as you're well aware, for the past few years, in light of the severe economic downturn, congress has included language in the appropriations bill that permits grant funds to be used to retain firefighters, to avoid layoffs, as well as to hire new firefighters as is the usual requirement under the safer program. has this made a difference in houston? has it made a difference in over situations that you would like us to look at? and do you think this waiver is necessary again in 2013? >> well, it's made a difference. less so in houston as opposed to other municipalities. the waivers, i know there is some concern temporary waivers that seem to be permanent, because we're coming back and saying we need those waivers again. i think first we have to look at it in the light of why those

waivers were initially put in place and what they're there for. initially, you know, when this happened, it was 2002, and nobody realized the economic situation that we would be in over the last few years. nobody would predict the great recession. and there were safeguards that were put in these grants that would protect, that would protect the process of supplementing and and not supplanting municipalities ability to staff their departments. so to go forward, yeah, we need to keep the waivers in place because of the bills, the way they're written right now require -- i'll give you some specific examples so you know, or a specific example. initially, under the safeguards that were in place, a municipality was required if

they hired a firefighter under safer to keep that firefighter, to provide funding for at least five years into the future. the department wouldn't be able to reduce their budget any at all. i can't think of one fire department, including houston, that hasn't had to reduce their budget after the recession. and i think any municipality that is looking at applying for a grant where they're required to have future funding for an employee for up to five years would really have to give that a hard look about whether or not that's a grant they could apply for and make that kind of commitment. so unless the -- there is some reform, and i know there is at least one bill to reform this legislation -- unless there is some reform and we have to keep the waivers in place so that safer is a workable alternative

to bring firefighters back to work and keep some folks on the job. >> a workable alternative that is under conditions of economic pressure and duress. >> yes. >> let me turn to mr. holmes and mr. depallo. you have both in your testimony referred to the shortened time frame that is proposed by the department for awarding funds, or for getting funds out the door. and you both have suggested that this might eliminate certain kinds of larger scale projects, certain kinds of capital scale projects. i mentioned with mr. fugate is a few minutes ago, the tunnel hardening as a possible example. i wonder if you would elaborate exactly just based again on your experience, on the kinds of projects you have asked for and have anticipated going forward,

what would be the effect of that kind of shortened time frame. and i guess this particularly applies to the rail and transit side. you're going to have to make up in some way for this funding to pay for what you need to do. >> right. you mentioned tunnel hardening. we currently have a tunnel hardening project. a project like that requires a great deal of advanced planning, engineering, design, procurement of the equipment and materials necessary, and then implementation of a project. for example, in a tunnel that operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. it's impossible to do that in two years. most capital projects, and that's a very complicated one. even less complicated projects still require a great deal of planning, engineering and design. that's compounded by the fact that if the moneys are not released on time, the clock starts ticking later. so it just complicates the issue. so in effect i believe, in my opinion, that by reducing the

time period to two years, you're going to be eliminating any significant capital projects at all. >> i would echo that. and i think it's very similar in the port environment. in my comments, when i said you move from people seeking solutions to people buying stuff, that's what happens. they decide we're going to buy this because it's fast. we can do this fast. our projects are very similar. we have a multimillion-dollar camera system we built that we had to get an extension on that system. it was $27 million, 300 cameras. we're doing directional drilling to lay fiberoptic cable. and in the new world order, we're looking at things like i.t. and cybersecurity. and those are solutions. they're systems. and they have to be designed. and sometimes these systems take a year or more to design. and then you are the contracting process, and you have to go through all the steps. if -- with this moving from

three years to two years, i would have to say that you are -- i would have to agree, you're pretty much eliminating any sophisticated project. and what you're going to go back to is people getting the money and saying what can i buy quickly? let me buy ten cars, let me buy two boats. and you're not going to move forward in this process. you're going to backslide in this process significantly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> first of all, let me welcome all the panelists, because i think each of you play a critical role in protecting our national security. but i do want to specifically thank mr. holmes for being here, flying across the country to testify. as i mentioned, the courts play such an important role in our

national economy. understanding the difficult budgetary decisions that mr. fugate has to make, the fact remains that a terror attack on the port of l.a./long beach port would have a devastating impact on our national economy. you have heard mr. fugate's comments. i believe you were here during his testimony. could you comment on his response regarding the proposed grant program and his hope that everybody can work together to properly prioritize the needs? and then also, if time allows, and you also provide us with some suggestions on how you think that the port security grant requirements and guidance could be improved and simplified. if you could offer us some suggestions to do that.

>> let me start by saying, you know, certainly mr. fugate is well recognized and has done a great job at fema. i think the first point i would make is there is a difference between coordination and control. you know, it's easy to make it sound like we don't work with the states, but we work very closely with the state of california doing risk assessments and identifying port needs. what we wouldn't agree -- what we wouldn't be so keen on is allowing them to have control of the funding. there is a big difference between coordinating with the states and controlling, letting them control your funding. i mean, as you know, the port is fundamentally a business. we coordinate with a lot of people. but we don't let everybody handle our money. i think that's not a good decision. the second thing that i would say is i'm not sure what kind of time constraints that would add to a system that as you heard from myself and my colleague down at the table, already is a

cumbersome and time sensitive system. by adding another step in the process, i'm not sure that i could identify what the value added is. with his respect to the comments that all the grants should be together, i can't speak for all the grants, but i can speak, as you well know, ports historically in this country as a nation are largely federally controlled. our biggest partner is the u.s. coast guard. and i think one of the things that has been done well in this system is the coast guard system of having the area maritime security committees review grant proposals and try to determine where the vulnerabilities are and where the needs are. so if you're looking at the relationship between a city and a state and a port and a state, they're very, very different. ports are very federally focused. port facilities are federally regulated facilities. so i think there is a very good reason why the port funding should be separate from the other funding.

you know, with respect to suggestions, i think as i said first of all, the funding has been woefully decreased. it's authorized at $400 million. and this year it's been recommended at $97.5 million. that's a 75% decrease over a few years. i think the second thing, as i also said in my testimony is, and just said, it needs to be separate. you know, port funding was separated from the other funding because it -- prior to 9/11, there was very little requirements for security at ports, and we had to start from zero and work our way up. so it was very important to separate the ports and focus on the ports. by bundling them together, i think a statement is being made that ports aren't as important anymore, which i don't agree, because 93% of all the cargo coming into the country comes by water. the last thing i would say is, you know, we go back and forth

about cost shares. and, again, i think it's important for the port or the organization to have skin in the game. but people still seem to not appreciate the fact that if any -- if the gentleman down at this end of the table or the fire department gets equipment, we have to maintain this forever. so we more than meet our requirement to ponying up the skin in the game. particularly with i.t. projects. if we do a -- our camera system maintenance is a million dollars a year. so i have significant skin in the game. so i'm not sure what a 25% cost share proves. i think that there should be a uniform cost share waiver because some years there is a cost share and some years there is not. i think there shouldn't be a cost share. but i think one of the most important things we can do immediately is there needs to be a joint dh port user group to take a look at this system and see ways where we perhaps can

accept a state environmental or historic preservation clearance as good for the federal government, because we keep -- we keep repeating these things on several levels. be willing to say as mr. fugate says we have to trust the states, let's trust the states. if t a environmental clearance, an historical clearance, that should be good for the federal government as well. but the current system, it's not. it's repetitive, and it's this pile-on thing that is really making i hope that answered all your questions. >> it does. >> i didn't mean to ramble. >> does anyone else want to comment if i have the time on any of the comments that mr. fugate made? >> i can say i agree as well. the difference in -- between ports and transit are very -- the needs are very much different. and it needs to be separated at path we carry over 250,000 passengers a day. we're a wide open system. and there is a tremendous threat and risk associated.

but it's a different type of risk. and we need to be able to compare projects accurately and be able to prioritize them, and do so across different modes or industries makes it that much more complex and difficult. >> and if i may say one last thing, this idea of lumping grants together presumes that there is some overarching methodology that exists, that i can determine whether a suicide bomber at the mall of america or in one of my colleagues' transit facilities is more or less risky than something happening in the port. and up to this point, i don't think that overarching methodology exists. so if you're trying to put everything together and devi it up, you have the presumption that there is some methodology you're going to use to do that. and i'm not sure that right now that exists. >> yes? >> i did want to comment. the key point is visibility of

what is being spent and what is being committed. and i think we get that through the development of the -- which is clearly going to be released in the next couple of weeks. it would be very desirable for every part of the community, ports, transit, and all the others to plan and do that together, participate together. then we get an idea. because the dollars are not going up. they are going down. and as dollars go down, we all have to decide what is the best way to say that i will understand mr. holmes' issues a lot better when as part of a thira we can look at what his risks are and make some intelligent judgments about how can we support those things. >> thank you. thank you. let me address one question to you. nema has been very outspoken about the needs to show the

impact of investment into grant programs, particularly in the times such as today. of these, empg is one of the few grant programs that has significant cost share. so it's not just federal funds that are invested, but also state and local funds. how does nema measure performance, and what lessons learn candidate you share with the rest of the stakeholder community? >> one of the better measures is what the federal government does not have to do because of the capabilities that exist in local and state government about empg. i was just looking at the report that we submitted to the committee just the other -- just yesterday, i believe. there was something like 98 or 99 presidential disasters. there were another 250 state events that did not rise to a level of a disaster, largely because of the ability of the states to control, manage, and prepare in advance and coordinate response. there were thousands of other

events that the local governments manage that require very little or no intervention by the state because their professional staff at the local level are equipped, skilled, and talented enough to address the problem, keep it from getting out of proportion. so in addition to the fact that when we're allocating $350 million, that immediately is a minimum of $700 million that is with our match requirement. and the additional moneys that -- we sense most jurisdictions overmatch at the local level. i would say that the way we have measured this is we have tried to report to you very clearly how empg is actually saving money by allowing the response to occur at the lowest possible level as needed so, when there is a big event like some of the things that just happened, that's the kind of time when the federal assistance can be valuable. but as mr. fugate even

acknowledged, even assistance is more oriented towards recovery because skill sets of the people that have been on the ground using this combination of dollars that have been provided. >> of course our time is rung out. but one thing that we have -- one of the challenges that we face, especially in the tightening budgets, is to make sure that taxpayer funds are used wisely. and this creates the need to measure the effectiveness of every grant fund. mr. caynon, let me ask you about this. how would this be established with the funds we grant to the fire departments? >> well, i mentioned it earlier. and everyone's got a copy of the needs assessment that the prior administration did. for us, one of the major shortfalls in our profession is staffing.

we've seen, like i said, some progress in staffing because of safer. and we're asking obviously to do what we need to continue that progress. i guess that's the most immediate measurable way that we can look at the success of these grants is the effect that we've seen on staffing so far. it's difficult i think for folks to get their arms around what it means to have appropriate staffing. because it's a profession that is so specialized, we get the question all the time, why do you need four people when there are other municipalities that have three or respond with less. the best way i guess i can -- the best quick example i can give you is that we can go to the airport and get on a plane and there only needs to be one person flying it.

but you wouldn't get on a you wouldn't go down to an airline and get on plane if they said, well, we're short-staffed today, and usually we only need one pilot, so you'll be fine. in the grants we're talking about here, the most ---ible valuation of success is what we've seen in improvement in staffing since we have safer in place. and that's -- that's a quantifiable example i think we can look at. we've seen progress there, and i think we would like to see that progress continue. >> thank you. one thing i do want to ask about the fusion centers, could you tell the subcommittee a little bit about what the fusion centers provide for the federal government that is not provide normally by the state and the local public safety? >> sure. there is -- what is really provided is this national network. and having this network, as i

mentioned in my oral statement where alabama can pick up the phone, talk to north carolina. it's also the notion of before fusion centers were in place, there was no mechanism to communicate critical national security information down to our state and local decision makers. it didn't exist, at the classified or unclassified level that mechanism is now in place. and put that local and state kind of flavor on the information for the official that makes it relevant to them. the other is the pushing of information from the state and local officials back up to the national intelligence community. and that partnership with dhsina that allows that information to get to the national intelligence community, to be able to prevent acts of terrorism. this committee commissioned a report a number of years ago with the research triangle institute. basically, that report stated that in 80% of the cases of any

terrorist threats since 9/11, either actual or thwarted that the additional piece of information that came from that was either derived from the public or a state and/or law enforcement official. if you look at where the department is going, if you see something, say something campaign, with the nationwide suspicious activity reporting and the support and requirement for justify indications and fusion centers, we see that moving in the right direction. and investing in those areas that provide those capabilities that were not there prior to 9/11, that are critical for making sure that we don't have an event in the port or transit system. that is the key. we can't afford for the event to happen in the first place. >> thank you. mr. price? >> let me follow up with you immediately about the kind of funding that the fusion centers require. most of this i understand is from state grants, most of your

funding. what is your federal grant funding total overall? and do you see this proposal for a grant consolidation as in any way putting your funding at risk? >> now i'm probably one of the few people to tell you and i believe mr. mullen and myself basically, i don't think that puts our funding at risk. i think the department has made it clear, the secretary has made it clear that fusion centers in the national network is a priority. so we view that -- we don't view that as a problem. let me give you an example of where we are with finding out about how much money actually goes. i'm going to use fy '11 as an example. i gave you a couple anecdotal evidence. we have information back from 43 of the fusion centers at this point of the 77 now recognized fusion centers. in fy '11, the total budgets of 43 of the centers was approximately $110 million. of that, $74 million was state and/or local funding. which totals about 67%.

33% of that was from federal investment, either through the state homeland security grant program or the program. that was pretty specific. i asked earlier with the staff to keep the record. we would actually like to submit state by state, urban area by urban area the funding both the total budget of the centers as well as what categories of funding, where it's coming from with the committees. >> let me ask you another question. >> we'll keep the record open. >> let me ask you another question related to this consolidation proposal. it has to do with uasi. i think you were fairly outspoken last year about the undesirability of limiting the number of uasi eligible cities during our debate, especially on hr 1. now given our current fiscal environment, and mr. mullen has stressed this as well, this money is hard to come by these

days. and knowing the orange intent of the uasi program, do you still believe that uasi shouldn't be targeted to the very highest risk urban areas? >> from the national fusion center association, we don't take an opinion on whether funding ought to go towards uasi or state. we basically have urban areas and we have state centers. i think it gets down to what can we afford at that point. we believe in eligibility for the urban areas. however, given fiscal constraints, it is logical to figure that we're going to have to reduce funding. and i think the department has moved in a way to try to look at sustained capabilities where we have capabilities. and to we can't afford to continue to build new capabilities. let's focus on what we have. so i think we still hold by the fact of having urban areas still eligible, even in a reduced fiscal environment.

>> i'll close with you, mr. mullen. i want to return to the question that the chairman raised, the very last question the chairman raised with administrator fugate. it has to do with the major change, or maybe it's a major change. i don't know. maybe that's what i'm really asking you in empg guidance that's included in the budget. and that is the expanded use of the dollars, or the potentially expanded use of the dollars permitted in empg grant's funds to be subcommitted to nongovernment emergency entities such as nonprofit, public and private universities, faith-based entities. it's not mandated, but the possibility is opened up. how do you regard this change? do you think it's likely to make a significant difference? as you well know, a lot of the

people in the emergency management community have raised concerns about this, have asked a lot of questions about it. how do you assess this proposal, and how does your organization -- what kind of position, if any, have you taken on it? >> we have not taken a position on that specific guidance at this time. but a couple of things need to be considered. one is that with the funding levels remaining static, i think the needs that are currently being fund ready going to be prioritized at the local and state level for epg, which might not leave as much room as one would hope for the programs. but some states actually do fund those programs as part of their overall efforts. so in a sense, it may not make that much a difference in the short-term, but we will -- we're going to look at that, and we'll be happy to get back to you with a more thorough position on that. we have not had a chance to meet and review and take abusome sta

that, and some do not. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks to all of you. >> any further questions? well, thank you all for being here, for your presence here this morning and this afternoon. and i know we went long. but we've talked about some very important issues here this afternoon. so we appreciate each of you for taking your time to come here and testify before the committee. we look forward to getting your written testimony for the record. and so with nothing else, the meeting is adjourned. >> in a few moments, c-span radio's "washington today" program. in two hours, more hearings on next year's budget, including congressional testimony from

securities and exchange commission chairman mary schapiro, and secretary of state hillary clinton. and then federal reserve chairman ben bernanke on the economic outlook. >> not fighting and dying because they're al qaeda. they're not fighting and dying and sacrificing their lives because they're muslim extremists. they're fighting and zhying because they want the same universal rights and freedom that we guaranteed in our constitution. >> i think if we don't get the international community together in a coalition of the willing soon, we're going to look back and say we not only didn't do the right thing morally to stop innocents from being killed, we missed an extraordinary strategic opportunity. >> i want to make the point that the concerns that senator mccain and you and others have expressed are exactly the concerns of the administration. we're not divided here. and we are not holding back.

this administration has led in iraq. we've led in afghanistan. we've led in the war on terrorism. we led in libya, and we're leading in syria. we are working with those elements to try to bring them together. if the agreement here is that we ought not to just simply go in unilaterally, then we have to build a multilateral coalition. we've got to be able to work at that. it's not that easy. to deal with some of the concerns that are out there. >> watch this week's hearings and news conferences whenever you want online at the c-span video library. search events from today from this year and earlier. over a quarter century of american politics and public affairs on your computer at c-span.org/videolibrary. there are some members who are concerned about whether we are doing enough to stem the violence in syria, and that's understandable. and there are others who are concerned about the dangers of involvingur