 

up to three percent—we do not usually do that—to staff FEMA. 

The staffing at DHS headquarters that 10 people are asking for; we 

had to set up an oversight group over all of the grants in DHS. All 

of them are not only FEMA; there are some others out there. 

Actually, it is going to help me, having somebody looking over my 

shoulder to make sure that we are doing what we are supposed to 

do, so I really do not have a problem with a small oversight group 

like that to watch us with the grants, work with us, and make sure 

that we are managing the way we should be managing them. 

Mr. CARTER. So if I understand you correctly, then a piece of 

each grant is set aside for people that are going to be overseeing 

or managing these programs. 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir. That is correct. 

Mr. CARTER. Now, what I want to know, is that going to be sufficient, or are we going to be reading about this in the newspaper 

this time next year? 

Mr. PAULISON. No, sir. I surely hope not. I try to stay out of 

newspapers as much as possible. I have not been very good at it, 

have I? 

Yes, it has been sufficient, and if it gets to a point where something is not sufficient, I will come to this Committee and let you 

know that. 

Mr. CARTER. That was the number-one reason for my concern——

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CARTER [continuing]. Is making sure this Committee, under 

this Chairman, has set out a goal of oversight across the board. I 

support the activities of oversight of this Committee, and I think 

we are willing to fund it, make sure it is there. You are telling me 

it is sufficient. That is the answer I want to hear, and that is the 

answer I am going to hold you to. 

Mr. PAULISON. Sir, this Committee has been very supportive of 

us, and it has been much appreciated, and I do feel like we have 

done a partnership. 

GRANT OBLIGATIONS

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Paulison, I want to try to shed a little 

further light, if we can, on this grant pipeline question about what 

has been obligated, what has been expended, and what kind of 

funding is required, in addition to what may be in the pipeline. 

I would like to ask Mr. Scheppach, who has, I know, thoughts 

on this and expressed some of them in his statement, and also, Mr. 

Jenkins, if you have thoughts, I hope you will chime in. 

I am seeking clarity here, but it is clarity with a purpose. I 

think, when we have the Secretary seeming to minimize the need 

for any new grant funding and to justify that in terms of what is 

‘‘in the pipeline,’’ then we need to look pretty carefully at what he 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
622 

is talking about. It is central to the justification of the budget numbers before us. 

Here is what the Secretary said when he was asked about the 

decrease in grants funding proposed for 2009. He said, I quote, 

‘‘Over a six-year period, from Fiscal Year 2002 through Fiscal Year 

2007, grant recipients have drawn down $12.7 billion of the $19.8 

billion made available since the Department’s inception. On February 1, 2008, the Department announced an additional $3 billion 

in grants to be provided this year, including congressional approval 

of the Fiscal Year 2009 request, and a total of $13 billion would 

be in the pipeline for state and local Homeland Security needs.’’

Now, maybe some of this will need to be clarified for the record, 

but I want to see what we can do here in the time available to us 

today. 

The Department is pointing to these funds as if there is a pool 

of untapped funds just ready and waiting to be used, and the implication is that state and local governments have not figured out a 

way to use the money, or, in any case, they certainly do not need 

more money. 

That argument seems to me to be steeped in flaws, and I think 

it implies unfairly a blame that is, by and large, not deserved by 

state and local governments. 

For example, let us look at the Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant program. The Department points to that $1 billion program as funding obligated but yet to be spent. But it is the 

Department, as I understand it, that has not allowed the states to 

spend that money. According to FEMA’s own budget documents, 

the release of these funds will not begin until this month. I am not 

sure why, but I do know that that is no fault of the recipient agencies. I do not believe it is. If it is, I would like to know about it. 

Also, we have heard that, in the Transit Grant program funds, 

that they have been obligated, but projects will not be approved by 

DHS until a year later. 

So, at least in those two instances, it looks like the projects are 

being stalled by the Department, not by the states and localities. 

So, I am just looking for some explanation of what is going on 

here. What is the point of obligating funding that truly is not yet 

available for states and localities to use, and then what validity to 

these in-the-pipeline numbers have when we are looking at 2009 

appropriations needs? 

Mr. PAULISON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I do not think 

that is what the Secretary stated at all. I do not think he meant 

that they were sitting on the money and not spending it. I think 

they are actively moving the dollars as quickly as they can. Some 

of the dollars take longer to spend than others. I think what he 

was saying is, as Mr. Rogers said, there are unrealized capabilities 

out there. 

So I think it is a combination of dollars that are there to be 

available, dollars that we are trying to move out the door. There 

was $50 million in Interoperable Communication Grants that we 

received in 2007 that we are just now putting the grant guidance 

out for that of the $1 billion that you talked about. So there is a 

lot of money out there. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
623 

What the Secretary, and I do not want to second-guess what he 

was saying or try to interpret what I believe he said because I was 

standing alongside of him when he said it, was that there is a lot 

of money out there in the pipeline, and it did not make a lot of 

sense to dump more money out there that could not be spent this 

year if we can now put it back in the 2010 budget. If we are not 

going to spend it all this year, why put it out there if it is not going 

to be spent? 

So that was the thought process that I got through that. So I do 

not think he was blaming the states at all. I do not think he was 

saying that the states were sitting on the dollars. I think that what 

he was saying was that some of these dollars are more difficult to 

spend. Some projects take longer to complete. I will ask Mr. 

Scheppach if he agrees or disagrees with me, but that was my interpretation of the Secretary’s comments. 

[The information follows:] 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
624 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 653 43384A.434
625 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 654 43384A.435
626 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 655 43384A.436
627 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 656 43384A.437
628 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 657 43384A.438
629 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 658 43384A.439
630 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 659 43384A.440
631 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 660 43384A.441
632 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 661 43384A.442
633 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 662 43384A.443
634 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 663 43384A.444
635 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 664 43384A.445
636 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 665 43384A.446
637 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 666 43384A.447
638 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 667 43384A.448
639 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 668 43384A.449
640 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 669 43384A.450
641 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 670 43384A.451
642 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 671 43384A.452
643 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 672 43384A.453
644 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 673 43384A.454
645 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 674 43384A.455
646 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 675 43384A.456
647 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 676 43384A.457
648 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 677 43384A.458
649 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 678 43384A.459
650 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 679 43384A.460
651 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 680 43384A.461
652 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 681 43384A.462
653 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 682 43384A.463
654 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 683 43384A.464
655 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 684 43384A.465
656 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 685 43384A.466
657 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 686 43384A.467
658 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 687 43384A.468
659 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 688 43384A.469
660 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 689 43384A.470
661 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 690 43384A.471
662 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 691 43384A.472
663 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 692 43384A.473
664 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 693 43384A.474
665 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 694 43384A.475
666 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 695 43384A.476
667 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 696 43384A.477
668 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 697 43384A.478
669 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 698 43384A.479
670 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 699 43384A.480
671 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 700 43384A.481
672 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 701 43384A.482
673 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 702 43384A.483
674 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 703 43384A.484
675 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 704 43384A.485
676 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 705 43384A.486
677 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 706 43384A.487
678 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 707 43384A.488
679 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 708 43384A.489
680 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 709 43384A.490
681 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 710 43384A.491
682 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 711 43384A.492
683 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 712 43384A.493
684 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 713 43384A.494
685 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 714 43384A.495
686 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 715 43384A.496
687 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 716 43384A.497
688 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 717 43384A.498
689 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 718 43384A.499
690 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 719 43384A.500
691 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 720 43384A.501
692 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 721 43384A.502
693 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 722 43384A.503
694 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 723 43384A.504
695 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 724 43384A.505
696 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 725 43384A.506
697 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 726 43384A.507
698 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 727 43384A.508
699 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 728 43384A.509
700 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 729 43384A.510
701 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 730 43384A.511
702 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 731 43384A.512
703 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 732 43384A.513
704 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 733 43384A.514
705 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 734 43384A.515
706 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 735 43384A.516
707 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 736 43384A.517
708 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 737 43384A.518
709 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 738 43384A.519
710 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 739 43384A.520
711 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 740 43384A.521
712 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 741 43384A.522
713 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 742 43384A.523
714 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 743 43384A.524
715 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 744 43384A.525
716 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 745 43384A.526
717 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 746 43384A.527
718 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 747 43384A.528
719 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 748 43384A.529
720 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 749 43384A.530
721 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 750 43384A.531
722 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 751 43384A.532
723 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 752 43384A.533
724 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 753 43384A.534
725 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 754 43384A.535
726 

Mr. PRICE. Well, if the states and localities are not sitting on the 

funds, who is sitting on the funds? Are we just talking about a kind 

of inherent difficulty here, or is there a process that can be made 

more efficient and more responsive? 

If you want to reference these two programs where the problems 

seem especially acute, I would be happy to have you do so: the Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant program, where the 

states have not been allowed to spend the money until this month, 

and this Transit Grant program, where there is a kind of formal 

obligation that has taken place, but the projects have not been approved. 

Does this look like, if not stalling, then delays that need to be 

improved upon to you? What would you say about that? It certainly 

does confuse the funding picture. I will grant that, but there is 

something, I think, strange about using these delays. Assuming the 

Department is working on expediting the release and the productive expenditure of these funds, there is something strange about 

using these delays as a justification for an extraordinarily low 

budget request for 2009. 

Mr. PAULISON. Once again, the request that was made is consistent with what the President has asked for for the last couple 

of years. So the President has been consistent with that. 

Secondly, I do not think there are any purposeful delays. I do not 

think there are any bureaucratic delays. I think that some projects 

just take longer than others to move out the door. The $1 billion 

that we talked about with the Interoperable Communications 

Grant is working extremely well with the Department of Commerce. We have a great partnership there. That is a competitive 

grant that is going to go out. It takes a while to process those 

grants and get those applications out, and get the states to move 

back in and make sure that we evaluate those properly. 

Again, there was no indication from the Secretary that he was 

casting any aspersions on the states at all. I think that just some 

projects take longer. He was saying there is a lot of money out 

there ready to be spent that has not been spent yet, and it takes 

a while to go through that process. 

Mr. PRICE. If I am hearing you correctly, you seem to be arguing 

it both ways, by which I mean, you are saying, on the one hand, 

that these appropriations requests for 2009 are very much in line 

with what the administration requested for a number of past years, 

and there clearly is some truth in that. On the other hand, the secretary seems to be saying that there is some extraordinary backing 

up of funds in the pipeline here which justifies the lower request. 

Now, which is it? Is it a matter of simply not believing these 

kinds of expenditures are warranted, that they are not, as Mr. Rogers perhaps was suggesting, there is simply not an appropriate federal role, or is it a matter of a pipeline problem that, once it is resolved, will lead to more robust requests? 

Mr. PAULISON. I do not think there was any inconsistency with 

what I was saying. The President recommended the same amount 

of monies as he did last year and the year before that because 

there is plenty of money there. There was no reason to come out 

with the amount of money that was appropriated last year. We 

keep talking about a cut that, for the Firefighters Grants, for inVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:25 Aug 28, 2008 Jkt 043384 PO 00000 Frm 00726 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A384P2.XXX A384P2

dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
727 

stance, $300 million was recommended. That is less than was appropriated last year, but the same amount was recommended. 

So what I am saying is that the recommendation was consistent 

because that seems to be the amount of money that will flow 

through the system at any one time. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Scheppach, do you have anything to add? 

Mr. SCHEPPACH. My sense is that the $13 billion is not a realistic 

number. Again, it combines obligated with unobligated and, as I remember, it even included the 2009 number, which is not appropriated yet, so it is a very, very large number. 

A couple of years ago, we actually looked, in a fair amount of detail, at the State Grant program and what was the problem with 

respect to expenditures flowing, and when you get into some of the 

details, you realize that it often takes the agency 60 days to, in 

fact, release the money until its appropriation. There is a requirement that 80 percent of that go to local governments. 

States are reluctant, I think, and rightfully so, to have local government obligate until a state plan is, in fact, in place so that it 

is a fully integrated plan, and then each level of government has 

to essentially follow their own competitive-bid rules, so that, in 

fact, takes time. 

So a lot of this is capital types of things, and you are not going 

to outlay those perhaps for a couple of years until the goods are, 

in fact, available. 

So there are a number of issues and steps along the way, and 

I think that what we want, again, is the most efficient operation. 

We do not really want to push money out there. 

So I do not think we should look at the so-called ‘‘pipeline’’ type 

of thing. You would have to focus on any unobligated balances, but 

those are not particularly large at this point in time. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Jenkins, is this something the GAO has looked 

at or would want to look at more carefully? 

Mr. JENKINS. Yes. I may be able to shed a little bit of light on 

the interoperable communications issue. 

Every state was required to have submitted a state-wide interoperability plan by December of 2007. Those plans are currently 

being reviewed in DHS. Their goal is to have those plans reviewed 

by the end of this month, and the monies that the states are using 

for interoperable communications are to be spent in compliance 

with those plans. 

In addition to that, the new Office of Emergency Communications is supposed to have, by July, a National Emergency Communications Plan for the nation. 

So our view would be to look at why the money has not been 

spent. In some cases, in our view, for example, not having spent 

the interoperable communications money, at this point, is actually 

a good deal, not a bad deal. In other words, they should be spent 

after you have done the appropriate planning. 

You know what the requirements are, how they are going to fit, 

and so forth, so that is not necessarily a bad thing. It does not indicate that either the states or DHS has not been spending the monies appropriately. They should be spent according to clear plans 

about how you are going to do it and how you are going to fit the 

puzzle together. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
728 

I think the problem that the states also then worry about is the 

fact that these grants have a finite life and that they are concerned 

that if they do not get them in a certain amount of time, it gives 

them a very short period of time in which to spend them. 

It is also, as my colleague from the Governors Association said, 

the type of expenditure rules how fast they are being spent out. It 

is usually a little bit easier to spend it for training or those kinds 

of things than it is if you are buying capital equipment. There are 

very few manufacturers of these large, mobile, interoperable communications trucks, mobile communications centers, so that a lot of 

that kind of stuff is in the pipeline, whereas, as indicated, it has 

been obligated, but it has not been expended yet because it just 

takes time for delivery. There is a backup for those kinds of things. 

That is why, when I said earlier in my statement, what we think 

is important is to look at what is being spent for what purpose and 

where it is, and then you have some sense of whether or not this 

a problem, or it is not a problem. 

Mr. PRICE. Has that been looked at systemically by your office 

or any other? 

Mr. JENKINS. No. We have not looked at that systematically, and, 

as I said in the statement, the oral statement, it is difficult to look 

at it because if you are trying to look at it over time, the reports 

are not consistent over time in terms of how they categorize the 

data. In some cases, three or four grants are collapsed and reported 

in one year, and, in another year they are separated out. 

So if you want to take, say, 2003 or 2004 money and say how 

much of it was obligated in 2004 for what purposes, and how much 

of it was obligated in 2005, it is difficult to do that, the way the 

monies are reported. 

Mr. PRICE. I am sure you are correct in suggesting, as Mr. 

Paulison did as well, that sometimes there are very good reasons 

for a deliberative process that proceeds at a slow pace relative to 

other programs. 

On the other hand, there are some pressures that we are feeling 

on this Committee, and I am sure the agency is feeling, for money 

that is needed and that is going to be legitimately applied to Homeland Security purposes, preparedness purposes, for that money to 

be available and expended in a timely way. 

Another aspect of this is raised when the Secretary of the Department uses the pipeline as a rationale for what seemed to us to 

be inadequate budget requests, if it is being used as a rationale or 

a rationalization for that. 

So that is why it is important, I think, to make some distinctions 

here and understand what may or may not have a sound justification in terms of the way this process is going and what is inordinately and what is not. 

So it may be that we want to call on your services to help us sort 

that out, as we often do. We certainly need to look at this. I am 

convinced of that. 

Mr. Carter, do you have some more questions? 

Mr. CARTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to continue [off 

mike]—thank you for turning it on. 

You know, we have to deal with the local communities, and we 

have to work with the local communities. In fact, my county, which 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
729 

is one of the fastest-growing counties in the nation, Williamson 

County in Texas, decided that they would make an application for 

a county-wide interoperability to tie in with what was done countywide in Basrup county-wide and Travis county-wide and Burnett 

county-wide and Hays County, which are all counties that all surround us, to put our greater metropolitan area under interoperability, and they did not get the grant. Of course, the first thing they said to us was, Well, there is $7 

billion sitting there that nobody is using, and we do not understand 

why we were told to do it this way. We did it this way, and we did 

not get the grant, and the Austin firefighters are screaming bloody 

murder at us because we are not interoperable with them. 

Now, I have to answer that question, and that is, I think, why 

the Chairman is raising this issue. We have got a lot of issues, in 

addition to it is good management policy as to how you use your 

money as you make requests for further money. But the public 

knows there is $7 billion sitting out there, and they see all that 

money sitting out there, and they see that people are hoarding it, 

or they are playing games, or whatever. 

That is why I think something has to make this clarified. As the 

Chairman is raising the issue here today, I would like to join him 

in raising that issue. I want to point out a local issue and how that 

can affect life back home, so I throw it out to you for discussion. 

OBLIGATED VERSUS EXPENDED FUNDS

Mr. JENKINS. Well, I think that you are right. There is the issue 

between the difference between whether the money has been obligated and whether or not it has been expended. In other words, 

you have received the goods and services, and you have to pay for 

them. 

So I do not have the data on how much has been obligated, but 

I suspect a fair chunk, or a very substantial chunk, of the money 

is actually obligated. In other words, for example, in your case, had 

you gotten the grant, it would have been very likely that you would 

have that money obligated to buy those radios or do whatever you 

need, but it may take a while to get the equipment, and, therefore, 

it is unexpended during that period of time because you are not 

going to pay the contractor until you get——

Mr. CARTER. I do not want to make this personal to me. I would 

also point out that we have got a Member of this Committee that 

wants to get money to the border sheriffs. Every time he hears 

about a nickel of any money anywhere, he is over bending the arms 

and breaking the backs of our Chairman, saying, I happen to know 

that there is $7 billion out there that you can give to the border 

sheriffs. I think the Chairman is well aware of whom I speak. 

So if that is obligated money, then it needs to be clear, for someone seeking to look for it, that that is obligated money, and if it 

is not clear, then there is something wrong with the system, and 

I think that is probably the way I would view this discussion here. 

If it is obligated, then it ought to say there is $7 billion out there, 

but $6 billion of it is obligated. Then we have a clear picture of 

what it is, and if we have questions, then we ask, how long is this 

obligation, and where is the obligation going? That is kind of what 

I would like as my follow-up to what the Chairman is saying. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
730 

Mr. JENKINS. I think it would be two things that I would say. 

One, I think it is important to know whether or not it is obligated or not. I think the other thing is to know what it has been 

obligated for because some of it is going to spend out more quickly 

than others, so I think, as well, to understand what it has been obligated for, not just the fact that it has been obligated, and where 

that obligation is. The way the reports that we look at or have is 

that it is considered obligated when it is at the federal level when 

it is sent down to the states. That does not mean it has actually 

been used. 

So you really need, then, information on what the state has obligated versus what the localities have obligated, and that is the 

data that we do not have. 

Mr. CARTER. I think we need to get accumulated somewhere so 

that we can get a clear picture of what is there so we can at least 

have a decent argument when we are talking to people about this 

stuff. 

Plus when you are talking about this communications interoperability, as I recall, right after the buildings fell, the first thing we 

started talking about in this Committee was communications interoperability, and that filtered down very quickly to the local level 

at every level, and everybody knew, and most people knew, that 

they did not have interoperability in their communications. So I 

think everybody jumped on that bandwagon that I know of; at least 

in my part of the country, they did. 

So that clearly is something that everybody is interested in, and 

if they look at those funds as that is what they were there for, then 

they are going to want to know why they cannot get their hands 

on it because it is a crisis for us in our part of the country. 

Mr. JENKINS. I do understand that. I think one of the things I 

would say is—I will not mention the state, but the reason we are 

big on the planning for the use of the money is there is one particular state that we looked at that spent $14 million on interoperable communications, and they did not work, and they had to go 

back to ground zero because it was not thought out as to how they 

were going to use it. 

In your case, for the example you gave, you are just trying to get 

yourself into compliance so that you can talk to everybody that is 

around you that is already in the system, and you are just the odd 

man out at the moment. 

Mr. CARTER. I am not trying to make this personal. Part of my 

story is not that I expect you to go run back and write me a check. 

The point of this story is that people back home know about $7 billion in funds, and that makes it an issue. I want to make it very 

clear, I am not looking at it the other way around. 

Mr. JENKINS. And they just do not know what the $7 billion actually represents. 

Mr. CARTER. Exactly. 

Mr. JENKINS. Got you. 

STATE HOMELAND SECURITY PLANNING

Mr. SCHEPPACH. I might make one comment. Having the money, 

when it goes to states, to enforce the planning is a very powerful 

tool because, a lot of times, if there is not money behind it, it is 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
731 

hard to bring all locals to the table and agree on a particular plan, 

whether it is interoperability or something else. 

So I think what states do is that they are unwilling to allow local 

government to obligate until they have developed a fully integrated 

plan. I think that is a very important part of it because, even in 

your case, if several counties got together, and later you find out 

it is inconsistent with where the state is going, and you cannot link 

to everybody else, it is money poorly used. 

Mr. CARTER. I do not think that is the case, since I am talking 

about the state capital. 

ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTER GRANT GUIDANCE

Mr. PRICE. All right. Thank you. I have just a couple of quick 

questions to wrap up here, one following up on the fire grant discussion; the other having to do with the Emergency Food and Shelter program. 

Administrator Paulison, during last year’s hearings, you probably 

remember we discussed fire grants at some length, and part of that 

discussion revolved around concerns that FEMA had not peer reviewed close to half of the grants that met eligibility requirements. 

So, for Fiscal Year 2008, the Committee required FEMA to peer 

review all applications that meet criteria established by FEMA and 

the Fire Service and required those criteria to be clearly articulated 

in the grant application package. Applicants whose grant applications are not reviewed must receive an official notification detailing 

why the application did not meet that threshold criterion for review. 

Now, I note that the grant guidance was recently issued and that 

the criteria for peer review is included. You can maybe characterize 

that briefly. We might want to put into the record, at this point, 

the information that was sent out to the applicants. 

How restrictive are these criteria, would you say, relative to the 

number of applications you have been getting in recent years, and 

what kind of results do you anticipate? Let us hope you will get applications that are more clearly articulated in terms of the eligibility criteria. 

What would you say about the way this process is going to be 

implemented going forward? 

Mr. PAULISON. The fire grant application process is one of the 

most mature and sophisticated that we have. In fact, what we are 

doing is transitioning a lot of our grant processes that we inherited 

to the same type of system we use with the fire grants. 

We expect a lot of good applications. We do workshops out there. 

We hold seminars. We put information online. I try to walk them 

through exactly what the criteria is every year, if it changes the 

least little bit, to make sure they know what the priorities are. 

Now, some people will apply for things that they know are not 

a priority because that is what they need. They may need a fire 

boat, and that is not necessarily a priority over somebody getting 

a self-contained breathing apparatus, which is the most important. 

So they may not make the cut because, although it is something 

that they really need, it is not one of the priorities that we set 

down, and they will do that consistently from year to year. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
732 

But we have been getting better and better applications. All of 

the eligible applicants will be peer reviewed, as you requested last 

year. I just signed the Federal Register notice yesterday, so that 

should be available either tomorrow or Thursday, for sure, for them 

to look at to see exactly what the guidelines are. 

So that is going out. We are getting that out early. The application has already gone out. The grant guidance has already gone out 

so they know what is out there, and we will start our workshop 

fairly soon. We do that in every state. We do a couple in every 

state. We have got grants people out in every region now that we 

did not have before to make sure that we reach as many people as 

possible to actually literally walk them through the process and 

show them how to fill out those grant applications, tell them what 

the priorities are so their grants can be eligible. 

[The information follows:] 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
733 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 771 here 43384A.536
734 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 772 here 43384A.537
735 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 773 here 43384A.538
736 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 774 here 43384A.539
737 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 775 here 43384A.540
738 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 776 here 43384A.541
739 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 777 here 43384A.542
740 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 778 here 43384A.543
741 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 779 here 43384A.544
742 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 780 here 43384A.545
743 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 781 here 43384A.546
744 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 782 here 43384A.547
745 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 783 here 43384A.548
746 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 784 here 43384A.549
747 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 785 here 43384A.550
748 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 786 here 43384A.551
749 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 787 here 43384A.552
750 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 788 here 43384A.553
751 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 789 here 43384A.554
752 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 790 here 43384A.555
753 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 791 here 43384A.556
754 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 792 here 43384A.557
755 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 793 here 43384A.558
756 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 794 here 43384A.559
757 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 795 here 43384A.560
758 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 796 here 43384A.561
759 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 797 here 43384A.562
760 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 798 here 43384A.563
761 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 799 here 43384A.564
762 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 800 here 43384A.565
763 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 801 here 43384A.566
764 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 802 here 43384A.567
765 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 803 here 43384A.568
766 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 804 here 43384A.569
767 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 805 here 43384A.570
768 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 806 here 43384A.571
769 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 807 here 43384A.572
770 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 808 here 43384A.573
771 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 809 here 43384A.574
772 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 810 here 43384A.575
773 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 811 here 43384A.576
774 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 812 here 43384A.577
775 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 813 here 43384A.578
776 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 814 here 43384A.579
777 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 815 here 43384A.580
778 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 816 here 43384A.581
779 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 817 here 43384A.582
780 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 818 here 43384A.583
781 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 819 here 43384A.584
782 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 820 here 43384A.585
783 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 821 here 43384A.586
784 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 822 here 43384A.587
785 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 823 here 43384A.588
786 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 824 here 43384A.589
787 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 825 here 43384A.590
788 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 826 here 43384A.591
789 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 827 here 43384A.592
790 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 828 here 43384A.593
791 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 829 here 43384A.594
792 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 830 here 43384A.595
793 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 831 here 43384A.596
794 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 832 here 43384A.597
795 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 833 here 43384A.598
796 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 834 here 43384A.599
797 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 835 here 43384A.600
798 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 836 here 43384A.601
799 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 837 here 43384A.602
800 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 838 here 43384A.603
801 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 839 here 43384A.604
802 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 840 here 43384A.605
803 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 841 here 43384A.606
804 

ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTER GRANTS CRITERIA AND NATIONAL

PRIORITIES

Mr. PRICE. We probably do not have perfect agreement on this 

Committee as to what the appropriate federal role is here, but I 

think the question Mr. Rogers asked earlier is a fair question as 

to what kind of overall national priorities are reflected in these criteria, the kind of selectivity you are going to exercise with respect 

to these grants. 

This question also comes up, for me, in the context of your budget request, which is a substantial cut. I do not know if the suggestion is that whatever these priorities are, they have largely been 

addressed by previous years’ appropriations. Given the level of 

need out there, I doubt that that case could be made, but are you, 

in this exercise, trying to delineate, maybe for the first time, a federal role as opposed to what kind of support the fire departments 

might seek from other sources? 

Mr. PAULISON. All response is local, and the responsibility of 

local fire service falls on that local government. However, since 

2001, the Federal government has been helping, unlike most other 

grants, strictly with helping a local community build their fire department, provide the equipment that it needs to provide day-today response, aside from terrorism or anything else. That has been 

a good thing. 

Again, if this budget is passed with the President’s recommendation, it will be $5 billion that is going to local fire departments. It 

does not go through the state. It does not go through the city. It 

goes right to the fire department, and that has been hitting volunteer fire departments, it has been hitting paid fire departments, 

union fire departments, pretty much across the board. 

We have put more money into the fire service in this last eight 

years than we have ever in the history of the government, right to 

the local community. So it has had a big impact. 

We see people with turnout gear, self-contained breathing apparatus, training programs, fire trucks, safety equipment that they 

have never had before, nor where they had the ability to ever get. 

So it has been an extremely successful program. 

The President’s submission request this year of $300 million is 

consistent with what he has asked for in the last several years. We 

feel that that is a sufficient amount of money to put into the system, considering we have put $5 billion, or $4.7 billion, out there 

already. Congress, every year, has raised those dollars, as it has 

the authority to do, and the President has submitted what he 

thinks are his priorities, which he has the right to do. 

So that is how the budget works, and I am sort of telling you 

something I should not be telling you; you already know that. I 

spoke to the firefighters yesterday, and we talked about some of 

these issues and walked out of it with a standing ovation. They 

know that we are supporting the fire service in ways that it has 

never been supported before, and not just with the fire grants. All 

of the First Responder Grants that are going out there, the training we are putting out there, the exercises. 

The TOP OFF Exercise involved the Portland Fire Department, 

and they were heavily involved in that, and they got a lot of money 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
805 

that we dumped into that department, helping us with that exercise. 

So all of these things blend together. It is not one particular 

thing. It is not just the fire grants; it is helping the local first responders. It is all of them tied together. 

Mr. PRICE. It clearly is all of them tied together, and I am happy 

to hear you were well received by the firefighters, and you personally deserve that for the conscientious way you have administered 

this program. We will look with interest on these further guidelines. 

I will not ask you to comment on this, but my own view, 

unsurprisingly, is that the budget requests do not really back up 

what you are saying. The kinds of successes we have enjoyed have 

been largely because Congress has come in and increased each year 

these budget numbers so that we have been able to serve more 

communities. 

As you well know, we are looking at a zeroing out of the SAFER 

program. We are looking at a cut for the fire administration. We 

are looking at some problematic budget numbers, which, as you acknowledge, we will just have to deal with. 

EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER PROGRAM

All right. Quickly, on Emergency Food and Shelter; this is one 

of the smallest programs in your portfolio. It probably has the largest relative impact on its recipients. The budget requests $100 million for this program. That is a reduction of $53 million, or a 35 

percent cut from the current fiscal year. 

This program allocates funding to counties and cities based on 

the number of unemployed and the poverty rate. Program funds 

are used for food, shelter, rent, mortgage, utility assistance programs for people with nondisaster-related emergencies. 

Administrator Paulison, in announcing the Fiscal Year 2008 

awards, you noted that, and I am quoting, ‘‘the program has an extraordinary history of providing food and shelter for families over 

the past 25 years, but there is now an unprecedented demand on 

our shelters for the newest population in need: the working poor. 

I am grateful a program like this exists for families struggling to 

make ends meet, even after the paycheck runs out.’’

I think those are eloquent words, and I would agree with that 

description of this program. Again, though, I am asking you about 

the connection, the connection with the funding request that FEMA 

is making for the program. 

What precisely is the justification for reducing this program? 

Mr. PAULISON. We feel that the $100 million that we asked for 

this year will be sufficient to meet our needs for the upcoming 

year. It has been a successful program, and working with the other 

agencies, like United Way and Red Cross and other volunteer agencies, FEMA is getting more and more involved than it has in the 

past and getting them more involved in some of the things that we 

do. We feel that the $100 million is sufficient for this year. 

Mr. PRICE. What kind of mortgage assistance are we talking 

about in this program, just apropos, the current challenge we face? 

Mr. PAULISON. Under this program—I have figures from 2000 to 

2006—we provided 248,000 families with either assistance with 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
806 

rent or mortgage payments or utility payments. That is outside of 

the disaster relief. We are not talking about any hurricanes or tornadoes. This is strictly for, primarily through the United Way, 

reaching out to families who are in need. I served on the United 

Way board in Alameda County, and it does reach out. That is what 

this money primarily goes through, agencies like that to assist families that are in need. 

Mr. PRICE. And, no doubt, you are experiencing a much greater 

demand in that area now for rental and mortgage support. 

Mr. PAULISON. I cannot say that. I do not have those numbers 

in front of me right now. 

Mr. PRICE. It would be a miracle if you were not, given the situation in the country. 

Mr. PAULISON. We have had a lot of disasters, too, so we are providing a lot of that stuff through the Disaster Relief Fund, particularly in Louisiana, Mississippi, and some of the other states who 

have had disasters. So maybe, again, some of those people who 

would normally be receiving assistance through the United Way 

could be getting assistance through the Disaster Relief Fund. That 

is anecdotal. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Well, I do not believe what you have said 

adds up to a justification for this reduction; we will, of course, look 

at this carefully. As you started to say? 

Mr. PAULISON. So what I will do is I will get with United Way 

and find out what they are showing, as far as their needs, and they 

are the primary agency that we funnel money through in this program, along with several others. 

Mr. PRICE. That would be helpful to furnish that for the record, 

the kind of needs out of the equation here, which, of course, is relevant to the amount of funding required. 

[The information follows:] 

Further information on mortgage assistance in conjunction with United Way: 

FEMA awards Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP) funds to a national 

board that governs the program and selects jurisdictions for funding based on an 

established formula. The National Board is chaired by a representative from FEMA 

and composed of representatives from American Red Cross, Catholic Charities USA, 

National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, The Salvation Army, United 

Jewish Communities, and United Way of America. Local Boards are convened in 

those qualifying jurisdictions to determine the highest need and best use of funds 

and to select Local Recipient Organizations (LROs) that will provide emergency food 

and shelter services. Each year, needs are to be assessed in an effort to adapt to 

particular community needs. The Secretariat and fiscal agent, selected each year by 

the National Board, is currently the United Way of America. 

For the past three fiscal years Local Boards nationally have funded rent/mortgage 

assistance as noted in the chart below. The units of service for fiscal years 2005 and 

2006 were reported on LRO Final Reports. Fiscal year 2007 units of service are estimates as 2007 Final Reports are currently being reviewed. Additionally, bills paid 

partially with EFSP funds are reported by LROs as bills paid, as some Local Boards 

and LROs set caps on the amount of assistance in rent/mortgage in order to help 

more individuals/families. 

Fiscal year Dollars for R/M No. of bills 

paid 

FY 07 ..................................................................................................................................... $40,424,542.90 84,767 

FY 06 ..................................................................................................................................... $39,774,881.17 109,773 

FY 05 ..................................................................................................................................... $40,057,914.57 154,188 

While the funding has remained constant for the past three years, fewer units of 

service are being provided. Possible reasons for the reduction in units of service 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
807 

might be LROs removing caps or clients coming in for assistance on larger mortgages. 

In terms of new needs being identified, Local Boards and LROs have noted an 

increase in the number of new clients utilizing feeding programs, food pantries, and 

food banks to satisfy basic food needs while they are attempting to hold onto their 

homes. 

Mr. Carter, do you have further questions? 

STATE AND LOCAL TRAINING PROGRAMS

Mr. CARTER. One more question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This issue of the state and local training programs; over the last 

five years, the requests have reduced state and local programs by 

more than 50 percent from the previous years’ funding—enacted 

funding—every year for the last five years, and this is, again, proposed this year. 

I come from the world of 254 counties. That is the size of my 

state. Some of those counties have got a whole lot of money, and 

some of those counties do not have any money at all. 

These training programs are important. Is it your position, as I 

see this continuing 50-percent reduction every year, that the states 

and the counties are picking up the slack on these training programs and that they are able to get this training down to the level 

that we need it, or is there some other reason why they are continuously reduced? 

Mr. PAULISON. We have a lot of different training programs 

through the National Fire Academy, through the Center for Domestic Preparedness that we have in Aniston, Alabama; the Emergency 

Management Institute in Maryland. We have a lot of exercise 

money that goes out the door. So all of those together, we feel like 

we are doing more training and more exercise than we have ever 

done. So it may be reduced in one area, but we are making up for 

it as a whole. 

If you would like, what I will do for the record is submit the entire package of where we are doing training and where we are 

doing exercises and how much we are actually doing at the 

local——

Mr. CARTER. So is your answer basically that this training duplicated some other training program that you have, and so you are 

trying to get away from the duplication on training? 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir. That is correct. 

Mr. CARTER. Okay. 

Mr. PAULISON. We will submit that for the record and give you 

all of the documentation on that. 

[The information follows:] 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
808 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 853 43384A.607
809 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 854 43384A.608
810 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 855 43384A.609
811 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 856 43384A.610
812 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 857 43384A.611
813 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 858 43384A.612
814 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 859 43384A.613
815 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 860 43384A.614
816 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 861 43384A.615
817 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 862 43384A.616
818 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 863 43384A.617
819 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 864 43384A.618
820 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 865 43384A.619
821 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 866 43384A.620
822 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 867 43384A.621
823 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 868 43384A.622
824 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 869 43384A.623
825 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 870 43384A.624
826 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 871 43384A.625
827 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 872 43384A.626
828 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 873 43384A.627
829 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 874 43384A.628
830 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 875 43384A.629
831 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 876 43384A.630
832 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 877 43384A.631
833 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 878 43384A.632
834 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 879 43384A.633
835 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 880 43384A.634
836 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 881 43384A.635
837 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 882 43384A.636
838 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 883 43384A.637
839 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 884 43384A.638
840 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 885 43384A.639
841 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 886 43384A.640
842 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 887 43384A.641
843 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 888 43384A.642
844 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 889 43384A.643
845 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 890 43384A.644
846 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 891 43384A.645
847 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 892 43384A.646
848 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 893 43384A.647
849 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 894 43384A.648
850 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 895 43384A.649
851 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 896 43384A.650
852 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 897 43384A.651
853 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 898 43384A.652
854 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 899 43384A.653
855 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 900 43384A.654
856 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 901 43384A.655
857 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 902 43384A.656
858 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 903 43384A.657
859 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 904 43384A.658
860 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 905 43384A.659
861 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 906 43384A.660
862 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 907 43384A.661
863 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 908 43384A.662
864 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 909 43384A.663
865 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 910 43384A.664
866 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 911 43384A.665
867 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 912 43384A.666
868 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 913 43384A.667
869 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 914 43384A.668
870 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 915 43384A.669
871 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 916 43384A.670
872 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 917 43384A.671
873 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 918 43384A.672
874 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 919 43384A.673
875 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 920 43384A.674
876 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 921 43384A.675
877 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 922 43384A.676
878 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 923 43384A.677
879 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 924 43384A.678
880 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 925 43384A.679
881 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 926 43384A.680
882 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 927 43384A.681
883 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 928 43384A.682
884 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 929 43384A.683
885 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 930 43384A.684
886 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 931 43384A.685
887 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 932 43384A.686
888 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 933 43384A.687
889 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 934 43384A.688
890 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 935 43384A.689
891 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 936 43384A.690
892 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 937 43384A.691
893 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 938 43384A.692
894 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 939 43384A.693
895 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 940 43384A.694
896 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 941 43384A.695
897 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 942 43384A.696
898 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 943 43384A.697
899 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 944 43384A.698
900 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 945 43384A.699
901 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 946 43384A.700
902 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 947 43384A.701
903 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 948 43384A.702
904 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 949 43384A.703
905 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 950 43384A.704
906 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 951 43384A.705
907 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 952 43384A.706
908 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 953 43384A.707
909 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 954 43384A.708
910 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 955 43384A.709
911 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 956 43384A.710
912 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 957 43384A.711
913 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 958 43384A.712
914 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 959 43384A.713
915 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 960 43384A.714
916 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 961 43384A.715
917 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 962 43384A.716
918 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 963 43384A.717
919 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 964 43384A.718
920 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 965 43384A.719
921 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 966 43384A.720
922 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 967 43384A.721
923 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 968 43384A.722
924 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 969 43384A.723
925 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 970 43384A.724
926 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 971 43384A.725
927 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 972 43384A.726
928 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 973 43384A.727
929 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 974 43384A.728
930 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 975 43384A.729
931 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 976 43384A.730
932 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 977 43384A.731
933 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 978 43384A.732
934 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 979 43384A.733
935 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 980 43384A.734
936 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 981 43384A.735
937 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 982 43384A.736
938 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 983 43384A.737
939 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 984 43384A.738
940 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 985 43384A.739
941 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 986 43384A.740
942 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 987 43384A.741
943 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 988 43384A.742
944 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 989 43384A.743
945 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 990 43384A.744
946 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 991 43384A.745
947 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 992 43384A.746
948 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 993 43384A.747
949 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 994 43384A.748
950 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 995 43384A.749
951 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 996 43384A.750
952 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 997 43384A.751
953 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 998 43384A.752
954 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 999 43384A.753
955 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1000 43384A.754
956 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1001 43384A.755
957 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1002 43384A.756
958 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1003 43384A.757
959 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1004 43384A.758
960 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1005 43384A.759
961 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1006 43384A.760
962 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1007 43384A.761
963 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1008 43384A.762
964 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1009 43384A.763
965 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1010 43384A.764
966 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1011 43384A.765
967 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1012 43384A.766
968 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1013 43384A.767
969 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1014 43384A.768
970 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1015 43384A.769
971 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1016 43384A.770
972 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1017 43384A.771
973 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1018 43384A.772
974 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1019 43384A.773
975 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1020 43384A.774
976 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1021 43384A.775
977 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1022 43384A.776
978 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1023 43384A.777
979 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1024 43384A.778
980 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1025 43384A.779
981 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1026 43384A.780
982 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1027 43384A.781
983 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1028 43384A.782
984 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1029 43384A.783
985 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1030 43384A.784
986 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1031 43384A.785
987 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1032 43384A.786
988 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1033 43384A.787
989 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1034 43384A.788
990 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1035 43384A.789
991 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1036 43384A.790
992 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1037 43384A.791
993 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1038 43384A.792
994 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1039 43384A.793
995 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1040 43384A.794
996 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1041 43384A.795
997 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1042 43384A.796
998 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1043 43384A.797
999 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1044 43384A.798
1000 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1045 43384A.799
1001 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1046 43384A.800
1002 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1047 43384A.801
1003 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1048 43384A.802
1004 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1049 43384A.803
1005 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1050 43384A.804
1006 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1051 43384A.805
1007 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1052 43384A.806
1008 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1053 43384A.807
1009 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1054 43384A.808
1010 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1055 43384A.809
1011 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1056 43384A.810
1012 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1057 43384A.811
1013 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1058 43384A.812
1014 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1059 43384A.813
1015 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1060 43384A.814
1016 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1061 43384A.815
1017 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1062 43384A.816
1018 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1063 43384A.817
1019 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1064 43384A.818
1020 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1065 43384A.819
1021 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1066 43384A.820
1022 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1067 43384A.821
1023 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1068 43384A.822
1024 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1069 43384A.823
1025 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1070 43384A.824
1026 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1071 43384A.825
1027 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1072 43384A.826
1028 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1073 43384A.827
1029 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1074 43384A.828
1030 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1075 43384A.829
1031 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1076 43384A.830
1032 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1077 43384A.831
1033 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1078 43384A.832
1034 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1079 43384A.833
1035 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1080 43384A.834
1036 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1081 43384A.835
1037 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1082 43384A.836
1038 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1083 43384A.837
1039 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1084 43384A.838
1040 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1085 43384A.839
1041 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1086 43384A.840
1042 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1087 43384A.841
1043 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1088 43384A.842
1044 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1089 43384A.843
1045 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1090 43384A.844
1046 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1091 43384A.845
1047 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1092 43384A.846
1048 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1093 43384A.847
1049 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1094 43384A.848
1050 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1095 43384A.849
1051 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1096 43384A.850
1052 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1097 43384A.851
1053 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1098 43384A.852
1054 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1099 43384A.853
1055 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1100 43384A.854
1056 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1101 43384A.855
1057 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1102 43384A.856
1058 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1103 43384A.857
1059 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1104 43384A.858
1060 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1105 43384A.859
1061 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1106 43384A.860
1062 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1107 43384A.861
1063 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1108 43384A.862
1064 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1109 43384A.863
1065 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1110 43384A.864
1066 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1111 43384A.865
1067 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1112 43384A.866
1068 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1113 43384A.867
1069 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1114 43384A.868
1070 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1115 43384A.869
1071 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1116 43384A.870
1072 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1117 43384A.871
1073 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1118 43384A.872
1074 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1119 43384A.873
1075 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1120 43384A.874
1076 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1121 43384A.875
1077 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1122 43384A.876
1078 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1123 43384A.877
1079 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1124 43384A.878
1080 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1125 43384A.879
1081 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1126 43384A.880
1082 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1127 43384A.881
1083 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1128 43384A.882
1084 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1129 43384A.883
1085 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1130 43384A.884
1086 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1131 43384A.885
1087 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1132 43384A.886
1088 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1133 43384A.887
1089 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1134 43384A.888
1090 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1135 43384A.889
1091 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1136 43384A.890
1092 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1137 43384A.891
1093 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1138 43384A.892
1094 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1139 43384A.893
1095 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1140 43384A.894
1096 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1141 43384A.895
1097 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1142 43384A.896
1098 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1143 43384A.897
1099 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1144 43384A.898
1100 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1145 43384A.899
1101 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1146 43384A.900
1102 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1147 43384A.901
1103 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1148 43384A.902
1104 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1149 43384A.903
1105 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1150 43384A.904
1106 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1151 43384A.905
1107 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1152 43384A.906
1108 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1153 43384A.907
1109 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1154 43384A.908
1110 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1155 43384A.909
1111 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1156 43384A.910
1112 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1157 43384A.911
1113 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1158 43384A.912
1114 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1159 43384A.913
1115 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1160 43384A.914
1116 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1161 43384A.915
1117 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1162 43384A.916
1118 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1163 43384A.917
1119 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1164 43384A.918
1120 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1165 43384A.919
1121 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1166 43384A.920
1122 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1167 43384A.921
1123 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1168 43384A.922
1124 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1169 43384A.923
1125 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1170 43384A.924
1126 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1171 43384A.925
1127 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1172 43384A.926
1128 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1173 43384A.927
1129 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1174 43384A.928
1130 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1175 43384A.929
1131 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1176 43384A.930
1132 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1177 43384A.931
1133 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1178 43384A.932
1134 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1179 43384A.933
1135 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1180 43384A.934
1136 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1181 43384A.935
1137 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1182 43384A.936
1138 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1183 43384A.937
1139 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1184 43384A.938
1140 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1185 43384A.939
1141 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1186 43384A.940
1142 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1187 43384A.941
1143 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1188 43384A.942
1144 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1189 43384A.943
1145 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1190 43384A.944
1146 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1191 43384A.945
1147 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1192 43384A.946
1148 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1193 43384A.947
1149 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1194 43384A.948
1150 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1195 43384A.949
1151 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1196 43384A.950
1152 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1197 43384A.951
1153 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1198 43384A.952
1154 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1199 43384A.953
1155 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1200 43384A.954
1156 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1201 43384A.955
1157 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1202 43384A.956
1158 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1203 43384A.957
1159 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1204 43384A.958
1160 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1205 43384A.959
1161 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1206 43384A.960
1162 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1207 43384A.961
1163 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1208 43384A.962
1164 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1209 43384A.963
1165 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1210 43384A.964
1166 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1211 43384A.965
1167 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1212 43384A.966
1168 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1213 43384A.967
1169 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1214 43384A.968
1170 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1215 43384A.969
1171 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1216 43384A.970
1172 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1217 43384A.971
1173 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1218 43384A.972
1174 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1219 43384A.973
1175 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1220 43384A.974
1176 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1221 43384A.975
1177 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1222 43384A.976
1178 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1223 43384A.977
1179 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1224 43384A.978
1180 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1225 43384A.979
1181 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1226 43384A.980
1182 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1227 43384A.981
1183 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1228 43384A.982
1184 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1229 43384A.983
1185 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1230 43384A.984
1186 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1231 43384A.985
1187 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1232 43384A.986
1188 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1233 43384A.987
1189 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1234 43384A.988
1190 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1235 43384A.989
1191 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1236 43384A.990
1192 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1237 43384A.991
1193 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1238 43384A.992
1194 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1239 43384A.993
1195 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1240 43384A.994
1196 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1241 43384A.995
1197 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1242 43384A.996
1198 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1243 43384A.997
1199 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1244 43384A.998
1200 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1245 43384A.999
1201 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1246 43384A1.000
1202 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1247 43384A1.001
1203 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1248 43384A1.002
1204 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1249 43384A1.003
1205 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1250 43384A1.004
1206 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1251 43384A1.005
1207 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1252 43384A1.006
1208 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1253 43384A1.007
1209 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1254 43384A1.008
1210 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1255 43384A1.009
1211 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1256 43384A1.010
1212 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1257 43384A1.011
1213 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1258 43384A1.012
1214 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1259 43384A1.013
1215 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1260 43384A1.014
1216 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1261 43384A1.015
1217 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1262 43384A1.016
1218 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1263 43384A1.017
1219 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1264 43384A1.018
1220 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1265 43384A1.019
1221 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1266 43384A1.020
1222 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1267 43384A1.021
1223 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1268 43384A1.022
1224 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1269 43384A1.023
1225 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1270 43384A1.024
1226 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1271 43384A1.025
1227 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1272 43384A1.026
1228 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1273 43384A1.027
1229 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1274 43384A1.028
1230 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1275 43384A1.029
1231 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1276 43384A1.030
1232 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1277 43384A1.031
1233 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1278 43384A1.032
1234 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1279 43384A1.033
1235 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1280 43384A1.034
1236 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1281 43384A1.035
1237 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1282 43384A1.036
1238 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1283 43384A1.037
1239 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1284 43384A1.038
1240 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1285 43384A1.039
1241 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1286 43384A1.040
1242 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1287 43384A1.041
1243 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1288 43384A1.042
1244 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1289 43384A1.043
1245 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1290 43384A1.044
1246 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1291 43384A1.045
1247 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1292 43384A1.046
1248 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1293 43384A1.047
1249 

Mr. CARTER. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, and, with that, we will conclude our hearing. We appreciate all of you being here and the substantial contribution each of you has made. We thank you for your service, and 

we look forward to collaborating with you as we put the numbers 

together for next year. The Subcommittee is adjourned. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
1250 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1295 here 43384A1.048
1251 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1296 here 43384A1.049
1252 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1297 here 43384A1.050
1253 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1298 here 43384A1.051
1254 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1299 here 43384A1.052
1255 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1300 here 43384A1.053
1256 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1301 here 43384A1.054
1257 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1302 here 43384A1.055
1258 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1303 here 43384A1.056
1259 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1304 here 43384A1.057
1260 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1305 here 43384A1.058
1261 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1306 here 43384A1.059
1262 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1307 here 43384A1.060
1263 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1308 here 43384A1.061
1264 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1309 here 43384A1.062
1265 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1310 here 43384A1.063
1266 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1311 here 43384A1.064
1267 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1312 here 43384A1.065
1268 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1313 here 43384A1.066
1269 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1314 here 43384A1.067
1270 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1315 here 43384A1.068
1271 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1316 here 43384A1.069
1272 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1317 here 43384A1.070
1273 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1318 here 43384A1.071
1274 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1319 here 43384A1.072
1275 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1320 here 43384A1.073
1276 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1321 here 43384A1.074
1277 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1322 here 43384A1.075
1278 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1323 here 43384A1.076
1279 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1324 here 43384A1.077
1280 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1325 here 43384A1.078
1281 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1326 here 43384A1.079
1282 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1327 here 43384A1.080
1283 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1328 here 43384A1.081
1284 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1329 here 43384A1.082
1285 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1330 here 43384A1.083
1286 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1331 here 43384A1.084
1287 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1332 here 43384A1.085
1288 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1333 here 43384A1.086
1289 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1334 here 43384A1.087
1290 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1335 here 43384A1.088
1291 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1336 here 43384A1.089
1292 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1337 here 43384A1.090
1293 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1338 here 43384A1.091
1294 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1339 here 43384A1.092
1295 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1340 here 43384A1.093
1296 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1341 here 43384A1.094
1297 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1342 here 43384A1.095
1298 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1343 here 43384A1.096
1299 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1344 here 43384A1.097
1300 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1345 here 43384A1.098
1301 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1346 here 43384A1.099
1302 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1347 here 43384A1.100
1303 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1348 here 43384A1.101
1304 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1349 here 43384A1.102
1305 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1350 here 43384A1.103
1306 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1351 here 43384A1.104
1307 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1352 here 43384A1.105
1308 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1353 here 43384A1.106
1309 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1354 here 43384A1.107
1310 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1355 here 43384A1.108
1311 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1356 here 43384A1.109
1312 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1357 here 43384A1.110
1313 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1358 here 43384A1.111
1314 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1359 here 43384A1.112
1315 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1360 here 43384A1.113
1316 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1361 here 43384A1.114
1317 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1362 here 43384A1.115
1318 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1363 here 43384A1.116
1319 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1364 here 43384A1.117
1320 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1365 here 43384A1.118
1321 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1366 here 43384A1.119
1322 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1367 here 43384A1.120
1323 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1368 here 43384A1.121
1324 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1369 here 43384A1.122
1325 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1370 here 43384A1.123
1326 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1371 here 43384A1.124
1327 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1372 here 43384A1.125
1328 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1373 here 43384A1.126
1329 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1374 here 43384A1.127
1330 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1375 here 43384A1.128
1331 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1376 here 43384A1.129
1332 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1377 here 43384A1.130
1333 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1378 here 43384A1.131
1334 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1379 here 43384A1.132
1335 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1380 here 43384A1.133
1336 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1381 here 43384A1.134
1337 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1382 here 43384A1.135
1338 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1383 here 43384A1.136
1339 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1384 here 43384A1.137
1340 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1385 here 43384A1.138
1341 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1386 here 43384A1.139
1342 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1387 here 43384A1.140
1343 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1388 here 43384A1.141
1344 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1389 here 43384A1.142
1345 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1390 here 43384A1.143
1346 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1391 here 43384A1.144
1347 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1392 here 43384A1.145
1348 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1393 here 43384A1.146
1349 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1394 here 43384A1.147
1350 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1395 here 43384A1.148
1351 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1396 here 43384A1.149
1352 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1397 here 43384A1.150
1353 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1398 here 43384A1.151
1354 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1399 here 43384A1.152
1355 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1400 here 43384A1.153
1356 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1401 here 43384A1.154
1357 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1402 here 43384A1.155
1358 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1403 here 43384A1.156
1359 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1404 here 43384A1.157
1360 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1405 here 43384A1.158
1361 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1406 here 43384A1.159
1362 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1407 here 43384A1.160
1363 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1408 here 43384A1.161
1364 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1409 here 43384A1.162
1365 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1410 here 43384A1.163
1366 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1411 here 43384A1.164
1367 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1412 here 43384A1.165
1368 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1413 here 43384A1.166
1369 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1414 here 43384A1.167
1370 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1415 here 43384A1.168
1371 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1416/1500 here 43384A1.169
1372 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1279 43384P2.093
1373 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1280 43384P2.094
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Gispert, L. J ............................................................................................................. 53 

Jadacki, Matt ........................................................................................................... 53 

Jenkins, W. O ........................................................................................................... 525 

Miller, David ............................................................................................................ 53 

Paulison, David ...................................................................................................... 53, 525 

Runge, Jow ............................................................................................................... 1 

Scheppach, R. C ....................................................................................................... 525 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
(iii) 

I N D E X 

OFFICE OF HEALTH AFFAIRS—DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Page 

Opening Statement of Chairman Price .................................................................. 1 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Rogers ................................................... 2 

Statement of Mr. Jeffrey W. Runge, Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs 

and Chief Medical Officer, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ............... 3 

Bio Watch Generation 2.5 ....................................................................................... 6 

Bio Watch Generation 3 .......................................................................................... 9 

Long Term Outlook on BioWatch ........................................................................... 10 

NAS Study on BioWatch ......................................................................................... 11 

Role of NAS Versus HHS ........................................................................................ 12 

BioShield Progress ................................................................................................... 13 

Federal Partners Program ...................................................................................... 15 

BioWatch Coordination with DOD ......................................................................... 15 

Biosurveillance ......................................................................................................... 15 

Food, Agriculture and Veterinary Coordination .................................................... 16 

Sharing Law Enforcement Sensitive Information ................................................. 17 

Participation of Public Health Officials ................................................................. 18 

Project BioShield ...................................................................................................... 19 

HHS Secretary’s Operations Center ...................................................................... 21 

HHS Hospital Preparedness Program ................................................................... 21 

Hospital Surge Capacity ......................................................................................... 22 

Pandemic Influenza Continuity of Government .................................................... 23 

FEMA Role in a Pandemic ...................................................................................... 25 

Vaccine Distribution ................................................................................................ 25 

Vaccine Stockpiles ................................................................................................... 26 

Indifference to the Territories ................................................................................ 27 

OHA Support to the Secretary, FEMA, FDA and USDA ..................................... 28 

Coordination with Territories ................................................................................. 29 

Incident Management Planning Teams Coordination .......................................... 30 

Exposure Preparedness and Response ................................................................... 32 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman Price ..................................... 33 

Emergency Personnel and Disaster Response ............................................... 33 

Bio Watch .......................................................................................................... 33 

Measuring Medical Readiness ......................................................................... 35 

Pandemic Influenza .......................................................................................... 35 

National Biodefense Architecture ................................................................... 36 

Management ..................................................................................................... 36 

Contracts ........................................................................................................... 39 

Project Bioshield ............................................................................................... 40 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard ... 41 

Coordination with HHS: Pandemic Flu Preparedness .................................. 41 

Coordination with HHS: General .................................................................... 42 

Biosurveillance and Monitoring ...................................................................... 43 

Medical Surge Capacity ................................................................................... 49 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Ranking Member Rogers ...................... 51 

BioShield-Countermeasures ............................................................................ 51 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Robert Aderholt ............ 52 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY: IS THE AGENCY ON 

THE RIGHT TRACK? 

Opening Statement of Chairman Price .................................................................. 53 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
Page

iv 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Rogers ................................................... 55 

Statement of Mr. R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency ................................................................................................... 56 

Statement of Mr. Larry J. Gispert, President, International Association of 

Emergency Managers .......................................................................................... 93 

Statement of Mr. David Miller, Legislative Chaired, National Emergency 

Management Association ..................................................................................... 104 

Statement of Mr. Matt Jadacki, Deputy Inspector General, U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security .......................................................................................... 115 

Disaster Housing ..................................................................................................... 130 

Authority to Provide for the Repair and Improvement of Multifamily Rental 

Properties .............................................................................................................. 132 

Gulf Coast Coordination .......................................................................................... 132 

Role of FEMA and State and Local Roles .............................................................. 134 

Logistics .................................................................................................................... 135 

Department of Transportation Partnership .......................................................... 136 

Logistics Supplies .................................................................................................... 137 

FEMA Progress ........................................................................................................ 138 

Interim Final Rule Modifying Administrative Allowance .................................... 139 

Emergency Management Performance Grants ...................................................... 140 

FEMA Staffing Turnover ........................................................................................ 141 

Formaldehyde ........................................................................................................... 143 

Department of Homeland Security and Public Health ......................................... 144 

Post-Disaster Mitigation ......................................................................................... 145 

Pre-Positioning Equipment ..................................................................................... 147 

FEMA Vision ............................................................................................................ 149 

IMAT ......................................................................................................................... 150 

National Incident Management System (NIMS) ................................................... 150 

Presidential Declaration .......................................................................................... 151 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman Price ..................................... 156 

Disaster Relief Fund ........................................................................................ 156 

Environmental Issues ...................................................................................... 159 

National Flood Insurance Program ................................................................. 160 

Mitigation .......................................................................................................... 165 

Disaster Housing .............................................................................................. 169 

Measuring Preparedness .................................................................................. 170 

Financial Management System ....................................................................... 173 

FY 2007 FEMA Material Weakness ............................................................... 173 

Northcom ........................................................................................................... 175 

Civil Reserve ..................................................................................................... 177 

U.S. Fire Administration ................................................................................. 177 

Management ..................................................................................................... 177 

Contracts ........................................................................................................... 208 

State and Local Liaisons .................................................................................. 477 

Gulf Coast ......................................................................................................... 478 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Nita Lowey ................... 479 

Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act ....................................... 479 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard ... 480 

Travel Trailers: Formaldehyde Exposure ....................................................... 480 

FEMA Field Office in Pasadena, California ................................................... 481 

Question for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Sam Farr ........................ 482 

EMPG ................................................................................................................ 482 

Emergency Management Institute .................................................................. 482 

Higher Education Project ................................................................................. 483 

FEMA Authority from Post Katrina Act ........................................................ 484 

Integrated Planning System ............................................................................ 486 

Transfer of Staff as Required by Post Katrina Act ........................................ 486 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Ranking Member Rogers ...................... 487 

Mission & Role .................................................................................................. 487 

FEMA Vision ..................................................................................................... 488 

Logistics-stockpiling supplies .......................................................................... 493 

Logistics Centers .............................................................................................. 494 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Robert Aderholt ............ 495 

Emergency Warning Systems .......................................................................... 495 

NOAA Weather Radios .................................................................................... 495 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Kay Granger ................. 497 

‘‘Regular Hours’’ Reimbursement .................................................................... 497 

Stafford Act ....................................................................................................... 498 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
Page

v 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Kay Granger —Continued 

Information Sharing During Disasters ........................................................... 499 

Additional Answers to Questions for the Record Provided by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency ........................................................................ 501 

Travel ................................................................................................................ 501 

HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS: SUPPORTING A NATIONAL 

PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE SYSTEM 

Opening Statement of Chairman Price .................................................................. 525 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Rogers ................................................... 527 

Statement of Mr. R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency ................................................................................................... 528 

Statement of Mr. Raymond C. Scheppach, Executive Director, National Governors Association ................................................................................................ 565 

Statement of Mr. William O. Jenkins, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office .......................................... 575 

REAL ID Grant Funding ........................................................................................ 605 

National Security and Terrorism Prevention Grants ........................................... 606 

Minimum Essential Requirements ......................................................................... 608 

Grant Guidance ........................................................................................................ 610 

Protection of Civil Liberties .................................................................................... 610 

Homeland Security Grants Funding Levels .......................................................... 612 

Categories of Grants and Number of Grant Programs ......................................... 612 

High-Threat High-Risk Areas ................................................................................. 620 

FEMA Grants Management .................................................................................... 622 

Grant Obligations .................................................................................................... 623 

Obligated Versus Expended Funds ........................................................................ 731 

State Homeland Security Planning ........................................................................ 732 

Assistance to Firefighter Grant Guidance ............................................................. 733 

Assistance to Firefighter Grants Criteria and National Priorities ...................... 806 

Emergency Food and Shelter Program .................................................................. 807 

State and Local Training Programs ....................................................................... 809 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman Price ..................................... 1252 

Grants ................................................................................................................ 1252 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Nita Lowey ................... 1370 

UASI .................................................................................................................. 1370 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard ... 1371 

Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program: Risk-Based Funding ................. 1371 

Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program: Capital Expensiture Cap ......... 1371 

Transit Grants .................................................................................................. 1372 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Ranking Member Rodgers .................... 1373 

Grants Management and Measurement ......................................................... 1373 

Additional Responses to Questions for the Record Provided by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency ........................................................................ 1374 

State and Local Grants .................................................................................... 1374 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING