[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]