DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama, Chairman 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking 

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

BEN NICHOLSON, JEFF ASHFORD, KRIS MALLARD, 

KATHY KRANINGER, and MILES TAYLOR, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 4 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Page 

Science and Technology Budget .......................................... 1 

National Protection and Programs Directorate .............. 159 

Terrorist Travel: Programs and Funding .......................... 239 

WMD Countermeasures—Threat, Programs and 

Funding .................................................................................. 251 

Federal Emergency Management Agency ......................... 357 

Outside Witnesses .................................................................... 889 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
PART 4 

NPPD 

S&T 

TTP&F 

WMDCTP&F 

FEMA 

Out. Wit. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama, Chairman 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking 

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

BEN NICHOLSON, JEFF ASHFORD, KRIS MALLARD, 

KATHY KRANINGER, and MILES TAYLOR, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 4 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Page 

Science and Technology Budget .......................................... 1 

National Protection and Programs Directorate .............. 159 

Terrorist Travel: Programs and Funding .......................... 239 

WMD Countermeasures—Threat, Programs and 

Funding .................................................................................. 251 

Federal Emergency Management Agency ......................... 357 

Outside Witnesses .................................................................... 889 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

68–060 WASHINGTON : 2011 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 1

JERRY LEWIS, California 1

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNY REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

KEVIN YODER, Kansas 

STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas 

ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi 

————— 

1 Chairman Emeritus 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

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 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

WILLIAM B. INGLEE, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011. 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BUDGET 

WITNESS 

HON. TARA O’TOOLE, M.D., M.P.H., UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE 

AND TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

OPENING STATEMENT: CHAIRMAN ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. The hearing is called to order. This afternoon we 

welcome Under Secretary Tara O’Toole in her second appearance 

before this subcommittee as we examine the President’s fiscal year 

2012 budget to fund the Directorate of Science and Technology. 

A literally young enterprise, Science and Technology was established in 2003 with the new Department of Homeland Security, 

with its primary mission to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security, its agencies, and the border homeland security community can benefit from the applications of science and technology. 

As it has evolved as a component of the Department, Science and 

Technology has touched on virtually all activities of the Department of Homeland Security and has established an organizational 

structure that aligns with them. 

We have had long-standing concerns about whether Science and 

Technology is striking the right balance between long-term basic 

research and targeting near-term research for technologies that are 

ripe for deployment. 

There is no question some DHS research may not have a home 

anywhere else than DHS itself. It may not be a priority for other 

Federal agencies. It may have a long-time horizon or may lack a 

commercial market that could attract private funding. Still, such 

research may have value and should be considered when looking at 

S&T plans. 

However, there seems to be an implicit consensus that Science 

and Technology should concentrate on fielding technology its customers’ need, a view I believe you endorse, Dr. O’Toole. I hope to 

hear today about the concrete impacts Science and Technology can 

point to, particularly for critical missions involving border and 

travel security, biometrics, and infrastructure protection. 

Science and Technology’s approach to technology is to serve as a 

reliable and transparent clearinghouse for private-sector homeland 

security related research. Despite there being specific examples 

where Science and Technology has helped discover or accelerate deVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:13 Sep 21, 2011 Jkt 068060 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A060P2.XXX A060P2

emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

velopment, testing, or review of such technology, there remains a 

perception in the private sector that Science and Technology and 

the Department of Homeland Security agencies who procure technologies remain difficult to connect with. 

Today I hope you will address this in tangible ways in which the 

Department of Homeland Security and Science and Technology in 

particular are working to attract and be more accessible to privatesector initiatives. More than anything, Science and Technology has 

to sell itself to Congress as a good investment and not a place 

where ideas may be generated only to be ignored by front-line operators. 

Last month’s House action on H.R. 1 showed that many in Congress are uninformed about Science and Technology. Science and 

Technology needs more effective outreach about what it does and 

how the multibillion dollar investment in the enterprise is valuable 

to producing results. Until Science and Technology’s role can be 

made more visible and its impact demonstrated more concretely, 

you will likely face challenges from those who are unfamiliar with 

your work and will question the value of funding research and development over other operational programs. 

Dr. O’Toole, we look forward to your testimony this afternoon. I 

know that you have your written record that you will present to 

us shortly, and it will be placed into the record in its entirety. 

Maybe take 5 minutes to summarize it in a few minutes. 

But before we call on you, I would like to recognize Mr. Price, 

who is our ranking member, for his opening remarks as well. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 5 68060A.001
4 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 6 68060A.002
5 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 7 68060A.003
6 

OPENING REMARKS: RANKING MEMBER PRICE

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. O’Toole, I am glad to welcome you to the Subcommittee to 

testify once again on the importance of research and development 

initiatives to address gaps in homeland security. Your fiscal year 

2012 budget request totals $1.176 billion, which is 16 percent above 

the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. However, once you factor out the 

$150 million requested for the initial construction of the National 

Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, the funding levels for ongoing research programs is about the same as what the administration requested last year. 

Our research and development efforts are critical to making the 

homeland more secure, and it is important that the resources we 

devote to R&D help to anticipate threats, rather than to merely respond. Time and time again, after a threat or event occurs, numerous companies come forward offering the solution to the latest 

problem. But really what we should be doing is thinking about 

what threats and vulnerabilities exist before events occur, which 

will permit us to have the technology already on our radar screens 

so that we can rapidly respond. There is an obvious case in point. 

After the Christmas Day bombing attempt, TSA was able to decide 

very quickly to procure advanced imaging technology to look for 

nonmetallic threats on a person because the agency had already 

been testing these systems successfully in limited operational settings. 

Since you assumed your position, you have looked at S&T’s roles 

and responsibilities with a critical eye. Your predecessor took a 

proactive stance, seeking to ensure that the research S&T undertook was relevant to the operational needs of DHS components, and 

I know you have been continuing this hard look. 

As I understand it, you have asked your Directorate to do three 

things: 

First, annually review all basic and applied research and development activities as well as all of your proposed ‘‘new start’’ 

projects to make sure they are still necessary and to make sure we 

are not replicating research done either by other Federal Government entities or by other DHS agencies; 

Secondly, to survey scientific discoveries and inventions relevant 

to existing and emerging homeland security challenges; 

And, third, to more closely align your work with the needs of 

DHS components so that the end product is a technology that the 

agency itself will use in an operational environment. Now, the result of this hard look is a proposed reorganization of S&T that segregates research and development activities into innovation and acquisition efforts, keeping the university and laboratory programs 

intact. It also means that S&T may be involved beyond the research and development phase, for example by participating in 

operational testing and piloting of new technologies. Ultimately, 

this may mean—at least as I understand it—that S&T may be 

evaluating fewer concepts but that the ones they do assess are 

more apt to be used every day. 

Today, I look forward to discussing your proposed reorganizations so that we can get a better understanding of how S&T will 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

identify and select promising technologies for further development 

and how you can find ways to efficiently leverage existing technologies into new uses as rapidly as possible. At the same time, I 

want to explore further some of the proposals in your 2012 budget 

request, including plans for the National Bio and Agro-defense Facility, human factors research—exactly where we stand on that— 

and disaster resiliency. 

As we begin to more closely examine your 2012 budget, it is important to note that no program is off limits to scrutiny. Our obligation is to take a balanced, realistic approach, to weigh risks carefully, and to make prudent investments. Dr. O’Toole, I have no 

doubt that you share this point of view; and I look forward to continuing to work with you and look forward to your testimony today. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Mr. Price. 

Dr. O’Toole, we look forward to your testimony. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 12 68060A.004
9 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 13 68060A.005
10 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 14 68060A.006
11 

OPENING REMARKS: UNDER SECRETARY O’TOOLE

Dr. O’TOOLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Price. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be before you today and discuss the 

DHS’s Directorate of Science and Technology. Mr. Chairman, we 

spend about 20 percent of our R&D budget on basic research and 

the remainder on more applied development of knowledge, products, and technology. And, as you say, we cover the entire range 

of DHS’s extraordinary span of missions in terms of supplying 

knowledge, products, scientific expertise, and technology to the 

DHS missions. I recognize that these are tough economic times, as 

you say, Congressman Price, and that we have to be responsible 

stewards of taxpayers’ money and do our work efficiently and cost 

effectively. 

I would like to briefly review some of the initiatives we have 

taken since I became Under Secretary in November of 2009, a few 

of which have already been touched upon. 

The top priority in our strategic plan is to rapidly develop and 

transition our technologies and knowledge products to use in the 

field. This reflects the enormous operational needs of DHS for new 

technology products and for scientific analyses of its work and of 

its options. The best analysis, the most advanced technology in the 

world, is of no use unless it is actually in routine use by someone. 

So moving innovative solutions from the lab bench or the prototype stage into routine use, crossing the so-called ‘‘valley of death’’, 

is a challenge to all R&D organizations; and for many reasons it 

is particularly so in DHS. We are trying to bridge this gap in several ways. 

First of all, as you said, Congressman Price, we have instituted 

an annual review of our entire basic and applied R&D portfolio, including all ‘‘new start’’ projects. We asked internal and external experts to assess each project according to a set of criteria which we 

developed along with our partners in the components, which essentially gauge impact and feasibility or riskiness of every project. 

This allows us to measure all of our projects against a single 

framework regardless of the topical area of the project and also enables a more strategic approach to budget decisions. 

We have already used the results of the portfolio review, which 

we have done twice, to concentrate R&D funds on fewer projects to 

improve delivery of capabilities to end users and to reprioritize 

projects to redirect funding to better address the needs of our partners in the operational components. 

So, for example, the first review identified three programs with 

a similar focus on cargo and container screening. We were allowed 

by this review to combine all three projects into a single project, 

creating synergies and cost savings; and we took that money and 

redirected it. 

We also identified a high-impact explosives division project which 

was aimed at new computer software to improve detection capabilities of our x-ray and AIT machines. We increased funding of that 

project in order to speed its deployment. And, in fact, there is a 

new software program in use today, or going into use today, in the 

AIT machines which will reduce privacy concerns. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

Secondly, we have realigned the Directorate’s organizational 

structure, which I think also serves our primary goal of 

transitioning more rapidly to use. I have executed one Federal reorganization and had no desire to do another one. But I think that 

this realignment actually does serve our strategic purposes. 

First of all, it is in line with the National Academy of Public Administration’s 2009 top recommendation to reduce the number of 

reports to the Under Secretary. We did that, reducing it from 21 

to 10. And, as I said, it directly supports our strategic goals. 

First of all, it is pretty well accepted in R&D circles that innovation comes from the seams between technical disciplines. So we recombined all of our technical divisions into a single group, which 

is known as HSARPA. This is going to make it a lot easier for our 

biologists and our engineers and our explosive experts and so forth 

to work together collaboratively in multidisciplinary teams, and 

these multi-faceted teams are actually what is required to really 

solve some of the complex problems DHS is facing. We also have 

initiated what we call APEX projects. These are very high-priority, 

high-value, fast-turnaround projects, again using multidisciplinary 

teams, which only go forward if there is a charted agreement between myself and the head of the component. These aim to solve 

real, urgent problems that the component head thinks are important. We have one APEX project going on with the Secret Service 

and another beginning with the Customs and Border Protection 

groups. We have also recognized that the special needs of first responders and our partners in State and local governments are different from those of the operating components, and we have established a dedicated office to serve them. This is being headed up by 

a career first responder, a former fire chief of Louden County, who 

also has a Ph.D.; and I think this organization is going to better 

enable us to meet the critical needs of that important set of groups. 

As was mentioned, we are working with the DHS Under Secretary of Management and the components to leverage S&T’s technical skills—again, we are the core group of science and engineering expertise in DHS—to improve the front end of the acquisition 

process by helping the components to formulate clear requirements 

stemming from their mission needs. This will enable us to much 

more readily develop technologies that will serve their actual 

needs. 

We are already engaged by statute in the back end of the acquisition process, the testing and evaluation part of acquiring new 

technologies, but by the time you get to testing and evaluation, if 

you haven’t established appropriate requirements, you may end up 

not getting the technology that you need or it may not work in the 

conditions in which you need to operate. we are also trying to instill a more systems engineering based approach to DHS operations 

in this new Office of Acquisitions and Analysis, and we have a new 

leader for that group who is the former head of acquisitions at 

FAA. 

Another important initiative—and this goes to your comments, 

Mr. Chairman, about the importance of connecting with the commercial sector and others, including the interagencies—we intend 

to become ‘‘best in class’’ at technology foraging. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

Now we already do partner with the private sector, with other 

Federal agencies, with universities, and with other governments 

abroad, for that matter, and try to leverage their investments in 

R&D against the needs of DHS. In fact, we won two SBIR awards 

last year for our work. But it is really difficult to know who is 

doing what in the R&D community. 

This is a global community. It is churning out new products all 

the time, and it is difficult to keep up with. What we want to do 

is become best in class at surveying this dynamic and expanding 

world, identifying potential partners, discovering technologies in 

late-stage development which we might adopt or adapt for new 

purposes, new environmental conditions, or new scales. 

This effort, the technology foraging effort, is going to be based in 

the new Office of R&D Partnerships which will serve as an easyto-use portal through which the rest of the world can access S&T. 

We are trying to make it much easier for commercial partners to 

work with S&T. There are a lot of them. There are a lot of potential commercial partners. And the small companies, which are often 

the most innovative, have a different series of difficulties working 

with government than do the large integrators; and universities 

have a different set of talents and problems in connecting up with 

government. 

But we are, for example, establishing industry days and other 

ways to make a better connection with the commercial sector as 

well as having established a new partnership with In-Q-Tel. 

In sum, as you said, we are a young agency. I think we have 

much to show for ourselves. Although I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, we have done a bad job of branding S&T products; and we 

hope to do better. I think we are evolving. I think these initiatives 

will make us stronger. 

And I look forward to your questions. 

[The information follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 68060A.007
15 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 68060A.008
16 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 68060A.009
17 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 68060A.010
18 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 68060A.011
19 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 68060A.012
20 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 68060A.013
21 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 68060A.014
22 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 68060A.015
23 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 68060A.016
24 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 68060A.017
25 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 68060A.018
26 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 68060A.019
27 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 68060A.020
28 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you for your testimony. 

We will move now into the questioning portion of the hearing, 

and I will begin with the first question regarding the priorities and 

some of the things that are your priorities there at S&T. Science 

and Technology faces many competing priorities. Yet, because they 

are finite resources, your Directorate and our committee are forced 

to make tough decisions about which areas are most crucial and 

most critical to fund. In this light, please discuss with the committee your top research priorities for fiscal year 2012 and what 

you believe are the Department’s biggest capability gaps. 

S&T PRIORITIES

Dr. O’TOOLE. That is a tough question to answer, for the reasons 

you state. 

We face a huge need across a broad horizon of missions in DHS. 

I think it is fair to say that top priorities in the Department right 

now include aviation security, cybersecurity, preventing and being 

prepared to respond to an attack using either a biological weapon 

or a nuclear weapon, an IND, for example. Or now we are also, of 

course, with others in the government worried about nuclear accidents at power plants. And we also have to worry, of course, about 

border security. There are many moving parts under those large 

headings, but I think those are the big priorities. In terms of standout gaps in R&D, we would love to be able to detect explosives 

without touching anybody, without opening your laptop as you go 

through checkout or the checkpoint or taking off your shoes. That 

is a very difficult scientific problem on which we are making 

progress. 

We would like to know a lot more about signals, observable signals of human behavior that would indicate malintent. This goes, 

for example, to the core of suicide bomber detection. 

There is a lot to do in terms of biological defense. S&T’s particular bailiwick has been detection. I think we have very persuasive data that show that we need to create the possibility of realtime detection of a biological weapon so that, for example, if it were 

discovered in a subway that Anthrax or another pathogen would be 

released we could immediately shut that subway down. Not 10 

minutes later, not an hour later, but immediately. And we are 

striving for that, but we are not there yet. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. The priorities you mentioned I think are very 

good priorities, but have you aligned those priorities with your 

budget? And how do you measure Science and Technology’s ability 

to address those priorities? 

Dr. O’TOOLE. Yes. And this is the purpose and the usefulness of 

the portfolio review. 

The criteria that we use in assessing a project include, for example, the impact of a project, a number of different ways of getting 

at the impact, including does a customer want this, is there a transition plan, how likely are we to really move this from prototype 

into widespread use. And we also assess feasibility. So somebody 

might have a really wild idea which, if we could bring it to fruition, 

would be terrific, but it is just not going to happen in the next 5 

years, in which case it would score lower. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

And, again, we use people from the components as well as outside experts to do the scoring. We use those assessments to award 

funding or to take it away. And we have eliminated projects on the 

basis of the portfolio as well, as I said, plussing some up to speed 

transition or because we think this is a high-impact project. 

CYBERSECURITY

Mr. ADERHOLT. You mentioned in your opening remarks about 

cybersecurity. The committee applauds the budget’s increased emphasis on cybersecurity, and that is a subject we will actually address in another hearing later this week, but what critical cybersecurity needs does S&T plan to address with additional funding? 

Dr. O’TOOLE. We are focusing on trying to make the Internet 

more secure for users. So, for example, we have worked on a 

project called DNSSEC, domain name security, which is intended 

to assure that, when you go to a Web site, that is the Web site you 

really hook up with and to, you know, diminish the possibility that 

when you are trying to reach your bank somebody else is diverting 

your messages to their Web site. 

This particular tool has been adopted by many major companies, 

including—incorporated, for example, into Microsoft 7. 

We also have a couple of tools that are intended to increase our 

situational awareness of attacks on the Internet. So, for example, 

we have tools that detect people who are trying to hijack messages 

as they are relayed from one router to the next to their generation, 

as happened, for example, recently when for about 15 minutes all 

Facebook pages were being shunted to China. So those are two examples. 

We also have established a test bed for commercial companies to 

come in and try out their own defenses against cyberattacks. Obviously, you don’t want to try out attacks and ways to stop them on 

the real Internet, because unforeseen bad things could happen. But 

you have to create a test bed that is large enough to actually mimic 

the Internet. So we have done that, and a lot of companies in the 

private sector have been coming in testing their own vulnerabilities 

as well as their own products. And one such product actually was 

developed by a company that subsequently got bought out by a big 

company. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I have got some more questions, but we are going 

to have votes here in a few minutes, so let me go ahead and recognize Mr. Price. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, let me 

ask you to help us understand the import of this reordering of the 

Directorate’s agenda. As you said, there has been a fair amount of 

this in the history of the Department, and I know you wouldn’t just 

needlessly undertake another review, so I am sure you have 

thought about this and rationalized it thoroughly. I just want to 

make sure that we understand it and understand the impact of this 

on your budget priorities. I am going to refer you here to your 

printed statement by way, I hope, of bringing out the rationale 

here. 

You have stressed the division of these research priorities into 

two broad categories: Research, development, and innovation, on 

the one hand; acquisition and operations support, on the other 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

hand; and then of course keeping the laboratory facilities and the 

university program components pretty much as they are. And then 

the usual breakdown that we are accustomed to of topics of mission-related research is detailed under these headings. 

One big question, I gather you talk a lot about the ‘‘valley of 

death’’ and the need to pay more attention to that area between innovation and deployment. I gather that is one reason for this focus 

on what you call acquisitions and operations support; and yet that 

is an area where your overall budget actually goes down, although 

there is some variation within the subheads under that item. Then 

when you come to the more familiar list for research, development, 

and innovation, there are some striking changes. I know in your 

budget justifications you go into this in more detail, so I am really 

asking you to perhaps help us get the bigger picture here. 

There are some areas that you list as having no funding at 

present that you are wanting to invest in, radiation and nuclear detection, for example, radiation nuclear resiliency. There is one that 

we really don’t need to have explained, I think, the cybersecurity 

emphasis. I think we all agree that is going to be a matter of increased emphasis. You have some major reductions here: Natural 

disaster resiliency cut by two-thirds. The hostile behavior prediction and detection, one component of the human factor’s portfolio, goes from $22.7 to $14.6 million and so forth. 

I am not really asking you to get too much into the weeds of 

these individual items. We will have plenty of time to do that. 

What I am asking you is, to what extent are these changes and 

these budget priorities a function of this reordering that you seem 

to put considerable stock in? 

I am not certain I understand the rationale. And so the rationale 

is one thing but also the kind of budget consequences and the relative focus on different missionaries, I don’t think we understand 

either. At least we need to understand it more fully. 

R&D FUNDING

Dr. O’TOOLE. Okay. Fair question. First of all, I think the drop 

in the Office of Acquisitions and Operational Support is because of 

a one-time cost to the testing and evaluation and standards group 

that came in Fiscal Year 2010 that is not reflected in the current 

budget, but they have not been diminished in any way. 

The R&D funding for particular projects follows the portfolio review. We are asking for a different structure for our budget lines 

so that we can have a much more transparent layout of the projects 

that we are funding. 

Mr. PRICE. Let me just interrupt you there. 

You do use that term and, of course, we understand transparency 

is an important value. You are talking here about the ability to 

track and assess our progress, though. I mean, transparency in 

that sense more than the usual sense of transparency to the public 

or accountability in that broader sense? 

Dr. O’TOOLE. It would be both, and the latter is very important 

in informing the commercial sector as to what we are up to and 

what we are interested in. 

But what we would do is we would put all of our R&D under a 

single budget line; and we would then fund projects, whether it is 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

disaster resilience or biodefense, according to our customers’ needs 

and priorities, which do shift, and our ability to meet them. 

So disaster resiliency, for example, is devoutly desired by all of 

us, especially these days when we are watching Japan struggle 

with its trifecta of disasters. But we do not see many near-term, 

cost-effective ways that S&T can address that right now. 

One of the problems with projects and disaster resiliency, and we 

have developed several good products for disaster resiliency, and I 

will mention one, is that they mostly pertain to the critical infrastructure, to improving critical infrastructure. And that lies in private hands. So it is difficult to transition, for example, a device 

that will plug a damaged levee to municipalities that don’t have 

any money to buy it. We invented such a device, and it works as 

far as we can tell, but we are having a hard time transitioning. 

So if transition to use is one of our priorities then those projects 

which lend themselves to transition are more likely to get funded. 

But this would be flexible. The acquisition emphasis is due to the 

fact that we have seen many technology acquisitions in DHS fail 

because they didn’t start out with clear, specific, detailed requirements in the first place; and they would go way down the path of 

acquiring a technology only to find that it wouldn’t work or it 

wouldn’t work in the conditions in which it had to operate. So we 

think we can leverage S&T’s technical expertise much more effectively if we worked as advisors on the front end when the components are deciding how to translate their mission needs into requirements for new technology and save DHS a lot of money, a lot 

of grief, and be very successful in getting the Components what 

they need, whoever develops the technology, whether it is S&T or 

the commercial sector or whomever. 

So this is not an expensive proposition, because we are basically 

acting as coaches in the acquisition office. We are not developing 

new technologies. We are not paying laboratories and so on and so 

forth. 

Is that helpful? 

Mr. PRICE. I think the key word here is support, acquisition and 

operation support, a kind of informing of that process. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I want to make sure Mr. Dent gets a question 

here. It is 15 minutes before the vote. 

So to Mr. Dent. 

Mr. DENT. Thanks, Mr. Chairman; and, Madam Secretary, thank 

you for being here. 

In your written testimony, you articulate the need to equip our 

first responders with various tools to manage and execute their responsibilities in the midst of a terrorist attack or natural disaster 

or hazards approach. Can you describe the status of each program, 

including the self-contained breathing apparatus, the geospacial location accountability and navigation system for emergency responders, and the portable interoperable tactical operations center? 

Is S&T currently piloting each program? And, if so, what is the expected date to transition the project from a pilot to a commercially 

available technology? 

Dr. O’TOOLE. Thank you, Congressman. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS

Yes, we are working on all three of those programs. They are actually in late stages of development. The self-contained breathing 

apparatus is something first responders have been seeking for decades, actually; and what we have developed is a much smaller, 

lighter, more ergonomic self-contained air tank that fits on your 

back. 

Firefighters in particular have had difficulty fitting into tight 

spaces with the old models. This one supplies as much air but 

would be much easier to use, and this spring it is actually going 

into testing with the fire service and in the Chicago Fire Department. 

GEOSPATIAL LOCATION DEVICES

The second device you mentioned is an effort to develop a kind 

of beeper that would locate firefighters in particular when they are 

working in areas that don’t have transponders, so, for example, 

very high-rise buildings in urban settings. We have lost some firefighters in the past because their colleagues couldn’t get to them 

once they ran into trouble. 

PORTABLE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER

And the third is actually a two-part effort that includes a rapidly 

portable emergency operation center that you could literally carry 

to where it is needed and set up very quickly complete with communications gear and power supplies. 

Mr. DENT. How much funding is associated with those efforts? 

Do you know? 

Dr. O’TOOLE. I would have to get back to you on that, Mr. Dent. 

Mr. DENT. That is fine. 

[The information follows:] 

Mr. DENT. How much funding is associated with those efforts? Do you know? 

Dr. O’TOOLE. I would have to get back to you on that, Mr. Dent. 

Mr. DENT. That is fine. 

Response: Funding noted below. 

• Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus 

» FY 2005: $1,793,820 

» FY 2006: $206,208 

» FY 2008: $263,938 

» FY 2009: $233,733 

» FY 2010: $225,000 

• Geospatial Location Accountability and Navigation System 

» FY 2009: $1,950,600 

» FY 2010: $2,960,606 

» FY 2011 (Request): $3,112,757 

» FY 2012 (Request): $3,358,598 

• Portable Interoperable Tactical Operations Center 

» FY 2004: $380,200 

» FY 2005: $730,025 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

RADIATION DETECTORS

Mr. DENT. And, also, just on the issue of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear attacks, what is the status of an intelligent personal radiation locator program and who is going to receive those 

pocket-size locators? I know the Japanese and others are pretty 

much purchasing them right now, as you can imagine. Is there any 

consideration for our first responders to get some of those same 

types of devices or equipment? 

Dr. O’TOOLE. Yes. There have been several generations of radiation detectors over the years, and I think most fire departments 

and police departments have some version of radiation detectors. 

The project you referred to is in its early stages and is an attempt to network individuals wearing these devices. So that if you 

were, for example, looking for an improvised nuclear device and 

you had a team of people out walking around, their radiation levels, the radiation that they were seeing with their devices, would 

be transmitted back to a central source and you could start to triangulate where a source might be. 

The device you are talking about also is a more sensitive detector 

of certain kinds of radiation like gamma rays and neutrons. We are 

not there yet, but there is no question there has been progress in 

belt-worn radiation devices over the years. 

Mr. DENT. I yield back. 

NATIONAL BIO AND AGRO-DEFENSE FACILITY

Mr. ADERHOLT. I am going to ask one brief question, and then 

the remaining time I want to give to Mr. Price. I know he has got 

a few more questions. The rest of mine I can submit for the record, 

since we have a vote on. 

But I do want to ask you about the National Bio and Agro-defense Facility. And, of course, the request for $150 million for the 

construction indicates that it is a priority for you, but the central 

utility project has been delayed. What is the current project 

timeline? And in your assessment will it be done by 2018? 

Dr. O’TOOLE. We cannot begin working on the CUP until we either get a fiscal year 2011 budget and permission from Congress 

to proceed with construction or we get permission from Congress 

and Kansas decides that it will spend the remainder of its funds 

on building the CUP, which is unlikely. 

The schedule is probably going to be more impacted by the delay 

in waiting for the risk assessment requested by NAS than by the 

funding for the CUP. So we actually may make it to 2018 or it may 

be delayed by a year at this point. It is very difficult to say. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. 

Mr. Price. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, let me just follow up on that. I have questions 

I, too, will submit for the record. But, as you know, the National 

Academy of Sciences did take a look at this project; and they came 

up with a rather high figure in terms of the risk of the release of 

the foot-and-mouth disease virus within the next 50 years. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

Now there are lots of concerns about that study, with some feeling I think that it exaggerates the risk because it doesn’t consider 

mitigation strategies that will be included in the design and construction of the lab. But, nonetheless, a reassessment does clearly 

need to occur. You simply cannot have assessment findings out 

there that aren’t effectively dealt with. 

All the versions that we have of the 2011 appropriations bill 

have called for safety and security reassessment, although they 

vary somewhat in the degree in which they make funding contingent on that assessment. But just abbreviating this here because 

of our time pressure, what further assessment do you believe is 

necessary and on what time schedule. Won’t that need to apply to 

the entire facility, including the central utility plan? I mean, if 

there are going to be problems with respect to the entire facility— 

and we hope and believe there won’t be in the end—wouldn’t you 

want to have the assurances in place before you construct any component, including the utility plant? 

Dr. O’Toole. Well, first of all, for the record, the National Academy also, as you know, Congressman, stated very strongly that the 

country needs a facility like this. 

Mr. PRICE. I don’t think there is any disputing that on this subcommittee. That has been our position all along. 

Dr. O’TOOLE. I appreciate that. 

In building a facility like this, which is fairly complex, we and 

others have done it before. It is actually better to have iterative 

risk assessment, as we were doing, so that you can actually build 

in safeguards as you get closer and closer to a complete design. We 

are, I think, about 35 percent complete in our design at this point, 

and what you want to know as you go forward are what are the 

vulnerabilities that we need to be looking out for. I expect that 

there will be a lot of people going back and looking at earthquake 

vulnerabilities in all kinds of settings in the next few months and 

years. 

So doing iterative risk assessments is not a bad idea if you use 

them to inform your thinking, but it doesn’t make sense to assume 

that you are never going to mitigate anything you turn up as a risk 

as the National Academy did, and you need to do it at the end 

when you have all of your safeguards in place, not just those engineered protective devices but also your plans and your response 

protocols and so forth. 

Mr. PRICE. I know we need to go. I am going to ask you to elaborate that for the record in some detail, and we will work with you 

as to what that answer might entail. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Mr. Price. 

Dr. O’Toole, they just called the votes. Looks like we are going 

to be in a series of votes. So, in reference to your schedule and, of 

course, I know the members of the committee, we will adjourn the 

committee. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

But we will be probably submitting more than usual questions 

for the record because our time was limited here at the committee 

today. But we do thank you for your appearance and we look forward to hearing your testimony for the record. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you very much. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 68060A.021
37 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 68060A.022
38 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 68060A.023
39 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 68060A.024
40 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 68060A.025
41 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 68060A.026
42 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 68060A.027
43 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 68060A.028
44 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 68060A.029
45 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 68060A.030
46 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 68060A.031
47 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 68060A.032
48 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 68060A.033
49 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 68060A.034
50 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 68060A.035
51 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 68060A.036
52 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 68060A.037
53 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 68060A.038
54 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 68060A.039
55 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 68060A.040
56 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 68060A.041
57 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 68060A.042
58 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 68060A.043
59 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 68060A.044
60 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 68060A.045
61 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 68060A.046
62 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 68060A.047
63 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 68060A.048
64 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 68060A.049
65 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 68060A.050
66 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 68060A.051
67 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 68060A.052
68 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 68060A.053
69 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 68060A.054
70 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 68060A.055
71 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 68060A.056
72 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 68060A.057
73 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 68060A.058
74 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 68060A.059
75 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 68060A.060
76 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 68060A.061
77 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 68060A.062
78 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 68060A.063
79 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 68060A.064
80 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 68060A.065
81 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 68060A.066
82 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 68060A.067
83 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 68060A.068
84 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 68060A.069
85 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 68060A.070
86 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 68060A.071
87 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 68060A.072
88 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 68060A.073
89 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 68060A.074
90 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 68060A.075
91 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 68060A.076
92 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 68060A.077
93 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 68060A.078
94 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 68060A.079
95 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 68060A.080
96 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 68060A.081
97 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 68060A.082
98 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 68060A.083
99 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 68060A.084
100 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 68060A.085
101 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 68060A.086
102 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 68060A.087
103 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 68060A.088
104 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 68060A.089
105 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 68060A.090
106 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 68060A.091
107 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 68060A.092
108 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 68060A.093
109 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 68060A.094
110 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 68060A.095
111 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 68060A.096
112 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 68060A.097
113 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 68060A.098
114 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 68060A.099
115 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 68060A.100
116 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 68060A.101
117 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 68060A.102
118 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 68060A.103
119 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 68060A.104
120 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 68060A.105
121 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 68060A.106
122 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 68060A.107
123 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 68060A.108
124 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 68060A.109
125 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 68060A.110
126 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 68060A.111
127 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 68060A.112
128 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 68060A.113
129 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 68060A.114
130 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 68060A.115
131 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 68060A.116
132 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 68060A.117
133 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 68060A.118
134 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 68060A.119
135 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 68060A.120
136 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 68060A.121
137 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 68060A.122
138 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 68060A.123
139 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 68060A.124
140 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 68060A.125
141 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 68060A.126
142 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 68060A.127
143 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 68060A.128
144 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 68060A.129
145 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 68060A.130
146 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 68060A.131
147 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 68060A.132
148 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 68060A.133
149 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 68060A.134
150 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 68060A.135
151 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 68060A.136
152 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 68060A.137
153 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 68060A.138
154 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 68060A.139
155 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 68060A.140
156 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 68060A.141
157 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 68060A.142
158 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 68060A.143
(159) 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 68060A.145
160 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 68060A.146
161 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 68060A.147
162 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 68060A.148
163 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 68060A.149
164 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 68060A.150
165 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 68060A.151
166 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 68060A.152
167 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 68060A.153
168 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 68060A.154
169 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 68060A.155
170 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 68060A.156
171 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 68060A.157
172 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 68060A.158
173 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 68060A.159
174 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 68060A.160
175 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 68060A.161
176 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 68060A.162
177 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 68060A.163
178 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 68060A.164
179 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 68060A.165
180 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 68060A.166
181 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 68060A.167
182 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 68060A.168
183 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 68060A.169
184 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 68060A.170
185 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 68060A.171
186 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here 68060A.172
187 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here 68060A.173
188 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 68060A.174
189 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 68060A.175
190 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 68060A.176
191 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 68060A.177
192 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 68060A.178
193 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here 68060A.179
194 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here 68060A.180
195 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 68060A.181
196 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here 68060A.182
197 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 here 68060A.183
198 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 here 68060A.184
199 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here 68060A.185
200 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 here 68060A.186
201 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 here 68060A.187
202 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 68060A.188
203 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 68060A.189
204 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here 68060A.190
205 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 68060A.191
206 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 68060A.192
207 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 here 68060A.193
208 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 228 here 68060A.194
209 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here 68060A.195
210 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here 68060A.196
211 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 here 68060A.197
212 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 232 here 68060A.198
213 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 233 here 68060A.199
214 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 234 here 68060A.200
215 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 235 here 68060A.201
216 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 here 68060A.202
217 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 237 here 68060A.203
218 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 here 68060A.204
219 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 here 68060A.205
220 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 here 68060A.206
221 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 241 here 68060A.207
222 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 242 here 68060A.208
223 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 243 here 68060A.209
224 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 244 here 68060A.210
225 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 245 here 68060A.211
226 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 246 here 68060A.212
227 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 247 here 68060A.213
228 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 248 here 68060A.214
229 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 249 here 68060A.215
230 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 250 here 68060A.216
231 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 251 here 68060A.217
232 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 252 here 68060A.218
233 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 253 here 68060A.219
234 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 254 here 68060A.220
235 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 255 here 68060A.221
236 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 256 here 68060A.222
237 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 257 here 68060A.223

emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(239) 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 259 here 68060A.225
240 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 260 here 68060A.226
241 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 261 here 68060A.227
242 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 262 here 68060A.228
243 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 263 here 68060A.229
244 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 264 here 68060A.230
245 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 265 here 68060A.231
246 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 266 here 68060A.232
247 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 267 here 68060A.233
248 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 268 here 68060A.234
249 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 269 here 68060A.235
250 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 270 here 68060A.236
(251) 

TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2011. 

WMD COUNTERMEASURES—THREAT, PROGRAMS 

AND FUNDING 

WITNESSES 

WARREN STERN, DIRECTOR, DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE 

ALEXANDER GARZA, M.D., ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF HEALTH AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Department has redacted classified information from this transcript.] 

OPENING STATEMENT: CHAIRMAN ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. The hearing is called to order. Today we have a 

classified briefing to discuss the Department of Homeland Security’s programs related to weapons of mass destruction. We expect 

to begin with a discussion of current risk and threat scenarios, The 

Department of Homeland Security programs to detect and deter 

such threats, and countermeasures being developed and deployed. 

To help us better understand these programs, we welcome Warren Stern, director of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, 

DNDO, in his first appearance before the subcommittee, and Dr. 

Alexander Garza, Assistant Secretary of Health Affairs and the Department’s chief medical officer who is returning to us. So welcome 

to both of you. 

Although I understand you will both submit unclassified segments for the record, this hearing is intended to cover discussion 

of material that may rise to the secret level. I expect your presentations and the questions and concerns members may raise will fall 

in both classified and unclassified areas. 

Before we begin, I would like to remind members and staff that 

because information we receive over the next 2 hours is highly classified, it is not to be repeated in any unsecure setting or for any 

other than official purposes. 

We will have an official transcript that will be classified at the 

secret level, although we will ask the Department to review it and 

provide a redacted version, which, if appropriate, we will publish 

as part of our public hearing record. There will be no electronic devices—that includes pagers, BlackBerrys, or cell phones—in the 

hearing. If someone has inadvertently brought such a device into 

the room, please give it to our staff who will safeguard it outside 

until the hearing is over. 

The threat that weapons of mass destruction could be used by 

terrorists or other adversaries to attack the United States homeland has been a central driver of all of DHS operational agencies. 

These include CBP and ICE which seek to identify and deter weapons of mass destruction that could cross our borders or damage 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
252 

international supply chains: The Coast Guard, responsible for security of our coasts, ports, and sea lanes; TSA, which overseas transportation and other infrastructure security; and the Secret Service, 

whose protective mission also entails planning for scenarios involving threats of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear attacks; planning and grant assistance through FEMA and the National Protection and Programs Directorate; training at the Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Center; and the S&T research programs are also heavily focused on weapons of mass threats. 

For DNDO and OHA, addressing weapons of mass destruction is 

the priority mission. The Department of Homeland Security has responsibility through your offices to plan for and support development for new detection technology; lead interagency efforts to design and develop architects to detect and respond to threats; and 

to sustain testing, red-teaming, and forensic capability. And these 

efforts could not be more critical. 

As outlined in public reports, al Qaeda and its leadership have 

for years called for the use of weapons of mass destruction against 

the United States. This has never changed and it is clearly a reason for vigilance with regard to new and continuing threats from 

them and their confederates. 

In addition, the threat of biological or chemical weapons is not 

trivial and there is much basis to remain vigilant. The memories 

of the sarin gas attacks on the Tokyo subway system or the 2001 

anthrax attacks in the United States are vivid examples. 

The fundamental questions we hope you address today include, 

number one, a review of the current threat environment in which 

your agencies have built your missions; number two, what unique 

roles your agencies play not only with the Department of Homeland Security, but in the larger national effort to plan for and address these threats; and number three, how DNDO’s core mission 

may change with the shift of basic R&D to the S&T Directorate. 

Given the crucial importance of this topic to our security and to 

perhaps our very own way of life, I expect an animated discussion 

here this afternoon. 

I will ask Director Stern, to be followed by Assistant Secretary 

Garza, to summarize your written testimony in a brief oral statement to allow sufficient time for members’ questions. 

Before you begin, I would like to recognize our distinguished 

ranking member, Mr. Price, for any remarks that he may have. 

And also I would like to recognize that Stephanie Gupta is having 

a birthday today, who is the clerk of the subcommittee. Stephanie 

is clerk on the minority side. And we wish her a happy birthday. 

And we will turn it over to you, Mr. Price. 

[The information follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
253 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 276 here 68060A.237
254 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 277 here 68060A.238
255 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 278 here 68060A.239
256 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 279 here 68060A.240
257 

OPENING STATEMENT: RANKING MEMBER PRICE

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in wishing 

happy birthday to Stephanie Gupta and welcoming our witnesses 

here today. This hearing takes place as we all realize that terrorists are determined to attack our country again. Osama bin laden 

has made it known that obtaining weapons of mass destruction is 

a top priority and that, in his own words, al Qaeda seeks to inflict 

an attack akin to Hiroshima on American soil. Al Qaeda in the 

Arabian Peninsula has voiced similar desires. 

While the most widely used definition of ‘‘weapons of mass destruction’’ consists of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons 

with the unique ability to kill large numbers of people with a very 

small amount of material, in this hearing we will primarily focus 

on the nuclear and biological threats. 

Since the end of the Cold War the U.S. has spent billions to successfully secure nuclear weapons, materials and technology in the 

former states of the Soviet Union. However, during this same period, the world has also witnessed a new era of proliferation with 

North Korea and Iran, passing key milestones in developing their 

nuclear weapons programs. In the Middle East and Asia, nuclear 

arms rivalries have intensified. In Pakistan, Dr. A.Q. Kahn led a 

nuclear proliferation network that served as a one-stop shop for 

countries aspiring to develop nuclear weapons. 

If not constrained, this continued proliferation could prompt nuclear crises and even nuclear use at the very time that we and the 

Russians are reducing our nuclear weapons deployments and stockpiles. 

While advancements in biotechnology have led to important 

progress in the medical field, it has also increased the availability 

of pathogens and technologies that could be used for terrorist ends. 

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has had a particular interest 

in these biological weapons along with other attack methods. Many 

biological pathogens and nuclear materials around the globe are 

poorly secured and vulnerable to theft, with the risk of ending up 

on the black market and thus inevitably in the hands of terrorists. 

In December of 2008, the commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation, and Terrorism issued a report noting that, quote, unless the world community acts decisively 

and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon 

of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in 

the world by the end of 2013. the commission believed that terrorists were more likely to obtain and use a biological weapon than 

a nuclear weapon and that the U.S. Government needs to be more 

aggressive in limiting the proliferation of biological weapons to reduce the prospect of a bioterror attack. Let us hope that in the intervening years, security has increased so this threat is not looming quite as large. 

Today I look forward to discussing what DHS’s Office of Health 

Affairs and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office are doing to reduce the likelihood of a nuclear or biological attack; the programs 

you are developing to quickly identify an occurrence; and how DHS, 

along with other Federal, State, and local entities will respond. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
258 

While both of your budgets are relatively small, your missions are 

far-reaching and the results of failure could be catastrophic. 

Dr. Garza, Director Stern, I look forward to a frank discussion 

of these matters and welcome you to the subcommittee. 

[The information follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
259 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 284 68060A.241
260 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 285 68060A.242
261 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. And Director Stern, we will start 

with you, and we look forward to your testimony. 

OPENING STATEMENT: DIRECTOR STERN

Mr. STERN. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Aderholt, 

Ranking Member Price, and other distinguished members of the 

subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you today 

about DNDO’s goals, its missions. As you indicated, I have submitted testimony for the record, but I would like to spend a few 

minutes hitting some of the key points in that written testimony. 

As you may know, I have been at DNDO for approximately 7 

months now, and I have learned a lot and imposed a few changes 

at DNDO. I bring to DNDO three basic principles: Discipline, 

transparency, and intellectual rigor. In terms of discipline. I am 

working very hard to ensure that we follow the legislative mandate 

that we have been given. In terms of transparency. I am trying 

very hard to ensure that we work with Congress and are transparent with Congress and, to the extent possible, with the American public. And in terms of intellectual rigor, I am trying very 

hard to ensure that there is a good oversight and peer review to 

ensure that what we are doing is supported by basic common 

sense. 

These three principles have led to two big changes at DNDO 

since I have started. One is the strategic plan for the global nuclear 

detection architecture. As you may know, Congress has pressed for 

many years that we develop such a strategic plan. And in my first 

3 months, we, with seven other agencies of the U.S. Government 

who are responsible for this mission, drafted very carefully and cooperatively a strategic plan which we delivered to Congress at the 

end of last year. 

The other big change is how we look at the architecture. We have 

historically looked at the architecture, the detection architecture, in 

terms of static detectors, in terms of what the likelihood that a 

piece of nuclear material passing a detector will in fact be detected 

by that detector. But in terms of imposing an intellectual rigor on 

the way that we look at the architecture, it is much more defensible to look at the architecture as a defense architecture; that is, 

to assume that there will be some information that we will be able 

to respond to. 

And so what we are looking at the architecture now is a surge 

architecture. That is, how can we design an architecture that will 

allow the United States to surge assets in order to find nuclear radioactive material when there is some information available about 

that nuclear or radioactive material? This is one of the reasons that 

from the outset of my term, I focused very strongly on supporting 

State and local authorities and developing nuclear radiation detection capabilities. 

Of course, only the States and locals have the numbers of people 

that can get quickly to a site or to an area to look for nuclear and 

radioactive material. And I am very pleased, consequently, that in 

the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request we have additional 

support for the Securing the City program for New York and for 

one other city or urban area to be selected on a competitive basis. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
262 

In terms of technology R&D, I see two key changes that we are 

making at DNDO. The first is to rely more on commercially available technologies than we ever have before. In the 6 years since 

DNDO was created, commercial technologies have changes in a 

rather fundamental way. And a lot of the applications that the U.S. 

Government needs are available in the commercial sector. So wherever possible in the future, we will use the 85, 90 percent solution 

that is available off the shelf commercially rather than developing 

our own capabilities. That leads us to focus a lot more in helping 

to set standards, which is part of our legislative mandate, and to 

test to those standards. 

So the second big technical change we are going to be imposing 

is to follow the National Academy of Science’s recommendation of 

following a model test, model approach, in our evaluation of detectors, and you will see that change. 

You may or may not be aware that we are now recruiting for the 

individual who would head the office that does the modeling and 

the testing. And one of the key requirements for that post is to understand and be able to implement the National Academy’s recommendations on the model test, model approach. 

So, Congressman, our research and development work will consistently be matched with the needs of the global nuclear detection 

architecture and the operational requirements of our end users. 

Our budget request is focused on preventing radiological nuclear 

terrorism by enhancing our ability to detect these nuclear radioactive materiels. And I appreciate this opportunity to talk to you 

today about any of the issues you would like to talk about related 

to the domestic nuclear detection architecture. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
263 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 290 here 68060A.243
264 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 291 here 68060A.244
265 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 292 here 68060A.245
266 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 293 here 68060A.246
267 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 294 here 68060A.247
268 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 295 here 68060A.248
269 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 296 here 68060A.249
270 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 297 here 68060A.250
271 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 298 here 68060A.251
272 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 299 here 68060A.252
273 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 300 here 68060A.253
274 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 301 here 68060A.254
275 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 302 here 68060A.255
276 

Mr ADERHOLT. Dr. Garza. 

OPENING STATEMENT: DR. GARZA

Dr. GARZA. Thank you, sir. Good afternoon. Chairman Aderholt, 

Ranking Member Price, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. It is 

a privilege to be here to discuss the Office of Health Affairs programs and funding that support the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to combat weapons of mass destruction. 

OHA serves as the principal authority for all medical and health 

issues for the Department of Homeland Securiy. We look at health 

through the prism of naional security, providing medical, public 

health, and scientific expertise in support of the Department’s mission to prepare for, respond to, and recover from all threats. 

Our responsibilities include serving as the principal adviser to 

the Secretary and to the FEMA Administrator on medical and public health issues; leading and coordinating the biological and chemical defense programs; providing medical and scientific expertise to 

support DHS preparedness and response efforts; and leading the 

Department’s workforce health protection and medical support activities. 

OHA furthermore serves as the point of contact for State and 

local governments on medical and public health issues for the Department. The threat of an attack using a WMD is real and so is 

the risk. As Congressman Price pointed out, the WMD Commission 

reported on December 3, 2008, that we must be vigilant in addressing several urgent threats, including bioterrorism. In their report, 

World at Risk, the Commission found that, and I quote, ‘‘Unless 

the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is 

more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be 

used in a terrorist act somewhere in the world by the end of 2013.’’ 

Because DHS understands this threat, high consequence biological 

attacks were identified as a high-priority item within the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. 

Today I will provide a short overview of OHA initiatives that 

help to mitigate these threats and prepare the Nation to respond 

to and recover from chemical and biological attacks. OHA lends our 

expertise to a number of initiatives across the Department that 

focus on the threat of biological attack. These efforts span the pillars of biodefense and include awareness, prevention and protection, detection and surveillance, and response and recovery. This 

end-to-end approach to biodefense is necessary in order to communicate the current national capability and develop a strategy for 

further biodefense improvement. 

OHA works closely with the DHS Science and Technology Directorate and the Office of Intelligence and Analysis to assess our current and emerging threats of natural or intentional events involving biological agents as well as chemical, radiologic, and nuclear 

agents to the U.S. population. 

OHA applies these risk assessments in operating, managing, and 

supporting the Department’s biological defense programs. Our work 

is primarily focused on addressing the threat of biological attack 

through the BioWatch program, and surveillance through the national biosurveillance integration system. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
277 

In addition, we focus on helping the build preparedness at the 

State and local level. The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes 

$7 million for the NBIS and $90 million for continued operations 

of our deployed BioWatch detection system. The fiscal year 2012 

budget request also includes an increase of $25 million to fund the 

start of operational testing and evaluation for the BioWatch Generation-3 automated detection system. The Gen-3 system will advance current detection technology by significantly reducing the 

time to detection of a biological agent in the environment. This 

early detection allows communities to provide medical countermeasures to affected persons in a timely manner and thus saving 

more lives. 

OHA further coordinates the Department’s health preparedness 

efforts to protect against high-consequence chemical events. Chemical events, whether from terrorist attack or accidental release, 

pose a significant homeland security threat. Chemical agents can 

cause immediate mass casulaties, numbering in the thousands if 

released in or near a densely populated area. 

Chemical is different from biological. The response window is 

shorter and far less forgiving. Therefore, our approach to preparedness for chemical events is much different. We focus more on building an overarching defense framework and building rapid response 

cabilities as well as enhancing community resilience. 

We are doing this now through a demonstration project in Baltimore that focuses on partnerships at the Federal, State, and local 

levels. Similar to the biological terrorism risk assessment, OHA 

uses the chemical terrorism risk assessment in prioritizing our programs. The fiscal year 2012 budget request of $2.4 million will 

allow OHA to continue to provide health and medical expertise related to chemical preparedness, response, and resilience in support 

of an integrated chemical defense framework to protect against 

high-consequence events. 

I want to thank this committee for the opportunity to testify and 

I look forward to answering any questions that you may have. 

Thank you. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Dr. Garza. 

[The information follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
278 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 308 68060A.256
279 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 309 68060A.257
280 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 310 68060A.258
281 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 311 68060A.259
282 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 312 68060A.260
283 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 313 68060A.261
284 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 314 68060A.262
285 

CURRENT THREATS

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you both for your summary of what your 

job priorities are and what you do to try to make sure that we have 

a safe Nation. 

One thing that I would like to start out is maybe let you refocus 

just a minute and maybe giving the subcommittee a brief summary 

of the current threat picture for weapons of mass destruction in 

this country. I think it would be of interest, I know, to myself and 

to other members of the subcommittee. So if you could take a few 

minutes and just talk a little bit about the current threats that are 

out there as we speak. 

Dr. Stern, we will start with you. 

Mr. STERN. Thank you. At DNDO we take the information that 

the Intelligence Community provides us in terms of the risks of 

various activities, and we try and build our defenses based on the 

likelihood that an adversary would take a given path; for example, 

to move nuclear or radioactive material, you know, into the United 

States. So we don’t actually evaluate the actual likelihood that an 

entity like al Qaeda wants or is able to attack the United States, 

but rather we take the input from the Intelligence Community and 

build our models around that to try to identify how it is that we 

can detect those materials should they come through various pathways. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay, Do you want to add anything? 

Dr. GARZA. Sir, yes. I can tell you this, and part of it is in relation to what Director Stern says. We take the threat information 

and we build it into risk profiles on how we are going to direct our 

operational programs. So we work very closely with the Science 

and Technology Directorate who builds the BTRA, the Biological 

Terrorism Risk Assessment, and CTRA, the Chemical Terrorism 

Risk Assessment, as well as an integrated risk that combines both 

biological, chemical, and nuclear. 

Specifically to your question though, I can tell you this: [Redacted] Without getting into a much higher classification scheme 

[Redacted]. 

If we look at the biological terrorism risks assessment provided 

by S&T [Redacted] majority fo the threat. There are other agents 

on the list that we are concerned about as well. But [Redacted] 

does occupy the top spot. 

If you look at the integrated risk assessments—and I would ask 

you if you had further questions about that, you should get a brief 

from S&T. [Redacted] Nuclear material is much easier to control 

the movement of and the control of, where biological agents are 

ubiquitous in the environment and they are located in labs around 

the world. So the control and access to them are much simpler than 

it is for nuclear material. And using these risk assessments and 

the different threat information is what drives a lot of what our 

operational programs are in the BioWatch as well as others. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Director Stern, let me ask you this: What particular scenarios are they putting before you that you have actually 

planned for? 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
286 

Mr. STERN. Yeah. This is following on what Dr. Garza said, the 

nuclear terrorism risk assessment. At DNDO, we do lead the DHS 

radiological and nuclear—— 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Is your mic on? 

Mr. STERN. Sorry. So at DHS, we do lead the radiological and nuclear risk threat assessment for the Science and Technology Division. But this document and series of analyses look at particular 

pathways and help us to prioritize pathways, not the overall risk. 

In the nuclear and radiological world, following on again what Dr. 

Garza said, there is a hierachy of risks in the sense that radiological materials are of less consequence but are commonly available both in the U.S. and overseas; whereas nuclear materials, nuclear weapon materials, are very carefully controlled. So there are 

different scenarios we look at. 

And as I mentioned in my introductory remarks, one of the 

things that we are shifting our focus on is to look at an architecture that is a surge architecture that, again, assumes we will have 

a certain amount of information regarding the attack that would be 

coming and that will allow us to more rigorously defend and detect—defend the U.S. and detect the nuclear or radioactive material. And that effort very much is linked to this nuclear risk assessment. And in the Intelligence Community we all, again, work together to identify what sort of information might be available in 

the case of the illicit movement of nuclear material and what 

wouldn’t; that allows us to build our models and develop an adequate architecture. 

DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE: STRUCTURE & PRIORITIES

Mr. ADERHOLT. We may want to follow up with that shortly. But 

let me go ahead and address this. Of course, this is your first time, 

Director Stern, to appear before this subcommittee and a chance 

for us to get a sense of your vision of DNDO. It will come as no 

surprise to you that some have suggested your agency be folded in 

other parts of the Department of Homeland Security. 

Why does DNDO need to remain a stand-along operation within 

the Department? And what are your key priorities for the office 

going forward? 

Mr. STERN. I am not sure I fully agree with the premise. I believe that DNDO is a unique organization that is able and is focused on detection, detection systems, detection technologies, detection architecture. And there is no, in my mind, ideal structure for 

us. We need to be in a place where we have the access to the Secretary, like we do now, and to other agencies to keep this issue of 

improving U.S. defenses against nuclear terrorism in the forefront. 

But I don’t assume that the only structure that is right is the one 

we have now. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. What is your explanation to other requests to 

move the transformational research activity to Science and Technology? 

Mr. STERN. You know, that decision was made, of course, before 

I came onboard. And like any such decision, there are pluses and 

minuses. The plus is, of course, it brings a lot of the long-term research and development across the Department into one place. And 

one of the negatives is one of the founding principles of DNDO of 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
287 

having an integrated system where we have research and development that leads to testing, that leads to production and acquisition. 

All together, that gets separated a little bit. 

Now I am sure that the Under Secreatary—Dr. O’Toole—of 

Science and Technology and I will have a very good working relationship. And I am sure no matter what happens we will make it 

work. But the key to success is to ensure that the mission of DNDO 

is not affected by this transfer. So there are pluses and minuses. 

But whatever Congress decides, we will do our best to make sure 

that it doesn’t in any way harm the mission of DNDO. 

If I could continue because I—actually in your last question, I 

didn’t finish the second part in terms of the criticisms of DNDO 

and my vision for the future. There have been, as you suggest, a 

number of criticisms in the past of DNDO. And this is why, you 

know, I very strongly believe in bringing to DNDO these three 

principles I outlined at the outset. 

One is discipline, and we need to keep very disciplined on the 

things we are doing so that we can focus on our legislative mandate. When I came onboard, there were a few things we were doing 

that sort of were on the edges of this. So I am trying very hard to 

bring it together so we can focus on this very clear mandate. 

In terms of transparency, part of the criticism of DNDO was this 

lack of cooperation and transparency with Congress. So I am trying 

very hard to ensure that with all congressional staff and others, 

you know, we are transparent: that you know what we are doing 

and understand why we are doing it. We won’t always agree, but 

Congress has a fundamental right to know what we are doing and 

to effect that through the budget process. 

And third, this intellectual rigor. I think some on the outside 

have not viewed our activities as following a logical and defensible 

intellectual program. So I am trying very hard to make sure that 

anything we do, I can defend to you and to others in an intellectually consistent way. And that gets back to transparency. I look very 

much forward to having some of those on the outside who have 

criticized us in the past, such as the National Academy, to look 

again and hear what we have done and see to what extent the 

same criticisms apply. My vision is simply to focus on our legislative mandate and to do it well. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. How will DNDO system development acquisition 

and program activities be affected by the mover? And will you be 

a priority customer of S&T? 

Mr. STERN. Well, there are still some details we would need to 

work out. the transitional and applied research feeds into the solutions in development processes. So we are in the process now of 

trying to negotiate an MOU in terms of how that would work after 

they depart DNDO, if they depart DNDO. It is again a challenge. 

It is not insurmountable. The process works best when everything 

is well integrated, but again it is not the only structure that will 

work. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Price. 

BIOSURVEILLANCE

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
288 

Dr. Garza, let me turn to you and to the subject of biosurveillance. In 2008 this subcommittee directed the National Academy of 

Science to evaluate the BioWatch program and to compare it to an 

enhanced public health surveillance system. The National Academy 

of Science found that a network of sensors in strategic locations offered potential advantages in terms of the early detection of airborne agents. But the BioWatch’s current methods of testing and 

evaluation needed improvement. Moreover, a system of this sort 

has inherent limitations both in geographical reach and in the 

range of agents it might be programmed to detect. 

Now, I notice you furnished a chart here today which diagrams 

some of the advantages in terms of early detection, early treatment, and lives saved, the advantages of a BioWatch-type system. 

But these inherent limitations, of course, still exist and will exist 

no matter how much we expand this system. And I don’t think we 

have ever had an answer to the question, How much is enough? 

What are the outer limits, the boundaries that probably will determine the reach of this system? 

Since that report was completed, your agency has responded to 

some of the recommendations of the NIS report as you have been 

working on the Generation-3 technology. And I want to take up 

some of that in more detail in the second round of questions. 

But at this moment I want to focus on the issue of the inherent 

limitations in the BioWatch system. The National Academy’s report 

made it quite clear that even if it were widely deployed, BioWatch 

would need to be complemented by improved intake and analysis 

of data through the public health system, which is inherently 

broader and more flexible than BioWatch’s system of detection. 

So let me ask you three related questions about this. OHA has 

been working with Federal, State and local partners, including a 

consortium of government and academic institutions, and in my 

State of North Carolina to address this public health side of the biological detection equation. And as you know, North Carolina pioneered this years ago. Can you fill us in on the progress that you 

have made on these efforts? 

Secondly, how does OHA intend to engage more State and local 

partners in these activities? Assuming that this kind of data intake 

effort, this early detection, early analysis effort, that it is inherently going to be a partnership, it is not going to be simply run by 

OHA, it is going to require these partnerships at the State and 

local level, how do you plan to engage these partners? 

And then thirdly, to what extent is your work with State and 

local partners incorporated into the national biosurveillance integration system? 

Dr. GARZA. Thank you, Congressman Price. So you are absolutely 

correct that the BioWatch system does have limitations in what it 

can perform. It has absolute responsibility for things that it does 

detect for. But it is part of a system, a larger system, as you appropriately mentioned, and part of a larger biodefense picture which 

does include biosurveillance. 

You also mentioned the program in North Carolina, and our 

work with the project in North Carolina has been very encouraging. And you know as well as I do that the State of North Carolina has a very good integrated system between public health, 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
289 

emergency departments, law enforcement, and the different communities that it takes to have a very robust surveillance picture. 

So with OHA working with the State and local and territorial leaders, that is an important mission of the national biosurveillance integration system. 

In addition to the work that we have been doing with North 

Carolina, we have also had outreach to several other States. And 

we are starting to make some forays into how can we work best 

with them. Now, part of that involves letting them have awareness 

or use of our tools within the NBIS system, particularly the biological common operating picture. So the States commonly understand 

what their own data is, but they frequently do not have the national picture on what data looks like. And as we all know in dealing with pandemics as well as other issues, it is very important for 

us to have global situational awareness, which is what the biological common operating picture is built to do; so that somebody from 

the State of North Carolina could see what is going on in the State 

of North Carolina or the State of Alabama or likewise, because it 

is only through this common situational awareness that we can 

best build that biosurveillance picture. So that is one part of engaging our partners. 

Other parts are a little bit more security-centric with other parts 

of our office, even outside of biosurveillance. We are quickly adapting to the notion that health does belong in our national fusion centers. And we have been advocating this across the country and at 

the national level, that public health does belong as part of a national security picture. So we have been advocating for and assisting with getting health partners into our fusion centers, where they 

can be sitting next to law enforcement and other disciplines to interpret data as well as reports coming in for the health effects and/ 

or looking for other markers of what could potentially be a healthrelated event. 

So those are a couple of the ways that we are more engaged with 

the States. We are always looking for ways to further engage with 

the States and we really—we work very well with the State Public 

Health officials. I meet with them regularly, probably two or three 

times a year, to discuss issues like this. And we are very much engaged with them. 

Mr. PRICE. The presence of these public health efforts is of course 

a source of great strength and expanded reach for you. I suppose 

the downside of it though, the downside of the partnership, a character of this, is that if those partners aren’t there, if these capacities aren’t developed in a given State, then it is problematic how 

much you can achieve. Do you have any way of giving us an overview of how far along these capacities are? States, after all, are 

strapped for funds right now. I mean, there are plenty of competing 

priorities. 

We are confident that what is going on in North Carolina will be 

something of a model, something of a demonstration for the rest of 

the country. But do you have any kind of tabulated account of the 

capabilities that you are looking at in the various States, how far 

along you are toward having this kind of early detection and analysis capability; also requires, of course, data processing capacity. It 

requires a lot of things there. So there are some advantages and 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
290 

disadvantages, I would say, that come with the State-centric, Statecentered nature of this effort. 

Dr. GARZA. Yes, sir. So as far as tabulations go, we are currently 

exploring, or we are currently in the works of getting this biological 

common operating picture out to four States. As you know, we have 

been working a lot with the State of North Carolina to develop 

their capacity for integrated biosurveillance. You are correct that 

this does need to be a bidirectional flow between the State and the 

Federal Government. 

Unfortunately, in terms of biosurveillance, that data is very slow 

in coming because it has to go from local to State, and then usually 

to CDC, because that is the way the information flows. But I think 

some of the very best ways, though, that we could go about trying 

to improve information flow is looking for more novel approaches 

to gaining situational awareness. Now, Whether that is through 

different forms of data with poison centers, with emergency medical services data, and issues like that is something that we are exploring. 

Mr. PRICE. I understand that that diversity of data in fact is a 

very important consideration. I am told, for example, that there 

might be a certain payoff in tracking Pepto-Bismol sales at drugstores. That sort of thing could be indicative of a significant issue. 

Dr. GARZA. Yes. You are absolutely right. Part of the strategy 

will be reaching out to some of our private sector partners as well, 

to do exactly what you are talking about, which is trying to get 

data from retail pharmacies on if there has been a run on cold and 

flu medicine, for example, in a period of time where you would not 

expect that to happen, such as during the summer months. 

So we are exploring those options as well. And I think we have 

a fairly good lead on getting that sort of private sector data. It is 

always difficult working with private sector data. It is always difficult working with private sector data just because of the business 

aspect of it, and people don’t want to release their data on sales 

and things like that. But in working with some middle kind of— 

wherever the data is aggregated, I think we have a better chance 

of doing that. 

But I do want to get back to your point on funding, though. And 

that is, the majority of the funding for the public health partners 

does come through CDC and through HHS–ASPR as well as 

FEMA. So one of the things that our office does do is advise 

FEMA—and FEMA grantees typically spend a lot of money on 

emergency response equipment and, you know, law enforcementtype issues and things like that. So part of our job is trying to convince them that public health is an important part of emergency 

management and emergency response, and getting those public 

health partners the ability to apply for those FEMA grant dollars 

to support those public health initiatives that you and I know are 

so important. 

Mr. PRICE. Finally, just could you fill us in on the extent to 

which this is integrated into the NBIS? 

Dr. GARZA. The integration of the States into the NBIS, sir? 

Mr. PRICE. Yes. 

Dr. GARZA. As I mentioned, right now as it stands, it is very 

much a unidirectional flow which is going from the national to the 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
291 

States. The data that we do receive is a lot of—not what you would 

think as traditional data, whether it is looking for open-source reporting on disease states as well as getting different information 

from States from our fusion centers and various customers like 

that. 

But I do want to hit on that we have made tremendous strides 

I think in reaching out to the States to get that sort of bidirectional 

flow, as well as other partners. 

I recently participated with the DOD in an exercise. I am looking 

at just this issue. And the director—or I am sorry, he is the Assistant Secretary for Chem-Bio for DOD—is very much interested in 

partnering with DHS on this biosurveillance picture for a more 

global picture. 

As we know, DOD is deployed worldwide, so they have a particular interest in surveillance. We recognize that things that start 

overseas are going to be a risk to homeland security. So we do have 

a vested interest in making sure that we are partnered up. But we 

are always looking for ways to strengthen that relationship with 

our States as well. And I think we are headed down a good path. 

Thank you. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Carter. 

ADVANCED SPECTROSCOPIC PORTAL DEVICES: IMPLEMENTING

RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My question is about the advanced spectroscopic quarterly ASP 

machines. I understand these machines are intended to screen people, cars, trucks, and containers for radioactive material at 600 

U.S. ports. I also understand that the fiscal year 2012 budget will 

fund the procurement of 44 of these systems. 

As we talk about how over recent years DNDO has been criticized in its research development testing of the ASP machines. 

How has the research development testing of the 44 planned additional systems been improved? What procedures have you done to 

improve them? Do you feel that DNDO—or are you not able to double-check the improvement on these machines? And because you 

are having developmental testing, can you assure us that the 

money we are spending at this time is going to be well spent and 

the equipment procurement will not again be criticized by GAO or 

the National Academy of Science? 

Mr. STERN. Thank you for your question, Congressman. I guess 

I will answer your last question first which is, no, I cannot assure 

you that we won’t be criticized by GAO or the National Academy. 

But I can assure you that we will do things in an intellectually rigorous way and in a disciplined way to minimize the likelihood of 

that. 

The request for funding for a number of ASPs in fiscal year 2012 

is based on the assumption that the ASP makes it through testing, 

which is expected to be completed this year. That is not a foregone 

conclusion. Earlier this year, we began the last phase of field validation. We are at the tail end of that field validation, and we will 

go back to the Acquisitions Review Board to decide the path forward. And that path may be that, in fact, this device is ready to 

be fielded, or it may be that it is not, and it may be that it is time 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
292 

to terminate the program. But I am committed to following that 

process and ensuring that the result that comes out is a defensible 

result and something I can explain in clear terms to you. 

Mr. CARTER. These are pretty expensive products, and some 

would say they are only marginally better than existing systems. 

I am wondering if you have looked at, secondly, inspection systems 

of the type—I don’t have the mic turned on, I am sorry. Some say 

they are not any better than what we have already got. 

Mr. STERN. The certain threat materials—and this is a classified 

room so we can talk a little more broadly about it. [Redacted] 

So in answering your question, the ASP—the ASP device in secondary is a much better system than the current system we have 

in terms of dealing with the threat [Redacted]. But it is not necessarily the only system out there. [Redacted] And while we will 

be doing better, we won’t be solving the problem with the ASP. 

Mr. CARTER. And GAO and the National Academy of Sciences 

make these criticisms. I assume they put them in writing, and the 

people who are developing this product have looked at them and 

are trying to figure out how to solve what these folks are seeing 

as a problem, which may be your research and development might 

not have seen as a problem; is that correct? 

Mr. STERN. That is correct. I personally review all of these reports, and particularly the last National Academy report, very 

closely; and the test-model-test, or model-test-model approach they 

recommend is resulting in a fundamental shift in the way we do 

business at DNDO. Their recommendation for spiral development 

will be a fundamental part of the ASP program if it goes forward, 

or any other program. A number of their fundamental recommendations will be part of DNDO. Some of the other recommendations that they have made are good recommendations but 

are not necessarily practically implementable. 

But yes, we do follow the report, the criticisms. Again, this gets 

back to this intellectual rigor, and we incorporate it in what we do 

to the extent that we can. 

Mr. CARTER. And the reason I ask the question, because the first 

time you answered the question, it was sort of we are trying to do 

everything we can that we are able to do. And I was wondering, 

I want to make sure you were looking at at least addressing the 

issues. Is it beyond the scope of what you think is capable? Do you 

reply to them in any form or fashion to say this is really not scientifically capable? 

Mr. STERN. Yes, if I could give you an example. The National 

Academy report which again, I have a fundamental respect for the 

National Academy and their recommendations. But one of their 

recommendations was that we consider in our cost/benefit analysis 

a comparison with a device that doesn’t really exist yet. They noted 

that if you took the data from an existing device and put it into 

a computer with a more advanced computer code, you would get a 

better answer. And it is a reasonable point. It is intellectually a 

reasonable point. But it is not really part of a cost/benefit analysis, 

because in a cost/benefit analysis, you examine the costs and benefits of devices that actually exist, not that in theory could exist. 

So we reply to the National Academy that it is a reasonable point 

but it is not something we can follow. I have no doubts that DNDO, 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
293 

with its current staff and current budget, can do a better job than 

probably any other organization in testing, in setting standards for 

nuclear devices. I am just not sure in the past we have approached 

it the right way, and I am committed to turning things so that we 

are approaching it in the right way. 

I think we test devices more rigorously, even in the past, than 

any other entity in the world. And you know in Washington, no 

good deed goes unpunished. The more we test, the more things we 

expose. Of course, other devices that are out there that haven’t 

been tested, you know, don’t get the same degree of scrutiny. 

So just the fundamental answer to your question is, yes, we are 

capable of implementing any recommendations that the National 

Academy or the GAO have made. Yes, we take them very seriously. 

And yes, they will affect what we do in the future in a fundamental 

way. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Ms. Roybal-Allard. 

GLOBAL NUCLEAR DETECTION ARCHITECTURE: STRATEGIC PLAN

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Stern, in your opening comments, you 

mentioned that you have completed the strategic plan. And the 

lack of a plan was what GAO highlighted as part of the failure 

with regards to the ASP. They also said that as a result of the lack 

of a strategic plan that attention was taken away from other aspects that were important [Redacted]. It also mentioned that it delayed the creation of a global nuclear detection architecture, which 

we were talking about just a little bit earlier. 

Can you elaborate a little bit on your strategic plan and how it 

is put together as a guide for future investments in technology, and 

also how it is used in a way that focus is not taken away from 

other aspects or other responsibilities that you have? 

Mr. STERN. Sure. Thank you for the question. Yes, one of GAO’s 

fundamental recommendations or criticisms, if you will, was that 

focus on the ASP detracted from our broader responsibility of looking at the global and the domestic nuclear detection architecture. 

And I actually agree with that. 

In the past, we have spent so much effort on this one device that 

we haven’t spent adequate effort on other areas of the global nuclear detection architecture, on other pathways, as you indicate, 

Congresswoman. So I fundamentally agree with the criticism, and 

it is why when I first came on—I think my first 3 or 4 months with 

the seven other agencies that are responsible to develop the strategic plan, as Congress and GAO had recommended. The strategic 

plan begins where any strategic plan needs to. 

It defines what the global nuclear detection architecture is. Before the strategic plan, there was no interagency or any kind of a 

definition of where the architecture began and where it ended. So 

there couldn’t be really discussion of the very important element of 

roles and responsibilities. So the strategic plan begins with the definition, which took quite some time and effort to hammer out. It 

then moves to fundamental goals of the architecture, and then fundamental objectives of architecture, and then performance goals 

and then, very importantly, the roles and responsibilities of the 

many agencies that are involved in this effort. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
294 

So the strategic plan to me in any case is a framework for our 

efforts in the future. And you may have seen our budget briefings, 

for example; and our budget requests are all now put in the context 

of the roles and responsibilities and the performance goals that are 

identified in the strategic plan. And that gives Congress a degree 

of transparency into what we at DNDO, we at DHS and what, 

across the government, what we are doing and what we are spending on detection architecture, because you have specific performance goals and the roles that each agency plays within that. 

But the other big and more precise thing that came out of the 

strategic plan that worked for me was this recognition that, given 

the physical limitations for example, [Redacted], we needed to 

relook at the concept that we were using to define our efforts. And 

this is where we have come up with this surge architecture; that 

is, the ability to respond to certain capability—to certain threats 

quickly, and adequate resources, and that then leads ultimately to, 

as I described at the outset, the need for providing substantial assistance to State and local authorities so that the State and local 

authorities working with the Federal Government can surge assets 

in order to detect nuclear radioactive material when we are presented with information that will help guide us. 

So we begin with the strategic plan. That is the underlying 

framework for what we do, and that provides some degree of intellectual rigor and a transparency for Congress in terms of what we 

are doing. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. That is what I wanted to ask you about, because my understanding is as part of what needs to be done is the 

development of a metrics system so that you can measure the performance of the global nuclear detection architecture. And as I understand it, at least according to CRS, without this metrics, it will 

be difficult for Congress to assess the effectiveness of new investments in the GNDA and to monitor progress towards the goals. 

So my question is then: Can you update us on the development 

of this metrics system and how soon can we expect it to be implemented so that we as Members of Congress, we can use it. 

Mr. STERN. Sure. And I agree completely with CRS, GAO, and 

you. So the strategic plan is the framework. 

The next document that you will receive, which should be—I 

hesitate to say, because of clearance, but within a month. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Possibly. 

Mr. STERN. We are working hard and we have a good first draft, 

is our annual review. And our annual review, which you have received, I think the last time, 2 years ago, will be very different this 

time in that it will be much more meaty. It will have the metrics 

which you indicate and I agree is necessary in order to take the 

next step in allowing you to evaluate progress on the global and 

particularly the domestic architecture. And we will have real details on the work that is going on across the government linked to 

those metrics, linked to the performance goals and the strategic 

plan and what we are trying to achieve and how we are trying to 

achieve it. So if that answers—— 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. So within about a month or so? 

Mr. STERN. Yeah. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Latham. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
295 

AGRO-TERRORISM

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Garza, you are 

being ignored there, Dr. Garza. One of the real threats I have always thought was having to do with agri-terrorism, contamination 

of the food supply and foreign animal disease outbreaks which 

could be brought into the country on a handkerchief, basically, and 

rub a few cattle’s nose and have hoof-and-mouth disease and things 

like that. 

What are you doing to monitor that or how—talk about the coordination monitor. 

Mr. GARZA. Yes, sir. So you bring up a very important point, 

which is it is not all just human health issues that we need to 

worry about. The food, agricultural, and veterinarian sector is 

something that does cause us a lot of concern. We do play a supporting role in that. Of course, USDA as well as the FDA play 

major roles in that. But we do support efforts from the Homeland 

Security’s perspective with our food, agriculture and veterinarian 

defense branch. So I employ six veterinarians whose sole job is to 

work on those efforts. 

You rightly mentioned some of the concerns with food chain security and with organic disease such as foot and mouth disease. So 

as we all know, foot and mouth disease is now somewhat of a problem in the Far East and in Korea, especially in North Korea. And 

the effects of a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak on the United 

States would be devastating to the economy, especially to our 

ranchers. We export a lot of beef. It would absolutely destroy that 

market. 

The examples that we can use for that is simple as our H1N1 

pandemic when people continued to call it swine flu, and we saw 

the pork industry be devastated just from the word ‘‘swine’’ flu. 

So our food, ag and vet defense branch is actively engaged with 

our partners at USDA and FDA. And some of the things that they 

have been working on are building metrics and tools for the States 

to use to build their own inherent capabilities, and some of these 

are on the Internet where the States can go. They answer a series 

of questions and it builds a risk model for them that says these are 

the things you need to be concentrating on, and it helps them plot 

out where they need to focus a lot of their efforts on. And so that 

is in partnership with the Federal interagency. 

In addition, we do monitor the intelligence information from 

around the world because, as you know, the food security supply 

chain is a tough, tough issue. We all saw it with the melamine in 

dog food and milk. Believe it or not—and you should probably get 

a brief on this as well—a good majority of the food products that 

the United States consumes are brought in from other countries, as 

far as the different bits and pieces. And so we are all connected in 

the food chain, and just one disruption in that with a dangerous 

chemical could cause a lot of economic as well as social disruption. 

So we are monitoring those things on intelligence and analysis. We 

are trying to build up State and local capacity. And we are working 

with our partners in the Federal interagency. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
296 

ANTHRAX VACCINE

Mr. LATHAM. Just one other question. What is the status and the 

quality and availability for a supply of vaccine for anthrax? 

Mr. GARZA. The biggest procurers of vaccine are, of course, the 

Federal Government for the Strategic National Stockpile. 

Mr. LATHAM. Is that modern technology? 

Mr. GARZA. Is the vaccine modern technology? It has been 

around for quite a few years. I can say that there are no harmful 

effects to most people, because I am a recipient of that through the 

DOD. You can make your own judgment on that. But it is a federally licensed vaccine. And in order to get licensure from the FDA, 

it does have to go through safety studies. And so a lot of the inherent biases against the vaccine were really built on cases of individual reactions more so than problems with the general population. 

So it is a safe vaccine. It is pretty limited on the people that can 

receive the vaccine. The problem with the vaccine is that the current dosing for it is very lengthy. And so you have to get at least 

five does in order to become fully immune. 

Now, we are doing—not we, OHA—we, the Federal Government, 

arer continuing to do studies to see if we can reduce the vaccine 

load to fewer amounts of inoculations in order to get full protection. 

But those have not been published yet. But that is really the hurdle that has to be overcome is that you need a vaccine where you 

don’t have to have a large series of shots, because you lose people 

to follow-up and you are unable to complete the series and things 

like that. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Dicks. 

ADVANCED SPECTROSCOPIC PORTAL DEVICES: CERTIFICATION PROCESS

Mr. DICKS. Director Stern, what hurdles must be overcome before 

the Secretary certifies advanced spectroscopic radiation portal monitors? 

Mr. STERN. Before the Secretary decides on certification, the 

process is that it goes through field validation and then operational 

testing, and then ultimately she will decide whether it is time to 

certify or not. That presumes again, it makes it through each of 

these steps. We are at the tail end of field validation. There are 

some issues and we are trying to determine how to proceed. 

Mr. DICKS. It has been 5 years and apparently two of the three 

original vendors are no longer participating in the acquisition because they had technical difficulties that could not be overcome. 

Raytheon, the one of many vendors, continues to undergo testing. 

Is this a problem? 

Mr. STERN. Thank you for the the question. No. As you described 

it, that is the process as envisioned. There were actually a much 

larger number of companies that tried at the beginning, and as 

time went on and at various very precisely defined points, those 

numbers were narrowed. So in the end we get the best device at 

the best cost/benefit for the U.S. 

So the process you have described is accurate, but the fact that 

there is one vendor now as opposed to three, representing three difVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:40 Sep 21, 2011 Jkt 068060 PO 00000 Frm 00296 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A060P2.XXX A060P2

emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
297 

ferent devices, the ASP, A, B and C, is not a problem. It is the result of the process. 

Mr. DICKS. During this period, it is possible that other radiation 

detection technologies being developed by the private sector may 

have advanced far enough along to overcome the need for ASPs in 

secondary? 

Mr. STERN. There has been, I think as I mentioned in my testimony, a lot of progress in the private sector regarding portal monitors and spectroscopic portal monitors. We are in our decision on 

our path forward doing our best to take into account that information. Again, we have to move through the ASP process before we 

can move to another process. I want to make sure that the U.S. 

makes the best decision possible with the limited resources that 

are available. So, yes, there has been a lot of progress and we are 

going to try to take that into account. 

Mr. DICKS. Would those be primary screening tools, the newer 

ones that we are talking about, the newer technology? 

Mr. STERN. Whether a device is primary or secondary is more an 

issue of negotiation with the Customs and Border Protection and 

their concept of operations. They all do in essence the same thing; 

that is, some of the devices you may be referring to are also advanced spectroscopic portals. So they have different sensitivities 

and different capabilities, but they would likely perform the same 

function unless somehow the concept of operations for CBP 

changes. 

Mr. DICKS. I assume these would also be utilized in our major 

ports; is that correct? 

Mr. STERN. I am sorry. Take a step back. There are devices that 

are made of plastic PVT that are deployed at our ports across the 

U.S. that don’t really have much of a capability to identify isotopes. 

Then there are more advanced devices such as the ASP that could 

do a much better job of identifying different isotopes, and there are 

some in the private sector. In the U.S., I don’t believe any of these 

advanced portals are deployed at our ports. Some of them are deployed in the interior and some are deployed overseas, including 

the ASP. But at our ports, we use almost exclusively now the plastic, the PBT, portals that do not identify isotopes very well. 

GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN: CONTINGENCY PLAN

Mr. DICKS. Let me ask you this: If there was a government shutdown, what impact would it have on both of your work? And are 

there urgent problems that would go unaddressed if that should 

occur? 

Mr. STERN. Well, we have a plan, a departmental-level plan in 

the case of a shutdown. So work definitely would go unaddressed. 

The urgent work would be addressed. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

BIOWATCH GENERATION-3: COMPARISON TO GEN-1 & GEN-2

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. Secretary Garza, the BioWatch Gen3 is designed to provide greater coverage at a decreased cost. What 

are the added capabilities of the Gen-3 system as compared to the 

Gen-1 and -2 systems that are currently deployed? 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
298 

Mr. GARZA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Gen-3 system is designed—the basic premise of the Gen-3 is to increase the time to 

detect. The reason why that is such an important aspect is that we 

have very limited time from the time of exposure to the time of illness where we can deploy medical countermeasures. And you always have to factor in how much time it is going to take to look 

at the results, to come to a decision process, to deploy the SNS and 

distribute medical countermeasures. And that is a fairly lengthy 

process. 

So the current Gen-1, -2, is anywhere from 24 to 36 hours from 

time of exposure to time of detection. The goal of Gen-3 is to decrease that time down to 4 to 6 hours. The other benefit of Generation-3 is that it will be expanding the distribution of the machines. 

So it will protect more of the population, we will be going from anywhere from 70 percent of the population protected within an urban 

environment, or, within the community, up to 90 percent. And it 

will increase the coverage of the United States population in total 

from 20 percent to 33 percent. 

The other added benefit of Generation-3 is that we will now start 

taking the program indoors where there is also an increasing 

threat. As everybody I am sure knows, if a terrorist was a thinking 

terrorist, they would want to go someplace where there was a high 

concentration of people where they could get the most bang for 

their buck, and clearly some of that would be indoors. So we are 

moving some of our machines also indoors from five locations up 

to 160. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Would you continue to maintain that Gen-1 and 

-2 units? 

Mr. GARZA. It would be a phased deployment of Gen-1, -2, up to 

Gen-3. So there would be a period of time where we would simultaneously run both systems until Gen-3 came up and running. At 

that time, we would phase out Gen-1, -2. We would still retain that 

capability, though, for surge capacity, as well as dealing with some 

national security events that we do throughout the year and other 

issues as we would need to use them. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Secretary Garza, this would be—after having 

planned to have two vendors, last year you down-selected to just 

one vendor. What drove the down-select to one vendor? 

Mr. GARZA. It was not technically a down-select. It was during 

the first phase of our program, there were troubles with the assays 

and algorithms of one of the vendors. Essentially what that means 

is it was giving us positive signals when the bacteria or the virus 

that we were looking for was not present, and it was giving us negative signals when it was there. And simply that is unacceptable. 

And so we worked with the vendor and, believe me, we have very 

high regard for competitiveness. We absolutely would like for more 

than one vendor to be involved in the competition. However, the 

science is going to trump that every day. So we gave the vendor 

some opportunity to correct some of the things that we were seeing, 

and they are completely able to come back into the process in a second RFP phase, granted they will have done certain things in order 

to be successful in that. But at the end of the day, we just couldn’t 

go along with them continuing in Phase 1. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
299 

BIOWATCH GENERATION-3: TESTING & EVALUATION

Mr. ADERHOLT. You have initiated a field test of Gen-3 at the 

end of February that is still ongoing. What is the status of the field 

test? 

Mr. GARZA. Yes, sir. The field test is ongoing right now in the 

[Redacted]. I am happy to report the machines survived the [Redacted] that they had [Redacted] and came through with flying colors. It is ongoing right now. From all the reports that I have received, it has been going very well. 

And I will just put this plug out for you. We are having a VIP 

day [Redacted] that all of your staff, I believe, have received or will 

receive invitations to go up and have a look at the machines, ask 

questions, and get more information on the field test. I believe the 

field test is going to run until the middle of June or July, and at 

that time we can take a look at the date and see how they performed. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. So you are safe to say those are operating up to 

your expectations at this point? 

Mr. GARZA. At this point, I haven’t seen anything that discourages me, no. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Price. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to follow up 

on this line of questioning and I want to clarify a couple of things 

you just said and then ask you for some further elaboration. 

You did terminate the contract with one of the two vendors, both 

false positive and false negative ratings unacceptably high. So you 

are saying that this second vendor could get back in the game only 

if these problems are overcome to your satisfaction? 

Mr. GARZA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. Are you making an estimation of how likely that is? 

Or are we going to in all likelihood be working here with one vendor? 

Mr. GARZA. From my experience in looking at the testing procedures, it would be a steep climb to get back into. It is not impossible, though. But you have to—the testing and evaluation process 

that we have laid out, it was built to be rigorous because we understand the consequences that would follow given a positive test from 

these machines. And so we have to stick with what the science is 

telling us, that either these things will work the way they are expected to work and deliver us the information that we need. 

I did want to clarify one thing, though. We didn’t terminate a 

contract. That has certain legalistic implications to it. So they are 

unable to proceed with the original Phase 1 of the contract. But we 

certainly have left it open for them if they can correct the issues 

that were involved and can give us reasonable assurance that they 

have been corrected. We are committed to a clear, transparent, and 

open competition. 

BIOWATCH GENERATION-3: PATHOGEN DETECTION

Mr. PRICE. Well, I certainly agree with your assessment of how 

important it is to get this right. After all, we are talking about very 

important capabilities here, more rapid detection, detection done 

without an attendant, removing a filter and analyzing it and so 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
300 

forth. These are advances that we know we have to achieve if this 

system is to live up to its promise. 

In this classified setting, could you discuss what specific biological pathogens the Gen-3 system will test for and how that compares to what is currently in place? I understand that testing for 

more pathogens is one of the advantages. 

Mr. GARZA. Yes, sir. Currently we test for [Redacted] agents. [Redacted] And that is all controlled information. 

So we picked those organisms based off of the Science and Technology bioterrorism risk assessment as the top [Redacted] organisms that are at the highest risk for the United States. Of those 

[Redacted] that territory. So they make up the bulwark of what we 

look for. 

Generation-3, though, has the capacity to test up to 20 agents. 

So we don’t have to limit it [Redacted]. And if we receive intelligence or if we receive an updated risk information that these bacterial agents have changed, then we can certainly develop—we 

won’t develop the assay, we will test the assay to make sure it 

works. But we can certainly employ that into the machines. We deliberately made the machines when we put out the request for information to make sure that they were expandable and compatible 

to do things like that. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, the feature of quicker turnaround and an automated turnaround has been much more thoroughly discussed, at 

least in this committee, than has this feature of more flexibility in 

terms of the ability to test for more agents, is that—in layman’s 

terms, can you just briefly account for that expanded new capacity? 

Is it a matter of the way the machines operate, the machines are 

equipped, the way the machines are read? What are we talking 

about here? 

Mr. GARZA. So the big difference between Gen -1/2 and Gen-3 is, 

of course, as you mentioned. We are basically taking all of the functions that are inherent to Gen-1 and Gen-2 and compressing them 

into a single unit. We have affectionately called it a ‘‘lab in a box.’’ 

The laboratory workers get really mad at us when we say that, so 

we don’t mention it very much. But that is affectionately what it 

does. 

It doesn’t mean that Gen-1, -2 could not expand to agents more 

than [Redacted]. Because what happens is the vacuum or the air 

collector collects air in the environment through a filter paper. You 

are correct; somebody has to go pick up that filter, take it back to 

the lab where the analysis is run. We only run it on [Redacted] 

agents right now. Clearly if we needed to run on more agents, we 

could do that. We could incorporate that into our laboratory capacity. It would take more work, more money, things like that. But the 

beauty of the Gen-3 is we could incorporate it all into the machine 

at once, or we can either up-select or down-select the number of 

agents that we could use, provided that we had an adequate assay. 

And the assay is the chemicals that are used to test for the DNA 

of the bacteria, and that is something that is very technically difficult to make sure that you get right, because you want to make 

sure you are hitting the right bug; you want to make sure you are 

not missing the right bug as well. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
301 

BIOWATCH GENERATION-3: NATURALLY OCCURRING VS. INTENTIONAL

PATHOGENS

Mr. PRICE. Now, there are some consequences for some of these 

false readings that we have seen with the earlier versions of this 

equipment. There are dozens of instances, as I understand it, 

where the BioWatch filters have captured dangerous germs, although none of them have been the result of a biological attack. In 

some of these instances, it has taken weeks to determine that this 

is a naturally occurring pathogen. That is well beyond the time it 

would take public health professionals to see the results of a biological attack. Speaking of the supposed time advantage, in this instance it has been reversed. 

Is this kind of disconcerting pattern of false readings continuing? 

What cities have been affected by this? How long has it taken DHS 

and the local community to determine that it was not a biological 

attack going on? 

Mr. GARZA. Yes, sir. So allow me to explain what occurs with 

that. So they are not false readings per se, because they detect absolutely what they are built to detect, which is bacteria, DNA of 

bacteria. This bacteria, as I mentioned during the briefings, is 

ubiquitous in the environment. [Redacted] But these are not false 

positives. They are true positives in the sense that we found DNA. 

They are not true positives in the sense—and I think what you 

were describing in that, they were intentionally released. 

Mr. PRICE. Yes. I understand. 

Mr. GARZA. So we have through our experience in working with 

that, we have come up with different ways of identifying whether 

we believe that this is an intentional release or a naturally occurring event. And some of those are technical things such as looking 

at cycle times. We know that if we bake the DNA enough or multiply the DNA enough, that we are going to find something. And, 

frankly, all of those have been where we have very much expanded 

the DNA through multiple cycles. 

So looking at that, we discussed—of course we take this very seriously, though. So we don’t just write it off as it is environmental 

and they are ready to go about doing their business. We always 

talk with our FBI partners, with our emergency providers; has anybody noticed an increase in cases in hospitals? And then the public 

health providers usually do a prolonged surveillance period to 

make sure we are not missing anything. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired. I will 

have some additional questions for the record. If I could, just one 

question for clarification here, and then I will be done. You talk 

about this process that you go through and, of course, it needs to 

be a very careful process that leaves nothing to chance. How much 

of the experimentation and demonstration and work that is underway on Gen-3 is going to directly address this problem? 

Mr. GARZA. There is quite a bit, frankly. So part of that is selecting for the bacteria that we know is going to be the most likely 

causative agent for an intentional attack, because there is a lot of 

‘‘near neighbors’’ is what we call them, in bacteria. A lot of bacteria 

that are in the same family but some of them are disease-causing 

and some of them are not. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
302 

And so developing better assays so that we can target more specifically the organisms that we know would be of a terrorist origin 

is part of the process that went into developing Gen-3. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Dicks. 

Mr. DICKS. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

GLOBAL NUCLEAR DETECTION ARCHITECTURE: GAPS

Mr. ADERHOLT. Director Stern, it is not feasible, either financially or practically for DNDO to close every gap that could be used 

to smuggle nuclear material into the United States, but it is your 

job to determine what the highest risk vulnerabilities are and to 

put a priority on which ones must be mitigated. 

At the same time, we understand that your efforts to build a 

more comprehensive, inclusive global nuclear detective architecture 

across the government is still at its beginning stages with most 

shown by DNDO as being at stage zero gap identification in the 

DNDO solution development process. What are the biggest holes in 

the GNDA and how are you working to rapidly close them? 

Mr. STERN. Thank you for the question, Congressman. There are 

lots of holes, frankly, in the global nuclear detection architecture. 

But the biggest reason is because of simple physics and the way 

we lead our lives. And I don’t think that that is, frankly, going to 

change in any time in the foreseeable future without a fundamental change in detection technology, which will take a great deal 

of time. And this is why I am changing the approach that the 

DNDO takes towards architecture to look at this surge architecture. 

I had one of my guys do just an off-the-cuff estimate of what it 

would cost to actually close the gaps in a non-rigorous way. [Redacted] I mean, physics is very much working against us here. And 

so what we are doing is saying, look, in the case of an attack, it 

wouldn’t just come out of the blue, there will be some intelligence. 

We spend $60 to $80 billion a year on the Intelligence Community 

for a reason: because there will be some information. 

So let us develop an architecture that assumes some level of information before we act, as opposed to just having static detectors 

waiting to see what might pass by it. So we have begun that process, working very closely with the Intelligence Community, and the 

National Counterterrorism Center in particular, to help define 

what information would likely be available. For example, would the 

pathway be available, would we know whether it is in a city or a 

region? And from that, we are going to develop our architecture 

that allows us to actually define and create clear metrics, define 

what is necessary to meet that threat. [Redacted] 

So we are changing the way we look at it. We hope to have our 

first model out later this year. I think you will get a lot more detailed information on the approach, and on the gaps, even in the 

current approach in the annual review which you will have again 

shortly. So I hope that answers your question. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. What progress can you report to in the past year 

and what do you anticipate achieving in the coming year? 

Mr. STERN. I am trying very hard, as I mentioned, to refocus 

DNDO in a number of ways. The first product will be this new 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
303 

surge architecture that will allow us to create clear and definable 

metrics, numbers of detectors, how quickly people need to get together in order to respond to attacks or attempted attacks. 

The other progress in the technical area that I am very focused 

on is shifting to this model test, model approach that the National 

Academy of Science has recommended. In terms of devices, we will 

have this year two new devices, the handheld human portable radiation detection device—which is a very precise device that CBP, 

the Customs and Border Protection, will deploy across the country—and also a much more advanced version of this handheld device that uses a Germanium detector, which is really the best 

around, but it is also human portable. 

So those are the primary accomplishments that I hope to look 

back upon at the end of this year. The biggest one, again, being 

changing the way that the DNDO operates and the way that we 

focus on the architecture and our device development. 

NUCLEAR FORENSICS

Mr. ADERHOLT. DNDO’s nuclear forensic programs represent a 

key mission for DNDO, establishing capability needed for government-wide forensic expertise. However, last year, the National 

Academy of Sciences in a classified report raised concerns about 

the adequacy of the Nation’s nuclear forensic capability. And in 

your own justification for a $7 million increase, [Redacted]. 

What is your assessment of U.S. forensic capability? And do you 

agree with the concerns raised by the national academics? 

Mr. STERN. Yes. I mean, nuclear forensics is a very important 

part of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office and a big focus of 

mine. There is much room for improvement in our—our, being the 

U.S. Federal Government’s forensics capability; in fact, global 

forensics capability, which is why we are seeking a significant 

budget increase for forensics. 

Now, it is important also to understand that while the Nuclear 

Technical Forensic Center is part of DNDO, most of the forensics 

money is spent at other agencies. We are a coordinator and a 

facilitator and we do a limited amount of research and development. But it is important that the other agencies that do the workhorse of the analysis also see improvements in accordance with the 

National Academy’s recommendations. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. What specific improvements in forensic capacity 

will be made by additional funding you have requested? 

Mr. STERN. Well, the additional funding that we have requested, 

I really break down into two areas. One is to do some sort of fuel 

cycle modeling. As you may know, when we are doing forensics, we 

can analyze the particles; but if we don’t have anything to compare 

it to—that is, a particle from where it came from—it doesn’t tell 

us much. So we are working on a program, one, to help model fuel 

cycles that will provide some insight into the second part of the 

analysis; that is, where might this have come from? 

And the second big part is, I think you described earlier, is working very closely with the FBI to help establish a mechanism to ensure that there is a reliable system for doing forensics analysis that 

would actually hold up in a court of law. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Price. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
304 

Mr. PRICE. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I do 

want to thank our witnesses for wide-ranging and quite helpful testimony. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Yes. Thank you both for your testimony here 

today. And there may be some additional questions that we will 

submit to you for questions, and some of the members who were 

not able to be present today. 

So again we appreciate your testimony before the subcommittee. 

So the subcommittee is adjourned. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
305 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 362 here 68060A.263
306 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 363 here 68060A.264
307 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 364 here 68060A.265
308 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 365 here 68060A.266
309 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 366 here 68060A.267
310 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 367 here 68060A.268
311 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 368 here 68060A.269
312 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 369 here 68060A.270
313 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 370 here 68060A.271
314 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 371 here 68060A.272
315 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 372 here 68060A.273
316 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 373 here 68060A.274
317 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 374 here 68060A.275
318 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 375 here 68060A.276
319 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 376 here 68060A.277
320 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 377 here 68060A.278
321 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 378 here 68060A.279
322 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 379 here 68060A.280
323 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 380 here 68060A.281
324 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 381 here 68060A.282
325 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 382 here 68060A.283
326 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 383 here 68060A.284
327 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 384 here 68060A.285
328 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 385 here 68060A.286
329 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 386 here 68060A.287
330 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 387 here 68060A.288
331 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 388 here 68060A.289
332 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 389 here 68060A.290
333 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 390 here 68060A.291
334 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 391 here 68060A.292
335 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 392 here 68060A.293
336 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 393 here 68060A.294
337 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 394 here 68060A.295
338 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 395 here 68060A.296
339 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 396 here 68060A.297
340 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 397 here 68060A.298
341 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 398 here 68060A.299
342 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 399 here 68060A.300
343 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 400 here 68060A.301
344 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 401 here 68060A.302
345 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 402 here 68060A.303
346 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 403 here 68060A.304
347 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 404 here 68060A.305
348 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 405 here 68060A.306
349 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 406 here 68060A.307
350 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 407 here 68060A.308
351 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 408 here 68060A.309
352 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 409 here 68060A.310
353 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 410 here 68060A.311
354 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 411 here 68060A.312
355 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 412 here 68060A.313
356 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 413 here 68060A.314
(357) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2011. 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

WITNESS 

CRAIG FUGATE, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

OPENING STATEMENT: CHAIRMAN ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. The hearing is called to order. Good morning. 

Today we welcome the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, better known as FEMA, Craig Fugate, to discuss his Agency’s $8.2 billion request for fiscal year 2012. 

As we know, FEMA has continued to evolve in the years following Hurricane Katrina and has been required to make changes 

under the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 

2006. This law expanded FEMA’s responsibilities and authorities 

for disaster response and recovery in integrated preparedness functions. Today we want to hear from Administrator Fugate on how 

the transformation is proceeding and the challenges he faces in the 

coming year. We will also want to hear from him on some concerns 

we have of FEMA’s budgeting. 

Over the last year FEMA has worked to help devastated communities rebuild itself. As a Member of Congress from a State that is 

very familiar with severe damage from catastrophic events, I know 

firsthand FEMA’s successes and, regrettably, FEMA’s struggles. 

Administrator Fugate, this Committee has a strong history of responding to your Agency’s needs, providing funding that was so 

desperately needed to rebuild and reorganize FEMA in the postKatrina era, and we will continue to do so, but that funding cannot 

be a blank check. Today our country faces disaster of a different 

kind, a fiscal disaster that will require change that some may find 

hard to accept. This means that today, more so than ever, we must 

budget responsibly for known requirements, and we must also ensure that funding is in line with measurable goals on the Federal, 

State and local levels. 

Administrator, I want to touch on two of the issues of greatest 

concern facing us this year in reviewing your budget request; first, 

your Disaster Relief Fund, or DRF, as it is sometimes referred to. 

As we sit here today, the DRF inches closer and closer to insolvency. Last year when faced with this exact situation, Congress 

bailed out the DRF with a $5.1 billion supplemental. Now, just a 

few months later, your Agency has informed us that the $5.1 billion was not enough, and you need an additional appropriations to 

complete this year. Today we believe you need almost $1.5 billion 

for this year, but, frankly, I am not sure how confident I am with 

that figure since it seems to change rather frequently. But whatever the number is, we know that it is significantly more than 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
358 

what is available, even when including the $5.1 billion extra Congress provided just a few months ago. How will you complete this 

year when we all know that the DRF is almost broke? 

We have asked repeatedly what FEMA will do, and thus far no 

one can answer, even as the balance in DRF continues to diminish. 

You are forcing Congress to address a situation, since, once again, 

the administration has failed to do so. In the current fiscal environment this means cuts throughout the entire Department of Homeland Security, cuts that may be unappealing to many, but cuts that 

are necessary in order to bail out FEMA. In other words, we are 

forced to take money from other Department of Homeland Security 

components to fill FEMA’s shortfalls. 

While the shortfall in fiscal year 2011 is of great concern, the situation in fiscal year 2012 is alarming. The Department continually 

states that it funds to a rolling 5-year average, but the math does 

not work. By our math, based on your 5-year average, you need 

$4.6 billion just for the average cost of noncatastrophic events. 

Added to that we understand you need $3 billion for the costs associated with prior-year catastrophic events, costs you knew about 

before you submitted a budget to Congress, but failed to fund. This 

brings it to a total of $7.6 billion. However, your fiscal year 2012 

budget only requests $1.8 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund. This 

puts individuals and communities at great risk. 

What we would like to hear from you today is your reasoning behind this. When I asked Secretary Napolitano this exact question 

just 4 weeks ago, she said you would recover more money from 

prior-year unobligated balances, and that you would seek a supplemental to cover the full cost. First, the President’s budget assumes 

$900 million from prior-year recoveries. Thus far you have not adjusted that number, and we have seen no plan to show how this 

will be achieved. 

Second, what is more astonishing is that we sit here 6 months 

from the beginning of the next fiscal year, and your end game for 

fiscal year 2012 is to ask for an emergency supplemental even 

though this unfunded amount is not an emergency, and it was 

known prior to the submission of the fiscal year 2012 budget. This 

has to be one of the most startling examples of irresponsible budgeting shenanigans that this subcommittee has seen. I trust that 

during our discussion today you can add some insight as to this rationale for this request. 

The second issue in front of us today is the continuing lack of 

metrics for the billions of dollars we have invested in the first responder grants. Since 9/11, the U.S. taxpayers have invested over 

$33 billion in first responder grants. The question we ask year 

after year is how much safer are we, how better prepared are we, 

what are the gaps, how much more needs to be done; however, year 

after year we don’t get answers, yet the Department asks for more 

money even though we have no quantifiable justification to support 

these requests. 

According to staff reports, you are working on metrics, but the 

Departments have told Congress the same thing many times in the 

past. FEMA has tried multiple times to create metrics, but all efforts have resulted in failure. Now we hear that a new revised 

Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 will address the naVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:40 Sep 21, 2011 Jkt 068060 PO 00000 Frm 00358 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A060P2.XXX A060P2

emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
359 

tional preparedness, and thus FEMA is waiting on it before developing metrics. 

While we need to support our local fire responders, we must seek 

a method to determine what we are getting for the billions in grant 

funding we appropriate from this subcommittee each year. After almost a decade of investment, it is time to stop making excuses and 

address the situation with the seriousness that is needed so that 

our taxpayers have confidence that hard-earned money is being 

used as effectively as possible. In short, these grant programs were 

never meant to permanently subsidize local responsibility, but help 

bolster capability by buying down risk and addressing gaps so 

States and local governments could respond. However, to do this, 

we need to measure the capabilities and gaps so that taxpayer 

funds are invested in a wise manner. 

Administrator, these are not new concerns, and issues of which 

you are very familiar. I look forward to your thoughts and your insights as we have our discussions today on these problems and 

what progress you have made in the last year, as well as the challenges that remain. I would be remiss if I didn’t, however, thank 

you for taking on such a challenging job that you have taken on 

at such an important time in our Nation’s history, and this subcommittee understands the challenges that you have. 

As your written testimony will be placed in the record, I would 

ask that you take about 5 minutes to summarize it for the committee. But before you begin, I would like to recognize the ranking 

member Mr. Price for his opening remarks. 

[The information follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
360 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 422 here 68060A.315
361 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 423 here 68060A.316
362 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 424 here 68060A.317
363 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 425 here 68060A.318
364 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 426 here 68060A.319
365 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 427 here 68060A.320
366 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 428 here 68060A.321
367 

OPENING STATEMENT: RANKING MEMBER PRICE

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Fugate. We are glad to welcome you back to the 

Subcommittee to testify once again on the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency’s work to prepare our country for disasters 

and to mitigate and minimize any losses. I want to thank you for 

your leadership of this critical government function. You have 

brought to the job the expertise and experience of a seasoned emergency manager, and you have left your distinctive mark on the 

Agency, building a more decentralized FEMA that is designed to be 

closer to the States and to respond to their needs more effectively. 

I am interested to hear how your work is progressing, including 

any measures of the success of your reforms. 

Our main purpose here today is to discuss your 2012 budget, and 

I want to flag some concerns as we get this hearing under way. The 

request for FEMA is $6.8 billion. That is 5 percent, or $339 million, 

below the 2010 enacted level. It appears that your Agency has been 

asked to do the most with the least amount of resources compared 

to other DHS components. 

In the current rush to cut government services, we need to be 

particularly careful that we do not sacrifice our Nation’s preparedness for disasters. Disasters, after all, are going to happen. They 

are unavoidable, but many of their consequences can be avoided 

with the right preparation. I have already expressed concern to the 

Secretary about your 2012 request for disaster relief, which appears to provide only enough resources to last about halfway 

through the fiscal year. And the request does not recognize an additional $6 billion in catastrophic costs that are coming due. If we 

know the costs for ongoing recovery activities associated with large 

disasters, then it makes sense to provide Congress with a budget 

request that will meet those disaster relief obligations. Emergency 

supplementals should be used for unanticipated emergencies, not to 

meet half of the annual funding needs that we, in fact, can anticipate. 

It also worries me that your request substantially reduces funding in staffing levels within the management of the administration 

account. After I became Chairman of this Subcommittee, we spent 

4 years making sure FEMA had sufficient staffing and resources to 

support States and localities in times of emergency, to provide efficient oversight over the billions of State and local first responder 

grants it is responsible for each year, and to soundly manage your 

Agency’s finances, logistics, human capital and contracting efforts. 

We need to understand these reductions better to make sure that 

they in no way impede your missions. So you are going to need to 

let the Subcommittee know if that is not the case; otherwise we are 

going to want to scrutinize those reductions very skeptically. 

The budget request also substantially reduces funding for a variety of grant programs, including cutting assistance to firefighters 

by $140 million, and cutting in half funding for the Emergency 

Food and Shelter Program at a time when States and localities are 

still on shaky economic footing. We want to know if and how we 

can justify such reductions. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
368 

On the other hand, I am pleased to note the modest increases 

you have proposed for Emergency Management Performance grants 

and Urban Area Security grants. And I am glad you are seeking 

to maintain funding for port and transit grants at the 2010 level. 

Especially as States and localities are cutting funding to emergency 

and public safety, these grants are a critical bulwark against the 

erosion of preparedness at the local level. 

Finally, your request more than halves funding for the Flood 

Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis Program. We know that flooding is the most frequent and costly natural hazard in the United 

States. In fact, much of the northern half of U.S., from Montana 

to New York, faces an above-average risk of flooding in the next 

few weeks, according to the National Weather Service. FEMA is required by law to update flood maps and the risks associated with 

flooding every 5 years, so we need to know how you plan to continue meeting your statutory requirements with the significantly 

reduced resources. The alternative, of course, is an acceptance of 

greater risk and potentially greater cost to local communities and 

the Federal Government. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can work together to address 

these problems as we develop our 2012 funding recommendations. 

And, Administrator Fugate, we look forward to working with you 

in this endeavor. I want to thank you for your service to the country. We look forward to a productive discussion today and continuing to work together for our resilient Nation. 

Thank you. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Mr. Price. 

[The information follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
369 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 433 here 68060A.322
370 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 434 here 68060A.323
371 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 435 here 68060A.324
372 

OPENING STATEMENT: ADMINISTRATOR FUGATE

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Fugate, we look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. FUGATE. Good morning, Chairman Aderholt and Ranking 

Member Price, and members of the committee. I am here today to 

present the FEMA fiscal year 2012 fiscal budget. And given that 

you have already taken my written testimony, I just want to hit 

a couple key points, because I think you really would like to get 

into the Q&A piece of this and actually discuss some of the issues 

you have raised. 

Our mission is to support State and local first responders. There 

is this tendency that people think of FEMA as a response organization. What we do is coordinate and facilitate on behalf of the 

present homeland security Federal resources when disaster strikes 

and Governors request assistance under the Stafford Act. But alternatively, we also provide support to other Federal agencies when 

they need coordination on behalf of those authorities that you have 

given us. 

I have been doing this for a while in budget discussions. I have 

never been told to go do what you need to do, and it is a blank 

check. We have always had to work within the constraints of the 

budget. We have always had to prioritize. In many cases we have 

to make hard decisions that are not always easy, and that is the 

reality of coming from local and State government and dealing in 

constrained budget environments where the disasters do not stop 

and having to prioritize those issues and funds that are available 

to continue to ensure that we are ready to respond and support our 

citizens in their time of need. 

Because of the significant investment that was alluded to with 

the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act and the investments that have been made in the Agency, we have been working to take steps not only to implement the improvements required 

in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, but also 

to look at how we do business and further reduce that cost in the 

overhead of administering disasters. We are trying to do what we 

feel are the things that increase that efficiency, focusing continuously on the mission and the outcomes and taking a hard look at 

the business processes and asking questions: Why are we doing it 

this way? Is there a better way to do it? Can we reduce the overall 

cost without affecting our ability to deliver services? 

Some of this is the straightforward approach of why are we having to do all the traveling when we can use conferences and 

videoconferencing tools to meet that need, shutting off and turning 

off excessive equipment that isn’t needed that was turned on during past disasters, looking at how we can leverage our resources 

and personnel to do a better job by reorganizing our team to reflect 

what we do, and looking at an outcome-based strategic plan. 

I will just close with this, Mr. Chairman, and prepare to take 

questions. When you read most strategic plans, they talk in various 

terms about what you want to do, but they very rarely put a number about what you are going to measure it against. And so in 

doing this, our strategic plan is based upon what are the types of 

events and outcomes we need to achieve in large-scale catastrophic 

disaster response. And we are looking at basing that outcome on 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
373 

the needs of the immediate response issues, the intermediate 

phases, into the long-term recovery aspects. 

Again, our mission statement as issued by Congress is to prepare 

for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards. But we also know that FEMA is not the team, we are part 

of the team. And we have to be able to make sure that our working 

relationship with our State and local partners, the private sector, 

and most importantly the public, is the foundation of how we address this country’s risk from disaster. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Administrator. And we appreciate 

your testimony. 

[The information follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
374 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 439 here 68060A.325
375 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 440 here 68060A.326
376 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 441 here 68060A.327
377 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 442 here 68060A.328
378 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 443 here 68060A.329
379 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 444 here 68060A.330
380 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 445 here 68060A.331
381 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 446 here 68060A.332
382 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 447 here 68060A.333
383 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 448 here 68060A.334
384 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 449 here 68060A.335
385 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 450 here 68060A.336
386 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 451 here 68060A.337
387 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 452 here 68060A.338
388 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 453 here 68060A.339
389 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 454 here 68060A.340
390 

DISASTER RELIEF FUND

Mr. ADERHOLT. I think, as you see from past hearings, that having the Members ask you questions directly about some of these 

issues, I think, will be most helpful. 

I think one of the things that I had alluded to in my opening remarks and that I think is certainly something that is of great concern to the subcommittee—and we have had these conversations 

before, but let me just get right to the point. You are running a 

substantial shortfall in the DRF that has not been addressed for 

the remainder of this year or in the budget for fiscal year 2012. 

The bottom line is the fiscal year 2012 budget and your fiscal year 

2012 requests do not support the sizable disaster relief cost for the 

rest of the year or the next. The subcommittee needs to know the 

plan. How will you complete the year when you are already clearly 

short of the required funding for fiscal year 2011 by an estimated 

of $1.5 billion? 

Mr. FUGATE. Mr. Chairman, the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) and 

the history of how we fund that, this Nation, has been debated and 

discussed numerous times, and so I am going to present what I 

think is the philosophical approach that we have taken. 

I understand the issues you are raising. I will start with fiscal 

year 2011. We currently have a little over $1 billion in the Disaster 

Relief Fund. We consider that once we go below $1 billion, that we 

need to implement an immediate needs funding, which would limit 

funding to only those emergency actions in response and individual 

assistance, and would no longer support permanent work or mitigation projects from previous disasters. 

That also is contingent upon another issue that this committee 

and others have raised in the number of open disasters and funds 

that have been obligated in those previous disasters but were not 

drawn down. Last year we looked at open missions to Federal 

agencies and began closing out those disaster missions. That returned a little more than $2 billion back into the Disaster Relief 

Fund. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Two billion dollars. 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. 

This year we are looking at those disaster funds to State and 

local governments where the projects have been completed, but in 

the initial allocation they did not require all of the funds. Those 

balances have to be closed out, and in doing so would return back 

to DRF. We were projecting, as we started this process this year, 

about $120 million to $125 million per month. Last month we were 

able to close out and return $240 million back to DRF. 

Now, again, this is work that is already completed. We are not 

taking money away from State and local governments. What happens many times is when we do a project, the project may be approved for, let’s say, a debris mission of $100 million. When the actual work is done, all the bills are paid, it may only have been $80 

million, but as long as that obligation is there, that $20 million 

that could have been returned is not available to DRF because it 

is considered obligated. So as we go through that process and 

deobligate those funds, they go back into the DRF. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
391 

And so this process this year is focused on those open disasters 

with State and local governments where the work has been done. 

This is not an appeal. This is not stopping projects. This is taking 

work that is already completed and determining if all the funds allocated were expended, and, if not, putting those dollars made 

available back into the DRF. 

So that process this year, again it is a little bit early to get an 

estimate, but we are looking at—again, I don’t know if we are 

going to have last year’s numbers, but there are substantial open 

disasters where the funds have not been drawn down, the work has 

been done, and we are looking to free those dollars up to go into 

the DRF. So, therefore, our best estimates still look at—if we get 

the 2011 request for the DRF, it would be a May-June time frame 

before we would reach immediate needs funding, but the unknown 

is how successful we are going to be in closing out disasters, and 

will that move that further into the year and reduce any additional 

amounts that may be required. So that is for this fiscal year. 

As to the 2012 budget request, I think this is where it is a question of when these disasters occur and the initial appropriations 

are given, how do you fund the outyears? And let’s take Katrina, 

one of our largest disasters. The majority of those funds were not 

going to be expended in the first emergency supplementals. It requires literally years to rebuild. And I guess the question is: Do 

you place that into your baseline budget because this is a very 

large disaster that is going to take multiple years to pay out, or 

do you look at your averages, budget for that, and then look at the 

supplemental process for these extraordinary costs moving through 

the budget? 

I think this is a philosophical issue. This is not something that 

this administration has started with; this has been something that 

has been done in previous administrations, and in the outstanding 

large-scale disasters, supplementals were requested to pay for 

those large projects as they came through the system. 

Whether or not you can project accurately that number is another issue. From my experience as a State director in trying to do 

that within State, because you are dependent upon State and local 

construction projects, bids, everything that goes into that project, 

it is somewhat difficult to have a fixed number, and in many cases 

as a State director, we were asking for appropriations and authority that may not be actually drawn down that year because the 

projects did not come on line during that time frame. 

So it is, to me, again, how do we approach the large-scale disasters that are moving through the system that are multiyears but 

are not expected to be there 5, 6, 7 years out, and are going to be 

a bubble moving through the budget process against the top line 

of the total appropriations? And I think this is a philosophical 

question, Mr. Chairman: How do you budget that? Do you put that 

in your top-line budget and go, if this is my top-line budget, I am 

going to take that $5 to $6 billion that are moving through on 

those disasters and now make that my top line, or do I look at my 

top line on a recurring average and then place that on top? And 

again, I think it is philosophical as to how to best to do that, but 

this has been the way that this administration and the previous 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
392 

administration had addressed the DRF for those costs above the 

annual request for the appropriation. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Let me just ask you straight up: Would you agree that there is $3 billion stated for fiscal year 2012 already, though; 

do we know that? 

Mr. FUGATE. The exact number, Mr. Chairman, I would have to 

ask staff to look at what we project for recoveries. We also were 

budgeting into that what we were going to estimate for recoveries. 

So I can’t say that is not the number; I would just say I don’t know. 

[The information follows:] 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Let me just ask you straight up: Would you agree that there is $3 billion stated for fiscal year 2012 already, though; do we know that? 

Mr. FUGATE. The exact number, Mr. Chairman, I would have to ask staff to look 

at what we project for recoveries. We also were budgeting into that what we were 

going to estimate for recoveries. So I can’t say that is not the number; I would just 

say that I don’t know. 

RESPONSE. The $3 billion figure represents a rough estimate of the catastrophic 

need for FY 2012. The estimate is based on a projection of annual total recoveries 

of $1.5 billion, project completion times that may fluctuate greatly, and an assumption that there will be no additional occurrences of catastrophic events. While the 

Administration continues to work on improving its DRF estimation capabilities, the 

variation inherent in the projection should be an accompanying caveat for any DRF 

figure. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. But it very likely is? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. I just don’t know what recovery amount 

was built into that, if that was on that number, or would that go 

against it? 

Mr. ADERHOLT. And this would be for a catastrophic? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes. These would be for those outstanding largescale disasters that are still working through the system. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Let’s talk about the 5-year average. Could you 

explain how you budgeted to the 5-year average in fiscal year 2012, 

which is $4.6 billion, even though you requested $1.8 billion? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, again, we look at trend data for those disasters, not catastrophic. And this number, again, is one that would 

go through the budget process trying to get to what that reoccurring average is. And that is a number that I think is, again, at the 

center of debate of how much that trend is going up, or how many 

catastrophic disasters are being built in that base. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. How much of this shortfall can be offset with recovered unobligated funding beyond the $900 million already included in the budget request? 

Mr. FUGATE. Again, I have always been reluctant, Mr. Chairman, 

to talk about a number until we get in there, because there is a 

lot of unknowns. We think that it is over $1 billion, but we are not 

sure what that recovery looks like or the pace of that recovery. As 

we get more information this summer as we are doing this—again, 

last month we were only projecting about $120 million; we actually 

hit $240 million. 

Some of these projects are very large. If you close out one or two 

projects, you can get a very substantial number. Others have not 

that big of a number. So as we do it, it is not something that is 

easy to project until we actually have some time doing it, and seeing what those trends look like, and seeing what we are finding in 

these recoveries. And, Mr. Chairman, as soon as we get that kind 

of trend data, we see that pattern and get a better sense of that, 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
393 

we will provide it to the committee; but as it is now, starting that 

process, we doubled what we thought we were going to get this 

year. We saw a similar trend last year where we actually were recovering much more early on than we thought we were, and that 

tended to push out the requirements for additional funds. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I may have some follow-up in a minute, but let 

me go to Mr. Price. 

GRANTS: STAFFING FOR ADEQUATE FIRE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator, I would like to lead off with a question about the 

fire grants and then move on to flood hazard mapping, either now 

or in the next round of questions. 

As you know, we continue to debate the appropriate level of 

funding for the SAFER program and for the fire grants. Fortunately on the House floor we are able to reverse the cuts that had 

been proposed in H.R. 1 and to restore full funding for both the 

SAFER program, the personnel program, and for the firefighter assistance grants. And your 2012 budget proposes $670 million overall for firefighter assistance grants, including full funding of $420 

million for SAFER, but the fire grant equipment program is being 

reduced, which I, for one, will want to examine skeptically. You 

may want to say something about that. 

But I want to ask you a prior question about the personnel side 

of this. We understand that at a time of economic downturn, the 

personnel program performs a broader function than the SAFER 

grants normally do. In other words, it often is needed to restore 

personnel, to prevent layoffs, to help communities deal with economic diversity, hopefully to avoid layoffs in the first place. So 

along with the need for adequate funding comes a need for flexible 

rules, and in particular for a waiver of the cost-sharing and local 

matching provisions, and also a waiver of the requirement that 

these be new additional personnel. 

So we, of course, are hopeful about our economic recovery as we 

chart our way back to full economic health, but we know that local 

public safety budgets are not recovered, and that there is a good 

deal of unevenness around the country in the health of those budgets. 

Now, your testimony states that the fiscal 2012 request includes 

$670 million for firefighter assistance grant programs. Included in 

this amount are $420 million for SAFER grants to rehire laid-off 

firefighters and retain veteran first responders, totaling 2,300 firefighter positions. You do need a waiver to use SAFER funds to retain firefighters, and I want to ask you about an apparent omission, maybe an inadvertent omission, that this waiver isn’t included in the 2012 budget. So the question is quite straightforward: 

Do you support the continuation of waivers to retain firefighters? 

And in your opinion, have the waivers been successful in stemming 

the tide of potential firefighters layoffs? 

Mr. FUGATE. The first question, yes, sir. The second question, 

based upon the available funds, yes, sir, there have been those that 

have been rehired or those that we prevented the layoffs from. And 

in many cases, there has been more demand for the funds than the 

availability of those dollars. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
394 

So the first question is yes. The second question, sir, is yes. 

GRANTS: ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. PRICE. Yes, that is certainly my impression as well. When we 

were having the debate on the House floor over H.R. 1, at that 

point a number of firefighters from around the country made their 

way to Washington. They did a real service, I think, in doing that 

and in bearing witness to the difference these funds had made as 

their departments attempted to retain their full strength in terms 

of personnel. 

Will you say a word about the budget proposal with respect to 

the fire grants as compared to the personnel program, what kind 

of rationale underlies that request? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. Given the issues of looking at where we 

could make reductions and target those reductions, we felt in the 

current budget climate that we should continue to level funding for 

firefighter personnel, and that if we were going to have to look at 

a reduction, we would take it in the equipment support. We realized that neither—these options are not necessarily things people 

want to see, but because of the reality of the budget and the request to reduce our funding, we made the strategic decision for the 

positions themselves versus the equipment and other programs eligible under the AFG grants. 

Mr. PRICE. So that the decision is a function of the budget pressures you are experiencing and perceiving, not a reduced demand 

or any judgments necessarily about the program itself? 

Mr. FUGATE. No, sir. I think this, again, comes back to we don’t 

have unlimited resources. We generally see far more grant requests 

than we have funds. That is just a reality of what we are doing. 

But in looking at where we are going to make reductions and make 

those recommended reductions to Congress, we felt that reducing 

the grant programs for the equipment and other programs that are 

eligible was preferable than reducing the funding for the actual 

firefighters themselves, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. I will wait on the next round for the mapping because I do want to get into that. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for being here. I know that you are from Florida. 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. 

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM: COVERAGE

Mr. CRENSHAW. And so you know a little bit about hurricanes. 

And I guess when you look across the country, as you said, we are 

always going to have disasters. I mean, we are going to have hurricanes, we are going to have tornadoes, we are going to have earthquakes. And I guess Katrina was a pretty good example, like $80 

billion. 

And I want to ask you a little bit about what you think the Federal Government’s role ought to be in helping States like Florida, 

who tries to kind of plan in advance through catastrophic insurVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:13 Sep 21, 2011 Jkt 068060 PO 00000 Frm 00394 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A060P2.XXX A060P2

emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
395 

ance. And there have been proposals from time to time to have 

Federal legislation that would allow States to get together and to 

pool their resources, because if we assume that we are going to 

have these disasters, and we assume that they are going to be very, 

very expensive, it seems like one of the things we ought to be trying to do is try to help private dollars, insurance dollars, prefund 

some of those catastrophes. 

So could you talk a little bit about—I can’t remember exactly 

what goes on in Florida, but I know there have been efforts to do 

that—how you think that works, and do you think that the Federal 

Government ought to set up some sort of program to expand that 

to where States are getting together where they are going to have 

an earthquake in California and a hurricane in Florida and a tornado in Kansas? What are your thoughts about that to help reduce 

the overall cost, because if we keep going like we are going, sooner 

or later there is going to be one gigantic hurricane even bigger 

than Katrina, and in these days of difficult dollars, it could really 

put a hurting on the Federal Treasury. 

Mr. FUGATE. Congressman, coming from Florida, as you know, 

the primary issue here has been the affordability and availability 

of coverage for insurance for individual homeowners and businesses. And so I will limit the questions to that. I think it is another discussion about the cost of the impacts to the government 

and the government buildings and other facilities themselves. 

We currently administer a National Flood Insurance Program in 

the United States, which is a federally administered, federally 

backed by the U.S. taxpayer program of providing a type of insurance that the private sector does not provide. That program is not 

solvent; it has a lot of challenges and is currently being discussed 

for reauthorization. Currently FEMA, the National Flood Insurance 

Program, owes close to $18 billion to the Treasury due to payouts 

as a result of the hurricanes in 2005. 

In looking at how you address this, I think we have to be very 

careful that we engage the private sector in such a way that we 

don’t increase the vulnerability or the burden to the taxpayers unless it is a strategic investment on behalf of the taxpayer to mitigate some of those risks. I think some of the things you discussed 

as providing, because of the interstate clause, States the ability to 

pool reinsurance rather than doing State by State may be an area 

to look at. We certainly are encouraged by the draft legislation that 

would look at how we could begin to engage the private sector in 

some aspects of the National Flood Insurance Program. 

But I think you are absolutely right. Most of the assistance that 

we provide in the individual assistance program is based upon lack 

of insurance, whether it was a particular exposure that wasn’t covered by a homeowner policy such as the exclusion of floodwaters 

and requirement of a national flood insurance policy; whether it is 

exclusions by wind that you face in your communities where the 

various State insurers have basically said, ‘‘We will provide everything but hurricane protection, and you are going to have to buy 

that from a State wind pool’’; to earthquakes, now sinkholes, now 

mold. 

And I think it is going to be a growing challenge that if we are 

looking at the private-sector insurance to provide the bulk of the 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
396 

protection to individual homeowners in the private sector, that is 

something we need to look at. But I will caution against the Federal Government becoming a direct provider of that insurance. I 

think that the National Flood Insurance Program shows some of 

the challenges with that. And it may be more on the lines of looking at some of the interstate clauses of allowing the insurance commissioners in States to pool resources. 

The biggest issue is, unless you can geographically distribute 

your risk across areas, it is very difficult to reduce the total cost 

of that risk. If you are looking at a hurricane-prone State like Florida, could you offset some of that risk with a flood-prone or an 

earthquake-prone State so that you didn’t have the same hazard in 

the same pool as what would happen if you just looked at the Gulf 

Coast States? 

Mr. CRENSHAW. But in a bigger sense, a broader sense, you said 

it would be something worth looking at. But the catastrophic insurance pool that Florida has to kind of prefund those catastrophes as 

opposed to waiting until it happens and then kind of bail it out, 

like we do at the Federal level, do you have any thoughts? Is that 

kind of beyond what you have had to focus on from day to day, or 

do you think there ought to be some way to try to allow States that 

are subject to these disasters to pool their assets to broad—not just 

the individual property insurance owners, but in a broad sense deal 

with these major, major catastrophes, that it might be more affordable if States got together and pooled their resources? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, I think the Florida wind pool and the citizens 

insurance company, which is the State’s insurer of last resort, offer 

cautionary tales of the pros and cons. As you well know, and as a 

Florida resident, if we have a catastrophic impact to the wind pool, 

the way they are able to pay that is everybody that owns an insurance policy will be charged a surcharge. We currently are paying 

surcharges for previous events. That model is very vulnerable to 

the large-scale impacts of a major windstorm, such as the great 

Miami hurricane in 1926, [and] would produce impacts in the $100 

billion range. 

I don’t think the State wind pool can absorb those catastrophic 

hits as currently designed, and I think that places an extreme vulnerability to everybody that has an insurance policy. You are going 

to have to subsidize that risk after the fact. 

So I think there are some perils to that, but I also think there 

are some advantages, because lacking that, the ability to have wind 

coverage in Florida would have gone the way of many of the private systems, that we would no longer provide that coverage. And 

that would cause the other economic impact of not being able to insure homes against a very prevalent threat in Florida. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Carter. 

REMEDIAL ACTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In recent reports in January of this year by DHS Office of Inspector General, FEMA was criticized for not conducting after-action reviews of all disaster responses, as well as not communicating 

these reviews to FEMA personnel. The IG reported that FEMA has 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
397 

missed opportunities to learn from past experiences, and the IG 

gave FEMA six recommendations to improve its Remedial Action 

Management Program. 

What are you doing in response to these six recommendations, 

and how are you working to improve the remedial action program? 

Mr. FUGATE. Congressman, we took the IG’s reports to heart. We 

are implementing these. One of the things that we have done that 

is a shorter term is we have a series of no notice exercises that my 

staff have used—a term I use called ‘‘thunderbolts,’’ which we send 

out both an exercise team and an evaluation team to do quick reports and quick looks. 

I think one of our challenges, if we only look at the catastrophic 

large-scale disasters, the frequencies of those don’t give us the improvement that we need in the short term. So we are not only looking at the IG’s recommendations, we are also throughout FEMA, 

without advance notice, doing no notice exercises at both the headquarters and the regional levels, with both an exercise component 

and an after-action quick look report, to find those areas we need 

to address immediately to continue to improve against that. 

So we took it very seriously. We know that that process had 

sometimes become too convoluted and so complex that by the time 

we got the information, we were years into the aftermath of an 

event. So we have been focusing on, particularly in our no notice 

exercises, doing very quick action reports that occur within a week 

of the exercise to give us a snapshot of what worked, what didn’t 

work, and what we have got to focus on. 

So we are implementing both the IG recommendations, but also 

are looking at a shorter-term process to really start building these 

lessons back quicker versus waiting for the formal reviews being 

completed and trying to build that into an after-action. 

DATA BACKUP SYSTEM

Mr. CARTER. I understand that FEMA lost 7 years’ worth of 

after-action reports and best practices when a server failed last 

year. And in February of this year, this data was still unreadable, 

as I understand it. What is the status of that failure, and does 

FEMA anticipate being able to read this data? And what are you 

going to do to prevent this from happening again? 

Mr. FUGATE. I am not sure what the forensics are going to be 

able to do with that server. It was a catastrophic failure, and I am 

not sure that we are going to be able to get any of that data back. 

Since then we have moved to the lessons learned system and actually have more of a cloud architecture to move away from a single 

point of failure. But it does show some of the state that our IT infrastructure was in, literally a server box without backup; therefore 

a single point of failure wiped out all the data. 

So as we move toward the DHS strategic plan for IT management and start moving things in the data centers and data clouds 

where we have the back-up and the redundancies, to eliminate the 

hardware failure, and then, more importantly, to continue to use 

things like the lessonslearned.gov site to post this information so 

it is not lost, and it is available to the response community. 

Mr. CARTER. Had either you or previous FEMA Directors, noticed 

that you had a problem of a not-backed-up system and made a reVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:40 Sep 21, 2011 Jkt 068060 PO 00000 Frm 00397 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A060P2.XXX A060P2

emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
398 

quest of this committee or anyone to back up these systems in a 

time when at least the Nation looks upon FEMA as a massive disaster response—we realize what your real nature is, but we hearken back to our two or three great hurricanes in the gulf a while 

back, and everybody thought FEMA was in charge of everything, 

and then to realize that you had servers that were not backed up. 

When you listen to the radio, and they tell you about every 45 minutes you need a back-up of your data, it seems to me somebody 

should have noticed that. Has anybody made requests on that matter? 

Mr. FUGATE. On that particular server, no, sir. Overall, yes, sir. 

We are, in part of our budget, looking at how we move from a system of server boxes into the data centers and data cloud. This is 

a migration within the Department of Homeland Security to move 

away from what I would call the single points of failure into a distributed cloud-based environment where we have the built-in backup and security on these systems. 

Too often what we have found is we have been looking at our IT 

as we have a lot of different programs that have servers that don’t 

have the support, don’t have the back-up. And so as we have been 

identifying them, we are trying to move all that to the DHS data 

center approach and get away from individual boxes. 

So for that particular one, sir, I didn’t have visibility until it happened, as an aftermath. But we had recognized that our current IT 

infrastructure was very vulnerable both to security, loss of data, 

and the vulnerabilities of not having these systems where they 

were secured and backed up and available to the rest of the team. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Mr. Carter. 

Mr. Dent. 

DISASTER ASSISTANCE OVERPAYMENTS

Mr. DENT. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Fugate, good to be with you. 

Last month FEMA began sending notice of debt letters to disaster assistance applicants who received improper Federal disaster 

assistance payments. The letters were to address the most recent 

disasters first, as I understand it. The letters are informing applicants of the amount and reason for their debt, and provide information on how to repay the debt or appeal FEMA’s determination. 

First, how much money do you believe FEMA has outstanding in 

overpayments? 

Mr. FUGATE. The number that was provided in the IG report was 

about $640 million. We think that number was less than that as 

we went through and—we actually had our national processing 

centers go through the list and began looking at that. That number 

has come down. And, Congressman Dent, I request that we give 

you that figure in writing, what we think that number is, based 

upon the last scrub of going through all those applications. But 

that process has started. As you pointed out, over 5,000 of those 

letters are going out to the most recent disasters, and we are working our way back through those numbers. 

[The information follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
399 

Mr. DENT. Last month FEMA began sending notice of debt letters to disaster assistance applicants who received improper Federal disaster assistance payments. 

The letters were to address the most recent disasters first, as I understand it. The 

letters are informing applicants of the amount and reason for their debt, and provide information on how to repay the debt or appeal FEMA’s determination. 

First, how much money do you believe FEMA has outstanding in overpayments? 

Mr. FUGATE. The number that was provided in the IG report was about $640 million. We think that number was less than that as we went through and—-we actually had our national processing centers go through the list and began looking at 

that. That number has come down. And, Congressman Dent, I request that we give 

you that figure in writing, what we think that number is, based upon the last scrub 

of going through all those applications. But that process has started. As you pointed 

out, more than 5,000 of those letters are going out to the most recent disasters, and 

we are working our way back through those numbers. 

Response: To date we have identified $21,754,993.93 in recoupment dollars for applicants provided disaster assistance funding (October 2005 to present) through the 

Individuals and Households Program (IHP). This does not include any Katrina, Rita, 

or Wilma recoupments through the IHP as the review is still being conducted on 

this subset of disaster payment recipients. 

Mr. DENT. And I guess the second question would be do you 

know the kind of responses that FEMA has received to the letters 

being sent out to those individuals and families requesting a repayment, and are people responding to the letter, I guess? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir, they are responding to the letter. In most 

cases they are questioning why they would need to repay. It is falling into several categories. In some cases errors were made in the 

process of determining eligibility; in some cases it is they had duplication of benefits. They had insurance that paid, but now they 

had gotten the assistance, or were having multiple parties that applied from the same household, and so multiple individuals have 

gotten that. 

The process we are trying to use is in many cases if we got more 

documentation, they may not have an outstanding debt. This is indicating, based upon what we know, they have an outstanding 

debt. If they have documentation that we are asking for, it may establish there is no debt, and that will close the case. If we do, however, determine that they do have a debt, and they owe money 

back, they have several options. They can pay in full. They can do 

a payment plan. But at the point at which they either are unresponsive or refuse to repay money after we have been able to make 

contact, ultimately these are referred to Treasury for collection. 

So this process starts with this is what we think you owe. Provide us information. If that information satisfies our request, it is 

closed; if not, and we still demonstrate you owe us, then the options are to begin a repayment program or to pay it in full. 

Mr. DENT. So essentially if somebody fails to respond to a letter, 

you refer the matter over to Treasury for collection; is that how it 

works? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. Ultimately, if we can determine that that 

is a viable case that we would not be able to get either them to 

respond to us or that they do not agree to repay it, ultimately it 

would go to Treasury if it is determined that is a repayment—— 

Mr. DENT. Is there an intermediate step? In other words, if they 

do not respond to the letter, do you go right to Treasury? 

Mr. FUGATE. No sir. We will do additional attempts to notify. 

And again hopefully, again, as they get the letters, they will respond back to us. And in many cases if we can get some additional 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
400 

documentation, it may clear the issue up, and they were eligible in 

the first place. So we are hoping people will understand that. 

But it does provide that they have the right of appeal. This is 

a requirement that came about after a judge found that our process 

was not compliant and essentially we were no longer able to do 

recoupments to give you what it is, why we think you owe the 

money, and state clearly how to appeal that and how to notify us 

of your intention to pay. 

Mr. DENT. And my final question, is there going to be another 

round of notice of debt letters this year? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DENT. Okay. I yield back. Thank you. 

PREPAREDNESS CAPABILITIES

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Mr. Dent. 

As I stated earlier in my opening remarks, after almost a decade 

of the Department cannot measure if we are safer or more prepared from the $33 billion investment we have made in preparedness grants, over the past decade FEMA has made many attempts 

to measure capability, but none have been implemented. The continual excuses and delays must stop. The American taxpayer deserves to know what they are getting for their investment. 

Do you agree that there needs to be a quantifiable metrics that 

measures capabilities, that measures if we are safer or we are more 

prepared than we have been in the past? 

Mr. FUGATE. Mr. Chairman, when we first started this and I was 

State director, I asked the questions: What are we building? How 

do we know it is built? And how do we maintain it? 

I think we can measure what we are doing. I think we can demonstrate in many cases significant improvements in everything 

from interoperable communications to enhancements and increased 

capability for bomb squads, hazardous material teams, increased 

medical capacity. We can give you numbers to show what we have 

invested in and what that has provided us. But do you have a matrix that asks what are we preparing against? And once we get to 

that number, then how do we maintain it, and what is the appropriate Federal share versus local and State share? 

And I think this goes back to one area that we have made 

progress in, which is to be able to measure the number of exercises 

and the participation exercises. I was asked one time, how do you 

know if we are prepared? And in many cases it always comes back 

to if a disaster occurs, was the response better? But my observation 

has been those communities that have engaged—particularly local 

elected leadership, State leadership—in exercises do much better in 

the response to both the disasters they have planned for and the 

things they have never had happen previously in their communities. 

We think that in measuring exercise, participation, frequency, 

and the effectiveness of those exercises is one of the better measures of showing increased preparedness. Those who do have historically performed better in their response; those who don’t have 

greater challenges, particularly when it comes to the initial impacts decision-making in executive-level operations. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
401 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Knowing that, of course, we agree on that, how 

long will it be before you can actually tell us that these grants are 

making us more safer and making us more resilient? 

Mr. FUGATE. Good question. How do we define it? I think this is, 

again, coming back to what level are we going to define as prepared, and what measures are we going to use. 

I think that we are looking right now at our ability to measure 

and look at the exercises. I think that in looking at other things 

to measure is looking at—Mr. Chairman, if you will indulge me, 

this may take a little bit of time. But I think what I ran into when 

I got here was we always said we are going to respond better and 

faster. I asked, ‘‘By how much? What are we doing? What are we 

planning against?’’ We never really put a time frame on how fast 

response should be; we just said we want it fast. 

My observation is the first 72 hours of any disaster is the most 

critical time for changing the outcome for lifesaving and stabilization. That means you have to look at what capabilities have you 

built that are both local and State initial responses and what resources do you need to bring, and now you need to plan against 

these scenarios that produce the maximum impacts, whether it is 

an improvised nuclear device, a major hurricane, or major earthquake. 

NATIONAL LEVEL EXERCISE

In NLE 11, our exercise that we are going to be conducting for 

the central U.S., part of this is to look at how rapidly can we get 

teams in to do some things that are very measurable, such as conducting and doing the initial search for the injured in the first 72 

hours of a no notice event, and basing that upon the catastrophic 

impacts of the likely hazards we face, what we are calling the maximum of maximums; that now gives us something to start measuring. Given that we have X amount of teams, X amount of resources, we have built—and you look into reports from the States 

on how much additional search and rescue teams have been built 

at State and local levels that are not part of the Federal USAR 

(Urban Search and Rescue) teams. Can we get those teams there 

fast enough through mutual aid and other tools to get there, and 

what is our gap? 

That is how we are going to start measuring preparedness. We 

are going to put it up against the actual events this country faces, 

looking at a time frame that we are going to exercise at National 

Level Exercise 11, and looking at how quickly can we get there, if 

we can change that outcome, and what is the gap. And I think this 

then gives us a direction not necessarily to spend more money, but 

to look at where do we make investments elsewhere that have capabilities that have not been brought to bear, such as we don’t engage the private sector in a lot of our search and rescue. But what 

about mine safety rescue teams? How would we engage them if we 

were in New Madrid, in Memphis, doing search and rescue to bring 

those teams on board? 

These are the kind of things we want to measure preparedness 

against. Take historical events that we know we can model what 

the potential impacts are; look at the first 72 hours, whether it is 

a chem bio. Can we distribute prophylactics in an anthrax attack 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
402 

in a major metropolitan area, and use those to plan against? And 

given what we have built, what do we need to maintain? Adjusting 

for what is not achieving that mission, but measured against the 

events and the time frames, how do we as a Nation respond to 

these types of events? 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I think the 72-hour time frame you discuss is 

very important. But going back to my original question, when do 

you think that we might get to see something like this put together? 

Mr. FUGATE. I think the actual measuring tools we have developed in looking at how we demonstrate the response in the first 72 

hours, we are looking at 13 critical areas of things that have to be 

accomplished. We are going to use these to test the system in NLE 

11. And we are also using the concept we are calling the maximum 

maximum, looking at these large-scale scenarios, very similar to 

what we saw in Japan, and now using those to start looking at nationally how much capacity do we have to respond to that. And I 

think NLE 11 will give us a chance to look at that in real time and 

then further refine that. 

So this year what we are focusing on right now is the exercise 

component of measuring that. I think the next area that we are 

going to focus on is the Urban Search and Rescue Teams—both the 

28 that are federally sponsored and the numerous teams that local 

and State governments built with their Homeland Security dollars 

and are currently maintaining with those dollars—and the urban 

security initiatives. And given that mix, tools such as the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, which the States have, 

can we effectively as a Nation mobilize not only the Federal teams, 

but also State and local teams to respond, and what does that 

measure, and how do we determine where we are at on that system? So in looking at this, start taking these pieces. 

And again, sir, in my observations process, everybody has been 

trying to come up with a finished product. I think we got to start 

doing this in pieces; that we know this is an area that we need to 

measure because it has a definite outcome. Let’s get it in place and 

quit waiting for a finished document that we are going to go 

against to look at these issues. 

So we are going to start with exercising. The next area we are 

going to be looking at are the things like the teams that have been 

paid for and built and maintained. But starting with the search 

and rescue teams, look at the additional teams that have been built 

for the chem and bio effects, and start measuring that against 

these events. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. 

Mr. Price. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Administrator, let me, before I get into my question, just commend you for that answer. I think there is a lot of 

common sense and experience reflected in that answer. We all 

would like to estimate risk more accurately, and we all would like 

to measure the effects of what we are doing more accurately. And 

you are suggesting a very practical approach to that which has to 

do with specific interventions. It is very important that we understand what works and what doesn’t, and that we measure the impact of these interventions. There is a kind of Holy Grail, though, 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
403 

that we sometimes seem to be pursuing, a comprehensive method 

of estimating risk and allocating funds accordingly, and then measuring impacts in a similar kind of global way. I have worked as 

hard as anyone on this Subcommittee to try to refine our instruments for risk assessment and to refine our ways of measuring our 

impacts, but just looking at the range of programs you are talking 

about, I don’t believe one size fits all. 

For example, just the range of grant programs that you administer. They vary in the extent to which they are risk-based. UASI 

grants, for example, are allocated on the basis of some rather 

straightforward risk assessments. Some other grants like the State 

grants, the EMPGs, are very decentralized; they are allocated according to population and other factors. And you leave, I think 

rightly so a good deal of the determination of how those funds are 

expended and where they are directed to your State and local partners. 

Other grant programs work on the basis not just of some central 

administrator’s estimate of what the needs are out there, but they 

take into account the initiative that is being taken locally. We have 

a lot of our fire chiefs represented here this morning. The fire 

grants quite explicitly reward the fire departments that take initiatives, that help themselves, and that get their act together, and 

that make meritorious proposals. This area I want to question you 

about, floodplain mapping, is the same thing. 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY: EFFECTIVENESS

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank Mr. Price for his questioning, because it brings up 

something that I have some curiosity about. 

Locally, I have a town in my district, Salado, which has a creek 

that runs through it and there was an upper-end subdivision built 

in that watershed. These were houses $250,000 and up, and the 

flood maps showing an area, which everybody who ever lived in Salado for any length of time said, they are nuts, that is not out of 

the flood plain; that is in the flood plain. But it was insisted that 

those maps were accurate, and about 40 houses were built in that 

area. We had one flood that flooded those houses; and asked that 

the maps be corrected to indicate that obviously it had flooded, and 

amazingly enough they came back with the answer, those were accurate flood plain maps. 

Well, last year, we had a second flood came through. We lost all 

those houses, and they have finally said sort of an, oops, I guess 

we screwed up, even though half the world was telling us we were 

wrong, and we will look again and see if we made a mistake. 

To me, it is just a no-brainer, that if there are 60 houses that 

flooded twice, it probably ought to be considered flood plain. So it 

concerns me that this is cut back, too. I will have to admit that, 

because I think that was a mess-up. 

And then the conversation you were having with the chairman 

here. You know, when I first got on this committee, which is 6 

years ago, there was an ongoing debate, and it is still ongoing at 

the local level: FEMA as a standalone versus FEMA as part of this 

Department. And I would assume, because that debate has been 

very vocal around the whole country, that someone would have 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
404 

done some kind of comparison of response and preparedness of 

FEMA when it was standalone versus FEMA as part of this Department, so there would have been some sort of metrics established. I just would have assumed that, if nothing else, some kid 

writing a dissertation should have probably written something on 

that. 

Do you have any information about any comparisons about 

FEMA as a standalone agency, which at least early on people kind 

of felt like we made a mistake putting them in this big Department 

and they should have been standalone all along? This debate has 

been on this committee since I have been here, at least the discussion has gone on. And were there any metrics used to make those 

kind of studies, or do you know? 

Mr. FUGATE. Congressman, I am not aware of that. 

I can’t tell you just the numbers. After the post-Katrina emergency management format, FEMA is now almost double the size it 

was when it was a standalone agency. 

Another significant event was in passing the post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act. For the first time, we actually had 

a mission statement and a purpose in legislation rather than the 

Stafford Act and appropriations language. 

So I think there is a clearer mission. It is a larger, more robust 

organization than we had when it was a standalone. 

As far as the issue should we be in or out of DHS, in my testimony during my confirmation hearing, I felt that the matter was 

resolved: We were part of DHS. We need to get back to work and 

focus on it. I felt that continuing discussions about whether FEMA 

was in or out was a distraction from my mission. I am very fortunate, working for Secretary Napolitano and being part of DHS, that 

I can tap into the resources of the other components, but I also 

have a tremendous amount of flexibility she gives me in order to 

be very responsive to the States when they have an issue. 

So I don’t feel it has compromised FEMA’s mission. I feel that 

we are a part of an organization that gives us a lot of capability 

from resources from our partners in the Coast Guard, Customs and 

Borders, law enforcement support from ICE. 

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

So I really, sir, I don’t know if anybody has done a study. I know 

that you look at the numbers today and where we were previously 

as a standalone agency, we are bigger with more capabilities, more 

authorities that Congress has provided us. And my personal opinion is, sir, I have not been engaging in that debate. I have been 

focusing on the things we need to do to get FEMA where you expect us to be, to where the public expects us to be. 

Mr. CARTER. I don’t expect you to engage in that debate. I think 

that question has been satisfied. But I assume, because it was indicated that you are looking for metrics to analyze your effectiveness 

today. And, by the way, there are some of us who don’t always 

think bigger is better in this world. Some of us think maybe lean 

and mean sometimes operates a little better. But that is a debate 

for another time. 

But you were saying that you were working to develop metrics, 

and I was wondering, because this debate was pretty loud and 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
405 

pretty long for a long time, that somebody might have done some 

studies that would at least set metrics up that you might could use 

to judge your department now. I guess that was my question. 

Mr. FUGATE. No, sir. I think most of the things that people were 

measuring was our administration of the Stafford Act. And, quite 

honestly, that is a program that provides financial assistance reimbursement and has the ability to do tasking to other Federal agencies for disaster. But my experience as a State director and as a 

local administrator was that the things that we are talking about 

now, setting performance measures, have never been part of the 

national preparedness dialogue. People said we wanted to respond, 

but nobody defined what that meant. People said we wanted to go 

out and do all this stuff, but nobody put a time limit against it that 

says—I mean, quite honestly, sir, if you are injured in a disaster, 

how much time do you have? That sets the response posture, not 

what I am capable of doing. I think this has been the trap we run 

into. 

We plan for what we are capable of doing versus what the threat 

is. And I agree with you 100 percent: I don’t think you need to be 

bigger. I am not asking that we have to constantly grow FEMA. I 

think you have got us to the critical mass. But I think we have got 

to define what outcome we are going to achieve, and then not fall 

into the other trap I have seen us do, and that is always look at 

a government-centric solution and forget there are tremendous resources every day in every community 1 minute before that disaster struck. Why do we start 1 minute after that and ignore the 

resources? 

Mr. CARTER. I wouldn’t expect anybody from Florida to have any 

other response than that, so I respect that. 

If I have time, I have one more question that troubles me. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Time is up. We will let you on the next round. 

Mrs. Lowey. 

NUCLEAR CRISIS: EVACUATION PLANNING

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome. The Indian Point nuclear facility is located near 

my district and is within 30 miles of New York City. The government has recently recommended a 50-mile evacuation zone in 

Japan. If a 50-mile evacuation were ordered for Indian Point, 20 

million people would need to be evacuated, including Times Square, 

Wall Street, and parts of Connecticut and New Jersey. 

Mr. Fugate, you have an emergency preparedness background. 

Can you honestly tell this Committee that adequate plans exist to 

evacuate the most densely populated region of the country if there 

were an incident at Indian Point? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, based upon two assumptions that are not the 

current assumptions that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

[NRC] uses for planning is, one, that you would have a full population evacuation 50 miles from the point of the nuclear power 

plant. The current guidance is a 10-mile range. So based upon that, 

the area I am most familiar with, in working as part of the team 

that does the exercises and reviews those exercises with the NRC, 

is a 10-mile evacuation. I don’t know if I could speak to the 50-mile 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
406 

evacuation, because that is not one of the plans that are currently 

there for nuclear power plants. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Let me just say very clearly that Indian Point is up 

for relicensing in the year 2013, 2015, and you are the agency that 

is going to be responsible for the evacuation. So with all due respect, I am puzzled why you are sticking to the 10-mile radius. 

Your agency, as we know, would have the leading role with the response to a radiation leak at Indian Point. And given events in 

Japan, especially our own government’s reaction, including advising Americans to evacuate a 50-mile area, which for Indian Point 

would include 20 million people, surely you would be closely evaluating your ability to protect the public. I don’t understand why you 

are assuming and accepting a 10-mile radius. And wouldn’t you be 

considering, based upon what happened in Japan, the 50-mile radius? 

Mr. FUGATE. In the division of the responsibilities to determine 

what the protective areas and the protective measures are, those 

are provided in guidance from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

in consultation with the States. The actual evacuations are conducted by local and State governments with FEMA supporting 

them. Again, the current planning guidance, which FEMA does not 

establish but works to be able to exercise and test, is a 10-mile 

evacuation zone based upon those threats and scenarios that the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission has identified. 

If at such time that radius was ever increased, we would again 

work with State and local governments to determine the effectiveness of those evacuations. As you well know, in licensing a nuclear 

power plant, part of that evaluation does require that the communities and State can effect a successful evacuation. So if that guidance changes, that would be the determination: Could you successfully evacuate a larger population in the time frames given, and if 

not, would that result in any impacts to licenser’s ability to operate 

the plant? 

Mrs. LOWEY. Now, you are saying if that guidance changes. Do 

you have any role, any input as to whether it is feasible to evacuate 20 million people from now that is 10-mile radius—Do you 

make that determination or do they? 

Mr. FUGATE. We do not make the recommendations on the protective zones. And the 10-mile emergency protective zone is the one 

in which they look at the options of either sheltering in place or 

evacuations. Because FEMA does not make that determination, we 

would work with State and local governments if that changed to 

determine if that could be done and the time frames given in a 

power plant accident. 

So if that increased, that would obviously result in us having to 

go back, work with State and local governments, update the plan, 

and then exercise and evaluate that plan to see if you could achieve 

the evacuations in the time frames given. 

Mrs. LOWEY. So I am a little puzzled. You are saying FEMA, that 

should have this expertise, doesn’t have the input based upon Nuclear Regulatory Commission determination as to whether it should 

be 50 miles or 10 miles? You are not involved in this decision at 

all? 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
407 

Mr. FUGATE. We are not the scientific advisers or the engineers 

that make those recommendations and determinations. We are part 

of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations required to 

work with State and local governments to ensure whatever those 

protective measures are, they can be exercised and executed if an 

event occurs. 

Mrs. LOWEY. I will let it go at this point. 

But I think there is a real question as to what FEMA’s role is 

in determining whether an evacuation should be 50 miles—you 

know, I think my issue that is of great concern to me is when you 

consider relicensing, you don’t consider it in light of new data and 

new information but based on the old data and the old information. 

So I am a little concerned that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

would not have any concentration process in place to deal with 

FEMA. But I will go on to another question before my time is up. 

UASI funding has continually been diluted by increasing the 

number of recipients, and what started as a program for seven 

urban areas now serves 64. Every area of the country deserves 

funds, I want to make that very clear, but not from the high-risk 

program. And I attached an amendment to H.R. 1 to limit UASI 

funding to the top 25 highest risked regions, restoring the program 

to its original intent. 

The 9/11 Commission report stated clearly that Federal Homeland Security assistance should not remain a program for general 

revenue sharing, end quote. Why then do you continue to disregard 

both the recommendations of the Commission and the intent of 

Congress in creating UASI by providing funding to localities that 

are neither high risk nor high density? And, again, I want to make 

it clear, they can get other pots of money. But why this pot of 

money? 

Did I hear—I thought I was asked to close, but as long as the 

chairman is very indulgent—— 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Your time is fleeting, but we will go ahead and 

sum up the last and answer. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Some opponents of my amendment have stated that 

current UASI cities, such as Denver and Bridgeport, are key sites 

to the logistical planning of potential terrorist attacks. How much 

FEMA first responder funding did Colorado and Connecticut receive apart from the UASI program in fiscal year 2010? 

And if you don’t have that answer, I am sure you can get back 

to me. Because it is my understanding that Colorado and Connecticut, for example, each received more than $20 million through 

other FEMA programs. Does that sound right? And, further, there 

is nothing stopping any State Homeland Security Office from distributing State Homeland Security GP and other FEMA grants in 

the localities on the basis of need, correct? 

Mr. FUGATE. That is correct. As far as the actual numbers, I 

would request to get back in writing those actual totals and the 

grant fundings and the breakdown of those fundings for those 

States. 

[The information follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
408 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 500 68060A.341
409 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 501 68060A.342
410 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 502 68060A.343
411 

Mrs. LOWEY. And I want to make it clear again; everyone should 

get funding, but not as a high-risk program that began as 7 and 

is now at 64. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. 

Ms. Roybal-Allard. 

CATASTROPHIC PLANNING

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Recent events in Japan have highlighted 

the risk that earthquakes pose and the need to improve our preparedness, as I am sure has been discussed here earlier. As you 

know, California is especially vulnerable. A seismic event in Los 

Angeles could claim countless lives and inflict more than $500 billion in damages. 

Now, Ms. Lowey, I understand, asked about a disaster affecting 

the nuclear power plant near New York, and I have similar concerns about California which has two nuclear power plants located 

near major fault lines. 

You have testified in the past about the importance of careful 

planning to have effective response in the event of a disaster. 

Could you describe FEMA’s efforts to plan for a catastrophic earthquake in Southern California? And have you considered scenarios 

in which these States’ nuclear power plants are seriously being 

damaged? And not only an earthquake, but our understanding is 

if it is of the magnitude of Japan, it could also result in a tsunami 

for the West Coast. 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, we have. In fact, we participate in the State 

of California’s Golden Guardian exercises and work these types of 

issues and plan against catastrophics. 

I think one of the things that Japan showed us, we saw this with 

Hurricane Katrina, is oftentimes the original event cascades into 

additional impacts, such as the power plants being engaged or 

other types of technological disasters occurring as a result of the 

initial hazard itself. 

And so we have been working with the State of California. In 

fact, we are working with the entire West Coast, both for earthquake hazards but also tsunami hazards. It wasn’t very widely reported, but we actually did have tsunami-related damages on our 

coast. It was fortunately not to the degree of loss of life or the impacts, but we were under tsunami warnings along the California 

coast in the aftermath of that. 

So our Region 9—and something that the ranking member pointed out—is we have been working hard to empower our regional offices, in our case, Region 9, which covers California, to work closer 

with the States on catastrophic planning, to look at not just again 

the tendency to say we are going to write a plan and put it on the 

shelf, but to engage in actual exercising and testing of those plans 

and those assumptions. 

We look at what happened in Japan as an opportunity for lessons 

learned to come back and ask the question: If you have this massive earthquake but you also now have additional issues, such as 

a nuclear power plant or other technological hazards that are occurring, how do you respond to them? 

So these are ongoing programs. This is an ongoing process. And 

I think it points out that too often we focus on our last big disaster, 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
412 

and in our case, it was hurricanes. But you can see a hurricane 

coming, as we have seen in Haiti, in Chile, in Christchurch and, 

unfortunately, in Japan. There is no lead time or warning for an 

earthquake. It happens. You have to be able to respond to it. 

So we plan and work with our partners to leverage both our resources capabilities. But we look at these very issues you brought 

up: The large-scale events, the multi-dimensions of multiple issues 

happening, and then begin looking at, how do you respond based 

upon the priority of lifesaving, life-sustaining, and the initial stabilization to begin looking at recovery? 

DISASTER RESPONSE: BUDGET CUTS

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. As you know, we are in the middle of dealing with budgets for the rest of this year as well as for next year. 

And to have a better understanding of what the impact of what 

some of these recommendations are with regards to the budget, I 

would like to focus a little bit on H.R. 1, which slashes more than 

$800 million from FEMA’s grant programs. 

Now, unfortunately, these cuts come at a time when, according 

to the DHS Inspector General, State and local governments across 

the country have been forced to significantly reduce their spending 

on emergency management. So if H.R. 1 is enacted and we have 

these cuts, Los Angeles, as I understand it, stands to lose almost 

$60 million in critically important funds to protect the city against 

acts of terrorism, respond to natural disasters, and to improve 

emergency communications. 

What is the likely impact on your agency’s operations if the capabilities of major cities like Los Angeles are diminished as a result 

of these cuts? And will a greater burden fall on FEMA in emergency situations if local governments lack the means to respond effectively? 

Mr. FUGATE. My experience tells me that where local governments don’t have the capability or resources to respond to the disasters and, as a State, having to bring those in, it costs us far more 

than those communities that had that basic preparedness. I know 

that from the perspective of what I have seen in disaster response 

at FEMA, for those States that have built those capabilities, in 

many cases, FEMA does not have to engage in a response role, but 

rather a recovery role, because they are able to manage their response. 

This is a tough question, I think. Mr. Chairman and for the 

members here, this is really I think getting to the crux of the 

grants. We don’t want to supplant local responsibilities, but there 

is a cost to the taxpayer. And this is the balancing point we have 

to determine. I don’t think you can indefinitely fund grants at a 

level that you can’t sustain. But if you cut them too fast, a lot of 

this investment and capabilities built over time will not withstand 

that kind of reduction. 

Also, many of these local governments are engaged in multiyear 

enhancements, particularly in interoperable communication. So we 

may end up with half-built systems or systems that aren’t completed, and we have already made that investment, yet we have 

never fully realized the benefits of the full package. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
413 

So I think it is a question of balance. Where is it in the interest 

of the Federal Government, the taxpayer, to invest to build capabilities and capacities at State and local levels that would reduce 

the overall cost of Federal response and, more importantly, provide 

resources closest to those survivors in the most critical first hours 

to days of that event, versus what we could build on a national 

scale to essentially replace that, and the time frame of getting it 

there? I think there needs to be a balance. And that is why, again, 

from my experience and what I have seen as a responder, those investments that we in the State of Florida made in our local communities save significant cost in the response phase. Those communities that did not have those, it cost us far more because not only 

did we have to respond to the other needs, but we oftentimes had 

to augment their basic response. And that cost us far more in the 

events that I have been involved in. 

So it is a balancing act. But it is a decision that, in doing that, 

where is it—and, again, looking from the standpoint of the Federal 

taxpayer, where do those investments make sense? And where, if 

we do reductions, would it not adversely affect the Federal response in support? But there is a tipping point there where I—and 

I think it comes back to the frustration that the chairman has basically brought up, because we have not been able to come up with 

good matrixes, we can’t really tell you what the impacts will be on 

the cuts, and so we are oftentimes dealing with the anecdotal data. 

And I think this is the challenge we have. We are going to deal and 

to face the budget realities, but we need to have the best data 

available so, as these decisions are being made, we don’t end up 

with cuts that produce unintended consequences based upon our 

previous investments. 

GRANTS: FIRST RESPONDER

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. 

And let me just add on H.R. 1, certainly the goal was not to cut 

the grants. I think overall, as we head into the known cost for disasters and those had to be paid for, and so that is where I think 

it really goes back to. 

Let me switch to another issue that we have alluded to maybe 

a little bit but get into a little more, and of course, that is the slow 

execution of the first responder grants. Each year, FEMA says they 

are working to improve the execution, but based on the latest data 

provided to the Committee, grantees continue to lag in expending 

their funds. Could you tell us what you are doing to try to address 

this issue that we have seen over the past several years? 

Mr. FUGATE. Mr. Chairman, this is as both—I have been on the 

receiving end of this as a State, where we could not draw down 

funds fast enough. And, again, the bulk of these programs are reimbursements. The locals and States expend their funds and seek 

their reimbursements, and in some cases these are multiyear 

projects. So we know that it takes several years for these grants, 

as they move through the system, to actually get drawn down out 

of the system. It doesn’t mean that States and locals have not already obligated funds; they are already in contracts or in procurement, but they are reimbursements. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
414 

I think our particular concerns are those that are at 4 years, 

where we see substantial amounts that haven’t been drawn down, 

and the tendency that as we get to the 5th year and the failure to 

execute those funds, they come back to the Treasury. 

What we have been working with are the State administrative 

agencies that are appointed by the Governor to be the grant’s administrator but also with the Homeland Security advisers and the 

State emergency management directors to give them visibility on 

what those numbers are. And I think it has been an eye opener for 

them to see what has not been drawn down, particularly in the 

subgrantees that have not finally submitted their reimbursements. 

They understand this. In fact, I addressed the new State Homeland Security adviser this morning at FEMA before I came over 

here. And, Mr. Chairman, I basically just told them flat out: You 

are looking at tremendous balances that haven’t been drawn down, 

and you are looking at an austere budget environment. It is very 

hard to justify continuing requests for grants if we do not show 

progress on getting those disaster funds, those grant funds, drawn 

down so that we can show progress that we are completing projects 

and we are expending those funds. 

So they understand, and we are putting information in their 

hands on what those balances State by State look like, grant by 

grant, to bring attention to this but also to caution them that, we 

can explain why, but until you get those numbers coming down in 

this environment, it will be a constant pressure. Why are we continuing to put more money in grants when you still have tens of 

billions outstanding to be drawn down? 

What we get back—and this is what I know from State directors, 

in many cases, they have already expended those funds. They are 

going through the process of then getting their reimbursements. In 

some cases, they are in multiyear contracts trying to get this done. 

There are delays. These are things that you run into. But it is systemic across the board. As you have pointed out, some States have 

been much more aggressive in getting their funds expended; others 

have not. And I think putting those numbers out there is trying to 

shine the light on and explain to them the gravity of this situation. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. This might be too premature. But does that seem 

to resonate? Or is that still you are waiting to see how that—— 

Mr. FUGATE. I saw a lot of eyes pop when they saw their first 

spreadsheet, sir. I think this has been one of these things that we 

have got to shine a light on and get the exposure out there. Once 

people saw the numbers, I think until they realized what it looks 

like when you look at that spreadsheet versus looking at the process of reimbursement. And so, hopefully, we can get greater traction. And, again, the proof will be when we start seeing these 

drawdowns, particularly in the older grant cycles, moving that up 

so we can start getting those funds disbursed back to the States 

and local governments for their expenditures. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Have you considered reducing the request for 

funds based on the amount of funds already in the pipeline? 

Mr. FUGATE. No, sir. It has been based upon—the one area that 

we did was, again, looking at fire grants of favoring employees, 

firefighters, versus future equipment purchases. But that was more 

driven by the budget pressures. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
415 

In looking at these grants, I think if we were dealing with things 

that were short term or rather straightforward, not multiyear 

projects, you would see if you were not expending those funds. But 

I think part of the challenge is a lot of this is getting into what 

we call maintenance as we have seen some overall trends. It isn’t 

so much we are buying and building new teams and equipment as 

much as trying to maintain and finish the projects that we have. 

But it comes back to, again, at a point—and this is I think the very 

difficult decision I think we are going to have to make: How much 

further investment? Once we have built some of this capability, 

what does it take to maintain it versus, do we continue adding 

more teams or capabilities based upon the various State initiatives? 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. 

Mr. Price. 

GRANTS: TRANSIT SECURITY AND PORT

Mr. PRICE. Let me just follow up on the Chairman’s line of questioning here, particularly in regards to two categories of grants 

that we funded in recent years and that have had particular drawdown problems. This subcommittee, as you may know, had extensive and repeated hearings on the transit security grants and the 

port grants in particular, those two programs. 

In the most recent data FEMA has given us 52.8 percent of the 

2006 port security grants have not been drawn down yet, and this 

is money that is going to expire at the end of the fiscal year. And 

for 2007 we are talking about 84 percent of the transit security 

grants not being drawn down. So these figures seem to tell a similar story. 

So I wonder if you want to elaborate on those challenges in particular? I know they both involve or have involved some interagency coordination. We dealt in some detail with the TSA-FEMA 

intersection in the transit grants, and of course, Coast Guard has 

a hand in the port grants. 

We were looking at some hopeful streamlining of these processes 

we thought, yet the figures don’t seem to suggest that this has 

worked very well yet. 

Mr. FUGATE. I believe that there is—one of the things that we 

did was we never had a memorandum of understanding with TSA 

(Transportation Security Administration) on those grants to make 

sure we had clarity of our roles and responsibilities to administer 

the grants as they set the priorities. We have that with John Pistole now, who is the head of TSA. So we are starting to get some 

of those structures in place. But again, in many cases, an honest 

question to both you and the Chairman is, given that we have built 

in flexibility in these grants, given that we have built-in appeals, 

we oftentimes get requests from Members of Congress to grant 

these extensions. The flexibility there I think has the unintended 

consequences that we are not getting these funds expended, and 

that there always seems to be one more forgiveness to extend it because something came up, something changed, a direction changed. 

And I think it is the inherent nature of trying to maintain flexibility and retain those funds and to expend it that has in some 

cases not put any emphasis on getting this project done quicker. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
416 

I think the 5-year—and I will expect, I will not be surprised that, 

with 2006 money that will lapse and go back to the Treasury, we 

will not have requests to see if we can appeal that. The answer is: 

we don’t have the authority. You made it very clear, at 5 years, it 

is going back to the Treasury. But as we go through this process 

of giving flexibility, it does build in that in many cases, that urgency to get these funds drawn down gets bogged down in the process of trying to do these projects, deal with changes, and adjust 

those strategies. 

Mr. PRICE. Extending past the 5 years requires a statutory 

change. Right? I mean, that hasn’t been under your discretion. 

Mr. FUGATE. And that is, as far as I am concerned, if we don’t— 

I mean, you have got to basically say, unless Congress gives us any 

more extensions, which I am not going to ask for or recommend, 

we have to close these projects. If you couldn’t get it done in 5 

years, we need to take the money back and put it into Treasury. 

But I think that it is getting to when you get to the third year, 

your fourth year, you are still not drawing it down. I understand 

the complexity of bid protests and environmental and historical reviews, new Governors coming in wanting to stop and review things. 

I understand all that. But your fourth year? That is troublesome. 

And in many cases, I think this is where we have to come back and 

do better work on the front end in trying to make sure that we are 

not the roadblock, that we are able to provide the grant guidance 

and that we are able to work with our applicants. But I think because of the flexibility in some of these grants and the changing 

situation we find ourselves in, we still see tremendous balances 

that have not been drawn down. 

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM: LEVEE ACCREDITATION

Mr. PRICE. Right. And I am sure the interventions and the appeals that you are talking about do occur. But the thrust of our efforts over the past several years has been to simply get this process 

unclogged at the agency and for the potential grantees to know 

what they are dealing with, what is expected of them, and to have 

reasonably quick turnaround. We really need to keep pushing on 

that. I know you agree. And we want to work with you to make 

that happen. Because if, as the Chairman suggests, current budget 

decisions are complicated by the fact that these balances are still 

there, and yet these are moneys that are needed; the demand is 

there. The purpose is quite clear, I think. We just need to get it 

done. 

Speaking of entreaties you and we get from colleagues, let me 

mention one final subject that has to do with levees. Late last year, 

many Members lobbied this Subcommittee to include a statutory 

change to the 2011 bill to prevent FEMA from refusing to account 

for flood control structures, such as levees, that are not to certain 

standards when FEMA is updating its flood maps. In other words, 

they are saying you should have to take some account of these 

structures. Now, this policy does have an impact, a major impact 

on flood insurance and related issues for some communities. 

This statutory change was not included in the omnibus or a full 

year CR, largely because of the lateness of the issue coming up. It 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
417 

is not that we didn’t understand that it had some merit and was 

important to a number of colleagues. 

Now, in February, a bipartisan group of 27 Senators wrote 

FEMA asking the agency to halt its policy of treating levees in 

need of repair or recertification as if they didn’t exist at all. A number of House Members have expressed similar concerns. Lawmakers argued that the agency should instead take into account 

the level of flood protection that each structure provides, even if 

that structure is in a weakened state. 

In early March, FEMA informed congressional leaders that the 

agency will take into account ailing dams and levees and the risk 

maps it generates for the National Flood Insurance Program. 

So I am asking you to fill us in on your intentions going forward. 

How do you intend to factor in levees that in the past you deemed 

as nonexistent or you treated as though they were nonexistent 

while they are being repaired or recertified when you develop risk 

maps as part of this flood insurance program? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. We kept asking the question: Why is this 

a binary decision? You can see a levee there; it is not fully accredited, but we are going to ignore and then map. But that levee affects the flood. So we basically came back and said, ‘‘We don’t have 

a defensible stand here. We need to do something different.’’ 

And so staff agreed to look at, and what we are going to do is— 

It is not always an ailing levee. In some cases these are levees that 

are well engineered, well built, but they may be not quite as high 

as an accredited levee would be to offer protection for every area 

behind that levee to get it below 1 percent risk. So this will not always be levees that are in disrepair; it is just a levee system may 

not provide a reduction of that risk below 1 percent. 

So what we have asked our staff to go back and look at is—and 

this will be an increased cost; it will slow down some of the mapping, but it will be more accurate—to take what the levee structure 

is as it exists, model the flood risk there, and produce those results. 

Again, this will not always be levees that are in disrepair. This 

may just be in areas where the levee system doesn’t provide uniformity, minimizing the risk below 1 percent, which would trigger 

the special risk area for flood insurance but substantial areas 

would. So why are we not looking at that and just treating it as 

if it doesn’t exit? 

So our staff is working right now on the technical aspects of how 

you model levees and dams as they exist to determine what that 

risk is in setting the rate for the insurance, and recognizing that 

not having a fully accredited levee is not a binary decision. It will 

be based upon the structures there, what protection they do offer, 

and will be based upon that risk. 

Mr. PRICE. And you are confident that you can come up with an 

objective assessment of this, even though binary decisions are 

sometimes crisper and seem more absolute. Making this kind of 

calculation certainly makes a lot of sense. You are confident that 

you can in fact come up with a metric? 

Mr. FUGATE. That was the question we asked was, technically, 

‘‘How do we do that?’’ They have already worked up some preliminary ideas. They have talked with the engineers and the people 

that do the evaluation and engineering of levees. And I think we 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
418 

have the ability to classify levees into different categories based 

upon what those impacts would be and model that. It will cost 

more money. It will take more time. But it will provide a much 

more accurate reflection of the risk versus just a binary decision, 

yes, you have got an accredited levee, or no, you don’t. Because I 

think it was not accurately representing the true risk. And because 

we used that to base the flood insurance model, it oftentimes resulted in people being in special high-risk areas that would not be 

necessarily flooded based upon the levee protection offered. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

MOUNT WEATHER: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Mr. Price. 

Let me close with one last question about Mount Weather. And 

of course it is a true strategic asset for our country, which houses 

the operations for management and for all hazard activities for 

multiple executive branches including the Department of Homeland Security. 

To address the issues with the aging of the facility, Congress has 

provided $155 million for capital improvements. I understand that 

much of the funding remains unspent. My question, what is the 

status of the capital improvement plans for Mount Weather? 

Mr. FUGATE. Ongoing. That is why we actually reduced the request. We had been requesting a certain amount of capital improvements, and because we have a backlog of contract projects 

that have not been completed, we did not ask for that amount continuing. We want to get caught up on the work we already have 

authorized to contractors and the bid selection in that process. So 

rather than just getting a reoccurring capital, we wanted to get 

through the backlog of projects that are currently under contract 

or out to bid to do that work. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. What is causing the delay? 

Mr. FUGATE. Sir, as you know, this is a facility that has a lot of— 

in a setting that is open—I think I have to remind myself to be 

very careful how I phrase this. But it is a facility that has a lot 

of unique characteristics that require extraordinary efforts and securing contractors that can operate in that environment. Also, the 

IT and some of the other infrastructures, it is not just something 

that we solely have responsibility and authority over. We have 

other partners we have to engage in. And because of that, we felt 

that we had a backlog that we were working through. That work 

is being done in the capital improvement program. But because of 

that outstanding balance and the work still to be done, we did not 

feel it was necessary to continue requesting money, although this 

work will continue. We need to get caught up on the backlog at 

work, quite honestly, sir. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I can give you a better briefing on that, but 

it would have to be a briefing that we would do on a secure level 

to give you some of the numbers and the breakdowns. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. And we may follow up on that. 

But we thank you for coming here this morning and listening to 

our concerns and questions. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
419 

As I stated in my opening remarks, we are in this Nation in a 

fiscal crisis, one that requires tough decisions and responsible 

budgeting. That means, as you know, we can no longer fund known 

requirements through gimmicks or fund programs without having 

measurable outcomes. And certainly I think you and all of us know 

that the taxpayers deserve better. 

So, again, thank you for being here today. Thank for your testimony. Thank you for the work that you do at FEMA. We understand that you have many challenges at the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. So we look forward to working with you as 

we try to address these issues. 

The hearing is adjourned. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
420 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 523 here 68060A.344
421 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 524 here 68060A.345
422 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 525 here 68060A.346
423 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 526 here 68060A.347
424 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 527 here 68060A.348
425 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 528 here 68060A.349
426 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 529 here 68060A.350
427 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 530 here 68060A.351
428 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 531 here 68060A.352
429 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 532 here 68060A.353
430 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 533 here 68060A.354
431 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 534 here 68060A.355
432 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 535 here 68060A.356
433 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 536 here 68060A.357
434 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 537 here 68060A.358
435 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 538 here 68060A.359
436 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 539 here 68060A.360
437 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 540 here 68060A.361
438 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 541 here 68060A.362
439 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 542 here 68060A.363
440 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 543 here 68060A.364
441 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 544 here 68060A.365
442 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 545 here 68060A.366
443 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 546 here 68060A.367
444 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 547 here 68060A.368
445 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 548 here 68060A.369
446 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 549 here 68060A.370
447 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 550 here 68060A.371
448 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 551 here 68060A.372
449 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 552 here 68060A.373
450 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 553 here 68060A.374
451 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 554 here 68060A.375
452 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 555 here 68060A.376
453 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 556 here 68060A.377
454 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 557 here 68060A.378
455 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 558 here 68060A.379
456 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 559 here 68060A.380
457 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 560 here 68060A.381
458 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 561 here 68060A.382
459 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 562 here 68060A.383
460 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 563 here 68060A.384
461 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 564 here 68060A.385
462 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 565 here 68060A.386
463 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 566 here 68060A.387
464 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 567 here 68060A.388
465 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 568 here 68060A.389
466 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 569 here 68060A.390
467 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 570 here 68060A.391
468 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 571 here 68060A.392
469 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 572 here 68060A.393
470 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 573 here 68060A.394
471 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 574 here 68060A.395
472 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 575 here 68060A.396
473 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 576 here 68060A.397
474 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 577 here 68060A.398
475 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 578 here 68060A.399
476 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 579 here 68060A.400
477 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 580 here 68060A.401
478 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 581 here 68060A.402
479 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 582 here 68060A.403
480 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 583 here 68060A.404
481 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 584 here 68060A.405
482 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 585 here 68060A.406
483 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 586 here 68060A.407
484 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 587 here 68060A.408
485 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 588 here 68060A.409
486 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 589 here 68060A.410
487 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 590 here 68060A.411
488 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 591 here 68060A.412
489 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 592 here 68060A.413
490 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 593 here 68060A.414
491 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 594 here 68060A.415
492 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 595 here 68060A.416
493 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 596 here 68060A.417
494 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 597 here 68060A.418
495 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 598 here 68060A.419
496 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 599 here 68060A.420
497 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 600 here 68060A.421
498 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 601 here 68060A.422
499 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 602 here 68060A.423
500 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 603 here 68060A.424
501 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 604 here 68060A.425
502 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 605 here 68060A.426
503 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 606 here 68060A.427
504 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 607 here 68060A.428
505 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 608 here 68060A.429
506 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 609 here 68060A.430
507 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 610 here 68060A.431
508 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 611 here 68060A.432
509 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 612 here 68060A.433
510 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 613 here 68060A.434
511 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 614 here 68060A.435
512 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 615 here 68060A.436
513 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 616 here 68060A.437
514 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 617 here 68060A.438
515 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 618 here 68060A.439
516 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 619 here 68060A.440
517 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 620 here 68060A.441
518 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 621 here 68060A.442
519 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 622 here 68060A.443
520 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 623 here 68060A.444
521 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 624 here 68060A.445
522 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 625 here 68060A.446
523 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 626 here 68060A.447
524 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 627 here 68060A.448
525 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 628 here 68060A.449
526 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 629 here 68060A.450
527 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 630 here 68060A.451
528 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 631 here 68060A.452
529 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 632 here 68060A.453
530 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 633 here 68060A.454
531 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 634 here 68060A.455
532 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 635 here 68060A.456
533 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 636 here 68060A.457
534 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 637 here 68060A.458
535 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 638 here 68060A.459
536 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 639 here 68060A.460
537 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 640 here 68060A.461
538 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 641 here 68060A.462
539 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 642 here 68060A.463
540 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 643 here 68060A.464
541 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 644 here 68060A.465
542 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 645 here 68060A.466
543 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 646 here 68060A.467
544 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 647 here 68060A.468
545 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 648 here 68060A.469
546 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 649 here 68060A.470
547 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 650 here 68060A.471
548 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 651 here 68060A.472
549 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 652 here 68060A.473
550 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 653 here 68060A.474
551 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 654 here 68060A.475
552 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 655 here 68060A.476
553 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 656 here 68060A.477
554 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 657 here 68060A.478
555 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 658 here 68060A.479
556 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 659 here 68060A.480
557 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 660 here 68060A.481
558 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 661 here 68060A.482
559 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 662 here 68060A.483
560 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 663 here 68060A.484
561 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 664 here 68060A.485
562 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 665 here 68060A.486
563 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 666 here 68060A.487
564 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 667 here 68060A.488
565 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 668 here 68060A.489
566 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 669 here 68060A.490
567 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 670 here 68060A.491
568 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 671 here 68060A.492
569 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 672 here 68060A.493
570 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 673 here 68060A.494
571 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 674 here 68060A.495
572 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 675 here 68060A.496
573 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 676 here 68060A.497
574 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 677 here 68060A.498
575 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 678 here 68060A.499
576 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 679 here 68060A.500
577 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 680 here 68060A.501
578 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 681 here 68060A.502
579 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 682 here 68060A.503
580 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 683 here 68060A.504
581 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 684 here 68060A.505
582 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 685 here 68060A.506
583 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 686 here 68060A.507
584 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 687 here 68060A.508
585 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 688 here 68060A.509
586 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 689 here 68060A.510
587 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 690 here 68060A.511
588 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 691 here 68060A.512
589 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 692 here 68060A.513
590 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 693 here 68060A.514
591 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 694 here 68060A.515
592 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 695 here 68060A.516
593 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 696 here 68060A.517
594 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 697 here 68060A.518
595 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 698 here 68060A.519
596 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 699 here 68060A.520
597 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 700 here 68060A.521
598 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 701 here 68060A.522
599 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 702 here 68060A.523
600 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 703 here 68060A.524
601 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 704 here 68060A.525
602 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 705 here 68060A.526
603 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 706 here 68060A.527
604 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 707 here 68060A.528
605 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 708 here 68060A.529
606 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 709 here 68060A.530
607 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 710 here 68060A.531
608 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 711 here 68060A.532
609 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 712 here 68060A.533
610 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 713 here 68060A.534
611 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 714 here 68060A.535
612 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 715 here 68060A.536
613 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 716 here 68060A.537
614 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 717 here 68060A.538
615 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 718 here 68060A.539
616 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 719 here 68060A.540
617 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 720 here 68060A.541
618 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 721 here 68060A.542
619 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 722 here 68060A.543
620 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 723 here 68060A.544
621 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 724 here 68060A.545
622 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 725 here 68060A.546
623 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 726 here 68060A.547
624 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 727 here 68060A.548
625 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 728 here 68060A.549
626 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 729 here 68060A.550
627 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 730 here 68060A.551
628 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 731 here 68060A.552
629 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 732 here 68060A.553
630 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 733 here 68060A.554
631 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 734 here 68060A.555
632 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 735 here 68060A.556
633 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 736 here 68060A.557
634 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 737 here 68060A.558
635 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 738 here 68060A.559
636 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 739 here 68060A.560
637 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 740 here 68060A.561
638 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 741 here 68060A.562
639 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 742 here 68060A.563
640 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 743 here 68060A.564
641 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 744 here 68060A.565
642 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 745 here 68060A.566
643 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 746 here 68060A.567
644 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 747 here 68060A.568
645 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 748 here 68060A.569
646 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 749 here 68060A.570
647 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 750 here 68060A.571
648 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 751 here 68060A.572
649 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 752 here 68060A.573
650 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 753 here 68060A.574
651 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 754 here 68060A.575
652 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 755 here 68060A.576
653 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 756 here 68060A.577
654 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 757 here 68060A.578
655 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 758 here 68060A.579
656 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 759 here 68060A.580
657 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 760 here 68060A.581
658 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 761 here 68060A.582
659 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 762 here 68060A.583
660 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 763 here 68060A.584
661 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 764 here 68060A.585
662 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 765 here 68060A.586
663 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 766 here 68060A.587
664 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 767 here 68060A.588
665 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 768 here 68060A.589
666 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 769 here 68060A.590
667 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 770 here 68060A.591
668 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 771 here 68060A.592
669 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 772 here 68060A.593
670 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 773 here 68060A.594
671 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 774 here 68060A.595
672 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 775 here 68060A.596
673 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 776 here 68060A.597
674 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 777 here 68060A.598
675 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 778 here 68060A.599
676 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 779 here 68060A.600
677 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 780 here 68060A.601
678 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 781 here 68060A.602
679 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 782 here 68060A.603
680 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 783 here 68060A.604
681 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 784 here 68060A.605
682 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 785 here 68060A.606
683 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 786 here 68060A.607
684 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 787 here 68060A.608
685 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 788 here 68060A.609
686 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 789 here 68060A.610
687 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 790 here 68060A.611
688 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 791 here 68060A.612
689 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 792 here 68060A.613
690 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 793 here 68060A.614
691 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 794 here 68060A.615
692 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 795 here 68060A.616
693 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 796 here 68060A.617
694 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 797 here 68060A.618
695 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 798 here 68060A.619
696 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 799 here 68060A.620
697 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 800 here 68060A.621
698 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 801 here 68060A.622
699 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 802 here 68060A.623
700 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 803 here 68060A.624
701 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 804 here 68060A.625
702 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 805 here 68060A.626
703 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 806 here 68060A.627
704 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 807 here 68060A.628
705 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 808 here 68060A.629
706 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 809 here 68060A.630
707 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 810 here 68060A.631
708 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 811 here 68060A.632
709 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 812 here 68060A.633
710 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 813 here 68060A.634
711 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 814 here 68060A.635
712 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 815 here 68060A.636
713 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 816 here 68060A.637
714 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 817 here 68060A.638
715 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 818 here 68060A.639
716 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 819 here 68060A.640
717 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 820 here 68060A.641
718 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 821 here 68060A.642
719 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 822 here 68060A.643
720 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 823 here 68060A.644
721 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 824 here 68060A.645
722 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 825 here 68060A.646
723 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 826 here 68060A.647
724 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 827 here 68060A.648
725 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 828 here 68060A.649
726 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 829 here 68060A.650
727 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 830 here 68060A.651
728 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 831 here 68060A.652
729 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 832 here 68060A.653
730 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 833 here 68060A.654
731 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 834 here 68060A.655
732 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 835 here 68060A.656
733 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 836 here 68060A.657
734 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 837 here 68060A.658
735 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 838 here 68060A.659
736 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 839 here 68060A.660
737 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 840 here 68060A.661
738 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 841 here 68060A.662
739 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 842 here 68060A.663
740 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 843 here 68060A.664
741 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 844 here 68060A.665
742 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 845 here 68060A.666
743 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 846 here 68060A.667
744 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 847 here 68060A.668
745 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 848 here 68060A.669
746 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 849 here 68060A.670
747 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 850 here 68060A.671
748 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 851 here 68060A.672
749 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 852 here 68060A.673
750 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 853 here 68060A.674
751 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 854 here 68060A.675
752 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 855 here 68060A.676
753 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 856 here 68060A.677
754 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 857 here 68060A.678
755 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 858 here 68060A.679
756 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 859 here 68060A.680
757 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 860 here 68060A.681
758 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 861 here 68060A.682
759 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 862 here 68060A.683
760 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 863 here 68060A.684
761 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 864 here 68060A.685
762 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 865 here 68060A.686
763 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 866 here 68060A.687
764 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 867 here 68060A.688
765 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 868 here 68060A.689
766 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 869 here 68060A.690
767 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 870 here 68060A.691
768 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 871 here 68060A.692
769 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 872 here 68060A.693
770 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 873 here 68060A.694
771 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 874 here 68060A.695
772 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 875 here 68060A.696
773 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 876 here 68060A.697
774 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 877 here 68060A.698
775 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 878 here 68060A.699
776 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 879 here 68060A.700
777 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 880 here 68060A.701
778 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 881 here 68060A.702
779 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 882 here 68060A.703
780 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 883 here 68060A.704
781 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 884 here 68060A.705
782 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 885 here 68060A.706
783 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 886 here 68060A.707
784 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 887 here 68060A.708
785 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 888 here 68060A.709
786 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 889 here 68060A.710
787 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 890 here 68060A.711
788 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 891 here 68060A.712
789 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 892 here 68060A.713
790 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 893 here 68060A.714
791 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 894 here 68060A.715
792 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 895 here 68060A.716
793 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 896 here 68060A.717
794 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 897 here 68060A.718
795 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 898 here 68060A.719
796 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 899 here 68060A.720
797 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 900 here 68060A.721
798 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 901 here 68060A.722
799 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 902 here 68060A.723
800 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 903 here 68060A.724
801 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 904 here 68060A.725
802 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 905 here 68060A.726
803 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 906 here 68060A.727
804 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 907 here 68060A.728
805 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 908 here 68060A.729
806 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 909 here 68060A.730
807 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 910 here 68060A.731
808 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 911 here 68060A.732
809 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 912 here 68060A.733
810 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 913 here 68060A.734
811 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 914 here 68060A.735
812 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 915 here 68060A.736
813 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 916 here 68060A.737
814 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 917 here 68060A.738
815 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 918 here 68060A.739
816 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 919 here 68060A.740
817 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 920 here 68060A.741
818 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 921 here 68060A.742
819 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 922 here 68060A.743
820 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 923 here 68060A.744
821 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 924 here 68060A.745
822 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 925 here 68060A.746
823 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 926 here 68060A.747
824 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 927 here 68060A.748
825 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 928 here 68060A.749
826 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 929 here 68060A.750
827 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 930 here 68060A.751
828 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 931 here 68060A.752
829 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 932 here 68060A.753
830 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 933 here 68060A.754
831 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 934 here 68060A.755
832 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 935 here 68060A.756
833 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 936 here 68060A.757
834 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 937 here 68060A.758
835 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 938 here 68060A.759
836 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 939 here 68060A.760
837 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 940 here 68060A.761
838 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 941 here 68060A.762
839 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 942 here 68060A.763
840 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 943 here 68060A.764
841 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 944 here 68060A.765
842 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 945 here 68060A.766
843 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 946 here 68060A.767
844 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 947 here 68060A.768
845 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 948 here 68060A.769
846 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 949 here 68060A.770
847 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 950 here 68060A.771
848 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 951 here 68060A.772
849 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 952 here 68060A.773
850 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 953 here 68060A.774
851 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 954 here 68060A.775
852 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 955 here 68060A.776
853 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 956 here 68060A.777
854 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 957 here 68060A.778
855 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 958 here 68060A.779
856 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 959 here 68060A.780
857 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 960 here 68060A.781
858 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 961 here 68060A.782
859 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 962 here 68060A.783
860 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 963 here 68060A.784
861 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 964 here 68060A.785
862 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 965 here 68060A.786
863 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 966 here 68060A.787
864 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 967 here 68060A.788
865 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 968 here 68060A.789
866 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 969 here 68060A.790
867 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 970 here 68060A.791
868 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 971 here 68060A.792
869 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 972 here 68060A.793
870 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 973 here 68060A.794
871 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 974 here 68060A.795
872 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 975 here 68060A.796
873 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 976 here 68060A.797
874 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 977 here 68060A.798
875 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 978 here 68060A.799
876 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 979 here 68060A.800
877 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 980 here 68060A.801
878 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 981 here 68060A.802
879 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 982 here 68060A.803
880 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 983 here 68060A.804
881 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 984 here 68060A.805
882 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 985 here 68060A.806
883 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 986 here 68060A.807
884 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 987 here 68060A.808
885 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 988 here 68060A.809
886 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 989 here 68060A.810
887 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 990 here 68060A.811
888 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 991 here 68060A.812
(889) 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 993 here 68060A.814
890 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 994 here 68060A.815
891 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 995 here 68060A.816
892 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 996 here 68060A.817
893 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 997 here 68060A.818
894 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 998 here 68060A.819
895 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 999 here 68060A.820
896 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1000 here 68060A.821
897 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1001 here 68060A.822
898 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1002 here 68060A.823
899 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1003 here 68060A.824
900 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1004 here 68060A.825
901 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1005 here 68060A.826
902 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1006 here 68060A.827
903 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1007 here 68060A.828
904 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1008 here 68060A.829
905 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1009 here 68060A.830
906 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1010 here 68060A.831
907 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1011 here 68060A.832
908 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1012 here 68060A.833
909 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1013 here 68060A.834
910 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1014 here 68060A.835
911 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1015 here 68060A.836
912 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1016 here 68060A.837
913 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1017 here 68060A.838
914 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1018 here 68060A.839
915 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1019 here 68060A.840
916 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1020 here 68060A.841
917 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1021 here 68060A.842
918 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1022 here 68060A.843
919 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1023 here 68060A.844
920 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1024/2000 here 68060A.845
(i) 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 01 here 68060P3.001

emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(iii) 

I N D E X 

Page 

Science & Technology (S&T) ............................................................................. 1 

Biography: Tara O’Toole ......................................................................................... 27 

Cybersecurity ........................................................................................................... 29 

Geospatial Location Devices ................................................................................... 32 

National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility ................................................................ 33 

Opening Statement: 

Chairman Aderholt ........................................................................................... 1 

Ranking Member Price .................................................................................... 6 

Under Secretary O’Toole .................................................................................. 11 

Portable Emergency Operations Center ................................................................ 32 

R&D Funding ........................................................................................................... 30 

Radiation Detectors ................................................................................................. 33 

S&T Priorities .......................................................................................................... 28 

Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus ..................................................................... 32 

National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) ........................... 159 

Biography: 

Rand Beers ........................................................................................................ 179 

Phil Reitinger .................................................................................................... 181 

Opening Statement: 

Chairman Aderholt ........................................................................................... 160 

Ranking Member Price .................................................................................... 164 

Under Secretary Beers & Deputy Under Secretary Reitinger ...................... 166 

Terrorist Travel: Programs and Funding ...................................................... 239 

Biography: 

Timothy Healy .................................................................................................. 245 

Kevin K. McAleenan ......................................................................................... 246 

Geoff O’Connell ................................................................................................. 248 

Joseph C. Salvator ............................................................................................ 249 

Benjamin J. Stefano ......................................................................................... 250 

Opening Statement: 

Chairman Aderholt ........................................................................................... 240 

WMD Countermeasures: Threat, Programs, and Funding ........................ 251 

Advanced Spectroscopic Portal Devices: 

Certification Process ......................................................................................... 296 

Implementing Recommendations .................................................................... 291 

Agro-Terrorism ......................................................................................................... 295 

Anthrax Vaccine ...................................................................................................... 296 

Biography: 

Warren Stern .................................................................................................... 275 

Dr. Alexander G. Garza ................................................................................... 284 

Biosurveillance ......................................................................................................... 287 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

iv 

Biowatch Generation 3: 

Comparison to Gen-1 & Gen-2 ........................................................................ 297 

Naturally Occurring vs. Intentional Pathogens ............................................. 301 

Pathogen Detection .......................................................................................... 299 

Testing & Evaluation ....................................................................................... 299 

Current Threat ......................................................................................................... 285 

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office: Structure & Priorities ................................. 286 

Global Nuclear Detection Architecture: 

Gaps ................................................................................................................... 302 

Strategic Plan ................................................................................................... 293 

Government Shutdown: Contingency Plan ............................................................ 297 

Nuclear Forensics .................................................................................................... 303 

Opening Statement: 

Chairman Aderholt ........................................................................................... 251 

Director Stern ................................................................................................... 261 

Dr. Garza ........................................................................................................... 276 

Ranking Member Price .................................................................................... 257 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ...................................... 357 

Biography: Craig Fugate ......................................................................................... 389 

Catastrophic Planning ............................................................................................. 411 

Data Backup System ............................................................................................... 397 

Disaster Assistance Overpayments ........................................................................ 398 

Disaster Relief Fund ................................................................................................ 390 

Disaster Response: Budget Cuts ............................................................................ 412 

Federal Emergency Management Agency: Effectiveness ..................................... 403 

Grants: 

Assistance to Firefighters ................................................................................ 394 

First Responder ................................................................................................ 413 

Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response ................................... 393 

Transit Security and Port ................................................................................ 415 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement ......................................................... 404 

Mt. Weather: Capital Improvement Plans ............................................................ 418 

National Level Exercise .......................................................................................... 401 

National Flood Insurance Program: 

Coverage ............................................................................................................ 394 

Levee Accreditation .......................................................................................... 416 

Nuclear Crisis: Evacuation Planning ..................................................................... 405 

Opening Statement: 

Chairman Aderholt ........................................................................................... 357 

Administrator Fugate ....................................................................................... 372 

Ranking Member Price .................................................................................... 367 

Preparedness Capabilities ....................................................................................... 400 

Remedial Action Management Program ................................................................ 396 

Outside Witnesses ................................................................................................ 889 

William Chandler .................................................................................................... 909 

Colleen Kelley .......................................................................................................... 900 

William Millar .......................................................................................................... 916 

Jim Mullen ............................................................................................................... 911 

Patricia W. Potrzebowski ........................................................................................ 905 

Rep. Silvestre Reyes ................................................................................................ 890 

Rep. Laura Richardson ............................................................................................ 895 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with HEARING