to respond. can you tell me what kind of progress has been made since that 2010 report? >> yes, ma'am. working with jim featherstone, who is the emergency manager for the city, our region nine works with the 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 always about life 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. this goes back to national preparedness. there are scenarios that are so big for any jurisdiction to be prepared for it is impossible, how do you leverage those capabilities across, not just within a state but across 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 would take to stabilize to even set the stage for 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. >> mr. carter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. fugate, i have a letter here i ask to be made part of the record from governors 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 wing of eight c-130s currently located in 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 in a matter of hours. however, it's my understanding, federal support in emergencies like these can take days due to federal beaurocracy. how then does this relocation of these c-130s from ft. worth, texas, to montana affect the ability to provide disaster relief to the gulf region in time of emergency? 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? >> again, i think secretary panetta has more of a position on how he's looking for his budget decisions.

there are several avenues we have worked on on this. we were participating 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 adjutant 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 adjutant generals are with respect 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 montana. they are f-15 base now. it's not part of the drawdown that we're trying to do to save money in all the departments. it's a very confusing decision that's been made. is there any kind of reporting as to what these governors 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 ongoing 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. also the work that's being done at north com to support states

if we do require federal assistance. >> thank you. >> 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. administrator fugate. that's the mpgfy '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 -- beyond that the states have 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 norman don, ceo for fema. he's with us this morning. we understand he's leaving to go to omb. and we'll truly miss his knowledge and his working with us. 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, mr. fugate, for being here.

as i mentioned earlier we are convening a panel 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 fusion center association, and he's representing the news infusion center association this morning. mr. jeff canyon, he is president of the houston texas professional firefighters association, represented the international association of firefighters. captain john holmes, deputy executive director for the port of los angeles and representing the american association of port authorities. jim mullen, who is the current president of the national emergency managers association. and also the director 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. representing the american public transit association. thank each of 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 comments two to 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 administra 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, texas, fire department, and i'm the current president of the houston professional firefighters association. i'm pleased to appear before you on behalf of iff and our general president and the nearly 300,000 professional firefighters and emergency medical personnel of internal association of firefighters. most fundamental purpose of government is to protect the public safety. and despite rising deficits, federal government cannot afford to cut spending on homeland security funds to state and local governments. as the first line of defense in protecting our homeland, federal government has an inherent responsibility to help insure the local departments can effectively protect the public. among the most infective federal programs to assist local communities and protecting the homeland are safer and fire grant programs. studied by the nfpa recently found that fire department capabilities improved a variety

of areas funded by safe air and fire. there have been significant increases in the number of fire departments that are able to provide their firefighters with violation equipment such as radios, protective clothing and turnout gear. thanks to fire grants, more fire departments to day are able to train their firefighters in basic structural fire fighting, hazmat response and emergency medical care. the needs assessment also found similar permits in staffing. all of this translates into improved public safety. i know firsthand the value of these programs. following the tragic death of two firefighters at a fast food restaurant in houston, houston fire department applied for and received $2 million fire grant to fund innovative fire grant survivability program that provided training for survival skills and may day prevention. although they are traditionally well funded, efforts to reduce the deaf fit caused a reduction in funding for the last two years. for fiscal years '10 and '11, the programs were funded at a

total of $810 million. fiscal 2012, however, funding was reduced to $675 million. the administration's budget proposal further reduces funding for safe fire for $670 million. reversing recent funding cuts to safe air and fire will insure that communities have the resources they need to protect the homeland. therefore, we recommend that the subcommittee provide $810 million evenly divided for the two programs in fiscal 2013. in addition to safe air and fire grants, the urban search and rescue system is crucial to our nation's homeland security. these systems comprised of 28 national task forces equipped in exercised personnel capable of responding in natural and man made disasters. the state of texas is a proud sponsor of one such force. congress provided modest increases to the ustr and funding the program at $41.25

million in fiscal '12. unfortunately the administration's budget reverses this trend and cuts the funding by $13.7 million. the average cost to maintain a usar team exceeds $2 million, leaving local governments with -- which sponsor the task force to fill the gap. many localities facing budget short falls themselves, sponsoring the teams is a burden they struggle to afford significantly straining task force capability and readiness. for a minor investment, congress can significantly enhance the nation's preparedness to respond appropriately. we encourage the subcommittee to increase the funding in usar over fiscal year 2012 appropriation. lastly, we wish to express our reservations regarding the administration's proposal to consolidate 16 homeland security grant programs into the new national preparedness grant

program. each of the homeland security grants was established in order to serve a specific and important public safety need. giving limited federal funding, merging these distinct homeland security priorities into a single block grant could cause such priorities to go unserved. as a major metropolitan area and a border state containing a port, significant rail and road freight and repleat with hazardous industry, houston faces significant risk for terrorist attack and other large scale disaster. these targeted grant programs have contributed to a more complete level of preparedness. we're also concerned that the national preparedness grant would be administered solely by the states without adequate input from local emergency managers and first responders who often have the best knowledge of homeland security threats and needs. we urge the subcommittee to carefully consider any grant proposal and seek the input of all stakeholders, especially

state and local government representatives and first responders before making major changes to current homeland security grants. again, i'd like to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify here today and i'm happy to answer any of your questions. >> captain? pass the mike. >> pass the mike. mr. chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. i'm captain john holmes, director of operations for the port of los angeles. my testimony focuses on experience of the port of los angeles and apa's u.s. members. my written testimony has been submitted for the record. i'll summarize it briefly before i answer any questions. in the decades since 9/11, a key component of the nation's effort to harden the security of sea ports has been the port security grant program. under the safe port act, the port security grant program is authorized at $400 million. unfortunately, in the last few years, the funding for this program has decreased dramatically. there were other adverse changes to the fy 2012 grants as well.

first, the term of performance has been changed from three years to two years. although we appreciate the need to execute projects, we are concerned that such a move will shift the focus to buying stuff rather than developing solutions. the past period performance made it difficult to exercise these solutions. the current period will make it impossible. cost share requirements have been an obstacle. i appreciate that effective for grantee to have skin in the game, it is often overlooked that the skin that the ports provide is the ongoing operations and maintenance cost of the grant funded equipment or systems. this is particularly true with technology solutions where the annual operating cost can be as high as 10% of the project cost. another hurdle is the environmental and historic preservation review. while other fema programs must go through these reviews, there isn't the threat of a loss of funds because there is no timetable associated with these programs.

while ehp streamlined some of the reviews, there still are major reason why many of the grant projects require an extension. the fy-2012 grant announcement includes improvements to the program by expanding the use of funds for maintenance and allowing the limited use of grants for personnel. we are also pleased to see that despite the funding cuts, all ports continue to be eligible. restricting funding to the highest risk ports would leave a soft underbelly of unprotected ports for terrorists to exploit. we appreciate the willingness of dhs to work with the ports on grant issues, positive changes have been made and we hope that these changes will continue. we feel that over the time the pylon effect of new requirements has had a significant negative impact on the program. for fiscal year 2013 and beyond, we strongly urge the committee to restore port security funding, keep the funding

separate, maintain federal control, provide uniform cost share waiver and establish a joint dhs port group to streamline the process. in order to continue to be effective, the grant process must evolve in conjunction with port needs and vulnerabilities. working with dhs, efforts have been made to keep pace with this evolution. we fear that if ports are lumped into the larger homeland security equation, efforts to date will be marginalized and the focus on ports will be lost. thank you. >> chairman, ranking member price, members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the national fusion center association, thank you for inviting me. a lot has changed since i was here as the assistant administrator of the grant program's director. the administration's intent to streamline the grant programs allocate based on risk and measure the impact is exactly

the right way to go given the funding reduction that's occurred. but there are a lot of unanswered questions. re-authorization of the preparedness grant programs, the president's proposals should be considered under the current construct of law. we would do a disservice to the progress made by creating a new patchwork program without authorization. after nearly five years, congress should reauthorize as soon as possible or make it clear to the department that the current construct of law should be followed. congress should also continue to in sure that dhs measure the effect the programs have on preparedness. until they fully implement a budgeting system that assesses all impacts of federal investment, we cannot determine whether 100 new border patrol agents or another ten million in operation stone garden funding provides the best return on investment. the funding allocations and grant guidance continue to head in the right direction. the nfca urges the subcommittee to continue to support the secretary's efforts to focus funding on programs that support the analysis and sharing of homeland security threat information. that includes the sustainment of

a strong national network of fusion centers. fusion centers helped transform the way federal, state and local and tribal governments share intelligence information to protect the homeland just as envisioned by the 9/11 commission and the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004. fusion centers analyze the national threat information at a local context, past critical state and local information up to federal partners and intel general community and dem nature relevant actual information state and local decision makers and all this has done while protecting privacy, civil liberties and civil rights. fusion centers are owned and operated and budgeted at the state and local level. a sustainment model that works in boston may not work in my hometown of montgomery. for example, the alabama fusion center budget was $800,000 in fy-11. 40% of that came from the state general fund and 60% from dhs preparedness grants. north carolina information analysis center budget was $683,000 in fy-11.

77% of that came from dhs preparedness grants and 27% from doj grants. flexibility from urban areas to determine how center is supported is an essential element of the national network. simply put, the decentralized network is a national asset and it's the same as a shared responsibility among all levels of government. there is no other mechanism to leveraging more than two million public safety practitioners and the private sector in every corner of the country to protect the homeland. let me conclude with a story that shows the value of the national network. recently a local police officer in alabama made a traffic stop. based on plain sight observations, the officer asked to see the contents of a duffel bag in the backseat. inside the duffle back were four police uniforms and four police badges. when reviewed, each of them stated they were headed to a location in colorado and the occupants were allowed on their way. what happens next shows how far we've come in taking proactive measures to protect the homeland. the officer completed a report and clicked the sar button in the alabama system.

that suspicious activity report went immediately to the alabama fusion center which analyzed the information and contacted the colorado fusion center. the fbi has a presence in both of the centers. the matter is still being considered. whether this situation has to do with terrorism or some other criminal activity, a key point is that within hours federal, state, and local officials can act to prevent criminal activity where aware of the situation. this goes far beyond information sharing. this is deep collaboration that makes our country safer and the fusion center an enabler. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, chairman, ranking member price and members of the subcommittee so much for the opportunity to provide some brief comments this morning on our submitted statement for the record. neiman was very pleased to see the progress made by the administration in the 2013 budget proposal. we should be. because since june of last year and direct response to congress call for reform, we worked on developing a new comprehensive preparedness grant system.

the current grant structure is complex and contradictory often. creating too many opportunities for uncoordinated efforts. as many on this committee stated before, the fiscal condition of this nation requires us to invest every dollar more wisely than ever. we appreciate your continued support over the years of the emergency management performance grant or empg, we remain committed to demonstrating to you the return on your investment in this program and recently released our second an report on mpg. nema believes we can gain efficiencies in the grant system to increase the infectiveness of our mission. we can increase flexibility while gaining much needed accountability, changes must be made to the structure under which we operate. first, a skilled cadre is necessary in order to effectively complete the threat, hazard, identification, risk assessment, or thira, and a comprehensive planning process

oilt lined. we propose keeping empg as is and begin a similarly structured grant for professionals allowing state and local focus on preventing terrorist acts to continue. one the thira is completed ashgs a planning process is required. grant planning efforts seem driven more by funding levels than on the capabilities we need to confront threats and hazards. we recommended turning this process upside down and allocate funding based on the thira and the development of capabilities to address gaps, buy down risks and build performance measurement in each project. the plan feed intelligent investments and national assets. we like aspects of the preparedness grant program with the present 2013 budget but suggest it be project based. applications should be evaluated by a multi-disciplinary and multi-jurisdiction al # committee prior to review by the state administrative agency, local governments should be encouraged to band together and apply directly. this opportunity for combinations of local governments to participate specifically addresses the question. due to the size and inherent threat, tier one cities should continue to be directly funded by allowing other combinations of local governments to apply

directly, those remaining in the jurisdictions can continue participating in the process and receive funding without that annual fear of falling off the list. overall, this process is about building and sustaining capabilities across the country, encouraging innovation, self organization and regionalization where local decision makers wish to do so. empowering local governments to decide which projects they want to fund, providing visibility to all levels of government and helping remove politics from preparedness decisions, recognizing interdeppseys across this country and most importantly it's flexibility with accountability. one tenet of the nema proposal stands above others as chairman rogers reminded us last year president eisenhower stated our nation deserve security but we also deserve solvency. in these budget constrained times, nema is committed to working with you and achieving both of these goals.

throughout this process, we want to initiate a dialogue with all stakeholders. we thank you for this forum to do just. that i appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing. i look forward to any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> thank you. good morning, chairman and ranking member and members of the subcommittee. i thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony. i am the director and general manager of the port authority transhudson corporation, a subsidiary of the port authority of new york and new jersey. today i'm testifying as chairman of the security affairs steering committee of the american public transportation association. mr. chairman, according to the mineta transportation institute, since 1970 more than 2,000 separate attacks have occurred worldwide on surface transportation causing over 6,000 deaths and approximately 19,000 injuries. the government accountability office, along with various government agencies, have reported on or testified to congress that public transportation in america remains vulnerable to terrorist

attacks and that al qaeda remains interested in targeting the transit sect or. more needs to be done to prevent and prepare for such a potential attack. while we've been very fortunate to date not having a direct terrorist attack carried out in our transit systems, we have indeed foiled plots and arrested individuals who intended to attack our systems. let me especially note that path experienced the tremendous devastation of a terrorist attack as the result of the horrific attacks on the world trade center in 1993 and 2001. for this and many other reasons, i feel strongly that the funding commitment to fortifying our systems must match the recognized risks and threats. there was a tremendous need for security grants to secure and fortify our transit systems across the country. in 2010 an active survey of its

members found that security investments needs in excess of $6.4 billion nationwide. this stated need contrasts with the recent trends in cuts to transit security grant programs including the fy-2012 allocation of $87 million in transit security. i urge congress to restore appropriations for the transit security grant program and this and the subsequent appropriation bills. while this is -- while there is good policy represented in the fy-2012 grant guidance and fy-2013 national preparedness grant program, we do have some thoughts about elements of both. specifically, we are concerned with the new 24-month grant period for performance on all projects, reduction from the previous three to five-year allowable expenditure period. also, since path assets are included on the top transit asset list, the ttal, i would