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

40–508 PDF 2008

S. Hrg. 110–577 

NOMINATIONS OF HARVEY E. JOHNSON JR. AND 

JEFFREY WILLIAM RUNGE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HARVEY E. JOHNSON JR. TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, AND JEFFREY WILLIAM RUNGE 

TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS AND CHIEF 

MEDICAL OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

DECEMBER 12, 2007 

Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

MARY BETH SCHULTZ, Counsel 

KRISTINE V. LAM Research Assistant 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ASHA A. MATHEW, Minority Senior Counsel 

JENNIFER L. TARR, Minority Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 1 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 4 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 14 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 16 

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 18 

Senator Landrieu .............................................................................................. 21 

Senator Pryor .................................................................................................... 23 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2007 

Hon. Richard Burr, a U.S. Senator from the State of North Carolina ................ 2 

Harvey E. Johnson Jr. to be Deputy Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ............................... 5 

Jeffrey William Runge to be Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs and Chief 

Medical Officer, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ................................. 8 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Burr, Hon. Richard: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 2 

Johnson, Harvey E. Jr.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Biographical and professional information ..................................................... 38 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 45 

Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics ............................................... 111 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 112 

Runge, Jeffrey William: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 133 

Biographical and professional information ..................................................... 140 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 166 

Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics ............................................... 224 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 225 

APPENDIX 

Letter from American College of Emergency Physicians in support of Dr. 

Runge .................................................................................................................... 243 

University of New Orleans Survey submitted for the record by Sen. Landrieu 244 

(1) 

NOMINATIONS OF HARVEY E. JOHNSON JR. 

AND JEFFREY WILLIAM RUNGE 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Lieberman, Levin, Akaka, Pryor, Landrieu, 

Tester, and Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good morning. The hearing will come to 

order. 

Today, our Committee will consider the nominations of Admiral 

Harvey Johnson to be the Deputy Administrator of the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency and Dr. Jeffrey William Runge to 

be the Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs and Chief Medical Officer, Department of Homeland Security. Both have been serving at 

DHS for some time now. We obviously thank them for their service. 

We welcome them here today, and I particularly want to welcome 

our friend and colleague, Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, 

who will introduce Dr. Runge after the opening statements of Senator Collins and myself. 

These are key leadership positions the nominees are being considered for today. They were actually created as part of the PostKatrina Emergency Management Reform Act, which came out of 

this Committee and I was proud to work on with Senator Collins. 

The Act was designed to ensure that FEMA becomes the hub of the 

Federal Government’s efforts to prepare for and respond to disasters of all kinds, whether a natural catastrophe, devastating accident, or terrorist attack, and that DHS has all the tools it needs 

to protect the homeland and respond to a disaster when it occurs 

and obviously to do better than FEMA did in response to Hurricane 

Katrina. 

The FEMA Deputy Administrator will have broad responsibility 

for implementing the Post-Katrina Act and building a new, stronger FEMA, and that is why this nomination is so important. Challenges still face FEMA. There are many. They include leading our 

Nation’s efforts to prepare for the next disaster that we know will 

come by strengthening FEMA’s regional offices, hiring more career 

senior executives so we institutionalize the change, and continuing 

2 

to help citizens in New Orleans and across the Gulf Coast who are 

still struggling to recover from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

FEMA must focus on these tasks even as it responds effectively, I 

am pleased to note by all accounts, to current crises like the recent 

wildfires which have displaced families in Southern California. 

The other nomination we are going to consider today is also critically important to the security of our homeland. Under our PostKatrina Reform Act, the Chief Medical Officer at DHS is the principal advisor to the Secretary on medical and public health issues. 

Among the responsibilities of the Chief Medical Officer is coordinating the Federal response to the threat of bioterrorism, which 

has been a continuing concern of this Committee and I know the 

Department, ensuring coordination of all medical preparedness and 

response activities of the Department, and serving as the public 

face, if you will, of DHS for the State, local, and tribal public 

health communities. These different elements are not traditionally 

within the confines of public health but are critically important to 

effective medical response. 

So I would say both of these nominees bring quite significant 

records of experience with them to this hearing today, so I thank 

you for offering yourselves for public service in these demanding 

jobs, both of which include some daunting but critically important 

challenges that we have to meet if we are going to make our country as safe as we want it to be. I thank you very much and look 

forward to your testimony. 

Now I would yield to Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to yield 

to our colleague, Senator Burr. I know he is on a tight schedule, 

and I would be happy to have him precede my eloquent opening 

statement. [Laughter.] 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. That is very gracious of you. 

Senator Burr, we recognize you now for your undoubtedly eloquent introduction. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 

Senator BURR. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to you for the recognition, and I am grateful to Senator Collins for yielding to me. 

It makes me tempted to stay and listen to her opening statement. 

[Laughter.] 

I thank both of you as well as Senator Tester for this opportunity. 

Dr. Jeff Runge is before you today as the President’s nominee to 

be the first Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs and Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Homeland Security. The Assistant 

Secretary for Health Affairs is the Secretary’s principal advisor on 

public health and medical issues with a particular focus on biodefense planning and consequence management. The Office of 

Health Affairs is the Department’s focal point for these matters 

and ensures health preparedness is integrated throughout the Department’s activities. 

In the HELP Committee, we have encouraged the Department of 

Health and Human Services to build preparedness into their mainstream health programs, and it is equally important for DHS to 

3 

build health preparedness into their broader homeland security 

programs. 

As you know, the threat of bioterrorism remains. We often think 

of smallpox and anthrax as the gravest bioterrorism threats. However, as science and technology advance, the number of worrisome 

agents is expanding. Around the world, radical religious groups are 

being urged to establish new terror cells that specialize in biological warfare, and it is increasingly easy to access Internet guides to 

bioterrorism, including methods for contaminating food and water 

supplies and spreading deadly microbes using do-it-yourself sprayers. 

Recently, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita proved once again that 

Mother Nature can also be extremely disruptive, and the United 

States is now preparing for a potential flu pandemic that may be 

carried by birds. 

The United States faces a pressing need to continuously improve 

our public health and medical preparedness and to develop comprehensive end-to-end biodefense plans that enable us to be more 

flexible and to rapidly respond to all hazards emergencies, be they 

natural, deliberate, or accidental. In collaboration with the Department of Health and Human Services, the Assistant Secretary for 

Health Affairs will lead the Nation in these efforts. 

Now, I believe that Dr. Runge is the right man for a number of 

reasons. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, he is a native North 

Carolinian. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. That is a good beginning. [Laughter.] 

Senator BURR. Lots of good hails from my great State. 

Second, he is highly qualified, dedicated, and passionate. Dr. 

Runge is not only a physician, he has been board certified in emergency medicine. He is also an educator, researcher, as a clinical 

professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and 

previously at Carolina’s Medical Center in Charlotte, one of the 

busiest trauma centers in North Carolina. He served as the Speaker of the North Carolina Medical Society and the President of the 

North Carolina College of Emergency Physicians. 

As you know, Dr. Runge began his work in Washington in 2001 

when he was appointed as the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In that job, he emphasized the 

use of science in setting NHTSA’s policy and was a persistent advocate for his priorities. He racked up a long list of accomplishments 

when he left the job, including the lowest highway fatality rate and 

the highest safety belt usage in U.S. history. 

When Dr. Runge left NHTSA, Secretary Mineta at the time said 

we are all a little bit safer because of his dedication to the safety 

cause. Mr. Chairman, I believe we will all be a little bit safer with 

Dr. Runge at the helm as DHS Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs. 

Mr. Chairman, Dr. Runge is a good man. He is a proven leader. 

He is a skilled physician and I am proud to call him a friend. I 

hope that my colleagues on this panel will see a need to expedite 

this confirmation in a way that we can fill the slot in a permanent 

fashion before we leave this calendar year. I thank the Chairman 

for his time. 

4 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Burr. That is an obviously not only eloquent, but deeply felt statement, clearly. Thanks 

also, I want to note for the record, for the leadership role you have 

assumed here in moving our Government to be better prepared to 

both prevent and respond to a bioterrorist attack. You have done 

uniquely and singularly important work, and we on this Committee 

look forward to working with you in the months and years ahead. 

Senator Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Burr, you may leave. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned, the two nominations we are 

considering today are for positions that Congress specifically authorized last year when we drafted and passed the Post-Katrina 

Emergency Management Reform Act. That was the law that completely revamped FEMA. This Committee’s comprehensive investigation into the flawed response to Hurricane Katrina revealed 

fundamental problems with our Nation’s preparedness for catastrophic disasters. Our decisions to establish the Office of Chief 

Medical Officer, to elevate this position to the level of Assistant 

Secretary, and to completely retool the Federal Emergency Management Agency were based on key findings from this Committee’s 

investigation. 

We do have two highly qualified nominees before us today. Dr. 

Jeffrey Runge has been nominated to serve as the Department’s 

primary expert for medical issues related to terrorism and natural 

disaster, a position that he now holds on an Acting basis. The responsibilities, as Senator Burr has outlined, for this position are indeed significant. They include ensuring the safety of first responders who operate in disaster areas, overseeing the work of the National Biosurveillance Integration Center, coordinating with other 

Federal departments and agencies on medical and public health 

matters such as a possible influenza pandemic, and taking action 

to ensure the security of our food supply, an area where I believe 

we need to do much more. 

I am concerned about the role that the Office of Health Affairs 

played in conveying timely information about a case of considerable 

concern to this Committee involving an infected Mexican national 

who was able to cross our borders several times, and I will be pursuing that issue in my questioning. 

I am also particularly interested to hear Dr. Runge’s thoughts on 

achieving full activation of the Biosurveillance Center. In August, 

the DHS Inspector General reported slow progress on this program, 

largely due to frequent relocations that undermined management 

consistency, institutional knowledge, and momentum. Given the 

considerable danger posed by the threat of bioterrorism, as well as 

naturally occurring pathogens, I want to learn more about what 

progress has been made in this area. 

Like Dr. Runge, Admiral Harvey Johnson also has an impressive 

track record for the position for which he has been nominated and 

in which he is currently serving, again in an Acting capacity. He 

brings many years of public service in the Coast Guard to this position, and he has presided over significant improvements in FEMA’s 

5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 33. 

performance, for which he deserves significant credit. Unfortunately, as everyone is well aware, he also had the misfortune to 

preside over a very controversial press conference, and I will be 

asking him questions about that, as well. 

The FEMA Reform Act placed heavy emphasis on qualified leadership for both of these important positions. FEMA needs strong 

leadership, as does the Office of Health Affairs. I look forward to 

hearing the two nominees’ thoughts on what they have already accomplished in their considerable service and what their plans are. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Collins. 

We will move now to the nominees. Both have filed responses to 

a biographical and financial questionnaire, answered pre-hearing 

questions submitted by the Committee, and both have had their financial statements reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics. 

Without objection, this information will be made part of the hearing record, with the exception of the financial data, which are on 

file and available for public inspection in the Committee’s offices. 

Our Committee rules, as you probably know, require that all witnesses at nomination hearings give their testimony under oath, so 

Admiral Johnson and Dr. Runge, I will ask you now to please stand 

and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to this 

Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I do. 

Dr. RUNGE. I do. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Please be seated. 

Admiral Johnson, we will begin with you. I understand you have 

family members with you this morning. We welcome them, and I 

invite you to introduce them and then proceed with your opening 

statement. 

TESTIMONY OF HARVEY E. JOHNSON JR.1 TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator 

Collins. And thank you, Members of the Committee. I would like 

to introduce my wife, Janet, who is with me. We just had our 30th 

anniversary not long ago—— 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Congratulations. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing.] And so she has been a supporter for 

me in a long Coast Guard career and in FEMA. And my daughter, 

Jennifer, joins me today. Jennifer is a young professional here in 

Washington, DC. My son, Scott, is a professional in New York City, 

and he is working today. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. OK. We welcome both of you and thank 

you for your support of the Admiral. Please proceed. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. I am honored to come before you 

today as the President’s nominee for the Deputy Administrator of 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as reorganized in accordance with the Post-Katrina Emergency Management 

6 

Reform Act. It has been my distinct privilege to serve over the past 

20 months in this capacity alongside FEMA Administrator David 

Paulison, and I welcome the opportunity to continue my service 

with him to FEMA and the American people whom we serve. I appreciate the confidence expressed in me by the President and by 

Secretary Chertoff. 

I have already thanked my family, and I just wanted to comment 

again that life in FEMA and life in Federal service can sometimes 

be demanding and sometimes unpredictable, but my family does 

recognize that I have been given a tremendous opportunity to serve 

our Nation in a position that really makes a difference. My family 

also understands that service has both its challenges and its rewards, as I have spent close to 38 years in public service. 

I have learned almost all that I know about leading individuals 

and leading organizations by being in the U.S. Coast Guard. That 

is where I began as an operator aboard a cutter. I transitioned to 

the cockpit of a helicopter and exercised command from the Operational Command Center. That is where I learned that government 

really can serve citizens when they most need it and can do it efficiently, effectively, with passion, and with compassion, and that 

such service can be rewarding beyond measure. 

My journey to this hearing began in 1971 as a cadet of the Coast 

Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut, and continued 

aboard the Coast Guard Cutter Steadfast, where I learned to appreciate the art and the science of seamanship and also the value 

of leadership and teamwork toward common objectives. I earned 

my Coast Guard aviator wings in 1977 and piloted Coast Guard 

helicopters over the next 22 years in the conduct of law enforcement missions and search and rescue, and there I learned to be exacting both in my mental preparation and aeronautical preparation 

because errors in judgment can be very costly both to me and to 

my air crew. 

I gained invaluable operational experience in a service dedicated 

to saving lives, protecting the environment, and enforcing the law, 

and embraced the Coast Guard’s core values of honor, respect, and 

devotion to duty and made them my own. I earned a Masters of 

Science degree at the Naval Post-Graduate School and another at 

the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology, and I gained experience in finance and people management, strategic planning, interagency operations, all skills that 

benefit me now, in my responsibilities at FEMA. 

I was honored to be selected to command two air stations, and 

particularly honored to be selected as a flag officer and then as a 

manager of the Coast Guard senior leadership team, where we 

shaped mission performance to measurably affect outcomes. I was 

selected by the Commandant to lead the Coast Guard’s integration 

into the Department of Homeland Security, and now I work to 

strengthen the Department from a different perspective. 

At the flag level, I commanded the Coast Guard’s Seventh District in Miami, Florida, and that is the Coast Guard’s most intensive operationally oriented area of operations. As a Vice Admiral, 

I commanded the Coast Guard’s Pacific Area, which is the largest 

geographic expanse, which includes all Coast Guard missions from 

the Rocky Mountains west to the Far East, and did both successVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:38 Nov 13, 2008 Jkt 040508 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\40508.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
7 

fully as a beneficiary of the dedicated work of Coast Guard men 

and women. 

I describe these extensive operational background and the 

breadth of leadership experience humbly and without undue pride, 

not for any self-promotion, but to submit to you that I am both 

qualified and prepared to accept the responsibilities for which the 

President has nominated me and for which I ask for your confirmation. 

Working with Administrator Paulison, we set a vision for a ‘‘New 

FEMA’’ that charts a course to become the Nation’s preeminent 

emergency management and preparedness agency. We have established an ethos of leaning forward to provide more effective assistance to disaster victims and to communities, and it is our objective 

to develop operational core competencies, to strengthen a dedicated 

workforce, and to foster a business approach to business, and as we 

do that, every member of FEMA works toward these objectives. 

Our intent is to better prepare the Nation against the risk of an 

all hazards disaster and, when that disaster occurs, to marshal a 

more effective national response and to work more purposefully to 

speed the recovery of disaster victims and communities. 

By establishing the moniker of ‘‘New FEMA,’’ we recognize that 

judgment on our progress would be determined by our actions, not 

by our words, and so as we have turned our words into actions during this past year, our opportunities for success have been 

strengthened by three supporting elements: First, a phenomenally 

dedicated workforce comprised of proud and resourceful professional men and women in FEMA; second, a supportive Congress 

that has provided the tools we need in the form of legislation and 

constructive oversight; and third, an operationally oriented and 

operationally focused President and Secretary who have requested 

the resources that we need to do our job and have demonstrated 

confidence in our leadership and our decisionmaking. 

Though difficult and challenging to walk beyond the shadow of 

Hurricane Katrina, that visage is steadily being replaced by a more 

confident and more competent New FEMA. It was New FEMA that 

responded to tornadoes in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, to the 

Nor’easter in New England, to the wildfires in California, and to 

the ice storms now gripping the Midwest. Now, to be sure, our success was enhanced by partnerships across the Federal, State, and 

local jurisdictions, by nongovernmental organizations, and by the 

private sector, but Mr. Chairman, the leadership was New FEMA. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Collins, and distinguished Members of 

this Committee, I thank you again for considering my nomination, 

and if confirmed, I pledge to you that I will continue to work closely with you to achieve the objectives that we both share, and that 

is to ensure a more safe and secure America. I thank you, and I 

look forward to responding to your questions. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Admiral Johnson. That was a 

very strong opening statement. I appreciate it. 

Dr. Runge, I gather you have some family with you here today. 

We welcome them and encourage you to introduce them and then 

proceed with your statement. 

8 

1The prepared statement of Dr. Runge appears in the Appendix on page 133. 

TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY WILLIAM RUNGE 1 TO BE ASSISTANT 

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

Dr. RUNGE. My wife, Ginny, is here in the second row. My friend 

and pastor, the Reverend Ed Miller. My friend of 35 years, Jim 

Grater, is on the right. My daughter, Emily, is in graduate school 

in Nashville, and my son, Will, is probably holding down the fort 

in your home State at Wesleyann University. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. We will try to take care of him while he 

is there. 

Dr. RUNGE. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. It is pretty strong to have both your wife 

and your pastor behind you. 

Dr. RUNGE. Well, you never know what is going to come up in 

these hearings. [Laughter.] 

I will be brief. You have my written statement for the record. 

You also have 56 pages of personal and policy information, so let 

me just first of all thank you for having this hearing and for authorizing our Office of the Chief Medical Officer in the Post-Katrina 

Act. I think that is very important for us, for DHS, and for our 

staff. 

I also want to thank my friend, Senator Burr, for his warm introduction, and perhaps most of all to Secretary Chertoff and to President Bush for giving me this opportunity in the form of a nomination. 

As Senator Collins said, our Nation is threatened, our citizens 

are threatened by both acts of aggression by individuals, by groups 

or foreign states, as well as natural events. The events of the last 

6 years within our homeland have spurred many people like me to 

action who otherwise might have been very comfortable in a profession in the private sector. I have been fortunate to be part of our 

Department’s start-up and maturation. I have witnessed firsthand 

real leadership and singleness of purpose that I have never seen 

anywhere, both from Secretary Chertoff and Deputy Secretary 

Jackson and the incredible professional staff at DHS. 

I have also learned a lot from weathering the storms of the challenging merger and the creation of a culture where there once was 

nothing. Mr. Chairman, the Committee, I know, is very aware of 

these challenges, and we look forward to your support as we continue to form this ‘‘culture of DHS.’’ 

I also look forward to finishing the tasks I began as the first 

Chief Medical Officer of the Department. In that time, we have 

focused on giving the Secretary, and the Department, medical support for overseeing the health and medical activities in the Department, to lead and coalesce all the Department’s biodefense activities that had been helter skelter around the Department, to developing weapons of mass destruction planning and catastrophic incident management, and finally, something that was not in the authorization but which we deem very important, to ensure that the 

Department’s employees, our workforce, are supported by an effective occupational health and workforce protection program. 

9 

We have been successful in attracting some of the top leaders in 

their fields, including physicians who are trained in emergency 

medicine, emergency medical services, trauma care, occupational 

health and safety; veterinarians specializing in animal public 

health and biological threats; Ph.D.’s trained in biosurveillance and 

chemical and biological defense; as well as professionals with legal 

and policy expertise. We have also attracted some of the Department’s best up-and-coming administrative and management professionals to assure that we have the infrastructure in place to support our program experts. 

Mr. Chairman, building a top-notch career workforce has been 

my top priority. We have to have a career workforce to protect our 

Nation during times of transition of political leadership and beyond. This is paramount to our future success. 

I am also honored to be here with my friend and colleague, Admiral Johnson, who, with Administrator Paulison, has truly retooled FEMA. The latest responses that FEMA has accomplished 

are evidence of that, and our office is privileged to support them 

on all medical and public health matters. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with your staff 

on the panoply of issues that we deal with and that come parachuting in, it seems, almost daily. Standing up this capability for 

the Secretary and the Country has been one of the greatest challenges and rewards of my professional life. I do believe that we are 

headed in the right direction and are making some tangible 

progress in defending our homeland. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Dr. Runge, for an excellent opening statement. 

I am going to start my questioning with the standard questions 

we ask of all nominees, and I ask that you respond together to each 

of these questions. 

First, is there anything that you are aware of in your background 

that might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office 

to which you have been nominated? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir. 

Dr. RUNGE. No, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Second, do you know of anything personal 

or otherwise that would in any way prevent you from fully and 

honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you 

have been nominated? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir. 

Dr. RUNGE. No, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. And finally, do you agree without reservation to respond to any reasonable summons to appear or to testify 

before any duly constituted Committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

Dr. RUNGE. Yes. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. We are going to start with a 

first round of questions of 6 minutes each. I appreciate the fact 

that we have a good representation of Members of the Committee 

here today. 

Dr. Runge, let me ask you about a controversial case that has engaged the interest of the Committee, and in fact, we are conducting 

10 

an investigation. This is the Mexican national with multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis who was allowed to repeatedly enter the 

United States undetected in April and May of this year after the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection and the Office of Health Affairs that he 

should be detained at a port of entry. As Chief Medical Officer at 

DHS, obviously, you had some involvement in this problem. 

As I am sure you know, the World Health Organization issued 

guidelines for reducing the risk of multi-drug-resistant TB on aircraft in 2006. Those guidelines state that individuals with this 

form of TB should not travel by public air transportation until they 

have proven to be non-infectious. I will say to you that personally, 

I always try to approach these difficult situations not so much in 

a ‘‘gotcha’’ frame of mind, but in terms of what happened and what 

lessons do we learn as we go forward. 

In your response to questions asked by our staff in the pre-hearing interviews on this matter, you responded that neither you nor 

anyone else at the Office of Health Affairs immediately notified the 

Transportation Security Administration that the Mexican national 

could attempt to board an aircraft in the United States while still 

infectious. In fact, it was not until a month after the office was 

warned by CDC about this individual and the DHS National Operations Center informed TSA and TSA placed him on a ‘‘do not 

board’’ list. 

So my concern here, and I ask you to reflect on it, is why the 

Office of Health Affairs did not apparently respond adequately to 

this incident, and I would ask you in your answer to relate that 

to the World Health Organization guidelines. 

Dr. RUNGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is going to be difficult 

to answer this question in 3 minutes and 49 seconds. This is an 

issue that played out over a period of about 6 weeks. We were first 

notified at the end of April that there was an issue with someone 

who was being treated for tuberculosis by Project Juntos, which is 

a clinic that is operated by the Texas Department of Public Health 

in Mexico. The axiom of tuberculosis treatment is that patient volunteerism is essential to its success. He was being successfully 

treated by the physicians in Mexico who were concerned about the 

possibility of his traveling and had thus notified the Texas Department of Public Health. They subsequently notified the CDC that 

this gentleman was a businessman and had a business in the 

United States and was going back and forth, and his doctors advised him at that point not to travel. The Office of Health Affairs 

was advised of this. 

We have two basic functions. One is to support the CDC’s Division of Global Migration and Quarantine in their health decisions. 

The second is to make sure that our components and headquarters 

are supported in performing those actions. 

Now, if you recall, earlier this year, we really didn’t have an institution in place, a standard operating procedure, to deal with this 

at the headquarters level. This was prior to the Andrew Speaker 

case. We have since developed a Standard Operating Procedure 

(SOP) to deal with these issues. 

By the time this came to headquarters’ attention, this gentleman 

had already been successfully treated, or was being successfully 

11 

treated, and probably had an insignificant infection risk. My response at the time when I heard about this was to take his visa, 

or his border crossing card. I brought this up with the senior management of DHS in our morning meeting, our morning stand-up, at 

8:15 and the Deputy Secretary concurred. 

We subsequently told the CDC that we wanted the physician to 

tell him that he had to turn in his border crossing card to authorities, and they talked us out of it. They said, you know what? If we 

drive people underground and prevent them from going voluntarily 

to receive TB treatment in this TB-prevalent area south of the border, it is actually going to be worse for public health than if this 

guy comes across the border under treatment. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Who made that decision ultimately? 

Dr. RUNGE. That decision was made by the CDC’s Division of 

Global Migration and Quarantine. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Did you agree with it in the end, or did 

you hold to your initial opinion that the visa should be pulled? 

Dr. RUNGE. Well, I actually held to my opinion, although the case 

is very compelling that if word gets out among the Mexican nationals who are being voluntarily treated here that if they go to the 

clinic they run the risk of having their border crossing card pulled, 

it may be worse for public health. And so I yielded to the CDC on 

this issue. However, this gentleman was still in the ‘‘be on the lookout’’ system for CBP. 

It actually wasn’t until his physician became more concerned 

that he (the patient) was actually in violation of his contract not 

to travel that he reported this back again to the Texas Department 

of Public Health. They told us about it again. We urged them to 

find some additional information on this guy, because obviously if 

we had his right identification, he would not have been allowed to 

cross. 

About a week later, he came in and confessed to his doctor at 

Project Juntos that, in fact, he was feeling some remorse about 

this. He saw the negative press that Mr. Speaker was getting in 

the United States—— 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Dr. RUNGE [continuing]. And voluntarily turned in his border 

card, and at that point it became apparent that the name that he 

had given was incomplete, that he had reversed the maternal and 

paternal last names and so forth, and you know all those details. 

So at that point, there was no danger of him crossing the border 

anymore. Moreover, with respect to the flight issue—— 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes. Tell me about that. As you look back 

at it, do you think that there should have been an explicit notice 

that he should not have been allowed on air flights? 

Dr. RUNGE. Well, since right about that week, we developed the 

SOP with TSA—— 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes. 

Dr. RUNGE [continuing]. And found a way to keep them off of 

planes, not being on a terrorist watch list, which the Department 

of Justice is very loath to do—put somebody on a terrorist watch 

list. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. So now there is a procedure in place that 

would keep them off of an aircraft? 

12 

Dr. RUNGE. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. My staff apparently has been having 

some trouble, I don’t believe with you, with the Department in getting a copy—to our staff—of the standard operating procedure. 

Would you commit to us this morning that you will get those to us 

as soon as possible? 

Dr. RUNGE. Absolutely, and—— 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. It is in effect now, I take it? 

Dr. RUNGE. Yes. We have been using it since June. I sent a flow 

diagram over to your staff. The SOP actually needs to be signed off 

by the head of our Operations Coordination Directorate. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. OK. I will tell you I am not an expert at 

this, but I think your original judgment was right and that they 

should have pulled his visa, even though I understand there is an 

argument on the other side. It is not clear, absolutely right or absolutely wrong, but I think the predominance of common sense was 

on your side on that original judgment. I thank you. 

Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. Admiral Johnson, I want to talk to 

you first about the press conference that you held on October 23 

in order to inform the press about FEMA’s response to the California wildfires. Because FEMA gave very short notice to the members of the press about this press conference, there were, in fact, 

no reporters present at the press conference. Some were listening 

by phone, but there were no journalists in the room. You proceeded 

to take several questions from departmental employees who were 

posing essentially as reporters. 

Now, what I want to do is to ask you a series of questions so that 

we can better understand the state of your knowledge when you 

learned certain vital information and exactly what happened. 

First, did you learn prior to going into the press conference that 

there were no journalists present? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, ma’am. As I entered the press conference, it 

was my understanding at that time that there were media that 

would be present in the press room for the briefing. 

Senator COLLINS. During the press conference, did you realize 

that there were no members of the press actually present? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, ma’am. In the press room, and people have 

seen different pictures of the press room, one picture accurately reflects people that I knew that were members of my immediate staff 

and part of the staff that I engage with routinely. The picture 

doesn’t show the right-hand side of the room, which had a number 

of people, perhaps six to eight people, who were dressed casually, 

in my view. I did not know them personally, and they looked as if 

they could have been media that I would typically engage in a 

press interview. So when I entered the room and looked at who 

was in front of me, it looked to me like I was seeing people that 

I did not know, and I presumed they were members of the press. 

Senator COLLINS. When did you actually learn that members of 

the press were not present? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, that news conference took place on a Tuesday, and the first indication I had that we had made a serious mistake was on a Thursday when I received an e-mail from a Washington Post reporter indicating he wanted to ask some questions 

13 

about that interview. So it really wasn’t my knowledge from Tuesday through Thursday that the room was filled with members of 

the FEMA staff. 

Senator COLLINS. So until a reporter e-mailed you and asked you 

about this press conference, you had no realization that the press 

conference was not a legitimate, typical, authentic press conference—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, ma’am—— 

Senator COLLINS. Is that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, ma’am, that is correct. If I may—— 

Senator COLLINS. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. I would like to offer a couple comments that might be helpful, as well. First, I—— 

Senator COLLINS. Let me just ask one question and then I will 

let you explain. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator COLLINS. Just to complete this, did you in any way direct 

FEMA to stage this press conference? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, ma’am. 

Senator COLLINS. So you went into the press conference assuming that these were reporters. You answered questions assuming 

that these were reporters. And it was only when you were contacted by the Washington Post 2 days after the press conference 

that you realized what had happened? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, ma’am, that is correct, and let me just—— 

Senator COLLINS. Then go ahead. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing.] Be pointed. As I was taking questions, I certainly knew that the questions that were asked by people I knew from FEMA were from FEMA, and I will talk about it 

in just a second. And then the last question that was asked was 

by a person who I did not know who was from FEMA, but I did 

not know at the time, and who I presumed was a member of the 

press. 

If I can make a couple comments. First, I want to acknowledge 

that I am the Acting Deputy Administrator of FEMA, Chief Operating Officer of FEMA, and what goes on inside that agency in 

large part is a shared responsibility between me and David 

Paulison. I was the senior person present at that news conference, 

and so that news conference and the content of that conference was 

my responsibility, and I don’t walk away from that. 

I issued an apology the morning after I became aware of the circumstances of that news conference, and with David Paulison, at 

his direction and with my support, we have taken significant actions to ensure that event does not occur again. 

The second point I would like to make is that this news conference is extremely regrettable, and I know that you regret it as 

a Committee because of your investment in FEMA, but I have to 

tell you that personally, I talked to you about my 38 years in public 

service. I talked to you about core values that I have embraced as 

my core values, and the end result of that news conference was in 

conflict with my core values, and so I personally regret that news 

conference. 

From a professional perspective, that is not how we want to do 

business in New FEMA, and we talk a lot about New FEMA, and 

14 

that news conference has cast a shadow on that, and so I regret 

it from that perspective. 

And perhaps the third perspective is that if we talk about New 

FEMA and we want New FEMA to be reflected in our actions, we 

demonstrated New FEMA in California wildfires, and with our 

partners in the State, we did a phenomenal job in responding to 

a disaster on very short notice, and I regret that the news conference cast a shadow on that performance, as well. 

The third comment I would like to make is it is repairable. At 

Dave Paulison’s direction, we have taken a number of actions. We 

brought a respected member of the news media in to meet with our 

public affairs staff just to hold a session on ethics and media. 

I don’t recall the exact name, I apologize to the association, but 

we have gone to a public affairs association, and they came in and 

I was a part of, a short part of this session. But they came in and 

spent a complete afternoon in an iterate back-and-forth presentation with all of our staff, including those in the regions that participated by video conference, on a little bit of ethics in journalism, 

but really professionalism in journalism. 

In FEMA, of all the many things we do right, one that we don’t 

do well is invest in our people, and Dave Paulison is going to fix 

that, but we are about right now investing in the professionalism 

of our public affairs staff. They are good people, and this was an 

unfortunate sum of a series of bad decisions. No one on that staff 

intended or planned to have the news conference turn out the way 

it did. Everyone who was involved in that process made decisions 

at the time that they thought would have provided good information to the public, responsive to questions we had received from the 

media, and again, I think from me to everyone involved, there is 

just sincere regret for that occurrence. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Collins. Senator Tester, good morning. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very 

much. The standard operating procedure—and again I can’t speak 

for the rest of the Committee—but I would love to see it, too. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes, absolutely. It is real important. Dr. 

Runge, if you can do that later today, it would mean a lot to the 

Committee. 

Dr. RUNGE. I certainly will. Actually, I did send this flow diagram over to your staff on Monday. This is not the written standard operating procedure (SOP). 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good. Thank you. 

Senator TESTER. Yes, thank you, and I am going to follow up on 

some of Senator Collins’s questions in regard to the news conference, too. So when you entered this news conference, were there 

folks who you knew that were from FEMA that were asking questions? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. As may be the case with your press conference, when I entered the room, my staff was with me, and so 

we entered the room from two separate angles. I walked into our 

press room, which some of your staff have been in, and I was at 

15 

the podium, and then my staff came in and took these front seats, 

as you perhaps have seen in the picture. Already in the room were 

another perhaps six to eight to ten people who turned out to be 

FEMA employees. 

Senator TESTER. And they were the folks that were doing the 

questioning of you, the FEMA employees, so you knew that they 

were FEMA employees, with the exception of one person? 

Mr. JOHNSON. As they began to ask questions, again, looking 

back, six questions asked, the first five by people who I knew from 

my staff—— 

Senator TESTER. Didn’t you find that a bit odd? 

Mr. JOHNSON. As those questions were being asked, it was odd 

that a member of my staff would be asking me a question. As those 

questions occurred one at a time, I fully expected that the following 

question would come from a member of what I thought was the 

news media—— 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing.] And those played out that way, one 

at a time. 

Senator TESTER. You have already expressed through Senator 

Collins’s questions that this went against your core values, and you 

do have a very impressive resume with accomplishments and 

awards. You also said there was a series of bad decisions. I think 

Secretary Chertoff called this one of the dumbest and most inappropriate things he has ever seen since he has been in government. 

I think you agreed with that assessment. 

Do you know who initiated the press conference? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The press conference was initiated by our Director 

of External Affairs, Pat Philbin. 

Senator TESTER. Is he still with the agency? 

Mr. JOHNSON. He is not. 

Senator TESTER. Was he retired because of this incident? 

Mr. JOHNSON. He had already submitted his resignation from 

FEMA and was en route to a follow-on assignment in government, 

and so actually, this news conference was on a Tuesday and his 

last day in FEMA was scheduled to be on Friday. 

Senator TESTER. And he was singularly responsible for the incident? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Within the Directorate of External Affairs, it was 

his responsibility to organize and arrange the press conference. He 

was assisted by a number of members of his staff, but that was his 

primary responsibility. 

Senator TESTER. We have all been involved with press conferences in the positions we are in on a regular basis, and I can 

tell you if I had a press conference and I walked in and my staff 

was asking me one question, red flags would go up. The question 

is that your resume indicates you are a leader. Your history of 38 

years in public service indicates that you are a leader. Why didn’t 

you just say, hold it. What is going on? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, sir, in retrospect, there are a number of 

places where we could have changed and altered the course of that 

press conference and yet accomplished our task. I have certainly 

gone over in my mind a number of times the actions that I could 

16 

have taken that could have changed the course of that press conference. 

Senator TESTER. OK. One of your bosses, Robert Jamison, was in 

here a bit ago, and he had some trouble with contract employees 

responding to some of the questions, and that was an issue that 

this Committee took up. I just want to get your perspective on 

FEMA’s reliance on contractors, not necessarily in an emergency 

situation but in day-to-day operation of the agency. What is your 

perspective? How do you feel about contractors? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think that it may surprise you or others that 

there are only 2,300 permanent full-time members of FEMA. That 

is smaller than most junior high schools in America. 

Senator TESTER. Out of how many total? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Out of America? 

Senator TESTER. No, out of what is in the agency including the 

contractors. 

Mr. JOHNSON. There are close to 3,000 FEMA permanent employees. There are about 8,500 temporary FEMA employees that come 

in the form of what we call core employees or disaster assistance 

employees, and those allow us to have perhaps a less user reliance 

on contractors than perhaps some agencies. We currently have 

badged into FEMA across our agency close to 2,500 contract employees, and those are stretched not just in headquarters, but 

across all of our agency. 

Senator TESTER. Are you happy with that situation versus fulltime employees? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, certainly when the President’s budget is approved, we will grow by 250 full-time employees, and that will 

allow us to decrease our number of contractors. 

Senator TESTER. I just want your perspective on the contractors. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think that FEMA appropriately employs contractors to do the right types of work. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We have some flexibilities that other agencies 

don’t have and so that gives us a greater latitude to do that. 

Senator TESTER. OK. We will have another round of questions, 

so I will forego the last 45 seconds. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Tester. Senator Akaka, 

you are next. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Johnson, let me ask you about something that is closer 

to the Pacific and really about Hawaii. You have spoken about your 

plans to enhance the role of the FEMA regional offices and to place 

people in those offices to help States deal with the grant application process. For me, this is a welcome initiative. I think that 

FEMA over time has had so many problems and many of them, as 

we have found out through the hearings that we have had, have 

been those of personnel, so we really need to work on that. 

As a former Pacific Area Commander in the U.S. Coast Guard, 

you are well aware of the unique challenges faced by Hawaii and 

its role in providing support to Pacific Rim countries and U.S. Territories in the region. For that reason, I have long advocated a 

17 

FEMA Regional Office in Hawaii and would like to discuss further 

with you that possibility. 

In your role as Deputy Administrator, would you commit to reviewing Hawaii’s special needs and the Pacific’s special needs and 

report back to me on the viability of establishing a FEMA Regional 

Office for Hawaii? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator Akaka, I would be very pleased to do that. 

I have spent 2 years as Commander of the Coast Guard’s Pacific 

Area. I spent a number of times in Hawaii, and then through Hawaii to the same locations that you speak of, out to Guam and to 

Micronesia, and certainly places even further. I have watched 

Nancy Ward, who was our Regional Administrator in Alameda Region IX, work very well with our area office established in Hawaii 

and I think that you make a strong point about the size of the 

FEMA presence. I would be very pleased to look at that again and 

discuss that with your staff. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Admiral. 

Dr. Runge, can you tell me the status of the National Biosurveillance Integration Center, we know it as NBIC, and what your goals 

for NBIC over the next year or two will be? 

Dr. RUNGE. Senator Akaka, first of all, I want to thank the Congress for actually providing the National Biosurveillance Integration Center with a specific authorization in the 9/11 Act. It is also 

very important to institutionalize this function. 

This was an idea that was generated partially over here in the 

Senate and partially in the White House. This was supposed to be 

a neutual ground where biosurveillance information on human 

health, animal health, food, water, and the environment could all 

be shared and then put into what we call a biological common operating picture so that everyone who has a duty around biosurveillance or bioprotection would have access to the same information 

as everyone else. That currently does not exist and has never existed across the Federal Government or the private sector. 

This program was first funded in 2004, and frankly, because 

there were other priorities in the office where it was located, it languished. And some people were leading the program that had ideas 

about making it an intelligence community function and so forth, 

which really was not compatible with our vision of an open source 

biological common operating picture. 

We assumed responsibility for that program a little over a year 

ago. We assumed it with its legacy budget, but no Federal FTEs. 

Not one FTE was brought over with the program to the Office of 

Health Affairs. Since we were at that time a group of about eight 

or nine people, we didn’t have FTEs to devote to the program, but 

I did send over my Chief Scientist to turn that program around and 

to get it back on track, to reach out to HHS, to CDC, to Interior, 

to State, to DOT and others to bring them into the dance. 

Our program depends—and this is where I am heading this 

year—our program is not so much about the system or the IT system, it is about the people. The people make the Center. And it is 

about a group of smart people sitting around the table who have 

access to their own data in their specific areas who are able to look 

at it, contribute to an analysis, and then put it up there so that 

everybody can see the biological common operating picture. 

18 

The good news is that we do have an IT system that should be 

up and running in January that will be a platform for this information to exist and to actually come up on the screens of anyone who 

has the authority to look at it. It could come up in the Chairman’s 

office here. It could come up anywhere. What we lack now is actually getting the people in the chairs. We are in the middle of the 

interagency agreements necessary to do that. Our intention is to 

fund those positions for the agencies so we are not dependent on 

their charity to actually stand up this Center. We are in the budget 

discussions about how to do that, but we think it is very important 

to get long-term detailees who will be trained in analytics and will 

know each other and will know the data within their own centers. 

Senator AKAKA. My question will take me a little longer, but let 

me say that I appreciate the authorization of NBIC in the 9/11 bill 

having to do with a common biological operating picture and I was 

very pleased to hear that your office has been working with the 

International Species Information System on its veterinary recordkeeping system called ZIMS as an input to NBIC. I would like to 

ask you for information about what the status of those discussions 

is and ask you to do it for the record because of time here. 

Dr. RUNGE. We will, Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. 

There is a predominant problem and that is that there are many 

data systems that we would like to have access to, but they are expensive. And frankly, if we have to pay $1 million to ARGUS or 

$1 million to ZIMS, pretty soon our $8 million budget is gone. So 

we need to be able to figure out how to get over the hurdle of having to pay for those data. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Akaka. 

For the information of my colleagues, in order of appearance, and 

in order of seniority, Senator Levin, Senator Landrieu, and Senator 

Pryor, although in order of age, clearly Senator Landrieu is the 

youngest. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

Senator LEVIN. I will trade places with Senator Landrieu. I 

would be happy to switch age if you can. [Laughter.] 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, on the question of the formaldehyde-contaminated trailers, 

Admiral, let me ask you this question. You have stated that the 

testing by FEMA of occupied trailer units has not yet begun, and 

I am trying to figure out why. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Fortunately, Senator, we are working with CDC, 

and Dr. Runge is a very strong partner over months of dealing with 

this issue, but CDC was able to sign a contract and announce that 

yesterday and there were briefs to some of the staff and there will 

be briefs this afternoon that indicate that we will be able to begin 

testing by December 21. And so we will test 500 occupied travel 

trailers—these will be 250 in Louisiana and 250 in Mississippi— 

as part of a scientific statistically significant test that will allow us 

to generalize the results of those tests across the 50,000-some-odd 

travel trailers now occupied by those who were impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

19 

Senator LEVIN. What has taken so long, and what is the purpose 

of the test? Are you trying to determine what the level of formaldehyde is? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct, sir. 

Senator LEVIN. Why has that taken so long? 

Mr. JOHNSON. It has taken a long time in part because we have 

not had this problem before. In the past, in other disasters, we had 

people who resided as disaster victims in the travel trailers for 

very short periods of time. This is the first time we have had people in travel trailers for this length of time, up to 2 years, in which 

case some of these symptoms and the impacts on health have become more apparent. And so in part, quite frankly, it is a recognition on our part of the significance of the situation. 

Once we recognized that, and I certainly acknowledge that we 

could have, in hindsight, recognized that sooner, the desire is to go 

about it in a scientific way so that we, in fact, can ensure ourselves 

that we understand the full implications both now and into the future, both for the housing program and for the individuals who are 

involved. And so there are some significant health issues that Dr. 

Runge can speak of, but I will tell you that from an operational 

perspective, it took us a while to get a contract in place, which we 

had in place in October, and then we found that our actual ability 

to conduct a test, we had that locked and loaded, ready to go, but 

it was ahead of our ability to interpret the results. And so that if 

we could go into a trailer and provide someone with a reading of 

the level of formaldehyde, it is most important to be able to describe to that person what that result means so they can, in fact, 

make good decisions about whether or not they should stay in that 

trailer. 

Senator LEVIN. Why can’t that be done with a brochure? This has 

been going on now since April 2006, when the testing began by the 

Sierra Club. In July 2006, there was a confirmation story about the 

levels of formaldehyde. In July 2006, another confirmation story. I 

don’t understand why it takes so long to hire a contractor to determine the level. 

And I am going to leave it at that because I don’t want to spend 

all my time on this issue. However, it seems totally unacceptable 

to me that it takes FEMA all this time to do a test on trailers 

which were known to FEMA a year and a half ago to contain unacceptable levels of formaldehyde. I was very troubled by David 

Paulison’s statement in May that formaldehyde does not present a 

health hazard. I don’t know who told him that. Doctor, do you 

know whether formaldehyde poses a health hazard or not? 

Dr. RUNGE. Well, Senator Levin, there is certainly no direct linkage to the thing that we worry most about, which is long-term cancer—— 

Senator LEVIN. Does it pose a health hazard or not? 

Dr. RUNGE. It does present some hazards to people’s health who 

are sensitive to formaldehyde. 

Senator LEVIN. Is that a yes? 

Dr. RUNGE. It is not a yes/no answer. 

Senator LEVIN. So in other words, to some people it presents a 

health hazard? 

20 

Dr. RUNGE. To some people, it presents an immediate health hazard because of sensitivity. 

Senator LEVIN. And what about to other people? Might it present 

a health hazard to those who do not have an immediate problem? 

Dr. RUNGE. We are waiting for the National Cancer Institute to 

bring forth the study which is due this fall to determine whether 

there is an actual link—— 

Senator LEVIN. In the meantime, we could have determined the 

level of formaldehyde in those trailers. That testing could have 

been done—— 

Dr. RUNGE. Well, the problem is why we are waiting—— 

Senator LEVIN. You are planning to test 500 trailers out of how 

many total trailers? 

Mr. JOHNSON. There are 50,000 travel trailers across the country, and it is important to conduct this test in a way that we can 

test 500 then legitimately generalize across the rest of the those 

travel trailers. 

Senator LEVIN. Let me move to another subject. Dr. Runge, 

would you add a vaccine category to the standardized equipment 

list and authorized equipment list that you folks use? Is there an 

easy answer to that? 

Dr. RUNGE. There is a process for doing so, and we have engaged 

in that process. I think I know where you are going with this. 

Senator LEVIN. That is underway? 

Dr. RUNGE. Yes. 

Senator LEVIN. The process? OK. That is great. 

There have been some questions asked, Admiral, about contracting already, but my question is a little bit different. It has to 

do with the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Act that was 

signed into law over a year ago, which required that DHS promulgate regulations to ensure that contracting agencies limit the excessive use of subcontractors by contractors and regulations that 

would limit the length of time a disaster-related contract may remain active when it is awarded non-competitively. Those regulations have not been issued. Why? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The regulations themselves require some study by 

the Federal Standards Board, and that process is in motion. While 

that process is in motion, sir, we are taking a number of steps inside FEMA to comply with the requirements of the law in advance 

of the regulations being issued. 

Senator LEVIN. Wasn’t there a requirement that the regulations 

be issued by October? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir, there was a requirement. 

Senator LEVIN. Was that requirement met? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir, it has not been met. 

Senator LEVIN. Why? 

Mr. JOHNSON. It is not totally FEMA’s responsibility to issue 

those regulations. I am not quite sure of the long delay. In FEMA, 

what we are looking at is the intent of those regulations and how 

we can begin to comply with it even in advance of the regulation 

being issued. 

Senator LEVIN. Well, you haven’t complied with an important 

part of the law which requires that the regulations be adopted 

within a year. That, you have not complied with. And it seems to 

21 

me when we pass a law, that you folks ought to comply with it, and 

a year is plenty of time. So let me express my dissatisfaction on 

that count, too. 

My time is up. Our expert on Hurricane Katrina is to my right, 

and she is younger. She has been very patient waiting for her senior colleague age-wise to ask questions. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. That would be Senator Landrieu you are 

speaking of? 

Senator LANDRIEU. You are doing so well, go right on. That is a 

great line of questioning. 

Senator LEVIN. I am over my time. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Senator Landrieu. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANDRIEU 

Senator LANDRIEU. I thank you, and let me begin by thanking 

my colleagues, particularly Senator Collins, Senator Levin, and 

Senator Tester, for addressing several of the issues that I had on 

my agenda to discuss with you all, particularly the press conference, which was very troubling to many people in the country, 

particularly the people along the Gulf Coast that are still, as you 

know, struggling to rebuild. I think that has been covered. 

The trailer issue is another issue that I really appreciate the 

Senators focusing on because, Dr. Runge, I don’t have to tell you 

how concerned people are along the Gulf Coast, over 50,000 families, maybe 150,000 people, three people per trailer, and as you 

know, these are small trailers. Some of them have six people living 

in them. I pass them all the time when I am home, and when it 

is cold, most of the time the windows are closed and the doors are 

locked, and of course, your Department has issued rulings that the 

only time you have a problem is if the trailers are locked up. Well, 

in cold weather, people don’t leave their doors and windows open. 

So I am pleased. Senator Stevens and I sent a letter to FEMA 

urging them to resume testing. You have testified today, Admiral 

Johnson, that testing will now proceed. I am very happy to hear 

that, and we will deal with the results. I hope FEMA, HUD, and 

this Administration are ready to deal with the results. If these 

trailers are found to be dangerous and people should not be living 

in them, then this government is required to come up with an alternate plan for people to find more long-term comfortable arrangements. 

Now, I want to say something and then I have a few questions. 

I wanted to first of all thank you both for your willingness to serve. 

I particularly want, Admiral Johnson, for you to know that of all 

the agencies, the Coast Guard most certainly distinguished itself 

during our time of need. The people of Louisiana and New Orleans, 

as you know, there were over 1,200 people that died mostly by 

drowning. A lot more people would have died if it hadn’t been for 

the Coast Guard, and I appreciate the service that you have given 

to our country for 38 years. Please give my best to the leaders of 

the Coast Guard. 

But I want to make it clear to this Committee and to the Chairman and Ranking Member that I am not prepared to support either nomination at this point—I am sure we will not be voting 

22 

today—until I am confident that you all are both the agents of 

change that you claim to be. 

I am pleased to hear you speak about a New FEMA because the 

country desperately deserves one. The one that we have now is not 

ready, despite the efforts of the good leaders of this Committee, to 

handle a catastrophic disaster, and we need to be ready in the 

event that this happens sooner rather than later. It will happen 

again. It is just a matter of time. 

So I want to say that I am going to be listening very carefully 

to your answers to our questions and comments, and again, I want 

to be part of helping to build a New FEMA. Your appointments are 

very important because you signal whether this Committee is serious about approving nominees that are truly agents of change or 

just continuing business as usual, and this Senator is not going to 

support business as usual. 

Admiral Johnson, you have, I think, explained the press conference. I think you have talked about trailers. But there is right 

now pending a request of mine before FEMA which Chairman 

Paulison has indicated that he is indeed supportive of, but we have 

been unable to execute, and that is a pilot initiative to try to process more quickly project work order sheets, which is the way you 

do your business, as you know, trying to replace schools, hospitals, 

libraries, fire houses, and police stations. In this instance, it is 

schools. 

In the parishes that I represent, in a catastrophic disaster where 

250,000 homes were destroyed, unlike California where only 1,600 

homes were burned, in our situation, 250,000, there were a majority of schools in certain parishes—Orleans, Plaquemines, and Cameron—that were destroyed. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And we are still having difficulty 21⁄2 years 

later, after billions have been spent by this Congress to help children find classrooms all over America. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, we are still having problems processing a solution to this. 

This Chairman and Ranking Member have approved a solution. 

Are you aware of what we are promoting? Are you supportive of it? 

And are you willing to at least try to pilot a global solution of reimbursement for schools for the parishes and counties that were devastated, and would you consider using this pilot to try to expedite 

the rebuilding of public facilities in the future? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you for your question. You are an active 

Member of the Senate, an active Member of this Committee, and 

an active Member in helping to bring about New FEMA. And so 

from Dave Paulison and from others, we appreciate your personal 

interest and your persistence on a number of issues, one of those 

being schools. 

As you know, we work with Dr. Pastorek. We changed a lot of 

our approaches in FEMA and the use of Stafford and, for example, 

the alternative project. We have approached that in a way, with 

your urgings, that allows the district to take money that would 

have been given for the damage to any one school and to bundle 

that money together then and to use that with good decisionmaking to build the right schools in the right location that provides 

23 

1The survey by the University of New Orleans submitted by Sen. Landrieu appears in the 

Appendix on page 244. 

the capability those children deserve. And I think that is the thrust 

of your initiative. 

Senator LANDRIEU. So are you testifying that you are supportive 

of that new approach that has been approved by this Committee 

and are willing to push it through? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Absolutely. One of our highest agenda items of all 

the PWs is to focus on education, and I think we have done that 

with your urging, and I think that we have got some good results 

with the State to show for that. 

Senator LANDRIEU. OK. I know my time is short. I would like 

just another minute. I would like to submit to the record, Mr. 

Chairman and Ranking Member, a survey that actually just came 

out yesterday that was conducted by the University of New Orleans,1 and I would like it submitted to this Committee’s record. I 

will point out in this that we have a long way to go because there 

is some good news and bad news in this survey. The bad news for 

FEMA is that over 80 percent of the people surveyed nationwide 

have a very negative impression of the leadership under Michael 

Brown, and they are not that familiar with the new leadership. In 

their mind, it is the same old FEMA and they don’t like it and they 

want it changed. 

The other interesting information about this survey is that over 

62 percent of the people around the country are willing to do more. 

Despite the fact that over $110 billion has been spent, Mr. Chairman, this survey indicates that people are willing to do more because they recognize that it was the Federal Government primarily 

that failed, along with some failures, of course, at the State and 

local level. 

There are some very interesting data. I think you will find it 

helpful to you as you build the New FEMA, or as you are nominated to build the New FEMA, and I just wanted to submit that 

for the record. 

I have several other questions, but my time is over. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit them for the record and then I will 

be in touch with you all personally again. I appreciate your willingness to serve, but my vote will hinge solely on whether you both 

are agents of change or whether you are just there to continue the 

status quo. Thank you very much. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Landrieu. Senator Pryor, 

aged as you are. [Laughter.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am aged—anyway, 

we will talk about that later. [Laughter.] 

I want to thank both of the witnesses today for coming in and 

visiting with me in my office. I appreciate your time and your commitment to public service. I mean that. 

Let me, if I may, focus on you, Mr. Johnson, because there are 

three or four areas I want to cover very quickly. I will try to be 

very brief, but one is a follow-up to Senator Levin’s questions. 

There was a theme in his questions, and I have heard the theme 

24 

with other Senators. Quite frankly, I have been on this Committee 

for 5 years now and I have heard it pretty consistently with FEMA 

for 5 years, and that is how long it takes for FEMA to get done 

whatever it is supposed to do. 

Just today, Senator Levin asked about formaldehyde and trying 

to figure all that out and why it has taken so long, the contracting 

regulations, why it has taken so long, the trailer issue generally, 

and why it has taken so long. Yesterday in our office, we talked 

about an interim report, and I appreciate receiving it. I understand 

it is interim and it is not the final report, but we have been in contact, either my office or the Subcommittee, have been in contact 

with FEMA since February on that, and they told us it would be 

ready in March, and here we are in December and just got it. 

Are you committed and have you thought about ways to shorten 

the time tables in FEMA? It will take a management decision on 

your part and other people’s part to try to shorten the time table, 

try to cut through the red tape, and get things turned around more 

quickly. Is that possible? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you for your question, Senator Pryor. I believe it is possible, but I would like to point out, though, that the 

same people that are working on New Madrid plan are the same 

people who are running the National Response Coordination Center today for the snow storms and the ice storms in Oklahoma, and 

the same people that are planning the hurricane planning for the 

following year, and the same people that are involved in running 

day-to-day operations. And so in large part, as I mentioned to Senator Tester’s question, the size of FEMA is sometimes an inhibitor 

in our making progress on those reports. 

And so we are committed to that. We do track that. We just are 

implementing a new system, which we never had before, that electronically tracks our progress on reports, and we are able to 

prioritize and get those things that must be done quicker. So I 

think it is a good observation, and we are working on that, sir. 

Senator PRYOR. Yes. My experience is, and again, I have never 

run an agency that size, but when I was the Attorney General of 

my State, we had an Attorney General opinion function, which Senator Lieberman and I have talked about before because it is a trap 

for a lot of AGs out there, but nonetheless the average turnaround 

time before I came was over 50 days, where a State agency would 

write for an opinion and it would take us over 50 days to respond. 

I don’t think anyone ought to wait 50 days to hear back from his 

or her lawyer, so we shortened that time and made sure that we 

got it down to around 20 days. 

It took a commitment from the top and folks down the line to 

make sure it got done. In that situation, a lot of things would get 

on people’s desks and just sit there. However, if you give employees 

a deadline and force them to turnaround the work, they will do it 

and you never develop the backlog. So I am not trying to tell you 

how to run your agency, but I do think that one of the sources of 

frustration with FEMA in the Congress, and the Senate, and this 

Committee has been the slow turnaround time on a number of 

fronts. 

The other thing I just wanted to mention is that I think it is very 

important for FEMA to work—I would love to say seamlessly, I 

25 

don’t know if that is a realistic statement—but I would love for 

FEMA to work very well with State and local and also the private 

sector. We talked about that a little bit yesterday. But the private 

sector is very good at responding to disasters and planning, staging, and preparing for disasters because their business rests on 

that. I think there are lessons that FEMA can learn from the private sector. Obviously not all of it transfers, but I also think that 

partnering with the private sector in many ways makes sense for 

FEMA and the Federal Government. Do you have any comments 

on that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think your point is well taken. FEMA established not long ago our first Loaned Executive—we have a Loaned 

Executive Program. We established one. And we actually have an 

executive from UPS who works inside FEMA’s Logistics Directorate 

for that intent purpose, to reach out into those industries that represent core capabilities within FEMA and to bring those lessons inside FEMA. 

We just recently established our own Private Sector Office to 

begin to reach out further into the private sector community. So I 

think you make an excellent point and that should be part of New 

FEMA, a characterization of New FEMA, that we do establish 

stronger relationships and draw on those lessons learned from the 

private sector. 

Senator PRYOR. Great. The last thing I wanted to say is that— 

and this is as much for my colleagues as for you—yesterday we 

talked about a bill I had filed about the trailers and mobile homes 

and trying to put that on a time table for, first, FEMA to figure 

out exactly how many you need to have in reserve and be able to 

have those when you need them, and then, second, to move the 

ones you don’t need out and then report back to Congress, etc. So 

I appreciate your looking at that legislation. I would love to circulate that among the Committee and among the Senate to let everybody look at it and see if it makes sense, but thank you for 

working with us on that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Pryor, and I 

look forward to working with you on that legislation, as well. 

Dr. Runge, let me come back to bioterrorism and ask you as if 

I were a layman, which is we are all worried about the threat of 

bioterrorism, and the question would be, which people ask me as 

I go around, are we prepared for it? What is the state of our preparedness to both prevent and then, of course, respond to the 

threat of bioterrorism? So I know this is a main focus of your work. 

I know you don’t have a lot of time to answer it, but give me your 

best quick answer on that. 

Dr. RUNGE. Mr. Chairman, we are infinitely better prepared than 

we were even 2 years ago or 3 years ago, and it has to do with the 

work not only of DHS, but with many partner agencies. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. So cite a few specifics of what has happened in the last couple of years. 

Dr. RUNGE. Well, for instance, we have set up a bioforensics capability through our NBACC program at DHS which affords the 

Department of Justice a chance to do rapid characterization of the 

26 

genomes of agents of bioterror. The catastrophic scenario that we 

talk about with anthrax, for instance, is horrible, but it is even 

more horrible when you consider that there could be second, third, 

and fourth attacks. It is very important to get the forensic signatures on these to allow the Department of Justice and those who 

operate internationally to try to prevent those secondary attacks. 

The Department of State is very active in counterproliferation activities, both in the bio as well as the nuclear world. Clearly HHS 

is working very hard at developing human medical countermeasures in the event that prevention and protection are not successful. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Talk to me a little bit about what the condition of our public health infrastructure is to respond to a bioterrorist attack. I mean, obviously, the kind of attack we fear is where 

an agent is released and it is of a contagious illness and it begins 

to spread, or it is a naturally occurring illness that assumes epidemic or pandemic proportions, presents similarly. Are we prepared for that surge in demand on our public health system? 

Dr. RUNGE. I would offer that this is more about the public’s 

health than about public health in a conventional sense. The Public 

Health System in the United States atrophied for decades, particularly in the latter part of the last century. There was an infusion 

of cash and energy provided by the Congress to the Public Health 

System in the form of the supplemental funds for pandemic influenza. However, we can’t rely on the public sector to provide for people’s care in the event of either a natural or manmade health problem. This is a problem that we all have, and 99 percent or more 

of health care in this Country is delivered by the private sector. 

Until we have weaved them into the fabric of preparedness, we are 

not going to be truly prepared to manage those consequences. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Is it clear within the Department what 

your role as principal advisor to the Secretary on public health 

would be in the case of a catastrophic bioterrorist attack? 

Dr. RUNGE. Yes, sir. We have a very small office, but job one was 

making sure that both the Secretary and those who have to respond, like FEMA, are supported by the best medical and public 

health advice possible. In so doing, we have been through several 

exercises looking at roles and responsibilities around the Department, and clearly if it is human health, HHS runs the Emergency 

Support Function 8, which is part of the Emergency Support Function structure. They are responsible for delivering health care to 

the population. And the Secretary of HHS is responsible for that 

function. 

Secretary Chertoff, however, has overall responsibility under 

HSPD–5 (Management of Domestic Incidents). We are his agents 

in ensuring that all of those elements are, in fact, occurring and 

that the interaction between mass care and health and agriculture 

and the environment are put together and everybody is discharging 

his duty as the plan says. So, in incident management, we serve 

more of an advisory role. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I know you pointed to some of the 

progress made, and I am pleased to hear it, obviously. This is so 

big a threat which is just to say that if it hits us, it is going to be 

such a challenge to respond to it in a way that limits the impact 

27 

on people’s health or life. Tell me the two things that you think 

Congress could do which would best strengthen our national capacity to prevent and respond to a bioterrorist attack. 

Dr. RUNGE. In terms of immediacy, and I probably will respond 

to that question by saying that there are many important things 

to do, but the most immediate thing, first of all, is paying close attention to countermeasure development for the threats that we 

know exist and that we have provided a stratification of threats. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Which we don’t really have adequately 

yet, do we, the countermeasures? 

Dr. RUNGE. No, sir, we do not. Now, the Congress and Senator 

Burr and the PAPPA Act in December 2006 authorized the new 

BARDA, which is the advanced development part of HHS, ASPR; 

they are very busy over there, but the problem is that we still depend on small pharmaceutical firms, small technology firms to answer the call. There is insufficient incentive to large organizations, 

those that can bring the real power of their enterprise to bear. 

There is insufficient incentive to bring them to the dance to allow 

the full force of American enterprise to develop these sorts of countermeasures for us, whether they be vaccines or treatment for 

acute consequences. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes. I totally agree with you on that, and 

it is an annoying problem. The failure to have adequate countermeasures is not the fault of your office or DHS. We just don’t have 

them. They haven’t been created or invented yet. Every time we try 

to create incentives, as some of us, Senator Burr and I and others 

have tried to do, to bring the big pharmaceutical companies into 

this, to create an incentive that the market does not normally create, we get pushed back because they say we are giving something 

away to big pharmaceutical companies. But we need big pharmaceutical companies to get on the field here. Otherwise, if this ever 

happens, we are just not going to have the countermeasures, the 

drugs to treat and inhibit the spread of that kind of disease. 

I have gone over my time. I thank you for your work—— 

Dr. RUNGE. Could I just add one more thing, sir? 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Please. 

Dr. RUNGE. The second thing is that hospital systems and other 

private sector entities—whether they be (private sector) ambulances, which are 50 percent of our ambulance runs—until they are 

incentivized to invest in preparedness rather than just trying to 

stave off the horrible problems of 130 percent of the census that 

they have right now every single day, if we don’t incentivize them 

to invest in these low-probability events, we are never going to 

reach a position where we are truly prepared for disasters. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Well, I appreciate that answer, and I 

would like to work with you on how to flesh that out. 

Dr. RUNGE. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. Dr. Runge, one of the tragedies 

that we observed in the response to Hurricane Katrina was how 

many homebound elderly and disabled citizens who simply could 

not evacuate themselves died or suffered great inconvenience and 

injury during the aftermath of the storm. I met recently with representatives of Home Health Agencies from around the Country 

28 

who pointed out that they can be a tremendous resource to FEMA 

and State and local emergency managers in helping to identify 

homebound elderly and disabled citizens. They know where they 

are in every community. And yet they felt that they are not fully 

involved in the planning for evacuation or emergency response. 

You and I talked about this to some extent in my office. What 

will you do to more fully take advantage of the expertise and 

knowledge of home health agencies that might be invaluable in the 

event of a catastrophe? 

Dr. RUNGE. Senator Collins, you actually piqued my interest 

when we talked about this, and I think I related to you that in my 

experience in Charlotte, S.C., I found that there was an army of 

people out there who were able to identify injury risks to elderly 

people who were at risk for alcohol abuse and so forth, and we actually implemented programs to get the Public Health System involved, not the health providers so much as the Meals on Wheels 

people and the people who just do in-home visitation and care. 

I really do want to pursue this. I believe that is exactly the right 

thing to do in terms of identifying who it is that has a special need. 

We will be working with FEMA very closely through the regions. 

I don’t have a plan for it right now, but I will be working with you 

and your staff on that. 

Senator COLLINS. Admiral Johnson, I want to talk to you about 

a recent GAO report about the incredible amount of waste in the 

maintenance and deactivation contracts for the trailers and other 

manufactured housing that is being used for the Hurricane Katrina 

victims. As you know, the GAO estimated that for the period between June 2006 and January of this year alone, FEMA wasted 

more than $30 million in these contracts by using bidders who 

were not the most competitive, who did not offer the best price, and 

also by paying for work that was never completed. The report also 

found examples where there was a large payment to the prime contractor, but the individual who actually did the work received very 

little, suggesting that there were economies that could have been 

realized. 

Now, FEMA put out an official press statement responding to the 

report, and it did not really dispute GAO’s calculations. Instead, it 

blamed poor contracting decisions on the urgency of the crisis created by Hurricane Katrina. The problem with that explanation is 

GAO is looking at a 6-month period that is literally years after 

Hurricane Katrina struck. 

This concerns me because although I see great progress by 

FEMA in awarding far fewer sole source non-competitive contracts, 

there still does not seem to be effective management of those contracts that are in force right now. What are you doing to improve 

the management of the contracts now in force? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Moving away specifically from that audit to look 

at the general question, I think part of that I would thank the Congress for, and there are really three elements of this system. First 

of all, there needs to be a system, and so we have hired new people, 

such as our Director of Procurement, and have actually created a 

better structure to evaluate contracts. We actually have a contract 

assistance team now that takes a look at the contract and how it 

29 

hands off to those who implement the contract, and those two work 

together now where they did not before. 

The second area is that we needed more contracting officers. In 

Hurricane Katrina, FEMA had 36 contracting officers. We now 

have 118 contracting officers. So you need to have more people who 

understand that business, and right now, everyone in government 

wants to hire those same people. It is a skill set that we all need. 

And then the third is to use our contracting representatives 

(COTR). We now have a much more structured program that requires periodic education and training to sustain their qualification 

actually to enforce and oversee contracts. In the Gulf Coast specifically, we created a Program Management Office that now has a 

quality assurance surveillance program to ensure that those who 

are contracted for services provide that service. And that also includes a customer satisfaction survey from travel trailer occupants 

who sometimes are the most prone to give us information that we 

need to ensure that the contractor is meeting their responsibilities. 

So we take that audit very seriously. We didn’t challenge its findings. We know we made mistakes in Hurricane Katrina. We didn’t 

challenge its recommendations because they were on target, and 

we are focused on how we can actually implement those recommendations. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Collins. Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Johnson, in your opening statement, you spoke about partnerships. Very briefly, could you explain to me how you initiate 

and develop partnerships and who they are with? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We have partnerships across the board, at the 

Federal, State, and local levels, with the private sector, with nongovernmental organizations, and again, I point back to PKEMRA 

that now requires FEMA for the first time to have a National Advisory Council. That advisory council has 36 members with very 

structured recommendations about what backgrounds they bring to 

FEMA. That National Advisory Council met for the first time in 

October and had a conference call 2 weeks ago. We will meet again 

in February. It requires every region to have their own advisory 

council, and those have been established and for the most part 

have already had their first meeting. And so we have those advisory councils. 

We meet with what is called the Homeland Security Consortium, 

and the consortium represents State and local interests, private 

sector interests, all involved in homeland security, and we just attended their primary meeting in New Orleans 2 weeks ago. As I 

mentioned, we started a Loaned Executive Program. UPS is our 

first corporation. And we have established a Private Sector Office 

in FEMA. So we are very focused on how we can build those partnerships. 

Senator TESTER. And I would assume most of those partnerships 

are for the purpose of helping you do your job more effectively, 

which would include taking advice from them on issues of concern 

when it comes to an emergency. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Exactly. 

30 

Senator TESTER. OK. On August 31, 2006, FEMA began refurbishing a former Army base in Anniston, Alabama, to house approximately 1,000 Hurricane Katrina evacuees, spending almost $8 

million to make it inhabitable. It opened on September 15. According to the GAO, FEMA went ahead with the project despite warnings from FEMA officials in Alabama that the rooms were not 

needed. It turns out that they weren’t needed. It stayed open for 

about 2 months and was later closed. What is your response to 

that? If you are to develop partnerships and get information from 

local folks and even the local folks in your own agency you are not 

listening to, what is the purpose of that? I mean, why? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am not familiar enough with that facility to answer a question specific to that, and so I would be pleased if, with 

your permission, I could get back to you. 

Senator TESTER. That would be absolutely good. 

On another issue, the White House appears interested in terminating the Emergency Performance Management Grant Program. 

It allows our communities to develop emergency management plans 

to respond to disaster. What is your view about this program? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, sir, as you know, that is part of a program 

built into the fiscal year 2009 budget, and what was released, unfortunately to the media, was the beginnings of an iterative discussion between elements of the Administration on how should we approach grants. 

Senator TESTER. So it is still in, is what you are saying, and you 

support the program? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Runge, very quickly, I want to thank you very much for coming to visit me 2 to 3 weeks ago. At this point in time, I want to 

clarify, your agency is to respond, not to preempt, is that correct? 

Is that a fair classification? 

Dr. RUNGE. Not really. We have a comprehensive approach toward WMD and biodefense and to planning—— 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Dr. RUNGE [continuing]. For Federal planning, incident management coordination, grants coordination, and so forth. 

Senator TESTER. Perfect. You talked about the private sector’s involvement and you talked about the fact that they need to be 

incentivized to be involved. Your best guess right now, what is the 

private sector’s involvement at this point in time? Is it nonexistent 

or 50 percent? 

Dr. RUNGE. Here is the problem, Senator Tester, with respect to 

those that will be providing care in a disaster: They will do the 

best job that they can possibly do, and it happens time and time 

again. If there is a plane crash or if there is a tornado or whatever, 

these people, whether they are public or private sector health care 

systems, rally. They do the very best they can. 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Dr. RUNGE. The problem is that the scenarios that we are using, 

the canonical scenarios that we are gaming out, will undoubtedly 

result in a complete overwhelming of the health care system. We 

have not yet offered them guidance in terms of, if they reach cerVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:38 Nov 13, 2008 Jkt 040508 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\40508.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
31 

tain levels of preparedness, what are we as a Federal Government 

prepared to do to protect them from liability issues, for instance. 

Senator TESTER. Got it. 

Dr. RUNGE. So there are incentives that we can build into our 

planning, I think, that will help with this. 

Senator TESTER. That would be good. You may already have 

these and if you do, that is great. I would love to have your recommendation on incentives that we could put forth to the private 

sector. I think it would be worth my look at it. 

When we visited one-on-one in my office, we talked a little bit 

about agriculture and potential terrorism that could revolve around 

that. Do you plan to or have you decided to hold exercises with 

State and local governments on this kind of potential agricultural 

terrorism? 

Dr. RUNGE. Yes, sir. My second planning priority is foot and 

mouth disease. USDA has a playbook for foot and mouth disease 

for agricultural units, for State agriculture and for local agriculture 

and for USDA, but we don’t have an end-to-end plan. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Dr. RUNGE. There is no question that this would be a devastating 

thing for Montana. 

Senator TESTER. And the country. 

Dr. RUNGE. We have to get an end-to-end plan in place and drill 

it and test it, exercise it, and figure out how to fund it. 

Senator TESTER. When do you anticipate that happening? 

Dr. RUNGE. We have committed to the Secretary to do it by the 

end of this fiscal year. 

Senator TESTER. OK, good. I look forward to that occurring, too. 

In closing, I want to thank both of you for your public service 

over the many years that you folks have worked in the private sector and the public sector. I want to thank you for putting yourself 

in front of this Committee and putting yourself in front of the people for the job that you hope to be confirmed for. So thank you very 

much. 

Dr. RUNGE. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Tester. I couldn’t agree 

with you more. I thank you both for your testimony today; some 

tough questions, but you responded to them. 

I particularly want to thank you, Admiral Johnson, for your response to the question that Senator Tester just asked you about 

the Emergency Management Grant Programs. Today, Senator Collins and I and Chairman Bennie Thompson and Ranking Member 

Peter King from the House have sent a letter out. The rumor that 

has been in the press about the Administration proposing a fiscal 

year 2009 budget cutting out these grant programs, which we have 

just, Congress and the President signed the Act, ‘‘permanentized,’’ 

if I can make up that word, in the second phase of the 9/11 legislation is very troubling to us, so I appreciate your clarification and 

I like your terminology. This is at the stage of it being an iterative 

process, not a decisive or conclusive process. So we will make sure 

you get a copy of that letter. 

I thank you both. Without objection, the record of this hearing 

is going to be held open until 12 noon tomorrow for the submission 

of any written questions or statements for the record. We have 

32 

done that so quickly because it is my intention and Senator Collins’ 

intention to move these nominations as quickly as we can through 

the Committee. Now, I take note obviously of what Senator 

Landrieu said, and I hope that you can both meet with her and 

hopefully we can go ahead because I would, if I can use the word 

again, I would like to permanentize both of you. I was going to say 

institutionalize both of you, but—— 

Dr. RUNGE. Please don’t. [Laughter.] 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Probably your families think you should 

already be institutionalized for going ahead with these jobs. But in 

any case, I hope those conversations go well. But I thank you for 

your public service. 

Senator Collins, do you want to add anything? 

Senator COLLINS. No. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(33) 

A P P E N D I X 


40508.001
34 


40508.002
35 


40508.003
36 


40508.004
37 


40508.005
38 


40508.006
39 


40508.007
40 


40508.008
41 


40508.009
42 


40508.010
43 


40508.011
44 


40508.012
45 


40508.013
46 


40508.014
47 


40508.015
48 


40508.016
49 


40508.017
50 


40508.018
51 


40508.019
52 


40508.020
53 


40508.021
54 


40508.022
55 


40508.023
56 


40508.024
57 


40508.025
58 


40508.026
59 


40508.027
60 


40508.028
61 


40508.029
62 


40508.030
63 


40508.031
64 


40508.032
65 


40508.033
66 


40508.034
67 


40508.035
68 


40508.036
69 


40508.037
70 


40508.038
71 


40508.039
72 


40508.040
73 


40508.041
74 


40508.042
75 


40508.043
76 


40508.044
77 


40508.045
78 


40508.046
79 


40508.047
80 


40508.048
81 


40508.049
82 


40508.050
83 


40508.051
84 


40508.052
85 


40508.053
86 


40508.054
87 


40508.055
88 


40508.056
89 


40508.057
90 


40508.058
91 


40508.059
92 


40508.060
93 


40508.061
94 


40508.062
95 


40508.063
96 


40508.064
97 


40508.065
98 


40508.066
99 


40508.067
100 


40508.068
101 


40508.069
102 


40508.070
103 


40508.071
104 


40508.072
105 


40508.073
106 


40508.074
107 


40508.075
108 


40508.076
109 


40508.077
110 


40508.078
111 


40508.079
112 


40508.098
113 


40508.099
114 


40508.100
115 


40508.101
116 


40508.102
117 


40508.103
118 


40508.104
119 


40508.105
120 


40508.106
121 


40508.107
122 


40508.108
123 


40508.109
124 


40508.110
125 


40508.111
126 


40508.112
127 


40508.113
128 


40508.114
129 


40508.115
130 


40508.116
131 


40508.117
132 


40508.118
133 


40508.119
134 


40508.120
135 


40508.121
136 


40508.122
137 


40508.123
138 


40508.124
139 


40508.125
140 


40508.126
141 


40508.127
142 


40508.128
143 


40508.129
144 


40508.130
145 


40508.131
146 


40508.132
147 


40508.133
148 


40508.134
149 


40508.135
150 


40508.136
151 


40508.137
152 


40508.138
153 


40508.139
154 


40508.140
155 


40508.141
156 


40508.142
157 


40508.143
158 


40508.144
159 


40508.145
160 


40508.146
161 


40508.147
162 


40508.148
163 


40508.149
164 


40508.150
165 


40508.151
166 


40508.152
167 


40508.153
168 


40508.154
169 


40508.155
170 


40508.156
171 


40508.157
172 


40508.158
173 


40508.159
174 


40508.160
175 


40508.161
176 


40508.162
177 


40508.163
178 


40508.164
179 


40508.165
180 


40508.166
181 


40508.167
182 


40508.168
183 


40508.169
184 


40508.170
185 


40508.171
186 


40508.172
187 


40508.173
188 


40508.174
189 


40508.175
190 


40508.176
191 


40508.177
192 


40508.178
193 


40508.179
194 


40508.180
195 


40508.181
196 


40508.182
197 


40508.183
198 


40508.184
199 


40508.185
200 


40508.186
201 


40508.187
202 


40508.188
203 


40508.189
204 


40508.190
205 


40508.191
206 


40508.192
207 


40508.193
208 


40508.194
209 


40508.195
210 


40508.196
211 


40508.197
212 


40508.198
213 


40508.199
214 


40508.200
215 


40508.201
216 


40508.202
217 


40508.203
218 


40508.204
219 


40508.205
220 


40508.206
221 


40508.207
222 


40508.208
223 


40508.209
224 


40508.210
225 


40508.224
226 


40508.225
227 


40508.226
228 


40508.227
229 


40508.228
230 


40508.229
231 


40508.230
232 


40508.231
233 


40508.232
234 


40508.233
235 


40508.234
236 


40508.235
237 


40508.236
238 


40508.237
239 


40508.238
240 


40508.239
241 


40508.240
242 


40508.241
243 


40508.248
244 


40508.250
245 


40508.251
246 


40508.252
247 


40508.253
248 


40508.254
249 


40508.255
250 


40508.256
251 


40508.257
252 


40508.258
253 


40508.259
254 


40508.260
255 


40508.261
256 


40508.262
257 


40508.263
258 


40508.264
259 


40508.265
260 

Æ 


40508.266