train all the new folks coming up? think about all the training we've done in the last ten years. and we're going to have to make sure that we have the institutions at the higher level and also the disciplines to continue to train that. this is not an attempt to take those facilities and institution that's have done a great job but it's really to kind of come back and go are we identifying what the priorities are? are we investing in the training? are we identifying need for training? look at cyber security. so we know there may be areas where we need to develop. we also got to make sure what we've been investing in is giving us that return and it's looking at what are the needs? as the next generations come up and we look at our national preparedness and say we're doing good in this area but we still have lots of ne are we getting the funding in the right institutions engaged? >> i agree with that concept. thank you, mr. chairman. i think my time is up. >> thank you. mr. dan?inaudible ]

>> mr. dan, could you turn your microphone on? >> yeah, as i mentioned, november fema submitted the subscription to the president as required by policy director eight. in it you describe the various components and how they'll various components and how they interact to build, sustain and deliver core capabilities in order to achieve the national preparedness goal. the report describes how these components help us understand risk and form a current and future budget year planning and decisions and inform resource allocation plans and aid and understand the progress of the nation. some of these components already exist as i understand it. and some will have to be developed. what are some of the existing programs that will be incorporated in the national

preparedness system and what gaps do you see out there? >> well, the most significant one which was a requirement congress had to develop a recovery framework for catastrophic zast sedisasters i rolled out the national recovery framework which with the evolution of the president's directive to develop these frame works, we were able to take that and actually move it in and roll it out as one of the first frame works of that. we also have the national response framework which is undergoing review and updating. and then we have preparedness, mitigation, prevention frame works to build as part of that. so we have been working very hard to -- through both the innerpartners. we just placed on our website several of these documents for review for our partners to interact and provide us comments that we can adjudicate. so we're on target to meet the goals that the president has laid out for us including the national preparedness report

which is in concurrence which is another product that i owe congress that will be coming forward. so these are moving and they are again building upon the national response framework, the national disaster recovery framework and then building three additional frame works to support the overall national preparedness plan. >> how do you see this -- this system informing your budget decisions and resource allocations? >> well, it probably best to give an example. we tried talking about generalities. you end up saying we're going to do this, this and this. let's take urban search and rescue. we know that in the types of mess we face with the building collapses, bomb blasts, tornadoes and other things that response is key. how long does it take to get a team there? just having a team responding doesn't change an outcome. we start with what is the outcome we're trying to change. injured people do not have time. so we start with this idea that -- and across the nation,

looking at where communities are, concentrations of populations. we look at the urban areas. that's where everybody is at. and we also look at travel times. do we have enough teams? where are they at? should we make a priority in funding for more teams, sustaining teams or training of those teams? now until you know how many teams and what area you're covering and what your response times are, you don't know if you have enough, how do you maintain them? but once we are able to do our threat and hazard reduction and say this should be the response time across the country. this is how many teams would be required in these events. and this is current capability. we may say, you know what? we're pretty good in search and rescue teams. maybe we ought to put more emphasis on the prevention side. until you know what that number is, and you stha is what we need as a nation respond to these types of events, you're not really able to say where you're at.

so just one example will define how long it will take to get someone there. how much capacity is necessary? this is again why it's very difficult to do this by jurisdiction by jurisdiction. what if you get the outliar? are we not going to respond because we didn't have enough stuff or have a plan? so we're looking at very large events and going there's very basic things that have to be done in the first 72 hours, the first weeks, the first months to be successful. and then going back and going how much of that have we built? how much more we need to build. again, we're not necessarily looking at this is going to require that we're going to spend our way out of. this a lot of time it's looking at the private sector, looking at volunteers, looking at what the military provides and the fact that congress gave us the authority for secretary of defense to call out the reserves now and duel status kplanders to support uniform coordinated efforts. what are we planning against? what is our target? and where should we be investing to get to that?

>> that's a very comprehensive answer. i thank you for. that also on ppd 8. i want to focus on that all of nation approach to disaster preparedness. what specifically, you know, what will have to change to fully develop integration between federal government and state and local government? >> stop looking state, local and federal. start looking at a team. we focus so much on what the federal government is going to do, we step all over our local and state partners. i have to point this out. in all of these disasters in the last year and a half, the initial response is not even the first responders. it was neighbor helping neighbor. and then the local responders, the mutual aid and the governors and national guard. we were able to almost exclusively focus on recovery because we have built so much capacity since 9/11 that we

really shifted the capabilities to the local government and state government works faster and is easier and better to maintain. who feeds us every day in our communities? it's not government, it's the private sector. we look at the private sector as something you deal with later enstid of going why can't we work together and duplicate what everybody does best? >> how do you incorporate private sector to this? >> you bring them to the table and give them a seat and make them part of the team. they're part of the team. if you get a grocery store opened if, you get a hardware store open, you can get a drugstore open, they can meet needsment we folk wrus they're not. but if we try to duplicate that in large scale disasters, we don't help anybody. >> thank you. >> thank you. we're going to try to get a second panel here. in order to do that, i'd like to do an abbreviated, maybe no more

than three minutes so everyone can have a chance to ask a second round for the second panel comes up. let me go back, administrator to the removal issue that we talked and i asked about earlier. i guess one of the main questions that after meeting with a lot of my constituents after april 27th tornadoes and what happened with the contracting with the debris removal and with the corps, i would come back to you and ask, are you concerned with the costs to the taxpayers of cleanup when you mission assign the task to the corps? with limited funds, how can you justify the disparity in cost between the reported costs charged by the corps of engineers and the lower cost that's communities have incurred signing their own contracts for removal? have you provided written criteria and checklists of work

that mayors know what they're receiving from the corps and what they can show to other contractors if they choose to do a private option for the work? >> mr. chairman, first thing's first. we did something in alabama we never done previously. and that was we looked at the debris mission as a housing milgs. we normally would no not go in and take debris wholesale off a private property and lots. we weren't going to do businesses but in the homes. since this was relatively new to us, we looked to the corps to help manage that. because previously, under the most of the debris management rules, local jurisdictions would not have been able to go on private property and remove a lot of that debris. it would have been almost a case by case basis. so we were looking at one thing -- we knew that housing was going to be our biggest issue. the faster we got debris off those lots, the quicker people could rebuild. it was a new approach. it had not been done before. we had the authorities under staff for that. and we used the corps to help

manage that. did it cost more? yes, sir. and we learned from that? yes, sir. are we looking at how to reduce that cost in the future? absolutely. but we put a premium on speed of that because our primary concern in that disaster, as you knew, was we had so many homes destroyed that we didn't think the way we have traditionally done debris was fast enough. we wanted to do something faster and new. we utilized the corps to help us manage that. >> there are numerous communities in alabama right now that are waiting for reimbursement. they -- are there ways to simplify the process while still allowing for oversight of the funds? if you could briefly answer that and then if anything else you want to add for the record, then we'll proceed that way. >> mr. chairman, it's always case by case. we're trying to move as fast as we can. again, i want to get my money in the communities to get them

going. again if, your staff can pass on specifics where we are geetitti hung up so i can say why is this? we're looking at within the authority of the stafford act, what steps we take streamline to process to maintain accountability but increase speed of recovery. >> thank you. and we will happy to work with you on that to get that information. >> i want to return to your national preparedness grant proposal and make very clear that i share your point of view, your desire for a more efficient, more targeted, more risk based way of making these grants available. of allocating these funds. now in the state program, we do have an allocation formula which aims at a certain minimum level of preparedness across these jurisdictions. and that, too, is a legitimate

abtive. but you're suggesting that pleaing may be going on here. some special pleading might have a good warrant. and others might not. there are objectives we need to make sure are going to be addressed. so i want to ask you how you proceed here. and, of course, can you elaborate this for the record. but just in terms of these two major pots of money, will there be an initial determination of how much goes to each and then do the usual formulas apply especially in the state grant case? and then let me add one other quick question to the mix. you're trying to deal here with the backlog and with the difficulty of getting some of this money out the door. and your way of doing that is that you're going to require grantees to complete project within a shorter designated period of performance. so what is going to be the

practical effect of that? are you going to be by shortening this time frame, are you going to be in effect eliminating certain capital projects, certain longer term projects such as tunnel hardening? there, too, you might want to give us a more detailed answer for the record. but my main concern here in this open setting is just to get a sense of how this is going to work. how your agency is going to proceed to take these formerly desperate funding streams and administer them as one. >> well, let me work backwards. on the $8 billion that is outstanding that has not been drawn down? disaster grants, i'm not saying we're not going to be granting more extensions. part of that is the authority to grant the extensions and also i found that as much people hate deadlines, they get stuff done. but we also recognize that in giving them the mission to get those moneys drawn down on projects, as much as it already

work is under way. getting it drown dawn, is we looked at what was eligible for funding and where we had inconsistencies, we were actually able to go back and provide additional eligibility so they can get those funds drawn down based upon expanding what was eligible in that scope of work. so woehr doog two things there. one is working really hard so people knew where they were at, what time lines were and also looking at ---en that is based upon their request for more flexibility. we were able to go back to the secretary and authorize us to provide that flexibility so that they have more ability to get those grants drawn down quicker on that work. but no extensions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. fema moved along with their flood map modernization efforts. there have been some complaints. i'm sure you're well aware of the process and the cost, localities to try to meet the

standards especially for the levees. and this is a big deal, again, obviously with the flooding and on the missouri there. can you tell us what some of the complaints are and the accreditation and the cost part of it and tell me any suggestions you have that are -- you discussed within the agency about ways to improve the levee and creditation process and lighten the financial burden for these small -- some of them are being asked to do studies that cost hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars. and they simply, if you got a town of 200 people, they don't have the money. >> we will only recognize a levee certified by the army corps of engineers setment we would not recognize anything else. so when we did our mapping, we zero out anything that was there if it was not an accredit itted

levee. in many cases, they may not be accredited but serve communities against floods. we never gave them any value in our mapping. we're at the request of many folks here on the hill in role making process to adjust our roles, to incorporate levees as built versus those that are accredited. we received thousands of comments. it's our goal when we publish this rule, recognize levees as bument and the level of protection they offer, even if it's not opt mall and mapping out the communities. where communities are demonstrating that they are certified and don't have the funds and this is, as you know, this is not a huge -- this is a huge problem. it goes back to managing risk and where is our strategy in mapping this and determining the risk and where do we put the

improvemen improvements. we'll get a better idea of mapping the levees as they are there. not necessarily being accredited levees and see what that problem looks like. that may give us a better idea of where we invest. some may find that the protection there is already adequate and it doesn't significantly change things to move to an accredited levee. others may find this a very significant difference and that is more targeted on where they need to invest. >> the problem is they have to do the study to find out. they don't have the money to do the studies. >> yes, sir. that's why if we go with the levee as built, we'll take it as it is. not having it credited and then can you map and look at what the risk is. >> look forward to working with you. thank you.

>> los angeles is one of the most vulnerable cities for an earthquake. in the 2010 red cross report, 7.2 magnitude earthquake were to strike l.a., 564,000 people would need to be sheltered and additional 2.5 million would require food and water. and unfortunately the l.a. metro area has only 341 shelter facilities with only 84,000 beds. can you tell me what progress has been made since that report? >> gentlemen. working with the emergency manager for the city, our region nine works with state of california. you point out again, if l.a. has this earthquake, they're not going to have enough shelters. the question is, are the shelters even survivable in the earthquake? we know we're going to have to depend upon nonimpacted communities to shelter that population. we work very closely with

california emergency management agency on their plans and our ability to support literally having to get people to shelter outside that area versus what we can bring in to provide temporary shelters. so the plan is safety first and life sustaining activities and then looking at the temporary housing, trying to stabilize population and get them back in. but this is a very good example of why only looking at what the city of los angeles gets for funding doesn't really tell the story. because they could not shelter if they end up with that many people that are homeless looking for a place to stay. we're not going to be able to shelter them in that area with that impact. we have to move them to surrounding communities. we also have to bring a lot of resources from outside that area in to support that response. how do you leverage the capability as cross state lines and in some cases nationally. so the work there that we work with cal-u is looking at that

type of catastrophic planning. focus on how do we get to folks? life safety, looking at shelter needs and the fact that we're going to probably have to use a lot of capability outside the immediate area and then look at what it wouldeven set the stage getting people back in and repopulating. it's a very complex event. this is part of why we went to the frame works to really build that type of capability. this is not about responding our day to day emergency. it is literally about those type of catastrophic events that can happen from earthquakes, hurricanes, or terrorist attacks. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if you -- i have a letter here. i asked to be made a part of this record from the governor of five states, texas, mississippi, florida, louisiana and alabama. expressing grave concern about the decision of the united states air force to move the texas air national guard's 136th

airlift wings from ft. worth to the state of montana. this airlift wing, i understand, is the only domestic emergency airlift capability in the gulf region. according to this letter, texas air national guard 130s have flown 423 storm response teams in texas, louisiana, mississippi, carrying 3,143 passengers and delivering 939 towns of emergency supplies. under current arrangement, the texas governor can mobilize the c-130s from a matter of hours. questioning federal support in emergencies like these it could take days due to federal bureaucracy. how then does this relocation of these c-130s from . tes, to mon ability to provide disaster was fema a part of the decision making process to move these as

it impacts emergency response assets in the gulf region and should this move happen? what is fema's plan to insure appropriate resources to dedicate to the gulf area to insure timely disaster response? >> there are several avenues behave worked on this. we were a participate with the secretary of homeland security on the council of governors which actually have ten governors, not necessarily these governors but ten governors working with secretary panetta, the branches of the military and the national guard bureau as well as their generals. this is an issue as we draw down as what are the impacts and how do we look at the responses?

their bringing up reserves not requiring a mobilization disasters. but i refer to secretary panetta and his folks as to this and also state that through the council of governors which i'm honored to be a part of under secretary napolitano's leadership, these are the issues being discussed with secretary panetta and behalf of the generals on what the impacts are to domestic response. >> this is not a drawdown. this is going to cost money to move them to montana. it's going to have to build up the capacity to house 130s in mon montana. it's not part of the drawdown that we're trying to do to save money in all the deptm is there any kind of reporting tooz what the governor's decisions will be as they talk to panetta? >> yes, sir, they report to the national governor association. the ten are a council of

governors which congress directed the president to appoint and to work with the secretary of defense on, national guard issues particularly. both from the standpoint of domestic response and also the on going care and needs that states have, particularly in looking at their guards. i would defer to that body. i know this issue, not this specific but the overall issues of how these are affecting governors and the ability to do that. >> thank you, mr. carter. before we end this first panel session, i have one quick question to follow up from the conversation that you and i had yesterday. and that's the empg fy-12 guidance. we're very concerned with the new inclusion of additional agency that's will be eligible. my question is do we have your commitment to address this issue? >> yes, sir. >> thank you.

>> it's not our intention to have expanded that but the states have already done before. it was more to create a uniform language and not the intended consequences to open up to brand new applicants for funds under the emergency preparedness grants. >> thank you very much. we appreciate again your attendance this morning and for answer something of the questions that i know this committee has had questions about your agency. touches everyone on this panel, on this committee. and as well as i would say every member of congress. before we turn our second panel, i do want to recognize the ceo for feem yachlt he's with thus morning. we understand he's leaving to go to omb. and we'll truly miss his knowledge and his working with him. but we do thank him for his service and that we do wish you the best as you move over to your new job at omb. at this time we turn to the

second panel and we thank you again for being here. as i mentioned earlier we are con ducking a hearing to discuss homeland security grants and related issues. i would like to introduce the panel, mr. ross ashley is with us this morning. he is executive director of the national infusion association and representing the national infusion center association this

morning. mr. jeff canyon, he is president of the houston texas professional firefighters association, represented the international association of firefighters. mr. john holmes, deputy executive director for the port of los angeles and representing the american association of florida authorities. jim mullen, the current president of the emergency managers association and also the direct your of the washington department of emergency management. he is representing the national emergency managers association. and last but certainly not least, mr. michael depalo who is the director and general manager of the port authority trans hudson corporation. thank you for being here this morning. and we look forward to hearing from each of you as you give us your thoughts and opinions on the grants reform that has been

introduced. this bill is on effort by this committee last year and how the grant is -- has been set up. but we recognize that there are challenges and we believe that it is also time for reform. if you could, maybe keep your kmants to two or three minutes and summarize it for the committee. bear in mind that your written testimony will be placed in the record so before i begin with the open testimony, let me recognize mr. price. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to join with you in welcoming this panel. it's particularly important, i think, to hear from this panel this morning. we are interested in the current grant programs and how they're working and how they can be improved. but we're, of course, especially focused on this new proposal for national preparedness grant program. we discussed this with the administrato administrator. we want to discuss it with you because we value your perspectives. chairman introduced each of our

panelists. i won't go through that again accept to welcome you and say with limited time, we better get on with the testimony. thank you. >> okay. mr. canyon, we'll start with you. if you could give us -- and then we'll go from my left to right and down the table. >> okay. >> good morning. thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. my name is jeff canyon. i'm an engineer operator in the houston fire department and i'm the current president of the houston professional firefighters association. i'm pleased to appear before the iff and our general president and the nearly 300,000 professional firefighters and emergency medical personnel of the international association of firefighters. most fundamental purpose of government is to protect the