U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

73–740 PDF 2012

FIVE YEARS LATER: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE 

POST-KATRINA EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

REFORM ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY 

PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, 

AND COMMUNICATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 25, 2011 

Serial No. 112–53 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

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

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

PETER T. KING, New York, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

ROBERT L. TURNER, New York 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York 

JANICE HAHN, California 

MICHAEL J. RUSSELL, Staff Director/Chief Counsel 

KERRY ANN WATKINS, Senior Policy Director 

MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

I. LANIER AVANT, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND 

COMMUNICATIONS 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Chairman 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania, Vice Chair 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York (Ex Officio) 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex Officio) 

KERRY A. KINIRONS, Staff Director 

NATALIE NIXON, Deputy Chief Clerk 

CURTIS BROWN, Minority Professional Staff Member 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications ................................................................ 1 

The Honorable Laura Richardson, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emergency 

Preparedness, Response, and Communications ................................................. 2 

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

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

Security ................................................................................................................. 3 

WITNESSES

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

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7 

APPENDIX

Questions From Ranking Member Laura Richardson for W. Craig Fugate ....... 33 

(1) 

FIVE YEARS LATER: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE 

POST-KATRINA EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

REFORM ACT 

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, 

RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:59 a.m., in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis [Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Bilirakis, Marino, Farenthold, Richardson, Clarke, Hochul, and Thompson (ex officio). 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, 

Response, and Communications will come to order. The subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony from Administrator Fugate on the progress FEMA has made since the enactment 

of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act 5 years 

ago. 

I now recognize myself for an opening statement. I want to welcome Administrator Fugate to the subcommittee. Welcome, sir. We 

appreciate you appearing before us and I thank you for your flexibility in scheduling this hearing. 

FEMA certainly has had a busy year with a record number of 

major disaster declarations. You have responded to tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding, wildfires, and severe winter storms. A number of 

Members of Congress on this committee represent areas that were 

impacted by natural disasters this year and we thank you for all 

of FEMA’s efforts. 

This hearing is a follow-up on a field hearing the subcommittee 

held in Clearwater, Florida, which of course is in my district, in 

June, at which we received testimony from State and local emergency management officials and the Red Cross. The witnesses gave 

their perspective on the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act and working with FEMA, and let us know what is working well and gave us their suggestions for improvements that could 

be made. 

Today we continue that discussion, of course, with Administrator 

Fugate. I am pleased to note, Administrator Fugate, that your response to these recent disasters has received positive feedback from 

the Members and emergency management officials with whom I 

have spoken. That is good news and it is in some cases due to the 
2 

authorities in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform 

Act, which was signed into law just over 5 years ago on October 

4, 2006. 

I think we can all agree that FEMA has come a long way since 

Hurricane Katrina, but we have, of course—we know that there is 

always room for improvement. 

Administrator Fugate, I am particularly interested in your assessment of what is working well with FEMA, what requirements, 

again, of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act 

could be working better, and what new authorities would enhance 

your ability to prepare for, respond to, and assist in the recovery 

from disasters. 

A topic also worth discussing is efforts to mitigate damages to 

homes and businesses before disaster strikes. I am pleased that 

you mentioned this in your testimony, your written testimony. 

As Benjamin Franklin said, ‘‘An ounce of prevention is worth a 

pound of cure.’’ That is why I have introduced the Hurricane and 

Tornado Mitigation Investment Act of 2011, which would provide 

incentives to individuals and business owners to make improvements to their property that will help mitigate hazards. These efforts can help reduce loss of life and property damage, speed recovery, and also save money in the long run. Administrator Fugate, 

thank you again for appearing here today and I look forward to 

your testimony. 

The Chairman now recognizes the Ranking Minority Member, 

Ms. Richardson from California, for any statement she may have. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis, for 

convening this hearing to evaluate FEMA’s progress in implementing the mandates of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act. I would also like to thank Administrator Fugate 

for appearing before the subcommittee today. I look forward to 

hearing your assessment of FEMA’s present ability to manage effective emergency preparedness and response efforts. 

We are here today because just over 6 years ago, Hurricane 

Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast and was a sobering test of our 

Comprehensive Emergency Management System. History reports 

that FEMA failed that test. As a Nation we learned how illequipped the Federal Government was to manage disaster recovery 

and response activities. Determining who is in charge, who should 

coordinate Federal, State, and local response efforts, what resources are available and how to acquire the needed supplies efficiently was not done well. 

In the mean time, a Nation watched television coverage of this 

horrific disaster. Ironically, television news crews were able to get 

to the scene, but relief supplies were not. 

In response, Congress enacted the Post-Katrina Emergency Reform Act. Although the bill was not perfect, it made much-needed 

changes to our emergency response infrastructure, notably extreme 

line emergency preparedness and response operations, by consolidating all components of the Comprehensive Emergency Management System into the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It 

established a clear chain of command for disaster response activities by giving a Federal coordinating officer, FCO, statutory authority to head disaster response coordination. It directed FEMA to ad-
3 

minister grants and guidance to State and local governments to improve their preparedness capabilities. It established something that 

you have been known for, Administrator Fugate, for implementing. 

It established 10 regional offices charged with coordinating with 

State and local governments and nongovernmental organizations to 

develop effective regional disaster preparedness and response 

plans. 

The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act directed 

you, Administrator Fugate, to appoint the disability coordinator to 

ensure that vulnerable populations have access to and knowledge 

of and means to evacuate emergency housing and any other necessary resources in the event of a major disaster. 

Under your leadership, FEMA has made progress in implementing the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act. For 

example, you have taken significant steps in implementing the integrated public alert and warning system, which I am a strong proponent of, which will facilitate effective public warnings regarding 

future disasters. These warnings will give people like those in 

American Samoa the opportunity to seek safe shelter in the wake 

of a major disaster. 

Despite the progress 5 years after the enactment of the PostKatrina Emergency Management Reform Act, significant gaps remain in our comprehensive emergency response system. I am concerned that a combination of budget cuts and other obstacles will 

hinder our ability to realize our preparedness goals. For example, 

another issue of particular importance to me is one that I would 

like to address later in my questions, specifically regarding the disability coordinator and whether that coordinator has the adequate 

resources to carry out the responsibilities of this act. This coordinator was appointed in June 2009; however, in the full year 2011, 

the Office of Disability Coordinator had a budget of just $150,000, 

and I asked about this last year. There was no request for additional funding in the full year 2012 budget request. I am concerned 

that this budgetary amount may be the clear sign of the priorities 

FEMA places on the mission of this office. 

I would be interested to hear your comments on this issue, and 

others, regarding IPAWS as this hearing progresses. Again, I thank 

you for being here today and I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. 

I now recognize the Ranking Minority Member of the full committee, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you for holding this hearing to review the Post-Katrina Emergency 

Management Reform. A perfect storm is a popular expression. It 

describes an event where isolated conditions merge to create a radically worsening situation. In the process, deep and profound problems are revealed. Katrina was a perfect storm. Hurricane 

Katrina’s devastation of the Gulf Coast revealed a Federal emergency management structure that was disorganized, uncoordinated, 

and seemed uncaring. 

In the aftermath of the storm, numerous investigations led to 

suggested changes in the organizational structure and the culture 

of FEMA. These changes were not to be merely window dressing. 
4 

FEMA clearly needed to find a way to fulfill its mission, improve 

the response, and regain the trust of the American people. 

Congress acted and passed a Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act. Five years after the passage of that legislation, 

I think we can all agree that FEMA’s implementation of the legislation is a mixed bag. Improvements were made, but challenges remain. I am pleased that Administrator Fugate is here today to report on both the improvements and the remaining challenges. I 

look forward to hearing his testimony. 

But before we get to Mr. Fugate, I want to take this opportunity 

to talk about disaster relief. I hope that we can all agree that funding for disaster relief should never be held hostage to political ideology. When a hurricane, wildfire, earthquake, strikes a community, it does not ask about party affiliation. This is why I was troubled to read that some on the other side of the aisle are now accusing this administration of using the Federal disaster declaration 

process as a way to turn low-cost storms into Federal disasters. Instead of addressing the underlying need to ensure adequate money 

in the disaster relief fund, claims are being made that the act of 

declaring a disaster is some kind of political game. They are saying 

that declaring a disaster is simply a way to drain FEMA’s aid from 

the Federal Government, weaken the capacities of the States to respond to disasters without Federal help, and divert FEMA from 

preparing for catastrophic events. These are conspiracy theories 

worthy of a Tom Clancy novel. 

So before we begin this hearing, let me set the record straight. 

In 2010, there were 81 major disaster declarations. In 2009, there 

were 59 major disaster declarations. While the numbers are clear, 

the reasons for the increases are subject to interpretation. It could 

be more disaster declarations occurred because more disasters have 

occurred. It could also be more disaster declarations occurred because States were stretched thin; budgets are seeking disaster assistance. 

It is unlikely that FEMA is forcing States to take disaster declaration funding. But whatever the reason, given the increase in 

disaster declaration, a compassionate Congress would hear the 

cries of those who have lost everything and provide help. Instead, 

this Congress has called for fiscal discipline. FEMA’s budget for 

management and preparedness program has decreased. FEMA’s 

management budget was reduced by $10 million between fiscal 

year 2010 and fiscal year 2011. FEMA’s pre-disaster mitigation 

fund was cut from $100 million in fiscal year 2010 to $50 million 

in fiscal year 2011. FEMA’s Grant Program Directorate was cut 

from $4.165 billion in fiscal year 2010 to $3.38 billion in fiscal year 

2011. This is a situation that is not sustainable. 

As we move forward, I am hopeful we can focus on the facts and 

provide the help that people in the United States truly need. Mr. 

Chairman, I thank you for calling today’s hearing and I yield back. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. 

Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that opening 

statements may be submitted for the record. 

I am pleased to once again welcome Administrator Fugate, of 

course, before our subcommittee today. Mr. Fugate was appointed 

by President Obama to serve as the administrator of the Federal 
5 

Emergency Management Agency and was confirmed by the United 

States Senate on May 13, 2009. Prior to coming to FEMA, Mr. 

Fugate served as the director of the Florida Division Emergency 

Management, a position he held for 8 years. 

Mr. Fugate began his emergency management career as a volunteer firefighter, emergency paramedic, and finally as a lieutenant 

with the Alachua County Fire Rescue. Mr. Fugate and his wife hail 

from Gainesville, Florida. 

Administrator Fugate, your entire written statement will appear 

in the record. I ask that you summarize your testimony, please. 

You are now recognized, sir. 

STATEMENT OF W. CRAIG FUGATE, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. FUGATE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Richardson and Ranking Member Thompson. Staff spent a lot of 

time coming up with a bunch of facts and figures on how we have 

gotten better and how we have improved under the Post-Katrina 

Reform Act. After I kind of read it, I kind of took the approach that 

I also heard today: We have done a lot, we still have got a lot to 

do. So I want to focus on what I think are some of the key elements 

of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act and how 

they played out in the last couple of years that I have been here 

in response to disasters. 

I think one of the key things that came out of that Act was we 

were able to move away from utilizing only the Stafford Act as a 

tool to look at how we prepare and respond to disasters. That is 

important, because if you look at the Stafford Act, you must wait 

until you have a request from a Governor. It then has to go 

through the process and determined from the President whether or 

not to declare a disaster, and then you begin the elements of that 

response. 

But as we saw in Katrina, as we have seen in other disasters up 

and down the seaboard this year across numerous river floods that 

reached records, if you wait until it is that bad, the response will 

take time. This is one of the things, really, I think we spent a lot 

of time in FEMA trying to educate our own staff, that we no longer 

start with the Stafford Act. It is not our enabling legislation. It is 

the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act. It establishes FEMA. It establishes our mission. It establishes our structures, including the regional office structure, including the findings 

of many activities that we are to engage in and prepare for in recovery, respond, and mitigate activities. 

But I think it is most important that we recognize that access. 

In the likelihood that an event would be declared or would potentially require Federal assistance, the Federal Government must not 

wait until a Governor request identifies that they are overwhelmed. 

It says we shall be prepared and will begin response with the tools 

that we have, including the ability to use, as Ranking Member 

Thompson spoke about, the disaster relief fund prior to the President getting a formal request from a Governor. 

Now, this may seem rather bureaucratic, but I think it is important that if you wait until you know how bad something is to begin 
6 

a response, you have lost time. You have to be able to respond in 

those events that are likely to require Federal assistance by anticipating needs, not waiting for formal assessments nor waiting until 

the full impacts are realized. Other aspects of that allows us to do 

things such as pre-staging teams or equipment in areas that we 

think will need help. 

When you look at what happened with Hurricane Irene, we were 

actually starting down on the Virgin Islands and in Puerto Rico. 

Then as it approached the U.S. East Coast, everywhere from Florida to Maine and inland, as we saw in Vermont, were potentially 

going to be impacted by this hurricane. We didn’t wait until the 

States had made formal requests for assistance. We were able to 

send teams in to link up with the States and began working with 

them as they go through the preparations and decisions about 

evacuations and sheltering, and not wait until they are hit and 

then ask for help. That ability to get teams in place, to have equipment prestaged, to really work across the Federal enterprise with 

our State partners as their supporting local government, integrate 

in our volunteer faith-based and community-based organizations, 

and I think really start to embrace and be able to integrate the private sector, particularly those sectors that provide goods and services so that we are not duplicating what they do best, but focus on 

the areas where they are either expecting significant outages or 

challenges. 

That response sped up, in many cases, the time from when incident occurred to actual results were happening. People were on the 

ground, resources were available. I think this is one of the things 

that we really continue to focus on, is that the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act gives us speed, not haste, but speed 

in responding to and ensuring that we get resources in there. 

I would be remiss if I said this was entirely a FEMA effort in 

that much of the response we saw, particularly in the tornadoes 

across the southeast and up in the Missouri area from Joplin, 

much of what people saw on television, the search-and-rescue 

teams, the mobile communication command post, all of that response was actually generated through State and local resources 

mutual aid, paid for and built and trained and exercised with the 

preparedness dollars this country has been investing since 9/11. If 

those dollars had not been invested, those teams built and trained 

and exercised and equipped, the response this spring would have 

looked vastly different because those local teams would not have 

been there. The equipment would have come from further away. 

We would have had to have deployed more of our Federal assets 

to those disasters, which would have taken more time to get there. 

As it was, as we saw, unfortunately time and time again in tornadoes—which oftentimes give us little warning—rescuers and teams 

from throughout the area across State lines, using the emergency 

management assistance compact which also receives funding 

through our grant program to enhance that, were there on the 

ground doing their job. We were able to focus quickly, then, on the 

recovery challenges that were going to be faced by those communities. 

So if anything else, the legacy of this Act has been able to speed 

up the process and ensure we work as a better integrated team to 
7 

focus on the survivors and local communities, with a clarity that 

we don’t have to wait until everybody is overwhelmed before we 

begin the response. 

[The statement of Mr. Fugate follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF W. CRAIG FUGATE

OCTOBER 25, 2011 

INTRODUCTION

Good morning Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Richardson, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee. My name is Craig Fugate, and I am the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It is an honor 

to appear before you today on behalf of FEMA to discuss our progress since the enactment of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA) 5 

years ago. 

The importance of PKEMRA to the emergency management community cannot be 

stressed enough. For the first time, it gave FEMA clear guidance on its mission and 

priorities, and provided us with the authorities and tools we needed to become a 

more effective and efficient agency, and a better partner to State, local, territorial, 

and Tribal governments. 

Today I will highlight some of the great strides we have made using this guidance 

and the additional authority given us by PKEMRA. In particular, we have made significant improvements to our approach to preparedness. We now focus on engaging 

the Whole Community in preparedness activities. We have realized that a Federalcentric approach will not yield success and that instead we must collaborate and engage with partners at every level of government as well as the nonprofit and private 

sector. But there is more work to be accomplished. 

Going forward, FEMA is committed to working with State, local, territorial, and 

Tribal partners to develop innovative and effective ways to communicate both with 

first responders and with the individuals and entities affected by disasters. We will 

build upon the foundation that PKEMRA created to identify best practices and lessons learned from each disaster. By having a culture that continuously looks for 

ways to improve, FEMA can continue to be a capable, innovative, and effective agency. 

RESPONSE AND RECOVERY

PKEMRA gave FEMA the authority needed to lean forward and leverage the entire emergency management team in response and recovery efforts. This team includes not only government, but also private, private non-profit, and citizen partners—the Whole Community. This Whole Community approach emphasizes the importance of working with all partners to successfully prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards. 

Prior to PKEMRA, Federal incident response duties were shared by two separate 

teams: Emergency Response Teams (ERT) and Federal Incident Response Support 

Teams (FIRST). Due to cost constraints, ERTs were comprised of staff with primary 

day-to-day duties in other areas and the FIRSTs had only a small dedicated staff 

in two regions. This limited our ability to quickly and adequately deploy Federal response teams. PKEMRA changed this by consolidating response teams. As a result, 

FEMA now has Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMATs)—13 regional and 

three National—staffed with full-time, dedicated personnel. 

These resources proved invaluable during the response to Hurricane Irene. In preparing for and responding to Hurricane Irene, FEMA pre-positioned a majority of 

the IMATS along the East Coast to coordinate with State, Tribal, and local officials 

to identify potential needs and address shortfalls in the disaster response and recovery. Additionally, Mobile Emergency Response System (MERS) assets are strategically located in disaster-affected areas to support emergency response communications needs. Because of all the advance preparation and pre-positioning leading up 

to the storm’s landfall, State, Tribal, territorial, and local officials consistently reported no unmet communications requests. 

Some other examples of FEMA leveraging the ‘‘Whole Community’’ during response and recovery include: 

• In Missouri, FEMA Emergency Support Function No. 14 (Long-Term Community Recovery) provided planning, organizational, and on-site support for the 

Joplin Citizen Advisory Recovery Team’s efforts to engage residents about the 

recovery planning process. 
8 

• In Georgia, following the severe spring storms in the Southeast this year, 

FEMA and Georgia Emergency Management Agency collaborated with the 

State’s Bar Association to provide free legal assistance to survivors. • In Alabama, FEMA partnered with the Alabama Department of Mental Health 

to activate Project Rebound in the tornado-affected parts of Alabama to provide 

free crisis counseling for an extended time period after the disaster. This initiative was conducted under the auspices of FEMA’s Crisis Counseling Program 

(CCP). FEMA administers this program in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). • In Missouri, FEMA worked with the State-led Housing Task Force to place families with school-aged children in mobile home parks first, successfully housing 

all families identified before the start of the school year. In addition, along with 

State and local partners, FEMA formed a Schools Task Force to support and 

help Joplin local officials establish temporary facilities for schools to meet their 

goal to open schools on time in the fall. 

The agency is also leading substantial response planning, including the development of plans across the Federal Government for catastrophic incidents; planning 

for future operations for potential/actual incidents; regional planning for all-hazards 

events; and evacuation and transportation planning. There are also special programs focused on planning for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosives (CBRNE) hazards to communities throughout the Nation. 

Another way that FEMA is engaging with its partners is with the National Mass 

Care Strategy. This strategy will provide a framework to strengthen and expand resources available to help shelter, feed, and provide other mass care services by pooling expertise and identifying partnership opportunities. The newly created National 

Mass Care Council was launched in June 2011 and is co-chaired by the American 

Red Cross, FEMA, and the National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster 

(National VOAD). FEMA’s role is to represent ESF–6 and all Federal mass care 

components on the Council. 

In addition, the American Red Cross and FEMA are now jointly leading the mass 

care portion of Emergency Support Function No. 6 (ESF–6), to better facilitate the 

planning and coordination of mass care services. During Hurricane Irene, FEMA 

worked closely with the Red Cross, local voluntary agencies, and impacted States, 

to ensure emergency shelters were open locally along the East Coast to provide shelter to residents who had evacuated from the storm. FEMA also coordinated with 

trained disaster workers from partner organizations such as AmeriCorps, National 

Civilian Community Corps, The Salvation Army, and Southern Baptist Convention 

among others. These volunteers helped provide food along the entire East Coast. 

The effort included more than 250 feeding vehicles, tens of thousands of prepackaged meals, and temporary kitchens prepositioned in numerous locations. 

PKEMRA required FEMA, along with its partners, to develop a National Disaster 

Recovery Strategy to guide recovery efforts after major disasters and emergencies. 

Through additional direction in Presidential Policy Directive–8 (PPD–8), FEMA and 

its interagency partners have developed the National Disaster Recovery Framework 

(NDRF). The final draft of the NDRF was released in late September 2011. 

The NDRF clearly defines coordination structures, leadership roles and responsibilities, and guidance for Federal agencies, State, local, territorial, and Tribal governments, and other partners involved in disaster planning and recovery. The 

NDRF introduces six new recovery support functions (community planning and capacity building, economic, health and social services, housing, infrastructure systems and natural and cultural resources) and identifies specific recovery leadership 

positions that help focus efforts on community recovery such as the Federal Disaster 

Recovery Coordinator (FDRC). The FDRC will be deployed when a Federal role is 

necessary and significant interagency resource coordination is required due to the 

large-scale, unique, or catastrophic nature of the disaster. The FDRC’s sole focus is 

coordinating available resources to assist the community with rebuilding and recovering. 

FEMA has been field testing certain aspects of the NDRF, including the appointment of a FDRC. For example, in the wake of the 2011 tornadoes that tore through 

Alabama and much of the South, a FDRC was appointed to work with Alabama 

State officials to develop a recovery strategy that emphasized coordination. In addition, the Governor established a lead State agency to manage State coordination efforts and staff were co-located within the Joint Field Office to provide a direct connection between Federal and State partners. The NDRF recognizes the importance 

of engaging and utilizing the entire team—Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments, non-profit organizations, and the community—to help a community maximize available resources to recover from disaster. 
9 

FEMA has also improved its disaster case management services. On December 3, 

2009, FEMA signed an interagency agreement (IAA) with the Administration for 

Children and Families (ACF). The IAA specifies each agency’s responsibility for a 

two-phased Disaster Case Management (DCM) Program for future deployment. On 

March 11, 2011 FEMA signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with ACF to 

strengthen areas of mutual support and coordination in the development, administration, and implementation of the DCM. Phase I of the DCM Program consists of 

the ACF DCM model of rapid deployment with immediate assistance to applicants. 

Phase II is a State-managed DCM Program that will assist applicants with longterm unmet disaster needs. Additionally, FEMA has developed and released a DCM 

Application Toolkit and is currently developing a DCM Program Manual. 

These are just a few of the many examples of FEMA’s efforts to utilize the expertise and resources of our stakeholders at every level and use the newly developed 

tools to improve response and recovery capabilities and activities. 

PREPAREDNESS

Part of FEMA’s mission is to ‘‘develop and coordinate the implementation of a 

risk-based, all-hazards strategy for preparedness.’’ FEMA’s Protection and National 

Preparedness (PNP) organization includes both our National Preparedness and 

Grant Programs Directorates, which work to ensure the Nation is adequately prepared for disasters of all kinds. PNP strives to promote National preparedness 

through a comprehensive cycle of planning, organizing, equipping, training, exercising, evaluating, and continuous improvement. 

Our National Preparedness Directorate has met some of the preparedness goals 

envisioned for the agency through PKEMRA, including: 

• Issuance of Credentialing Guidelines; 

• Promulgation of a National Incident Management System (NIMS) Training 

Plan; and 

• Refocusing and improving our National Exercise Program. 

These are only a few of NPD’s accomplishments that will contribute to National 

preparedness. Our Grant Programs Directorate continues to focus and improve upon 

our many preparedness grant programs, which have provided tens of billions of dollars in critical aid to our State and local partners in advancing their preparedness. 

This September, we held a National Recovery Tabletop Exercise (Recovery TTX) 

in the Washington metropolitan area. This exercise involved players from the Whole 

Community, with over 200 participants from Federal, State, Tribal, and non-governmental organizations. The Recovery TTX consisted of both plenary and breakout 

group sessions and focus on three planning horizons: Short-term, immediate, and 

long-term recovery. This exercise was the first opportunity to explore the applications of the National Disaster Recovery Framework using a large-scale, multi-State 

catastrophic disaster scenario. 

An important part of the Whole Community is the private sector, and FEMA 

works to incorporate them into its preparedness activities as much as possible. In 

addition to being strong partners in our most recent National Level Exercise, private sector representatives also participate in FEMA’s no-notice ‘‘thunderbolt’’ disaster response and recovery exercises. To further connect directly to the private sector during the most crucial disaster response efforts, a rotating representative from 

the private sector works in FEMA’s National Response Coordination Center during 

activations to communicate and coordinate with all members of the private sector 

including small businesses. 

FEMA also stresses the importance of individual businesses conducting emergency planning. In order to raise awareness, the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) and the Ad Council launched the Ready Business Campaign as an extension 

of the Department’s successful Ready Campaign. Ready Business helps owners and 

managers of small- and medium-sized businesses by providing them with practical 

steps and easy-to-use templates that include information on a variety of preparedness topics including creating an evacuation plan, fire safety, and protecting business investments by securing facilities and equipment. In addition, DHS grant programs managed by FEMA allow a tremendous amount of flexibility for State and 

local jurisdictions to include private-sector companies as part of their all-hazards 

planning efforts. Allowable activities include the development of public-private sector partnership emergency response activities, development of assessment and resource sharing plans, and the development or enhancement of plans that engage 

with the private sector to meet human services response and recovery needs of disaster survivors. 

In addition to engaging the private sector, a realistic approach to emergency management means not only conducting exercises that reflect real disaster scenarios, 
10 

but incorporating the needs and abilities of real disaster survivors into planning and 

preparedness efforts. Our planning must be inclusive of people of different ages and 

abilities and it must meet the access and functional needs of children and people 

with disabilities. In February 2010, FEMA established the Office of Disability Integration and Coordination, and in July 2010, established the first-ever Disability 

Working Group within FEMA. The Disability Working Group is responsible for ensuring that the access and functional needs of children and adults with disabilities 

are fully integrated into all aspects of FEMA’s disaster planning, preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation efforts initiated and coordinated at the Federal 

level. As an example, when we pre-stage commodities in preparation for disasters, 

we include basic items such as water, meals, and generators. However, militarystyle Meals Ready to Eat (MREs) and other provisions are not necessarily suitable 

for the entire population, especially young children. So we transitioned from MREs 

to commercial shelf-stable meals and we pre-stage commodities including infant formula, baby food, electrolytes, and diapers to anticipate, understand, and specifically 

plan for the needs of children. By improving the preparedness of the Whole Community, FEMA is better able to respond to catastrophic events in an organized and efficient manner. 

MITIGATION

In addition to our preparedness and recovery activities, disaster mitigation is an 

important part of preparing for disasters. In the April 2007 Congressional Budget 

Office (CBO) report, ‘‘Potential Cost Savings from the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program,’’ the CBO estimated that future costs are reduced by $3 for every $1 spent 

on mitigation projects. By encouraging and supporting mitigation efforts, FEMA 

leads the Nation in reducing the impact of disasters and helping to break the ‘‘damage-rebuild-damage’’ cycle in America’s most vulnerable communities. FEMA has 

the lead role in helping communities increase their resilience through risk analysis, 

reduction, and insurance. One mitigation tool is the Flood Hazard Mapping and 

Risk Analysis Program, which addresses flood hazard data update needs and preserves the successful Flood Map Modernization investment. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) provides flood insurance on a National basis to owners of 

properties located in vulnerable areas through the Federal Government, through 

both a premium revenue and fee-generated fund called the National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF). 

In fiscal year 2010, the NFIP reduced potential flood losses by an estimated $1.6 

billion. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program offers an annual funding source 

for qualified mitigation activities that are not dependent upon a declaration of disaster by the President. In fiscal year 2010, the PDM program has reduced administration costs by $800,000. Furthermore, Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning 

(Risk MAP) is FEMA’s program to provide communities with flood information and 

tools they can use to enhance their mitigation plans and better protect their citizens. FEMA initiated 600 Risk MAP projects in this past fiscal year, which assisted 

3,800 communities by addressing the highest priority engineering data needs, including coastal and levee areas. 

EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS

The ability to effectively communicate during and immediately after a disaster is 

essential to fulfilling our mission. In the past 5 years, we have—in response to 

changes in technology—completely overhauled the way we communicate with each 

other and with the public in a disaster environment. We now leverage cutting-edge 

technology as well as important social media tools to communicate in a more effective and dynamic way. 

PKEMRA included the support of National communications capabilities as part of 

FEMA’s mission. As a result, in 2008 FEMA established the Disaster Emergency 

Communications Division (DECD) within the Response Directorate as the lead integrator of tactical Federal disaster emergency communications. DECD provides tactical emergency communications support utilizing its Mobile Emergency Response 

Support (MERS) and Mobile Communications Office Vehicle (MCOV) assets, to 

emergency managers and first responders when Federal, State, local, Tribal, or territorial infrastructure cannot support communications needs for disaster emergency 

operations. Some of DECD’s activities included offering support to emergency responders in the field for the establishment of State-specific disaster emergency communications plans to improve the Nation’s interoperability and response capabilities. 

PKEMRA also requires the establishment of a Regional Emergency Communications Coordination Working Group (RECCWG) within each Regional Office to report 
11 

to the Regional Administrator and coordinate its activities with the Regional Advisory Council. RECCWGs have been established in each of the ten FEMA Regions. 

The Working Groups continue to mature, enhance membership, and collectively 

evaluate inter- and intra-State interoperability programs, share best practices, and 

advise the FEMA Regional Administrators on the state of regional communications 

interoperability. 

Looking to the emergency communications of the future, FEMA is also developing 

a next-generation infrastructure for alert and warning capabilities, known as PLAN 

(Personal Localized Alerting Network). Cell phones are data centers, capable of 

quickly accessing and storing a large amount of information. One of the major lessons we learned from the January 2010 earthquake in Haiti was that even if the 

physical infrastructure of an area is completely destroyed, the cellular infrastructure may be able to bounce back quickly, allowing emergency managers to relay important disaster-related information and enabling the public to request help from 

local first responders. This new, free public safety system allows customers with an 

enabled mobile device to receive geographically targeted messages alerting them of 

imminent threats to safety in their area whether nearby cell phone towers are 

jammed or not. 

We are also expanding our use of social media tools. Social media is an important 

part of the Whole Community approach because it helps facilitate the vital two-way 

communication between emergency management agencies and the public, and it allows us to quickly and specifically share information with State, local, territorial, 

and Tribal governments as well as the public. FEMA uses multiple social media 

technologies like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to reach the public. Rather than 

asking the public to change the way they communicate to fit our system, we are 

adapting the way we do business to fit the way the public already communicates. 

We value social media tools not only because they allow us to send important disaster-related information to the people who need it, but also because they allow us 

to incorporate critical updates from the individuals who experience the on-theground reality of a disaster. 

CONCLUSION

I am very proud of the progress we have made since Hurricane Katrina. While 

we still have more work to do, I am confident that with the authorities and tools 

given us by Congress and the lessons we have learned through their application 

during disasters, FEMA will continue to be an agile and innovative agency that is 

consistently improving its processes. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear 

before you today. I am happy to answer any questions the subcommittee may have. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. 

I have a couple of questions. So I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Again, FEMA has clearly made strides in its capabilities since 

Hurricane Katrina. I know you addressed some of this. What lessons have we learned from more recent disasters about gaps in our 

preparedness and response capabilities, and what additional authorities do you need to further advance FEMA’s response capacity? 

Mr. FUGATE. I am not sure yet about additional authorities, but 

I do know that there are some areas that we are working on and 

this comes back to some of the technologies. We have been working 

very aggressively with the geospatial NGA in providing us better 

information. One of the things we know is our ability to get information, before people actually get on the ground, to begin describing impacts can help all of the team make better decisions in early 

response. So this is an area where we have a tendency to wait until 

we are down there in an area to get information or we are waiting 

for things to come up through official channels when they are busy 

responding. 

Two things we are focusing on is how do we get information from 

various types of sensor platforms; but on the other hand, how do 

we get more information from the public? This is one of the things 

I think that I am seeing more and more of and the benefits we saw 
12 

in these recent disasters. Oftentimes we were getting faster and 

more accurate information from people that were sending out everything from social media to local and National news media that 

had reporters on the ground. They were sending uplinks of those 

disasters. Looking at that and going just based upon that, I am 

seeing a lot of damage. 

We can go. But how do we do this in a way that we can get this 

information out that is actionable and speed up that response, and 

the faster we are able to adjust to those issues, the better our response is. So I think it is one of the challenges that we look at: 

How does the public share information, how are they communicating and are we listening to what they are telling us? Then 

combine that with a lot of the capabilities that we now have working with NGA on how to use better GIS and geospatial information 

to put together a better operating picture so we are responding 

faster. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Good. As part of the National Preparedness System, PPD–8 requires that the development of various frameworks 

to enhance our ability to prevent, protect against, respond to, mitigate, and recover from natural disasters and terrorist attacks. As 

part of this requirement and a requirement of PKEMRA, FEMA recently released the National Disaster Recovery Framework. I understand FEMA is in the process of reviewing the National Response Framework. What is the status of this review and what is 

FEMA’s role in the development of the other frameworks? What is 

the status of that effort? 

Mr. FUGATE. Status is on-going. We have various delivery dates 

that are published. The National Disaster Recovery Framework 

was in its inception when PPD–8 was being developed. So it conformed to and met those requirements as one of the elements to 

the framework. The National Response Framework and the other 

frameworks will be updated as we go through the process of implementing PPD–8. FEMA has been charged by the National security 

staff and Secretary Napolitano for the coordination role, but some 

of those goals will actually be managed by other agencies that are 

more focused on some of those activities. But we have the overall 

responsibility for coordinating all of those documents and all of the 

frameworks under PPD–8. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. Earlier this year, the subcommittee 

held a hearing on the IPAWS program, and Ranking Member Richardson had mentioned it, and I am also a supporter. We heard 

from Assistant Administrator Penn about the plans for the implementation of the Personal Localized Alerting Network. Would you 

please provide an update on the status of PLAN? When you and 

Chairman Genachowski and Mayor Bloomberg unveiled the program in New York City this summer, the intent was for the plan 

to be operational in New York and Washington, DC by the end of 

the year. Give us the status. Are we on track for that? How would 

you say the cooperation between the FCC and FEMA has been 

through this process? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, let me start with the cooperation of the FCC. 

The Chairman and I have been working closely on this and other 

activities, including the National emergency alert system test November 9, and there is a lot of activities that I think we have built 
13 

a good partnership in working in their role as a regulatory in dealing with licensed carriers and the broadcast industry, and our role 

working with the user groups and the warning systems. 

As far as I know, things are on track but I will go back and make 

sure we are doing that. One of the things that we hoped that we 

are seeing is there was a time frame for industry to adopt, as we 

published the rules, the technology to do the plan, so you had the 

personal location capabilities and cell phones. From my understanding, we are actually seeing industry adopt to that faster, and 

so that they are actually going to exceed a lot of those deadlines. 

But I will go back to Damon Penn and get an update on the status 

of all of those. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Please do. I am very interested. I know the Ranking Member is, too. 

I yield 5 minutes to the Ranking Member, Representative Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As I said, Administrator Fugate, regarding the disability coordinator, in each region is there a disability—is there a person responsible for disability coordination? 

Mr. FUGATE. As far as I know, I think we finished hiring the last 

one and several of them, in fact—in all of the recent disasters they 

have been deployed, and particularly across the tornadoes were deployed into those joint field offices. Most recently, the recent hire 

in Region 4, which is based in Atlanta, was deployed into North 

Carolina, which was a tremendous asset helping us work with the 

hard-of-hearing and deaf communities. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Is that that person’s sole responsibility in each 

region? 

Mr. FUGATE. It is their primary responsibility. Again, we also 

like to remind ourselves that we are all emergency managers and 

we do what we have to do during disaster. But their primary responsibility for preparing for, responding to, recovering in the mitigation, is looking at being inclusive across our programs. So not 

only do we look externally at our response functions, but we also 

look internally at our own practice to make sure we are being inclusive, everything from meetings to just accessibility in our buildings. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. What else are those individuals responsible 

for? 

Mr. FUGATE. I would not be aware of any additional specific 

tasking, but I can get that in writing. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. What I would like to know specifically 

is, is there a specific person responsible for disability coordination 

in each region and, if so, what percentage of their work is inclusive 

in doing that? Of their other work, what is that and how much 

time does that take? The disability coordinator has a budget of approximately $150,000. What is used for that? 

Mr. FUGATE. I am not sure that is the full extent. I am not sure 

how we are accounting for it. We just hosted a conference that I 

know was far in excess of that. On the disability integration hearing in Washington, the Chairman spoke at that. We have deployed 

these folks out. We have done training. We have been working on 

guidance. So one of the things I need to look at is this being reflec-
14 

tive of all of the money we are spending across the various programs, or is this just one part of that. 

So I would like to respond in writing and get you the full accounting of the total staff that are assigned to that office, all the 

resources we are pulling from other elements. You are correct, I did 

not ask for a line item. We took a lot of these out of activities we 

were doing and focused on disability integration and basically got 

different parts of FEMA to provide the resources. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. So we look forward to that in writing. 

As you know, I represent the largest amount of Samoans outside 

of Samoa. What current emergency system do they have there 

working right now? 

Mr. FUGATE. As last I knew, we were going through the testing 

phase of the island-wide siren system. That was one of the concerns we had after the tsunami, that there had been previous studies but they had not actually carried out and implemented the 

warning system for the island. My understanding is it has been 

going through the test. I don’t know if we have certified it yet. But 

that was to address the issue of not having island-wide warning for 

a tsunami warning which occurred when they were hit with a tsunami in 2009. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. At our July hearing, the Federal alert 

and warning effort witnesses identified a need to increase IPAWS 

training for emergency managers as a critical area to address. 

What status have you taken to increase training for managers with 

IPAWS? 

Then further, I would like to build upon, it is my understanding 

that there is a test of the emergency alert system scheduled for November 9, 2011. Although I understand the test is not a pass/fail, 

I am interested to know the performance of the system and how 

it will be evaluated. Can you speak to that? 

Mr. FUGATE. I will ask Damon Penn for an update on training. 

I know they have been working to do more training on IPAWS both 

in the broadcast industry and the emergency management community. 

Regarding the National emergency alert test, this is the first test 

outside of Alaska of an emergency alert notification, which would 

be a Presidential notification. Since the creation and all of the history of the emergency alert system back as far as the emergency 

broadcast in Connorel, it has never received a National test. So this 

will be the first time that we will actually begin the activation as 

an emergency action notification from the White House as the 

origination. 

We utilize this to look at how the system performs and how that 

message is carried out. Because this is a legacy system, it does not 

have a test function. So we are using the actual alert notification 

message, and it is important that we remind people of that on the 

test date, that this is just a test. We are working with the FCC and 

the broadcasters to ensure that. But this will be the first time of 

a historic test of the system on a National basis. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Fugate, I just want to say, although we 

can all make improvements, it has been very assuring to see you 

at the numerous disasters that we have had. I think you have been 

very proactive. You have been very visible on television, providing 
15 

updates and reports, and I think it has been a huge change and 

I want to thank you personally for your work. 

Mr. FUGATE. Thank you. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I yield back. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the full 

committee, Mr. Thompson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much. I would like to echo the 

sentiments of Ms. Richardson. I have been here pre-Katrina, postKatrina, and I have seen a different FEMA. Obviously it is always 

a work in progress, but I have never seen you as administrator not 

address whatever problems you were presented with, and I thank 

you for that. 

Just for the record, Mr. Fugate, just so the public understands 

that a declaration from the Presidential level is only after the State 

and local requirements based on some kind of request have been 

made. Can you just kind of walk us up that chain? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. This goes back to under the Stafford Act. 

Only the Governor of a State or territory is authorized to request 

from the President a disaster declaration, and that disaster declaration is based upon the Governor certifying that that event has 

overwhelmed State and local capabilities. We look at impacts on a 

per-capita basis for public assistance to determine part of that, but 

it is not the sole determination. It can oftentimes be based upon 

the significant impacts of what the trauma is to a community. 

In addition, when we look at individual assistance, again it is not 

based on a homeowner’s destruction, it is based upon the overall 

impact of the State, it is based upon the size of that State. So you 

will see disasters declared in much smaller States because of the 

population that in a much larger State you would assume would 

have more resources to deal with that. So it is not based upon a 

numerical formula for that assistance. It is always based upon the 

Governor certifying that this exceeds their capabilities and they are 

formally requesting the President to declare that a disaster. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. So the President on his own, by law, 

can’t do it without the necessary request from that Governor? 

Mr. FUGATE. The President has some limited abilities, but in 

most cases and in all of the disasters that we have dealt with, the 

only time that we have responded to is when a Governor has made 

that request. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. If, in fact, FEMA, in its 

prepositioning and mobilization efforts, was limited in doing so 

based on some standard of offset, what would that do to FEMA’s 

ability to respond to a wildfire, hurricane, tornado, if an offset had 

to be identified before you would be able to move? 

Mr. FUGATE. To be honest with you, sir, what I am looking at 

is what is the fund balance in the DRF and how the money gets 

there really is now secondary to that. What I did see as we approached the end of our current fiscal year last year, our response 

funds dropped to a level that we would have been extremely compromised in our ability to respond to a no-notice disaster such as 

an earthquake. We looked at what the various options were. But 

when that balance drops below a certain amount and that amount 

is oftentimes, you know, up to about a billion dollars, when you 

look at the cost of the response to some of the large-scale threats 
16 

this country faces, whether it is earthquakes in California or a 

major hurricane making landfall in, let us say, Miami or Tampa or 

New York, response cost is in not tens or hundreds of millions, it 

literally can very quickly escalate into the billions of dollars. 

At our National level exercise we did this year on the New Ma- drid Earthquake, initial response cost estimates were about $1.5 

billion. So when you are sitting there with a fund of only 100-orso million dollars in a fiscal year, it begs the question, Mr. Chairman, how will we respond to the next catastrophic disaster? That 

is one of my greatest concerns is, we should not look at the DRF 

just for the disaster to have been declared. It is also those funds 

needed to respond to the next no-notice disaster that we have to 

be prepared for. 

Mr. THOMPSON. To what extent have you directed your staff to 

close out past disasters that are still on the books? 

Mr. FUGATE. We have taken a tiered approach. Our first goal and 

looking at open mission assignments from previous disasters that 

the Federal agencies had completed but they still had fund balances, so we closed those out, that returned over $2 billion back 

into the DRF last fiscal year. 

The next steps, versus closing out the entire disasters, has been 

looking at projects that had been completed and the States were no 

longer drawing funds against, but they had outstanding balances 

in the obligations. In working with the States, we were able to 

deobligate those dollars, and that was over a billion and a half that 

we were able to recover in the past year. We expect there to be 

about another billion in the next fiscal year is approximately what 

we are looking at. 

As we get to those recoveries, then we will start looking at these 

older disasters which still require a financial reconciliation. There 

is no more money, but we still need to get them finalized to officially close them out. But our first goal was to get money that was 

obligated, but was not going to be used, back in the DRF so we can 

continue paying for the more recent disasters. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. Just for the record, can you provide 

the committee with a status report on those disasters that are still 

open? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Whatever the accounting is. Thank you, I yield 

back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman from 

Pennsylvania, Mr. Marino, for 5 minutes, who was obviously affected by the storms, his Congressional district. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. Director, it is good to see you again. 

Yes, we were affected by the storms in Pennsylvania. But I want 

to commend you and your staff. I know we had communications 

during our hurricanes and Irene. I see Pat sitting behind you and 

he is quite a trooper. He was on the phone with me a dozen times 

when we needed water, we needed food, and we needed strategic 

changes made. I want to thank him for the service that he provided. I know he got a promotion, but, Pat, I still have your cell 

phone number and I am going to take advantage of it. 

You brought up a good point on being notified. Just briefly, going 

into how important it is for States to be in touch with FEMA so 
17 

you can get on the ground running and that—many indications 

that that—you didn’t have that in Katrina. There are also indications that just the request—the requests weren’t asked or they 

weren’t asked for in time. How important is it? 

Mr. FUGATE. I think it is absolutely critical. Of all the lessons I 

have learned over history is we really—when we are dealing with 

these types of events—and I am going to break this into two pieces, 

those that we are dealing with that are recoveries and those that 

are an active response such as we saw with Irene. It is really hard 

to be effective if you are always identifying yourself as a local, 

State, or FEMA Federal person. You have really got to work as one 

team. So to get in there quickly, work as one team, be responsive 

in anticipating needs, versus waiting for things to get so bad before 

they are overwhelmed before you get the next request. 

So I think that is one of the hallmarks of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, is really getting rid of these artificial divisions. Saying, look, when it hits that level, we have got to 

work as one team. It shouldn’t be something where we are literally 

passing paper up the food chain to get an answer. We should be 

able to work together and work and solve problems quickly. 

Mr. MARINO. Do you have the authority that you need now postReform Act to step in even if a State fails to request, for whatever 

reason, and say, look, we see this as a disaster and we need to 

come in and assist you in doing preventive measure? Do you have 

that authority as far as you are concerned? 

Mr. FUGATE. We can do quite a bit without a formal request from 

the Governor to pre-position supplies and move resources in. But 

I don’t know if the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform 

Act can address this, sir. You are actually getting into a Constitutional question. As we reserve the police powers for the States 

under Article 10 of the Constitution, we could take some actions. 

But I think, again, we find it much better to get our teams in there 

with the State and work through those challenges, behind the 

doors, to get things done versus waiting until people fail. 

So I would say that our goal is to get there early, work with the 

State, anticipate need, not wait on the request and, where we can, 

advise and help get to a better decision faster. 

Mr. MARINO. Well, I will certainly be supporting you in that aspect. If we need more legislation, I will be taking the lead on that 

with you as well. I know we did a lot of things right in Irene the 

last few weeks and over the month, and in my district—just an example of it, I have never seen the Feds, the State, and the locals 

work so closely together. So tell me what we realized from this last 

round, what was not effective and what can we do differently? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, I will pick on one aspect of this because it is 

going to come up, and particularly when we deal with flood events, 

is looking at the National Flood Insurance Program. One of our 

challenges is that we have communities who have chosen not to 

participate in the National Flood Insurance Program and they get 

flooded, it severely limits our ability to provide individual assistance. It is to effect we are holding individuals responsible for the 

failure of local governments to adopt and join the National Flood 

Insurance Program. 
18 

So it oftentimes puts us in a bind where people have been flooded, they have had losses. Their neighboring communities are getting assistance, but they can’t because their community didn’t 

adopt the National Flood Insurance Program. I think it would to 

me make more sense to put maybe the burden back on the local 

governments and look at their public assistance versus the individual assistance. I realize, you know, with the Flood Insurance 

Program, our goal here is to get people at risk to purchase flood 

insurance and to have that protection so the taxpayer is not having 

to pay for flood damages. But it is an area that it will be difficult— 

it is part of the reason why we have to send out remittances when 

we do provide assistance to people and it turns out they weren’t in 

a Flood Insurance Program, and we have to ask for the money 

back. As Ranking Member Thompson can tell you, that is a very 

difficult proposition when we get to that point. 

Mr. MARINO. Right. Look, I know you need the funding. I was the 

one that stood up in the House and said look, let’s not argue of 

what is going to happen here, let’s just get the funding out. My district appreciated it. I think there are enough inefficient agencies 

here in the District of Columbia that deserve to be cut and those 

funds that we can hopefully make certain that you have them, so 

you can serve so well as you have in the past. Thank you so much. 

I yield back. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman from 

Michigan, Mr. Clarke, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Fugate, I 

appreciate you being here. I represent metropolitan Detroit, which 

includes the city of Detroit and also includes the Northern Border 

with Canada. A couple of questions. 

My first deals with promoting interoperability among communications with our first responders as well as with our Federal officials along with our Canadian counterparts. Let me just illustrate 

that. There was, according to one of our local law enforcement first 

responders a few years ago, there was an accident on the Detroit 

River. That first responder had a hard time communicating to the 

Coast Guard about it, and in turn none of them could notify their 

Canadian counterparts. 

As a result of the new law in 2008, FEMA established a Disaster 

Emergency Communications Division. Particularly how does this 

division help coordinate response on the Northern Border or could 

be used to coordinate response on the Northern Border in a way 

that would foster interoperable communications among first responders with their Canadian counterparts and the Federal authorities? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, we will start with the disaster emergency 

communication function. I think it does two things. One, it helps 

bring in and reestablish communications to local and State jurisdictions that have lost it in a disaster. But a more important element 

that we saw was really beneficial was helping States develop their 

communications plans. 

Again, I will be honest with you, those have been State-centric. 

The question you raise is actually interesting because it is something that I know Secretary Napolitano is working across the enterprise in DHS—is looking at how do we work to cross-border 
19 

issues that are transnational, but in a response world first responders can see each other across the river. How do you get better integration there? 

I know that our Region 5 administrator is working with your 

shop on some of this, but I think it is one area that I would like 

to take back to Secretary Napolitano as a concern you have raised 

and look at how our plans, which are really focused on the States, 

could be tied into more activities at DHS, particularly with the 

Coast Guard, Immigration, and Customs and some of the others 

that are working across the border. Because we know the first responders are. I think that is kind of an area that we will go back 

to the Secretary and say, this is maybe an area that these committees could work closer and there may be avenues to work through 

other parts of DHS to work with our Canadian counterparts. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you very much. Administrator, one other 

question and it deals with how can we best prepare citizens who 

are struggling right now financially to be prepared in case there is 

a disaster? 

You know, in the city of Detroit, our city, our region, we have lost 

more jobs, more people, more homes than any other city or region 

in the country over the last 10 years. So in downtown Detroit in 

particular, we have many people that have special needs who may 

be physically challenged, you know, get around with wheelchairs or 

other type of devices to help them with their mobility. We also 

have folks who are struggling every day just to provide for their 

own basic needs just financially, just don’t have the money to do 

so. So how can FEMA better help prepare individuals who are 

struggling right now to be able to be prepared for a disaster? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, not to sound trite about this, but I think we 

oftentimes make the entry level into being fully prepared so expensive. Even people of means look at this and go, if I went and 

bought everything on your list brand new, that could cost me hundreds of dollars. I think we have made that such a high bar, that 

we actually want to go back and start out with more basic questions. Again, I think this is again your office, and folks can help 

get this word out; you don’t have to make sure you have got everything, but just start with the most basic thing. Do you have a family communication plan? We know that for a lot of folks, they don’t 

have—they are very mobile, they use mobile communication devices, they use their cell phones, they don’t have anything else. Do 

they have a plan of what to do—because as we saw here with the 

earthquake, you are not going to be able to get dial tone. But do 

you have a backup plan to text message or do you have rally points 

to know if I cannot get to you, there is someplace we can meet? 

Preparedness oftentimes starts with just the basic steps of developing your family communication plan of how you are going to let 

family and friends know, and where you are going to go if you can’t 

get home. Those initial steps start the process. 

But we are also sensitive to the fact—and this is one of the 

things we have been working with our State partners on, durable 

medical goods and other supplies that may be needed for people 

that have additional resource needs. We are really trying to be focused on making sure we are inclusive on the front end, not treat-
20 

ing this as an afterthought of dealing with people who may need 

additional resources when a disaster strikes. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentleman yields back, correct? 

Mr. CLARKE. I yield back. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. Now I recognize Mr. Farenthold for 5 minutes from the great State of Texas. You are recognized, sir. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, Chairman Bilirakis. Administrator 

Fugate, we have been plagued in Texas by wildfires for the past 

year. Of the disasters FEMA faces, wildfires are one that actually 

can be mitigated while they are going on. So I have a two-part 

question for you to begin with. First, can you outline what FEMA’s 

responses have been to the wildfires in Texas and how has FEMA 

and the Federal Government as a whole cooperated on bringing the 

resources necessary to mitigate those fires as they are going on, 

and afterwards? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, the two pieces of this—I will start with the 

last one first, because the lead agency for coordinating Federal assistance is the U.S. Forestry Services, Agriculture, through the 

interagency. We support them there. 

On the other side, the financial side of this, has been through the 

issuance of a record number of fire management grants that are 

fire-specific, as well as a major Presidential disaster declaration focused on individual assistance. In some of the more recent fires, we 

lost a large number of homes. 

What is happening in Texas, though, the wildfires are merely a 

symptom. What we have got is a sustained long-period drought 

that doesn’t seem to be ending. One of the challenges that I am 

finding that I experienced in Florida is that our fire management 

grant programs are really designed about very large, centralized 

fires. What we have in Texas is a lot of little fires that, if you don’t 

get them knocked down quick, will grow to the big fires. 

So there is quite a bit of activity on-going across Texas. A lot of 

it is being done by volunteer fire departments that are tied to these 

fire management grants. I have had discussions with the State director of emergency management there named Kidd, and I have 

asked my staff to come back and look at some of these issues. But 

my concern in Texas is this is not a situation that is improving and 

it is not a fire by fire. It is the underlying drought. Until that 

drought breaks, my concern as to the wildfire situation in Texas 

will continue to be active and that we have to continue to look at 

our tools, providing assistance both through our interagency process with the U.S. Forest Service as well as the financial assistance 

through fire management grants and declarations. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Short of praying for rain, I would appreciate 

if you or your staff could get with my office and the rest of the 

Texas delegation to see what, if anything, can be done to improve 

that situation. 

I also want to move over to the EAS just for a second and shift 

gears. You have got the test coming up. I would imagine, having 

been in broadcasting since I was 16 years old, I see first-hand the 

flaws of the EAS and what it has evolved into. Is FEMA looking 

at, with the advents of new technologies like cell phones, text mes-
21 

saging and the internet, coming up with a new technology to either 

replace or supplement EAS? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. In fact, that was some of the remarks that 

our Ranking Member Richardson and the Chairman talked about, 

what we call IPAWS, the integrated public warning and alert system. It is taking advantage of newer technology and using a common alerting protocol to go across all devices. Part of this is working with the FCC where personal location, alert notifications, can 

be geographically tagged to your cell phone based upon your location, as well as the ability to now operate across a lot of different 

technologies. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. My concern with that—and as we saw in the 

earthquake up here—the cell phone network, especially in a time 

of disaster, is substantially more fragile than we would like to believe. 

Mr. FUGATE. That is correct. Again if we were trying to use the 

cell phones for the way you would be doing voice traffic, it would 

not work. But cell phones are also radios. The cell towers actually 

have broadcast functions that you can actually send one-way transmissions to. That is the benefit of that. 

The other benefit is rather than alerting everybody in an area, 

we can specify those areas that are geocoded to the threat, so when 

a tornado—remember how we used to have to alert the whole county? Now we can give a more—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Is that based on tower location or GPS from 

the phone, or both? 

Mr. FUGATE. It is based upon the phone knowing where it is at, 

whether it is GPS or triangulation. We don’t track that information. It just tells everything in that tower area to alert. It doesn’t 

track the actual phones. So the phones are self-aware, but the system doesn’t monitor the phones. It just broadcasts to that specific 

area. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. I appreciate your responses. Thank 

you for being here and thank you for your hard work. I will yield 

back. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. Now I would like to recognize the 

gentlelady from New York, Ms. Hochul, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. HOCHUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are talking about 

personal notification systems, Mr. Administrator, how you can give 

information to the public. What troubles me in this century is that 

the public is not able to send a 9–1–1 text messaging to public safety dispatchers, whether it is in a natural disaster, whether it is a 

situation we had at Virginia Tech, whether children—young students in a lockdown situation and they are sending 9–1–1 messages out there on their cell phones, believing fully that they are 

going to be heard, and we don’t have the capability. I find that to 

be a National embarrassment personally, and I am not casting any 

dispersion, any blame. I am just saying how do we solve that? 

When I am talking to people at FCC sometimes they will say it 

is going on over at Homeland Security, Homeland Security might 

say it is FCC. What is preventing us from doing that? Because I 

think that is something that—you know, there is a generation, 

probably from my age on down, or lower than me down, where the 

expectation is that when they send 9–1–1 on the cell phone, it is 
22 

going to be received by somebody who is in a position to help them. 

Very sadly, that is not the case in America today. 

Mr. FUGATE. I am going to ask my staff to get the FCC to respond back in writing, because I share your concerns. I know that 

the FCC has been working on what they call next generation 9– 

1–1, and they have been looking at some pilot programs of how you 

could start taking in text messaging and other types of social 

media. One of the challenges is the system was never designed 

with that as this technology has come on board. 

So I know the FCC has been looking at preliminary rulemaking. 

They are looking at several pilots. I will ask my staff to work with 

the FCC so we can respond jointly back to you. What they are looking at in the next generation of 9–1–1, they are anticipating how 

do you adapt to the known, but also emerging technologies that we 

may not quite understand? Again, it is a common idea, and I think 

you pointed it out very well. We have to adapt the way the public 

communicates, not necessarily force them to enter the legacy systems. That has been one of the challenges as we move forward. 

Ms. HOCHUL. I appreciate your attention and I would urge that 

you make that a major priority, because in natural disasters or in 

lockdown situations or anytime that our public needs help, they are 

assuming that they are reaching us. 

We had a situation where gunshots were fired in one of my suburban high schools outside Rochester. Fifty kids sent 9–1–1 messages and they thought they were received. So I would like this to 

be a major priority because I think it could be a tremendous help. 

If you are talking about pilot programs, I will sign up right now. 

I have sat down with many of my public safety dispatch operations 

throughout my seven counties and they are ready to do it. They 

just need the resources to get it going. 

But again, I commend you on your attention. You have so many 

issues in this country to pay attention to, so many disasters unexpected. 

I want to make sure we don’t lose sight of some disaster assistance that was requested in New York State after some flooding in 

the spring. I can give you a copy today, again, because we mailed 

this out. This is from our New York delegation asking for assistance. If you could please commit to reevaluating Governor Cuomo’s 

request to reverse your denial of assistance to areas that were 

flooded in the spring, because I still have farmers that are never 

going to be whole again, and my economy relies on my farmers 

planting, harvesting, getting it to market. So If you could take another look at that as well. 

Again, you have probably got the toughest job in America with 

all of the different disasters that come your way, whether it is the 

fires in Texas; who would have thought Upstate New York would 

be victim to an earthquake, a hurricane, a tornado, all within a 

couple of weeks? 

So we are living in what seems like unprecedented times. But I 

hope that you are up to the task. I am sure you are. If there is anything we can do to assist you, we are partners in protecting the 

American people. Thank you. 

Mr. FUGATE. Thank you, ma’am. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back? 
23 

Ms. HOCHUL. I am sorry. I do. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. If it is all right with Administrator Fugate, I 

think this is such an important topic, we have time for a second 

round. So I would like to begin. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

As part of your effort to engage in the whole community—and I 

commend you for that, Administrator—you have included a rotating seat for the private sector in the National Response Coordination Center. How is the initiative working? 

Mr. FUGATE. It is working very well. Not only are we giving the 

private sector a seat in there, we are really looking at some of the 

things that will speed up our ability to see what they see, such as 

really getting the point of the major big box stores, recognizing 

they don’t provide everything but they are a good indicator of how 

areas are impacted, giving us live data on store openings and closures so we can see what is going on. 

We first really saw this when we were dealing with the ice storm 

earlier this year. It is kind of hard to remember that far back, we 

had this threat of an ice storm across the central United States 

and moving towards the Northeast. But they were literally giving 

us updates on the store statuses in real time as we were making 

decisions about where we may need generator stuff. 

We saw this again in Puerto Rico when Hurricane Irene hit. We 

were getting lots of reports of flooding, but they were able to come 

back and give us statuses of drugstores, hardware stores, grocery 

stores, that pretty well told us that the bulk of the island primary 

services were intact and our focus was really on flooding in some 

of the higher elevations where some of the towns were destroyed. 

That real-time information made us more comfortable with the decision that the Governor’s request was not for more resources but 

focus on the recovery so we could shift those attentions now to the 

East Coast, to the United States. Without that information, we 

would have been a little bit concerned that we didn’t have all of 

that information; and what if we didn’t send the supplies, would 

we get behind? But because the retailers were assuring us they 

were up, they were running, the ports are up, the airport is up, 

that information coupled with the Governor’s request made sense 

and we were able to shift our resources now to the East Coast. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. As a follow-up, the emergency management officials I have spoken with see this engagement with the private sector as a very positive step. However, they have expressed concern 

about the PS–Prep Program. Their concern: While FEMA has a 

structure in place for the program, it has yet to create an incentive 

for participation with the private sector. 

Recognizing that PS–Prep is a voluntary program, what can be— 

what can we do to better engage the private sector and encourage 

them to take steps to enhance their preparedness? 

Mr. FUGATE. To be honest with you, Mr. Chairman, I think when 

that program was starting out, we were looking at the private sector as getting a certification to be able to sit at the table. In some 

ways what we found was that there should be an entry requirement to be a part of the team. They are doing it already. We need 

to work closer. 
24 

I think PS–Prep is going through an evolution and I will ask my 

staff to come back to you with more specifics. But I think one of 

the things that I have learned in this process is oftentimes when 

we start programs with good intentions, we find that we maybe are 

not going the way we thought we were going and we need to reassess. I think this is a continuing area: How do we reassess that 

program to get better participation and, at the same time, recognizing there may be some entities that will not participate there 

but are still wanting to be part of the team when we respond and 

recover from disasters? 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I think if you have some suggestions for us as 

well, we can work with our constituents. I think that that would 

be very beneficial as well. 

I am interested in your assessment of National Level Exercise 

11. What are the main lessons learned from the exercise? How are 

we sharing these lessons with participants at the State, local, and 

Tribal and private-sector levels? 

Mr. FUGATE. That is a large exercise, and in the short time I 

have, I would like to give you some written responses to that. But 

I want to point out one thing I really haven’t had a chance to talk 

about in these committees but I think has been a tremendous improvement in our capability, and that is the resolution of the issue 

of applying Federal forces to a State, particularly Title 10 ActiveDuty forces, when the Governor has their National Guard on State 

Active-Duty and running the realities of: How do you manage that? 

Under a program that was initiated by Congress forming the 

Council of Governors to work with the National Guard and Governors as well as with the Department of Defense, we now have 

what we call dual-status commanders. This is a program that has 

been enthusiastically supported, I must say, by NORTHCOM and 

the Department of Defense, to take National Guard flag officers— 

and almost now all the States train them as dual-status command, 

where they can now command at the request of the Governor and 

the designation by the Secretary of Defense and the President, 

command both State Active-Duty and National Guard and Title 10 

forces under one commander, not having to have two separate joint 

task forces. 

In our National Level Exercise, this showed that the ability to 

bring in Federal forces in support of the State, with their National 

Guard activated into Active Duty, minimize the confusion and the 

duplicity of having a multiple joint task force operating in the same 

State. So I think this is one of the things that we were able to look 

at in exercise, but I think it is one of the huge unheralded milestones we have in this country of resolving, I think once and for 

all, the issue of: How do we bring Active-Duty forces to the Governor in a way that does not duplicate or replicate what they are 

doing through their National Guard and work as one team? 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. Thank you. All right. I now recognize 

Ranking Member Richardson for 5 minutes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fugate, I need 

to come back to the EAS test. First of all, I want to clarify. Does 

the EAS test include all the territories and all the States? Everyone or just—— 
25 

Mr. FUGATE. My assumption is yes, because this will be an activation of the emergency alert notification which will be a Presidential message and a National message. So my understanding, it 

should go out through all of the systems, but I will verify that. 

We have done two separate State tests in Alaska to test the system. But this will be the first time we will be activating it across 

the entire country, and I will verify that it will go to the territories. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. If it does not, are you committed to including 

them? 

Mr. FUGATE. Absolutely. If it isn’t, it has more to do with the legacy systems than it is by any intention. This is one of the things 

we are hoping as we move to IPAWS, to get past some of the legacy 

limitations in our existing infrastructure. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. Then when we were talking about American Samoa and their alert system test, was this one and the same, 

or were they having a separate test? 

Mr. FUGATE. This was a separate test of certifying the outdoor 

warning system. This was a key component that, when the tsunami 

warning center issues the warnings, there was no outdoor warning 

systems in American Samoa. It was a testing of that system. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Has that already occurred? 

Mr. FUGATE. I will have to get back to you. I know they were 

doing it, but I don’t know if they completed the test and signed off 

on that. I just really don’t have that at my fingertips. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. If you could also supply us the results 

of that. 

Back also to the EAS. As I said, I don’t believe it includes a pass 

or fail. In particular, could you tell us how the data will be gathered, what will be the gaps in performance identified and improvements to the system made, and is there a specific time line that 

you have associated with? 

Mr. FUGATE. The actual test itself will be looking at all of the 

primary entry points for the system, activate the local primaries, 

and how many of those stations that are supposed—one of the 

things about the Emergency Alert System, it is always voluntary 

except when a Presidential notification occurs. That is why we 

don’t have a test capability. This is the only one that will trip everything, because it is designed to automatically engage all of the 

pre-transmit functions. So the test will be: How far did it go and 

where were their gaps and breaks in the chain of notification? This 

goes to everything. It actually starts a chain of primary entry 

points and the local primary points that then set off their tones, 

which will then activate other receivers. Because this is the one 

function that was built in that—broadcasters are optioned on everything else and they can set their equipment to manual or delay. 

This will be the first time we will see if all of the systems go 

through. 

So the first part is did that happen and were there breaks? The 

other part will be, as it went out, did we see any difficulties? We 

already know of some issues that are germane to the legacy systems that will be a challenge for this. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. I apologize. I have got 2 minutes. Will 

your assessment include improvements that need to be made? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes. 
26 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Just that. Then do you have a specific time line 

when you anticipate being able to give us this report? 

Mr. FUGATE. I will defer back to Damon Penn to get an update 

of what we expect to get back on that and when we would have 

a report. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. I have got three really quick questions, 

and he is going to give me a little more time. One of the issues that 

I found in American Samoa was that they owed prior money to the 

Government and therefore, because of that, were hesitant of extending on additional services beyond the initial, whatever it was, 

72 hours. Have you established a new process or have we had a 

discussion of how to deal with maybe States or territories that 

might have a past-due situation? 

Mr. FUGATE. The issue of those that still owe money from previous disasters or previous grant programs is one we are looking 

at of the recoupment process there, and whether or not and how 

we go forward. We know it is going to be a challenge there in 

American Samoa. There are also some other territories that are 

facing the same situation. I will respond back in writing. But it is 

again similar to other recoupment processes where, if the money 

under IG or General Accounting Offices, finds that money is owed 

back, we have to look at a collection process which either will offset 

future costs or have to be tied to some other reduction in funding. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. So if you could supply this committee of 

who currently owes, how much they owe, what is the process of 

paying it back. 

Last two questions. Twice now we have had colleagues who have 

brought forward a concern about the UASI grants and whether the 

funding should be in tiered levels and so on. Could you please 

share your particular feedback of why you think it should stay the 

same or change? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, again as we presented the options to Secretary Napolitano, she made the decision that we would reduce 

funding, could no longer continue to fund all of the cities on the 

list, and needed to focus on those that were in the top tier based 

on a variety of information we used to make those decisions. Given 

the amount of funding, I think that will be the continued recommendation as we present to her this year; as we look at this 

year’s appropriation is, with reduced funding, the decision made to 

fully fund those top-tiered cities versus reducing funding across the 

board? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. So if I am hearing you correctly, if we 

were not to reduce funding, which some folks on this committee 

have advocated for, we might have a better ability to assist all the 

cities? 

Mr. FUGATE. That would be an option to look at, yes, ma’am. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. My last question is, for full year 2012, 

the proposed level of funding for first responders is less than half 

the amount that Congress appropriated 2 years ago, in full year 

2010. The Congress appropriated a total of $4.17 billion in grant 

funding for first responders. Further, if H.R. 2017 is enacted by 

Congress, the grant funding will have been reduced by almost 60 

percent within two fiscal cycles. How do you plan on addressing 
27 

these cuts and to ensure that the regions have the adequate resources? 

I want you to know I am asking you this on the record and intend upon bringing it back up when the committee then discuss 

things like cutting at these, what I would believe, very unreasonable levels. 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, the short answer is that with these reductions 

of fundings, we are looking at what we can do to maintain current 

capabilities that have been built with the dollars, and putting emphasis on those items and teams that are more critical to the National interest and of National capabilities. Which means not everything is going to be funded, and there may have to be decisions 

about what cannot be supported, but looking at things that are 

really designed to be of a National interest and have capability to 

support the National threats. 

Again, as we saw with the mutual aid in the past disasters, one 

of the things we know is making sure that regional mutual aid 

through State-directed responses is the most effective use of these 

resources. So, looking at how we can leverage more regional response capabilities with fewer dollars. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So if you could provide to this committee what, 

in light of the proposed cuts, what you view would fall within the 

National realm of being of National interest and what potential 

things could be cut in the event we have to operate at the levels 

you have been given? 

Mr. FUGATE. We will do that. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. I recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, the Ranking Member of the full committee, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 

Fugate, will you comment on your efforts to get FEMA to start buying locally in disasters and whether or not that effort has rendered 

a positive result? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. Early on when I got to FEMA, one of the 

things we found was that we used a lot of National contracts, kind 

of one-size-fits-all. It is easy for us to administer. But it tended to 

result in us buying resources and bringing things from outside a 

disaster area when they were already there in the community. 

After several disasters, particularly what I observed in Haiti, I 

realized that one of the flaws in our system by doing that is we are 

not putting any money back in the local economy when it is at its 

greatest need. So we adopted a philosophy of buying local and hiring local, whenever possible, to put money back in the local community, in many cases at no real additional cost to the taxpayers, 

and sometimes a savings because it is faster and it is right there. 

I would say right now it has been mixed, but where it has 

worked, I think it is significant in that we can go to a local computer store, we can go to a local vendor, we can go to a local print 

shop, and we buy services for people that are in the area that are 

trying to get their lives back together. What I know from all of the 

things I have seen, small businesses are most vulnerable. If they 

don’t get work quickly, they don’t survive. I figure as best we can, 

if we can buy local services wherever possible, we will benefit not 
28 

only the community itself, but I think ultimately speed the recovery. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. There have been some Title 6 issues 

in FEMA on an on-going basis. Provide us with your efforts to resolve many of these issues, please. 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, first of all, it comes back with—one of the 

things we are looking at, we have a remediation going on in Florida. What we have worked with with the IG on this one, I think 

what we are going to do with the State is go back and do a remedial training and some pilot, and provide them additional grant 

guidance oversight as they are issuing the grants for Title 6 compliance. We also put into our office fraud investigations, the Title 

6 functions for investigating those complaints because, again, we 

felt this needed to be more focused on those complaints when they 

came up. 

So I think it is two parts. One is the enforcement piece of it 

where we do have the complaints and the investigations and determine if it needs to be referred to the IG. The other part of it is the 

education to make sure on the front end, in providing grant guidance, people understand the requirements of Title 6 and are complying with that, particularly these large projects. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. Can you provide the committee with 

some current statistics on EO complaints and what have you, say 

over the last 2 years? Not now. Just come back to us with it and 

just—to give us how many have been resolved, how many are ongoing, this kind of thing, and whether or not you have looked at 

that situation and whether or not you will recommend changes, or 

what have you, going forward. I think that would be helpful. 

With respect to recoupment, I couldn’t let you get away without 

recoupment, the issue of recoupment. We are still, I guess weekly, 

getting dinged by constituents who are receiving letters. 

Two questions. To what extent can other constituents expect 

these letters to come? But on the other hand, especially for the 

Katrina victims, a disproportionate number of people have been 

misplaced. Bad addresses, things like that. I would like to see 

whether or not, when letters go out and those individuals were 

moved to Houston from New Orleans and subsequently somewhere 

else, that basically through no fault of their own, but obviously 

from an address standpoint, you still have them in Houston. 

I would not want somebody who is really resettled, getting themselves back together, and now all of the sudden because they didn’t 

get a letter, they would in fact be breaking the law. If you come 

up with a solution for that; if not, when you could, it would be very 

helpful to people like me who have constituents getting those letters. 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir, there is going to be more letters. That is 

an absolute fact. There is still a lot more to go out from Katrina 

and Rita from recoupments. We send the letter to the last known 

address. When that letter comes back, what do we do? I have asked 

staff, and what they briefed me on—and I will provide this in writing—is we have a process with a third party to try to track down 

any additional financial records to try to locate that person. 

One of the concerns I know that was raised was: When would 

penalties and interest kick in and when do you refer them to 
29 

Treasury for collection? That is an area where I don’t have an exact 

time line because I don’t know what we do as far as how long it 

takes for us to go through the due diligence in trying to locate 

them. It is generally because they are not responsive or we have 

exhausted our ways of locating them, that they would actually get 

referred to Treasury to see if they can recoup there. 

As you point out when you send a letter to them, the first step 

is to see if they are going to appeal that, if there is more information that was lacking in the initial application that may mitigate 

that, or they can apply for forgiveness as they don’t have a financial ability. But I have asked staff. We do use a third party to try 

to track folks down. What I don’t know is what is that time frame 

that we would go before we would say we are unable to serve this 

letter or we are not getting a response, that it would go to Treasury 

and start accruing interests and penalties. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. I appreciate it. 

I have a couple of questions and then we will finish up. Thanks 

for your patience. I really appreciate it. 

With regard to mitigation, I know you believe in that strongly, 

but I believe—and that is why I filed my bill, to encourage businesses and residential owners to rebuild, mitigate of course. But I 

feel that maybe the Federal Government is just encouraging folks 

and this is all we have—the authority we have is to basically rebuild the way it was before instead of building stronger and better. 

That way the buildings and structures are more resilient. Comment on that, how we can improve things with regard to mitigation. 

Mr. FUGATE. I found both as a State and now as a FEMA administrator that I oftentimes put a lot of emphasis under the Stafford 

Act, under the section—it is just a section number. It doesn’t really 

mean anything to anybody else. But there is a part of the Stafford 

Act that says if you have got damages, you have got a public or 

eligible nonprofit and you have got damages and we are going to 

give you money to repair it, we also need to look at does it make 

sense to build it back better to reduce future damages. Under that 

section we look at things such as a cost-benefit analysis that says 

we realize the building code may be for 110-mile-an-hour roof, but 

if you got wiped out by a hurricane and we build this roof back at 

maybe, say, 130, 140 because it is a public safety building, or whatever that is appropriate, and then that building survives the next 

time, is that not a good investment? So under the Stafford Act of 

section 406, this is money that is tied to the actual damages. 

We have another part of that program called section 404, which 

provides an overall percentage of funds to the State afterwards for 

mitigation, but it doesn’t have to necessarily be tied to damaged 

properties, which may allow them to mitigate other threats. Particularly with some of the flooding we have seen, we know that 

many States and local communities will be looking at those additional funds of how to reduce future flood loss. 

Tell you what, Mr. Chairman. We saw a lot of areas where they 

have done things such as buyouts that in previous years had flooded severely, that had much less impact, even though they received 
30 

record floods. We have seen elevation work. We have seen safe 

rooms work. So again, it is one of those areas that is important. 

But the problem with these programs is they are always after we 

have had a disaster. I think the greater mitigation actually comes 

back to States that are willing to develop and implement, as we did 

in Florida, building codes appropriate for the hazards, and the tremendous difference that made in homes built prior to that unified 

building code. The performance in the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes 

was so dramatic, you could literally fly over neighborhoods and almost tell when the roof was built by what was standing and what 

was damaged. 

So again, I put a lot of emphasis on if we are going to spend Federal tax dollars to fix something, build it back better. An example 

was down in Charlotte County. They lost all seven of their fire stations. The building code only required it to be built back for the 

wind hazards but the reality was they got hit with a Category 4 

hurricane, and I said it doesn’t make sense that we are going to 

have to take public safety buildings and only build them back to 

the code. We really need to go code-plus so they survive the next 

hurricane, so the fire crews aren’t losing the equipment, and the 

stations are there to respond in the aftermath. So we are very 

much supportive of continuing that practice where it makes financial sense. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. Exactly. It makes financial sense as 

well. 

One last question. Again, PKEMRA required FEMA to develop 

and implement a training program for staff on the prevention of 

waste, fraud, and abuse of Federal disaster relief assistance. Comment on that. What is the status of that program? 

Mr. FUGATE. We have been breaking that into training—one of 

the areas we focused on very early was our COTARS through our 

chief procurement office, as well as looking at overall training for 

folks to recognize in our National processing centers when people 

call in. There are some steps we take to try to rule out bogus addresses and things like that, to minimize that, but also things to 

look for that would raise suspicion. Where we do find instances of 

fraud in individual assistance, we refer those for investigation. 

Where we find cause, we refer it to the IG. 

But I think what we have been trying to do is convince people 

we can be fast and not have the kind of abuse to the system we 

saw in previous disasters. But that means you have got to change 

how you look at things and build this into their front-end. You 

can’t bolt it onto the end and try to capture it. 

Our most recent audit that we got from the outside auditors on 

our error rate for IA went from about the high of Katrina, which 

is an outlier, because it was just an extraordinarily large storm, a 

double digit, down to a less than 1 percentage point error. But we 

continue to look at this, of how do we minimize the error rate without putting an undue burden of people applying for assistance, but 

then also look at everything from our contracts, how we do our 

business, how we proceed to do our business. We will be more than 

happy, sir, to provide you an update. We have already had another 

request very similar, what all these activities are and how we are 

doing that. 
31 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. That will conclude the 

hearing. I want to thank you for your testimony today. I want to 

thank the Members for their questions. The Members of the subcommittee may have—they will have some additional questions for 

you. I am sure you will be able to respond in writing, Administrator. We ask that you respond, of course. The hearing record will 

be held open for 10 days. 

Of course, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(33) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER LAURA RICHARDSON FOR W. CRAIG FUGATE

Question 1. Please inform the committee whether there is a specific Federal fulltime equivalent responsible for the implementation of the disability coordination 

program in each of the ten regional offices and what percentage of their duties is 

made up of these responsibilities? If they are assigned additional responsibilities 

outside of the disability coordination portfolio, please provide the percentage of 

these additional duties. 

Additionally, per the administrator’s testimony, provide in writing the full accounting of the total staffers assigned to the Office of the Disability Coordinator and 

any additional resources shifted to the mission of the Office. 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 2a. Please describe the current Emergency Alert System being used in 

American Samoa. 

Has the current system passed all testing and contain the necessary requirements 

to ensure that it is certified? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 2b. If the warning system for American Samoa has not yet been certified, why has not been certified and when does FEMA expect the system to be 

complete? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 3. At the subcommittee’s July Hearing on Emergency Communications 

witnesses from the Emergency Management community identified a need to increase the level of training related to the emergency alert system. What steps has 

FEMA taken to increase IPAWS training for emergency managers? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 4a. In light of the November 9, 2011 test of the Emergency Alert System 

(EAS), please provide the committee those States and territories that will be participating and their level of capacity? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 4b. Also, how will the data be collected and evaluated? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 4c. What is the time line for this assessment? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 5. What is the status of the outdoor warning emergency alert system for 

American Samoa? Has this system been tested and if so what was the outcome? 

Please include how the data will be gathered, gaps in performance discovered from 

the test, the affect of any improvements made to the system and the time line for 

all remediation of problems? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 6. Please provide the committee a list of those States or territories that 

currently have outstanding debts to FEMA and include how much they owe; the 

process FEMA uses to collect these funds; and the particular States and territories 

unable to receive Public Assistance Grants due to these debts. 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 7. In light of proposed funding cuts to FEMA, please provide the committee what programs and responsibilities must continue to receive level funding 

and possible programs and responsibilities that could be eliminated in the event you 

are forced to operate at the current funding levels recommended for fiscal year 2012. 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 8. Describe FEMA’s progress with the Disaster Closeout Process allowing FEMA to close out and de-obligate funds from previous disasters that are currently still on FEMA’s financial reports. Please provide the committee with a status 

report on these efforts including the number and dollar amount affiliated with both 

open and closed disasters. 
34 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 9. Please provide the committee the current statistics on the number of 

Title VI complaints reported against FEMA, the number of complaints that have 

been resolved, the number of complaints outstanding, actions taken on the complaints for the previous 3 years. Also, include any recommended changes or possible 

improvements to the current process. 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 10. What is the status of the FCC program to create ‘‘next generation 

9–1–1’’ that allows individual to text emergency requests to law enforcement and 

emergency management calling centers? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 11a. There is concern that the Office of Disability Integration and Coordination lacks the adequate resources to carry out its responsibilities under the 

Act. 

The Office of Disability Integration and Coordination has existed for approxi- mately 2 years, with a budget of about $150,000. What outreach activities have the 

Office initiated in that time under its current budget? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 11b. How many staff members are allocated to the Office of Disability 

Integration and Coordination? Is this an adequate number of staff to carry out the 

Office’s mission? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 11c. Do you plan to request additional funding for the Office in the fiscal 

year 2013 budget? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 12a. As you know, FEMA is currently responsible for administering all 

DHS grants, including grants for programs falling outside the agency’s expertise. 

How does the expenditure of FEMA’s resources on the administration of all DHS 

grants affect its ability to carry out its core mission (i.e.: preparing, protecting, mitigating, responding, and recovering from terrorist attacks)? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 12b. Is the administration of all DHS grants the most effective use of 

FEMA’s limited resources? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 13a. As you may know, I represent a large number of constituents with 

family connections to Samoa so the 2009 tsunami in American Samoa was a great 

concern for me. Too many people told me that their families weren’t warned in time 

to effectively prepare. A fully implemented IPAWS, accessible to all populations, 

system would have provided adequate warnings. 

At our July hearing on Federal Alert and Warning Efforts, witnesses identified 

a need to increase IPAWS training for emergency managers as a critical area to address. What is the status of FEMA’s efforts to increase training for emergency managers on IPAWS? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 13b. What efforts have been made to ensure that emergency alert systems will effectively warn vulnerable populations, including individuals with hearing, vision, and other functional disabilities, the elderly, and the poor? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 14. As you may know, my district is home to a very large Samoan population and I am particularly interested in the support we provide to American 

Samoa, as well as the other Pacific islands. Two years ago, the a National Academy 

of Public Administration Report identified ‘‘distance, time, and training’’ and as 

major obstacles to achieving preparedness goals in a territory determined to be the 

least prepared in its Region. What steps are you taking to ensure the Pacific Islands 

are receiving the training, funding, and attention they need to properly prepare for 

and respond to a disasters? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 15a. As you know, FEMA has relied predominately on temporary housing units and rental housing to provide disaster housing alternatives. In American 

Samoa, there was a lack of rental housing and it was not possible to provide temporary housing units, FEMA instituted a construction pilot program, which raised 

unique concerns regarding the objective and of FEMA’s emergency housing programs. 

What efforts has FEMA made to identify disaster housing options to accommodate 

a range of emergency situations, including earthquakes, floods? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 15b. What efforts has FEMA made to identify disaster housing options 

for islands or other remote areas? 
35 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 16. The purpose of the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) 

is to assist State and local developing a plan for recovery from a major disaster before a disaster strikes. Since the final NDRF was released only a few weeks ago, 

how is FEMA working with local communities to communicate the need for planning 

in both the initial response to a disaster and through the long-term recovery process? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 17. In the past FEMA has worked with the Corps of Engineers to contract for the installation and maintenance of temporary housing units. What steps 

does FEMA take to ensure that individuals who install THU’s are licensed and certified to install manufactured homes in accordance with the HUD Manufactured 

Home Installation Regulations? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 18. In light of drastic cuts to FEMA’s budget and the needs that have 

arisen from the increasing number of disaster declarations, what steps is FEMA 

taking to ensure that 10 Regional Offices will have the necessary capacity and resources? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 19a. Serious concern has been expressed with FEMA’s recoupment of 

disaster funds provided to those affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. 

While the committee understands that these steps are mandated by law I also want 

to ensure that the process doesn’t cause further suffering for those already working 

hard to put their lives back together. 

What steps is FEMA taking to ensure that those who meet hardship criteria receive the counsel they need to have their payments forgiven? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 19b. What is FEMA’s process when a recoupment letter cannot be delivered? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 20. The committee remains concerned that the Grants Directorate does 

not have the staff and resources to optimally manage the full suite of DHS grant 

programs. In light of the dramatic cuts that have been made to FEMA Grant Programs and that the Grant Program Directorates Budget is based on the amount of 

grant dollars, what steps is FEMA taking to ensure that the directorate is still able 

to properly disburse grant funding with a much smaller staff? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 21a. On October 7, 2011 FEMA released the first draft of the National 

Preparedness Goal, which describes the core capabilities that States and locals must 

develop and sustain in order to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and 

recover from numerous threats. But States, locals, and first responders have stated 

that the cuts to preparedness grant programs have severely hindered their ability 

to maintain the necessary security and resilience posture. 

How will FEMA assess how cuts to preparedness grants will affect State and 

locals ability to build and sustain the core capabilities needed to protect the Nation? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 21b. What comments have been received from States and urban areas 

concerned about the erosion of capabilities? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 21c. If so, how will this affect the Nation’s ability to respond to manmade and natural disasters? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 22. Fighter fighters play an important role in responding to numerous 

emergencies and leading of the joint response efforts through the use of National 

Incident Management System. Unfortunately, funding for fire fighters are being 

drastically cut across the country. Based on fire-fighters current capabilities, how 

will continued cuts erode our preparedness to responding to natural disasters such 

as hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 23. FEMA has assumed great responsibility for managing several grant 

programs. It could be argued that FEMA’s grant management duties could take 

focus away from more important preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery 

duties and would be better managed at DHS headquarters. What is FEMA’s opinion 

of the assessment that grant management duties should be done at DHS headquarters instead of FEMA? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 24. PKEMRA requires the administrator to perform periodic National 

level exercises that ‘‘evaluate the capability of Federal, State, local, and Tribal gov-
36 

ernments to detect, disrupt, and prevent threatened or actual catastrophic acts of 

terrorism, especially those involving weapons of mass destruction.’’ In recent years 

the National Level Exercises (NLE) have covered devastating hurricanes along our 

Southern Border and a catastrophic earthquake along the New Madrid Seismic 

Zone. Please provide a copy of reports that show the committee specific examples 

of lessons learned from these exercises and how FEMA has altered its response and 

recovery plans to include these new developments. 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 25. DHS’s Nation-wide Plan Review of emergency operation plans found 

that only 10 percent of State and 12 percent of urban area evacuation planning documents sufficiently address assisting those who would not be able to evacuate on 

their own. What technical assistance is FEMA providing to States and local governments to improve their plans for mass evacuations, especially assisting those most 

in need? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 26. Regional offices are continuing their efforts to staff-up to carry out 

the authorities delegated to them last year. What steps are being taken to ensure 

all of the ten Regions are using standardized hiring criteria? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 27. This year’s severe storms and flooding have tested many improvements made by PKEMRA to FEMA’s ability to manage response and recovery efforts from multi-State, multi-region events. Please provide the committee examples 

of these changes and explain what efforts, if any FEMA has made to include the 

private sector in administering resources to affected areas? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 28. The National Commission on Children and Disasters conducted a 

comprehensive study to examine and assess the needs of children as they relate to 

preparation for, response to, and recovery from all hazards including natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters. Their findings emphasize the 

need to distinguish planning that addresses the needs of children from the larger 

‘‘special need,’’ ‘‘at risk,’’ or ‘‘vulnerable’’ population categories frequently seen in 

Federal, State, and local disaster planning documents. What efforts can be taken 

to enhance the Nation’s ability to meet the needs of children in disasters? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 29. The vast diversity of our Nation requires that preparedness outreach 

is inclusive to the needs of culturally diverse communities. Emergency plans should 

be developed with an understanding of communities’ distinctive needs, particularly 

as they relate to race/culture, immigrant status, language, and literacy. What has 

FEMA done to promote outreach in culturally diverse communities and to encourage 

State and local emergency management agencies to do the same? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 30. Federal law now requires that State and local governments with 

mass evacuation plans incorporate special needs populations into their plan; however, this requirement does not necessarily ensure the incorporation of all disadvantaged populations due to the fact that State and local governments do not share a 

consistent definition of special needs. FEMA has begun to utilize the term ‘‘access 

and functional needs’’ to replace ‘‘special needs’’. How will this new terminology help 

with ensuring State and locals fully integrate vulnerable populations into their preparedness plans? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 31. What efforts have been made to coordinate with local entities, such 

as local governments, universities, and private business, in implementing IPAWS? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 32. What will happen in rural area where people do not have broadband 

and cannot access internet protocol? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Question 33. The FCC requires that EAS messages be delivered in both audio and 

visual and the accessible formats are so expensive they can be inaccessible and seen 

as unnecessary to most of these citizens. What are your plans on alerting these individuals at affordable costs? 

Answer. Response was not recieved at the time of publication. 

Æ