Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

	<html>
	<title> - BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: THE NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS SYSTEM</title>
	<body><pre>
	[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
	[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


	BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: THE NATIONAL
	PREPAREDNESS SYSTEM

	=======================================================================

	(115-6)

	HEARING

	BEFORE THE

	SUBCOMMITTEE ON
	ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

	OF THE

	COMMITTEE ON
	TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

	ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

	FIRST SESSION
	__________

	MARCH 16, 2017
	__________

	Printed for the use of the
	Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

	[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
	transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
	transportation

	___________

	U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

	24-657 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019




	COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

	BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
	DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
	JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
	Vice Chair Columbia
	FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey JERROLD NADLER, New York
	SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
	DUNCAN HUNTER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
	ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas RICK LARSEN, Washington
	LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
	BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
	BOB GIBBS, Ohio DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
	DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
	JEFF DENHAM, California ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
	THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JOHN GARAMENDI, California
	MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
	SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Georgia
	RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
	MARK SANFORD, South Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
	ROB WOODALL, Georgia DINA TITUS, Nevada
	TODD ROKITA, Indiana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
	JOHN KATKO, New York ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut,
	BRIAN BABIN, Texas Vice Ranking Member
	GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
	BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
	DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JARED HUFFMAN, California
	MIKE BOST, Illinois JULIA BROWNLEY, California
	RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
	DOUG LaMALFA, California DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
	BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
	LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
	PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan MARK DeSAULNIER, California
	JOHN J. FASO, New York
	A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia
	BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
	JASON LEWIS, Minnesota
	------ 7

	Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
	Management

	LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania, Chairman
	ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
	BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia Georgia
	MIKE BOST, Illinois ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
	LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania Columbia
	JOHN J. FASO, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
	A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia, GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
	Vice Chair MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
	BRIAN J. MAST, Florida PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
	BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio)
	Officio)


	CONTENTS

	Page

	Summary of Subject Matter........................................ v

	WITNESSES

	Hon. Catherine Pugh, Mayor, City of Baltimore, on behalf of the
	United States Conference of Mayors:

	Testimony.................................................... 6
	Prepared statement........................................... 37
	Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Lou Barletta,
	a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania 43
	Wendy Smith-Reeve, Director, Arizona Department of Emergency and
	Military Affairs Division of Emergency Management, on behalf of
	the National Emergency Management Association:

	Testimony.................................................... 6
	Prepared statement........................................... 46
	Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Lou Barletta,
	a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania 55
	Nick Crossley, CEM, CPM, Director, Emergency Management and
	Homeland Security Agency of Hamilton County, Ohio, on behalf of
	the International Association of Emergency Managers and the
	National Association of Counties:

	Testimony.................................................... 6
	Prepared statement........................................... 59
	Responses to questions for the record from the following
	Representatives:

	Hon. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania........................ 63
	Hon. Brian J. Mast of Florida............................ 64
	Joseph Lawless, Director of Maritime Security, Massachusetts Port
	Authority, on behalf of the American Association of Port
	Authorities:

	Testimony.................................................... 6
	Prepared statement........................................... 65
	Questions for the record for Mr. Lawless from Hon. Lou
	Barletta of Pennsylvania and Hon. Brian J. Mast of Florida. 68
	Art Martynuska, President, Pennsylvania Professional Fire
	Fighters Association, on behalf of the International
	Association of Fire Fighters:

	Testimony.................................................... 6
	Prepared statement........................................... 69
	Questions for the record for Mr. Martynuska from Hon. Lou
	Barletta, a Representative in Congress from the State of
	Pennsylvania............................................... 74
	Thomas Roberts, Assistant Sheriff, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
	Department:

	Testimony.................................................... 6
	Prepared statement........................................... 75
	Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Lou Barletta,
	a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania 81
	William Daroff, Senior Vice President for Public Policy and
	Director, Washington Office, the Jewish Federations of North
	America:

	Testimony.................................................... 6
	Prepared statement........................................... 86
	Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Lou Barletta,
	a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania 90
	Michael Feinstein, President and Chief Executive Officer, Bender
	Jewish Community Center of Greater Washington:

	Testimony.................................................... 6
	Prepared statement........................................... 93
	Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Lou Barletta,
	a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania 97

	SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

	Letter of March 16, 2017, from Nathan J. Diament, Executive
	Director, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, to
	Hon. Lou Barletta, Chairman, Subcommittee on Economic
	Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management........ 99

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



	BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: THE NATIONAL
	PREPAREDNESS SYSTEM

	----------


	THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 2017

	House of Representatives,
	Subcommittee on Economic Development,
	Public Buildings, and Emergency Management,
	Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
	Washington, DC.
	The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
	room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lou Barletta
	(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
	Mr. Barletta. The subcommittee will come to order.
	Before we begin, I ask unanimous consent that members not
	on the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee
	at today's hearing and ask questions.
	Welcome to our first subcommittee hearing of the 115th
	Congress. I would like to thank Chairman Shuster for giving me
	the opportunity to serve again as chairman of this
	subcommittee. Welcome to our new ranking member, Mr. Johnson,
	and welcome to the new and returning members of the
	subcommittee.
	I look forward to building on our bipartisan record of
	accomplishment from the last two Congresses. Since 2013, we
	have saved $3.4 billion on GSA projects, passed the Sandy
	Recovery Improvement Act, passed the Federal Assets Sale and
	Transfer Act, and continue to look for ways to drive down
	rising disaster costs and losses. These were major
	accomplishments, and I thank everyone who was involved in them.
	This Congress, my two top priorities are public buildings
	reform and disaster legislation. I think that we can exceed the
	GSA savings from last Congress, and we have some important
	reforms to get across the finish line in the emergency
	management world. I hope we can have disaster legislation and a
	GSA reform bill ready for the committee to consider in the
	first half of this year.
	The purpose of today's hearing is to look at the resources
	and investments that have gone into building the National
	Preparedness System, which was authorized 10 years ago in the
	Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act.
	Since 2013, more than $47 billion in preparedness grant
	funding has been provided to State, Territorial, local, and
	Tribal governments to help reach the current level of national
	preparedness. This funding has helped these entities prepare to
	rebuild our infrastructure and communities when disasters
	strike.
	The State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Urban
	Areas Security Initiative helped first responders prepare for
	potential acts of terrorism by supporting planning, training,
	and equipment needs. The Assistance to Firefighters Grant [AFG]
	program, including the SAFER [Staffing for Adequate Fire and
	Emergency Response] and Fire Prevention and Safety Grants, help
	fire departments improve their baseline emergency response
	capability.
	The Emergency Management Performance Grant provides Federal
	funding to State and local governments for planning, training,
	exercises, and key emergency management personnel. Port
	Security Grant funds are used to secure and harden port
	facilities against the potential of a terror attack.
	These grants play an important role in building and
	sustaining the National Preparedness System.
	As a former mayor, I know all too well what it means to be
	a good neighbor and how critical help from your surrounding
	communities can be in times of emergency. No single community
	can handle every disaster on its own, and no community can
	afford all of the equipment and personnel to handle every
	disaster. These grants make it possible for mutual aid between
	communities and across our country.
	For example, not every city can afford a Level 1 urban
	search and rescue team. In fact, if every city had a team, the
	teams wouldn't have enough resources and would receive
	insufficient training because already limited resources would
	be spread too thin. But during a big disaster, help pours in
	from all directions in a timely manner, and emergency managers
	make this possible. They get the right resources to the right
	place in the fastest time. Their actions save lives and
	property.
	So we have to make sure that investments in the National
	Preparedness System are wise investments and that the taxpayer
	is getting the biggest bang for its buck. We also need to make
	sure that resources are being directed to where they are needed
	the most.
	Over the past 15 years, we have made significant progress
	in improving the Nation's ability to prevent, protect against,
	mitigate, respond to, and recover from disasters, both natural
	and manmade.
	But what work remains to be done? For example, I know many
	fire departments still lack the most basic requirements for a
	safe and effective response. Many firefighters still share
	personal protective equipment and gear. In addition, other fire
	departments are operating with severely outdated and sometimes
	inoperable equipment. The AFG and SAFER programs help local
	fire departments meet these critical needs.
	In Pennsylvania, 97 percent of our fire departments are all
	or mostly volunteer. In my own district, the Freeland Fire
	Department was able to obtain a fire grant for 103 sets of
	personal protective equipment, replacing outdated equipment
	which does not meet the current safety standards. This
	equipment is essential for firefighters to do their job and to
	keep them safe. I also have another community trying to replace
	a 42-year-old fire engine. Without these grant funds, these
	communities would not be able to secure the needed equipment.
	While we are talking about the firefighter community,
	please let me take 1 minute to recognize a devastating loss in
	Harrisburg. Last Friday, Lieutenant Dennis DeVoe of Mount
	Pleasant Fire Company No. 8 was killed by a drunk driver while
	trying to respond to a deadly house fire.
	Mr. Martynuska, please carry our prayers and condolences
	back to the Pennsylvania firefighter community and to
	Lieutenant DeVoe's wife and four children.
	I am also particularly concerned right now about the recent
	wave of bomb threats to Jewish community centers across our
	country. Over the last two decades, Jewish institutions have
	been the target of domestic terrorist attacks. The current
	threats are outrageous, and we must do more to protect these
	targeted institutions.
	FEMA has been charged with the difficult task of developing
	and managing the many components that build the National
	Preparedness System, from the national preparedness goal,
	hazard, and risk assessments, State and Federal preparedness
	reports, and preparedness grants.
	Today, we have brought together the key stakeholders that
	receive various preparedness funds to understand how they
	leverage this Federal investment to build national
	preparedness. These stakeholders represent our Nation's first
	responders and emergency managers. These are the people who
	work daily to build preparedness, response, recovery, and
	mitigation capabilities to make our communities more resilient
	to vulnerabilities regardless of the cause.
	I look forward to the conversations we will have today on
	the success our Nation has achieved and where we need to focus
	to continue to build a prepared 21st-century infrastructure. I
	thank you all for being here.
	I now call on the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr.
	Johnson, for a brief opening statement.
	Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I want to thank the ranking member of the committee as well
	as my fellow committee members in allowing me to serve in this
	distinguished capacity as ranking member of this subcommittee.
	I am pleased to be here today, and I am excited to work with
	Chairman Barletta and others on the subcommittee to advance the
	important issues of emergency management as well as other
	issues over which we have jurisdiction.
	Emergency preparedness and response are important issues
	that most take for granted until a disaster happens, and then
	suddenly there is a need for emergency services. Only then are
	we, many of us, reminded of the need for a substantive
	examination of what could have or should have occurred before
	the emergency or disaster happened.
	It is reassuring to know that this committee is one of the
	few that proactively examines the issues and needs of our
	communities as well as our talented emergency managers and
	first responders who have to endure in the face of often tragic
	consequences.
	A case in point: Earlier this year, two back-to-back
	tornadoes struck Georgia that caused substantial damage and
	forced hundreds into temporary housing shelters. Our first
	responders who lived in those same communities had to continue
	to do their jobs even as their families, friends, and other
	loved ones, perhaps even unknowing to them, had been injured or
	rendered homeless.
	This Congress, I look forward to advancing economic
	development issues across the Nation, especially in
	underperforming areas. While much of the country recovered
	economically and unemployment dropped to 4.6 percent under the
	Obama administration's policies, there are still pockets in the
	country that are hurting and in need of further economic
	development assistance.
	The ``2016 National Preparedness Report'' assesses the
	Nation's achievement and identifies any gaps in meeting the 32
	core capabilities identified in the national preparedness
	goals. The 2016 report found a few areas where State and local
	first responders have adequately met their goals but now need
	to focus on maintaining those capabilities. Moreover, the
	report found several areas where the Nation is lacking, such as
	recovery, and we need to ensure a sustained commitment to these
	areas.
	This is important because the administration is proposing
	drastic cuts to FEMA's preparedness activities. The budget was
	released this morning, and now we are having the opportunity to
	ponder these drastic cuts and the skinny budget situation for
	ourselves.
	Disasters will always occur, so we should be investing in
	pre-disaster mitigation to save lives, minimize damage, and
	speed up recovery. Reports have shown that for every dollar
	invested in pre-disaster mitigation we save $3 to $4 on the
	back end.
	Despite needing more work, our emergency management system
	is recognized worldwide as being one of the best. Without
	sustained funding to maintain the capabilities that we have
	obtained and to focus on those capabilities that need
	improvement, we will fall behind.
	I look forward to today's testimony, and I welcome our
	witnesses to this hearing on the National Preparedness System
	and the non-disaster grants used to develop core capabilities
	to ensure a robust and prepared Nation for all hazards.
	Thank you, and I yield back.
	Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Ranking Member Johnson.
	At this time, I would like to recognize the chairman of the
	full committee, Mr. Shuster.
	Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
	holding this hearing on national preparedness.
	Don't let the number of Members here--not think this is a
	really important meeting. There is a Committee on the Budget
	hearing going on today, so that is where all the action is. If
	you saw the front page of the Washington Post, it is going to
	be an interesting several weeks here in Washington.
	And I want to also say special thanks to the mayor of
	Baltimore, Mayor Pugh. Thank you for coming. I understand you
	have to give the State of the City Address today so you will be
	leaving before the end of this, but we really appreciate your
	input and your views on preparedness and all the things that
	FEMA does in the Federal Government and interacting with your
	city. So thank you for being here.
	I think everything has already been said about FEMA, the
	details. And FEMA is extremely important to the national
	preparedness--preparing, coordinating, facilitating the Federal
	response in disasters, whether manmade or natural. And in the
	last 15 years, FEMA has responded to almost 2,000 natural
	disasters and emergencies to rebuild our infrastructure in our
	communities.
	There is little doubt, if you see what is on the front page
	of The Washington Post today, we need to rein in the budget. So
	we are going to have to take a close look at the President's
	proposal, but it will come in favor of making sure we tighten
	our belt, just like the city of Baltimore has to do at times,
	just like families across America have to do.
	So we all have to look very hard and find out ways that we
	cut the fat but we don't cut the muscle, because that is
	incredibly important to us. But reducing the size and scope of
	Government is something we need the make sure we are focused
	on. And in these times of budgetary uncertainty, we need to
	prepare to do more with less. That is just the way it is
	sometimes to get our financial house in order.
	However, FEMA and the National Preparedness System's role
	in keeping our vital infrastructure open and functioning in
	times of emergency cannot be understated. And we have to make
	sure--as I said, we will take a close look at the President's
	budget and see where those cuts are, especially when it comes
	to FEMA and national preparedness.
	But we have to make sure we do everything--that FEMA has
	the resources so that when an unexpected natural disaster
	occurs, or a manmade event, that the resiliency of the
	infrastructure is there and that we keep America safe and
	competitive.
	So, again, I appreciate all of you being here today,
	especially, Mayor, really appreciate you taking the time out of
	your day to do this, and look forward to hearing your
	testimony.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
	We have assembled a panel of key stakeholders that
	represent various aspects of the preparedness system and the
	spectrum of grant uses.
	The Honorable Catherine Pugh, the mayor of Baltimore, will
	be testifying on behalf of the United States Conference of
	Mayors.
	Wendy Smith-Reeve, the director of the Arizona Department
	of Emergency and Military Affairs Emergency Management Division
	is here, representing the National Emergency Management
	Association.
	Nick Crossley, the director of the Hamilton County, Ohio,
	Emergency Management and Homeland Security Agency in
	Cincinnati, will bring testimony for the International
	Association of Emergency Managers and the National Association
	of Counties.
	Welcome to Art Martynuska, the president of the
	Pennsylvania Professional Fire Fighters Association, who will
	be testifying for the International Association of Fire
	Fighters.
	The Massachusetts Port Authority maritime security
	director, Joe Lawless, has joined us and will offer testimony
	on behalf of the American Association of Port Authorities.
	We will also hear testimony from Mr. Tom Roberts, the
	assistant sheriff from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
	Department.
	William Daroff is the senior vice president for public
	policy and director of the Washington office of the Jewish
	Federations of North America.
	And welcome to Michael Feinstein, president and chief
	executive officer, Bender Jewish Community Center of Greater
	Washington.
	I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements
	be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
	For our witnesses, since your written testimony has been
	made a part of the record, the subcommittee would request that
	you limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes.
	And as stated, I know Mayor Pugh has to get back for her
	State of the City Address and needs to leave early, so let's
	get started.
	Mayor Pugh, please proceed.

	TESTIMONY OF HON. CATHERINE PUGH, MAYOR, CITY OF BALTIMORE, ON
	BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS; WENDY SMITH-
	REEVE, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY AND MILITARY
	AFFAIRS DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE
	NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION; NICK CROSSLEY, CEM,
	CPM, DIRECTOR, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND HOMELAND SECURITY
	AGENCY OF HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO, ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL
	ASSOCIATION OF EMERGENCY MANAGERS AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
	OF COUNTIES; JOSEPH LAWLESS, DIRECTOR OF MARITIME SECURITY,
	MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
	ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES; ART MARTYNUSKA, PRESIDENT,
	PENNSYLVANIA PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF
	OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS; THOMAS
	ROBERTS, ASSISTANT SHERIFF, LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
	DEPARTMENT; WILLIAM DAROFF, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC
	POLICY AND DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON OFFICE, THE JEWISH FEDERATIONS
	OF NORTH AMERICA; AND MICHAEL FEINSTEIN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
	EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BENDER JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER OF GREATER
	WASHINGTON

	Mayor Pugh. First, let me say, Chairman Barletta, thank you
	and the Ranking Member Johnson and the members of this
	committee. I am Catherine Pugh. I am the mayor of Baltimore,
	and believe it or not, this is my 100th day as the mayor of the
	city of Baltimore.
	I did have the honor, by the way, to meet President Trump
	when he was President-elect when he came over to Baltimore to
	our Army-Navy game, and I want you to know that the letter that
	I handed him and the conversation that I had was around our
	infrastructure needs in our city.
	And as you well know, we are pleased that this subcommittee
	is led by you, two veterans of local government. Chairman
	Barletta, we especially appreciate the opportunity to discuss
	these issues with you, as a former mayor. I am a relatively new
	mayor, but my colleagues tell me, once a mayor--as you, I am
	sure, feel--always a mayor. And we expect that Ranking Member
	Johnson, as a former DeKalb County commissioner who is married
	to a current one, will also understand our perspective on these
	issues. It is the local first responders who are first on the
	scene when an event occurs and local officials who manage the
	response.
	My basic message today is that mayors of all of our cities,
	local officials across this Nation strongly support the
	existing menu of preparedness programs. I understand what you
	say in terms of cutting the fat, but I can tell you that in
	urban environments you will find very little fat. They are
	working and have improved our capabilities. Particularly
	important is the incentives they provide for Federal, Tribal,
	State, Territorial, and local jurisdictions to work together.
	There have been cuts in the funding available through
	several key programs in recent years, and we are alarmed by the
	additional cuts which we know, by the release of today's
	budget, are coming. These funding reductions have had and will
	have a significant impact on our ability to sustain and enhance
	capabilities in Baltimore and in cities across the Nation at a
	time when we see an increase in the number and intensity of
	natural disasters and an increase in violent extremism and
	incidents of terrorism.
	And let me just add that when you are surrounded by water--
	so I was so glad to see the Representative from Boston here,
	because we have a lot in common. The April 15, 2013, bombing at
	the Boston Marathon continues to provide an excellent example
	of how DHS investments, provided through the Urban Areas
	Security Initiative program, have really paid off. There can be
	no doubt that they contributed significantly to the Boston
	area's quick and effective response to this horrific act of
	terrorism.
	Since 2003, the Baltimore UASI has invested tens of
	millions of dollars in preparedness initiatives that have
	benefited our city and our region. Recent and expected further
	funding cuts, however, are severely affecting our ability to
	maintain and build on these investments and cut across law
	enforcement, fire, health and human services, information
	technology, and the many other public safety services we rely
	on every day.
	And I was listening to you, Chairman Barletta, when you
	talked about the fact that fires occur and people die, and I am
	reminded of six babies who died in a recent fire in Baltimore.
	And much of the equipment that we need we just don't have, and
	we need more.
	For over 10 years, the city of Baltimore has led the
	efforts of regional Maryland Task Force 2 urban search and
	rescue teams, which can respond to regional, State, and
	national disasters, earthquakes, hurricanes, widespread
	tornadoes, and manmade and terrorist events within 2 hours.
	The Emergency Management Performance Grant and other
	preparedness grant programs have been essential to the staffing
	and operations of our Office of Emergency Management.
	I actually got a chance to spend all day--because we didn't
	know whether we were going to get the 9 inches of snow or the 2
	inches of snow--in our Office of Emergency Services just to see
	how well it works but, more importantly, how all of us come
	together to make sure that we can respond to any emergencies in
	our city.
	Unfortunately, due to this drastic funding cut, the city of
	Baltimore and Baltimore UASI funding to maintain support and
	enhance our team was eliminated. I must say that we appreciate
	the work which this committee has done to strengthen the urban
	search and rescue program, and I am sure you share our concerns
	on the impact of these cuts on our team in Baltimore.
	Based on our experience with the National Preparedness
	System, America's mayors recommend the following:
	We urge Congress to resist further cuts in preparedness and
	other homeland security programs. We urge you to continue to
	resist any attempts to consolidate homeland security grants.
	And I say that because many of our cities survive in different
	environments, whether we are surrounded by water or surrounded
	by land or have massive transportation systems or none at all.
	All of us count on these kinds of grants.
	We suggest that any program reform or change be consistent
	with the following principles developed by the U.S. Conference
	of Mayors and other organizations which represent local
	governments, first responders, and emergency managers: increase
	transparency, and we are all for that; increase local
	involvement; provide flexibility with accountability; protect
	local funding; sustain terrorism prevention; provide incentives
	for metropolitan area regionalization.
	And I can tell you that, as a former State senator who has
	a great relationship with her counterparts in both Baltimore
	County and Prince George's County--and I think about my Harford
	County executive, who was my best friend, who happens to be a
	Republican, but, however, we were best friends and runners both
	in the Senate, who I cheered on to become a member of my
	committee, is now the Harford County executive. And my Howard
	County executive, who also--we, all three of us, served on the
	same committee. So we know that regionalism is important and
	that we can work together.
	We believe that the FEMA Administrator should have
	emergency management experience at the local level. While we
	understand the need to reduce costs, we want you to know that
	we have significant concerns with the disaster deductible
	concept that FEMA has proposed.
	I appreciate this opportunity to testify before you today
	on this issue of vital importance to me, my city, and my region
	and to mayors and other local officials across the Nation. The
	U.S. Conference of Mayors looks forward to working with you to
	continue to strengthen the National Preparedness System.
	Thank you so much for this opportunity.
	Mr. Barletta. Yeah, and thank you for your testimony. And I
	understand what you went through trying to remove the snow. I
	left my hometown yesterday, where they had 30 inches of snow.
	Mayor Pugh. Wow.
	Mr. Barletta. So I am very happy I am not the mayor today.
	Mayor Pugh. I am sure you are.
	Mr. Barletta. But, you know, there is a perfect example,
	where I had a conference call with the mayor and State
	officials, and, you know, they just had received a call--the
	police chief said they had just received a call where a woman
	was stuck in her home. She needed her dialysis treatment, and
	there was no way to get her out, with all the snow, whether the
	National Guard had to come in--but these are the situations
	that you deal with every day. So thank you----
	Mayor Pugh. So you can imagine, your 30 inches of snow
	would be like 9 inches in Baltimore.
	Mr. Barletta. Yeah. Right.
	Mayor Pugh. And so we had to make sure all the seniors had
	food. We had to make sure that all of our centers were open to
	take care of the homelessness. So all of these things are
	important to us.
	Mr. Barletta. And there is very little money in your budget
	to deal with that.
	Mayor Pugh. Very little. Very little.
	Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your work.
	Mayor Pugh. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.
	Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
	Ms. Smith-Reeve, you may proceed.
	Ms. Smith-Reeve. Thank you so much.
	It is probably not a good time to just note that I came
	from 90-degree weather. We have had snowstorms in the past, and
	I understand the complexities associated with that. And just
	like any other natural disaster, we all have to work together
	to ensure that we support and assist our community.
	So good morning and thank you, Chairman Barletta, Ranking
	Member Johnson, and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
	for allowing me to testify before you today to discuss the role
	of the National Preparedness System in building and supporting
	a strong 21st-century infrastructure for America.
	My name is Wendy Smith-Reeve. I am the director for the
	Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs Division
	of Emergency Management, and I also serve as the president of
	the National Emergency Management Association. NEMA represents
	the State emergency management directors of all 50 States, 8
	territories, and the District of Columbia.
	``Presidential Policy Directive 8: National Preparedness''
	recognizes that preparedness is a shared responsibility. At its
	core, this directive requires the involvement of the whole
	community in a systematic effort to keep the Nation safe from
	harm and resilient when struck by hazards such as natural
	disasters, acts of terrorism, and pandemics.
	The foundation of the National Preparedness System is the
	Threat Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment process, known
	as THIRA. While not perfect, we believe THIRA and the larger
	National Preparedness System structure has provided a baseline
	against which we can now measure progress towards a common
	goal.
	Improvements and tweaks will always be needed to ensure the
	process represents and incorporates the best available data and
	measures key indicators that communicate the gaps that exist
	and progress made over time. This reality must be balanced,
	however, with the need for change to improve outcomes and not
	succumb to the interest in change for the sake of change that
	could set us back years.
	The implementation tool for the critical functions of the
	National Preparedness System is the suite of preparedness
	grants administered by FEMA that are essential to State,
	Tribal, county, and local governments.
	From what we understand based on preliminary details from
	the fiscal year 2018 budget blueprint, significant cuts may be
	proposed to some preparedness grants, including the Emergency
	Management Performance Grant and the State Homeland Security
	Grant Programs. It is impossible to imagine a scenario in which
	these cuts, as significant as they are, do not, over time,
	affect and erode the operational capabilities at the State,
	Tribal, county, and local levels.
	These proposed cuts are not reflective of our homeland's
	current threat environment. The threat of terror attacks here
	in the United States continues to evolve and increase, and
	communities in every State face the ever-changing and emerging
	threats from natural disasters.
	FEMA's all-hazards focus allows capabilities to be built
	and utilized in a number of various events, ranging from
	wildfires in the West, Hurricane Matthew in the East, and
	response to terror events in Chattanooga, Fort Hood, Boston,
	and San Bernardino. 2016 included a range of hazards which
	resulted in 53 emergency and major disaster declarations by the
	President and 47,778 events that were resolved through the
	thriving emergency management system that exists at the State,
	county, and local and Tribal levels.
	Capabilities afforded through EMPG contributed to the
	ability of those events to be managed without additional
	Federal expenditures. By proposing significant cuts for fiscal
	year 2018, our investments since the inception of these grants
	are at risk and may actually increase costs to the Federal
	Government if more events begin to exceed State and local
	capabilities as a direct result of our inability to maintain
	pace with our ever-changing environment.
	Declining budgets at all levels of Government have
	increased the need to leverage resources and facilitate cross-
	jurisdictional coordination. We can no longer afford to operate
	in separate silos. We cannot divorce declining budgets from the
	structure that facilitates grant allocation.
	Today's dynamic threat environment requires a grant program
	that prioritizes investments based on risk while maintaining
	our collective ability to sustain prior investments that
	support national goals.
	Building a 21st-century National Preparedness System should
	also acknowledge that the Federal Government's response to
	disaster needs to be analyzed and streamlined to reduce
	redundancy, bureaucracy, and unneeded overhead and
	administrative expense. Together, let's analyze and eliminate
	redundancies and conflicts and get back to a streamlined and
	synchronized effort that serves and supports all parties.
	FEMA was originally created with the intent to serve and
	support communities impacted by disaster as the single
	coordinating body for Federal assistance. This is no longer the
	model that we have today. It is important to acknowledge that
	increasing the Nation's preparedness and response capabilities
	for the 21st century requires a strong National Preparedness
	System that facilitates the necessary collaboration,
	coordination, and structure for all critical stakeholders to
	achieve a common goal.
	If national systems are robust and implemented effectively,
	State, Tribal, county, and local governments can then make the
	tough decisions on how best to prioritize investment of
	critical grant dollars. Decisions regarding where to spend
	declining grant dollars are best made by those with firsthand
	knowledge of the threats facing their States and communities
	around the country.
	On behalf of the State of Arizona and NEMA members
	nationwide, we appreciate the continued support of this
	subcommittee as we work together to ensure that, as a Nation,
	we sustain a strong National Preparedness System.
	Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony, and I
	look forward to the questions any of the subcommittee members
	may have.
	Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony.
	Mr. Crossley, you may proceed.
	Mr. Crossley. Good morning, Chairman Barletta, Ranking
	Member Johnson, and members of the subcommittee. My name is
	Nick Crossley, and I am the director of the Hamilton County
	(Ohio) Emergency Management and Homeland Security Agency.
	I appear before you today in my dual roles as first vice
	president of the International Association of Emergency
	Managers and as a member of the National Association of
	Counties. I am here today as a representative of not just these
	organizations but the entire profession of emergency management
	practitioners--the profession dedicated to protecting America's
	local communities from all hazards and threats, natural and
	manmade.
	Chairman Barletta, in your home county of Luzerne,
	Pennsylvania, Emergency Management Director Lucille Morgan
	spends most of her waking hours preparing for floods along the
	Susquehanna River, a recurring problem she has helped to manage
	multiple times during her 24-year career with the county's
	emergency management agency.
	Congressman Johnson, in DeKalb County, Georgia, Emergency
	Management Director Sue Loeffler is tasked with preparing for
	disasters in close proximity to the busiest airport in the
	world and the headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control
	and Prevention. Sue works daily not just to help ensure the
	safe transport of various biohazards, including the Ebola
	virus, to and from CDC headquarters but also to prepare the
	community's response to accidental introduction of these lethal
	biohazards in the community.
	Across America, local emergency management agencies are at
	the center of our Nation's preparation, response, and recovery
	and strive to create a culture of preparedness that builds and
	sustains a disaster-resistant and disaster-resilient homeland.
	We are grateful to be part of today's conversation, because
	the mission we pursue daily is closely aligned with the goals
	of the National Preparedness System. In fact, over the last
	decade, the National Preparedness System and specifically its
	Emergency Management Performance Grant, or EMPG, have become
	pivotal pillars of support for efficient and effective local
	emergency management.
	Through EMPG, the Federal Government supports ongoing local
	efforts to develop, evaluate, implement, and administer
	emergency operations plans, trainings, and exercises in a
	manner that best suits the needs of each community and is
	conducive to interagency collaboration.
	Since Federal EMPG funds are always met with a 50/50 match
	from State and local recipients, the program is truly a
	partnership between local, State, and Federal governments. By
	fostering this partnership, EMPG not only helps us protect our
	own communities, it enables emergency management agencies to
	support and assist each other when disasters strain our
	individual capacities.
	EMPG also helps States coordinate the support and
	assistance among counties, both within and across State lines,
	ultimately creating a nationwide emergency management support
	structure that helps to save lives and lessen the impact of
	disasters.
	Over the last decade, this structure of support and
	assistance has strengthened our Nation's response to disaster
	in a measurable and documented manner. To cite one example,
	after Superstorm Sandy struck in 2012, Ramsey County,
	Minnesota, sent emergency management practitioners trained
	under EMPG to the State of New York to reinforce the efforts of
	overwhelmed emergency management agencies. Without EMPG, this
	sort of interstate coordination and assistance simply would not
	have happened, and the short- and long-term impact of the storm
	on New York and on our country would have been far greater.
	This is EMPG in action, increasing our Nation's resiliency
	to disaster by fostering a structure of emergency management
	coordination, support, and assistance that crosses local and
	State lines.
	A weakened EMPG program would not only result in greater
	damage to life, property, and infrastructure when disaster
	strikes, it would also substantially increase the need for
	post-disaster aid from the Federal Government. Because of this,
	cuts to EMPG are shortsighted from a budgetary standpoint and
	counterproductive to the goals of the National Preparedness
	System.
	In conclusion, the Emergency Management Performance Grant
	advances the goals of the National Preparedness System by
	fostering partnerships between emergency management
	practitioners at all levels of Government and in all corners of
	the country. When disasters strike our communities, these
	partnerships help to save lives, mitigate damage to property
	and infrastructure, and accelerate recovery.
	Thank you, Chairman Barletta and members of the
	subcommittee, for this opportunity to testify, and I look
	forward to your questions.
	Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony.
	Mr. Lawless, you may begin.
	Mr. Lawless. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Barletta,
	Ranking Member Johnson, for convening this important and timely
	hearing.
	My name is Joseph Lawless. I am the director of maritime
	security at the Massachusetts Port Authority. I am also the
	police chief at the port authority. And I am here today on
	behalf of the American Association of Port Authorities, where I
	am the chairman of the Security Committee.
	Since 9/11, port security remains a top priority for U.S.
	ports. Safe and secure seaport facilities are fundamental to
	protecting our borders and moving goods. Protecting the people
	and freight that move through seaports in surrounding
	communities is essential to keeping seaports safe and open for
	business. With 98 percent of overseas trade flowing through
	U.S. ports, a terrorist incident at a port could have a drastic
	impact on the U.S. economy.
	A key component of our Nation's preparedness system has
	been the Port Security Grant Program. Since 2002, over $3
	billion in port security grants have been appropriated. This is
	a vital funding source for port authorities and our partners to
	pay for unfunded mandates that have been put in place since 9/
	11.
	The AAPA is very concerned about the rumored budget cuts to
	the Port Security Grant in the administration's budget that was
	released today. A 40-percent cut to the Port Security Grant
	Program would have a devastating and cascading impact on our
	security, supply chain, and safety of our communities.
	Under the SAFE Port Act, this program was authorized at
	$400 million. Unfortunately, the funding for this program has
	decreased, currently standing at a dangerously low level of
	$100 million. As costs of systems, maintenance, and equipment
	continue to rise and security threats continue to evolve, this
	level of funding will bring into question the sustainability of
	the protection levels we have worked so hard to build over the
	last 15 years.
	Port Security Grant funds have helped port facilities and
	port areas to strengthen facility security and work in
	partnership with other agencies to enhance the security of the
	region. Port Security Grant funding has been used to procure
	equipment such as vessels, vehicles; install detection systems
	such as cameras and sensors; and provide equipment and
	maintenance for systems recently installed. It also provides
	funding for 24-by-7 response and patrols.
	For example, at my port, the Port of Boston, we used Port
	Security Grant funds to bolster our critical infrastructure by
	obtaining and installing radar intrusion detection systems,
	cameras, biometric access control and identification systems,
	active-shooter detection systems, and cybersecurity assessment
	tools. We even enhanced our emergency management and response
	capabilities by equipping our bomb squads with explosive
	ordnance disposal robots, advanced x-ray systems, bomb
	containment vessels, and preventative radiological and nuclear
	detection devices.
	As chairman of the AAPA Security Committee, I know that
	ports around the country have also utilized these funds to
	confront the multitude of physical and cybersecurity
	vulnerabilities that challenge the vitality of the maritime
	transportation network.
	At the Port of Los Angeles, for example, Port Security
	Grant funding has gone to installing over 400 cameras and 250
	access control panels, including an infrared camera capable of
	viewing objects 3 miles from the port of entry; building a
	cybersecurity operation center to monitor and respond to over
	550,000 monthly internet attacks on the port's business
	network.
	In Florida, the Tampa Port Authority have used Port
	Security Grants to purchase an innovative floating barrier
	system that was designed and manufactured in Florida. The
	system is designed to prevent a waterborne attack by a small
	vessel carrying an improvised explosive device. This system can
	be deployed in less than an hour by port security and law
	enforcement personnel, as compared to the traditional systems
	deployed by contractors; they take hours or days to set up.
	Channels under the jurisdiction of the port authority are
	used to deliver over 43 percent of all motor vehicle fuel used
	by Florida citizens and visitors. This investment has the
	potential to protect high-value targets against evolving
	threats of improvised waterborne explosives carried by small
	vessels.
	Security challenges are never stagnant. Cybersecurity is a
	prime example of an emerging security threat since 9/11. Ports
	are working with their stakeholders in addressing this very
	complex problem. And the Port Security Grant Program remains a
	vital component in assisting ports in addressing cybersecurity
	challenges by providing resources for cyber assessments.
	If Congress were to make tweaks to the FEMA Port Security
	Grant Program, as has been discussed by other committees of
	jurisdiction, we would recommend the following: Fund and
	authorize the Port Security Grant Program at the $400 million
	level or maintain the current $100 million level; increase the
	$100 million project limit to a $500 million per-project limit.
	And increasing the limit on cost eligible for funding would
	address the cost of acquisition and installation as well as the
	sustainment and maintenance of security equipment and systems
	that have increased since the authorization of 2005. This would
	address most of the multiyear funding issues that have been
	raised in the past as well.
	A 36-month grant performance period is the minimum needed
	for ports to successfully design, implement, and test projects
	to ensure maximum improvements to port security and operational
	capability.
	We encourage Congress to continue to emphasize a risk-based
	funding strategy for Port Security Grants. The Port Security
	Grant Program funding should be focused on the highest risk
	ports in the Nation in terms of consequence, vulnerability, and
	economic impact.
	Reduce or eliminate the 25-percent cost match required for
	Government entities, such as port authorities, police
	departments, and fire agencies.
	And keep the Port Security Grant Program where it is. Do
	not block-grant or consolidate this program. FEMA has done an
	excellent job in administering this program.
	Port Security Grants are managed quite differently than
	other homeland security grants. Priorities are set locally
	based on risk and vulnerability at the local port. Other
	homeland security grants have a list of core capabilities which
	all grantees try to attain. This capability list is based more
	on a movable and shared asset rather than set facilities. There
	is no such list of core capabilities for Port Security Grants,
	and the ones developed for other grant programs were not
	developed with ports in mind.
	Additionally, ports have certain Federal mandates, such as
	the transportation worker ID card, or the TWIC program, and the
	recently released TWIC reader rule, which goes into effect this
	coming year.
	Additionally, I would be remiss if I did not state that
	funding Customs and Border Protection and ensuring that ports
	are staffed with a sufficient level of Customs and Border
	Protection officers is critical for a safe and secure supply
	chain. CBP officers augment everything that the Port Security
	Grant program does.
	In fiscal year 2015, when Customs and Border Protection was
	funded to hire 2,000 staff, fewer than 20 officers were
	assigned to the seaports. We cannot let this disproportionate
	approach to security continue. Our Nation's seaports handle
	more than 11 million maritime containers and over 11 million
	international passengers each year.
	Finally, we have made a remarkable, well-prepared industry
	when it comes to security. As a security professional, we value
	the partnerships. We leverage funding and keep security as a
	priority. The FEMA Port Security Grant Program has been vital
	in keeping our ports and supply chains and communities safe.
	I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to
	testify today, and I look forward to any questions that you may
	have.
	Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony.
	Mr. Martynuska, you can begin.
	Mr. Martynuska. Thank you, Chairman Barletta, Ranking
	Member Johnson, and members of the subcommittee.
	Before I start my comments, Chairman Barletta, I want to
	thank you for your kind words of condolences for my brother
	Denny DeVoe, and I will make sure to pass those along to all of
	his brothers in Harrisburg. Thank you.
	My name is Art Martynuska. I am the president of the
	Pennsylvania Professional Fire Fighters Association. I
	appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf
	of the International Association of Fire Fighters, representing
	over 300,000 firefighters and emergency medical personnel.
	Today's fire service has evolved from a municipal force
	whose primary duty was to extinguish local fires to a highly
	integrated national system that responds to a wide range of
	local emergencies and national disasters. When the Nation faces
	any type of emergency, it is local firefighters who respond. It
	is from this unique perspective that we view the Federal
	Government's preparedness efforts.
	The horrific events of September 11, 2001, shook our Nation
	to the core, and Congress responded appropriately by creating
	the Department of Homeland Security and establishing new
	programs to protect the Nation.
	These laws fundamentally altered the way our Nation views
	emergency response and preparedness.
	Before 9/11, the Federal role in emergency management was
	largely confined to recovery after a major disaster. September
	11th forced us to face the deficiencies of this outmoded view
	and create a new paradigm among Federal, State, and local
	governments to better protect our communities. Under this
	partnership, local emergency responders came to understand that
	their job is not merely protecting communities from local
	incidents but to play an integral role in protecting all
	Americans against terrorist attacks and other major disasters.
	The Federal Government's role in this new partnership is
	twofold. First, it must be able to marshal all available
	resources, including the assets offered by the Nation's fire
	services, to respond to these events. And, second, to fulfill
	this obligation, the Federal Government must be willing to
	ensure that local emergency response agencies have the
	resources they need to successfully execute their missions.
	To successfully mitigate a broad palette of operational
	responsibilities, the fire service must maintain a continuous
	state of preparedness. Unfortunately, firefighters are too
	often expected to work with outdated equipment, minimal
	training, and insufficient personnel.
	The SAFER and Assistance to Firefighters Grant programs
	were created by Congress to help address these needs and keep
	firefighters and fire departments in an ever-ready state of
	preparedness. Providing funds to communities nationwide, SAFER
	and Assistance to Firefighters Grant programs have proven to be
	highly effective.
	For example, the Philadelphia Fire Department has struggled
	for years with a depleted fire force. In 2015, I am pleased to
	say that the Philadelphia Fire Department received a SAFER
	Grant for $22.6 million, allowing the department to add 160
	firefighters to the depleted rolls, enhancing safety and
	significantly reducing risk.
	Despite the clear improvements in preparedness produced by
	these grants, there remains a strong need for additional
	funding. According to the National Fire Protection Association,
	shortages in personnel, equipment, and training persist in many
	fire departments. Although SAFER and Assistance to Firefighters
	Grant programs have allowed fire departments to make headway
	against longstanding shortages, many departments are swimming
	against a rising tide.
	In addition to SAFER and Assistance to Firefighters Grant
	programs, we believe the homeland security grants, particularly
	the Urban Areas Security Initiative and the State Homeland
	Security Grant Program, have benefited the Nation's
	preparedness.
	Although these programs serve an important public safety
	need, shrinking budgets limit their effectiveness. We are
	concerned with this trend and warn that, if continued, it will
	have a significant impact on preparedness.
	Additionally, the previous administration proposed
	consolidating homeland security grants. We rejected this
	proposal, as did Congress. Given the limited Federal funding
	afforded to the grants, merging district homeland security
	priorities into a single block grant could cause such
	priorities to go unserved. We hope this proposal is not
	resurrected under the current administration and urge it be
	rejected again if it is.
	As you know, the National Urban Search and Rescue Response
	System provides a significant national resource for search and
	rescue assistance in the wake of a major disaster. USAR teams
	have been deployed to numerous disasters in the United States,
	including Superstorm Sandy, Hurricane Katrina, and, of course,
	the 9/11 attacks.
	I know this subcommittee values the significant work of our
	Nation's USAR teams, and I would be remiss if I did not thank
	you for your work last year to pass the National Urban Search
	and Rescue Response System Act. This legislation is a
	significant achievement by this subcommittee, and we appreciate
	your tireless efforts that resulted in this bill becoming law.
	Unfortunately, the USAR system is desperately underfunded
	and becomes more so each year. In 2006, FEMA estimated the
	annual recurring cost for each task force to be $1.7 million.
	Today, in many jurisdictions, the cost exceeds $2 million. For
	fiscal year 2016, Congress only appropriated a portion of the
	necessary cost for all 28 teams, leaving local sponsoring
	agencies to pick up the remainder of the tab.
	Unfortunately, tight local budgets have left many local
	sponsoring agencies unable to subsidize critical USAR
	functions, significantly straining task forces' readiness and
	capabilities. In fact, some teams have been so underfunded that
	they have been unable to respond to emergencies when called
	upon.
	Additionally, when local communities are forced to assume
	an ever-increasing share of costs, funds are inevitably
	diverted from local emergency service budgets. Thus, a failure
	to fund an inherently Federal function actually detracts from
	local preparedness.
	Adequately funding the Urban Search and Rescue Response
	System would significantly improve our Nation's readiness. A
	small investment would yield significant returns in ensuring
	that teams are prepared to conduct critical, lifesaving search
	and rescue operations in the wake of a disaster.
	These programs allow all the Federal Government to enhance
	preparedness at both the local and national level. That is why
	we are concerned with reports that funding for homeland
	security grants and other priorities within DHS may be cut
	under the new administration's budget. As the first line of
	defense in protecting our homeland, the Federal Government has
	an inherent responsibility to help ensure local fire
	departments can effectively protect the public safety. Cutting
	these essential programs would surely result in critical gaps
	in the firefighters' ability to respond to emergencies.
	I appreciate the opportunity to share with you our views on
	the National Preparedness System. We have made significant
	progress since 9/11 to enhance readiness and capabilities. We
	must continue to build upon this framework and resist
	suggestions to cut or underfund programs that are essential to
	our national security and well-being.
	Again, thank you for the subcommittee's opportunity to have
	me testify here today, and I will be happy to answer any
	questions.
	Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Martynuska.
	Mr. Roberts.
	If I could remind the panel to try to stay within the 5
	minutes. We have a large panel and some questions we want to
	get to.
	But thank you very much.
	Mr. Roberts. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
	Good morning, Chairman Barletta and Ranking Member Johnson
	and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the
	opportunity to share my agency's views on the importance of
	FEMA preparedness grants in securing Las Vegas.
	My name is Tom Roberts. I am an assistant sheriff with the
	Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. I currently oversee
	the Law Enforcement Investigations and Support Group and have
	been in law enforcement for over 30 years.
	Metro is the largest law enforcement agency in the State of
	Nevada, with over 3,000 sworn members, and we serve a
	population of 2 million permanent residents and 42 million
	visitors each year. It is one of the largest police agencies in
	the United States. We are also a member of two important
	professional law enforcement organizations: the Major County
	Sheriffs of America and the Major Cities Chiefs Association.
	With the ever-changing threat environment, the capabilities
	built in part through UASI and State homeland funds have become
	critical in our preparedness for our efforts to prevent threats
	to public safety. These capabilities are consistently supported
	by our local governments and our State. And the Federal
	contribution to those efforts is small in comparison but is
	essential to maintain the level of vigilance against threats.
	One of our major accomplishments made possible by the State
	homeland UASI grants is the development and sustainment of the
	Southern Nevada Counter-Terrorism Center, our State-designated
	fusion center.
	And, Chairman Barletta, I would like to thank you for your
	support for fusion centers across the country, to include ours.
	Metro does not source any grant funding for full-time
	employee positions or overtime reimbursement. Staff assigned to
	the fusion center are contributed by each partner agency at
	their own expense.
	The mission of the SNCTC is to combat crime and terrorism
	in Nevada by ensuring communication and coordination among
	Federal, State, local, Tribal, international, and private-
	sector agencies. The fusion center links homeland security
	stakeholders in southern Nevada through information sharing and
	analysis.
	Within the SNCTC are several successful programs supported
	in part by investments of both Homeland Security and UASI
	funding, whether technology, equipment, or training.
	The SNCTC participates in a nationwide suspicious activity
	reporting, SAR, initiative, which is the cornerstone of the
	National Network of Fusion Centers. The initiative provides law
	enforcement at all levels with the ability to detect and
	prevent terrorism and other criminal activity while strictly
	abiding by privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights
	protections.
	The counterterrorism section is comprised of law
	enforcement detectives throughout the Las Vegas Valley. It is a
	true actionable arm of the fusion center. They are a 24/7
	operation that runs 7 days a week, day or night, to ensure that
	nothing is missed and that our community remains ever vigilant
	in the fight against terrorism.
	We use grant dollars to support Silver Shield, which is
	Nevada's critical infrastructure protection program and
	implements the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, NIPP,
	in our area. Having initially formed with a mandate to conduct
	physical security assessments in critical infrastructure and
	key resource sites, the program has evolved to identify and
	prioritize and assess risk regarding infrastructure, assets,
	systems, networks, and functions that are critical to the
	State's economic security as well as public health and safety.
	The UASI program, while critical and effective, needs to be
	strengthened to keep pace with the current threat environment
	and to fulfill its original intent. In any given year, high-
	risk and high-consequence areas like Las Vegas are left out of
	UASI grant allocation. There needs to be a reevaluation of the
	MSA risk formula to accurately reflect a true count of approved
	critical infrastructure locations within the MSA by taking into
	consideration the clustering of critical infrastructure and key
	resources.
	Special events need to be factored into the calculation on
	how cities are targeted. No one does special events like Las
	Vegas, and taken DHS special event assessment rating listings
	only increase the true account of the risk to the MSA risk
	profile.
	We would like to see FEMA provide clear guidance as to what
	contributes to the threat category within the MSA process
	instead of the existing process, which in some cases does not
	appear to be accountable.
	There remains a strong need for law enforcement terrorism
	prevention activities, LETPA, a requirement that is current law
	under provisions. Twenty-five percent of all UASI and State
	Homeland Security Grant funds that are received by a State must
	be used for prevention activities. If this requirement was
	removed or otherwise watered down, there would be zero
	dedicated Federal support for terrorism prevention activities,
	which is a unique role in law enforcement. It would
	significantly reduce the amount of funding available to support
	our fusion center and true counterterrorism efforts.
	On a related note, we believe there should be more formal
	local law enforcement input into FEMA's grant guidance and
	prioritization process to ensure transparency in its policy
	directives, grant guidance, and risk formulas.
	I want to thank the committee and all the staff for your
	hard work and willingness to engage local law enforcement. As
	you can see, we have built very important capabilities with
	these programs, and we look forward to working with you to
	protect them.
	I look forward to any of your questions. Thank you.
	Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Roberts, for your testimony.
	Mr. Daroff, you may begin.
	Mr. Daroff. Good morning, Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member
	Johnson, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting
	me to participate in today's hearing. It is an honor to be here
	today.
	My name is William Daroff. I am the senior vice president
	for public policy and director of the Washington office of the
	Jewish Federations of North America. I take note of my
	colleague Robert Goldberg and my wife, Heidi, who are here with
	me today.
	JFNA and our 148 Jewish federations across the country are
	collectively among the top 10 charities in the Nation. Since
	September 11, nonprofits in general and Jewish communal
	institutions in particular, have been targeted by international
	terrorist organizations and homegrown violent extremists from
	across the ideological spectrum. As a consequence, Jewish
	communal security, and that of the nonprofit sector more
	generally, has great relevance to the National Preparedness
	System.
	In August of 2016, the National Counterterrorism Center
	reported that homegrown violent extremists are increasingly
	favoring softer civilian targets, including Jewish houses of
	worship, because they are perceived to have lower levels of
	security and because they are being encouraged directly by
	overseas violent extremists such as ISIL.
	In February, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that
	the number of hate groups in the United States rose in 2016
	from 892 to 917 and that the majority of these groups are anti-
	Semitic. Since January 1st, at least 116 Jewish communal
	institutions, including Jewish community centers, Jewish day
	schools, places of worship, and others, have received more than
	160 bomb threats in 39 States. Again, that is just since
	January 1st of this year. And I would note that those threats
	have occurred in each of the States that are represented by the
	members of the committee who are present here today.
	In fiscal year 2005, in response to terrorist and extremist
	threats, Congress with bipartisan support created the Nonprofit
	Security Grant Program. The program supports the acquisition
	and installation of physical target hardening investments to
	protect against threats identified as of particular concern to
	at-risk nonprofit institutions, including protection against
	explosive devices, arson, active shooters, assassination,
	kidnapping, chemical and biological agents, and cyber attacks.
	Prior to the establishment of the NSGP program, there was
	no committed, coordinated, uniform, centralized program that
	responded to, promoted, or ensured that at-risk nonprofit
	institutions participated in and benefited from meaningful
	Federal, State, and local security efforts. The NSGP program
	changed this.
	The NSGP program awards protect against threats and
	mitigate the effects of attacks, including the installation of
	access controls, barriers, blast-proofing, monitoring and
	surveillance capabilities, and cybersecurity enhancements.
	These are similar in nature to the physical security
	enhancements acquired and installed at Federal Government
	buildings in the post-9/11 environment, such as those
	protecting the Capitol and this very building we are in this
	morning.
	The program is competitive and risk-based. It involves
	State and local review and prioritization, followed by Federal
	review and final determination by DHS. The program applies the
	same geographic limitations as FEMA's Urban Areas Security
	Initiative, which, as of fiscal year 2016, included 29 urban
	areas in 20 specified States and the District of Columbia.
	The Nonprofit Security Grant Program has become an
	essential component of the preparedness grant programs at FEMA.
	It maintains bipartisan support in both the House and the
	Senate and is thought of as an efficient and effective means to
	accomplish a great deal of security enhancement and
	preparedness using modest resources. With a continuing and
	growing record of threats, attempted attacks, and deadly
	occurrences targeting Jewish communal institutions, as well as
	to other vulnerable populations within the nonprofit sector, we
	believe there is ample justification for Congress to maintain
	the Nonprofit Security Grant Program as a singular, standalone
	initiative as a matter of national security preparedness.
	Congress should consider ways to strengthen the program, not to
	dismantle it.
	Conversely, we strongly believe that any effort to supplant
	the NSGP program as part of the consolidation of larger
	preparedness grant programs would disenfranchise at-risk
	nonprofit stakeholders, who could not be expected to
	meaningfully participate in or effectively compete with larger,
	more formidable and connected stakeholders for resources in an
	integrated, competitive process. Such a move would dilute the
	connectivity and continuity between local nonprofit
	stakeholders and the State Administrative Agencies, and between
	FEMA and national nonprofit stakeholders, such as JFNA.
	Rather, in addition to maintaining the integrity of the
	NSGP program in its current form, we know that the threats to
	our communal institutions have expanded geographically to
	smaller and more diffuse communities located outside of the
	enumerated UASI areas. As such, we believe there is need for
	Congress to take immediate action to further strengthen the
	integration of nonprofit preparedness within State and local
	preparedness activities. To this end, we would welcome the
	subcommittee exploring other opportunities to build nonprofit
	security capabilities through the National Preparedness System.
	Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the
	importance of the Nonprofit Security Grant Program as a
	standalone initiative, and the imperative to strengthen the
	ability and increase opportunities for further integration of
	nonprofit preparedness within the National Preparedness System.
	I look forward to the opportunity to answer questions.
	Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony.
	Mr. Feinstein, you may proceed.
	Mr. Feinstein. Thank you, Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member
	Johnson, and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity
	to testify today regarding FEMA's Nonprofit Security Grant
	Program. My name is Michael Feinstein, and I am the president
	and chief executive office of the Bender JCC located in
	Rockville, Maryland.
	The Bender JCC is a warm, inclusive, diverse, and thriving
	community that welcomes everyone to participate in our
	programs: people of all backgrounds, faiths, ethnicities,
	abilities, and sexual orientations. We serve a cross section of
	the area's population, from young mothers with infants to
	seniors who are 100 years old. Tens of thousands of people
	participate in our cultural, educational, recreational, social,
	and safety net programs annually.
	Daily, there are over 400 children in our preschool,
	afterschool, and enrichment programs. And in the summer, over
	500 children and 250 counselors participate in our inclusive
	day camp with about 100 of these children having some type of
	disability.
	We provide arts and culture programs, lectures, fitness and
	aquatics classes, and Jewish festivals and holiday celebrations
	to the broad community. We help seniors age in place through a
	hot lunch and social program and a community-based Parkinson's
	wellness initiative in partnership with Georgetown University
	Medical Center. And we serve as a resource to the entire
	community by providing meeting rooms and theater space to
	hundreds of nonprofits in need of free or inexpensive program
	and performance space, and by serving as a public polling place
	for elections.
	As a symbolic institution in the national capital region
	representing the highly recognized ``JCC'' brand and serving
	the broad community, the Bender JCC faces a range of security
	threats. We are directly affected by any and all incitement to
	violence against Jews and anti-Semitic rhetoric and actions
	locally, nationally, and abroad.
	Immediately after 9/11, a comprehensive threat assessment
	and security analysis identified a number of security
	vulnerabilities, deemed the JCC to be a high-visibility profile
	target, and assessed the threat to our facility as high. This
	assessment became a reality several years ago when law
	enforcement alerted us to a credible threat against our
	institution and other JCCs in our region. Following the
	shooting at the Kansas City JCC almost 3 years ago, we
	undertook another security review, which identified additional
	operational security vulnerabilities.
	Today we face a new threat of terrorism against our
	institution as a result of the recent spate of bomb threats and
	other incidents against JCCs and other Jewish institutions
	across the country, including two that have targeted our
	facility since January. These events forced the evacuation and
	sweeps of our building, disrupting our operations. As a result,
	we are again forced to further evaluate what capital
	investments may be required to enhance our security against
	emerging threats and expect that we will need to seek further
	NSGP resources in the next available grant cycle.
	FEMA's Nonprofit Security Grant Program has provided
	critical security resources to the Bender JCC. Based on the
	recommendations of multiple security analyses, the NSGP
	resources have enabled us to create layers of security through
	deterrence and hardening of our facility, including investments
	in fencing, gates, bollards, security cameras, bomb-proofing,
	and an integrated emergency communications system. We could not
	have afforded all of these security enhancements on our own.
	And we have used the grant program to leverage other grant and
	private funding.
	The Bender JCC has had an extremely positive experience
	with the National Capital Region State Administrative Agency.
	They announce and roll out the program in a timely fashion,
	provide helpful briefings that explain the grant requirements
	and procedures in detail, and they are the ``go-to'' people
	with any questions or clarification needed during the period of
	performance. They have been great stewards of the program,
	providing structure and guidance to ensure the application
	process, oversight and compliance requirements, and project
	close-out procedures were in order and satisfied.
	With respect to considerations for consolidation, we would
	be extremely concerned if the program were to be decentralized
	with nonprofits competing with multiple State and local law
	enforcement, firefighters, port and transit security, and other
	emergency responders for FEMA preparedness grants. We believe
	that we would find ourselves at a severe competitive
	disadvantage against these larger entities and would lose the
	level of attention and cooperation we currently have with the
	State Administrative Agency that has made our experience with
	the NSGP program successful.
	Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I
	welcome any questions you may have.
	Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony.
	I will now begin the first round the questions limited to 5
	minutes for each Member. If there are any additional questions
	following the first round, we will have additional rounds of
	questions, as needed.
	Mr. Daroff and Mr. Feinstein, thank you so much for
	agreeing to be a witness at today's hearing. I personally asked
	for you two to participate because the threats we are seeing at
	Jewish community centers across the country, like the Bender
	Community Center here in Washington, are outrageous and
	unacceptable. This is domestic terrorism, and the full force of
	the law needs to be brought against the perpetrators.
	In addition to Federal, State, and local law enforcement
	support, I know some of the community centers receive
	assistance from the Nonprofit Security Grant Program. Are these
	funds helpful in combating these threats? And what else can be
	done because I know that these threats are real?
	Mr. Feinstein. First, thank you for your statement of
	support, Mr. Chairman. These funds have been critical for us.
	We raise money every year for our own security needs, both for
	capital and operating expenses, yet we could not raise enough
	money on our own, and these grants make a tremendous difference
	for our JCC and other JCCs.
	You can imagine, currently, with over 100 JCCs receiving
	bomb threats from across the country since January, my
	colleagues and I come into work every single day wondering
	whether we will be evacuating infants, toddlers, and seniors as
	a result of these threats. I would expect that many of my
	colleagues would welcome the opportunity to participate in this
	program, through expanding eligibility while maintaining the
	integrity of the program through increased resources.
	Mr. Daroff. Mr. Chairman, thank you as well.
	I would just add that I received an alert last evening that
	three more JCCs have received bomb threats. One thing Congress
	can look at is structural ways in which smaller communities
	located outside of the UASI program could benefit from the
	Nonprofit Security Grant Program. As my colleague Michael has
	said, he is here to build Jewish community, to help us work out
	and build a stronger self and stronger bodies, not to be a
	security director. And so the assistance that the Federal
	Government has been able to provide, through NSGP as well as
	local law enforcement, has been essential. Expanding the
	program in a way that doesn't diminish the resources would be
	at the top of our list of things that Congress could do to
	address the particular threats of the nonprofit sector.
	Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
	As I said in my opening statement, fire grants have been
	essential to numerous fire departments in my district back
	home.
	Mr. Martynuska, can you highlight how the Assistance to
	Firefighter grants can be particularly helpful to smaller,
	rural departments and how those departments can use these
	Federal funds to build upon and leverage local support?
	Mr. Martynuska. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	The basic tenets of fire protection are supported by these
	grants. In some of our smaller rural departments, if these
	grants weren't available, these departments would go out of
	existence. So their existence is dependent with just the basic
	needs of turnout gear, self-contained breathing apparatus, fire
	engines. Just the effort to survive, these grants, if they
	would be diminished, would cause them to go out of business.
	Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
	Mr. Crossley, as you know, an all-hazards plan starts with
	a threat assessment. When it comes to cybersecurity and the
	threat posed to the electrical grid, are you receiving clear
	guidance from FEMA and DHS as to what you should be planning
	for? Unfortunately, in talking with local governments, my sense
	is that they are not being told what to plan for. Should you be
	planning for the power to be out for 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months?
	What should our communities be prepared for if the grid goes
	down for a significant period of time, leaving hospitals, water
	and sewer systems, and other infrastructure without power?
	Mr. Crossley. First of all, we are planning for those
	things. So we do our own threat assessment. We do our own
	hazard assessment with guidance from the State, from FEMA, and
	we identify both cybersecurity, electrical failure. I just
	participated in a--FEMA has run regional power outage
	exercises. So I was actually just at Ohio EMA participating in
	one of those. And I think that it is really threefold. So we
	need to talk to citizens, which we do as much as possible
	without overwhelming them. Then we need to talk to our partners
	in the local community and the region to say, depending on the
	size and scope of the outage, how would we get resources in? We
	work with, in our case, Duke Energy on, how is the system being
	protected? How are you ensuring that you can get the crews in
	here? And then we work through the State and through FEMA and
	the Emergency Management Assistance Compact to ensure that,
	provided the entire country is not without power, that we know
	how we are going to get resources from the other States. So you
	are taking it from the citizen preparedness to ensuring that
	whatever system we develop in Hamilton County is coordinated
	regionally. We are in a tristate area. So we talk to Kentucky,
	and we talk to Indiana as well. And then, of course, we are
	working through Ohio EMA to work with FEMA. So I think that,
	again, the benefit of the National Preparedness System, as I
	stated, is that it is not just where the boots are on the
	ground at the local level--all disasters are local--but that we
	need to work with them regionally, with our State, and through
	our State with FEMA and the neighboring States so that we can
	bring resources in. And these programs help ensure that we have
	a National Response System. So we identify the hazard. We
	identify how we are going to deal with the mass-care issues,
	with the feeding issues, with the sheltering issues. And then
	we make sure that, while we may not be able to purchase and
	warehouse everything in Hamilton County, that we know who we
	can call, and we keep people, and we continue to test and
	exercise those systems. So we are actually following former
	Administrator Fugate's mantra, which was: Don't plan for what
	you think you can handle; plan for what you think you can't
	handle and start talking to people about how you would handle
	that.
	Mr. Barletta. Well, putting my mayor's hat back on here for
	a moment, and I still believe--my experience has been, in
	talking with local officials, especially smaller cities, that
	we need to do a better job in communicating with them because
	they are going to be carrying the football when the light goes
	out and the power goes down. No one is coming to help when we
	have a massive outage. It is the local government that is going
	to be responsible, and loss of life will happen in the first
	24, 48, 72 hours. I still don't get a sense that that
	communication--many of these mayors, the first thing I ask is,
	well, if this happens, how long are you are going to need to be
	prepared for? They can't answer. So, if you don't know how long
	you need to be prepared for, you can't be prepared.
	Mr. Crossley. So we always use the 3-day mantra, to be
	prepared for 3 days. Our challenge--and this is a challenge not
	just in Ohio but across the country. For example, Hamilton
	County has 49 individual jurisdictions, all at various sizes
	and capabilities, everything from the city of Cincinnati, which
	is a large city, to cities of a few hundred people. So you are
	right. So a lot of mayors are not necessarily aware. So we
	actually work across the--it is an ongoing educational process.
	So you are always going to run across elected and appointed
	officials who they either depend on somebody else to know how
	that is going to happen or they are not as educated. And so you
	ask, what is the benefit of the grants? The benefit of the
	grants, for example, with EMPG is, with the 50/50 hard dollar
	match, it provides skin in the game from the local government,
	but also that we are out there on a daily basis knocking on
	these doors. But when you are at the local level and you have
	limited staff capacity, you are hitting one and two at a time.
	So I think that you are right in that a lot of them don't know
	what they are going do, and also the buck does stop with them.
	So I have 49 individual mayors or township trustee presidents
	or whatever it is. So, little by little, we are knocking on
	those doors, and we are talking about those issues, albeit in a
	manageable manner. And then, at the county level and working
	with the State, we focus on the catastrophic issues because, to
	be honest with you, when you start talking catastrophic to a
	small community, it can become quite overwhelming, which is why
	we need that system that can expand and contract as needed.
	Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
	The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
	committee, Mr. DeFazio.
	Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I have been at several other events this morning. I regret
	I wasn't here for the opening statements. I will make a brief
	one, and then I have a quick question.
	I have looked at the President's proposal and the so-called
	skinny budget, and for disaster, it is a disaster. And I guess
	down at the White House, they have either got amnesia or no
	sense of history, where we are going to go back to the, ``You
	are doing a great job, Brownie,'' days, as if we don't remember
	what it is like when we aren't prepared. To cut 25 percent of
	the budget for preparedness grants, to cut the pre-disaster
	mitigation funds, that is whistling through the graveyard. Not
	going to be any more floods, tornadoes, hurricanes,
	earthquakes, volcanic eruptions. Don't worry about it. And, by
	the way, don't call the Federal Government because we won't be
	there. And, oh, yeah, your local first responders won't have
	been trained, and they won't have the equipment they need.
	Otherwise, it is a really great idea.
	And this is all so we can build a Maginot line, a wall so-
	called or fence now, on the Mexican border. You know, I was in
	Hong Kong when we still had Communist China and the Brits
	controlled Hong Kong. They had double fencing 20 feet tall.
	They used lethal force. It had concertina wire, barbed wire.
	And you could pay a smuggler 1,000 bucks, and they would get
	you over it in 90 seconds with a ladder contraption they
	invented. And people came over regularly. But we are going to
	build a wall or a fence through the Superstition Mountains in
	Arizona. And don't worry. No one will throw drugs over it.
	Nobody will sneak through it, under it, around it. It is
	absolutely nuts. But we are going to cut real preparedness to
	do this.
	So just one question, since we have a group of people here,
	I just ask this: Do you think it makes sense to cut the
	multihazard mitigation program when we have the Congressional
	Budget Office and the Multihazard Mitigation Council saying we
	save 3 to 4 bucks post-disaster for every dollar we invest? And
	if you don't think that is an accurate figure and we should cut
	that budget, let me know. So does anybody want to advocate for
	cutting that budget and say it will make us more efficient?
	Ms. Smith-Reeve.
	Ms. Smith-Reeve. No. I would not cut the budget on
	mitigation. Actually, if we are really going to bend this
	Federal runaway cost curve on disasters, we really need to move
	away from the current reactive model to a more proactive model,
	and that means shifting dollars to pre-disaster mitigation, our
	ability to buy down risk, and infuse resiliency into the
	communities at the local level. That is what is going to
	support and sustain local jurisdictions more than the reactive
	model that we have currently in place. So, to your point,
	between fiscal year 2011 and 2014, the Federal Government
	allocated roughly $222 million for pre-disaster mitigation
	compared to $3.2 billion for post-disaster mitigation, which is
	a ratio of roughly 1 to 14. In the aftermath of hurricanes and
	other large-scale events, you can see, based on the photographs
	that we see in the media, where good mitigation pre-disaster
	has been applied because you have structures that have
	withstood the forces that they were up against. So that alone
	is a clear demonstration of why we need to buy down risk within
	those high-hazard areas of our community and repurpose some of
	those funds. So, if it is moving homes out of a flood plain to
	higher ground, and repurposing that space and give it back to
	the community in a different way through park systems or
	whatever the case may be. That is an example of one thing that
	Arizona has done where we bought out a community and moved them
	to higher ground and gave that space back for the community to
	use. They got to decide on what that looked like for the future
	for their community. So I personally would be encouraging--and
	I know other State directors also echo this comment--that, in
	order for us to buy down risk, we do need to have more
	mitigation dollars prior to an event.
	Mr. DeFazio. Great. Excellent. I only have 20 seconds left.
	Does anybody disagree? OK. No one disagreed, let the record
	reflect.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
	Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
	The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bost for 5 minutes.
	Mr. Bost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	And thank you for the opportunity to serve on this
	committee. It is kind of a committee that is near and dear to
	my heart.
	Mr. Martynuska, he and I have something in common; we are
	both--I am one of the only Members of the Congress who was a
	professional firefighter. And so that means that we get to do
	those things that our mother would prefer that we didn't do,
	which is running into buildings other people are running out
	of, being around fire, spraying water, getting dirty, and then
	people like seeing us there. It was a pretty neat profession.
	Thank you for your service in that.
	Let me ask, if I can, Mr. Lawless, as we are moving
	forward, what would you say are the most significant
	accomplishments for preparedness that have been able to occur
	with leveraging Federal dollars since we started these
	projects?
	Mr. Lawless. Thank you, Mr. Bost.
	Our most impressive accomplishment in preparedness has
	been, around the country, the creation of safe, secure, and
	resilient maritime facilities that meet all of the Federal
	security requirements facing port authorities. We have done
	that by leveraging the use of port security grants. We have
	created a layered system of security that begins with fences,
	cameras, identification systems, access control, radiological
	nuclear detection devices. We have done that. We have trained
	all of our port workers in security awareness. All of our--we
	do regular drills with all of our other agencies: our fire
	departments, our EMS service, our police departments, our
	emergency management agencies. A lot of that has come from
	funding from the Port Security Grant Program. So I would say
	the overall impact of the Port Security Grant Program has been
	to really create the safe and secure and resilient maritime
	facilities that will support the maritime transportation
	network, which is vital to our U.S. economy.
	Mr. Bost. So now that we have it in place, what type of
	investment or how do we wisely invest so that we can maintain
	that? What type of breakdowns do you see? What concerns might
	be out there?
	Mr. Lawless. Well, the challenge moving forward I see is,
	how do we maintain our current levels of preparedness? How do
	we maintain and improve that layered system of security? And I
	think the Port Security Grant Program is vital to that. A lot
	of assistance that we have purchased, a lot of the training
	that we have done now has to be recycled. A lot of the systems
	that we have bought have come to the end of use for their
	usability. And in order to maintain that level of security, we
	have to either replace those or upgrade those systems. Again,
	as the workforce changes within the port community and more
	stakeholders come in--you know, firefighters retire, and new
	firefighters come in; a police officer retires, and a new
	police officer comes in; new threats evolve, whether they be
	physical threats or cybersecurity threats--we need the funds to
	get that workforce ready, to get our equipment ready to meet
	those challenges.
	Mr. Bost. Thank you.
	Just for the panel in general, and I am going to hope to
	get through this, but what do you--let me tell you that,
	whether it is for a man-made disaster or a natural disaster, we
	have got to be in a position of preparedness. I come from a
	very unique area in the fact that, in 1925, my hometown was
	virtually destroyed in a tornado, and because of that is why we
	have the early warning systems as far as tornadoes. So that was
	the early process as we tried to do this emergency
	preparedness.
	So my question, and it is going to be difficult, but are we
	to a point where we need to be? And if not, what do we need to
	do to get there at a quicker rate?
	Ms. Smith-Reeve. That is a big question. So I think one of
	the things that we can look at is, there are always
	opportunities to evaluate a process, especially after it has
	been ongoing for a certain period of time. So, if we look at
	the Threat Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment and the
	``State Preparedness Report'' process, it feeds up into the
	``National Preparedness Report.''
	Looking at the timing that we have for analysis, it is too
	short. So the 12-month timeframe, by the time you are awarding
	grants based on the previous year's risk assessment, those
	grants are just in process, and then you have to immediately
	turn around and reevaluate your risk level. So there is not
	enough time for practical application to demonstrate growth and
	diminishing those gaps that we recognized in a previous year.
	Moving that timeline a bit will also allow for greater
	participation at the local level because, as you noted, many
	communities are diverse. Within the State of Arizona, we have
	some very large urban centers, but we have a lot of rural
	communities that we serve equally. And so, ensuring that we are
	recognizing their challenges, their gaps, where their risks
	lie, is going to be vastly different than the urban areas that
	we also serve. So, by taking another look at how we do that and
	being a little bit more methodical and concentrating on the
	needs for rural Arizona equal to those urban areas is a way for
	us to move that effort forward.
	Mr. Bost. My time has expired. I will yield back, but I
	will probably follow up with the rest of you. Thank you.
	Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
	The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Johnson.
	Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Ms. Smith-Reeve, in your written statement, you discuss a
	proposal to combine all of the preparedness grants into one
	program. Congress has rejected past administration proposals to
	do the same thing. How does NEMA's proposal differ from past
	administration proposals, if at all? And, also, how will
	combining all of those grants lead to more effective spending
	by States and local governments on preparedness activities?
	Ms. Smith-Reeve. Thank you for your question. My apologies
	for the interruption.
	So, with regard to what NEMA, our voting members, had put
	together and proposed to FEMA was a consolidation. What was
	submitted forward from FEMA was different than what was
	proposed by NEMA. And I think there were some things that were
	lost in translation because I guarantee that those to my left
	are probably opposed to what we submitted and proposed as far
	as consolidation of grants.
	The intent with our message was to give greater flexibility
	to all of the parties that are represented within a State's
	boundaries. So, by combining the suite of grants, it would
	allow a State to go through the Threat Hazard Identification
	and Risk Assessment, define where their biggest risk areas are,
	and then allow them to determine where they are spending their
	grant dollars. So, by combining the grants--what you are
	combining are the facets of each. So you are not limiting a
	jurisdiction to only spending a certain amount of money on
	ports, only spending a certain amount of money on the urban
	area, only spending a certain amount of money on fill-in-the-
	blank. It allows that jurisdiction to collectively determine
	where their highest risk areas are and allow them to determine
	what funding is required for that.
	Mr. Johnson. OK, thank you.
	Do any of the other panelists have an opinion on the issue
	of combining preparedness grants?
	Mr. Daroff. Yes, sir, Mr. Johnson.
	With the continuing and growing record of threats,
	attempted attacks, and deadly occurrences targeting Jewish
	communal institutions as well as other vulnerable populations
	within the nonprofit sector, we believe there is ample
	justification for Congress to maintain the Nonprofit Security
	Grant Program as a singular standalone initiative as a matter
	of national security preparedness. And Congress should consider
	ways to strengthen the program rather than dismantle it. We
	believe that consolidating the program would disenfranchise at-
	risk nonprofit stakeholders who are not able to meaningfully
	participate in or effectively compete with larger, more
	formidable stakeholders for resources in an integrated
	competitive process. So we strongly believe that keeping the
	programs separate and segregated serves the interest of the
	country as well as those of at-risk nonprofits.
	Mr. Johnson. All right. Thank you.
	Anyone else?
	Yes, sir, Mr. Lawless.
	Mr. Lawless. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
	By reducing the grants--we are totally opposed to making
	those block grants, but by reducing those grants and combining
	these grants into block grants, in our situation, the ports
	would be forced to compete with other interests both on the
	State level and local level for those crucial and vital funds.
	We are international borders. We are ports of entry. We are
	rigidly defined by Federal regulations, and we are forced to
	comply with Federal directives and Federal mandates that are
	usually unfunded. So, to meet those unfunded mandates, the Port
	Security Grant Program has been essential to our success in
	securing our ports.
	Mr. Johnson. Well, Mr. Lawless, if the Port Security Grant
	Program is cut, as proposed by the Trump administration, will
	the ports be able to pick up the slack in funding and maintain
	current levels of security?
	Mr. Lawless. Our position is no. We would like to maintain
	the current level, if not go back to the $400 million that was
	originally appropriated in 2005. That has allowed us to secure
	our ports and to keep the maritime transportation working in a
	secure, safe, and a resilient fashion. So no. We are opposed to
	the 40-percent cut in port security grant funds.
	Mr. Johnson. All right. I thank you.
	My time is out, and I yield back.
	Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
	The Chair now recognizes Mr. Graves for 5 minutes.
	Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I want to thank all of you for being here today.
	Ms. Smith-Reeves, I have a question for you. I am from
	south Louisiana and had the unfortunate opportunity to ride out
	Katrina, Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008, Hurricane Isaac in
	2012, record high water in the Mississippi River system in
	2011, and a number of other disasters.
	One trend that I see throughout these disasters, and let me
	actually make note probably one of the more profound ones, in
	addition to Katrina, was the August floods where we just had a
	1,000-year flood in my hometown. It is not Government that
	often comes in and actually serves as the first responder. I
	want to be clear: our firefighters and wildlife and fisheries
	agents and others, police officers, have been remarkable. But
	you look at the number of officers and firefighters and others
	we have compared to the number of people affected by some of
	these major disasters, the public plays a huge role. All of
	these planning efforts, in many cases, seem to I guess lack or
	avoid the role that the public plays and the capacity that they
	bring to the table.
	I am just curious at your sort of, you know, 50,000-foot-
	level take on the role of individuals and how you best see to
	use that capability and free asset in disaster response and
	preparation.
	Ms. Smith-Reeve. Thank you for that question. And you are
	right in that the public, whom we all serve, are typically the
	first responders in any type of event because we encourage
	them, not only to be prepared to support themselves, their
	families, but also their neighbors and others within their
	community. So efforts to train, inform, and educate are
	critical, and I think we seek out many opportunities to do
	that. One way that I think we could do a better job is--and to
	really shift the visibility and elevate our level of
	preparedness within the members of our community--is to get
	into the schools and start educating the youth in our community
	because those are going to be the future for this Nation. And
	by educating them and informing them on how important it is to
	enhance their personal preparedness level and ways to support
	their community in community preparedness will build resiliency
	within the Nation.
	Mr. Graves. Mr. Crossley, would you care to comment on that
	at all, just the role that you see just a private citizen
	playing in disaster response?
	Mr. Crossley. So one of the phrases I commonly use when I
	talk to citizen groups is there are 2,000 of us and 800,000 of
	you. So we actively engage, and so a lot of this is done at the
	local level when you talk about engaging the citizens in
	helping with the disaster response and recovery. And so myself
	and many of my counterparts across the country, we use the
	former--or current Citizen Corps Program, the Community
	Emergency Response Team concept, and then we work a lot through
	the voluntary organizations. So there is almost a group for
	everybody that they can affiliate with. And so we work with our
	community members to develop spontaneous volunteer plans. We
	both do it virtually through 211 and 311 to make sure that they
	are engaged and know where the volunteer opportunities are
	because we like people to be engaged. So you don't want people
	just randomly showing up and doing, in your case, flood
	remediation. So I have done flood remediation in Slidell in
	1996, if you remember that flood. And so what we do is, from
	the planning perspective, we start to work with our community
	partners because, that way, you keep it organized, the Red
	Cross, The Salvation Army, the various religious groups. We are
	doing a big effort right now with our Jewish community center.
	And so we work with them to accept volunteers. We develop the
	structure under which they can operate and then, during a
	disaster, one of our first goals is to get that information out
	there: here is how you can help. And so I agree with you that
	it is critical, and it is the only way that the few thousand
	Government employees are going to be able to serve, as Chairman
	Barletta, asked, how are you going to handle the masses in a
	disaster? So I think that has been supported under the National
	Preparedness System to develop those plans, to develop those
	procedures, and that is where myself and many of my colleagues
	are going on a local level because, at the end of the day, I am
	the face to the public, along with the board of county
	commissioners, that says, how are you responding to this
	disaster? So we are putting that in place.
	Mr. Graves. Very quickly. So I just want to make sure I
	understand. So you actually, in a very dynamic environment of a
	disaster, you actually adapt your volunteer efforts to that
	particular disaster and begin communicating with constituents,
	with citizens about how they can assist and what they can do to
	assist, is that----
	Mr. Crossley. Yes, you have to; otherwise, they will do it
	anyway. So we want to coordinate financial donations as well as
	physical donations and then donations of time. So we put these
	plans and procedures in place and work with our voluntary
	partners to help corral that and send it where it is needed
	based on our damage assessments and our long-term recovery
	needs.
	Mr. Graves. Thank you.
	And thank you again all for your testimony.
	Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
	The Chair now recognizes Mr. Sires for 5 minutes.
	Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	And thank you to the panelists for being here.
	I am also a former mayor from a community across from the
	9/11 towers. And if I learned anything in my years as mayor is
	how unprepared we were to deal with a disaster. I mean, one
	community didn't know what to do with the other one; one fire
	department didn't coordinate. I also represent the tunnels. The
	tunnels were closed. People were coming down; they didn't know
	that the tunnels were closed. Everybody sent their fire trucks
	and their rescue teams trying to help, but we were so
	unprepared. And this is a topic that I worked on over the
	years.
	Today we are much better. The county works a lot better.
	There is more coordination. There is more communication. There
	is more equipment because of the grants that we have been
	receiving. And we are a lot better prepared now than we were.
	So my concerns are with the cuts. You know, I represent the
	ports. I represent the Port of Newark, the Port of Elizabeth.
	And if we get a cut what they are talking about, it is going to
	be devastating for our security, all those ports. A small
	attack could paralyze the commerce on those ports.
	So I guess what I am trying to do, Mr. Lawless, is I have
	gotten the message that you are as concerned as I am regarding
	the security of these ports.
	Mr. Lawless. We are very concerned about the cuts to the
	Port Security Grant Program. We have worked hard over these
	last 15 years to achieve a certain level of security. We hope
	to maintain that level of security. But you are correct, Mr.
	Sires, on the potential for an attack in a port; that could
	result in the closure of most ports around the country, which
	would have a dramatic and devastating impact to our economic
	vitality as a country. And we are hopeful that we can maintain
	that level of security, and our goal is to prevent any type of
	attack in the ports.
	Just to mention working together with, integrating with our
	fire departments and our police departments, we heard from
	Mayor Pugh talk about the Boston Marathon bombing and the
	success of the first responders in saving lives and responding
	to that attack. That is all the result of training that we do
	together: exercising, drilling, meeting, having plans in place.
	And a lot of that has been the result of Port Security Grant
	Programs, UASI grant programs that have supported those
	training programs. And without those programs, it will be
	difficult for local cities and towns, States and port
	authorities to continue that high level of interaction of
	training and of equipping our first responders to meet these
	challenges that we face every day.
	Mr. Sires. You know, I am one of those people that believes
	that the fire department, you can't get them enough equipment,
	you know. And it is very expensive. I don't think the community
	knows how expensive it is. But today, with all the requirements
	that fire departments and fire and the type of equipment, I
	don't think you can survive without grants. I don't think these
	communities could make it without some form of grants. So----
	Mr. Martynuska. I agree, Representative. I have to be--my
	career was in the city of Johnstown, where we have had our
	share of natural disasters, man-made and both. But I was on
	duty when 9/11 took place, and I saw what happened during the
	day. As we all know, flight 93 came down about 15 miles from
	where we were working. We evacuated downtown and how it
	stretched our resources. The communication system collapsed.
	The cellular system collapsed on the day that that happened. It
	changed our world as we knew it. And, personally, I was one of
	three or four hazardous materials technicians. And in the
	coming months, we ran hundreds of white powder calls because we
	did not have a hazmat team. We have since built that hazmat
	program. We have since done urban search and rescue, confined
	space rescue, river rescue, all because we had moneys available
	to do that.
	My concern is with the taxing of the resources that we have
	is maintaining the infrastructure we have been able to build.
	It is very difficult for small communities to provide those
	resources as it is. And if there are cutbacks to that, it is
	going to make it even more difficult for those choices they
	have to make.
	Mr. Sires. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
	much.
	Mr. Barletta. OK, thank you, Mr. Sires.
	Mrs. Napolitano
	Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	And thank the panelists for this long hearing. It is really
	important.
	I come from a different point of view, and I ask Ms.
	Reeves--Smith-Reeves, Mr. Crossley, Mr. Martynuska, and Mr.
	Roberts, what do you think your first responders, your men,
	your women, are prepared mentally? There are many suicides
	within the fire department and many other securities that we
	need to be concerned with because our first responders face
	many, many challenges. They deal with work-related tragedies,
	and they have to take it home. Are you prepared to give them
	mental health services, and would these grants cover that
	training?
	Ms. Smith-Reeve. I will let Mr. Roberts start.
	Mr. Roberts. So, from a law enforcement perspective, we
	have robust employee assistance programs that deal with stress.
	The police officers deal with a lot of the things that the rest
	of society doesn't want to deal with. We are the ones left to
	deal with it. And I think it really impacts our employees. We
	have a pretty robust program that deals with that. However,
	these Federal funds aren't used or intended to be used for that
	type of program although there is a need. I believe there is a
	definitely a need, not only in our profession but in the
	firefighters and other first responders. So there could be
	niche there.
	Mr. Martynuska. I will echo Mr. Roberts' comments. The
	subject of PTSD in the fire service is reaching epidemic
	proportions. Just this week in the State of Pennsylvania, we
	witnessed three line-of-duty deaths. And working with our
	members across the State, you can see the toll that that takes
	on them. And we hear about this every day.
	The grant program doesn't cover that. We are making strides
	to get our folks the help they need through our international
	and through our State associations, but there is definitely a
	lag with that type--first on recognition and then on moneys to
	help.
	Mr. Crossley. Again, I agree with their comments about the
	grant funds specifically funding that for first responders. I
	know, in my line of work, we do, as part of our training
	program, offer training on disaster mental health because you
	have to watch--I have responded everything since 9/11 to
	disasters in Kansas and Ohio, and I know that the stress of
	seeing the devastation that can happen after disaster. So we do
	provide training on how to plan to deal with those effects, not
	with the direct impact of a chief taking it back to their
	department. And we do depend on the employee assistance
	programs and the particular incident stress debriefing to
	handle those. But the grant support for it to expand that and
	deal with the day-to-day stressors would definitely then have
	the direct impact of supporting if there was a major disaster
	and you see that kind of devastation.
	Ms. Smith-Reeve. And this is also an opportunity to for us
	to leverage other partners and their grants and mission sets,
	such as Department of Health Services. One of the things that
	they also support is behavioral health aspects. And so these
	critical incident stress management teams that do come in and
	provide the support that has been discussed helps the first
	responders and ensures that their families are also taken care
	of at the same time. So it is vitally important to everything
	that we do, especially in these high-stress environments.
	Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I realize that this is not directly
	addressed in the FEMA, but it is important to note that many of
	the tragedies, especially in bus or rail systems, sometimes
	mental health plays a big part in people--well, being
	antisocial. Let's put it that way. I would hope that, in the
	future, you would consider maybe asking for inclusiveness in
	the program to deal with that because, as much as you can give
	them equipment to ready them for the purpose, you should equip
	them for their well-being.
	Thank you, Mr. Chair.
	Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
	The Chair recognizes Ms. Titus for 5 minutes.
	Ms. Titus. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
	And thank you for letting me sit in on this subcommittee.
	You know, I represent the heart of the Las Vegas Valley, from
	the airport down the fabulous strip to downtown. So this issue
	of emergency preparedness is very important to my district.
	I am also especially delighted that we have as one of our
	guests and members of the panel our assistant sheriff, Mr.
	Roberts, from Las Vegas to give you some perspective of the
	unique challenges that we face. Not only do 2 million people
	live there in the valley, but we welcome every year over 42
	million visitors from all around the world, speaking all kinds
	of different languages and don't know how to find an exit
	except from the Paris Las Vegas Hotel and Casino to the New
	York-New York Hotel and Casino, which is a 20-minute walk. So
	we need the help.
	Not only do we have all these strangers in town, we hosted
	the last year 4 of the top 10 largest trade shows in the world,
	including consumer electronics, which brought in over 170,000
	people in a short number of days, just that one convention
	alone. Electric daisy carnival welcomes more than 320,000
	attendees. We have 11 of the 20 largest hotels in the world in
	my district. And pretty soon we are likely to see the Raiders
	playing there in the district too. And that is going to bring
	even more crazy people to town. I am a Raider fan; so I can say
	that.
	So, when we talk about UASI funding and the Department of
	Homeland Security, we have special challenges. You heard Mr.
	Roberts say that the formula is not constructed well to take
	into account places like Las Vegas. We have been saying this
	for years that the formula is funded. It fails to reflect the
	impact that a terrorist attack would have, not only on the
	regional economy, but also on neighboring Nellis, on Creech, on
	Boulder Dam, all of those things are left out of formula. We
	need it to be updated. And every year, we go back and ask for a
	little more money for Las Vegas and get a little more, but that
	is not enough. It is not way the formula should work.
	So I would ask you, Sheriff Roberts, two questions. One is,
	would you give us--and you mentioned this just superficially--
	some specifics of how that formula needs to be changed, like
	recognizing convention centers as opposed to lumping them all
	into one? And, second--and all of you can weigh in on this--is
	that this money is supposed to go to improve our preparedness,
	make us less susceptible to whatever the catastrophe might be,
	but do we really do a good job of evaluating how efficiently
	that money is spent? Because we seem to give the same amount of
	money to the same people every year. Are they just adding
	things, or are they really improving the situation? Mr.
	Roberts?
	Mr. Roberts. Thank you, ma'am. So the one issue that we
	have that you mentioned is clustering. We have several of the
	world's largest hotels in the world, but they are treated as
	one cluster under the threat analysis program. So we don't
	really get a true reflection of the threat that should be
	measured. Another issue is we don't include two of our large
	military installations that are there. They are covered under
	another program. However, those folks live in our community,
	and there are threats in our community that those grants that
	are covered by the military don't cover. So we do that out of
	the minuscule amount of money that we get from UASI.
	And then, to Congresswoman Titus' point, as far as the
	second portion of your question--and I have already forgotten
	now. Sorry.
	Ms. Titus. Efficiency----
	Mr. Roberts. Oh----
	Ms. Titus. How do we evaluate it?
	Mr. Roberts. So to the point that she makes is that,
	oftentimes, there is a lot of money built on target hardening
	or a lot of grant justification built on target hardening, but
	because the grant cycle is so long and they are reapplying for
	grants in such a short time, there is no evaluation on what was
	done with those funds. And so I believe that that should be an
	important part of the process, is that--because some of the
	larger agencies--I am not going to name any, but we have
	visited, that I have been before--they can't spend the money
	that they get because they get so much of it. And some of the
	smaller, lower UASI areas just don't get any funds.
	Ms. Titus. Anybody else want to answer this?
	Mr. Daroff. I would just add, Ms. Titus, that the Nonprofit
	Security Grant Program is considered efficient and effective.
	Hundreds of nonprofits have received funds, including the
	Jewish Federation in Las Vegas. The decisions are made by local
	law enforcement doing assessments of the physical plant and
	then with Federal law enforcement making the final decision.
	The grants are capped at $75,000, thereby assisting many, many
	nonprofit organizations annually who have been assessed to be
	at high risk. So it is a vibrant program and one that we
	endorse as being very helpful in protecting at-risk nonprofits.
	Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
	These are all important programs. They have a strong return
	on investment. They save lives and money in post-disaster
	recovery. The National Preparedness System and the grants that
	help implement it allow the Nation to share critical response
	capabilities between States and communities so that every State
	doesn't have to duplicate those capabilities. The system is a
	force multiplier, and it is money well spent. Not every State
	can afford an urban search-and-rescue team or a chemical
	response team, but this system gives them access to such teams
	when they need them. In addition, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation
	Grants are a competitive program that hardens high-risk
	properties so they avoid damage during disasters.
	Study after study has shown $1 spent on mitigation saves $4
	in future disaster spending over the life of the project. The
	way to save on disaster cost is to prepare for disasters and
	reduce disaster damage. If we are not prepared, recovery can be
	delayed by years and add billions in Federal disaster spending,
	economic losses, and lost tax revenue. When it comes to pre-
	disaster mitigation, prevention is worth its weight in gold.
	Thank you all for your testimony. Your comments have been
	helpful to today's discussion.
	If there are no further questions, I would ask unanimous
	consent that the record of today's hearing remain open until
	such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any
	questions that may be submitted to them in writing and
	unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for
	any additional comments and information submitted by Members or
	witnesses to be included in the record of today's hearing.
	Without objection, so ordered.
	I would like to thank our witnesses again for their
	testimony today. If no other Members have anything to add, the
	subcommittee stands adjourned.
	[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


	[all]


	</pre></body></html>