U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

72–218 PDF 2012

ENSURING EFFECTIVE PREPAREDNESS AND 

RESPONSE—AN ASSESSMENT OF THE FISCAL 

YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY 

PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, 

AND COMMUNICATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 9, 2011 

Serial No. 112–7 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

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

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

PETER T. KING, New York, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

VACANCY

VACANCY

MICHAEL J. RUSSELL, Staff Director/Chief Counsel 

KERRY ANN WATKINS, Senior Policy Director 

MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

I. LANIER AVANT, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND 

COMMUNICATIONS 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Chairman 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania, Vice Chair 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York (Ex Officio) 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

VACANCY

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex Officio) 

KERRY A. KINIRONS, Staff Director 

NATALIE A. NIXON, Deputy Chief Clerk 

CURTIS BROWN, Minority Professional Staff Member 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

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

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

The Honorable Laura Richardson, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emergency 

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

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

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

Security: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 3 

WITNESS

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

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 6 

APPENDIX

Questions From Chairman Gus M. Bilirakis of Florida ....................................... 33 

Questions From Ranking Member Laura Richardson of California .................... 37 

Questions From Chairman Peter T. King of New York ....................................... 49 

Question From Chairman Gus M. Bilirakis of Florida on Behalf of Honorable 

Mike Rogers of Alabama ...................................................................................... 49 

(1) 

ENSURING EFFECTIVE PREPAREDNESS AND 

RESPONSE—AN ASSESSMENT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

AGENCY 

Wednesday, March 9, 2011 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, 

RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 

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

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

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, 

Response, and Communications will come to order. The subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony from Administrator Craig Fugate on the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. The President’s fiscal year 2012 budget requests $10 billion for 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. Of this 

amount, the budget includes $815 million for management and administration, $3.8 billion for State and local programs, and $1.8 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund. 

In this difficult budget climate, I am pleased to see that FEMA 

is taking steps to reduce its costs without sacrificing operations. 

The request for management and administration is $88 million less 

than the level in the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution. Much 

of this reduction is attributed to efficiencies and streamlined business processes. I hope to hear more from Administrator Fugate 

about these efficiencies and his timeline for the completion of program evaluations to identify any duplicative programs. 

An issue that Administrator Fugate has been stressing is a 

whole-of-community approach to emergency management. This is 

an approach that local emergency managers and emergency response providers in my area of Florida and around the country 

have been following for years. One way to accomplish this is to ensure that as policies are developed at the Federal level, officials at 

the State and local level and citizens are involved in the process. 
2 

With this in mind, I must again raise an issue I raised with Administrator Fugate last month. I’ve heard from emergency managers in my district and from around the country that they are concerned that the requirements of FEMA’s Functional Needs Support 

Services guidance may impact their ability to open emergency shelters during a disaster. They have repeatedly sought clarification 

from FEMA and the Department of Justice on the application of 

this guidance, but have not received sufficient answers. So, Administrator Fugate, I hope we can continue to discuss this issue and 

that you will work with me and my constituents to clarify these requirements so we can ensure that all citizens are accommodated 

during a disaster without impeding response capabilities. 

Finally, I want to thank Administrator Fugate for hosting Members of this subcommittee at FEMA last month. It was the beginning of the dialogue that I look forward to continuing this morning. 

The Chairman now recognizes the Ranking Member Ms. Richardson from California for any statement she may have. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me 

congratulate you and welcome you on your virgin voyage here. It 

has always been a pleasure to work with you, and I look forward 

to continuing to do so. You can count on my assistance. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I appreciate that very much. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Fugate, good morning. We are here today 

to receive testimony from the administrator regarding the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency’s fiscal year 2012 budget request. 

While I am very interested in hearing from Mr. Fugate regarding 

his plans for full year 2012, it is imperative that we discuss some 

of the alarming impacts pending with the potential passage of H.R. 

1. 

As the subcommittee meets to discuss spending for full year 

2012, the Congress is simultaneously holding discussions on H.R. 

1. As we sit here today, the Federal Government, including FEMA, 

is only funded through March 18, 2011, under the current continuing resolution. This has not only affected FEMA’s ability to determine funding needs, but has also delayed the publication of 

guidance for existing grant programs, which will further delay any 

grants awarded this year. These delays frustrate the ability of 

stakeholders, including our State and local governments, to maintain an adequate level of emergency preparedness and response. 

To make matters worse, the $1.4 billion reduction in funding for 

FEMA-administered grants serves as another setback. We are all 

familiar with what those reductions include. These cuts will not 

only influence stakeholders’ preparedness ability for the remainder 

of full year 2011, but will also carry into future funding cycles. 

While I respect FEMA’s end goal of simplifying the grant process— 

and I had an opportunity to speak to Mr. Fugate just a moment 

ago—what I do think we need to be concerned is, if we go on this 

consolidated process, that those funding sections that are melded 

in there are not reduced to a level where they are competing 

against one another and there is not enough adequate funding. 

As you are aware, two programs of particular importance to me 

are the SAFER program, which includes the firefighters, which has 

always been, I think, a big fight, and an amendment was on the 

floor to that fact of H.R. 1. 
3 

Just recently, on February 22, in the 37th Congressional District, 

a Libyan tanker spilled approximately 710 gallons of oil when the 

ship tanks overflowed into the harbor there. I want to commend all 

of the work that was put together. I have gone to the Gulf twice 

after the unfortunate Gulf spill to see the boons, after seeing the 

various devices that were there in place, you could definitely tell 

that we had lessons learned, and all of the operations were in place 

to handle that situation in a safe manner. I want to commend you 

and all your efforts of coordinating that effort. 

Finally, what I think is important to talk about is the National 

Disaster Recovery Framework. It has been over a year since the 

draft document was available for the public, and I am hoping a 

final version will provide us with a clearer picture of the roles and 

responsibilities of the recovery process. I am interested in hearing 

a status update regarding FEMA’s efforts towards the recoupment 

of the individual assistance funding received by those affected by 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Again, I look forward to your testimony and working with you. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. Of course I look forward to working 

with you in the upcoming months. 

Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that opening 

statements may be submitted for the record. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER BENNIE G. THOMPSON

MARCH 9, 2010 

Welcome Administrator Fugate and thank you for being here today to testify regarding the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

I appreciate the administration’s attempt to balance the commitment to fiscal responsibility with the need to strengthen the security of our Nation in the fiscal year 

2012 budget. 

But unfortunately, we have not finalized the fiscal year 2011 budget. 

Instead, we are relying on a Continuing Resolution process that fails to provide 

the stability necessary to implement important homeland security initiatives. 

Specifically, the failure to pass the fiscal year 2011 budget will place additional 

strain on FEMA’s Grants Directorate and State and local agencies trying to invest 

in critical homeland security priorities. 

I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will end this dangerous 

budgetary strategy and pursue a course that provides our first responders with the 

financial certainty they need to fulfill their missions. 

We must continue to make those critical investments in preparedness even in 

these tough economic times because preparedness and mitigation is cost-effective. 

Reports by the Congressional Budget Office and Multihazard Mitigation Council 

confirm that mitigation saves lives and reduces property damage. 

Therefore, I am concerned that the proposals to decrease FEMA’s budget could 

limit the progress the agency has experienced in the last few years. 

Thankfully, we have not experienced a storm of the same force of Hurricane 

Katrina. But last year, FEMA processed the largest number of disaster declarations 

in its history. Additionally, we have seen a rise in the number of devastating natural disasters across the world. 

Therefore, I do have some concerns about the budget proposal, including the possible devastating effects of House Resolution 1, which calls for significant cuts to 

first responder grants and training programs. 

We should learn the lessons from Hurricane Katrina and not reverse FEMA’s 

progress by creating budgetary shortfalls and decreasing capacity at the State and 

local levels. 

First responder investments through grant programs not only enhance a specific 

locality but also build our National capacity to be resilient in the face of disasters. 
4 

Additionally, I am concerned about proposals to consolidate several free-standing 

grants, such as the Metropolitan Medical Response System grant, which could diminish investments in these important initiatives. 

As a former volunteer firefighter I believe that we must continue to support these 

critical emergency preparedness efforts and build capacity at the local levels. 

I look forward to hearing how you will address these concerns. 

Thank you again for being here today. I yield back. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I am pleased to welcome Administrator Fugate 

before the subcommittee. Mr. Fugate was appointed by President 

Obama to serve as the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency and was confirmed by the United States Senate on May 13, 2009. 

Prior to coming to FEMA, Mr. Fugate served as director of the 

Florida Division of Emergency Management, a position he held for 

8 years. Mr. Fugate began his emergency management career as a 

volunteer firefighter, emergency paramedic, and finally as a lieutenant with the Alachua County Fire Rescue. Mr. Fugate and his 

wife hail from Gainesville, Florida, a city very close to my heart. 

Welcome, administrator. Your entire written statement will appear in the record. I ask that you summarize your testimony. You 

are recognized now. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF W. CRAIG FUGATE, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT 

OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

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

Richardson, and other Members of the subcommittee. It is an honor 

to be here, sir, and to reestablish the relationship we had when you 

were in the Florida legislature. 

The purpose of this briefing is to present the President’s request 

for 2012, our budget request. As you have summarized most of 

that, I just want to talk about some general items and then give 

the committee plenty of time to answer the questions you have. 

Our mission is really about—you know, there is a tendency to 

look at FEMA as a response organization. Our mission is really 

about supporting State and local governments, preparing for, and 

then ultimately the response and recovery from those disasters 

that require Federal assistance. But in doing this, there are certain 

costs of maintaining capabilities, there are certain costs in providing preparedness funds that have been on-going programs based 

upon both the threats from natural hazards, but also the threat 

from terrorism. 

But the one thing that I have always been faced with is nobody 

has ever given us a blank check. We have always had to work within the budgets and the constraints that we have in looking at how 

we prioritize our programs. So this budget starts that process of 

implementing many of the reductions that are going to be required 

in the budget process, but also continuing to provide a level of service to meet the needs in support of our Governors and local communities. Part of these savings are actually being done through efficiencies within FEMA, of looking at how we do our business, and 

looking for reductions in those costs to pass those back to the taxpayer versus cutting and eliminating capability to respond and 

support during a disaster. 
5 

Mr. Chairman, some of these examples are really straightforward, such as looking at travel that is not core to the mission, 

and looking at alternatives, such as using more videoconferencing 

and web chat, which actually allows greater participation in many 

venues than conferences; looking at things such as decommissioning and turning off excess communication equipment that had 

been activated from previous disasters; going back and looking at 

open disasters and closing out those funds that are no longer needed or were deobligated, but had not been put back into the Disaster 

Relief Fund. 

Last year, through efforts of closing out existing open missions on the Federal Government side, we were able to place over $2 billion back into the Disaster Relief Fund to support on-going response and recovery operations. We are continuing this year, as we 

look at existing open disasters where work has been completed by 

the States and local governments but there are still obligated funds 

that are no longer needed, deobligating those and put those back 

into the relief funds so we can continue that work. 

So as we go through this process of preparing for the 2012 budget, we want to continue looking at some of our key investments. As 

was pointed out by Ranking Member Richardson, we have invested 

in various grant programs, some of which have been very important in the recent economic downturn, such as SAFER, in which 

the President is continuing the level of funding there to continue 

supporting the ability to retain, rehire, and keep firefighters in 

communities that are in acute budget situations. 

We are also looking at, again, giving some flexibility as we look 

at one of the things the General Accounting Office report that recently came out says: We have a lot of programs that do similar 

things and actually duplicate each other. So we are looking at how 

we can consolidate some of these grants, but, as the Ranking Member stated, make sure the guidance still funds those activities as 

eligible, but not have one pot of money coming down to States and 

local governments looking at one piece of preparing for a terrorist 

event and another pot of money having very similar guidance, 

going down to the same communities; and giving them in these 

challenging times a little bit more flexibility of how to apply those 

funds without necessarily saying, we are going to fund each one of 

these activities separately, when they have common and sometimes 

duplicative types of efforts that are occurring. 

So as we go through this process, and we continue to work on 

our budget, one of the things I am most proud of being at FEMA 

is being part of the team not only within FEMA, but within Homeland Security and the Federal Government. Our only real challenge 

that I see as we continue to go forward is to continue to recognize 

that, even if FEMA is in good shape, if our State and local partners 

are not in good shape and don’t have support, we will not be able 

to respond effectively in this Nation to disaster. It has to be a team 

effort. We cannot just fix one part of the team. It has to be local, 

State, Federal, but also including volunteer, faith-based, the private sector and the communities we serve as part of that team. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Fugate follows:] 
6 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF W. CRAIG FUGATE

I. INTRODUCTION

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

to appear before you today on behalf of FEMA to discuss our fiscal year 2012 budget 

request. I was pleased to host several Members of this subcommittee at FEMA 

headquarters last month for a productive discussion on addressing some of our most 

pressing issues. I look forward to continuing that dialogue today. 

As you know, FEMA has changed the way we do business over the past several 

years. FEMA was included in the organizational realignment that led to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in the aftermath of the September 

11, 2001 attacks. FEMA also underwent major organizational changes after Hurricane Katrina, when Congress passed the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA) and increased funding for building emergency management capabilities. In short, FEMA is a much more effective agency today than we were just 

a few years ago. Our ability to meet our mission this past fiscal year was a direct 

result of the tools that we have been able to put in place with your help and support. 

However, we also know these are difficult economic times that call on us to make 

difficult budgetary choices. We all bear the responsibility for internalizing the challenges presented by an austere budget environment, while ensuring we fulfill our 

responsibilities to the Nation. In fiscal year 2012, we will fulfill our mission by increasing our efficiency and focusing on our core mission of ensuring resilience to disasters. While this economic climate requires us to fulfill our mission at the same 

time as we reduce our spending, the administration’s proposed FEMA budget is reflective of both imperatives. 

II. OVERVIEW OF FEMA PROGRESS

FEMA’s mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as 

a Nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare 

for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards. 

In addition to our Washington, DC headquarters, FEMA has ten permanent regional offices, three permanent area offices, and various temporary disaster-related 

sites that carry out the agency’s operations throughout the United States and its 

territories. I would like to begin my testimony by presenting a brief overview of the 

major programs administered by FEMA, and providing a sense of what we have 

done with the resources we have been allocated. 

Response 

FEMA’s Response Directorate, a part of the Office of Response and Recovery, assists States by providing and coordinating the core Federal response capabilities 

needed to save and sustain lives, minimize suffering, and protect property in communities overwhelmed by the impact of an incident. More specifically, the Response 

Directorate coordinates and integrates Federal interagency all-hazards disaster 

planning and response operations; manages emergency response teams; and oversees disaster emergency communications programs. 

FEMA’s response capability has come a long way over the past several years. In 

2005, Federal incident response duties were shared by two groups of teams: the 

Emergency Response Teams (ERTs) and the Federal Incident Response Support 

Teams (FIRST). Due to cost constraints, ERTs were established using staff members 

who had other primary day-to-day responsibilities in FEMA’s headquarters and the 

regions; and the FIRSTs were comprised of teams located in two regions with a 

small dedicated staff. Moreover, catastrophic planning was conducted primarily at 

FEMA headquarters, since the regions were not adequately staffed with dedicated 

planners to fully perform this function.@ 

In order to address these inadequacies, FEMA consolidated the responsibilities of 

the ERT and FIRST teams into 13 regional and three national Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMATs), rapid response teams staffed with full-time personnel. FEMA has also used funds provided by Congress to upgrade technology and 

develop an all-hazards 24/7 situational awareness capability at the National Watch 

Center in FEMA Headquarters and in all of the Regional Watch Centers. The 

FEMA Operations Center (FOC) has upgraded its alert, warning, and notification 

technology capabilities and tripled the Emergency Notification System (ENS) capability. With increased staffing levels, FEMA has integrated the planning efforts conducted at the regional and local levels. Finally, FEMA’s IMATs, Urban Search and 
7 

Rescue (US&R) teams and Mobile Emergency Response Support (MERS) teams are 

capable of deploying and arriving on scene to provide incident management support 

and disaster response assistance within 12 hours of notification. 

In 2010, FEMA responded to 81 new Presidential major disaster declarations and 

nine new Presidential emergency declarations, and issued 18 fire management assistance declarations. In all, the agency’s efforts provided critical assistance to 41 

States, the District of Columbia, and two territories, in response to a variety of 

major disasters, including back-to-back severe winter storms and record snowfall, 

Hurricanes Alex and Earl, Tropical Storms Otto and Tomas, several fires in California, an earthquake in Imperial County, California, severe storms and flooding in 

Illinois, and record floods in Tennessee. 

We have also increased our coordination with the private sector on a range of 

issues that will benefit our response effort. We have corporate candidates, nominated by the Retail Industry Leaders Association, serving 3-month rotations within 

our National Response Coordination Center (NRCC). We have included private sector representatives in our no-notice ‘‘thunderbolt’’ response and recovery exercises, 

and we have shared ideas and lessons learned on a wide array of technology initiatives, including mobile applications, shared data feeds, and alert warnings through 

smart phones and other devices. Finally, we have dedicated one of our primary 

working groups—chaired by a member of the private sector—in support of National 

Level Exercise 2001 (NLE 11) to engaging the private sector. 

Recovery 

FEMA’s Recovery Directorate administers Federal disaster assistance programs 

that support individuals and communities affected by disasters. These programs 

constitute the majority of the resources provided by the Federal Government to ensure that individuals and communities affected by disasters of all sizes, including 

catastrophic events and terrorist attacks, receive rapid disaster assistance. Aspects 

of FEMA’s Recovery Directorate include: 

• Individual Assistance, which includes housing, crisis counseling, legal services, 

and unemployment assistance; 

• Public Assistance, which includes funding for debris removal, emergency protective measures, and permanent restoration of infrastructure; 

• Fire Management Assistance, which provides funding for the management and 

control of fires on publicly or privately owned forests or grasslands; 

• Long-term community recovery, also known as Emergency Support Function 

(ESF) No. 14, which coordinates the resources of Federal departments and 

agencies to support the long-term recovery of States and communities as they 

work to reduce or eliminate risk from future incidents; 

• Mass Care, also known as ESF No. 6, which coordinates the delivery of Federal 

mass care, emergency assistance, housing and human services, when local, Tribal, and State response and recovery needs exceed their capabilities; and 

• Coordination with a variety of non-governmental organizations. Over the past 

several years, FEMA has overhauled its recovery capability to provide disaster 

assistance more quickly and effectively. For example, in 2005, FEMA had a 

daily capacity to perform 7,000 home inspections that were used to determine 

which FEMA repair and replacement grants a disaster survivor may be eligible 

to receive. Today, that daily capacity has more than doubled. 

In 2005, disaster survivors were required to contact as many as 17 separate Federal agencies to apply for disaster assistance. Today, thanks to funding provided by 

Congress, FEMA and the Government as a whole have a centralized channel for disaster survivors to apply for Federally funded assistance and obtain other critical disaster information from Federal, State, Tribal, and local sources: 

www.DisasterAssistance.gov. FEMA has also established Internet Registration and 

Applicant Intake surge capacity to process up to 200,000 registrations per day during a catastrophic event. Moreover, since the identity of nearly all applicants is authenticated at registration, FEMA is able to strengthen controls against waste, 

fraud, and abuse. 

FEMA achieved 93.5 percent customer satisfaction from Individual Assistance applicants in 2010, and www.DisasterAssistance.gov was named on the 

www.Congress.org list of five best Government websites. Last year, the capabilities 

for disaster survivors register for disaster assistance extended to smartphones as 

well. 

Several years ago, FEMA had no Nation-wide cohesive system to locate and monitor shelters. In order to rectify this, FEMA created a standardized, common, and 

reliable system that can be used at all levels of government and by non-governmental organizations to manage shelter facility data. 
8 

One of the most important changes we made to the recovery process involved establishing two Public Assistance review panels in order to break logjams within the 

Public Assistance appeals process. The review panels helped to expedite decisions 

on pending Public Assistance projects, and gave us the opportunity to work closely 

with applicants to resolve long-standing disputes. Created by Secretary Napolitano 

in 2009 in order to expedite final eligibility decisions for disputed projects, these review panels helped stalled projects move forward. To date, these two panels have 

resolved 173 previously disputed cases. 

We have seen tangible results from the changes we have made to our recovery 

process. For example, on May 14, 2010, only 10 days after the President declared 

the massive flooding in Tennessee a major disaster, FEMA had received 30,459 disaster assistance registrations and approved more than $87 million in assistance 

through the Individuals and Households Program. Of the $87 million that had been 

approved, almost 92% has already been disbursed to families. 

As another example, 2 weeks after the President had declared the 2009 flooding 

in Georgia a major disaster, FEMA had already received nearly 20,000 disaster assistance registrations and distributed nearly 12,000 disaster assistance payments, 

totaling almost $40 million. In fact, FEMA issued the first disaster assistance payments the day after the declaration. 

Federal Insurance and Mitigation 

By encouraging and supporting mitigation efforts, FEMA leads the Nation in reducing the impact of disasters and helping to break the ‘‘damage-rebuild-damage’’ 

cycle in America’s most vulnerable communities. FEMA has the lead role in helping 

communities increase their resilience through risk analysis, reduction, and insurance. One mitigation tool is the Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis Program, 

which addresses flood hazard data update needs and preserves the successful Flood 

Map Modernization investment. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) provides flood insurance on a National basis to owners of properties located in vulnerable areas through the Federal Government, through both a premium revenue and 

fee-generated fund called the National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF). In fiscal year 

2010, the NFIP reduced potential flood losses by an estimated $1.6 billion and increased flood insurance policies in force by nearly 1 percent. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program offers an annual funding source for qualified mitigation activities that are not dependent upon a declaration of disaster by the President. The 

PDM program has reduced administration costs by $800,000, which has made more 

funds available for grants. Furthermore, Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning 

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

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

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

Preparedness 

FEMA’s Protection and National Preparedness (PNP) works to ensure that the 

Nation is adequately prepared for disasters of all kinds. PNP includes the National 

Preparedness Directorate (NPD), which is responsible for administering the National Training, Measurement, and Exercise Programs, funded through the State 

and Local Programs appropriation. Additional preparedness activities are also performed by the Grant Programs Directorate (GPD), which manages a grant portfolio 

that includes the Homeland Security Grant Program, the Port Security Grant Program, the Transit Security Grant Program, and the Assistance to Firefighters 

Grants. PNP strives to achieve a Nation prepared through a comprehensive cycle 

of planning, organizing, equipping, training, exercising, evaluating and continuous 

improvement. 

Furthermore, FEMA, in partnership with the Advertising Council, developed 

Ready (www.ready.gov) as a National public service campaign to educate and empower Americans to prepare for and respond to all emergencies, including natural 

disasters and potential terrorist attacks. The goal of the campaign is to get the public involved and ultimately to increase the level of basic preparedness across the Nation. 

While we continue to work toward measuring the effectiveness of all FEMA’s investments in the Nation’s preparedness capability, we are confident that it has 

grown significantly over the past several years as a result of an increase in planning, assessment, analysis, training and exercise efforts, as well as a renewed commitment to preparedness fostered at the National, State, local, Tribal, and territorial levels. Since 2005, FEMA has sponsored over 700 National, Federal, regional, 

State, and local direct support exercises. 
9 

FEMA Regions reviewed and assessed plans from 131 jurisdictions as part of the 

2010 Nationwide Plans Review. This latest report assessed the capability of State 

and local governments to execute an emergency operations plan during a catastrophic incident at approximately 79 percent, a nearly 40 percent increase in planning capacity from the 2006 Nationwide Plans Review. 

To ensure that FEMA is addressing the needs of the whole community in all of 

its preparedness activities, FEMA revised its Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 

(CPG) 101 to incorporate planning considerations for individuals with functional 

and access needs, individuals with limited English proficiency, diverse racial and 

ethnic populations, children, and household pets/service animals. FEMA, in partnership with others in the Department of Homeland Security, also established the Voluntary Private Sector Preparedness Accreditation and Certification Program, in recognition of the important relationship between resilient businesses and the recovery 

of communities affected by disasters. 

In 2010, FEMA trained more than 2 million homeland security and emergency 

management officials and first responders; conducted more than 250 Federal, State, 

and local exercises; and provided 120 technical assistance deliveries for fusion centers, planning, and critical infrastructure/key resources. FEMA also conducted National Level Exercise 2010 to evaluate Federal, State, and local partners’ emergency 

preparedness and coordination capabilities in response to an improvised nuclear device detonation. 

Exemplifying the value of these efforts, the State of Tennessee established a comprehensive exercise program through a partnership between the Office of Homeland 

Security, Public Health, and the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency. It has 

successfully combined grant funding from homeland security and public health 

grants for this integrated exercise program. More than 60 exercises have been conducted to date. Partnerships, relationships and planning developed during the comprehensive exercise program have enhanced our ability to respond as multi-jurisdictional teams to natural disasters, which came into play when Tennessee experienced 

multiple disasters during the spring and summer of 2010. 

Logistics 

FEMA’s Logistics Management Directorate (LM) is FEMA’s major program office 

responsible for the policy, guidance, standards, execution, and governance of logistics support, services, and operations. Its mission is to provide an efficient, transparent, and flexible logistics capability for the procurement and delivery of goods 

and services to ensure an effective and timely response to disasters. 

In 2005, logistics was a branch function within the Response Division, with limited funding for personnel and assets. At the time, the Logistics Branch had 28 Permanent Full-Time Employees, and most of its workforce consisted of temporary employees with little or no training. In addition, the FEMA Logistics Branch did not 

possess a self-assessment tool to assist States in evaluating their logistics and operational capabilities. 

LM was elevated from a branch to directorate-level in April 2007, and now has 

a robust capability that is flexible and adaptable to meet unpredictable demands of 

all-hazards support. LM has made significant progress in permanent staffing, increasing the percentage of full-time employees by over 10 percent last fiscal year. 

Some examples of FEMA’s 2010 logistics accomplishments include the following: 

• FEMA was able to fulfill more than 97.5 percent of orders for life-sustaining 

commodities (including meals, water, tarps, cots, blankets, etc.) within the time 

frame requested. During the first quarter of 2011, FEMA Logistics has reached 

a 100 percent on-time delivery rate; 

• LM and GSA announced the opening of a new fully automated, state-of-the-art 

Distribution Center in Atlanta, Georgia; and 

• LM developed a Logistics Capability Assessment Tool (LCAT) for use by States 

to improve readiness, increase response capacity, and maximize the management and impact of homeland security resources. LM has trained all 10 Regions 

on LCAT, conducted briefings for 41 States and territories, and facilitated 19 

LCAT workshop sessions with States and territories. 

During the recent 2011 Mid-West/East Coast Winter Storm, FEMA’s Logistics 

team supported the Regions and States by deploying essential supplies (i.e., generators, meals, water, cots, blankets, and infant/toddler kits) to pre-designated locations 

prior to the storm’s impact. The initial supply requirements were received, promptly 

filled, and ready for issuance to State and local governments by the required delivery date. As the storm moved towards the Northeast, the Logistics teams worked 

closely with the Regions and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to redirect generators to meet the changing needs. 
10 

1Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, ‘‘FEMA’s Logistics Management Process for Responding to Catastrophic Disasters,’’ OIG–10–101 (July 2010). 

As a result of the FEMA logistics improvements that supported these and other 

efforts, a July 2010 Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) report concluded that FEMA ‘‘has made great strides to improve its logistics 

capability... [G]iven these recent initiatives, FEMA is better prepared now than 

at any previous time for dealing with a catastrophic disaster.’’1

Mission Support 

FEMA’s Mission Support Bureau integrates FEMA’s business operations and support services within a single oversight structure, and is responsible for providing the 

support, tools, and resources needed to build, sustain and improve our capabilities. 

The major Bureau areas of responsibility are human capital, information technology, 

procurement, security, facilities management, health, safety, and records management. 

Recognizing that our success as an agency depends upon a trained and talented 

workforce, I made hiring a priority when I came to FEMA. When I began here in 

fiscal year 2009, FEMA’s staffing fill rate was at 79 percent. Today, the agency is 

at a 93 percent fill rate, and includes the redirection of positions to our ten FEMA 

Regions as a part of our Regional re-empowerment effort to facilitate emergency preparedness, coordination, and planning at the local level. 

Also in 2009, I began a project to improve FEMA’s work environment for current 

and future employees, an effort that has since come to be known as the FEMA 

Workforce Enhancement Initiative. This collaborative initiative has brought together employees from all levels of the agency in workgroups to develop and implement more efficient and meaningful ways to improve FEMA’s workforce. The areas 

of focus included recruitment, hiring, retention, performance management, career 

progression structure, and developmental initiatives and opportunities for employees. FEMA recognizes that every employee is an emergency manager, and should be 

ready for deployment if needed. To that end, in early 2010, FEMA transferred the 

efforts of the credentialing system started by the Disaster Workforce Division to the 

Deputy Administrator for Protection and National Preparedness, resulting in a National Credentialing Program that focused on a Government-wide and holistic approach to disaster surge staffing. The National Credentialing Program coordinates 

activities, develops policies, and recommends guidance and standards for 

credentialing all FEMA personnel and State, Tribal, and local officials who require 

access to disaster areas or FEMA facilities during an emergency. This program will 

also ensure unity of effort in line with the National Response Framework. 

As a result of these and other efforts, FEMA is continuing to build the Nation’s 

emergency management team with our partners at all levels, and forging a more 

effective support infrastructure. 

III. FEMA’S FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST

As the President made clear in his State of the Union address, the current budget 

climate requires us to take a hard look at our agency and make tough decisions on 

how to spend limited taxpayer funds. The administration’s proposed budget provides 

FEMA with the funds to fulfill its mission of ensuring domestic resilience to disasters while reducing spending in several areas through efficiencies and innovative 

thinking. I would like to take the opportunity to provide a brief overview of the proposed FEMA budget for fiscal year 2012. 

State and Local Programs 

Through the State and Local Programs (SLP), FEMA helps State and local governments prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from incidents of terrorism and other catastrophic events. This program provides for grants, training, exercises, and other support to assist Federal agencies, States, territories, and Tribal 

and local jurisdictions. 

The President’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 would sustain Federal fund- ing of more than $3.84 billion for State and local preparedness grants, highlighting 

the Department’s commitment to getting resources into the hands of State and local 

first responders who are often best positioned to detect and respond to terrorism, 

natural disasters, and other threats. Even in this difficult budget environment, the 

administration recognizes the importance of maintaining funding for State and local 

governments as they prepare for major disasters and emergencies of all kinds. 

The agency requests $1 billion for State Homeland Security Grant Programs 

(SHSGP) and $50 million for Operation Stonegarden (OPSG), and requests $13 mil-
11 

lion in fiscal year 2012 resources towards the Citizen Corps Program (CCP). SHSGP 

continues to provide funding for grant recipients to build capabilities to protect and 

prepare State and local governments to respond to acts of terrorism, large-scale disasters, and public health emergencies. OPSG continues to enhance and coordinate 

joint mission border protection priorities and activities across Federal, State, and 

local law enforcement agencies and Tribal governments. CCP activities help support 

local community resilience goals and strategies, including: outreach and education 

on personal preparedness; integration of nongovernmental assets and personnel in 

preparedness and response protocols; improved plans for emergency notifications, 

evacuation, and sheltering; and increased citizen participation in community safety. 

CCP strengthens the Department’s activities with more than 2,300 Citizen Corps 

Councils in jurisdictions covering 78 percent of the U.S. population and operating 

in all 50 States and six U.S. territories. 

FEMA requests $191.663 million for the Training, Measurement, and Exercise 

Program for fiscal year 2012. FEMA will apply efficiencies and eliminate redundant 

activities identified through working with State and local governments. 

Finally, FEMA requests $1.57 billion for the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) 

Preparedness Program in fiscal year 2012. The agency will continue to focus MSA 

Preparedness Program grant resources on activities supporting the Department’s 

highest prioritized mission, ‘‘Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security.’’ Included in the MSA Preparedness Program is the Urban Areas Security Initiative 

(UASI). The fiscal year 2012 budget request directs additional resources to UASI, 

which provides funding to support regional collaboration on enhanced security and 

terrorism readiness in the Nation’s highest-risk urban areas. UASI grant requests 

continue to fund prevention, protection, response, recovery initiatives and capabilities directed at threats or acts of terrorism. 

In order to maximize the ability of State decision-makers to set priorities and to 

reduce administrative barriers to grants, the administration’s budget request, like 

the 2011 request, proposes to consolidate a number of individual grant programs (including grants for Driver’s License Security/Real ID, Interoperable Emergency Communications, and Buses) and make them part of the broader grant programs such 

as UASI and State Homeland Security grants. This consolidation will increase overall funding for UASI and State Homeland Security grants while reducing the number of separate grant programs, which ultimately decreases the number of applications a State will need to submit. 

The administration’s budget request also proposes to consolidate the Emergency 

Management Performance Grants and the Assistance to Firefighter Grant Programs 

into the SLP. These two grant programs are discussed below. 

Emergency Management Performance Grants 

Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPGs) are formula grants provided to assist State and local governments to sustain and enhance the effectiveness 

of their emergency management programs. The proposed fiscal year 2012 EMPG 

program provides $350 million to continue assisting State and local jurisdictions in 

improving their overall emergency management systems. EMPG grant recipients establish, expand, and maintain effective partnerships with neighboring jurisdictions 

to develop emergency management plans, conduct training and exercises, and procure necessary resources to assist in the event of any catastrophic emergency. Under 

this proposed budget, EMPG grants continue to be distributed on a formula basis. 

Assistance to Firefighter Grant Programs 

This program is comprised of Assistance to Firefighter Grants (AFG), Staffing for 

Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grants, and Fire Prevention and 

Safety Grants (FP&S). The combination provides support to fire departments and 

non-affiliated emergency medical services (EMS) to improve the readiness and capability of local first-responders during all-hazards emergencies, including firefighting 

and EMS operations. 

AFG awards grants directly to fire departments and non-affiliated EMS organizations throughout the United States to support 1-year projects that improve the effectiveness and safety of the Nation’s first responders in homeland security, firefighting, and EMS operations. Under its authorizing legislation, AFG must also expend a minimum of 5 percent of appropriated funds under FP&S for fire prevention 

activities. SAFER grants provide funding directly to fire departments in order to 

help them increase the number of trained ‘‘front line’’ firefighters available in their 

communities. The goal of SAFER is to enhance the local fire departments’ abilities 

to comply with staffing, response, and operational standards. 

The fiscal year 2012 request includes $670 million for these programs. Included 

in this amount are $420 million for SAFER Grants to rehire laid off firefighters and 
12 

retain veteran first responders—totaling 2,300 firefighter positions—and $250 million for AFG and FP&S, in order to fund equipment, training, vehicles, and related 

materials. The amount requested for SAFER in fiscal year 2012 reflects the reality 

that effective fire safety programs require both equipment and personnel. While the 

$5 billion we have provided over the past several years through AFG has furnished 

fire departments with equipment, vehicles and other necessities, we must ensure 

that States and localities have the necessary personnel to perform the task at hand. 

This means rehiring laid-off firefighters, increasing fire department staffing to be 

consistent with nationally recognized consensus standards, supporting veteran first 

responders, and providing our State and local partners with the tools they need to 

keep our country safe. 

Management & Administration 

The Management and Administration (M&A) appropriation provides core mission 

funding for the development and maintenance of an integrated, Nation-wide capability to prepare for, mitigate against, respond to, and recover from the consequences of major disasters and emergencies. M&A supports core operations for all 

FEMA organizations, providing resources for mission activities and administrative 

support. M&A resources are directed to both regional and headquarters operations. The fiscal year 2012 President’s budget request of $815.099 million for the M&A 

appropriation reflects FEMA’s priority to manage resources more effectively across 

the Federal Government while ensuring the Nation’s resilience from disasters. The 

agency has reexamined its current allocation of resources among existing programs 

to focus on those programs that have the most significant impact on the agency’s 

ability to fulfill its emergency management mission. Moreover, FEMA will focus on 

streamlining current business processes and harnessing the use of innovative technologies. 

FEMA will continue to look at ways to adjust our organization and unify enterprise activities to ensure that resources are adequately utilized and allocated across 

components. Additionally, as we move forward, our goal is to complete program 

evaluations to identify duplicative activities and services within our components and 

reallocate those resources to needed areas. 

Flood Insurance and Mitigation 

FEMA’s Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA) implements a 

variety of programs authorized by Congress that help mitigate the impact of disaster by breaking the cycle of disaster damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage. Mitigation is achieved through three critical components—analyzing risk, reducing risk, and insuring for risk. FEMA requests $102.7 million in fiscal year 2012 for the Flood Hazard Mapping 

and Risk Analysis Program. These appropriations come through the Flood Hazard 

Mapping and Risk Analysis and the NFIF discretionary accounts, and are used to 

analyze and produce flood hazard and flood risk data and map products to communicate flood hazard risk and related technical services. With fiscal year 2012 funding, FEMA will focus on reviewing and updating flood hazard data and maps to accurately reflect flood hazards for the areas with the highest flood risk and greatest 

update need. 

Funding for the National Flood Insurance Program is derived from two primary 

sources. Mandatory flood insurance premiums are used to pay out claims and to provide funding to support the operating and administrative costs associated with 

maintaining the program, as well as three grant programs that reduce future flood 

claims. FEMA estimates mandatory premium collections of $3.103 billion in fiscal 

year 2012. This is an increase of $37.2 million over the estimate for fiscal year 2011 

and is due to policy rate increases. Also, the discretionary policy fee income is paid 

by flood insurance policy holders in order to support the cost of administering the 

NFIP, which includes floodplain management, flood mapping, flood-related grants, 

and NFIP management. For fiscal year 2012, FEMA projects fee collections of 

$171.0 million, an increase of $2.0 million from fiscal year 2011. FEMA requests $84.9 million in fiscal year 2012 for the PDM grant program. 

Funding will be used to: Fund projects and plans through a competitive process; 

support the National grant competition; support salaries and operating expenses; 

and fund program support and the technical assistance contracts used for the preparation, review, and processing of PDM grants. In addition, the PDM program will 

continue to reduce administrative costs to ensure that more of those funds are obligated to State, local, and Tribal governments to reduce risk. 

Emergency Food and Shelter 

The fiscal year 2012 request of $100 million for the Emergency Food and Shelter 

Program (EFSP) will allow FEMA to continue to supplement nonprofit and govern-
13 

mental organization emergency food and shelter programs by contributing an estimated 46.5 million meals, 3.1 million nights of lodging, 74,700 rent or mortgage 

payments, and 155,400 utility bill payments. 

It is important to note that EFSP is not a disaster program and is not designed 

to serve disaster survivors. Rather, the program is designed to serve the public on 

an on-going basis to assist in the fight against hunger and homelessness by 

supplementing the funding of qualified local service delivery agencies. 

Disaster Relief Fund 

Pursuant to the Stafford Act, the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) provides a no-year 

base against which FEMA can direct, coordinate, manage, and fund eligible response and recovery efforts associated with domestic major disasters and emergencies. Through the DRF, FEMA can fund authorized Federal disaster support activities as well as eligible State, territorial, Tribal, and local actions, such as providing emergency protection and debris removal. The DRF also funds: 

• Repair and reconstruction of eligible disaster-damaged infrastructure; 

• Hazard mitigation initiatives; 

• Financial assistance to eligible disaster survivors; and 

• Fire Management Assistance Grants. 

FEMA requests $1.8 billion for the DRF in fiscal year 2012. FEMA is taking aggressive action to maximize the balance of the DRF, including identifying excess 

funds previously obligated for past disasters and returning them to the DRF. In fiscal year 2010, FEMA recovered over $2.62 billion from prior year obligations to replenish the DRF. 

Coupled with prior year recoveries and carryover funds, the DRF is projected to 

support the 5-year average obligation level for non-catastrophic disaster activity (excluding extraordinary events, such as the series of 2004 hurricanes in Florida, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, the California Wildfires of 2007, and Hurricanes 

Gustav and Ike in 2008). 

IV. IMPLEMENTING PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY TOOLS

FEMA’s budget request for fiscal year 2012 strikes the appropriate balance between allowing us to fulfill our core mission of ensuring resilience to disasters, while 

also becoming more efficient and nimble in our efforts. However, a focus on efficiency is important to us not only in constrained fiscal times; rather, it is always 

an essential element of our ability to succeed. The unpredictable and exigent nature 

of emergency management requires us to provide fast and effective service to communities who need it, often on extremely short notice. In short, efficiency is always 

key to operational effectiveness. For that reason, we have begun implementing efficiency measures that include common-sense cost-cutting tools and outcome-based 

strategic planning, as well as leveraging our stakeholders as force multipliers 

throughout all aspects of the emergency management team. 

Good Stewardship of Taxpayer Dollars 

While we at FEMA work to ensure resilience to disasters, we also bear the responsibility for demonstrating good stewardship over taxpayer dollars. This means 

minimizing and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse of our programs and policies, 

and implementing common-sense measures to cut down on costs wherever possible. 

Since its inception in 2006 through the end of 2010, FEMA’s Fraud Branch has 

investigated nearly 3,200 disaster fraud complaints and referred more than 2,400 

fraud cases to the DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for criminal investigative review and/or prosecution. The FEMA Fraud Branch has also prevented $5.5 

million in disaster payments from being improperly disbursed. Finally, physical security initiatives netted FEMA approximately $23.5 million in funds de-obligated 

back to the agency. 

PKEMRA created several provisions in order to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse 

in the contracting and relief aid processes. To this end, FEMA implemented new 

software in 2007 that communicates real-time data to caseworkers in order to prevent duplicate housing payments. FEMA also implemented checks in the National 

Emergency Management Information System that trigger additional review for 

‘‘high risk’’ recipients before assistance is delivered, in order to prevent potential 

fraud. These actions allow FEMA to balance the need to quickly provide disaster 

aid to victims with our responsibility to be good stewards of the DRF. 

Moreover, FEMA continues to realize significant savings through technological 

and human capital efficiencies. As an example, FEMA returned $1.99 billion to the 

DRF through a focused effort to identify unused funding on disaster contracts. We 

also realized $7.8 million in savings in wireless telecommunications by shutting 
14 

down unused lines of service. Wherever possible, we will continue to undertake costcutting measures that will allow us to maximize the use of limited funding. 

Strategic Planning and Organization 

While FEMA continues to implement cost-cutting measures in all aspects of our 

work, we must also look at our larger organization to be sure we are as nimble and 

efficient as we can be. FEMA has undertaken several initiatives in that regard. 

On October 1, 2009, the Response, Recovery, Federal Coordinating Officer Program, and the Logistics Management Directorate were combined under a new Office 

of Response and Recovery to more closely align the organizational structure with 

FEMA’s operational mission. This reorganization has enhanced FEMA’s ability to 

perform its mission of coordinating and providing an immediate Federal disaster response and recovery capability with State, local, and Tribal partners in anticipation 

of, or immediately following, a major disaster. 

In February 2010, as part of a broader headquarters realignment, the Disaster 

Reserve Workforce and Human Capital Divisions of FEMA were integrated into the 

new Office of the Chief Component Human Capital Officer (OCCHCO). As a result, 

the Disaster Workforce Division now oversees the readiness and deployment functions for the entire disaster workforce of full-time and reserve employees. Additionally, a critical mass of staffing in the budget, policy, and system areas are able to 

provide more effective services to both the institutional and deployable workforces. 

In addition to organizational re-alignment, we also value the importance of outcome-based strategic planning as a tool that will allow us to ensure our activities 

align with FEMA’s strategic objectives. With that goal in mind, earlier this year we 

began implementing FEMAStat, a management process to facilitate the conduct of 

systematic discussions about the performance of FEMA’s Offices, Directorates, and 

Regions. The purpose of FEMAStat is to frame productive discussion and analysis 

that advances FEMA’s performance. We have already conducted several meetings 

and are confident in FEMAStat’s ability to help us identify additional performance 

deficits and close those gaps to make us a stronger and more resilient agency. 

We are also currently in the process of establishing an Innovation Council, pursuant to Initiative Four of FEMA’s Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2011–2014. The purpose of the Council is to help foster a culture of innovation and creativity within 

FEMA. Based on a successful program created by the U.S. Coast Guard, the Innovation Council will bring new ideas to FEMA leadership and achieve implementation. 

Whole Community 

Perhaps the most important initiative we must undertake, regardless of the budget environment, is to recognize our efforts are part of an interconnected plan of action. This ‘‘Whole Community’’ approach to emergency management provides the appropriate framework for leveraging the expertise and resources of our stakeholders 

at all levels, both governmental and non-governmental. 

FEMA continues to play an integral role as part of the emergency management 

community. However, we know that we cannot and should not do it alone. ‘‘Whole 

Community’’ requires a team approach. We know the capabilities of Federal agencies, which can be leveraged in the event of a disaster to provide a robust Federal 

response. We know of the importance of effective coordination with State, local, and 

Tribal governments, who provide direct, on the ground experience and who usually 

have initial and primary responsibility for disaster response. We know that non-governmental organizations—like faith-based and non-profit groups—and private sector 

entities possess knowledge, assets and services that Government simply cannot provide. An effective disaster response involves tapping into all of these resources. 

Finally, and most importantly, we know of the great capacity of individuals to 

care for their families, friends, neighbors and fellow community members, making 

our citizens force multipliers rather than liabilities. Together, we make up the whole 

community, and we all have an important role to play. We must engage all of our 

societal capacity, both within and beyond FEMA, to work together as a team. 

Through engaging the ‘‘Whole Community,’’ we maximize our limited funding and 

leverage the capabilities of our partners, who play a critical role in the process. 

A ‘‘Whole Community’’ approach is a valuable efficiency and cost-saving tool; yet 

more importantly, it is critical to our collective effectiveness to succeed in preparing 

for, protecting against, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating all hazards. 

V. CONCLUSION

Over the past several years, FEMA has undergone a major overhaul, thanks in 

large part to the significant resources provided to us by Congress. This year, we find 

ourselves in a budgetary climate that requires us to become more efficient in our 
15 

efforts while maintaining focus on our core mission, and we must make difficult 

choices in the process. 

As I mentioned earlier, the administration’s proposed budget provides FEMA with 

the funds to fulfill its mission of ensuring domestic resilience to disasters, while reducing spending in several areas through efficiencies and innovative thinking. 

Please be assured that we will continue to fulfill our most important mission of supporting our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a Nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, 

respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the 

proposed FEMA budget for fiscal year 2012. I am happy to answer any questions 

the subcommittee may have. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Now I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Administrator, with regard to the Functional Needs Support 

Services guidance I referenced in my opening statement, can you 

please clarify when this guidance applies? Does it apply to emergency shelters during a disaster, long-term shelters after a disaster, or both? How are you working with emergency management 

officials on this issue to ensure that they can continue to be able 

to serve the people in their area? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. With the Functional Shelter Needs Guidance that we put out, this actually is based upon 

the program that was utilized in Texas to ensure that their shelters were accessible. There have been a couple of more recent developments that occurred from the Department of Justice. Most recently, the city of Los Angeles was held in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act for not being inclusive with the public 

that has disabilities in their programs. So we are trying to provide 

this information in such a way that it complies with Department 

of Justice guidance in their interpretations of how the Americans 

with Disabilities Act would apply to sheltering. 

But we are also recognizing that, particularly in Florida’s case, 

but along the Gulf Coast, you have a situation where you have 

evacuation shelters which are very short-term that are not really 

designed to provide long-term accommodations and care versus 

those shelters that may be set up after the disaster. I think there 

are some areas there when you look at the issue of reasonable accommodation, that those things can be addressed. 

But it comes back to a very fundamental concept, and that is, 

when we open up an emergency shelter for an evacuation in a disaster, we should not find ourselves in the situation that we would 

turn people away merely because they presented a disability and 

had to go to another special facility. But when it comes to some of 

the longer-term support, I think those are areas that you can work 

on. But you really have to start off with the idea of: If I am using 

a shelter that is not accessible in the first place, is there another, 

better location I can use? 

In many of the Gulf Coast States, we primarily used public 

school systems as shelters. As you remember, in the Florida Legislature, they provide lots of funding to harden those shelters, but 

they don’t always have the bathrooms or the shower facilities for 

longer-term accommodations. Those are the kinds of things that we 

need to go through and look at. But to turn somebody away because they present with a disability is one of our primary concerns 

that how do we get to where we are not having to do that? 
16 

To be brief with this, and to give you more time for questions, 

one of the things we have looked at in FEMA is we used to have 

two different types of cots, regular cots for general population shelters and then what we called special needs cots. What we are trying to move towards, and we are putting out bids for and looking 

for the specs now to get a manufacturer in the United States to 

build them, is go to a universal cot so that you don’t have to differentiate. It is a cot that is high enough and stable enough so that 

if somebody needed to self-transfer from a wheelchair, they can do 

it. But also it means that instead of trying to maintain two separate inventories, we go to one device that is universal and is inclusive. We are not there yet either. We are having to work and budget and build this into our capabilities. But these guidelines essentially provide us that road map to get there. 

So when it comes down to that emergency phase, I think there 

is more work we can do with local governments on what that reasonableness is, but it cannot start with the discussion that we are 

going to turn people away from a shelter because we can’t accommodate them and send them somewhere else based upon a disability. It has to be based upon what are those needs going to be 

in the first 24 to 48 hours versus a longer-term shelter where they 

may be there for a week or more. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. But you will continue to work with us on this 

issue as well as the local? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. 

I am concerned that the President’s budget proposes to eliminate 

the Metropolitan Medical Response System Grant Program as a 

stand-alone program and instead roll it into the State Homeland 

Security Grant Program. MMRS provides funding to enhance the 

ability to respond to mass-casualty incidents. Do you know, how 

will the Department work to ensure that medical preparedness remains a priority within the large grant program? 

Mr. FUGATE. To take the language that is actually in the MMRS 

and put that into the grant guidance for the State Homeland Security grants, which are available to the State to go State-wide, as 

well as the Urban Security Initiative grants, which are more specific to the metropolitan areas that are large city areas that we provide grant funding to. Again, we find that these programs have 

overlap. They are not exactly the same. But by moving that grant 

guidance in, we can eliminate the management of multiple grants, 

and also we eliminate having grants that have similar types of capabilities. By moving that language in, we can address the needs 

of making sure that the medical response capabilities remains, but 

giving local and State authorities where they want to put in that 

money and what they want to continue to fund. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. 

If we stick to the 5-minute rule, I believe that we will have time 

for a second round of questions. 

So now I will recognize Ms. Richardson, the Ranking Member, 

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Fugate, you discussed, as I did in my opening 

comments, about the idea of consolidating the grants. Could you 
17 

share with us your commitment to ensure that the language that 

the State and locals—because I have been in the past unsupportive 

of this idea—if this were to happen, can you ensure that the language within the grant applications would include that the State 

or locals would have to verify that those other sections are being 

met? 

So let us say, for example, they decide to put all their money 

into—you know, let us say Fire Assistance or something like that, 

and they put nothing into, you know, Citizens Corps, that they 

would have to demonstrate in their application that everything of 

Citizens Corps is, in fact, being met, and so hence their decision 

to focus their dollars otherwise. 

Then the second piece, would be would you be willing to put a 

process in place to validate that, in fact, your system is working? 

So you can have a county or someone that comes back and says, 

oh, yeah, you know, we are doing it right; and yet we go to the region, and everyone says, oh, no, we don’t have money, and we can’t 

do this and that. So we put a system in place to be able to validate 

with those other end-users that these needs are being addressed. 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, in the two-part question, I think the first part 

is, yes, we plan to put that into the grants guidance. I guess my 

question back would be: How prescriptive are you looking for? 

What we are trying to avoid is putting in percentages, if you have 

to spend X amount in certain areas because these are the areas of 

focus, and allow them to have that. 

The other part of was coming back from the National Preparedness Task Force, was: How do we measure this preparedness and 

start looking at some of these benchmarks and going, okay, we 

have got this area we are pretty strong in, and this is an area we 

need to fund and put priorities on, but is that reflective of the National priorities and the intent of Congress in providing those 

funds? 

So it really comes back to, yes, we want to put that language in 

there. The question will be: How prescriptive would it be? Because 

what we will get from the local and State government is they are 

going to want more flexibility, but understand your concern that in 

lieu of funding something against something else, we want to make 

sure that we are still addressing the interest in the parties that 

Congress set in the base funding. These are the areas that we 

should be focusing on to enhance capabilities at the local and State 

level. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I am going to give you a compliment, sir. I 

have been very impressed with how you have run FEMA, and I 

look forward to your recommendation of what you think that 

should be. I would be happy to look at it and see if I disagree. But 

I have a tremendous amount of respect for you. 

I think the key is as long as we are holding them accountable 

to have to say in writing that they are meeting these other aspects, 

so if you see that they are not, then you would have to then consider our side and say, maybe this whole consolidation isn’t working, and we do need to put in these requirements. But we have got 

to have some sort of measurements or some sort of documentation 

to verify that on the front end. But I will work with you on that. 
18 

Mr. FUGATE. We will have staff put together some of that and 

provide you some examples of what we would look at and get your 

input. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. Thank you, sir. 

My next question would be: As you are well aware, State and 

local budgets depend upon Federal dollars to supplement their 

homeland security needs. Considering that grant guidance awards 

are dependent upon the passage of appropriations bills, what impact will passage of an appropriations measure in the middle of a 

fiscal year have on the grant award process this year and for next 

year? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, in the current process, we are held up. Probably one of the more immediate concerns that—I believe there are 

some folks in the audience representing the International Association of Emergency Managers, which are primarily our local emergency managers—is the Emergency Management Preparedness 

grant funds. These are 50/50 grant funds the States and locals 

match with 50 percent State and local dollars, 50 percent Federal, 

that are tied to the salaries of many of the employees that provide 

the planning and preparedness activities that occur throughout the 

country. As we are coming up on many States in the middle of 

their fiscal year, a further delay there may start to result in States 

no longer able to fund those positions, could result in reductions in 

staffing or layoffs. So that is a concern. 

The other concern is the short window that we will have when 

we do get a budget to get grants executed and provide grant guidance. What we have been working on is trying to get everything 

done up until we get the appropriations so that it is ready to go. 

We put out the draft guidance based upon the original request, 

then we will adjust that based upon the actual allocations and authorizations in the budget or any additional guidance. 

But a primary concern, I think, for State and local governments 

is really the Emergency Management Preparedness grants because 

it is one of the very few grants we have that actually funds positions in many parts of the country that would not otherwise have 

these positions. Because that has 50/50 money, as they go through 

their fiscal year, they are rapidly reaching the point that they can’t 

sustain that without some indication of that funding. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, maybe you and I could have a 

follow-up discussion about considering to bring something forward, 

stand-alone, that would protect this obvious vulnerability that we 

might have. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Sure. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. 

I now would like to welcome the Ranking Member of the full 

committee Mr. Thompson and recognize him for 5 minutes. 

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

unanimous consent that my written comments be included in the 

record. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Definitely. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Good morning, Mr. Administrator. How are you 

today? 

Mr. FUGATE. Doing good, sir. 
19 

Mr. THOMPSON. One of the things that we had a conversation 

about in the past is the number of disasters that we haven’t closed 

out. I think it is probably over 600 or 700. Can you give the committee a briefing as to where you are and what the plan is going 

forward? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. We have gone back and began the closeout 

of disasters. As you know, those older disasters oftentimes have 

funds that have been allocated but we know will not be needed 

that we need to deobligate, put them back into the Disaster Relief 

Fund. 

Last year we spent a lot of time trying to close out open Federal 

missions and contracts that were still out there, but were no longer 

needed. This year we are turning our attention to the disasters 

that we know the work has been done—we are literally just waiting for the final closeouts—and putting teams together, particularly with our chief financial officer, and going out and doing the 

financial closeouts of disasters, but also looking at disasters that 

work has been done, but we haven’t closed out, like the immediate 

debris and emergency public assistance. We still have dollars allocated, but the State is not going to draw them down—they have 

already done their work—and basically get that money back into 

the Disaster Relief Fund. So we are looking to close that out. 

If you would like, I can get staff to give you kind of an update 

on where we are at, how many are open, how many we closed last 

year, and what our target is for closing this year. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I would, because I think the Membership of this 

subcommittee and the full committee should know that we have 

over 700 disasters that are still out here that we are trying to work 

on. It is a lot of balls to have in the air at one time and while trying to anticipate future disasters. I guess my question is, from a 

budgetary standpoint, are you able to roll this money over for those 

disasters, or is this included in the annual FEMA budget allocation? 

Mr. FUGATE. As I understand the terminology, this is non-year 

money. So as we are able to recoup money back from the disasters, 

it goes back into the Disaster Relief Fund that would be applied 

against new disasters and current open disasters. Last year we 

were able to recoup out of open missions that we had not closed 

out until last year about $2 billion that had been allocated, but was 

no longer needed. I mean, this is, again, very substantial, as you 

point out, why we have to go back and close these disasters out. 

So we are working right now to go back into where we have provided, through the public assistance program, dollars that are no 

longer needed, or the work has been done but has not been formally released back into the DRF, and close those out and put the 

money back into the DRF for the disasters we currently have and 

for the future disasters. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Can you, in the information you provide to us, 

indicate whether or not the staffing needed to complete that mission is adequate; and if so, can you project some kind of timetable 

for closeout? 

Mr. FUGATE. We will do that, sir. 
20 

Mr. THOMPSON. With respect to the decentralization of operations, give the committee some of your feelings as to whether that 

succeeded, work in progress, or just what we need to do. 

Mr. FUGATE. It is moving well, I think. I mean, I remember that 

one of your concerns to me was the tendency that we had all of 

these big National contracts, and we weren’t hiring local. We were 

able to do some significant local contracting in response to the Tennessee floods as well as the floods in Georgia. One of the things 

that our acquisition team did and took to heart, your direction from 

last year, was we put together teams to go out and support the response and essentially adopt a philosophy that basically says in a 

disaster, as much as possible, we need to hire local and buy local, 

those services that communities can provide, not bring them from 

the outside. 

So we can give you an update on that as well, the teams that 

are out there. We have been able to demonstrate it in several of 

these disasters where we have been able to significantly increase 

the amount of local purchasing that we are doing versus everything 

coming from the outside. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Just as a backdrop to that, indicate whether or 

not it limited your ability to address that emergency by doing that. 

Did it cost any more? Was the time frame any longer because of 

that? Or if you feel comfortable in answering them right now, 

please do. 

Mr. FUGATE. It was the right thing to do, and it was cost-effective to do, sir. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. 

Now I want to recognize Mr. Marino from the great State of 

Pennsylvania, our vice chair. 

You are recognized for 5 minutes, sir. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, administrator. It is good to have you here. 

Mr. FUGATE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. MARINO. I want to thank you for entertaining us last month. 

I look forward to coming back. 

Let us switch gears here a little bit. Let us talk about procedure. 

Being in law enforcement for as long as I have, and being involved 

in disasters in my State, what modifications, if any, and what is 

your policy on FEMA communicating with the first-line responders 

prior to an incident? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, on the preparedness phase, we work quite extensively back through our various associations, through the various groups in training preparedness. But when it comes to disaster response, that process does go through the State. It is not so 

much policy as the way the statutory language within the Stafford 

Act, and how the construct is is that Governors support their local 

governments through their emergency process and, at the point 

where it would look to require Federal assistance, make those requests to us. We provide assistance. Generally in what we would 

call disasters where they are seeking primarily recovery assistance 

in the recovery-rebuilding assistance to individuals, that process 

generally works with us reaching out through the States, working 
21 

with the States, and then, as those requests come in, working on 

those requests. 

But as we know, some disasters can occur with little notice and 

can be such that we know it is going to require Federal assistance. 

That process is much faster. One of the things that this Congress 

did after Hurricane Hugo was amend the Homeland Security Act 

to give us more authority to respond prior to a Governor’s request. 

But in response to a disaster, you are going to find us working with 

the Governor’s team as we support local governments. 

That is the construct and how it is set up statutorily as well as 

how we are organized, but that doesn’t mean we don’t talk. In fact, 

one of the things that we have instituted with the emergency managers at the local level is not only talking with our counterparts 

at the State, but also holding routine conference calls with our representatives in the International Association of Emergency Managers, which are primarily representing the local emergency managers, so they have input as we are discussing issues and policies. 

We are also trying to do something a little bit differently. I was 

always very frustrated at the State and local level that oftentimes 

we never really felt like there was—we weren’t part of the team. 

It was almost like FEMA was a big brother, and we worked for 

them when a disaster happened. We are trying to change that and 

go, no, we work for you. We are a support agency. So as we work 

through the Governor’s teams, we are trying to maintain that dialogue on a day-to-day basis in which we prepare, but when we respond, we look to the Governor’s team to support the local responders. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

I understand the process if there is a disaster, but can you explain to me what method a first responder, a county would have 

concerning information that is required to prevent situations or to 

respond to them directly with FEMA? Is that possible? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. In fact, one of the initiatives we have taken 

is that in order to ensure that FEMA understands what these challenges are, we are currently working to detail staff to metropolitan 

cities on a basis where we will assign people for 3 months to do 

that directly with cities. 

We do a lot of our—particularly through the Urban Security Initiatives, but through other programs—work directly as part of a 

team. We really try to not bypass our State partners, but actually 

work with our State partners and local partners as one team, because the divisions don’t really work in a disaster. So we try to 

make that information available. We provide that access through 

our regional offices. But we also want to make sure that we are not 

keeping the State out of the loop. We want them as part of the 

team. But we provide that access. 

Mr. MARINO. My time is limited here. Let us switch it over. We 

certainly are aware of the debt that we are in, the budget cuts that 

have to be made. What are we doing to assure that the money, the 

great money that is out there, it is being used wisely, we are purchasing the equipment that we need and not the Cadillac that we 

do not need? What happens with that equipment after the disaster? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well disaster responses, we tend not to buy. We 

lease. So we, again, try to minimize our overhead cost by reoccur-
22 

ring cost afterwards. Generally our funding does not provide for, in 

the disaster response, purchasing equipment, but merely leasing 

what we need during a disaster. 

But our grant programs for the State Homeland Security grants, 

the Urban Security Initiatives and other grants do provide for 

things like vehicles, equipment, detection and stuff. I think this is 

one of the areas that in looking at the National Preparedness Task 

Force and their recommendations back to us of how do we measure 

outcomes and not look at the widgets, and because of the reduced 

funding and the pressure that local and State governments have is 

really getting down to what are the things we need to be successful 

in our response, not necessarily things that would be nice to have. 

So this, again, puts more emphasis, as was pointed out earlier— 

is doing a better job of assessing those things that really indicate 

we are better prepared and we have capabilities versus merely we 

have gone out and expended certain amounts of dollars. 

Mr. MARINO. Okay. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. We will have a chance for a second round as well. 

Now I would like to give the gentleman from Michigan an opportunity. You are recognized, sir, Mr. Clarke, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Fugate, as a new Member of this committee, I 

want to share with you that I feel confident that when you state 

that you are not going to be cutting back on capabilities necessarily, but looking at how your Department can be more efficient, 

that gives me confidence in how you are operating FEMA. 

I also want to commend you on your service in Florida. You have 

a great reputation. I checked you out. The fact that you know firsthand about what we have to deal with as a volunteer first responder yourself. 

I represent Detroit, the Detroit border sector, and as you are 

aware of, it is the busiest border crossing bar none in North America. We have a huge population center—multicounty, multijurisdictional population center—international airport, a large regional 

water system and other demographics that put us at high risk of 

either a terrorist attack or other catastrophic incident. I have got 

three questions. They are all related to the security of the Northern 

border and that sector in particular. 

But back in 2008, the GAO had recommended that DHS change 

its methodology and how it measures vulnerability in determining 

how it assesses risks and allocates funds in that particular grant 

program. Would that change, by accounting for regional differences, 

after the risk assessments for urban areas? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, the short answer is based upon both the infrastructure and location and population is one factor we looked at. 

But we also have what is the threat stream, what is the intelligence telling us where are things being targeted. That is what we 

have used. That has been evolving as we look at the changing 

threat of no longer looking at necessarily adversaries from the outside coming here to attack us, but also looking at individuals here 

that may also be part of or may be organized or unorganized in 

their efforts to disrupt or attack the United States. 

So the efforts are really based upon what is the existing infrastructure in populations, but also what the intelligence community 
23 

is telling us the threats streams are saying, these are the areas of 

interest, these are the areas being mentioned, and the frequency of 

that drive those determinations for that funding. 

Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. You also mentioned that, you know, 

when our first responders aren’t in good shape, we are not able to 

better protect our homeland. In the city of Detroit, the first responders are in bad shape because of fiscal issues. Do you take the 

security of the first responders and their own capabilities into consideration in determining the risk analysis under UASI? 

Mr. FUGATE. It is basically less about individual departments as 

much as we know the size of the agencies and the level of—based 

upon the size of the communities and the type of infrastructure or 

protection. It is really coming back to where do we see both the 

vulnerabilities of the community and the intelligence which is then 

used to determine that. Then based upon that is what kind of additional funding—and if you can look at the grant programs, when 

you do get those fundings, that is really driving at making sure, 

No. 1, the responders are trained to deal with weapons of mass destruction and terrorist attacks, they have the equipment and protective gear for that, but it also brings in other aspects, such as intelligence and fusion centers and information to support that. 

Merely building a capability to respond isn’t all that these grants 

are trying to do. They are also trying to prevent and deter these 

threats. So if those are the areas that are identified, then that 

funding does go for protection, but it also goes for a wide range of 

activities to not only be ready to respond, but also to try to prevent 

or deter a threat. 

Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Thank you, Administrator. 

One last question with the time that I have. It is regarding Operation Stone Guard. With the Detroit border sector, it accounts for 

nearly 10 percent of the Northern border, yet only 4 miles of that 

border are under what CBP considers operational control. In the 

President’s budget proposal, it limits the eligibility of that program 

to Southern border activities. In that context, how do you think 

that we can best coordinate border protection among the various 

jurisdictions in the northern border, especially in the Detroit sector, with that shift in Operation Stone Guard and eligibility to the 

Southern border? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, as a grant administrator, I am not the one 

that determines the priorities, but I know that we have been working closely with Canada on how we expand various things that 

would support the Northern border. But the priority would continue to be the southern bordering States, merely because of the 

level of violence that is occurring along those areas, the drug trafficking, the most recent loss of life, including an ICE agent. 

So that will still remain a priority with the funds that we have, 

but as the grants administrator, we take the guidance that is provided to us by our other components within the DHS to apply those 

funds. But it is going to continue to be a significant focus on the 

southern borders just because of the level of violence going down 

there at this time. 

Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Thank you, Administrator Fugate. I 

yield back. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. 
24 

Now I would like to recognize Mr. Farenthold from the great 

State of Texas. You are recognized, sir, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I just have one question that came from the 

Texas Division of Emergency Management. One of the on-going 

concerns that we have on the Texas Gulf Coast is the landfall of 

the hurricane, something that we all dread, but we all prepare for. 

I would like to get clarification about how FEMA plans to reimburse for emergency measures pre-landfall. 

A couple of times we have had a threat of a hurricane specifically 

in the Corpus Christi area, and the good Lord took care of us with 

a turn in the hurricane, but we had already spent substantial resources mobilizing ambulances and the like. Is this something that 

the States are just going to have to eat, or does FEMA have some 

plans to help out with that? 

Mr. FUGATE. You are not going to like the answer, but guess 

what? Responding to the additional evacuation of a hurricane is a 

primary responsibility of State and local government. As an emergency manager in Florida, we had numerous storms that we evacuated for and never got the first penny from the Federal Government. It was a cost of doing business in a great area and a great 

climate, but we had hurricanes. 

The Federal assistance is designed when it exceeds the capability 

of the State and local governments. So we look at the size of the 

storm, the intensity, the category. We preposition equipment and 

move supplies. But merely because an area does protective measures does not always warrant or demonstrate or exceed the FIT capabilities. So we do look at the size of the storm. We look at the 

amount of evacuation. We do encourage our States to be proactive, 

but it is not a guarantee because they are evacuating there will always be a declaration. 

I went through several hurricanes in Florida where the State 

spent over $20 million between the State and local government responding to, and getting ready for, and never being hit by a hurricane without the first offer from the Federal Government. It is unfortunately the price of paradise we have to prepare for. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. You are not going to find me arguing with 

turning as much over to the State and local governments as possible. But I do think the States need to know what they are going 

to be responsible for in order so they can do appropriate planning. 

So I don’t dislike your answer as much as you would think, but we 

do need a level of clarity, and we understand that living on the 

coast has its price. 

Mr. FUGATE. We work very closely through our regional office, 

Tony Russell working with the director there in Texas. I think that 

we went back and we look at our guidance which basically says 

when a major hurricane is threatening, you are evacuating a large 

substantial population, an emergency declaration may be warranted. That does not preclude us from pre-positioning or moving 

supplies. We are not going to let a State fail over this, but we also 

recognize that it was never the intention of the Stafford Act to always pay for the reoccurring cost of being prepared against hazards 

that are known and part of a State’s history. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. 
25 

I believe we have time for a second round since we basically kept 

to that 5-minute rule. So I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

The Department’s inspector general issued a report in December 

about FEMA’s issuance of a Fire Prevention and Safety grant to 

ACORN—and we have discussed this in the past, administrator— 

wherein the inspector general determined that FEMA should not 

have awarded the grants at issue. In its review it found that 

FEMA generally focuses its financial and programmatic oversight 

on recipients of large grants rather than using a risk analysis to 

identify necessary oversight. FEMA indicated that it has since 

moved to a risk-based method to monitor grants. 

Can you please discuss FEMA’s general method of grants monitoring and how you determine which grants should receive additional oversight? 

Mr. FUGATE. Mr. Chairman, I will be really broad in this because 

I would rather provide this in writing, because there were some 

very specific processes and procedures that were implemented in 

the grant shops based upon the IG’s report, and we did take those 

and we did implement those. 

But in general what we do look at is those organizations which 

may not have the financial backing to monitor a grant, but would 

otherwise qualify for a grant. We know that some organizations, 

they just don’t have the institutional history that would suggest 

they have done Federal grants before and understand all the process. We can provide more technical guidance and look at that. So 

we don’t just rule somebody out that would otherwise be eligible 

because they may not have had a history of managing grants, but 

we do look very closely at how and what capabilities they have 

from the financial aspects of managing a Federal grant and the requirements that tie to that as we look at those awards. 

The other thing is we have gone back and made sure that we use 

a peer review process in those grant programs, and we want to— 

again, as the IG pointed out, it is not to get into a situation where 

we do have the final say in making those determinations, but we 

want to make sure we are not discounting the peer review process 

and making arbitrary decisions. So we try to go back and take 

those IG findings. We have implemented them, and we can come 

back with a more detailed report. But our goal here is not to say 

that an organization would not be eligible merely because they 

haven’t had a history with grants, but what additional requirements will be placed on that grant to make sure that those moneys 

are spent effectively the way they were intended for, and that they 

have the accountability and the financial institutional controls in 

place to protect that money. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. Very good. But you will provide something 

to our committee? I think all the committee Members would be interested in a response in writing regarding that. Thank you. 

I know Ms. Richardson is interested in this as well. Can you 

please provide the subcommittee with an update on the status of 

FEMA’s efforts to recoup any improperly paid disaster assistance, 

how many claims are at issue, and when will individuals begin to 

receive notices of debt? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. 
26 

Mr. Chairman, the recoupment process was halted by a Federal 

court that found that FEMA’s process had issues and essentially 

required that FEMA withdraw from the Federal Registry our 

recoupment process until such time as we were able to address 

their concerns. This means that any disaster since Hurricane 

Katrina, we have not been able to move forward with recoupment 

because we do not have a Federal Registry notice of that process. 

We still do recoupment from older disasters. 

We are in the final stages of updating that process. We will be 

able to report back to you, I think, later this week, Mr. Chairman, 

the exact time frames that we are working on. But our first goal 

is to go back through about 160,000 in the Katrina-Rita, plus additional ones from more recent disasters would require recoupment. 

We have gone back through and looked at each one of these cases 

to, A, identify: Was there fraud involved? Which is a different matter, and we don’t have to have the Federal Registry notice for Government recoupment. We are taking those and looking at prosecution where we have fraud—and you will periodically see cases 

where people have been arrested or sentenced based upon that— 

and in going back through and making sure that the people that 

we think owe us money back, actually owe us money back, and it 

is not just an issue that documentation that we didn’t have 

matched up. So we want to be fair and equitable about this, not 

go back and ask people for money that should have gotten it but 

we didn’t have the paperwork caught up. Then as we go forward 

is to look at the time frames of implementing this. But I think we 

will be able to, by the end of this week, come back to you and actually give you the dates and the time frames as we go through this 

process. 

But our goal is to begin that recoupment and start that process 

back up, particularly since this court case and our Federal Registry 

notice, we can’t do any recoupments on the recent disasters. Oftentimes this may be where we had duplication of payments, where 

they had insurance that finally paid but had gotten FEMA assistance earlier and all that money back. So it is important for us to 

get this process started back up. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. I will go ahead and yield 5 minutes to the 

Ranking Member Ms. Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Fugate, how does the budget request support the effort to 

move forward on implementing the IPAWS system? Could you give 

us an update of this situation with American Samoa? Do they have 

a current alert system in place? 

Mr. FUGATE. We have a reduction in the IPAWS program. This 

will delay some construction that is scheduled to work on some of 

what they called the Primary Entry Point Stations, but it will not 

affect us from going forward next year with the National test of the 

Emergency Alert System. We can give you updates on that. But we 

did make some decision there that we would delay some of the construction costs, but it does not mean that the program won’t be 

able to implement the primary warnings. It just means some of the 

projects that were scheduled in the future will be delayed. 

We are working with the Government of American Samoa on the 

Tsunami Warning System. I don’t have the exact information on 
27 

where that is at, but we can provide a written report back to you. 

That was one of our priorities that I believe we discussed with you, 

the importance of getting a Tsunami Warning System, and not just 

a system, but actually the training and education for the population in place as well. I will provide an update on that. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. Thank you, sir. 

The full-year 2012 requests a decrease in the 6.6 reduction for 

U.S. Fire Administration. They have an extensive aging infrastructure. What are your thoughts about that area? 

Mr. FUGATE. Again, these were not easy decisions to make, but we had about $23 million in repair and maintenance that we had 

throughout the regions as well as with the National Fire Academy. 

It is actually called the National Emergency Training Center because it is the Fire Academy and the Emergency Management Institute. 

We actually have a project right now to do some work on the 

heating systems. Again, we are looking at what are the steps to 

provide effective systems, but it was not the original proposal, so 

we are having to scale back. We will be deferring maintenance, and 

we will not be doing some of the enhancements to some of the 

structures we would like to do. But again, these are issues that we 

have made a decision that we will push those out versus cutting 

into the ability to respond, or operate, or provide additional support 

and funding to our local and State partners. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So it is to defer, but not to end. 

Mr. FUGATE. Many of these will be deferred. Our priorities are 

still going to be life safety and accessibility issues we have, and 

right now we are continuing to work within our current budget on 

funding for right now the heating system out at the National 

Emergency Training Center, which needs replacement, and how we 

are going to go about doing that this year. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Fugate, as you know, I have stated before 

my concern about the disability coordinator, and it is my understanding you have put folks in the various regions. However, I 

think it would be a little unrealistic to have a disability coordinator 

with absolutely no staff support. 

So could you answer—and I have only got 2 minutes left, and I 

have two more questions, so if you could summarize your response 

quickly. 

Mr. FUGATE. The office here does have staff. The positions in the 

regions are the advisers—they are called integration specialists— 

to work with all the programs. But we can give you an update on 

the current staffing here. But I think we have some additional 

items we can provide you on that as well to give you an update of 

the status of that office and its activities. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Sir, in developing the full-year 2011 and fullyear 2012, the Transit Security Grant Program guidance evaluation submissions, how will FEMA ensure transparency in the evaluation and selection of projects and avoid discounting the risk to 

a region due to differences in needs, because I know that has been 

a big complaint of State and local government. 

Mr. FUGATE. We will try our best. This will always be one that, 

because of the variations in the various transit systems and things 

we are trying to do, we have really been working with our partners 
28 

at TSA, the Transportation Safety Agency, on working on the grant 

guidance and the direction there. So that is another one I will have 

to get back with you. But it is actually a partnership. Again, we 

are the grants administrator, but the Transportation Safety Agency 

actually provides a lot of the input on what the priorities should 

be. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Finally, sir, I have got 46 seconds: How can we 

help you? I don’t think we say that enough, and I wanted to give 

you an opportunity to say if there is something we can assist you 

with to better fulfill your mission and the mission of the folks that 

work for you. 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, it was always tempting to go, I can always 

use more money, but I know that is not the answer I am going to 

give you. But what I do need, you have the ability of reaching back 

in your districts, listening to your constituents and their concerns. 

I oftentimes feel, as we spoke earlier, that we have this big megaphone, and we shout out a bunch of stuff, but we don’t always 

know if it is being heard, or if it is reaching the right audience, or 

it is the right issues we need to address. 

So I think the biggest thing that you can do for us is to give us 

that feedback and give us the real world versus that perception 

that we may have here in Washington, well, this was going good, 

but the reality on the ground is that is not what is happening, and 

you need to know that. 

Our goal is always not to be defensive and say, well, something 

went wrong, it wasn’t our fault. It is like, no, we need to work on 

this and fix it, and if we don’t know, we can’t fix it. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I will work with you and the Chairman on that 

very issue. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. We don’t hear that very 

often in Washington, DC. It is very refreshing. We will take you 

up on that offer. 

We have Mr. Thompson, the Ranking Member. You are recognized for 5 minutes, sir. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Fugate, I am a resident of a rural area, and one 

of the things that you hear people saying is: What do I do in case 

of emergency? Let us focus on vulnerable populations, handicapped 

and disabled. Have we put in place the operational scenario that 

if a disaster occurs, we know who these people are, and how to 

move them from that point of harm to safety? 

Mr. FUGATE. The short answer is there are two schools of 

thought. One is we do registrations and try to get people to selfidentify, and the problem with that is most people get very concerned about giving out their information and identifying their 

needs and vulnerabilities. The other is to look at population and 

demographics and just plan for it being inclusive on the front end. 

Again, if we are evacuating populations, but we don’t have buses 

that are wheelchair-accessible, then we have an issue. But if we 

are providing buses that are wheelchair-accessible for the evacuation in the first place, then we have addressed this. 

So this is kind of the idea. We already know that a certain percentage of our population has various disabilities. We already know 

a certain percentage of our population are infants and children. We 
29 

already know a certain population is fairly elderly. Why don’t we 

plan for that instead of trying to bolt on something after the fact? 

So this is what we are trying to do is really focus in on quit writing all these annexes and go: Look, you are going to have kids in 

every disaster, so why aren’t you sending infant and baby supplies 

when you are sending food? Why are we sending buses that aren’t 

accessible, because then we have the issue, well, how do we move 

people in wheelchairs? ADA has been around long enough. You can 

contract buses that have the ability to do that. 

So it gets back to why don’t we plan for really what goes on in 

communities versus just doing the easy stuff and then figuring out 

how we are going to deal with special populations. 

Mr. THOMPSON. So how can FEMA push down that concept to 

State and locals that you absolutely have to do this? 

Mr. FUGATE. In our grant guidance and in how we operate. We 

changed one of our basic planning documents, which was the basis 

that we provided State and local governments on how to formulate 

your community disaster plans. 

Historically what we did was every time we found a population 

that we didn’t take care of in our basic plan, we wrote an annex. 

The problem was our annexes were actually more people than our 

plan was taking care of. So we have done a rewrite of that to put 

these issues on the front end and really focus on this idea of being 

inclusive and address these issues up front. 

But part of it is simply grant guidance. I will give you a very 

simple example: Smoke detectors. One of the things that the Assistance to Firefighter grants have done a lot of is provide grants 

for smoke detectors. The problem with that is unless you put specific language in there to be inclusive, people that are deaf or hard 

of hearing, a smoke detector does them no good unless it has the 

flashing lights and other devices, and that tends to be a little more 

costly, and it was easier just to hand out the smoke detectors. So 

we wrote grant guidance in that you needed to factor in and make 

available in your smoke detector programs an amount that would 

meet the needs for people that were deaf or hard of hearing. 

So part of this is getting ahead of it in the grant guidance and 

putting in the stuff about how to be inclusive. The other thing is 

you got to actually do it, and so building these things into our program so that we are addressing it. 

Mr. THOMPSON. So can you provide the committee with where 

you think we are in identifying these populations? 

My reason is in preparing for the hearing, I find that we have 

a plan for pets, but not for people with disabilities, and I think that 

is ironic. I have a pet, too, and Chico is part of the family, but I 

absolutely want us to make sure that we take care of the other 

populations. So you see where I am going? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Okay. As one of those individuals who was a victim of Katrina, though not having been directly impacted, people 

came to my community, I see you are in the process of doing this 

recoupment. I think that it is a real problem for us now to try to 

reach back 5 years-plus and ask people to produce records that we 

know they don’t have. I would say to you, with all sincerity, you 

should rethink it, because I think what you are creating is a funda-
30 

mental nightmare for families who had lives interrupted, and I 

can’t imagine being able to produce those records 5-plus years later 

to the satisfaction of any Government agency. 

I think the reason I am saying this is, you know, we made loans 

to communities to rebuild infrastructure, and we converted those 

loans to grants, and everybody said, fine. So here we are going to 

take Mr. Jones, we gave him $2,500 5 years ago, and said, oh, by 

the way, 5 years later, we need your records. I think that is asking 

a bit much of Mr. Jones. 

So, if you would, before we go out there and all of us get inundated with people saying, why are you doing this to me, I am just 

getting myself back together, I think it would be appreciated. 

Mr. FUGATE. Again, given the authorities that we have, we have 

to do the recoupments. We are trying, though, to address your concerns in making sure that if it was fraud, we are dealing with it 

as fraud. If it was the documentation and things that would support that they were a valid claim, we are trying to do that on the 

front end before any notices go out. So we have been going through 

about 168,000 of these records. But we will have to go forward at 

some point with recoupment, because not only is it for those disasters, it is for current disasters as well. 

So we understand, and we are very sensitive to this issue, but 

we do not have the ability not to go forward where there was a duplication or people were not eligible, particularly those that were 

not residents or directly impacted by the disaster. We would still 

require to go seek those funds back. 

Mr. THOMPSON. If the Chairman would allow, I understand that. 

But notwithstanding what you are about to do, I think people 

would reasonably expect 6 months or a year after the emergency 

you come back. It is almost like the IRS showing up and saying 5 

years later, we need your records. So I just think that hopefully we 

can provide some relief to you legislatively that can help with that, 

but I see that as a problem. The fraud, go after it. But I think poor 

bookkeeping and some other things will get sucked up into that 

same dragnet. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, sir. 

I now would like to recognize Mr. Marino for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator, I agree with my colleague to a certain extent. But 

let us focus on the large-scale fraud issues. Let us focus on the individuals, if you would, please—it is a request from me—on those 

who have profited and are still profiting from the deceit and fraud 

that they committed during one of the most horrendous disasters 

that we have seen. 

Switching gears a little bit again, I read an article and then saw 

coincidentally maybe a couple of weeks ago on a newscast that 

there was an individual down in Louisiana, a woman, who was not 

going to leave her modular home, and she had nowhere to go, and 

my heart goes out seeing someone in that circumstance. 

But could you elaborate a little bit on what happened with or 

what is being done with those modular homes? Were they leased? 

The Federal Government, does it own them? Are they sitting somewhere not being used? 
31 

Mr. FUGATE. Those were purchased as part of the temporary 

housing program. The ones that are not occupied we have gone 

back and retrieved. The ones that are still out there by and large 

still have somebody in them. We are working with the State and 

local officials. In fact, the City of New Orleans is moving to have 

all of those condemned and moved out and get people to go to other 

locations. 

We have been doing—I think this is something this committee 

and the full committee was very concerned about was not doing 

good case management and working to help people get to a longterm solution. 

Mr. MARINO. Let me interrupt you for a moment, if I could, 

please. I don’t want to run over my time here. 

When you say ‘‘condemned,’’ what reason are they condemned? 

Are these not liveable anymore? Is this a situation where we buy 

all this stuff with good intentions, and now we are done with it, 

and we have a shipyard full of modular homes? Could we not sell 

them? If it got down to the point people who can’t afford to have 

a place to live, why don’t we just give them to them? 

Mr. FUGATE. Some of that has occurred. The ones that have been 

turned back in were in the thousands and tens of thousands and 

hundreds of thousands, have been surplussed and disposed of. The 

ones we currently have are under 1,000. You have to understand, 

we were like a couple hundred thousand occupants. 

Probably ‘‘condemned’’ isn’t the right term. What the city is doing 

is they are zoning them out and no longer allowing them to be permitted in the city, basically because they want to move forward 

with their recovery, and having temporary housing units still in 

neighborhoods—— 

Mr. MARINO. Okay, I understand that, but what is the plan? 

What do we do with them? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, we are working to try to place those final families. This is in the less than 1 percentile, but these are some of 

the hardest families and individuals to get long-term solutions to. 

Mr. MARINO. I understand what you are talking about with the 

families. That is important, and that is critical. But what do we do 

with the—how many hundreds of millions did we spend on these 

units, and what are we doing with them? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, it was more than hundreds of millions, and 

most of them have already been disposed of. The ones we get now 

basically come back in, particularly the travel trailers, we are not 

keeping. We are surplussing those as they come back in. Some of 

those really don’t have much salvage value. Some do. 

But we can give you a report on that. Last year we did a significant amount of disposal through GSA sales and had eliminated a 

large number of those. But, literally, the numbers were staggering. 

Mr. MARINO. Are they liveable? Can someone live in them? 

Mr. FUGATE. Most of the ones that were from the Katrina response are not recommended or we do not permit them to be used 

for permanent housing because of formaldehyde issues. They have 

other purposes. They could be used for shorter-term occupancy, but 

not for residential purposes. 

Mr. MARINO. Okay. Could you follow up with me, please, on what 

we intend to do with those? Because driving through Louisiana, I 
32 

don’t want to see acres and acres and acres of modular homes that 

could be used and could be sold, or contractors use them a great 

deal. If worse comes to worst, if someone needs a home and they 

can’t afford it, I would rather see that individual be given that at 

no cost than just to sit there and rot away and be an eyesore and 

what do we do with it. It is just a scourge on the landscape. 

I yield my time. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I now recognize the gentleman from the great 

State of Michigan Mr. Clarke for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Fugate, I look forward to working with you to help better secure the Detroit sector border, and I yield back my time. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. 

So now, Administrator Fugate, I thank you for your valuable testimony and Members for their great questions. The Members of the 

subcommittee may have some additional questions for you, and we 

ask you to respond in writing, sir. The hearing record will be held 

open for 10 days. 

Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank 

you. 

[Whereupon, at 10:42 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(33) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN GUS M. BILIRAKIS OF FLORIDA

Question 1. FEMA has a number of medical countermeasures listed on the Authorized Equipment List (AEL), which enables States and local grantees to use 

grant funds for purchases of such products. These include countermeasures such as 

antibiotics that may help after a biological attack; cyanide antidote kits that may 

help after a chemical attack, and prussian blue and potassium iodide that may help 

after a radiological or nuclear event. 

I am aware that a number of first responders would like to be able to use grant 

funds to purchase the anthrax vaccine, a countermeasure approved by the Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA), for their voluntary use. These responders are often on 

the front lines after a disaster and see their counterparts on the DOD WMD Civil 

Support Teams who are vaccinated and yet they aren’t afforded the same protections. 

Why hasn’t FEMA added the anthrax vaccine to the list of medical products available to State and local grantees through the AEL? 

Answer. FEMA GPD maintains the Authorized Equipment List (AEL). The AEL 

is a list that is used by grantees to identify which equipment types are likely to 

be approved under the various preparedness grant programs. Additions to the AEL 

are mostly the result of recommendations from stakeholders including the Interagency Board for Equipment Standardization and Interoperability (IAB). It should 

be noted that FEMA has never received a formal request to add the anthrax vaccine 

to the AEL. FEMA GPD would consider such a request as we do all requests but 

would need to weigh the advantages and disadvantages. 

Question 2. Please describe the specific roles and responsibilities for FEMA and 

the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in the management of the Transit 

Security Grant Program (TSGP). 

Answer. In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding signed March 22, 

2011, between FEMA and TSA: 

• The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for designing and operating the administrative mechanisms needed to implement and 

manage the grant program. 

• The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) provides programmatic subject matter expertise for security in the transportation industry and assists by 

coordinating the myriad of intelligence information and risk/vulnerability assessments resulting in ranking and rating rail and mass transit assets. 

• These two agencies with assistance and cooperation of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), for rail and mass transit systems, and the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) as needed for freight rail operations, determine the primary security architecture of the TSGP. 

Question 2a. Does the current management structure delay the review of applications and allocation of grant funds? 

Answer. No. FEMA and TSA regularly meet the statutory deadlines set in the annual appropriations bills for application review and allocation of funds. 

Question 2b. What steps have you taken to ensure effective collaboration with 

TSA with respect to the management of the TSGP and other agencies such as the 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)? 

Answer. A signed Memorandum of Understanding between DHS and DOT dated 

September 28, 2004 outlines the roles and responsibilities of each department relative to management of the TSGP. An annex to the DHS/DOT MOU is in place between FEMA and FRA with specific regard to the Intercity Passenger Rail (IPR) 

grant program. This annex is currently under review to expand upon and provide 

a more collaborative approach for both the IPR and the Freight Rail Security Grant 

Program (FRSGP). 
34 

Question 3. What is the average time frame for the processing of a TSGP application from the point of submission, through project approval, to the actual release 

of funds? What are the primary causes of delays in this process? 

Answer. The submission of the application starts the 60-day period required for 

FEMA to take action on grant applications. Grant funding is then obligated and 

awarded no later than the end of the fiscal year in which funds are appropriated, 

consistent with appropriations language. 

The average time from award date until Release of Funds is dependent on multiple factors but is generally within 6 months. Fluctuations in this time frame are 

attributed to the grantee’s acceptance of award, budget review, and Environmental 

and Historic Preservation (EHP) review. These factors are dependent on the complexity and requirements of the project(s), as well as the prompt response from the 

grantee for required information. 

Release of funds requires acceptance of the award, final budget clearance, and 

EHP clearance. These actions are also dependent upon the prompt response from 

applicants/grantees to requests for information and required internal FEMA procedures. Some projects move quickly through EHP review while others may take a 

minimum of 45 days (for example, those requiring Regional review and consultation 

with the State Historical Preservation Officer). The Release of Funds process requires additional coordination, time, and effort among the program office and the 

financial divisions within the Grant Programs Directorate. 

FEMA has improved efficiency within the Environmental Planning and Historical 

Preservation (EHP) and Budget Review Processes, while providing EHP training to 

grantee Project Managers. 

FEMA has also phased the release of planning and design funds prior to the removal of EHP holds, which provided grantees with the ability to begin projects and 

draw down sooner. For the fiscal year 2011 grant cycle, FEMA plans to conduct 

budget reviews pre-award, to further reduce the time frame in releasing grant 

funds. The below chart illustrates the current TSGP grant cycle time line. 

Question 4. How does FEMA work with other components within the Department 

of Homeland Security, such as the Office of Health Affairs and the Science and 

Technology Directorate, when developing grant guidance or other FEMA policies? 

Answer. FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) works with various other 

components within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the development, implementation, and management of the agency’s preparedness grants. Federal interagency coordination is essential for establishing an effective and coordinated response between all levels of government. The collaboration of multiple components within the Department ensures that technical and subject matter expertise 

will be effectively incorporated into grant guidance and policies. Partners work in 

conjunction with GPD staff to provide effective communication to our stakeholders 

and grant program communities. Grantees benefit from a unified response, and support and assistance from the collaboration between GPD and other agencies within 

DHS as is evident in the following examples: 
35 

GPD and the DHS Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs and Chief Medical Officer (ASHA/CMO), Office of Health Affairs (OHA) collaborate in the Metropolitan 

Medical Response System (MMRS) grant program to provide resources to 124 specific communities in developing, maintaining, and enhancing medical preparedness 

systems that are capable of preventing, protecting from, responding to, and recovering from a public health crisis or mass-casualty event. GPD serves as the programmatic agency responsible for the development, execution, and monitoring of the 

MMRS grant program, and serves as the fiduciary agent responsible for grant administration, processing, and monitoring of the grant awards. OHA serves as the 

technical subject matter expert in medical and health security matters. 

GPD and the DHS National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office 

of Infrastructure Protection (IP), Protective Security Coordination Division (IP/ 

PSCD), work together in the development, implementation, and management of the 

Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP). BZPP funds are provided to increase the 

preparedness capabilities and resilience of selected jurisdictions with geographic 

proximity to high-priority critical infrastructure and key resources (CIKRs). 

GPD and the Office of Policy (PLCY), Screening Coordination Office (SCO) are the 

two offices responsible for the development and implementation of the REAL ID and 

the Driver’s License Security Grant Programs (DLSGP). GPD is responsible for 

grant program development and administration, and PLCY/SCO is responsible for 

policy development, program implementation, and strategic oversight. GPD, the 

DHS National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of Emergency 

Communications (OEC), and the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), Office 

for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC), work together in the development, implementation, and management of the Interoperable Emergency Communications 

Grant Program (IECGP). FEMA and NPPD/OEC also participate in the Emergency 

Communications Preparedness Center (ECPC) Grants Focus Group, which coordinates emergency communications grants with other Federal Departments and agencies. The ECPC Grants Focus Group developed recommendations to ensure common 

guidance for all Federal agencies that administer grants funding emergency communications. The recommendations will ensure consistent policies across multiple grant 

programs to assist State, local, and Tribal agencies with grant applications and 

grant administration efforts. 

GPD and the DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Office of Border Patrol 

(OBP) work together in the development, implementation, and management of the 

Operation Stonegarden (OPSG) grant program. 

In the Transportation sector, GPD and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) collaborate to meet responsibilities for implementing and managing surface transportation security grant programs, such as the Transit Security Grant 

Program, Intercity Passenger Rail Security Grant Program, Intercity Bus Security 

Grant Program, Trucking Security Program, and the Freight Rail Security Grant 

Program. GPD also works closely with the United States Coast Guard (USCG) in 

the administration of the Port Security Grant Program. GPD relies on TSA and the 

USCG to provide programmatic subject matter expertise for the grant programs 

while GPD provides oversight on all matters related to grant administration. 

GPD also works with subject matter experts within DHS S&T to coordinate the 

development of technologies and their policies for products that eventually are included in the Authorized Equipment List. In addition, GPD works with the DHS 

S&T Office of Standards to ensure that the standards referenced on the Authorized 

Equipment List are current. 

Question 5a. One of FEMA’s planned accomplishments for fiscal year 2011 is to 

develop performance measures to track FEMA’s efficiency in administering grant 

programs. In addition, FEMA is developing State Accomplishment Summaries that 

will help evaluate how States are utilizing FEMA grant funds. The development of 

performance measures and metrics for FEMA’s grant programs is long overdue. 

What is the status of these efforts? 

Answer. In February 2011 FEMA created a working group with the goal of developing a core set of measures (7–10) that can be implemented in the fiscal year 2012 

grant process that track how well GPD administers and manages the preparedness 

grant programs. The group is meeting weekly with the goal of having the management and administration measures fully developed by July 2011. The State Accomplishment Summaries (SAS) have been completed and are currently under review 

by senior members of the administration. 

Question 5b. How will FEMA work with State and local stakeholders in the development of the State Accomplishment Summaries and performance metrics? 

Answer. FEMA conducted outreach to States to collect data for the SAS. States 

were directly involved in the development and editing of all State Accomplishment 

Summary (SAS) DRAFTS. The National Preparedness and Assessment Division 
36 

(NPAD) and the Grant Program Directorate (GPD) cooperated to closely coordinate 

the collection of State and Territory accomplishments received through the FEMA 

Regions. These documented accomplishments were then integrated into every 

DRAFT SAS. These DRAFTS were then sent back to each State and Territory for 

their review and comments, after which NPAD, GPD, and the FEMA Regional Offices reviewed and validated each DRAFT Summary for submission to FEMA senior 

management for final review. 

Question 6a. The recent tragedy in Japan has made us reflect on our own level 

of preparedness should we ever experience a similar event in the United States. 

Do we have the necessary plans in the rare event of a nuclear emergency? 

Answer. Plans are in place at a variety of levels for an emergency at a nuclear 

power plant. The plans and procedures for the communities located near commercial 

nuclear power plants define the leadership, roles, and responsibilities at the local, 

Tribal, and State levels that would come into play in the event of a radiological 

emergency. These include the necessary interfaces with Federal agencies with direct 

statutory responsibilities in such an event. At the Federal level, the Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex to the National Response Framework defines the leadership, 

roles, and responsibilities for specific types of events. 

Question 6b. Have all countermeasures, such as the stockpiling of potassium iodide among other options, been looked at? 

Answer. The study of radiological countermeasures—such as potassium iodide 

(KI), and the stockpiling of these countermeasures—are primarily the responsibility 

of the CDC and HHS. The committee should seek specific information on National 

countermeasure stockpiling and effectiveness from these agencies. 

Each of the 33 States with a nuclear power plant Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) 

may set up a KI program within that EPZ. In accordance with the specific laws and 

policies of each these States, 18 distribute KI to members of the public in the EPZ 

both pre-incident and post-incident, 4 plan to distribute KI to members of the public 

only post-incident, and 13 have decided not to distribute KI at all. In the EPZ States 

with KI programs, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has funded replenishment 

of State stockpiles of KI on a periodic basis to coincide with expiration dates of the 

product. 

Question 6c. What have we learned so far from the incident in Japan about our 

preparedness here at home? 

Answer. We have learned a great deal from the events that have unfolded in 

Japan, and are actively examining lessons learned for potential areas that can be 

addressed in our preparedness efforts. Following the disaster, a team from the 

Asian Disaster Reduction Center (ADRC) and the International Recovery Platform 

(IRP) deployed from Kobe, Japan to conduct a Rapid Damage Assessment and Needs 

Survey. FEMA has engaged with both of these organizations and has compiled some 

preliminary lessons learned. FEMA is testing these lessons learned in the upcoming 

National Level Exercise 2011 (NLE 11). NLE 11 is also incorporating the use of social media which proved particularly helpful in the timely sharing of shelter information in Japan. FEMA will continue to examine the lessons learned from Japan 

and incorporate into our preparedness efforts as necessary. 

Question 7. On December 30, 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 

13527, Establishing a Federal Capability for the Timely Provision of Medical Countermeasures Following a Biological Attack. In the event of an anthrax attack, it is 

likely that State and local response capabilities will quickly become overwhelmed. 

Time is critical because chances of survival diminish if individuals are not treated 

with the required antibiotics within 48 hours of exposure. 

I understand that FEMA is taking the lead for the Department of Homeland Security in working with the Department of Health and Human Services to develop 

a Federal rapid response capability that will supplement the capabilities of local jurisdictions to rapidly distribute medical countermeasures during a biological attack. 

There have been a number of studies that highlight the challenges State and local 

first responders will face in establishing the traditional Points of Dispensing or 

‘‘PODs’’ and getting antibiotics to each person in need within the short 48-hour window from the time of exposure. 

What solutions have you identified that will ensure medicines get to those in need 

within the 48-hour window? 

Answer. In response to the Executive Order, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), led the development of an operational plan describing how the United States Government 

would support States’ and local governments’ response to a biological attack by rapidly providing medical countermeasures (MCM) to affected populations. FEMA and 

DHHS sent The Federal Interagency Operational Plan—Rapid Medical Countermeasures Dispensing to the National Security Council on September 30, 2010. 
37 

In furtherance of Executive Order 13527, Section 3, the NSS requested that the 

Department of Defense (DOD), in collaboration with the DHS and the DHHS, conduct an analysis to determine how the DOD can help support existing State and 

local medical countermeasure dispensing operations. DOD is working with three 

U.S. Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) cities (Los Angeles, Chicago, and the 

National Capitol Region), to determine how they can assist in expediting medical 

countermeasure initiatives following the first 24 hours of a request for assistance. 

USNORTHCOM hosted an MCM Interagency Workshop on March 22–23, 2011 to 

provide Interagency partners as well as representatives from Chicago, Los Angeles, 

and the District of Columbia, an overview of the USNORTHCOM MCM analysis. 

A presentation of the USNORTHCOM analysis to the National Security Staff (NSS) 

is scheduled for May 18, 2011 with final Courses of Action (COAs) expected on or 

about July 1, 2011. 

Following the FIOP–MCM submittal to the White House in September, DHHS 

and DHS initiated a joint review of the plan to identify critical near-term planning 

objectives. The purpose of the review was to ensure progress compared to the plan 

and to continue to search for new and innovative ideas on how the Federal Government’s resources could be leveraged to augment MCM dispensing operations. Members of the Interagency Planning Community met with several of the top UASI city 

health departments to include Los Angeles, Chicago, and the District of Columbia 

to discuss areas where Federal resources can be further leveraged to augment local 

dispensing resource shortfalls. The visits with the local health departments revealed 

robust planning efforts; however, the need for additional human capital resources 

to support not only initial, but also on-going dispensing operations, was identified. 

On February 14, 2011 the Joint Executive Steering Committee (JESC) for Executive Order 13527, Section 3, met to discuss the workgroup’s findings and concluded 

that more could be done to identify potential Federal capability pools and develop 

plans to rapidly protect and leverage those pools in the event of an Anthrax attack. 

It was also determined that DHS and DHHS should continue to develop a detailed 

implementation plan to implement the courses of action detailed in the FIOP–MCM. 

A revision of the FIOP–MCM, detailing a comprehensive Federal capability, responsible for responding to an aerosolized Anthrax attack, will be resubmitted to the 

NSS by the end of the fiscal year. 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER LAURA RICHARDSON OF CALIFORNIA

Question 1. In the coming weeks I will be reintroducing, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Preparedness Planning Act to assist local educational 

agencies and districts located in areas much like mine, that find themselves high 

threat of terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or public health emergencies to formulate and implement an emergency preparedness plan to provide for the safety of all 

young people. 

Taking into consideration the work that FEMA has accomplished with the Commission on Children and Disasters and other stakeholders, please explain to the 

committee how the fiscal year 2012 budget will assist in the enhancement of emergency preparedness in schools. 

Answer. FEMA, in coordination with the Department of Education, American Red 

Cross, Corporation for National and Community Service, and Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (VOAD), has several efforts underway to provide practical 

resources and assistance to institutionalize school and community-based youth preparedness programs, for example: 

• Under the fiscal year 2012 budget request, FEMA continues to provide resources for children developed by our Citizen Corps Affiliate Partners, including 

Get Ready with Freddie from the Home Safety Council, the Masters of Disaster 

curriculum developed by the American Red Cross, and the Risk Watch curriculum developed by the National Fire Protection Association. 

• FEMA will also continue to pilot and promulgate programs such as the Student 

Tools for Emergency Planning (STEP), which teaches 4th and 5th grade students about disaster preparedness, involving their families as they learn. 

• FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute (EMI) will be offering an 8-hour online course for school personnel, ‘‘Multi-Hazard Emergency Planning for 

Schools’’; a 4-hour on-line course for emergency managers called the ‘‘Needs of 

Children in Disasters’’; and a 1-week classroom course, ‘‘Multi-Hazard Safety 

Program for Schools’’, which is designed to help the school community plan for 

all types of disasters. 

• FEMA will also continue to enhance its Ready website to help parents and 

teachers educate children, ages 8–12, about emergencies and how they can help 

their family prepare. 
38 

• Ready Kids includes a family-friendly site and in-school materials developed in 

partnership with Discovery Education, Sesame Street, and Scholastic Inc. 

• There is also a Spanish language version of Ready Kids called Listo Nin ̃ os 

(www.listo.gov). FEMA will also continue to partner with Discovery Education 

in promoting the Ready Classroom, an on-line educational curriculum program. 

The program provides K–8 teachers with resources to integrate natural disaster 

preparedness information into their curriculum. 

• The on-line resource, www.discoveryeducation.com/readyclassroom, offers teachers activities, lesson plans, and multimedia tools that teach students how natural disasters develop and inspires them to build their own emergency preparedness plans with their families. 

Question 2. For fiscal year 2011 FEMA needs $3 billion in funding from the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) to respond to storms, hurricanes, blizzards, and other natural disasters. With current funding levels of only $1.478 billion for fiscal year 2011, 

the DRF is estimated to run out by May unless a full year is passed. Although funding for fiscal year 2012 for the Disaster Relief Fund is increased by 20% to $1.8 billion do you believe this amount appropriate, or do you anticipate additional funding 

will be needed as has been done in past years? 

Answer. The $1.8 billion requested for the Disaster Relief Fund, per standard annual practice, reflects the 5-year rolling average of historical obligations for non-catastrophic events (those less than $500 million in estimated obligations), less estimated recoveries for fiscal year 2012. We also have a robust strategy in place to 

de-obligate funds from past contracts and projects that are now complete and where 

we did not spend all the money originally obligated. Based on our experience in actively managing the unliquidated contract obligations in fiscal year 2010, we are 

taking the same approach for Public Assistance grants in fiscal year 2011, and anticipate that our projected recoveries will be greater than the $900 million estimate 

in the fiscal year 2012 budget request. These combined factors leave us less likely 

to need additional funding as has been done in prior years. 

Question 3. Administrator Fugate, you have in the past emphasized the need to 

promote the ‘‘Whole of Community’’ concept within emergency management. The 

concept highlights the important role of different non-governmental agencies in 

emergency preparedness, which includes non-profit, faith-based, and private sector 

entities. Additionally, the Department emphasizes the important role of citizens 

which is demonstrated by the recommendation to maintain level funding for a relatively small allotment of $13 million for the Citizen Corps grant program. Given 

the many natural and man-made threats we face, how does the Department’s grant 

realignment strategy, based on decreased dollars, consolidation, and elimination, 

support the ‘‘Whole of Community’’ concept? 

Answer. The Whole Community concept will continue to be addressed through the 

use of targeted investments in several homeland security grant programs, including 

the Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG), the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSP), and the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI). In 

coordination with FEMA’s multiple private and public sector stakeholders, FEMA 

will use their existing authorities to incorporate specific opportunities for grantees 

to develop community-oriented projects that would essentially mirror projects currently funded by any grants that would be subject to consolidation or elimination. 

FEMA will also modify current investment justifications to ensure that Whole Community concepts and objectives are reflected in project design whenever possible. 

Question 4. Your written statement references the Emergency Food and Shelter 

program by stating ‘‘it is not a disaster program and is not designed to serve disaster survivors’’. I would propose that resiliency is closing associated with enhancing 

the capabilities of economically disadvantaged communities—both emergency management agencies and citizens. Also, that programs such as the Emergency Food 

and Shelter program fits together with your ‘‘Whole of Community’’ concept since 

it relies on a partnership with local service delivery agencies. What steps has FEMA 

taken to work more closely with non-profit organizations that serve economically 

disadvantaged communities on a daily basis? How does FEMA distribute the preparedness message to economically disadvantaged communities, especially in rural 

areas? 

Answer. FEMA is actively partnering with non-profit, voluntary, and faith-based 

organizations that serve economically disadvantaged communities. Examples of 

these partnerships can be found in the Center for Faith-based & Neighborhood Partnerships, the Individual and Community Preparedness Division, as well as the 

Emergency Food and Shelter Program. 
39 

CENTER FOR FAITH-BASED & NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERSHIPS

Recognizing the dynamic, integral, and profound role faith- and community-based 

groups have in creating resilient individuals, families, and communities, the Center 

for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS Center) is working across the entire Department, and especially within 

FEMA, to build partnerships and strengthen relationships between DHS and voluntary, faith-based, and community organizations. 

Forms of Engagement 

• Regional Conferences 

• National Stakeholder Calls 

• Informational Meetings and Presentations 

• Initiative engagement and support (i.e. National Preparedness Month, Black 

Leadership Forum Summit) 

Impacts 

The charge to strengthen community resiliency by building partnerships and 

strengthening relationships between DHS and voluntary, faith-based, and community organizations is having an impact in three distinct ways. Recent examples include: 

• DHS Center hosted the Faithful Readiness Conference in Milwaukee. Participants included representatives from Governor Jim Doyle’s office, FEMA Region 

V, HHS Region V, faith-based & community organizations (FBCOs) representing WI, IL, MN, and MI as well as several State and local emergency 

management agencies. More than 180 participants were in attendance. The conference highlighted lessons learned from recent disasters and partnership strategies among Government and FBCOs to serve the most vulnerable populations 

before, during, and after disasters. 

• DHS Center hosted the National Flood Awareness Week conference call with 

117 faith-based and community organizations. The call focused on how to work 

with vulnerable communities to prepare for floods; review of the flood insurance 

risk tool and the need for development of local NGO leadership in rural communities prior to flooding. 

• The DHS Center, in partnership with FEMA Region VIII VAL, attended North 

Dakota Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (VOAD) meeting in Devil’s 

Lake, ND to be briefed by local, county, and Tribal officials on the status of the 

2010 Devil’s Lake flood disaster recovery efforts and to learn about the financial, social, and spiritual impact of 17 years of flooding in the region. The 17 

years of flooding has been devastating to Devil’s Lake, ND—especially the already economically vulnerable community of Spirit Lake Reservation. Subsequently, the DHS Center met with leaders of FBCOs located on Spirit Lake 

Reservation to discuss the unique challenges and opportunities of working in 

disaster recovery on the reservation and preliminary planning to form a Community Organizations Active in Disaster (COAD) to include the Devil’s Lake 

Community and the reservation. In addition, the Center met with Red River Resiliency, part of the Emotional and Spiritual Needs subcommittee of Fargo/ 

Moorhead COAD to discuss the challenges of the organization and potential 

ways for the Center to support their work. 

• The DHS Center, in partnership with FEMA Region III VAL, met in three parts 

of West Virginia with a cross-section of stakeholders: Agency, VOAD, house of 

worship, long-term recovery, and State officials. In these meetings, the participants identified challenges, successes, and areas of improvement to help 

CFBNP and the FEMA VALs support the State, the State VOAD, and long-term 

recovery efforts. West Virginia has many communities in great need for longterm recovery and has a severe lack of financial resources due to numerous 

small disasters in rural and economically disadvantaged areas—CFBNP is trying to help the community identify creative solutions for fulfilling unmet needs. 

• The DHS Center attended the Pikeville College South kick-off event along with 

FEMA colleagues. DHS Center commended the community of Pikeville, Kentucky on their rebuilding efforts since the July 2010 floods. Efforts include a 

$25,000 donation presentation by the Pikeville Ministerial Alliance. Federal, 

State, and local governments are partnering with faith-based and community 

groups, Pikeville College, and the private sector to remodel the motel to create 

60 new housing units for flood survivors. The rural and economically disadvantaged communities were hit especially hard with the floods. 
40 

Individual and Community Preparedness Division 

FEMA’s Individual and Community Preparedness Division (ICPD) supports this 

FEMA leadership priority by undertaking initiatives to engage organizations that 

serve economically disadvantaged communities. Recent ICPD efforts to get preparedness messages and strategic preparedness planning into important discussions 

include being involved in the 2010 Black Leadership Forum Summit, the Latino 

Leadership Summit, the 2010 Inclusive Emergency Management National Capacity 

Building Training Conference, and the Youth Preparedness Education Summit. 

These summits have allowed further strategic discussions with related organizations 

ranging from the National Pan Hellenic Council, the National Association for the 

Advancement of Colored People, National Council of La Raza and National Hispanic 

Christian Leadership Conference. FEMA’s goal is to make sure these organizations, 

and the communities they represent, have an active seat and voice in preparedness 

efforts. For example, FEMA has reached out to some of these key groups to participate in the National Level Exercise Citizen and Community Preparedness Working 

Group. 

FEMA has also piloted an Emergency Preparedness Demonstration Project (EPD), 

designed to help advance the capacity of disadvantaged groups to develop and actively participate in disaster awareness and planning. Its objectives are to: 

• Conduct research on the status of disaster awareness and emergency preparedness in socially and economically disadvantaged households and communities. 

• Design and implement demonstration projects to improve awareness and preparedness in such households and communities. 

• Develop proposals for incorporating changes in FEMA programs based on results received. 

The project provided a set of resources and procedures for spurring locally-driven 

emergency preparedness planning, with a focus on low-wealth neighborhoods and 

communities. Tools developed by the pilot include a six-step checklist, which provides disadvantaged groups a roadmap on how to organize, plan, coordinate, and implement emergency awareness and preparedness activities. EPD also included a 

focus on developing partnerships, for rural communities. The initial EPD work has 

led to increased strategies and resources with a rural focus. USDA Regional Rural 

Development Centers (RRDCs) have implemented programs with successful strategies identified under the EPD program. 

Emergency Food and Shelter Program 

The Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program (EFSP) is a Federal 

program administered by DHS’ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

and has been entrusted through the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 

1987 (Pub. L. 100–77) ‘‘to supplement and expand on-going efforts to provide shelter, food, and supportive services’’ for hungry and homeless people across the Nation. 

The National Board, the governing body of the EFSP, is chaired by FEMA with 

representatives from American Red Cross; Catholic Charities USA; The Jewish Federations of North America; National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.; 

The Salvation Army; and United Way Worldwide. United Way Worldwide serves as 

Secretariat and fiscal agent to the National Board. 

The program’s objectives are: 

• To allocate funds to the neediest areas; 

• To ensure fast response; 

• To foster public-private sector partnerships; 

• To ensure local decision-making; and, 

• To maintain minimal, but accountable, reporting. 

The National Board targets those jurisdictions each year that are most economically disadvantaged by allocating program funds based on the most currently available National unemployment and poverty statistics. The Local Boards that are convened assess the on-going food and shelter needs in their communities and select 

those local social service organizations best suited to deliver assistance according to 

the highest needs as identified by the Local Boards. As such, FEMA, by extension 

through the EFSP National Board and over 2,500 Local Boards across the country, 

works closely with local non-profit and government organizations that are daily 

meeting the needs of disadvantaged communities by providing assistance to their atneed populations in the form of food, served meals, shelter, and rent/mortgage and 

utility bill payments. 

The EFSP is a model program that fosters important public-nonprofit partnerships that enable the rapid and efficient delivery of emergency economic assistance 

to families and individuals on a daily, targeted, and coordinated basis. EFSP funds 
41 

are used to provide the following services, as determined by the Local Board, in each 

funded jurisdiction: 

• Food, in the form of served meals or groceries; 

• Lodging in a mass shelter or hotel; 

• One month’s rent/mortgage, and/or utility bill payment; 

• Transportation costs associated with the provision of food or shelter; 

• Minimal repairs to mass feeding or sheltering facilities for building code violations or for handicapped accessibility; and 

• Supplies and equipment necessary to feed or shelter people, up to a $300 limit 

per item. 

Question 5. As I mentioned in my opening statement, the House Leadership has 

decided to pursue a Continuing Resolution budget strategy. I am concerned that this 

strategy places additional strain on FEMA at a time when the agency and our State 

and local partners should be moving forward with the grant process and critical preparedness efforts. Can you provide the committee with insight on what issues are 

presented to FEMA, State, and local agencies with a condensed grant schedule? 

Please provide a general description of some of the homeland security investments 

State and local agencies used grants funds for in fiscal year 2010. 

Answer. With the delayed fiscal year 2011 appropriations, FEMA must condense 

the grant schedule which will have an impact on FEMA’s ability to fully review applications. FEMA is in the process of determining exactly what steps will be reduced 

in order to make awards by September 30, 2011. Application periods will be reduced 

in length. If FEMA determines that there is not time for sufficient review of noncompetitive grant program awards, it will be necessary to place special conditions 

on awards thus restricting obligation and expenditure of grant funds until full reviews can be accomplished. Competitive review processes will have to be reduced in 

length, thereby placing additional pressure on staff and partner agencies that participate in the grant reviews. 

Question 6. While I understand that we are in a time of exercising fiscal restraint, 

I do hope that it means we will not lose focus of the good that the State Homeland 

Security Grant Program (SHSGP) does in helping State and local first responders 

prepare for the worst. Once again the President’s budgets proposes the elimination 

of several smaller grant programs such as the Metropolitan Medical Response System and allow it to be eligible expenses under the (SHSGP). Can you explain the 

decision process and what factors determined which programs should be consolidated and those that should remain as carve outs and what feedback you have received from key State and local stakeholders? Also, what guidance will the Department provide to State and local stakeholders to assist them in the process of 

prioritizing risks so that grant dollars are focused on the resources most needed to 

enhance their preparedness? 

Answer. A March 2011 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenues (GAO–11–318SP), noted that the number of FEMA preparedness grant programs has grown from 8 in 2002 to 17 in 2010 as the result 

of Congressional and Executive branch actions. A number of these programs fund 

common eligible recipients (such as State homeland security agencies) for similar 

purposes. 

The DHS Inspector General had reported previously, in March 2010, that FEMA’s 

application process for its preparedness grant programs did not promote effectiveness and efficiency because FEMA did not compare and coordinate grant applications across preparedness programs to identify and mitigate potential duplications 

(for example, planning and interoperable communications are two activities that can 

be funded by almost all of the programs reviewed by the Inspector General); the report recommended FEMA do so. 

In response to these and other external and internal reviews, we are actively exploring opportunities to consolidate grant programs when it makes sense for FEMA 

and our grantees in a way that does not diminish the efficacy of the overall homeland security enterprise. Our grant program guidance will incorporate specific requirements to promote the use of tailored investment justifications to ensure that 

objectives of small programs such as MMRS are not overlooked. We are also actively 

incorporating specific risk analyses and performance measurement frameworks in 

all of our grant programs; this will further ensure that critical ‘‘small grant’’ objectives are retained within the overall homeland security program. 

Over the longer term, we look forward to working with the Congress to streamline 

and consolidate program-specific legislation to ensure alignment and efficiency. 
42 

GRANTS

Question 7. The President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request eliminates and consolidates a variety of grant programs. Among the largest programmatic grant reductions in the proposal are to the Firefighter Assistance program—the Staffing for 

Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) and Assistance to Firefighter 

Grant (AFG). For fiscal year 2012, the two programs would receive $670 million, 

$140 million less than the Congress provided in fiscal year 2011. While I do recognize the increased allocations for SAFER and AFG are still being cut by $200 million, can you please explain to the committee how the Department came to the decision to reduce funding for AFG while increasing SAFER grants? 

Answer. Due to current economic hardships on State and local governments that 

threaten the reduction in staffing of fire departments to dangerously low levels, the 

decision was made to focus limited grant resources on rehiring laid-off firefighters. 

The fiscal year 2012 budget request provides funding for more than 2,200 firefighter 

jobs. Additionally, some larger grant programs such as the State Homeland Security 

Program and UASI can fund some activities including training and equipment associated with the AFG program. 

The decision to allocate a higher percentage to the SAFER grants was based on 

the impact staffing, or lack thereof, has on firefighter safety. For example, in April 

2010, the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) (a National fire 

service organization that accredits fire departments), in conjunction with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), released a study that links the 

impact between staffing and arrival times influence on saving lives and property. 

One finding from this study indicates that four-person crews were able to respond 

and conduct search and rescue functions 30 percent faster than departments with 

smaller crew sizes. The study concludes that smaller crews (i.e. two-person crews) 

would impact sensitive communities (children and elderly) due to their inability to 

mitigate the effects of gas and fire exposure. Further, a report by the National Fire 

Academy found that in smaller communities, a crew staffed with four firefighters 

rather than three could perform rescue of potential victims 80 percent faster. 

Staffing levels also impact the safety of the firefighters. A study from the Seattle 

Fire Department concluded that ‘‘the rate of firefighter injuries expressed as total 

hours of disability per hours of fire ground exposure were 54% greater for engine 

companies staffed with 3 personnel when compared to those staffed with 4 firefighters.’’ According to the United States Fire Administration, there were over 

445,400 fires in 2009 representing 2,570 fire deaths and 14,100 injuries. Direct costs 

from these fires losses were estimated at $10 billion. The impact of smaller crew 

size can also affect the health and safety of a firefighter. Results from the CFAI/ 

NIST study showed that cardiovascular strain was higher when a crew of two firefighters was deployed than when a crew of five firefighters was deployed. In 2009, 

82 firefighters were lost in the line of duty. A contributing factor in these fatalities 

was stress and overexertion. As the CFAI/NIST study noted, there is strong evidence to show that heavy physical exertion and cardiovascular strain can trigger 

sudden cardiac events. There were 27 firefighters lost on the fire ground. 

In conclusion, increases in funding for SAFER grants are being proposed because 

of the need to avoid reductions in the number of firefighters. 

Question 8. In the President’s fiscal year 2012 Budget Congressional Justifications 

for FEMA State and Local Programs, the Department has taken steps to list their 

fiscal year 2012 Planned Accomplishments. Among the accomplishments listed is a 

reference describing the intent for funding of the ‘‘Assistance to Firefighters Grants’’ 

for fiscal year 2012 as to, ‘‘Enable hiring of more than 2,200 firefighter positions 

that curb the trend of layoffs and improve departmental capability to respond per 

National Fire Protection Association Recommendations.’’ Considering that the 

amount of monies funded for the AFG Program is reduced by $140 million to a total 

of $670 million and the need for many other things that local fire departments could 

do with that money, how did you come to the determination that the hiring of more 

than 2,200 firefighters would be possible? 

Answer. The following is the formula used to estimate the number: 

• GPD currently uses 5% of the appropriated funds for management and administration; 

• Therefore, $399,000,000 would be available for SAFER awards; 

• In addition to hiring firefighters the SAFER grants support the recruitment and 

retention of volunteer firefighters with an estimated 10% of the available funds 

are allocated towards those programs; 

• In fiscal year 2010 the average firefighter position was $81,600 (salary and benefits); 

• In fiscal year 2010 the period of performance for these positions was 2 years; 
43 

• Each fiscal year 2010 funded position received $163,200 (on average); • Given available funding (minus M&A and volunteer R&R), with an estimated 

cost $160,000 per firefighter for a 2-year period of performance, GPD estimates 

funding 2,200 positions. 

Question 9. As you know, the 9/11 Commission found that interoperable emergency communications was a profound area of need for first responders. While some 

progress has been made since that time, interoperability remains a major homeland 

security challenge. The President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request eliminates the 

Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECPG) as a stand-alone 

program and consolidates it into an eligible expense under the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP). Given the current fiscal difficulties that so many 

of our State and local communities are facing, are you confident that interoperable 

communications initiatives will receive the same level of attention in the grant application process as it now has with the existence of a distinct program as it now 

stands? 

Answer. Since fiscal year 2008, the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECGP) has awarded $145,150,000 to 56 States and territories. 

IECGP provides governance, planning, training, and exercise funding to States, territories, local, and Tribal governments to carry out initiatives to improve interoperable emergency communications, including communications in collective response to 

natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters. State and local 

governments have used IECGP awards to fund Statewide Interoperability Coordinators (SWICs), develop Statewide Communication Interoperability Plans (SCIPs) and 

periodic updates, and meet the strategic goals of the National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP). 

The State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) allows for funding of similar efforts; therefore, the budget request seeks to consolidate IECGP into the broader 

grant program in order to maximize the ability of State decision-makers to set priorities and to reduce the administrative barriers to grants. FEMA is working with the 

National Protection and Programs Directorate’s (NPPD) Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) to ensure that IECGP initiatives are maintained, such as meeting the requirements of IECGP Priority Groups One (Leadership, Governance, and 

Common Operational Planning and Protocols) and Two (Emergency Responder 

Skills and Capabilities Development through Training and Exercises). FEMA and 

NPPD/OEC are also coordinating to include IECGP allowable activities into the 

SHSP cost categories of planning, training, exercises, personnel, and equipment that 

will continue to enhance interoperability. Therefore, we are confident that the consolidation will not hinder the effectiveness of enhancing capabilities for interoperable communications. 

Question 10. Under the proposed continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011, H.R. 

1, the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) is reduced by approximately 12 percent when compared to the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget request. The cut will result in reduced funding for highest-risk States due to the mandatory minimums for States in Sec. 2004 of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. Would 

you speculate for us how the reduction will affect the awarding of grants under this 

program? 

Answer. Any reduction in funding for the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) will directly affect the highest-risk States, as DHS plans to allocate 

SHSGP funding based upon the results of the fiscal year 2011 risk analysis in accordance with the mandatory minimums as established by the 9/11 Act requirements. 

SHSGP risk is evaluated at the Federal level using an analytical model developed 

by DHS in conjunction with other Federal entities. 

• Threat—the likelihood of an attack occurring. 

• Vulnerability—the relative exposure to an attack. 

• Consequence—the expected impact of an attack. 

The risk model used to allocate SHSP funds considers the potential risk of terrorism to people, critical infrastructure, and economic security to estimate the relative risk of terrorism faced by a given area. If a State’s risk-determined allocation 

is below the statutory minimum, DHS must increase their allocation amount to the 

minimum threshold, which is absorbed by the States at higher risk. Reductions in 

appropriated SHSGP funds will in fact have a larger impact on higher-risk States 

unless the statutory minimums are lowered proportionately. 

Question 11. You regularly emphasize that citizens should be viewed as a resource 

and not a liability in preparing and responding to a disaster. The Citizen Corps Program builds on your emphasis of utilizing the ‘‘Whole of Community’’. Therefore, it 

is important that we continue to utilize this program as means to engage and empower citizens within emergency management and homeland security. Please de-
44 

scribe how the Citizen Corps Program has enhanced our Nation’s preparedness? 

Given our financial constraints, is FEMA committed to continue to build this program in the future? 

Answer. The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Citizen Corps 

program is a Nation-wide grassroots effort to provide all Americans with the knowledge, skills, and capability to take responsibility for their own safety and that of 

their families and neighbors. Located in all 50 States and six U.S. territories and 

reaching over 180 million people, Citizen Corps Councils are helping Americans 

make their own communities better informed, trained, and prepared for threats of 

all kinds. Through these Councils, local governments are bringing emergency responder groups together with non-profits, private sector, faith-based organizations, 

schools and school administrators, volunteer groups, and other non-governmental 

groups to address community-based strategies for preparing for and responding to 

threats of all kinds. FEMA is committed to expanding Citizen Corps Councils across 

the Nation, and with continued support from Congress, we can go further, faster. 

FEMA is committed to building individual and community preparedness across the 

whole community. Citizen Corps will continue to be an important part of that commitment. 

Question 12. Under the proposed continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011, H.R. 

1, Port Security grants are cut by $200 million, or two-thirds. Would you speculate 

for us how the reduction will affect the awarding of grants under this program? 

Answer. The goal of the port security grant program is to mitigate port security 

risks to include addressing the gaps and vulnerabilities that may expose our ports 

to terrorist attack. Toward that end, the program has been highly successful; all 

large ports have made substantial progress toward addressing the risks identified 

in their Port-Wide Risk Management plans. However, over the long term, a major 

reduction in funding could have a significant impact on the ability of port stakeholders to complete the job—to prevent, protect, respond to, and recover from a terrorist attack by addressing the security vulnerabilities that remain. 

Since the 2007 Supplemental round of port security grants, awards to the highestrisk port areas (that annually receive approximately 90% of available funding), have 

been administered through a Fiduciary Agent in which a single grantee is issued 

funds to support a collaborative approach for managing security risks throughout 

the port. The Port-Wide Risk Management Plan (PRMP) is designed to assess port 

security needs and identify specific capability gaps and risk-related vulnerabilities. 

The PRMP includes a list of prioritized initiatives and/or projects and a 5-year anticipated spend plan for the port area to address those gaps and vulnerabilities and 

reduce port security risks. Most of the PRMP spend plans were developed based on 

the assumption that annual funding levels would remain steady or increase for the 

duration of the 5-year plan. 

Although the fiscal year 2011 appropriation for PSGP reduces funding by 16.6% 

to $250 million, it does not necessarily translate to an across-the-board, 16.6% cut 

for all ports. 

In summary, from a grant programmatic perspective, it is not possible to predict 

exactly what the effect of reduced funding for fiscal year 2011 would be for the ports 

in the United States. However over the long term, and as previously noted, reduced 

funding may cause significant delay or outright abandonment of vital risk mitigation projects for the ports. 

FEMA’S OVERALL BUDGET CUT

Question 13. Administrator Fugate, the committee applauds the job you have done 

in rebuilding FEMA and re-establishing strong connections with the emergency 

management community. Yet, challenges remain including overcoming the memories of FEMA’s disastrous performance in response to Hurricane Katrina. Given the 

4 percent cut to FEMA’s overall budget, please describe your plans for continuing 

to strengthen FEMA and how the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget implements 

such a plan. 

Answer. As the President made clear in his State of the Union address, the current budget climate requires us to take a hard look at our agency and make tough 

decisions on how to spend limited taxpayer funds. As an emergency manager, I have 

never been given unlimited funds to fulfill my mission, and this year is no different. 

The administration’s proposed budget reflects the appropriate balance of reducing 

spending in several areas and enabling FEMA, through efficiency and innovative 

thinking, to fulfill its mission of ensuring domestic resilience to disasters. 

The fiscal year 2012 President’s budget request of $815.099 million for the Management and Administration appropriation reflects FEMA’s priority to manage resources more effectively across the Federal Government while ensuring the Nation’s 
45 

resilience from disasters. The agency has reexamined its current allocation of resources among existing programs to consider the relative return on investment 

among these activities, and to focus on those programs that have the most significant impact on the agency’s ability to fulfill its emergency management mission. 

Moreover, FEMA will focus on streamlining current business processes and harnessing the use of innovative technologies. FEMA is confident the 2012 President’s 

budget provides the level of resources required to support the agency’s ability to fulfill its emergency management mission. 

First, the fiscal year 2012 budget request reflects the resources required to support the current level of staffing across the agency. In recent years, FEMA has 

added staff to build internal capacity in the following functional areas: • Establishing Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMATs). • Developing National Response Coordination Center and Regional Response Coordination Center 24/7 watch capability. • Increasing operational planning capability. • Strengthening emergency communications through Mobile Emergency Response 

Support (MERS) and improved public disaster communications. • Enhancing the agency’s disaster recovery and logistics functions. • Building capacity for business support activities including acquisition management, information technology, and financial management. 

Through these additional resources, FEMA can now respond to disasters and help 

communities recover more quickly than before. For example, the agency can now 

provide IMATs, Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Teams, and MERS within 12 

hours of deployment notification. Moreover, the agency is now able to fill more than 

97.5 percent of orders for life-sustaining commodities (including meals, water, tarps, 

cots, blankets, etc.) within the required time frame. In short, the agency is making 

significant progress towards its goal of stabilizing communities impacted by Presidentially declared disasters within 72 hours of the event. In addition, today, the 

agency is able to provide more than 94 percent of eligible applicants with temporary 

housing assistance within 60 days of a disaster. The fiscal year 2012 budget request 

reflects the funding to maintain the internal capacity that FEMA has established 

in recent years. 

Additionally, the President’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 would sustain Federal funding of more than $3.84 billion for State and local preparedness grants, 

highlighting the Department’s commitment to getting resources into the hands of 

State and local first responders who are often best positioned to detect and respond 

to terrorism, natural disasters, and other threats. Even in this difficult budget environment, the administration recognizes the importance of maintaining funding for 

State and local governments as they prepare for major disasters and emergencies 

of all kinds. 

Question 14. Administrator Fugate, as you know, last year DHS submitted its 

first-ever Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) to Congress, followed by 

its Bottom-up Review (BUR), which included an assessment of DHS’ organizational 

alignment with the homeland security missions set forth in the QHSR. The BUR 

was hailed as the second step of a three-step process, with the Department’s fiscal 

year 2012 budget request serving as the third and final step. So now, the process 

is complete. Looking back, how did the QHSR/BUR process enhance budget preparation for FEMA? What organizational steps did DHS and FEMA take to ensure that 

the BUR informed the budget request? Can you point to specific items in the budget 

that were included based on the assessments from the BUR? 

Answer. The BUR and subsequent Resource Allocation Plan (RAP) development 

were used by FEMA to frame and organize its annual budget request. The agency 

recognizes the need to better articulate what we do, why we do it, and what is the 

outcome, and the BUR afforded FEMA that opportunity. The objectives of the BUR 

were three-fold: 

(1) Improve comparability and transparency agency-wide to provide a sense of 

what it costs to do business and what we achieve for those costs; 

(2) Improve performance management to describe the impact of delivering more 

effective emergency management; and 

(3) Improve costing to more accurately and reliably describe what it takes to deliver emergency management. 

Organizationally, FEMA executed a number of steps to ensure that the BUR informed the agency’s budget request. First, FEMA developed an ‘‘Activities Inventory’’ which serves as the comprehensive list of agency activities and foundation of 

FEMA’s annual budget, accounting for 100% of agency resources. Second, FEMA 

aligned its activities to the Department’s QHSR mission, goals, and objectives. 

Third, FEMA evaluated its current program and account structure related to activities and alignment to overall mission, goals, and objectives which helped the agency 
46 

better articulate its return on investment story. Fourth, FEMA has required performance measures aligned to activities to increase its ability to show programs’ 

contribution to the achievement of mission outcomes. Last, the process of 

inventorying and aligning activities to missions, indentifying the cost elements/drivers of each activity, aggregating activity costs to programs and missions, and tracking actual activity cost against spend plans for budget execution has enabled FEMA 

to better articulate the relationship to strategy. These efforts have enabled FEMA 

to more formally integrate the RAP (i.e. budget development) process with other 

program planning and budget processes. 

A couple of specific examples stem from the BUR and FEMA’s fiscal year 2012– 

2016 Resource Allocation Plan (RAP) development assessments. Mass Care was considered a part of FEMA’s Individual Recovery Assistance and aggregated therein. 

However, through the BUR, the importance of defining Individual Assistance—Mass 

Care as a distinct function directly supporting QHSR Goal 5.3 (response), whereas 

the typical Individual Assistance function directly aligns to the QHSR Goal 5.4. This 

resulted in a better understanding and articulation of the two distinct—yet related—functions being performed by the same personnel in the overall Recovery 

Mission—both of which are critical to the accomplishment of QHSR Mission 5. 

For the Preparedness Mission, the BUR assessment revealed a number of similar 

functions related to preparedness training and education and the various associated 

training sites. The Program—in reviewing the data—undertook a deeper review and 

recognized commonalities among training sites that resulted in a consolidating and/ 

or streamlining similar functions into an activity that describes the true function. 

Question 15. In an effort to save costs, the budget seeks to push back the date 

for the consolidation of FEMA to St. Elizabeths. How will this decision impact 

FEMA’s budget for the rental and leasing of office space? 

Answer. Pushing back the date for the consolidation of FEMA to St. Elizabeth’s will impact FEMA’s budget and leasing of office space. Currently, we are paying $32 

million annually in rent and operating costs for the eight NCR GSA-leased facilities 

up to fiscal year 2014. The anticipated funding for fiscal year 2014 rent would have 

been $24 million (thru June 2014). In the last quarter of fiscal year 2014 and fiscal 

year 2015, FEMA’s rent would have been $0 with the planned move-in to the St. 

Elizabeth facility. If the St. Elizabeth’s facility completion date is pushed back, GSA 

will have to renegotiate the majority of leases for FEMA in the National Capital 

Region and funding will have to be provided for the rent and operating costs of 

these facilities which could estimate $35 million annually for each year FEMA cannot move in to the St. Elizabeth facility. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

Question 16. The Department of Homeland Security and TSA continue to focus almost exclusively on aviation security, spending, on average, $9 per air passenger, 

as compared to only one penny per rail/mass transit passenger. What percentage of 

FEMA’s budget is being spent on surface transportation programs, such as technology research, training, and response and preparedness operations specifically for 

mass transit and passenger rail? 

Answer. The President’s fiscal year 2012 budget requests funding for program 

specifically focused on surface transportation program—the Transit Security Grant 

Program (Intercity Passenger Rail—Amtrak/Freight Rail Security Grant Program). 

The Transit Security Grant Program provides funds to support transit systems 

which include intercity bus, commuter bus, ferries, and all forms of passenger rail. 

The fiscal year 2012 request is $300 million, or approximately 4.4% of the entire 

FEMA request of $6.8 billion. 

TRAINING, MEASUREMENT, AND EXERCISE PROGRAM

Question 17. The budget request proposes a dramatic cut to the National Domestic 

Preparedness Consortium (NDPC), which identifies and provides first-responder 

training in the areas of terrorism and catastrophic event prevention, deterrence, and 

incident response. Please describe how FEMA came to decision to cut these important training programs utilized by our State and local first responders. 

Answer. The NDPC budget request was determined based on the fact that States 

are assuming increased responsibility for awareness level, refresher, and 

sustainment training that will allow our institutional partners to focus resources on 

more advanced, specialized training consistent with their respective expertise. 

SOCIAL MEDIA

Question 18. You have done a great job with utilizing social media to provide citizens with important emergency management agencies that will enhance their pre-
47 

paredness and speed the recovery process. Please describe how FEMA has enhanced 

the use of social media and how the budget request supports those efforts. How will 

FEMA ensure that individuals without access to the internet and social media, including the elderly, are capable of receiving timely emergency information? 

Answer. In support of FEMA’s Congressional Justification, FEMA’s strategy is to 

use social media tools the public are using on a daily basis, so we’re providing more 

of our information through those channels, including through our mobile website 

(http://m.fema.gov). In addition, DHS S&T is supporting FEMA IPAWS by examining the use of emerging technologies in public alert and warning. The First Responder Group is examining how the Emergency Response Community can best use 

social media to originate and disseminate alerts and warnings. Given the popularity 

and growth of on-line social media communities, alerting the public through social 

media, in addition to the other sources, serves as a critical dissemination channel. 

According to a survey conducted in August, 2010 by the American Red Cross, nearly 

75% of the U.S. population uses at least one on-line social media community. In 

light of the popularity of these networks, on-line social media offers an important 

opportunity for emergency managers to disseminate alerts to more people, in more 

places, in less time. An important part of this strategy is to not make the public 

conform to how we think they should operate. Just like going to a physical town 

hall meeting to listen and engage with the public, this is what we’re doing with social media, we’re going out and we’re listening. During a response, FEMA acts as 

a support agency and we’re part of the team, so we help amplify State/local messages, point users to State/city/Red Cross social media accounts, and highlight great 

examples of technology projects that benefit the public. 

FEMA employs a multi-pronged communications approach, understanding that social media and digital communication channels are only one tool in the toolkit. And 

as we often say, ‘‘FEMA is not the team—FEMA is part of the team,’’ where ‘‘team’’ 

includes the entire Federal family, State, local, and Tribal officials, the faith-based, 

businesses, and non-profits in the private sector, and most importantly the public. 

We rely on each member of the team to share information before, during, and after 

disasters, and work to leverage all of the resources that the collective team brings 

to the table in meeting that goal. 

During any incident, emergency information starts with—and it best provided 

by—the State, local, and Tribal officials who are primarily the first responders and 

know the needs of their communities and respective populations best. As such, 

FEMA works hand-in-hand with these partners to help support their communications efforts by amplifying their emergency messages. For example, if a State has 

issued evacuation orders prior to a hurricane, FEMA, in coordination with the State, 

will use all the communications tool in our toolbox to help amplify that message, 

so it reaches as many people in the targeted area as possible. And whether we are 

in ‘‘steady state’’ or in an emergency, we are constantly working with these partners 

on their emergency communications planning, to ensure they are taking all key factors into account, so as making sure their communications can reach individuals 

without access to social media and the internet, the elderly, people who speak other 

language, or people with disabilities, to name a few. As always, we stand in support 

of the States and are ready to assist with any communications needs they may have, 

whether it is translation services, planning expertise, or guidance on how to ensure 

all communications are 508 compliant. 

At the National level, and now in each of FEMA’s 10 regional offices of External 

Affairs, the agency has dedicated liaisons to the private sector who cultivate yeararound relationships with organizations that represent digital billboards such as the 

Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA), satellite communications companies like the Global V-Sat Forum which represents 200 global satellite companies, 

and other partners that can amplify critical messages through non-traditional channels. The private sector liaisons also share communications through other FEMA 

programs that maintains relationships with organizations that serve disadvantaged 

and local populations. For example, through its Individual and Community Preparedness Division, FEMA has affiliations with National organizations like Meals 

on Wheels and others that reach into specific populations. FEMA also has established a disability coordinator at the National and regional levels, maintains Voluntary Agency Liaisons at headquarters and in the regions, and works closely with 

the DHS Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Initiatives for reach into most 

local populations. 

FEMA’s private sector liaisons also works during disasters to leverage the communication channels of local and State-wide organizations, such as major employers, 

academic institutions, volunteer groups, and Chambers of Commerce. For example: 
48 

• During the March 2011 tsunami threat to the Pacific Coast, members of the 

Outdoor Advertising Association of America, Inc. (OAAA) displayed tsunami 

warnings to the public. 

• New England Floods, 2010: FEMA collaborated with the Boston Red Sox, New 

England Sports Network, the Boston Bruins, and with Clear Channel and 

Lamar Outdoor Advertising to communicate assistance information in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Also, FEMA and Rhode Island Emergency Management worked with National Grid, a major utility provider, to include disaster 

registration information in their April billings to 465,000 Rhode Islanders. 

• Tennessee Floods, 2010: FEMA worked closely with the National Football 

League Players Association, the Tennessee Titans, Gaylord Entertainment, 

Chambers of Commerce State-wide, and the music industry to share disaster assistance information with fans, customers, and other stakeholders. The Titans 

recorded Public Service Announcements with FEMA. 

• Sector Days: FEMA produced the first ever Technology Sector Day in early 2010 

as a forum to bring Government and key technology innovators together to discuss how to work better together and how to leverage technology to improve the 

way FEMA does business. Participants included technology giants such as 

Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Verizon, and others. FEMA also held a Federal 

Government Private Sector Engagement Workshop attended by White House 

representatives and Federal officials from two dozen agencies, advancing the 

ability of FEMA and the Government to engage with the private sector. (This 

Federal Workshop was only for Federal officials, not the private sector representatives.) Additional sector days are underway, including one held for retail 

industry leaders in March 2010. 

INTERNATIONAL DISASTERS LESSONS LEARNED

Question 19. Over the last couple of months, we have witnessed massive earthquakes and other natural disasters that have occurred across the world. I know you 

are closely monitoring these situations to learn how we can better prepare for and 

respond to disasters here at home. Please describe how FEMA collaborates with 

other countries’ emergency management agencies and implements lessons learned 

into its programming. 

Answer. FEMA collaborates with other countries’ emergency management agencies in a variety of ways: 

• Bilateral Cooperative Agreements 

FEMA exchanges best practices and solutions to emergency management challenges through participation in multilateral organizations such as the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the European Union and with emergency management offices in Australia, New Zealand, Israel, the Russian Federation, Canada, Mexico, Chile, and 16 other nations. Work plans developed to support these agreements have emphasized lessons learned sharing activities following the recent flooding and earthquake disasters in these countries. 

• Ad Hoc Requests for Visits and Speakers 

In fiscal year 2010, FEMA employees met with 720 emergency management officials from 69 countries to share knowledge and lessons learned. In fiscal year 

2010, 142 FEMA staff visited 37 countries to provide subject matter expertise 

through programs sponsored by NATO, the U.S. Combatant Commands, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers or the Agency for International Development, or to 

speak at events, observe exercises, or participate in other international activities. During such meetings and events, staff members learn about other countries’ emergency management systems, challenges, and lessons learned. 

• Multilateral Forums 

FEMA also collaborates with other countries’ emergency management agencies 

in multilateral forums where lessons learned are shared, namely the Senior 

Civil Emergency Planning Committee (SCEPC) of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum’s 

Emergency Preparedness Working Group (EPWG). In the next 6 months, FEMA 

will continue to engage with Japan under the APEC Emergency Preparedness 

Working Group (EPWG) during a Workshop on Private Sector Preparedness. As 

a member of the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on 

Disaster Reduction (SDR), FEMA also strives to remain informed of the United 

Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) initiatives and 

resources. The SDR is the U.S. National Platform to the UNISDR. 
49 

• Sharing Lessons Learned 

In an effort to share international lessons learned more broadly among FEMA 

and with U.S. emergency management partners and stakeholders, an International Lessons Learned page has been created and populated with content in 

LLIS.gov. Efforts to strengthen and sustain this page will continue as future 

international collaboration yield more lessons learned. 

• Promoting Change 

Information on New Zealand’s efforts to drive community resilience was explored during the preparation of Presidential Policy Directive on Preparedness. 

A similar trip to Japan has resulted in strengthened FEMA contact with Japanese counterparts, who have since shared with the agency information on the 

Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. This information, of which some lessons 

learned can be drawn, has been summarized and shared with FEMA leadership. 

In another example, recent staff involvement in other countries’ emergency exercises, have helped to inform the development of exercise injects for the U.S. 

National Level Exercise 2011 (NLE11) when six international partners will be 

players. FEMA’s Office of Policy and Program Analysis is working with international partners to identify community experiences that address local action 

and public engagement in resilience-related activities. The focus is on identifying themes that will inform future policy initiatives. 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN PETER T. KING OF NEW YORK

Question 1a. It is my understanding that the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget 

request for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) includes $7 million 

for the Prepositioned Equipment Program. However, it is also my understanding 

that the funding required to run the current 10 sites is $9.7 million and if the 

planned 11th site is open, $10.3 million will be necessary. 

Why doesn’t the President’s budget fully fund this program that provides vital 

equipment to first responders during disaster response? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2012 President’s budget request reflects FEMA’s priority 

to manage resources more effectively across the Federal Government while ensuring 

the Nation’s resilience from disasters. The agency has reexamined its current allocation of resources among existing programs to consider the relative return on investment among these activities, and to focus on those programs that have the most significant impact on the agency’s ability to fulfill its emergency management mission. 

FEMA is confident that the fiscal year 2012 budget request provides the level of resources required to support the agency’s ability to fulfill its emergency management 

mission. 

Question 1b. If full funding is not provided for this program in fiscal year 2012, 

how will FEMA make up for the shortfall in funding? 

Answer. Given the cost-saving measures that FEMA is currently pursuing, we believe we can maintain program readiness to support State, local, and Tribal response operations during a disaster within the projected fiscal year 2012 funding 

levels. 

Question 1c. Will the lower level of funding cause the delay of the establishment 

of the 11th site in Hawaii? 

Answer. FEMA has funds available in fiscal year 2011 to invest towards the capital investment costs to start-up the establishment of a PEP site in Hawaii. Utilizing this funding, FEMA is currently working to establish the 11th PEP site by 

the end of fiscal year 2011. 

Question 2. What impact has the continuing resolution had on the funding of the 

Prepositioned Equipment Program? 

Answer. FEMA has maintained readiness of PEP throughout the on-going continuing resolutions of fiscal year 2011 based on the partial funding allocations provided. 

QUESTION FROM CHAIRMAN GUS M. BILIRAKIS OF FLORIDA ON BEHALF OF HON. MIKE

ROGERS OF ALABAMA

Question. Regional Emergency Operations Centers are an important element in 

our overall preparation and response efforts in the event of a major disaster. Given 

that certain areas of the Nation, like the Gulf Coast, are more prone to natural disasters, how does FEMA plan to prioritize the utilization of regional Emergency Operations Centers and make any necessary funding available for them in the current 

budget environment? 

Answer. FEMA’s ten Regions are the first line of disaster response. For any given 

incident, FEMA disaster response begins and ends with the affected Region in the 
50 

lead. The Regional Response Coordination Center (RRCC) maintains a central role 

throughout the life cycle of an incident. 

The Regional Administrator stands up the RRCC by activating the Regional Response Coordination Staff, which includes FEMA personnel, the appropriate Emergency Support Function representatives, and other personnel (including representatives of NGOs and the private sector when appropriate). The RRCC provides needed 

resources and policy guidance to support an incident and coordinates with the National Response Coordination Center (NRCC), State emergency operations centers 

(EOCs), State and major urban area fusion centers, and other Federal and State operations centers as required. The level of an RRCC’s activation depends on the 

unique needs of each situation as determined by the Regional Administrator. 

The day-to-day cost of operating the RRCCs is part of the base budget dispersed 

among the Regions and is included in the facilities costs for Regional spaces (leases; 

utilities; maintenance) as well as in the agency’s Maintenance & Administration 

budget. In the event of a disaster and increased operational tempo, additional expenses for the RRCCs are funded through the Disaster Relief Fund. In addition, as 

necessary, the Regions can provide backup support to each other. 

The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Grant Program is authorized by Section 

614 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 

U.S.C. 5196c) as amended by Section 202 of the Implementing Recommendations of 

the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110–53). 

Administered through FEMA’s Grant programs Directorate (GPD), the EOC 

Grant Program supports flexible, sustainable, secure, strategically located, and fully 

interoperable EOCs with a focus on addressing identified deficiencies and needs. Regional EOCs are permissible under the EOC Grant Program however. FEMA relies 

on the individual States to identify whether a regional EOC would be beneficial to 

the State and to the multi-State area. 

Under the EOC grant program, the State Administrative Agency (SAA) is the eligible applicant and applies for EOC funding on behalf of eligible State, local, and 

Tribal EOCs. Each State sets its own priorities in determining which applications 

to submit for the National Review process. Each application [or investment justification] is initially scored by the SAA prior to submission to FEMA for inclusion in 

the National Review process. The National Review panel evaluates each application 

for completeness, adherence to programmatic guidelines, and anticipated effectiveness. 

Æ