<DOC>
[DOCID: f:2910454.wais]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[The following testimonies were received by the
Subcommittee on Homeland Security for inclusion in the record.
The submitted materials relate to the fiscal year 2004 budget
request for programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]
Prepared Statement of the American Public Transportation Association
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to submit written
testimony on the security and safety needs of public transportation
systems. We appreciate the subcommittee's interest in transportation
security, and we look forward to working with the subcommittee as it
develops the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill for the Department of
Homeland Security.
about apta
The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) is a
nonprofit international association of over 1,500 public and private
member organizations including transit systems and commuter rail
operators; planning, design, construction, and finance firms; product
and service providers; academic institutions; transit associations and
State departments of transportation. APTA members serve the public
interest by providing safe, efficient, and economical transit services
and products. Over 90 percent of persons using public transportation in
the United States and Canada are served by APTA member systems.
public transportation and security
Mr. Chairman, we do not need to emphasize the critical importance
of keeping our Nation's surface transportation infrastructure secure in
this time of heightened national security. In that connection, APTA is
honored to play a critical role in public transportation security. We
work closely with a number of Administration security agencies, and
administer an industry audit program that oversees a system safety and
security management plan for transit systems around the country. Our
safety audit program for commuter rail, bus, and rail transit
operations has been in place for many years, and contains security
planning and emergency preparedness elements. Separately, in connection
with Presidential Decision Directive Number 63, we are pleased to have
been designated a Public Transportation Sector Coordinator by the
Department of Transportation, and as my testimony notes below, we are
establishing a Transit Information Sharing Analysis Center that
provides a secure two-way reporting and analysis structure for the
transmission of critical alerts and advisories to transit agencies
around the country.
Since the events of 9/11, State and local public transit agencies,
like all State and local entities, have spent significant sums on
police overtime, enhanced planning and training exercises, and capital
improvements related to security. In response to an APTA survey,
transit agencies around the country have identified some $6 billion in
transit security needs. These include both one-time capital investments
and recurring operating expenses related to security. It is important
to note that these costs are above and beyond the capital
infrastructure needs we have identified under the TEA 21
reauthorization effort. Mr. Chairman, my testimony summarizes these
security needs in greater detail below in the ``Security Investment
Needs'' section.
We also note that Congress just concluded the conference agreement
on the fiscal year 2003 supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 1559)
that funds a number of homeland security programs, including some $2.2
billion for formula and discretionary grants to enhance the capability
of State and local jurisdictions to prepare and respond to terrorist
attacks. This measure includes funding for overtime expenses related to
increased security by State and local entities. Transit agencies, as
local public bodies, are expected to be eligible recipients for such
funding, which will be administered by the Homeland Security
Department's Office of Domestic Preparedness.
background
Mr. Chairman, prior to and following September 11, 2001--the date
of the most devastating terrorist attack in United States history--APTA
has been heavily involved in addressing the safety and security issues
of our country. American public transportation agencies have also taken
significant measures to enhance their security and emergency
preparedness efforts to adjust to society's new state of concern.
Although agencies were largely secure at the time of the World Trade
Center and Pentagon attacks and already had emergency response plans in
place, the September 11 incidents energized and prioritized security
efforts throughout the industry.
Transit agencies have had a good safety record and have been
working for many years to enhance their system security and employee
security training, partly responding to government standards, APTA
guidelines, and attacks on transit agencies abroad. For example, the
1995 sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway system caused United States
transit properties managing tunnels and underground transit stations to
go on high alert. The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District,
for instance, responded to the possible threat of chemical weapons
attacks by sending a police team to Fort McClellan, Alabama, in 1996 to
learn response tactics from United States Army chemical weapons
experts.
In the months following September 11, transit agencies of all sizes
worked to identify where they might be vulnerable to attacks and
increased their security expenses for both operations and capital
costs. The agencies subsequently upgraded and strengthened their
emergency response and security plans and procedures, taking steps to
protect transit infrastructure and patrons and increase transit
security presence while giving riders a sense of security.
Transit industry services are, by design and necessity, an open
infrastructure. Over 9 billion transit trips are taken annually on all
modes of transit service. This is more than sixteen times the level on
domestic air travel trips and emphasizes the challenges for enhancing
security within our transit environments.
After September 11, many transit organizations worked to prevent
unauthorized entry into transit facilities. The need for employees and
passengers to stay alert and report suspicious occurrences became a key
goal of many agencies. These efforts are paying off. Many transit
agencies report being more secure than prior to September 11, but
suggest that many improvements are still in the planning stages.
Since the attacks, APTA and the Federal Transit Administration have
emphasized the need for effective transit security and emergency
preparedness. FTA has sent security resources toolkits to transit
agencies; completed security-vulnerability assessments of the nation's
largest transit systems; and provided technical support and grants of
up to $50,000 to fund agency emergency drills.
FTA continues to provide emergency preparedness and security forums
nationwide. In emphasizing the importance of enhancing transit
security, FTA Administrator Jennifer L. Dorn noted that thousands of
lives were spared on September 11 in New York City and Washington
``because of the quick action of first responders and transit
workers.''
APTA has launched many additional efforts to further transit
industry security and preparedness, collaborating with FTA in
developing emergency preparedness forums, and sponsoring and organizing
security-related conferences and workshops. Moreover, APTA developed a
list of critical safety and security needs faced by the transit
industry, which it has provided to the Department of Transportation and
the United States Congress.
public transportation information sharing analysis center (isac)
Presidential Decision Directive #63 authorizes and encourages
national critical infrastructures to develop and maintain ISACs as a
means of strengthening security and protection against cyber and
operations attacks. APTA is pleased to have been designated a public
transportation Sector Coordinator by the U.S. Department of
Transportation, and in that capacity has received a $1.2 million grant
from the Federal Transit Administration to establish a transit ISAC.
APTA recently formalized an agreement with a private company to
implement the ISAC and make it available to public transit systems
around the country.
This ISAC for public transit provides a secure two-way reporting
and analysis structure for the transmission of critical alerts and
advisories as well as the collection, analysis and dissemination of
security information from transit agencies. The public transit ISAC
also provides a critical linkage between the transit industry, the U.S.
Department of Transportation, the Transportation Security
Administration, and the Office of Homeland Security.
ongoing transit security programs
Mr. Chairman, while transit agencies have moved to a heightened
level of security alert, the leadership of APTA has been actively
working with its strategic partners to develop a practical plan to
address our industry's security and emergency preparedness needs.
Shortly after the September 11 events, the APTA Executive Committee
established a Security Task Force under the leadership of Washington
Metro's CEO, Richard A. White. The APTA Security Task Force has
established a security strategic plan that prioritizes direction for
our initiatives. Among those initiatives, the Task Force serves as the
steering group for determining security projects that are being
implemented through over $2 million in Transit Cooperative Research
funding through the Transportation Research Board.
Through this funding, four transit security workshop forums were
held for the larger transit systems with potentially greater risk
exposure. These workshops were held in confidential settings to enable
sharing of security practices and applying methodologies to various
scenarios. The outcomes from these workshops were made available in a
controlled and confidential format to other transit agencies unable to
attend the workshops. The workshops were held in New York, San
Francisco, Atlanta, and Chicago.
In partnerships with the Transportation Research Board, the APTA
Security Task Force has also established two TCRP Panels that
identified and initiated specific projects developed to address
Preparedness/Detection/Response to Incidents and Prevention and
Mitigation. The Security Task Force emphasized the importance for the
research projects to be operationally practical.
In addition to the TCRP funded efforts, a generic Checklist For
Transit Agency Review Of Emergency Response Planning And System Review
has been developed by APTA as a resource tool and is available on the
APTA web-site. Also through the direction of the Security Task Force,
APTA has reached out to other organizations and international
transportation associations to formally engage in sharing information
on our respective security programs and directions and to continually
work towards raising the bar of safety and security effectiveness.
Within this concept of partnership and outreach, APTA also
continues in its ongoing collaboration with the Federal Transit
Administration to help in guiding and developing FTA programs. Among
these are regional Emergency Preparedness and Security Planning
Workshops that are currently being delivered through the Volpe Center
and have been provided in numerous regions throughout the United
States. The primary focus of such workshops has been to assist
particularly smaller transit systems in building effective emergency
response plans with first responders and their regional offices of
emergency management. Also within this partnership, APTA has assisted
the FTA and the National Transit Institute in the design of a new
program ``Security Awareness Training for Frontline Employees and
Supervisors.'' This program is now being provided by NTI to transit
agencies throughout the nation.
Collaborative efforts between APTA, FTA, Volpe Center, and the
National Transit Institute are also underway to establish a joint web-
site that will specifically gather and disseminate effective transit
practices with initial emphasis on safety and security.
As you may be aware, APTA has long-established Safety Audit
Programs for Commuter Rail, Bus, and Rail Transit Operations. Within
the scope of these programs are specific elements pertaining to
Emergency Response Planning and Training as well as Security Planning.
In keeping with our industry's increased emphasis on these areas, the
APTA Safety Audit Programs have similarly been modified to place added
attention to these critical elements.
APTA's Committee on Public Safety, chaired by Paul Lennon, Managing
Director-Intelligence and Counterterrorism, Los Angeles County,
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, will continue to provide a most
critical forum for transit security professionals to meet and share
information, experiences and programs and to also provide valuable
input to programs being developed by the FTA.
security investment needs
Mr. Chairman, APTA has conducted a nationwide survey of its transit
system membership that sought information about the level of need for
security and safety investments for the specific transit property. The
survey was not intended to be an inclusive list of all needed security
and safety projects. On the basis of the survey, APTA has identified
areas of investment needs related to transit security. The areas and
needs are--
For personnel, $500 million for ongoing cost of staffing for
increased security planning, surveillance, patrols, and response to
alert notifications.
For training, ongoing costs of $50 million for the development and
delivery of internal security programs; participation in established
security programs external to transit agencies; internal and inter-
agency emergency preparedness drills; and for national and regional
security workshops/symposiums through government, industry and
partnered initiatives.
For a one-time cost of technical support, $100 million for security
and emergency preparedness plan development/refinement; comprehensive
security needs assessments; and infrastructure security plan
development.
For a one time cost infrastructure and rolling stock security, $5.1
billion for communications, surveillance, detection systems and
equipment for enhancing security of rolling-stock, stations,
facilities, rights-of-way, bridges tunnels, electronic and other
systems.
For emergency response support equipment, $100 million for personal
protective and detection equipment for personnel; support vehicles and
equipment for emergency response and recovery.
In support of national defense, a one-time cost of $50 million for
development/refinement of evacuation plans; and mobilization of public
transit systems for evacuation needs.
For aid for extraordinary expenditures not including New York City,
or Washington, D.C., a one-time cost of $50 million for aid for
extraordinary expenditures for transit agencies that have incurred
significant expenses to date for costs associated with security and
recovery initiatives that are in need of cost relief.
For research and development, ongoing costs of $50 million for
research and development of systems that will enhance detection of
security; and for threats in mass transit environments.
In sum, transit industry security investment needs result in
capital and operational investment needs of some $6 billion.
We respectfully ask that as the Subcommittee takes up the fiscal
year 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations bill it consider these
critical needs for Federal investment in transit security. It is
important to note that after September 11, 2001, the necessity has
become apparent to appropriately fund a new state of heightened
security to combat against potential threats to our nation's public
transportation system. As noted earlier, these security needs are
distinct from the infrastructure needs we have identified in connection
with the TEA 21 reauthorization.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, these are just some of the issues and Federal
investments that we believe can be made to improve safety and security
of transit services. We again thank you and the Subcommittee for your
commitment to investing in the nation's transportation infrastructure
and look forward to working with you on safety and security issues.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials
The Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) is pleased to
offer testimony on the President's proposed fiscal year 2004 budget for
the Department of Homeland Security.
The Association of State Dam Safety Officials is a national
organization of more than 2,200 State, Federal and local dam safety
professionals and private sector individuals dedicated to improving dam
safety through research, education and technology transfer. ASDSO also
represents the 50 State dam safety programs, as the State dam safety
officials are the governing body of the Association. Our goal is simple
to save lives, prevent property damage and to maintain the many
benefits of dams by preventing dam failures.
During the 1970's this country suffered devastating dam failures
that caused tragic loss of life and enormous property damage; and
focused national attention on the catastrophic consequences of dam
failures. Those failures serve as a constant reminder that dams must
always be properly constructed, properly designed and properly operated
and maintained to provide the benefits and prevent failures.
Today our focus in not only on the safety of dams related to
maintenance issues but on security as the Nation faces a significant
challenge to protect our infrastructure from terrorist attacks. Dams
are a major concern and focus of national planning within the
Department of Homeland Security.
National Dam Safety Program
The National Dam Safety Program Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-303)
created the first national program that focuses on improving the safety
of the nation's dams. The Program was recently reauthorized by the Dam
Safety and Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-310). This small, yet
critical program provides much needed assistance to the State dam
safety programs in the form of grant assistance, training and research;
and through facilitating the exchange of technical information between
Federal dam safety partners and the States. The program provides $6
million in grant assistance to States based on the relative number of
dams in each State. The grants may be utilized to best suit the
individual State's needs. In addition, the National Dam Safety Program
provides $500,000 each year to be used for training of State dam safety
engineers and $1.5 million annually for research. These research funds
are used to identify more effective methods of evaluating the safety of
dams and more efficient techniques to repair dams. And now, these
research funds go toward developing better methods to assess and
improve the security of dams.
There are over 79,000 dams in the United States, but the
responsibility of assuring their safety falls on the shoulders of the
States, as they regulate 95 percent of the country's dams. Because of
limited staff and limited funding, most states are overwhelmed by that
challenge. Table 1 attached to this testimony provides state-by-state
data on the number of dams, the number of staff, the state budget and
the number of dams that are considered ``unsafe.'' Unsafe means that
they have identified deficiencies that make the dam more susceptible to
failure, which may be triggered by a large storm event, an earthquake
or simply through inadequate maintenance. Currently states have
identified 2,332 dams as being unsafe. There are over 10,000 dams
classified as ``high hazard'' meaning that the consequences of the
dam's failure will likely include loss of human life and significant
downstream property damage.
Every member of this Subcommittee has high hazard dams in their
home state. There are 757 high hazard dams in Pennsylvania, 277 high
hazard dams in Mississippi and 245 dams in West Virginia whose failure
will likely cause loss of life. According to the National Inventory of
Dams more than 25 percent of the high hazard potential dams have not
been inspected in the last 10 years. High hazard potential dams should
be inspected every year. Many states do not regulate all of their dams.
In Missouri, for example, there are 4,000 dams on the National
Inventory, however, Missouri only regulates 638 dams.
The task for state dam safety programs is staggering; in
Mississippi there are over 3,300 dams yet there are only two engineers
assigned to the state's dam safety program. Iowa has less than one
staff person in their dam safety program to oversee 3,233 dams.
The American Society of Civil Engineers' 2001 Report Card for
America's Infrastructure gave a grade of ``D'' to dams. The dams across
the United States are aging and showing signs of the lack of routine
maintenance. 25 percent of the nation's dams are over 50 years old, and
by 2020 85 percent of the dams will be 50 years or older.
Downstream development within the dam failure flood zone places
more people at risk. When homes are built in the dam failure flood zone
below a low hazard dam, (low hazard: failure is not expected to cause
loss of life or significant property damage) the dam no longer meets
dam safety criteria as the consequences of a failure determine the
hazard class and the minimum safety standards.
In summary, adequate support for dam safety regulatory programs is
lacking in many states. Insufficient regulatory authority, inadequate
enforcement and staffing shortages combine to increase the probability
of a tragic dam failure.
Federal Leadership Role
There is a clear need for continued Federal leadership to provide
assistance in support of dam safety. This country suffered several
large and tragic dam failures in the 1970s that focused attention on
dams and prompted Congress to pass national dam safety legislation. In
1972, the Buffalo Creek Dam in West Virginia failed and killed 125
individuals. That failure also left 3,000 people homeless. In 1976, the
Federally owned Teton Dam failure killed 14 people and cost $1 billion
in downstream damages and cleanup costs.
The Kelly Barnes Dam in Toccao Falls, Georgia failed in 1977
killing 39 Bible college students. That same year, 40 people died from
the failure of the Laurel Run Dam in Pennsylvania. The majority (58
percent) of dams in the United States are privately owned, including
the 38 foot tall Meadow Pond Dam in Alton, New Hampshire which failed
killing one woman and causing $8 million in damage to the downstream
town in the late 1990s.
Dam failures do not respect state boundaries as a dam failure in
one state may cause loss of life and property damage in an adjacent
state. The Federal government funds the recover costs from the
President's disaster relief fund and through the Flood Insurance
Program, but the cost of one small dam failure can easily exceed the
annual costs of the National Dam Safety Program. Full funding of the
National Dam Safety Program is an investment in public safety that will
be repaid many times over in fewer dam failures, reduced Federal
expenditures for dam failure recovery costs and, most importantly,
fewer lives lost.
The Association of State Dam Safety Officials respectfully requests
that Subcommittee increase the President's budget proposal of $5.9
million to the full-authorized funding level of $8.6 million for the
National Dam Safety Program for fiscal year 2004.
Benefits of the National Dam Safety Program
The National Dam Safety Program has been very successful in
assisting the state programs through the training funds ($500,000) for
training states dam safety engineers. This training has offered low
cost technical courses and workshops that states could otherwise not
attend. Examples include Dambreak Analysis, Concrete Rehabilitation of
Dams, Slope Stability of Dams, Earthquake Analysis, Emergency Action
Planning and many others including recent training in Dam Site
Security. Training courses are also offered through FEMA's training
facility at their Emergency Management Institute in Maryland where
state dam safety inspectors receive training at no cost to the states.
The Research funds have been used to identify future research needs
such as inspections using ground penetrating radar or thermal
tomography. In addition, these funds have been used to create a
national library and database of dam failures and dam statistics in the
National Performance of Dams Program at Stanford University as well as
a national clearinghouse and library of dam safety bibliographic data
at ASDSO.
The Research funds will continue to provide technical assistance to
the dam safety community and, now will be essential in identifying
techniques and methods of assessing dam security as well as practical
means to improve the security at critical dams. Dam site security is
now an urgent area of concern for state dam safety officials both in
training needs and in research to better understand and respond to
potential threats to dams.
The most valuable benefit to the state programs comes from the
State Grant Assistance Program. The grants are based on the number of
dams in each of the participating states and are used as an incentive
to encourage states to improve their program by meeting basic criteria
such as:
--Statutory authority within the state to conduct inspections of
dams.
--Authority to require repairs to unsafe dams.
--Authority to regulate all dams that meet the national dam
definition.
Use of these grants is left up to the states' discretion as each
state has its own unique challenges. States have utilized grant funds
to perform dam failure and dam stability analyses; hire additional
staff to conduct inspections and to conduct owner education workshops.
In addition, grant funds have enabled states to provide additional
staff training, to purchase equipment such as computers, field survey
equipment and software; and remote operated cameras for internal
inspections.
Mississippi received nearly $600,000 over fiscal year 1998 through
fiscal year 2002 in grant assistance funds. Mississippi's dam safety
program hosted dam safety workshops for engineers and dam owners. The
grant assistance also enabled Mississippi to hire additional part time
dam inspectors and to purchase needed field equipment.
West Virginia, with their total $145,000 grant, was able to repair
large capacity pumps, owned by the State, which are now strategically
located and can be used in emergencies. West Virginia also used with
their grant funds to update their dams inventory database and they will
be seeking to hire summer interns to assist with emergency action
plans.
Iowa, which received $423,000 from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year
2002, has hired four part time dam inspectors and has conducted 75 dam
inspections in fiscal year 2002.
In Pennsylvania, the $279,000 dam safety assistance grants have
been used to purchase remote operated inspections cameras and global
positioning equipment to improve their inspections. They have also used
the funding to produce and distribute public awareness videos and
Emergency Action Plan guidelines. Pennsylvania has hired an additional
engineer to support the National Dam Safety Program efforts in
Pennsylvania.
Kentucky has received over $250,000 from fiscal year 1998 through
fiscal year 2002 and has used these funds to purchase computer
equipment and software for its dam inventory database and to provide
specialized training for engineers in hydraulic evaluations of dams.
Futures uses include training workshops for dam owners and the public.
The grant assistance program has been very successful. The number
of dam inspections has increased, the number of Emergency Action Plans,
used for evacuation in the event of a dam failure, have increased; and
states have better technical equipment to conduct inspections and
perform safety analyses and dam failure modeling.
Table 2 attached to this testimony provides information on the
amount of state grant assistance received for each state over the 5-
year program.
Dam Security of non-Federal Dams
The horrific events of September 11, 2001 have focused
unprecedented attention on the security of our nation's critical
infrastructure, including dams. Dams, in fact, have been identified by
intelligence and law enforcement agencies in specific threat alerts.
Federal agencies that own dams, such as the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, have been conducting
vulnerability assessments and security improvements on these Federally
owned dams. While the Association certainly supports this necessary
effort, little has been provided by the Federal Government in
leadership or assistance to the states who have similar and equally
urgent dam security demands.
Security experts advise that it is very difficult to make a site
completely safe from intentional acts of terror. They offer that their
goal is to enhance security and effectively deter a potential attack at
their site so that the terrorist will seek another site with less
security. The improved security at Federally-owned dams makes non-
Federal dams more attractive targets. There are clearly thousands of
non-Federal dams that are potential targets based on type of
construction, size, purpose (water supply, hydro power, flood control);
and on the population and infrastructure at risk below the dam. Federal
leadership is urgently needed to provide technical and financial
assistance to states for training, for conducting vulnerability
assessments and for identifying and implementing security improvements
on dams determined to have an inadequate security program.
The Association of State Dam Safety Officials respectfully requests
that this Subcommittee appropriate $15 million in fiscal year 2004 for
assistance to state dam safety programs to address security at critical
non-Federal dams, which are regulated, by the states.
Conclusion
Dams are a vital part of our aging national infrastructure that
provide many vital benefits, but that also pose a threat to life and
property if they are unsafe. The National Dam Safety Program is a
valuable program that offers assistance to states as an investment in
public safety. We urge you to recognize its benefits and support full
funding to continue the progress we have made.
In addition, we strongly urge this Subcommittee to recognize that
large non-Federal dams are also potential targets of terrorist attacks;
and that people and critical infrastructure below these dams are also
at risk. States need the leadership and support of Congress and the
Administration to provide the necessary level of security at all
critical dams.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee for this
opportunity offer this testimony. The Association looks forward to
working with you and the Subcommittee staff on this important issue of
safe dams.
TABLE 1.--STATE-BY-STATE STATISTICS ON DAM AND STATE SAFETY REGULATION--2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. State
Total Dams in Total Dams High-Hazard State- State Dam Safety No. State Staff Regulated Dams
State National Under State Potential Determined Budget ( Dedicated to Dam Per FTE Staff (to
Inventory \1\ Regulation \2\ State Dams \3\ Deficient Dams thousand) Safety Regulation nearest whole
\4\ no.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama \5\.................... 1,570 1,704 184 150 $0 0 >1,704
Alaska......................... 112 81 16 ( \6\ ) 98 1 81
Arizona........................ 335 261 87 59 564 6 44
Arkansas....................... 1,290 427 98 25 264 4.2 102
California..................... 523 1,213 335 0 7,900 65 18
Colorado....................... 1,733 1,883 317 191 1,440 12 157
Connecticut.................... 707 2,000 236 12 472 4.3 465
Delaware \5\................... 73 98 9 ( \6\ ) ( \6\ ) ( \6\ ) ( \6\ )
Florida........................ 778 778 100 8 5,000 38 20
Georgia........................ 4,977 3,412 399 105 682 10 341
Hawaii......................... 129 129 56 0 135 2 65
Idaho.......................... 360 439 106 ( \6\ ) 350 7.5 59
Illinois....................... 1,226 1,311 173 20 345 5.5 238
Indiana........................ 1,472 1,129 238 ( \6\ ) 340 5 226
Iowa........................... 3,233 3,311 73 ( \6\ ) 55 .75 4,415
Kansas......................... 5,859 5,821 192 34 250 5.1 1,141
Kentucky....................... 1,022 991 214 0 1,517 14 71
Louisiana...................... 391 304 12 11 261 5 61
Maine.......................... 845 841 26 68 46 1 841
Maryland....................... 299 407 63 6 415 5 80
Massachusetts.................. 1,528 2,917 333 40 500 4 729
Michigan....................... 873 1,156 83 ( \6\ ) 400 4.5 257
Minnesota...................... 932 852 40 ( \6\ ) 237 2.2 387
Mississippi.................... 3,303 3,550 277 53 268 2 1,775
Missouri....................... 4,096 638 445 16 288 6 106
Montana........................ 3,522 2,871 97 7 170 5 574
Nebraska....................... 2,155 2,155 107 10 284 5.2 414
Nevada......................... 323 592 123 24 130 2 296
New Hampshire.................. 613 3,281 85 0 612 7 469
New Jersey..................... 777 1,651 194 48 950 16 103
New Mexico..................... 525 382 156 ( \6\ ) 469 5.5 69
New York....................... 1,891 5,021 380 54+ 746 6.32 795
North Carolina................. 2,939 4,241 988 53 902 14 303
North Dakota................... 772 1,779 27 3+ 200 4.5 395
Ohio........................... 1,727 2,709 471 450 1,100 11.5 235
Oklahoma....................... 4,507 4,348 145 6 185 1.8 2,415
Oregon......................... 833 3,733 122 0 255 3.1 1,204
Pennsylvania................... 1,412 3,025 757 49 1,698 22.5 134
Puerto Rico.................... 36 36 33 2 466 8 5
Rhode Island................... 185 528 16 98 78 1.1 528
South Carolina................. 2,263 2,304 153 3 ( \6\ ) 4.5 512
South Dakota................... 2,469 2,328 47 3 ( \6\ ) 2.5 931
Tennessee...................... 1,154 643 151 33 275 7 92
Texas.......................... 6,838 8,060 851 403 300 5 1,612
Utah........................... 676 4,083 199 84 450 7 583
Vermont........................ 364 538 54 ( \6\ ) 215 2.2 245
Virginia....................... 1,603+ 1,300+ 150+ 50+ 400 6 217
Washington..................... 653 903 128 31 550 6.5 139
West Virginia \5\.............. 537 350 245 40 335 6 59
Wisconsin...................... 1,291 3,402 192 ( \6\ ) 486 6.5 523
Wyoming........................ 1,270 1,374 66 3 131 3.4 404
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL.................... 79,001 97,290 10,049 2,252 33,214.00 380.17 26,639 (522 av.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes dams of any size that are likely to pose a significant threat to human life or property in case of failure, and all other Federal and non-
Federal dams > 25 high that impound > 15 acre-feet; and dams > 6 high that impound > 50 acre-feet.
\2\ Estimated number of all dams under state regulatory control.
\3\ High-Hazard by state definition derived from state inventory in column 2 Individual states' definitions may differ from the Federal (National
Inventory of Dams) definition. * indicates figure taken from NID and based on NID definition.
\4\ Dams with identified deficiencies by state definition (varies state to state) derived from state inventory in column 2.
\5\ For Alabama and Delaware, this data precedes 2001. West Virginia data is from 2001.
\6\ NR Not Reporting. Some states do not keep data on these categories.
TABLE 2.--STATE GRANT AMOUNTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998-2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total State
Assistance Annual State
Grant (from Dam Safety
STATE Fiscal Year Budget
1998-Fiscal (excludes FEMA
Year 2002) grants)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................. $0 $0
Alaska.................................. 112,324 98
Arizona................................. 130,843 564
Arkansas................................ 157,811 264
California.............................. 280,791 7,900
Colorado................................ 330,607 1,440
Connecticut............................. 202,245 472
Delaware................................ 94,351 NR
Florida................................. 183,005 5,000
Georgia................................. 631,703 682
Hawaii.................................. 118,691 135
Idaho................................... 159,357 350
Illinois................................ 280,257 345
Indiana................................. 229,213 340
Iowa.................................... 423,456 55
Kansas.................................. 992,576 250
Kentucky................................ 247,527 1,517
Louisiana............................... 144,942 261
Maine................................... 192,198 46
Maryland................................ 152,106 415
Massachusetts........................... 325,251 500
Michigan................................ 203,799 400
Minnesota............................... 223,966 237
Mississippi............................. 593,107 268
Missouri................................ 189,641 288
Montana................................. 509,441 170
Nebraska................................ 395,736 284
Nevada.................................. 161,613 130
New Hampshire........................... 212,013 612
New Jersey.............................. 307,762 950
New Mexico.............................. 165,560 469
New York................................ 430,227 746
North Carolina.......................... 651,658 902
North Dakota............................ 183,060 200
Ohio.................................... 351,921 1,100
Oklahoma................................ 745,806 185
Oregon.................................. 259,440 255
Pennsylvania............................ 279,410 1,698
Puerto Rico............................. 105,329 466
Rhode Island............................ 135,981 78
South Carolina.......................... 424,436 NR
South Dakota............................ 396,560 NR
Tennessee............................... 184,474 275
Texas................................... 1,078,772 300
Utah.................................... 178,777 450
Vermont................................. 149,160 215
Virginia................................ 178,087 400
Washington.............................. 174,066 550
West Virginia........................... 145,062 335
Wisconsin............................... 239,939 486
Wyoming................................. 292,522 131
-------------------------------
Total............................. 14,936,579 33,214
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of State Floodplan Managers, Inc.
The Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. (ASFPM) is
pleased to share comments on four specific aspects of the fiscal year
2004 budget proposal for the Department of Homeland Security, Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate (FEMA):
--Oppose elimination of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program;
--Preserve the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program;
--Continue support for modernization of flood maps; and
--Financial status of the National Flood Insurance Program.
The Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. and its 16 state
chapters represent over 5,000 State, local, and private sector
officials as well as other professionals who are engaged in all aspects
of floodplain management and hazard mitigation. All are concerned with
reducing our Nation's flood-related losses and reducing the costs of
flooding.
Oppose Elimination of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
ASFPM opposes the suspension or elimination of the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). HMGP has proven to be a very effective
way to achieve mitigation. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 that
requires communities to have mitigation plans in order to access HMGP
assures that projects will be done according to pre-disaster plans. We
object to the budget's proposal to replace HMGP entirely with a
nationwide competitive grant program. We believe the logic behind this
proposal is not sound: it ignores the realities of why individual
citizens participate in mitigation; it ignores a multitude of benefits
that are difficult to quantify; it ignores the recently authorized
requirement for local mitigation planning; it ignores the leveraging of
state and local funds that often are made available post-disaster; it
ignores the complexities of project implementation; it ignores the
distinct differences between hazards; and it ignores the needs of small
communities.
HMGP mobilizes financial and technical assistance in the aftermath
of disasters--exactly the time when citizens and elected officials are
most receptive to undertaking projects and initiatives that reduce the
impacts of future disasters. The fact is that most cities, counties and
towns across the country have many immediate and pressing financial
needs. Regardless of the statistical evidence of the likelihood of
future disaster occurrence, communities will not place mitigation
higher than today's demands for education, social programs, local first
responders, and the like. This is especially true in smaller
communities where financial resources are always tight.
On the proverbial ``sunny day'' flooding is a low priority for the
millions of homeowners and business owners in the Nation's flood hazard
areas--regardless of the mounting evidence that future floods will
occur. Homeowners view offers for buyouts, elevations, and retrofit
floodproofing very differently when they are shoveling mud, coping with
toxic mold, or faced with collapsed foundations. The budget proposal
will have many adverse consequences, not the least of which is that
people who have just experienced damage and are most receptive to
change are much less likely receive mitigation assistance since post-
disaster HMGP will not be allocated to their states.
ASFPM is greatly concerned about the criticism expressed by some
people that a large percentage of HMGP projects do not appear to be
cost effective. While shifting to a purely competitive program may mean
``the most cost-beneficial projects receive funding,'' it will turn
mitigation into a numbers game that ignores the needs of many. A
single-minded focus on the projects with the highest benefit:cost ratio
will severely penalize many communities that have good projects that
will reduce taxpayer costs, and thus are cost-effective for the Nation.
There is an important conceptual distinction between cost-
beneficial and cost-effective. The process for determining benefits and
costs is less than perfect, and as currently structured it yields
skewed results. Too often, projects that are more expensive to the
taxpayer have higher benefit:cost ratios, even though a less costly
project achieves the same objective of hazard reduction. This
illustrates only one unintended consequence of relying on B:C to decide
which projects get funded.
ASFPM also urges consideration of another unintended consequence of
the focus on the projects with the highest benefit:cost ratio. For
years, other agencies with flood control responsibilities routinely
dismissed non-structural measures (such as floodplain acquisition or
elevation-inplace) even though these non-structural projects can be
demonstrated to be cost-effective. Such projects tended to be dismissed
in favor of structural measures (levees, dams, floodwalls), in large
part because such projects often have a higher benefit: cost ratio, yet
ignoring the long-term operation and maintenance costs often borne by
communities. However, time and time again, there has been evidence of
the multiple benefits of non-structural measures. A single focus on the
benefit:cost ratio will result in fewer non-structural flood mitigation
projects and increased long-term costs for government, as well as
residual risk associated with structural projects.
Pre-disaster funding should be directed to community-based planning
in order to prepare communities to undertake mitigation projects when
the disaster strikes. It would also be reasonable to make pre-disaster
mitigation funds available to support public works projects that
address potential damage to state and community buildings and public
infrastructure--among the more costly categories of public disaster
assistance.
ASFPM urges the Subcommittee to retain the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program and restore its funding level to 15 percent of certain Federal
disaster expenditures.--The Disaster Mitigation Assistance Act of 2000
calls for communities to have pre-disaster local mitigation plans in
order to access HMGP. One result of this requirement is that
communities will be better prepared to identify eligible activities
after the next declared disaster, thus further shortening the time
needed to obligate and expend the HMGP funds.
ASFPM strongly recommends that the Subcommittee focus the pre-
disaster mitigation funds on support of cost-effective projects, as
opposed to the most cost-beneficial projects.--This simple change will
make a dramatic difference in supporting non-structural projects for
floodplain management, while not detracting from projects that retrofit
buildings to resist the effects of earthquakes and hurricane winds.
ASFPM recommends that the Subcommittee direct FEMA to fully
investigate the implications of the nationwide pre-disaster program
funded in fiscal year 2003.--Particular attention should be paid to
citizen, community and state receptivity to mitigation offers and how
the ability to cost share differs in the pre- and post-disaster
periods. Another critical aspect to attend to is how FEMA proposes to
balance between different hazards, different geographic areas, and
communities of different sizes and capabilities.
Preserve the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program
The Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA) authorized by the
National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 is funded entirely by flood
insurance premium income that is paid by individual policyholders. It
is not funded from general funds and therefore we are concerned with
proposals to combine it with other mitigation funds, even to achieve
accounting efficiencies. To ensure accountability to the policyholders
and to ensure that these funds are used only for the explicit purposes
authorized, the FMA funds are best kept separate. In particular, how
FMA is administered must not be changed. FMA is specifically intended
to support cost containment for the NFIP, in part by addressing the
problem characterized as repetitive losses, but also to mitigate
against severe flood damage and imminent threats due to coastal
erosion.
ASFPM urges the Subcommittee to clarify that Flood Mitigation
Assistance Program funds are not to be co-mingled with other pre-
disaster mitigation funds.--In addition, we urge that the Subcommittee
direct that FMA continue to be administered as a separate program under
existing procedures.
Continue Support for Flood Map Modernization
Good flood maps play a major role in disaster cost reduction
through wise floodplain management. They also serve many purposes
beyond the immediate needs of the National Flood Insurance Program.
FEMA estimates that local regulation of flood hazard areas, using the
flood maps, avoids property losses of nearly $1 billion each year.
These savings accrue to property owners, communities, and taxpayers.
FEMA's estimate does not count the benefits associated with using the
maps to guide development to less hazard-prone areas. Flood maps yield
benefits at all levels of government, including reducing the need for
Federal disaster assistance when people build elsewhere or build to
minimize damage. Since 1986, most of the funding for flood maps has
been taken out of the National Flood Insurance Fund, which is funded by
premiums and service fees from about 4.2 million flood insurance
policyholders. Those funds are inadequate to the task of modernizing
the inventory of over 100,000 flood map panels.
The Flood Map Modernization effort will use current technologies to
expedite cost-effective collection of mapping data, and to develop the
models to identify flood-prone areas. This will yield digitized map
products that will be accessible on the Internet. Digitized maps will
also significantly reduce current outlays that are spent just to
correct old maps in response to individual property owner concerns,
thus allowing more of the base funding derived from policyholders
(approximately $50 million/year) to be used more effectively.
--ASFPM strongly endorses the Administration's request for $200
million, and urge the addition of $200 million, to continue
FEMA's map modernization initiative.--The continuance of this
second year funding will ensure progress on the mufti-year
effort that is now underway. The additional funding will
shorten the overall timeframe and help state and communities
that have had identified priorities for several years ago.
Financial Status of the National Flood Insurance Program
The Association of State Floodplain Managers believes that the
National Flood Insurance Program is an exceptional example of the
Federal Government working with state partners, community partners, and
private sector partners. Established in 1968 in part to shift the
burden of recovery to people who are at-risk (in the floodplain), the
NFIP was carefully crafted by Congress to balance the need to pay
insurance claims with concerns about financial impacts on homeowners
and business owners who pay premiums on flood insurance policies. To
that end, the NFIP establishes rates based on the ``average loss
year,'' and thus intentionally does not build up substantial reserves
for years when floods occur more frequently. To pay claims in those
years, the NFIP borrows from the U.S. Treasury.
ASFPM believes that criticism often heard when the NFIP goes into
borrowing authority is unjustified. The Federal Insurance Administrator
recently testified to the efficiency of this original Congressional
mandate. Tropical Storm Allison hit the Gulf Coast in June of 2001, and
continued inland to flood states across the southeast. It was the
NFIP's first billion-dollar storm and prompted borrowing of $600
million. In just 16 months, those funds were repaid, with interest. The
NFIP is one of the government's best creditors.
The NF1P is not supported in any other way by the United States
taxpayer. A service fee charged on all policies pays for the program's
administration, including: salaries and expenses of over 200 Federal
employees; costs of contractors that support servicing policies and
claims; a portion of flood mapping costs; the Flood Mitigation
Assistance Program (described above); and grants to states to provide
technical assistance to communities and property owners. Thus, only
about 4.2 million citizens are paying for this program that serves the
Nation as a whole. ASFPM believes this make it all the more important
that the NFIP's funds be tracked separately so that accountability to
the policyholder is clear.
ASFPM understands that there will be a small increase in NFIP-
funded Community Assistance Program in fiscal year 2004. This program
is a good return to policyholders because it provides small, cost-
shared grants to the states to provide partial support of state
floodplain programs. CAP is critical to implementation of the NFIP
because it facilitates direct technical assistance and training
available to nearly 20,000 communities and millions of property owners.
The best way to limit increases in future damage is to ensure that
communities are properly administering their floodplain management
regulations and that developers are complying with the rules. FEMA's
staff is too small to provide this vital assistance to nearly 20,000
communities, thus the partnership with states was established. ASFPM
appreciates this recognition of the importance of CAP funding to
continue the State-Federal partnerships.
--ASFPM supports the increase in CAP funding in order to increase the
technical assistance and training the states provide as FEMA's
partners.
For information about ASFPM and this testimony, contact Larry
Larson, Executive Director, at (608) 274-0123, or email
asfpm@floods.org.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fleet Reserve Association
certification of non-receipt of federal funds
Pursuant to the requirements of House Rule XI, the Fleet Reserve
Association has not received any federal grant or contract during the
current fiscal year or either of the two previous fiscal years.
introduction
Thank you Mr. Chairman and other distinguished members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit the Fleet Reserve
Association's views on funding the fiscal year 2004 Coast Guard
request. The Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) is a Congressionally
Chartered, non-profit organization, representing the interests of U.S.
Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard personnel with regard to pay,
health care, and other benefits.
Before addressing specific issues, the Association wishes to thank
Congress for its tremendous support for pay and benefit improvements
enacted during the 107th Congress. Across the board and targeted pay
increases, higher housing allowances, reform of the PCS process and
increased funding for health care are significant improvements and
perceived as important recognition of the service and sacrifice of the
men and women serving in the Coast Guard, and those who've served in
the past.
The Association notes the significant progress toward ensuring
Coast Guard parity with all pay and benefits provided to DOD services
personnel in recent years and restates it commitment to this goal.
pay and benefit parity
The Fleet Reserve Association appreciates and thanks the
Administration and Congress for continued support for the pay and
entitlements of Coast Guard personnel. These include increases in base
pay, target pay raises for senior enlisted personnel and some officer
grades and annual housing allowance increases. (BAH).
The fiscal year 2004 Budget supports an average military pay raise
of 4.1 percent with pay levels ranging from 2 percent for E-1s to 6.25
percent for E-9s. The majority of members will receive an increase of
3.7 percent and out of pocket housing costs will be reduced from 7.5
percent to 3.5 percent in keeping with a multi-year plan to reduce the
average out of pocket expense to zero by 2006.
FRA recommends full-funding of all pay and entitlements for Coast
Guard personnel and seeks continuing strong support for benefit parity
with the Department of Defense.
As a footnote, the Association is extremely disappointed that the
Administration is proposing to cap the pay of NOAA and USPHS officers
at 2 percent for fiscal year 2004. FRA strongly objects to this
disparate treatment of these members of the uniformed services and
urges you to intercede in their behalf with colleagues on the
appropriate oversight committees to halt this plan and ensure pay
comparability for these personnel.
recruiting and end strength
The Coast Guard is in a period of large personnel and mission
growth. The service continues to balance mission requirements against
workforce strength and asset availability to ensure a safe operational
tempo is maintained and missions are completed.
FRA strongly supports recently authorized increased end strengths
and urges adequate funding for same in fiscal year 2004. This is
especially important given the Coast Guard's broad and demanding
mission requirements related to its key position in the new Department
of Homeland Security. The President's budget authorizes 1,788 military
and 188 civilian positions and includes six Maritime Safety and
Security Teams, 53 Sea Marshalls, two Port Security Units, and new
Coast Guard Stations in Boston and Washington, D.C. Also included is
support for the Search and Rescue (SAR) Program and to allow the
stations to meet readiness requirements with watch standers maintaining
a maximum 68-hour workweek.
Recruiting, training, and deploying a workforce with the skills and
experience required to carry out the Coast Guard's many missions is a
formidable challenge. The overall experience level of the workforce
decreased since 9/11 and during this large growth period it will
require a few years to come back to that 2001 level.
Enlisted workforce retention is the best it has been since 1994
having increased by 2.1 percent since fiscal year 2000. The Coast Guard
met its active duty recruiting goal in fiscal year 2002 and is on
target to meet it again in fiscal year 2003. However, Reserve
recruiting fell slightly short of the fiscal year 2002 goal but is on
target for fiscal year 2003. The fiscal year 2004 budget recommends
funds to fully train, support and sustain the Coast Guard's Selected
Reserve Force as an integral part of Team Coast Guard with growth to
10,000 personnel (up from 9,000 in fiscal year 2003).
The Coast Guard training system is operating effectively at maximum
level in order to process the growing number of trainees. Additional
contract instructors have been hired at the training centers and
temporary classrooms accommodate day and night classes to increase
capacity and efficiency.
FRA supports funding all recruiting initiatives and incentives. The
Coast Guard's robust recruiting system coupled with enlistment bonuses
has ensured a steady flow of recruits entering the service. The Coast
Guard also opened new recruiting offices to target diversity rich
communities.
health care
FRA continues to work with Congress and DOD to ensure full funding
of the Defense Health Budget to meet readiness needs and deliver
services, through both the direct care and purchased care systems, for
all uniformed services beneficiaries, regardless of age, status and
location. The Association strongly supports TRICARE improvements
recently enacted for active duty, Reserve and retired personnel and
their families.
Oversight of the Defense Health Budget is essential to avoid a
return to the chronic under funding of recent years that led to
execution shortfalls, shortchanging of the direct care system, and
reliance on annual emergency supplemental funding requests. Even though
supplemental appropriations were not needed last year, FRA is concerned
that the current funding level only maintains the status quo.
Addressing TRICARE provider shortfalls will require additional funding.
Access to care is the number one concern challenging Coast Guard
personnel assigned to duty in areas not served by military treatment
facilities (MTFs). Some beneficiaries report that there are providers
not willing to accept new TRICARE Standard patients. Areas most
affected by this are: Alaska; Humboldt Bay/County, California (AIRSTA/
Group Humboldt Bay); Novato, California, and other Bay Area locations
(Pacific Strike Team/TRACEN Petaluma/ISC Alameda); and Santa Barbara,
California.
In areas away from MTFs, access can be especially challenging.
Providers do not wish to take TRICARE patients mainly due to the low
reimbursement rates. In the locations where TRICARE Prime is present, a
trend is developing whereby providers are leaving the network. This not
only affects active duty service members and their dependents but
retirees and their dependents.
The message sent by The TRICARE Management Activity ``selling'' the
three TRICARE options (Prime, Extra or Standard) only applies to those
fortunate to live near an MTF that has an established network. These
members have choices. If assigned to a high cost or remote/semi-remote
area where Prime is not available, the only option is Standard. In
addition, it is unfair for Coast Guard personnel to have to absorb the
higher costs associated with health and dental care, including
orthodontics in assignment areas. In reality there is no uniform
benefit at this time since the three TRICARE options are not available
to all beneficiaries nationwide.
FRA urges the Subcommittee to provide appropriations to enhance the
ability of Coast Guardsmen to have access to and afford adequate health
care for their families.
housing
FRA is concerned about Coast Guard housing challenges that include
adequate appropriations for new construction and/or maintenance. While
the objective is to ensure that all members have access to quality
housing, whether for single personnel or personnel with families, the
Commandant's people-oriented direction acknowledges the importance of
quality of life, and the important role of housing in obtaining and
retaining a productive workforce.
During recent congressional testimony, Master Chief Petty Officer
of the Coast Guard Frank Welch, stated that Coast Guard personnel and
their families ``continue to face a lack of affordable and adequate
housing in many of our assignment areas.''
The following locations are deemed Critical Housing Areas (CHAs)
for Coast Guard personnel.
--Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (NC176)
--Montauk, New York (NY218)
--Cape May, New Jersey (NJ198)
--Abbeville, Louisiana (ZZ553)
--Port O'Connor, Texas (ZZ583)
--Rockland, Maine (ME141)
--Carrabelle, Florida (ZZ630)
--Marathon/Islamorada, Florida (FL069)
--Plus any area currently designated as a CHA by the U.S. Navy.
The situation is exacerbated by assignment areas that are typically
in or near remote, high-cost areas along the coasts.
While housing allowances have increased, the availability of
quality, affordable housing within a reasonable distance to work
remains another challenge--especially for junior enlisted personnel. In
certain areas, hyper increases in utility costs may also financially
impact accompanied members residing on the economy and paying their own
utilities. Although housing privatization initiatives are helping ease
this challenge for the DOD Services and the Coast Guard's authority to
participate in these ventures, FRA believes increased funds should be
appropriated to address the Coast Guard's protracted housing problem.
child care
Having available and accessible childcare is a very important
quality of life issue for Coast Guard personnel and their families and
the Administration's fiscal year 2004 Budget supports an expansion of
this service.
While comparing Coast Guard childcare parity with the Department of
Defense is difficult--the childcare needs of Coast Guard personnel and
their families are no different than for DOD services personnel.
Approximately 640 children are in Coast Guard childcare facilities and
FRA believes that this program should be adequately funded to ensure
parity.
education benefits
FRA strongly supports increased funding for education benefits. For
fiscal year 2003, tuition assistance is paid at 100 percent up to $250
per semester hour with an annual cap of $4,500 for Coast Guard
personnel. This puts the service on a par with the Department of
Defense.
With regard to the MGIB program, participants may receive a full-
time student rate of $985/month or more, depending on whether they
contribute to an increased benefit program. Recent enhancements are
positive steps to improving this program, however FRA believes MGIB
benefits should be benchmarked to the average cost of a four-year
public college education.
The Coast Guard adjusts discretionary funding to best address its
particular needs. Hopefully, this Subcommittee will support the
President's fiscal year 2004 budget recommending the Coast Guard to be
fully competitive with DOD education benefits.
conclusion
The Association again appreciates the opportunity to present its
recommendations on the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2004 Budget and is
grateful to this Distinguished Subcommittee for its great work in
support of the men and women serving in our Nation's fifth Armed Force.
The broad range of services and support provided by the Coast Guard
are not fully understood and recognized by the American public. FRA is
working to broaden awareness of the incredible work done by Coast Guard
men and women in support of the service's many missions and our
national security. Hopefully the service's well deserved prominence
within the new Department of Homeland Security will help increase
recognition of the Coast Guard's tremendous service to our great
Nation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority
Chairman Cochran and distinguished members of the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security: The Greater Orlando
Aviation Authority (``the Authority'') appreciates the opportunity to
submit written testimony on the advancement of an in-line EDS baggage
screening system for Orlando International Airport (OIA). The Authority
recognizes and applauds the excellent and on-going assistance Congress
has given in past efforts to obtain federal funding for critical
capacity improvements at OIA.
Orlando International Airport remains steadfast in its commitment
to help restore public confidence and ensure the highest standard of
security in air travel. The Authority has diligently developed and
begun implementation of a comprehensive security enhancement program to
meet the challenges resulting from the tragic events of September 11,
2001.
In addition, the Authority recognizes the importance in continuing
support of enhanced security at OIA. The Authority supports the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security's commitment to keep air travel
security enhancement initiatives on track.
The Authority respectfully requests your Subcommittee's
consideration and support of our request for $50 million in funding
which is essential to ensure the full and timely implementation of a
Phase 2 Long-Term Checked Baggage Screening Solution using In-line EDS
Equipment.
TSA Phase 2 Long-Term Checked Baggage Screening Solution
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) approved a Phase 1
short-term solution to enable Orlando International Airport to meet
Congress December 31, 2002 100 percent checked baggage-screening
requirements. Together, TSA and the Authority established the following
goals for the checked baggage screening functions at OIA:
--Create an experience the traveler and customer see as safe, secure,
comfortable, efficient, and affordable.
--Provide a well-studied recommendation to TSA on how to achieve 100
percent checked baggage screening specific to OIA's operations
and terminal layout.
--Meet or exceed TSA checked baggage screening standards and
procedural requirements while maintaining efficiency of
passenger and baggage processing and flow.
--Implement Phase 1 solution to meet the December 31, 2002 deadline
with Phase 2 solution intended for the long-term, permanent
solution.
The temporary Phase 1 solution required the combined deployment of
Explosive Detection Systems (EDS) and Explosive Trace Detectors (ETD)
equipment throughout public areas within the airport's main terminal
building. It is manpower and space intensive, requiring over 200 ETD
operators per shift and constricting passenger movement and circulation
through the airport.
Passenger baggage in some areas must be manually transported from
ticket counters to EDS/ETD devices positioned along the passenger
walkways for screening and then returned to the ticket counter to be
loaded on the plane, resulting in longer bag processing times and
interference in passenger movement.
Due to these shortcomings and other factors, the Authority
continues to work with TSA in developing a long-term Phase 2 checked
baggage screening solution that is integrated with existing baggage
systems. Phase II is an automated solution that relies primarily on EDS
technology, supplemented with ETD for false alarm resolution. Phase 2
will be less manpower intensive and passenger intrusive as it is
integrated into the existing baggage conveyance system. Simply put, it
will be more secure, more customer friendly, and more efficient. It is
anticipated that the Phase 2 solution could be completed in 22 months
at an estimated cost of $50 million.
The Authority respectfully requests a specific line item in the
fiscal year 2004 Department of Homeland Security budget for $50 million
to implement a Phase 2 Long-Term Baggage Screening Solution at Orlando
International Airport.
Funding Justification for Orlando International Airport
Orlando International Airport remains steadfast in its commitment
to help restore public confidence and ensure the highest standard of
safety and security in air travel.
Orlando International Airport is one of the Central Florida's
primary assets and has been designated as an U.S. Security Category X
airport. In 2001, OIA served approximately 28.3 million passengers
making it the 15th busiest commercial service airport in the nation and
the 24th busiest in the world. In terms of origin and destination (O&D)
passenger traffic at domestic airports, OIA ranked 5th behind Los
Angeles International and traditional airline hub airports such as Las
Vegas' McCarran International, Chicago's O'Hare International, and
Atlanta's Hartsfield International. Importantly, this means OIA faces a
unique responsibility to safely and efficiently process a large volume
of checked passenger baggage entering the sterile security environment
for the first time. In fact, O&D passengers represent approximately 85
percent of all passengers at OIA. This high level of O&D activity is
expected to continue, as well as our heightened responsibility to
process the disproportionately large volume of checked baggage related
to O&D traffic as it enters the secured system for the first time.
TOP TEN ORIGINATION AND DESTINATION AIRPORTS IN THE U.S.
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rank Airport O&D Passengers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. Los Angeles (LAX)... 31.0
2................................. Las Vegas (LAS)..... 25.8
3................................. Chicago (ORD)....... 24.8
4................................. Atlanta (ATL)....... 24.3
5................................. Orlando (MCO)....... 22.2
6................................. Phoenix (PHX)....... 20.1
7................................. New York (LGA)...... 19.4
8................................. New York (EWR)...... 18.4
9................................. Dallas (DFW)........ 18.4
10................................ Seattle (SEA)....... 18.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S DOT OD1A database.
OIA has scheduled service to 70 non-stop service plus 14 True-
Direct domestic and 14 non-stop and 10 True-Direct international
destinations, promoting increased airline service and competitive
fares. The largest rental car market in the world is located at OIA.
The airport shares a unique relationship with the regional economy. A
completed Economic Impact Study determined OIA generates a $14 billion
annual economic impact on Central Florida and is responsible for 54,400
direct and indirect jobs.
The Authority is extremely fortunate to operate a commercial
airport containing 13,297 acres of land. With these extraordinary
resources, OIA is a critical component of the National Aviation System.
Regional and Economic Development Facts
The Orlando region has positioned itself as an international force
in global business. Department of Commerce statistics show that this
region leads the state's major markets in terms of export growth. With
a population exceeding 1.7 million, metropolitan Orlando is one of the
fastest growing population and employment markets in the country with a
solid infrastructure in place to support major high-tech growth.
The region's private/public sectors work hand-in-hand with higher
education institutions to enhance the region's climate for high-tech
growth. Orlando has one of the most advanced telecommunications
infrastructures in the southeast and the area's utility services are
noted for reliability. With a civilian labor force exceeding 845,000--
more than 200,000 of whom possess a college degree--the region's
residents are well educated. It is estimated that more than 1,100 new
adult residents move to the metropolitan Orlando area each week,
providing an additional pool of labor for companies. Metropolitan
Orlando's median household income is higher than both Florida and
national averages. Clearly, the metropolitan Orlando area exhibits the
demographic and work force growth, prowess and potential that only the
nation's very best business communities can offer.
Orlando has become a world class meeting destination. The elegant,
award-winning Orange County Convention Center, the second largest in
the nation, will add one million square feet with its expansion,
bringing the total exhibit space to a record 2.1 million square feet.
This expansion, scheduled to open in 2003, will boost the center's
space and services to accommodate meetings from mega-shows to smaller
events. What's more, Orlando is transforming and enhancing its
accommodations for meeting attendees with plans to add more than 23,000
hotel rooms to the area's existing 99,000-room inventory.
With its strategic geographical location within the Western
Hemisphere, the state of Florida offers both a diverse culture and a
flourishing business and industrial environment. With close to $370
billion in gross state product, Florida's economy is ranked 5th largest
in the Western Hemisphere and the 16th largest in the world--far
outpacing other states in the Southeast. Florida's robust state economy
provides nationally recognized support for business expansion, new
investment and international trade. With an unparalleled multi-modal
transportation network, Florida provides easy access to any global
destination, thus providing the obvious solution for moving people,
goods and services around the world--today, and continuing throughout
the 21st century.
In Summary
The Authority expresses its gratitude for the opportunity to
present this testimony to your Subcommittee. The Senate's past support
and interest in the development of the Authority's commercial airport
is greatly appreciated. The Authority looks forward to working with you
in advancing safety and security initiatives that will benefit the
National Aviation System. We believe our request for $50 million to
fund our permanent, Long-Term Phase 2 Checked Baggage Screening
Solution using In-Line EDS Equipment is such an initiative.
______
Prepared Statement of the International Association of Emergency
Managers
Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member Byrd, and distinguished members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to provide a statement
for the record regarding the fiscal year 2004 budget proposal for the
Department of Homeland Security.
My name is J.R. Thomas, and I am the emergency management director
for Franklin County (which includes Columbus), Ohio. I currently serve
as the President of the International Association of Emergency Managers
(IAEM), whose membership is comprised of more than 2,000 of my
colleagues from across the United States. We are city and county
emergency managers who perform the crucial function of coordinating and
integrating the efforts at the local level to prepare for, mitigate the
effects of, respond to, and recover from all types of disasters
including terrorist attacks.
We respectfully submit suggestions on three particular issues
relating to the Department of Homeland Security budget for 2004.
Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG):
--Urge that funding be specifically designated in the Appropriations
Bill
--Request that funding be increased from $165 million in 2003 to $300
million in 2004
--Urge that this program be returned to the Emergency Preparedness
and Response Directorate (FEMA)
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP):
--Oppose the budget request to eliminate the 404 HMGP program
--Urge Subcommittee to retain the program and return the funding
level to 15 percent of certain eligible disaster costs
Flood Map Modernization:
--Support request for $200 million.
Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG).--The Emergency
Management Performance Grants are pass-through funds to state and local
emergency management offices to provide a foundation for basic
emergency preparedness and response capabilities. This funding has
existed in the past under several different names such as Emergency
Management Assistance and State and Local Assistance, but the dollars
have always served the same purpose.
The conferees on H.J.Res. 2, the Omnibus Appropriations Bill for
fiscal year 2003, recognized the importance of this funding and
specified $165,000,000 in legislative language for EMPG. In addition,
the conference report (H. Report 108-10) stated the following:
The conferees have taken this action because EMPG is the backbone
of the nation's emergency management system, builds state and local
emergency management capability, is the foundation for first responder
activities, and because this important activity has been severely
underfunded for many years. Now more than ever, the planning activities
carried out in this program are of utmost importance.
EMPG Not Specified in 2004 Budget.--The coordination function which
EMPG supports faces an uncertain future within the Department of
Homeland Security. What is certain is that the need for this grant
program remains, and in fact, has dramatically increased due to recent
Homeland Security efforts. We have been advised that state and local
programs like EMPG are being consolidated into the Office of Domestic
Preparedness under the Border and Transportation Security Directorate.
However, no funding has been designated for this activity in the budget
documents we have seen. The Budget in Brief for fiscal year 2004 for
the Department of Homeland Security includes a request for $3.5 billion
for the Office of Domestic Preparedness and specifies $500,000,000 for
law enforcement grants, $500,000,000 for fire grants and $181,000,000
for Citizen Corps, but contains no mention of the EMPG. In addition, in
response to hearing questions from Members of Congress, Department of
Homeland Security Officials have verified that no funding has been
specified for this program.
Importance of EMPG.--As America strives to promote homeland
security and to advance first responder capability, several pressing
needs are apparent, including:
--Integrated comprehensive plans which involve stakeholders at all
levels
--Interoperable communications
--Standardization and expansion of training and exercising programs
which involve all response agencies
--Regionalization of efforts to maximize effectiveness given limited
funding
--Comprehensive critical infrastructure planning including both
public and private sectors
It is the state and local emergency managers who orchestrate the
efforts to meet these needs. The national emphasis on homeland security
has generated major efforts requiring state and local governments to
plan, train, exercise, and equip themselves for a variety of possible
future emergencies, including those that result from terrorism. It is
important to note that such planning and coordination does not
generally emanate from the first responder agencies themselves, but
from the efforts of state and local emergency managers. Given continued
support and funding, emergency managers have the skills, the expertise,
and the willingness to rise to the planning and coordinating challenges
presented by the full range of hazards affecting their communities.
Funding.--Historically, funding for EMPG has been inadequate. The
program was intended to be 50 percent Federal and 50 percent state or
local funding. Currently many jurisdictions receive 20 percent or less.
State and local emergency management programs are in desperate need of
financial support if they are to effectively implement the President's
homeland security strategy in states, counties, cities and
neighborhoods across America. Given the new security concerns arising
from the War in Iraq, emergency management is more important than ever.
It is imperative that adequate funding be allotted to EMPG so that
emergency managers can continue to serve as a unifying force in the
effort to preserve public safety and maintain homeland security as well
as continue to meet the requirements of all hazard planning and
coordination.
We respectfully request the EMPG be increased from $165,000,000 to
$300,000,000.
Location of EMPG Program.--It is essential that the Directorate of
Emergency Preparedness and Response and state and local emergency
management offices continue to prepare and plan for floods, hurricanes,
earthquakes, ice storms, tornadoes and other natural disasters as well
as acts of terrorism. It is vital that the link between EMPG and those
who integrate the programs on the Federal level be maintained. The
focus of this particular grant program is much broader than training
and purchase of equipment. It is a program that supports the foundation
of emergency management for all hazards, including terrorism and for
which deliverables are required. In order to maintain the critical
federal, state and local emergency management infrastructure, the value
of which has been demonstrated in hundreds of disasters over the past
few years, the essential elements of that EMPG program should be moved
back to Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
The Administration's request for fiscal year 2004 would eliminate
the 404 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, which provides post-disaster
funding and fund a pre-disaster mitigation program at $300 million per
year. In order to reduce future disaster costs, commitments must be
made to both pre-disaster and post disaster mitigation. Citizens and
elected officials are most receptive to undertaking projects and
initiatives that reduce the impacts of future disasters immediately
after a disaster has occurred. Without the 404 funding, those
opportunities will be missed. The fiscal year 2003 Omnibus
Appropriations Bill reduced the 404 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
from an amount equivalent to 15 percent of eligible disaster costs to
7.5 percent. We urge that the program be retained and that it be
restored to the previous 15 percent.
Flood map Modernization
IAEM supports the Administration's request for $200 million for
flood map modernization. Flood maps play a key role in disaster
reduction, mitigation, and community planning and development
activities. Many of the flood maps in place are 15 to 30 years old and
do not reflect recent development, and may contain inaccurate
information about the floodplains as a result. FEMA estimated the cost
of a multi-year map modernization plan at $750 million over a 7-year
period. We support this multi-year effort.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to provide this testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the International Loran Association
Dear Chairman Cochran: On behalf of the International Loran
Association (ILA), I am writing in conjunction with your work on the
fiscal year 2004 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill.
Specifically, the ILA is asking for your support in funding the U.S.
Coast Guard (USCG) budget to continue the modernization of the Loran-C
system. Because Loran is the only multimodal system we have that can
support the global positioning satellite (GPS) system, which has
recognized vulnerabilities affecting the security of our critical
national infrastructure and the safety of tens of millions of American
citizens, we believe completing Loran modernization has critical
national importance. I respectfully request that this letter be made
part of your hearing record in conjunction with the Subcommittee's
work.
In recent years, because of continued strong bipartisan support
from the Appropriations Committee and the widespread recognition of
national vulnerabilities associated with overdependence on GPS, nearly
$100 million in resources have been provided to modernize the Loran-C
infrastructure through an inter-agency agreement between the USCG and
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Coast Guard's move to
the new Homeland Security Department now makes it imperative that
funding be provided from the USCG budget to continue and complete the
infrastructure modernization effort and to augment operations funds
already provided through Coast Guard resources.
With regard to the Subcommittee's objectives and its focus on
national security issues, let me briefly summarize issues associated
with GPS and Loran:
GPS and Loran
GPS and Loran are radionavigation and timing systems that operate
in virtually identical ways but have extremely different properties--
properties that make them uniquely synergistic systems. GPS is a
satellite-based, high frequency, and very low signal level system,
while Loran is a ground-based, low frequency, and a very high signal
level system. Given their distinctly different properties, GPS and
Loran do not share vulnerabilities, e.g. interference that may affect
one system will not affect the other. Both GPS and Loran are multimodal
(i.e. they can be used for aviation, marine, terrestrial and timing
applications), and they are the only multimodal systems we have. Given
its multimodal capabilities, Loran is the second most widely used
navigation and timing system in the world.
From approximately 1994-2001, the Department of Transportation and
its agencies were driving towards a ``sole-means'' GPS system, in hopes
of eliminating all other systems and relying totally on GPS.
Fortunately, it is now generally acknowledged that a sole-means system
cannot be justified on safety, security, technical, economic, or
political grounds, and that integrated or hybrid systems provide the
most robust, highest performance and do so in the most economic manner.
Not only is Loran our least expensive system, it is also the most
complementary system to GPS.
The matrix below summarizes Loran's unique multimodal advantages,
and graphically illustrates Loran is the only system we have that can
provide an independent backup to GPS in the diverse roles that are
critical to the national infrastructure and our nation's security. From
a national perspective, it is clear that investments in the Loran
infrastructure will result in a system that can support GPS in
multimodal applications and that has considerable upside potential with
regard to national security and safety, system performance, and user/
provider/manufacturer/national economic benefits.
RADIONAVIGATION SYSTEMS AND GPS AUGMENTATION SYSTEMS
[Applications and Performance--* = vehicles, railroads and personal]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrestrial* Aviation Marine Timing GPS Independent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loran-C............................................................ + + + + +
VOR/DME............................................................ - + - - +
NDGPS.............................................................. + - + - -
WAAS............................................................... + + + + -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPS Interference, Dependence, and National Security and Safety
As a result of 9/11, the Volpe report on GPS vulnerabilities, the
President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, and
numerous other events/studies, Congress and the nation have become
extremely focused on protecting the national infrastructure and safety
of life, and seek practical, cost effective solutions to these very
real concerns. Through these studies and reports, including the Volpe
Center's ``Vulnerability Assessment of the Transportation
Infrastructure Relying on the Global Positioning System,'' overwhelming
evidence has accumulated about the need for complementary systems,
including Loran.
Since virtually every aspect of our national infrastructure (e.g.
transportation, telecommunications, and power) relies on GPS, and
because GPS is an inherently fragile system, GPS dependence is a core
national vulnerability. Basically, GPS is extremely vulnerable to
intentional and unintentional interference, and neither can be
completely controlled today or in the future, regardless of system
augmentations/modifications or monies expended on those efforts. For
example, intentional jamming is currently underway in Iraq, as reported
by The Washington Post, Reuters, and other news sources, and while such
acts are recognized tactics in modern war situations, recent history
tells us that such tactics could easily be brought to our land. I will
note that in the August 19, 2002 Colorado Springs Gazette, General
Lance Lord, Commander of the Air Force Space Command, stated that the
most likely attack on U.S. satellites would be GPS jamming attacks on
the ground.
There have also been numerous examples of unintentional jamming,
and these incidents exemplify how easily GPS reception can be
disrupted. For example, GPS World recently published an article about
GPS jamming that inadvertently continued for well over 2 months,
completely blocking Moss Landing Harbor in California. In this case,
the ``jammers'' were commercially available TV antennas located on
private boats, and the owners were completely unaware of the
interference caused by these devices. One must only turn to personal
experience with cell phones, AM/FM radios, TV reception etc. to
recognize that wireless communications are not perfect, and will not
become so in our lifetime. I believe it is also reasonable to assume,
particularly given the huge popular migration to wireless communication
technologies, that these conditions will only be exacerbated in the
future.
In summary, the reality is that our national transportation,
telecommunications, and power infrastructure is totally reliant on GPS
and our infrastructure is vulnerable. The reality is also that GPS can
never be made to be invulnerable, and we cannot completely control our
radio frequency environment today or in the future. Loran is the only
system we have that can mitigate this vulnerability and provide an
infinite backup to GPS.
Economic and National Security Issues
While it is clear that GPS dependence is a national vulnerability,
it is also clear that the nation must seek the most cost-effective
means to protect all modalities that compose the national
infrastructure. In this regard, I think it is fair to state that
Congress has shown exceptional, pragmatic leadership with regard to
Loran and GPS, but in contrast, agencies and the DOT have been unable
to formulate a cohesive policy that addresses national needs.
For example, the FAA currently maintains the very high frequency
omnidirectional range (VOR) and distance measuring equipment (DME)
systems to backup GPS when GPS is unavailable. Neither system provides
nearly the coverage or performance of Loran, and their annual O&M costs
are roughly three times that of Loran's, which will drop to about $15
million when the modernization is complete. In addition, VORs and DMEs
are single modality systems (i.e. they can only be used by aviation),
and cannot even be used in the future ``Free Flight'' system envisioned
by the FAA. In contrast, the FAA's own studies have identified Loran as
``the best theoretical'' backup to GPS and point out that Loran will
fit in their future Free Flight system. Lastly, Loran is a multimodal
system that can provide similar benefits to millions of other
Americans, and can do so much less expensively than the single modal
VOR/DME system.
Another example is the situation with the USCG, which has not
formally identified a GPS backup that would enable continued port
operations during a period of GPS denial or unavailability. The USCG
currently states that radar with visual aiding is the backup that can
be used during a GPS outage. On its face, this answer completely avoids
the basic issue, as it assumes a GPS outage would only occur during
daylight hours with good visibility. It eschews the fundamental concern
of continuing operations during nighttime and storms or perhaps
terrorist activity, the very situations where a backup system is
absolutely required. Moreover, the USCG has not identified a GPS backup
for the automatic identification system (AIS), which will be used to
track and monitor vessels in and around U.S. ports, and relies
completely on GPS. Fortunately, the USCG has initiated studies on Loran
for these roles, and the modernization program will enhance Loran's
ability to fulfill these roles. In this regard, I will also note that
the United States Power Squadron (USPS) has recently joined the
National Boating Federation (NBF) in endorsing Loran's continuation and
modernization, and written the USCG Commandant to express these views.
In summary, Loran is not only the most cost effective system we
have that can backup GPS and protect our multimodal national
infrastructure, it is the only system we have that can address these
essential national requirements. At this point in our history, Loran is
not only a national asset, but also a national requirement; its
modernization is a necessity.
Loran Modernization
As indicated above, the Loran recapitalization effort has already
yielded substantial benefits to the nation, which are reflected not
only in national security and infrastructure enhancements across all
modalities, but also in cost savings. For example, major progress has
been made in replacing eleven old tube transmitters with modern, high
efficiency transmitters and associated modern electronic systems. This
modernization program has already enabled personnel reductions,
increased reliability, and enhanced performance. These improvements
will ultimately reduce Loran's annual O & M costs from $27 million to
under $15 million, and do so while improving Loran's ability to
complement GPS. Well into our future, Loran can act as a multimodal
insurance policy for our national infrastructure for under $15 million
annually.
Last year, Congress approved $25 million for the Loran
modernization program. The Coast Guard is effectively using those funds
for important projects that simultaneously assist the modernization
effort and advance security and safety benefits presented by Loran and
GPS compatibilities. These projects are demonstrating that Loran and
GPS uniquely work hand-in-hand, and cost-effectively benefit all modes
of transportation users. In summary, it is hard to imagine how
taxpayers' money could have been more productively spent to generate
more security, safety, performance, and economic benefits for the
nation. The Loran modernization program is indeed a wise and necessary
investment in America's future, and I respectfully ask that the
Committee continue this investment at its current level of $25 million.
In conclusion, Loran is a national asset of inestimable value.
Loran is the second most widely-used radionavigation system in the
world; it is the most cost-effective, most complementary system to GPS;
and it is the only other multimodal system available to meet our
national security and transportation system objectives. The Loran
modernization program is well underway, and already has provided
multimodal benefits to the nation, and more will follow. I urge you to
support fiscal year 2004 funding in the Coast Guard budget of no less
than $25 million to continue a Loran modernization program that will
help assure our nation's transportation safety and infrastructure
security in the most cost effective manner for both government
providers and private users.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lummi Indian Business Council
My name is Darrell Hillaire, Chairman of the Lummi Nation. The
Lummi Nation, is located on the northern coastline of Washington State,
and is the third largest tribe in Washington State serving a population
of over 5,200. The modern Lummi government is heir to the traditional
territories of the Lummi and Semiahmoo People, which covers lands
rivers and marines areas in the United States (Washington) and Canada
(British Columbia).
On behalf of the Lummi Nation I want to thank you and the members
of the Committee for the opportunity to express our concerns and
requests regarding the fiscal year 2004 appropriation for the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security. The following written testimony
presents the Lummi Nation funding priorities, as well as regional and
national concerns and recommendations for your consideration.
The Lummi Nation's relationship with the United States of America
means that it must also confront threats to the United States and the
American people that are presented by World events that have occurred,
at times, in distant lands and disturbingly in our own backyard. In
January 2002 several members of the Lummi Nation Council and I attended
the Tribal Homeland Security Summit. While that meeting did provide
information is did not result in any increased security for our
membership. Although isolated the Lummi Nation has witnessed major
terrorist activities in our area.
--A terrorist from the middle east was caught entering the United
States less than 90 miles from the Lummi Nation with plans and
equipment to bomb Los Angles International Airport.
--Within the last 2 years the Federal government successfully
prosecuted 5 residents of our County for involvement in
American ``militia'' activities similar to those that led to
the bombing in Oklahoma City. And finally the terrorist father
and stepson, who held the Washington DC area in fear last year
were living in the nearby city of Bellingham, prior to
beginning their cross country shooting spree.
--Tribal members routinely fish and hunt in remote areas of what is
now known as northwest Washington State that are the scene of
drug smuggling.
--Tribal member routinely cross through the boarder stations into
Canada to visit relatives, perform and participated in
ceremonies and participate in Tribe to Tribe trade, tax free,
under the Jay Treaty of 1789. These activities also take place
in remote areas of British Columbia.
--Lummi Tribal members are dependent of water resources that flow
from reservation aquifers fed by surface water wetlands and the
waters of the Nooksack river.
--Lummi Nation's dwindling fisheries resources are also dependent on
these water resources. All of which are open to contamination.
--Tribal lands are not part of the State of Washington, Lummi Nation
is a sovereign federally recognized Indian Government.
--The Coastal Zone Management Plan of Washington State indicates
Lummi Nation Lands as a blank space on their Plan Map. The
Lummi Nation owns and manages 12 contiguous miles of Coastline.
I, along with other tribal leaders, are concerned that the
Department fully include and involve Tribal governments as it develops
the programs services functions and activities that are designed to
assist Tribal governments needs to meet the ever changing nature of
terrorism. The Lummi Nation has an Office of Emergency Services, has
developed Emergency Services Plans and works with Whatcom county and
the State of Washington to insure that emergency services are ready and
are provided as needed.
Tribal Government Consultation
On behalf of the Lummi Nation I am recommending that the
Department, following the example of many other Federal departments,
develop a policy of planning through consultation with Tribal
governments on a government-to-government basis. This means
consultation prior to developing plans meant to benefit tribal
governments. Such a policy is needed due to the unique status of Tribal
governments within the American system of government, their strategic
location and isolation that present unique challenges for all law
enforcement and security activities.
Senate Bill 578 and Tribal Self-Governance
The Lummi Nation fully supports proposed legislation to amend the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 to include Indian tribes among the
entities consulted with respect to activities carried out by the
Secretary of Homeland Security, and for other purposes. The Lummi
Nation is not only a Self-Governance Tribe--it is the first Self-
Governance Tribe. The Lummi Nation is seeking to be a full, active and
productive partner with the United States and the Department of
Homeland Security. This can best be accomplished through the passage of
this legislation.
Emergency Domestic Preparedness
Tribal governments must be part of the Department's efforts to
strengthen America's first responder community and make our homeland
safer from potential threats. The Lummi Nation needs financial and
technical assistance to plan and develop its preparedness for terrorism
as well as its coordinated terrorism prevention and security
enhancement for first responders within Lummi reservation communities.
The Lummi Nation needs financial assistance to develop preparedness
plans, purchase equipment, develop and implement training, and support
the costs of preparedness exercises to enhance our security: The Lummi
Nation wants to be one of the ``critical infrastructure facilities as
part of Operation Liberty Shield.''
The Lummi Nation and other Tribal governments need the U.S.
Homeland Security Department to recognize that there are significant
security needs on reservations that are substantially different from
those of metropolitan areas. There are unique needs for protection or
preparedness of rural and isolated areas that attract infiltration
activities.
Counter-terrorism Programs, Services, Functions and Activities
In the planning the Department will undertake I ask you to consider
the role of the Lummi Nation and other Tribal governments in the
counter terrorism activities of the United States the support expanded
responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security.
The Lummi Nation can provide many trained officers and other who
want work and training to support the increased transportation security
operations including additional screening of visitors crossing the
border, more secondary inspection of immigrants and visitors at ports-
of-entry, increased inspection of high-risk goods and cargo at ports-
of-entry, additional flight hours for airspace security.
The Lummi Nation can provide the administrative support and the
labor force to support the protection of Federal assets located in our
area. The Lummi Nation is in an excellent position to provide increased
security between ports-of-entry on the borders.
The Lummi Nation can develop the facilities to support the pre-
deployment of Federal emergency response assets and provide the labor
force needed to support the activation of government emergency response
plans.
tribal specific appropriation request
$160,000 tribal emergency response offices
Lummi Nation request funding to support the development,
implementation and operation of its Emergency Assistance Preparedness
and Management Plan $50,000, Office Staffing $100,000 and start-up
equipment $10,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Period........................ 2004................... 20O5................... 2006
Funding Amount....................... $160,000............... $150,000............... $150,000
Project Activity..................... Planning............... Operations Support..... Operations Support
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$150,000 emergency communications
The Lummi Nation needs assistance to plan develop, construct and
operate reliable, real time, reservation wide emergency communication
Dispatch services, and the problems with 911 and complaints in delays
getting L&O officer response. Dispatch services.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Period........................ 2004................... 2005................... 2006
Funding Amount....................... $150,000............... $50,000................ $50,000
Project Activity..................... Planning & Equipment... Implementation......... Operations Support
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lummi nation first responders network
The Lummi Nation is seeking financial assistance in planning
developing implementing and operating a reservation-wide first
responder network.
Emergency Medical Service program
Emergency Medical Services request funds for an Ambulance, staff
training and assistance in establishing a 24/7 First Responder and
Emergency Medical Technician Service. Construction of an Lummi Nation
Emergency Services Facility that would house the ambulances and support
reservation wide emergency services first responders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Period........................ 2004................... 2005................... 2006
Funding Amount....................... $800,000............... $5,000,000............. $300,000
Project Activity..................... Planning & Training, Construction........... Operations Support
Staffing Equipment
$160,000 for 2
ambulances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire Department (Development preparedness, training funds)
A shrinking State Fire Department that is dependent on volunteers
serves the Lummi Nation. Volunteers whose training is no longer
supported by the State of Washington due to its own budget problems.
The Lummi Nation is seeking to work with the State to develop this
small service base into a effective tire and first respond department.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Period........................ 2004................... 2005................... 2006
Funding Amount....................... Planning $250,000...... $1,000,000............. $300,000
Project Activity..................... Planning............... Construction........... Operations Support
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lummi nation citizen watch programs
Citizens of the Lummi Nation are as concerned about the potential
for injury and death due to terrorist attacks. Our Tribal members want
opportunities to get involved in the process of protecting themselves.
They have information about unusual activities in areas that are remote
for most non-Indian citizens. Because of their unique lifestyle our
members travel both by land and sea to areas that are not regularly
inhabited. Therefore the Lummi Nation is requesting funding to plan,
develop, implement and operate the Citizen Watch Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Period........................ 2004................... 2005................... 2006
Funding Amount....................... Planning $250,000...... $150,000............... $150,000
Project Activity..................... Planning Operations and Operations Support..... Operations Support
Implementation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lummi natural resources department
$230,000. Annual Recurring Funding Request to support the increased
staff, support and equipment due to increased security needs and
activities of the Lummi Nation Natural Resources Department.
Protection of Natural Resources and the People who use these Resources
The Lummi Natural Resource Officers have concentrated on bringing
quality cases to the Tribal Court this year. These cases have been
coordinated with other Tribes, Washington Fish and Wildlife and
National Marine Fisheries Service in accordance with the sovereignty
and jurisdiction of the Lummi Nation. Additional officers has made it
possible to spend more patrol time in tideland and beach enforcement as
well as in the usual and accustomed area by water and land patrol.
The Lummi Tribe possess and exercises treaty rights that are
protected and reaffirmed, by the U.S. Federal courts (Washington vs.
U.S., (1974) Western District Court, Ninth Circuit Court and U.S.
Supreme Court) to preserve the Lummi people's right to harvest salmon
and other marine resources ``in common'' with the citizens of
Washington in their ``usual and accustomed grounds'' inland or marine
territories. The Lummi people possess--the right to catch up to 50
percent of the harvestable salmon in their traditional fishing areas,
located throughout Puget Sound's marine waters. These treaty rights
extend beyond the harvesting of fish, or salmon to include other
species including: hunting of deer, elk; gathering, harvesting shed
ash, clams, oysters, scallops, mussels, sea urchins, shrimp, abalone,
and squid.
The preservation and management for these species and their
continued survival is are essential function of LIBC tribal government.
The Lummi people have traditional depended upon the harvesting of
marine and natural resources for subsistence with many contemporary
family households rely upon the annual harvest as the primary source of
income. The development of offshore structures and increased vessel
traffic in and/or near traditional fishing areas will present a
hindrance to the Lummi peoples capability to sustain an income.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Period........................ 2004................... 2005................... 2006
Funding Amount....................... $400,000............... $230,000............... $230,000
Project Activity..................... Increased Staffing Support for increased Operations Support
Increased Support Operations.
Equipment Start-up
costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lummi law and order (police) department
The Lummi Law and Order Division is responsible to provide
enforcement services to patrol the Lummi Nation Reservation and its
``traditional hunting and fishing'' territories. This geographic area
is much larger and extends beyond the Lummi Indian reservation exterior
boundaries. The Lummi Nation need for patrol and enforcement is a year
round activity in order to protect the people, their property, their
natural resources and preserve the tribe's Treaty Right. The Lummi
Nation controls, regulates and manages over 6,000 acres of tidelands
and shoreline properties surrounding the Lummi Indian Reservation.
However the Lummi Nation is entitled to harvest shellfish over 15 miles
of ``off reservation'' coastal areas that extend up to the Canadian
Border and all along the western coastal boundaries of Whatcom and
Snohomish Counties, Washington State.
The Lummi Nation treaty right guarantees the tribe and its
membership future access and use, of existing aquatic waterways,
without obstruction or hindrance, and further to navigate, operate
boats or harvesting equipment in traditional fishing grounds and
corresponding marine water areas. The Lummi traditional fishing areas
extend beyond the physical boundaries of the Lummi Indian Reservation.
Marine water areas extend north of the Reservation to Pt. Robert's and
the U.S./Canada border, and south of the reservation throughout the San
Juan Islands The tribe's traditional ``Hunting'' territory includes all
the ceded land identified in the Pt. Elliot treat and covers over Four
Counties in the Pacific Northwest. The Lummi Law and Order Division
needs additional officers, salaries and support funding to address the
security needs of both on and oil reservation activities.
$200,000 Lummi Nation Law and Order Patrol Boat
The Lummi Nation Law and Order needs a new Patrol Boat. The costs
for the Lummi Law and Order patrol boat are quoted to be $200,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Period........................ 2004................... 2005................... 2006
Funding Amount....................... $500,000............... $300,000............... $300,000
Project Activity..................... Increased Staffing Support for increased Operations Support
Increased Support Operations.
Equipment Patrol Boat
$200,000 Start-up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for allowing us to submit this statement of testimony on
the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Boating Federation
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee: I am writing to
respectfully request that this letter be made part of your hearing
record in conjunction with the Subcommittee's work on the fiscal year
2004 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill and to request
your support of funding in the United States Coast Guard budget to
continue the modernization of the Loran-C system. On behalf of our 2
million members nationwide, the National Boating Federation (NBF)
strongly supports Loran as a backup operational system to GPS, and we
urge continuation of the Loran modernization program. We understand
other marine users and related groups, including the United States
Power Squadrons (USPS), have also expressed strong support for Loran
modernization and the need for it as an operational backup to satellite
navigation.
The move of the Coast Guard to the new Homeland Security Department
now makes it essential that funding be provided from the Coast Guard
budget to continue the Loran infrastructure modernization effort. The
Appropriations Committee has provided nearly $100 million in resources
in recent years to modernize the Loran infrastructure through an inter-
agency agreement between the U.S. Coast Guard and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA).
As a result of the Coast Guard recapitalization effort, substantial
progress has been made and many efficiencies implemented. When
complete, the modernization will reduce the Loran system's operation
and maintenance (O&M) costs from $27 million to under $15 million
annually. This is a remarkably low annual cost, particularly given
Loran serves so many diverse user groups.
Loran is serving as a multi-modal GPS backup not only because of
the navigation it provides to marine users and other modes of
transportation, but also because of its ability to provide precise time
services to the nation. Moreover, Loran is the second most widely used
radio navigation system in the world; it is a national asset that is
the most cost-effective, most complementary system to the GPS; and it
is the only other multi-modal radio navigation system available to meet
many of our national security and transportation system objectives.
It is imperative that Loran be part of the nation's long term
navigation system mix because it is essential to marine and other users
to meet ongoing navigation, timing and other requirements.
Last year, $25 million was provided for Loran modernization because
of overwhelming evidence that the technology offers cost-effective
security, safety, efficiency and other benefits.
The NBF urges you to support fiscal year 2004 funding in the Coast
Guard budget of no less than $25 million in resources for continuation
of the Loran modernization program.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Emergency Management Association
Introduction
Thank you Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member Byrd, and distinguished
members of the Committee for allowing me the opportunity to provide you
with a statement for the record on the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) fiscal year 2004 budget. I am Peter LaPorte, Co-Chair of the
National Emergency Management Association Homeland Security Committee
and Director of District of Columbia Emergency Management Agency. In my
statement, I am representing the National Emergency Management
Association (NEMA), who are the state emergency management directors in
the 50 states and the U.S. territories. NEMA's members are responsible
to their governors for emergency preparedness, homeland security,
mitigation, response, and recovery activities for natural, man-made,
and terrorist caused disasters.
This is a historic time as you have reorganized to consider the
Department of Homeland Security's budget and the Federal Government's
reorganization to stand-up the Department is in its infancy. It is
critical that the fiscal year 2004 budget and future budgets do not
lose sight of the all-hazards approach to emergency management. Our
Nation cannot afford to build a new system for homeland security. We
must utilize the pieces already in place to deal with natural hazards
and other emergencies. Our most frequent opportunity to affirm our
preparedness comes with recurrent natural hazards. In this year alone,
the country has experienced ten major disasters, 15 emergency
declarations, and one fire suppression declaration. While we continue
to enhance our preparedness for domestic terrorism, we continue to
prepare for and respond to frequent disasters of all sizes and impacts.
The Department of Homeland Security budget provides critical
support to state and local emergency management programs through actual
dollars, grants, and program support. This year, NEMA would like to
address three main issues with the proposed Federal budget for
Department of Homeland Security.
--The first is our concern for the elimination and lack of attention
to building and sustaining emergency management infrastructure
capabilities. This has traditionally been accomplished through
the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) program;
--The second is our support for continuing and enhancing the First
Responder Grant program and the intention to coordinate and
manage these grants through the states; and
--The third is our concern about the proposal to eliminate the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) in order to finance a
competitive predisaster mitigation grant program only.
Emergency Management Infrastructure Funding
More than any other intergovernmental program, emergency management
and disaster response is a joint and shared responsibility among local,
State, and Federal levels. The increase or decrease in resources for
one level has a direct impact on the responsibility and impacts of
disasters on the other partners. For example, a decrease in the
capability of local governments to respond to any disaster
automatically passes the burden of cost and activity to the state and
Federal Governments. Unfortunately, the consequences of such policies
are much more significant in terms of the effects of disasters on our
citizens and communities since an inability to respond to life
threatening emergencies at the local government level can not be
replaced by efforts at the state and Federal levels. Additionally, the
basic elements of comprehensive emergency preparedness cannot be
replaced by narrow program funding for homeland security efforts.
The President's budget proposal would eliminate the all-hazards
focused Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) program and roll
it into the domestic terrorism focused First Responder Grant program.
After a decade of static funding for the program, EMPG received a
modest increase of $29 million in fiscal year 2003. Additionally,
Congress recently affirmed the importance of EMPG in the fiscal year
2003 appropriations bill stating:
``EMPG is the backbone of the Nation's emergency management system,
builds state and local emergency management capability, is the
foundation for first responder activities, and because this important
activity has been severely under funded for many years. Now more than
ever, the planning activities carried out in this program are of utmost
importance. The conferees believe that FEMA should consider an
allocation system for these funds that takes into consideration not
only population, but also risk and vulnerability assessments.''
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your
support towards this important program and respectfully request that
you not only prevent elimination of EMPG in the 2004 appropriations,
but also address the program's shortfalls. While it is called a grant,
EMPG is really a cost-share system which ties together the emergency
management system of local, State, and Federal governments.
This program was funded in fiscal year 2003 at $165 million, but a
NEMA survey demonstrates an additional $200 million shortfall in basic
state and local level program support in this joint effort to prepare
the Nation's emergency management infrastructure for an adequate
preparation and response to any catastrophe. The increased homeland
security focus is an enhancement to our basic emergency management
capacity and we will not succeed in building vigorous and robust
preparedness for homeland security by taking away the basic building
blocks of the emergency management system. An analogy for this is
likened to the building of a second story on a house by using the very
bricks that are integral to the foundation.
The Nation is faced with an increased threat of terrorism and the
necessity for increased planning and coordination with public health,
law enforcement, agriculture and other state and local organizations.
Further, significant grants management responsibilities with all
response organizations cannot be accomplished effectively with current
capabilities. An additional $200 million in funding for EMPG or other
similar program in fiscal year 2004 is critical to addressing these
immediate needs and sets the stage for future multi-year funding based
upon national assessments of existing capabilities and needs.
The elimination of this program will result in immediate, near-term
and long-term degradations in the Nation's ability to effectively
address emergencies and disasters. Citizens and communities that
handled emergencies locally will no longer be able to do so and the
responsibility and costs will be passed to the next higher level of
government. But the costs will be greater, more frequent, and more
dramatic. Straight-lining this funding in the current homeland security
environment of increased programmatic activity without a commensurate
increase in infrastructure will have a similar result. Therefore, an
immediate increase and sustained program over the long term is
necessary.
first responder grant program
We appreciate the attention and funding that the Congress has given
to ensuring first responders and emergency management is adequately
prepared for domestic terrorism threats. Our emergency responders are
better prepared today to face the various threats associated with
terrorism because of the Federal commitment to address the war on
terrorism that is being played out in our states, cities, and towns.
States continue to take an all-hazards approach to disaster
preparedness as we have integrated our domestic preparedness efforts
into the proven systems we already use for dealing with both man-made
and natural disasters.
We have a great opportunity before us to build and sustain a
national emergency infrastructure that addresses the needs of the
entire emergency community (for example, fire, law enforcement,
emergency medical services, emergency management, public health, and
emergency communications) without taking away programs that are the
basic building blocks of these components. We must seek to build
baseline capabilities in each state that are adequately funded through
reliable multi-year funding. NEMA continues to support Federal efforts
to increase emergency management capacity building at the state,
territory, and local level for personnel, planning, training,
equipment, interoperable communications, coordination, and exercises. A
significant Federal commitment must be made to give state, territorial,
and local governments the tools to ensure adequate preparedness. While
states have significantly increased their commitment to emergency
management over the last decade, states are struggling with budgetary
issues and the increased investments necessary to meet new demands.
Critically important to the above is allowing funds for emergency
responders to be used to pay for training, exercises, and security
costs for critical infrastructure and key assets, as well as hardening
defenses and security to these potential targets.
State Coordination
All efforts to increase emergency management capacity building must
be coordinated through the states to ensure harmonization with the
state emergency operations plan, ensure equitable distribution of
resources, and to synthesize resources for intra-state and inter-state
mutual aid. Also, the Stafford Act, which governs the way disaster
assistance is allocated, successfully uses states and Governors as the
managers of Federal disaster relief funds for local governments, which
can become overwhelmed and in need assistance when disasters occur.
States understand the need to get funding quickly to the first
responders and have long coordinated statewide and regionally to ensure
adequate state assistance to local governments for emergency
preparedness and response. There has been some discussion of the
states' effectiveness to coordinate these programs; our data shows that
the criticism is exaggerated. An April, 2003 NEMA Report found that of
the 1999-2002 funds provided by the Office of Domestic Preparedness
Grants, 76 percent of the funding has been expended or obligated and
that of the fiscal year 2002 supplemental funds to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (now the Emergency Preparedness and
Response Directorate), 69 percent of the funding has been obligated or
expended. States continue to work to ensure the grants get out as
quickly as possible to the localities. We suggest that the Department
of Homeland Security provide quarterly reports on the status of Federal
funds for State and local governments in detail to Congress and share
those reports with key state and local government associations and
first responder associations. We believe this would provide the
opportunity for all interested parties to see the same data regarding
homeland security grants as well to see where assistance is needed in
getting grant funding distributed and most importantly, it would
provide an ability to track our progress in protecting our communities
from terrorism.
Finally, Federal streamlining is necessary to consolidate the
Federal grant application process for homeland security funds in order
to ensure that funding can be provided faster to first responders. The
current application submission, review, and approval process is lengthy
and should be reviewed for efficiency.
Fiscal Conditions and Match Requirements
Further, because the war on terrorism is a national emergency and
states and local governments are in the toughest fiscal situations
since the deep recession in the early 1980s, we must be wary of
programs that would require significant matches. In fact, for local
governments to meet the match would be even more difficult given their
fiscal constraints. If a significant match is required, the application
of this initiative will only go to those agencies and governments that
can fiscally afford the match and not necessarily where the need is
greatest. If a match is necessary, we would suggest that the match be
non-fiscal or in the form of a deliverable as opposed to soft or hard
dollars. We also recommend continuation of the current match
requirements for Emergency Operations Centers enhancements of 75
percent Federal and 25 percent state and local.
Flexibility for Personnel to Manage the Program
State emergency managers need to have a commitment for sustained
Federal resources and the flexibility to ensure the hiring and training
of sufficient professional personnel to manage the expanding
antiterrorism programs. We are concerned that an influx of funding
programs from the Federal Government could detract from the ``all
hazards'' approach and we will have to turn our focus away from natural
disaster preparedness and response and thereby actually reduce overall
preparedness and efficiency. Building a statewide emergency management
capability is key to ensuring preparedness across the board.
Flexibility to use some of the first responder grants for personnel
both at the state and local level to manage the programs is critical to
completing the preparedness mission. As an existing funding stream,
EMPG is used in part to fund state and local staff to manage critical
programs and build the incremental emergency management capacity to
prepare for the first responder grants and the coordination that will
be required to effectively execute the program. The First Responder
Grants should provide the same flexibility. State and local government
emergency management and responder organizations are already working at
capacity and need Federal support for more than just purchasing pieces
of equipment. Flexibility based on strategic approaches should be the
norm, not single-issue, narrowly focused grants.
Another area where flexibility is needed is to cover the overtime
costs associated with training and exercising. In order to send a first
responder to train on equipment, states and localities must pay
overtime for that person's time, but also overtime for the person who
takes their shift to replace them on duty. The current equipment and
exercise grants do not cover such training costs.
Standards
Standards must be developed to ensure interoperability of
equipment, communications, and training across state, regional, and
local jurisdictions. In terms of establishing voluntary minimum
standards for the terrorism preparedness programs of state and local
governments, NEMA offers itself as a resource in this area. Our
organization, along with other stakeholder groups such as the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, the International Association of Emergency
Managers, National Governors' Association, National Association of
Counties, International Association of Fire Chiefs, and others, has
developed and is implementing an Emergency Management Accreditation
Program (EMAP). EMAP is a voluntary standards and accreditation program
for state and local emergency management that is based on NFPA
(National Fire Protection Association) 1600 ``Standard for Disaster/
Emergency Management and Business Continuity Operations'' (an ANSI or
American National Standards Institute approved standard) and FEMA's
Capability Assessment of Readiness (CAR). Consequence management
preparedness, response and recovery standards are being developed in
conjunction with those for the traditional emergency management
functions. NEMA suggests that these standards already being
collaboratively developed through EMAP be considered in the development
of minimum standards for training, exercises and equipment.
Additionally, EMAP acceptance would provide the natural mechanism for
Federal and state agencies to meet the requirements of the Government
Performance Results Act (GPRA). EMAP has already completed a pilot
phase in North Carolina and North Dakota is now conducting baseline
assessments of all states, some of which wish to pursue accreditation
in conjunction with this initial assessment.
Specific Program Needs
As you consider the appropriations bills this year, we ask that you
consider other specific needs to: upgrade emergency operations centers;
assess, plan, and provide interoperable communications equipment;
address the lack of public safety spectrum and radio frequency; provide
mutual aid planning assistance; provide Federal funding for state
security clearances; provide effective warning systems for all
citizens; complete fielding of one National Guard Civil Support Team in
every state; and provide funding for upgraded Urban Search and Rescue
Teams with Weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities.
NEMA is taking the initiative to develop solutions to some of the
issues and concerns of state government related to homeland security
with strategic partnerships. On April 1, 2003, NEMA, along with the
Adjutants General Association of the United States and Mitretek Systems
launched the Center for State Homeland Security. The Center will
provide assistance for states in implementing their homeland security
missions by facilitating access to the best available tools,
information and facilities. The Center will provide direct support to
states in key areas where assistance is needed including engineering,
analysis, program planning, management, and procurement, in addition to
identifying best practices. This project will help states navigate the
vast web of information on homeland security and provide a framework
for benchmarks to assist with spending accountability.
hazard mitigation grant program & predisaster mitigation
The Administration's budget proposal to eliminate the post-disaster
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program in favor of funding a competitive pre-
disaster mitigation program gives NEMA significant concern. While
Federal costs towards disasters remain a concern, significant
commitments must be made towards both pre-disaster and a fully funded
post-disaster mitigation program in order to lower overall disaster
costs.
Last year, Congress changed the formula for post-disaster
mitigation grants from 15 percent to 7.5 percent. This change limits
the availability of funds for post-disaster mitigation and prevents the
lessons learned from disasters from being immediately incorporated into
mitigation projects to prevent losses of life and destruction of
property. As a result, state governments no longer can offer buy-outs
or mitigation projects to as many disaster victims. The months
immediately following disasters provide unique opportunities to
efficiently incorporate risk reduction measures in a very cost-
effective manner, in many cases lowering the overall cost of the
project by leveraging other funding sources including insurance
settlements. We ask that you restore the formula to 15 percent this
year and also prevent the program from being eliminated.
The HMGP has proven to be a highly effective tool in steering
communities toward risk reduction measures, in many cases breaking
repetitive loss cycles that have cost other Federal disaster relief
programs multiple times. Cost-benefit analysis is currently a
requirement for predisaster mitigation programs. In a purely
competitive grant program, lower income communities, often those most
at risk to natural disaster will not effectively compete with more
prosperous communities. Also, disasters graphically and vividly expose
the need for and value of mitigation projects. We must not lose these
opportunities to initiate projects to enhance our communities and
reduce future disaster costs. Damage caused by disasters would go
largely unrepaired thereby further impacting the economic and social
recovery of particular areas. There are not enough mitigation dollars
available to address all of the vulnerabilities that exist in this
country.
Making mitigation funds available only in a predisaster competitive
environment will set this country's mitigation efforts back by removing
the prime motivation factor, the disaster itself. The Administration's
proposal to eliminate post-disaster mitigation programs is not a cost-
savings initiative, because disaster costs to the Federal Government
would significantly increase as a result of the absence of prevention.
Pre-disaster mitigation is essential, but we need to ensure that pre-
disaster mitigation corresponds with the Disaster Mitigation Act of
2000 that was passed overwhelmingly by the House and Senate and signed
into law.
NEMA calls on Congress to maximize the benefits of both HMGP and
predisaster mitigation, while including provisions for increased
accountability. NEMA supports increased funding for predisaster
mitigation, but maintains that HMGP should be retained as a separate
and fully funded post-disaster program.
conclusion
As we work to implement a new Federal Department of Homeland
Security, we must not forget about the all-hazards approach to
emergency management and the role it plays in preventing our Nation
from losing focus on the daily perils that we face in addition to new
threats. We must be prudent and thoughtful in addressing the homeland
security enhancements to our preparedness and not waste the
opportunities we have before us today.
Whether it is a flood in West Virginia, a hurricane in Florida, or
tornadoes in Mississippi, states need a Federal commitment to recognize
that each state and local government has unique disaster preparedness
and response needs that require flexible, predictable, and adequate
funding assistance that is coordinated with the state emergency
management plan. I thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf
of NEMA and welcome any questions that you might have. Only through a
partnership of Federal, State, local government, along with our
citizens and businesses, can our country prepare and respond to
emergencies and disasters. Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Institute for Agricultural Security
agricultural biosecurity in rural america
There is a growing concern among security experts that acts of
bioterrorism may be more likely than other forms of terrorist attack.
America's farms, ranches, forests and our food production systems are
vulnerable. In order to ensure continued public confidence in the
safety of the food supply, immediate steps need to be taken to
strengthen the technology and systems that will prevent and mitigate
acts of bioterrorism. Local communities need to be prepared to work
with State and Federal agencies to manage the consequences of an
attack.
The State Agricultural Experiment Stations and the State Extension
Services have a long history of working with State and local
communities to address issues of national concern. This Federal State-
local partnership has been critical to address the needs of
agricultural producers and food processors, and it will be essential to
develop integrated and comprehensive national programs for addressing
agricultural biosecurity. A series of activities and projects are
proposed that address biosecurity concerns in rural America.
securing agricultural research facilities and agents
Agricultural research facilities contain a vast array of biological
and chemical agents that can be accessed and abused. The Agricultural
Experiment Stations must develop new practices and procedures for
insuring that they can meet emerging university security requirements
while coordinating with their Federal laboratory partners to meet a
different set of Federal security requirements. Improved security must
be developed in a manner that still allows for interaction with the
public for whom the research is being performed.
Preventing and Preparing for Agricultural Bioterrorism
The critical time to deal with an act of bioterrorism is before it
occurs. Potential vulnerabilities need to be assessed. Local, State and
Federal emergency management communications networks need to be
developed and tested for use in rural areas to address these new
threats. Rural community leaders need to prepare management plans with
public health, law enforcement, disaster management agencies. Farmers,
ranchers, and foresters need education programs to recognize and
respond to potential acts of terrorism, as well as to understand steps
they can take to reduce their own vulnerability to attack. New vaccines
and protective immunity needs to be developed for animals and crops.
Quickly Detecting Toxic Biological and Chemical Agents
New sensor technologies for plants, animals and microbes need to be
developed for detecting specific and broad categories of potential
bioweapons. These sensors need to be mobile, broadly distributed, quick
in their detection and analysis, and inexpensive. Sensors need to be
developed for monitoring farms, ranches and forests to detect and
report on the movement and dispersion of biological agents. Sensors
must also be developed for identifying food borne pathogens in the food
production and distribution system.
Interpreting the Appearance and Movement of Biological and Chemical
Agents
Once detected, the pattern of appearance and dispersion of
biological agents and food borne pathogens needs to be quickly
incorporated into Geographic Information Mapping systems and computer
models to determine if a natural event or a terrorist attack has
occurred. Mapping and modeling make it possible to determine in hours
and days that an event has occurred, making it possible to respond
quickly enough to contain and mitigate the attack. Moreover, mapping
and modeling make it possible to anticipate the movement of bioweapons
through the landscape and the food distribution system, enabling local
leaders to take appropriate actions to protect their communities.
Recognizing and Reporting Hazardous Events
In addition to developing new equipment and computer technologies,
people need to be trained to recognize the symptoms of biological
attacks. Extension agents, veterinarians, and crop consultants need to
be trained to recognize biological outbreaks and to know how to
communicate appropriately with local and Federal officials. Reporting
by individuals and mechanical sensors needs to be integrated into a
comprehensive biosurveillance network.
Responding to and mitigating an act of bioterrorism
In the event of an attack, local leaders need to be prepared to
make appropriate emergency management decisions. Local public health,
law enforcement, and disaster response teams need to be coordinated
with prepared processes for informing and managing the public response.
Treatment and care must be implemented immediately and appropriately.
Early detection and treatment may mitigate most acts of bioterrorism.
the national institute for agricultural security
The National Institute for Agricultural Security (NIAS) is a
nonprofit corporation developed by the State Agricultural Experiment
Station Directors in collaboration with the State Extension Services
and in consultation with the Colleges of Agriculture. The Institute was
developed to address bioterrorism as it impacts U.S. agricultural and
food production systems.
Partner Institutions
In addition to working with all State Agricultural Experiment
Stations, the NIAS works with and through lead universities to utilize
their unique areas of technical and programmatic expertise to address
national and regional biosecurity issues. NIAS is currently engaged in
discussions regarding the development of specific pilot test projects
with a number of universities. Federal Agencies and Appropriation
Subcommittees All of the proposed programs described here will be
developed in collaboration and coordination with the appropriate
agencies within the Department of Agriculture. However, ongoing
discussions with an array of agencies has made it clear that the
proposed activities and projects should involve new collaboration and
partnerships with a number of Federal agencies, including the
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense. For
example, the agricultural research community needs to build on the
security expertise, computer modeling, and biological research
capacities that are supported by these departments. The six areas of
activity described in this testimony have been designed to complement
emerging programs and projects being planned by the Department of
Homeland Security's Office of Science and Technology. The intent is to
build on the biological work of the Office of Science and Technology
through the Federal laboratories and research network, by harnessing
the state-based agricultural research network of the State Agricultural
Experiment Stations and Colleges of Agriculture. The agricultural
research community has expertise and detailed knowledge of local
conditions that will be imperative for the new programs being developed
within the Department of Homeland Security and ongoing programs in the
Department of Defense. Therefore the Appropriations Subcommittees for
Homeland Security and the Department of Defense are suggested as the
appropriate Committees of jurisdiction.
First Steps
It is understood that there are many urgent and immediate homeland
security concerns. However, it is also imperative that the security of
our agricultural and food production system not be left unattended. The
NIAS, the State Agricultural Experiment Stations, and the State
Extension system offer a cost-effective mechanism for harnessing an
existing infrastructure of local and state-based research, education
and communications capacities that extends throughout the country. This
research and extension system provides a trusted communications and
facilitation network throughout rural America that should be linked to
the emerging programs of the Department of Homeland Security.
Detailed project proposals and budgets have been developed for each
of the six areas of activity described previously in this testimony.
More detailed resource documents are being provided to appropriate
agency officials and will be provided to Congressional staff as
appropriate. Each project begins with a developmental or pilot phase,
which is then evaluated and adapted before being ramped-up for regional
or national implementation.
By way of example, the first area of activity includes the
development of national guidelines for securing agricultural research
facilities, followed by a national assessment of state-based
facilities, to be followed by ``hardening'' state-based agricultural
research facilities nationwide.
Securing agricultural research facilities and agents Agricultural
research facilities contain a vast array of biological and chemical
agents that can be accessed and abused. The Agricultural Experiment
Stations have a unique mix of field and laboratory research with a
network of widely dispersed laboratory and field research sites within
every State and territory--creating tremendous security challenges for
research managers trying to respond to new biosecurity concerns.
Several universities and agricultural research facilities have already
been the targets of domestic terrorist attacks. Biological agents have
been stolen from agricultural research laboratories. A comprehensive
process for securing agricultural research facilities needs to be
undertaken immediately. Research security requirements must be
consistent nationally, but with flexibility for correct implementation
given the unique characteristics of each site.
AES Biosecurity Guidelines
In order to quickly develop agricultural research security
practices for the Agricultural Experiment Stations, the National
Institute for Agricultural Security (NIAS) will convene panels of
security and research experts to develop draft ``AES Biosecurity
Guidelines.'' These guidelines will outline suggestions for (1)
biosecurity site assessments, (2) policies for managing personnel
access to research facilities and equipment, (3) developing new
personnel training programs, and (4) managing access to sensitive
research information. The expert panels and working groups will seek to
include representatives from the appropriate Federal agencies. The
workshops will include leaders from the Agricultural Colleges and the
Agricultural Experiment Stations, but also field station and laboratory
managers. The draft AES Biosecurity Guidelines will be shared with all
Experiment Stations through web-based conferences, where each State
will have the opportunity to gather the appropriate mix of specialists
to review and evaluate the draft guidelines. Several States might be
utilized as pilot sites for testing the new guidelines; the selected
Experiment Stations would use test the proposed national guidelines to
determine what final adjustments might be needed. After testing, all
State Agricultural Experiment Stations could utilize the national
guidelines to conduct site security assessments, develop new personnel
guidelines, and to develop new training programs. After completing the
site security assessments, each institution would be able to clearly
define local security enhancements that would be needed to reach a
consistent national standard of security for field and laboratory
research facilities and equipment.
Closing
The National Institute for Agricultural Security will strive to
facilitate collaboration between the state-based agricultural research
and extension communities and our Federal partners to address
biosecurity and agricultural security concerns. The Institute stands
ready to provide any additional information that may be of interest to
the appropriate Congressional Committees and offices.
______
Prepared Statement of the Pilot Disaster Resistant Universities
Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member Byrd, and distinguished members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide
testimony on the Disaster Resistant University initiative and to
request continued funding in the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill
of your Subcommittee.
Program Background
The FEMA Disaster Resistant University (DRU) Initiative was created
to reduce the potential for large loss of life and hundreds of millions
of dollars in key Federal research and billions of dollars in damage
from natural disasters. The University of California/Berkeley was the
prototype and founding member of the program. In October 2000, FEMA
selected five additional universities to join Berkeley in the pilot
phase of the program: the University of Alaska/Fairbanks, University of
Miami, University of North Carolina/Wilmington, Tulane University, and
University of Washington/Seattle. The selected universities have two
elements in common: a vulnerability to disasters and a commitment to
improve protection of students, faculty and staff, and one of our most
valuable assets, intellectual property. The pilot program was funded
with $700,000 in grants from predisaster mitigation funds and the U.S.
Fire Administration.
Purpose of the Program
The purpose of the program is to help the nation's colleges and
universities facing the threat of natural disasters and acts of
terrorism to assess their vulnerabilities and find ways to protect the
lives of their students, faculty, and staff; their research; and their
facilities. It will provide a framework and process for other
universities to do the same.
Need for the Program
The Federal Government funds nearly $15 billion in university
research annually. This Federal investment in the vital intellectual
property of the nation should be protected.
Universities are critical to the economic health of surrounding
communities. Their ability to resume operations quickly following a
disaster greatly speeds the recovery of the entire community. For
example, the University of Miami is the 3rd largest employer in Miami-
Dade County and has a $1.9 billion a year impact on the community; the
University of Washington is the 3rd largest employer in the state of
Washington and has a $3.4 billion impact; the University of North
Carolina at Wilmington is the 3rd largest employer in the area and is a
$400 million annual benefit to an eight county area; the University of
California, Berkeley is the 5th largest employer in the Bay area and
generates $1.1 billion annually in personal income in the Bay area;
Tulane University is the largest employer in Orleans Parish and the 5th
largest in Louisiana with a $1.5 billion gross impact on New Orleans;
and the University of Alaska/Fairbanks is the largest civilian employer
in the Tanana Valley. In addition, many universities operate medical
schools which provide essential clinical services to the residents of
their communities and adjacent areas.
Many recent events underscore the need for the program: the loss of
many years of research at the Texas Medical Center as result of
flooding from Tropical Storm Allison, the earthquake damage to the
University of California/Northridge and the University of California at
Los Angeles, the facility damage and loss of life at the University of
Maryland as result of a tornado, hurricane damage to the University of
North Carolina/Wilmington, the earthquake damage to the University of
Washington/Seattle, and the declaration by the FBI that our
universities are ``soft'' targets for terrorists.
Status of the Program and Accomplishments
Although no funding was made available in 2002, great progress has
been made by the universities with the modest 2001 Federal investment.
Participation in the DRU brought high level commitment and a framework
for disaster planning and mitigation activities that helped
universities focus and enhance efforts to protect their students,
faculty, staff, vital research, and facilities.
Each university has made significant improvements in developing
awareness campaigns on campus; assessing their risks, vulnerabilities,
and mitigation options, prioritizing and implementing some of the
mitigation options; updating emergency operations plans; and developing
and implementing plans for business continuity. The universities have
improved disaster resistant design specifications for buildings and
their contents, incorporated disaster resistance into campus master
planning, and partnered more closely with governmental and private
entities.
These six pilot universities are making strong efforts to protect
their collective 120,567 students, 60,214 employees, 1,550 buildings
valued at over $11,820,458,000, and $1,600,710,000 in annual research.
In meetings in March with representatives of the DRUs, FEMA staff
expressed strong interest in continuing to work on this program. The
six participating Disaster Resistant Universities look forward to
continuing their progress and to mentoring the six new universities
which FEMA will be selecting soon.
Congressional Interest
We very much appreciate the support Congress has given this program
the last 2 years. The Conference Report on the VA, HUD and Independent
Agencies Appropriations bill for 2002 contained the following language:
``The conferees believe that many of the nation's universities are
vulnerable to disaster and urge FEMA to continue its Disaster Resistant
University program and expand the scope to include safe-guarding
university assets from acts of terrorism.'' [House Report 107-272, page
155]
The Conference Report on the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus bill in the
FEMA section of the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies stated the
following: The conferees are in agreement that FEMA should continue the
Disaster Resistant University program and direct FEMA to carry out the
direction contained in House Report 107-740.
House Report 107-740 stated the following: The Committee directs
FEMA to continue the Disaster Resistant University Program with grants
of $500,000 to each of the six pilot Disaster Resistant Universities
and $100,000 each to at least six additional universities, including at
least one HBCU, to join the program.
Request for fiscal year 2004
In fiscal year 2003, the program was funded through the Federal
Emergency Management Agency section of the VA, HUD and Independent
Agencies section of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill. In fiscal year
2004, the program will be under Department of Homeland Security,
Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response.
We request your consideration of the following language in the
fiscal year 2004 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill:
The Committee directs the Department of Homeland Security
Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response (FEMA) to continue
the Disaster Resistant University Program by providing continued
support of $500,000 to each of the six pilot Disaster Resistant
Universities to implement mitigation projects, $500,000 for each of the
new universities added to the program in fiscal year 2003, and $200,000
each to at least six additional universities to join the program in
fiscal year 2004.
We again thank you for the opportunity to provide written comment
on the need for funding of this important program. We would welcome the
opportunity to discuss the program further with your staff.
______
Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
organization created in 1981 by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to serve as a forum for coordinating
the five states' river-related programs and policies and for
collaborating with Federal agencies on regional water resource issues.
As such, the UMRBA has an interest in the budgets for the U.S. Coast
Guard and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate within
the new Department of Homeland Security.
Transition to the new department is an on-going process that will
undoubtedly bring both challenges and opportunities. However, in the
current national security environment, it has become more important
than ever to ensure that the Coast Guard and the former Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have the resources they need to
fulfill their multiple missions. Both have vital new functions and
priorities specifically related to homeland security that must be
adequately funded. But both also have other traditional missions that
are equally vital to public health and safety, economic well-being, and
environmental protection. For the Coast Guard, these include activities
such as aids to navigation, vessel and facility inspections, emergency
response, and mariner licensing. For the former FEMA, key traditional
missions include the National Flood Insurance Program, flood map
modernization, hazard mitigation, and response to floods and other
natural disasters. Nowhere are these services more important than on
the Upper Mississippi River System, which supports a vital link in the
inland waterway transportation system, some of the nation's most
productive agricultural land, population centers ranging from small
towns to major metropolitan areas, and a nationally significant
ecosystem.
coast guard
Operating Expenses
A continuing priority for the UMRBA is the Coast Guard's Operating
Expenses account. The President's fiscal year 2004 budget proposal
includes $4.838 billion for this account, an increase of 10 percent
from the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. However, much of this increase
is targeted to homeland security and maritime projects, including new
Maritime Safety and Security Teams, Sea Marshall positions, and
increased search and rescue staffing. These initiatives are important
in their own right, and some will undoubtedly help enhance other Coast
Guard missions. However, it is also true that there will be increased
demands on other mission areas to support security operations.
The Coast Guard's stated objective is to sustain traditional
missions near their pre 9/11 levels. These traditional missions are
critical to the safe, efficient operation of the Upper Mississippi
River and the rest of the inland river system. Under these mission
areas, the Coast Guard maintains navigation channel markers, regulates
a wide range of commercial vessels in the interest of crew and public
safety, and responds to spills and other incidents. The beneficiaries
include not only commercial vessel operators, but also recreational
boaters; farmers and others who ship materials by barge; and the
region's citizens, who benefit enormously from the river as a
nationally significant economic and environmental resource.
Even prior to September 11, recent years had brought a number of
changes to the way the Coast Guard operates on the inland river system,
including elimination of the Second District; closure of the Director
of Western Rivers Office; decommissioning the Sumac, which was the
largest buoy tender on the Upper Mississippi River; and staff
reductions. The states understand that these decisions were driven by
the need for the Coast Guard to operate as efficiently as possible, and
the states support that goal. However, such changes must be carefully
considered and their effects monitored, particularly in light of the
increased demands that we are now placing on the personnel and assets
that remain in the region. The UMRBA is quite concerned that staff
reductions and resource constraints have combined to impair the Coast
Guard's ability to serve as an effective, proactive partner.
Specifically, increased security demands have reduced the staff
assigned to vessel inspections and limited the Coast Guard's
investigation of reported spills. Sending a single person to conduct
vessel inspections reduces the rigor of those inspections, and, in a
worst case scenario, potentially puts the inspector at risk. Similarly,
electing not to respond to reports of small spills means some of these
spills will go uninvestigated and puts increased demands on local
officials who do not have the Coast Guard's expertise or resources.
Moreover, it could result in costly delays should a spill turn out to
be larger than first reported, an all-too-common occurrence. While
everyone recognizes the need to adjust to our new security environment,
it is essential for the Coast Guard to retain the capacity to perform
its traditional missions on the Upper Mississippi River. Temporary
adjustments have been necessary as the Coast Guard strives to meet
immediate needs, but these should not become long term standard
operating procedures. Toward that end, the UMRBA supports the
President's fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Coast Guard's
Operating Expenses account and urges Congress to ensure that sufficient
resources from within this account are allocated to the Coast Guard's
inland river work.
Priorities and Procedures in a New Environment
The UMRBA calls on Congress to ensure that the Coast Guard's
partners and stakeholders are consulted as decisions are made regarding
how to execute traditional missions in the new security environment.
For example, the Office of Management and Budget has called for a study
of the Aids to Navigation Program to determine whether this function
should be privatized. While the states do not oppose such a study per
se, we do have reservations concerning the efficacy and efficiency of
privatization in this instance. Moreover, it is absolutely essential to
fully consider the perspectives of the navigation industry and others
who rely on these aids before making any such decision. The states
would oppose any fees for aids to navigation or other navigation
assistance services. The nation's navigable waterways are a critical
part of our transportation infrastructure, just as is the national
highway system, and the benefits of the waterways system accrue quite
broadly. Therefore, providing the basic services required to operate
that infrastructure safely is a fundamental role of government.
The Coast Guard is reportedly considering a range of other
potential changes, such as reducing non-security contingency planning,
suspending certain safety inspections, reducing some enforcement
efforts, and suspending response to spills of up to 500 gallons from
domestic vessels. These potential changes could have profound
implications, including diminished public and worker safety, increased
demands on state and local jurisdictions, and reduced environmental
protection. They should not be undertaken without extensive
consultation with potentially affected parties.
Boat Safety Grants
The Coast Guard's boat safety grants to the states have a proven
record of success. The Upper Mississippi is a river where all types of
recreational craft routinely operate in the vicinity of 15-barge tows,
making boating safety all the more important. As levels of both
recreational and commercial traffic continue to grow, so too does the
potential for user conflicts. This is particularly true with major
events, such as the upcoming commemoration of the Lewis and Clark
expedition, which is expected to draw large numbers of boaters to the
St. Louis area, and the Grand Excursion 2004, during which flotillas of
boaters will retrace President Millard Fillmore's 1,854 steamboat
journey from Rock Island, Illinois to the Twin Cities. Boat safety
training and law enforcement are key elements of prevention. In fiscal
year 2003, Congress recognized the importance of boating safety,
providing $71 million for the state boat safety grants. Unfortunately,
this year the Coast Guard continued its long-standing practice of
requesting only $59 million for state grants. The UMRBA urges Congress
to appropriate the full authorized amount in fiscal year 2004 to the
Boat Safety account to support the states in this important mission.
emergency preparedness and response
Hazard Mitigation
Among those programs now administered by the Department of Homeland
Security's Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, UMRBA is
particularly interested in those that help mitigate future flood
hazards. Mitigation, which is the ongoing effort to reduce or eliminate
the impact of disasters like floods, can include measures such as
relocating homes or community facilities off the floodplain, elevating
structures, and practicing sound land use planning. Mitigation planning
and implementation measures are essential to reducing the nation's
future disaster assistance costs. Given the importance of mitigation,
UMRBA supports the new Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program for
which Congress provided first-time funding of $150 million in fiscal
year 2003 and for which the President has requested $300 million in
fiscal year 2004. The UMRBA recognizes that there are concerns about
how PDM grant funds will be allocated, including the effect of relying
solely on benefit/cost analysis. In addition, there is limited
experience in administering the new program. Applications for planning
grants ($248,375 per state) are due April 30 and FEMA has yet to issue
guidance for the competitive grants. Despite these growing pains of a
new program, the PDM grant program holds promise for enhancing
communities' ability to prevent future damages, particularly in areas
that have--not experienced a major disaster and thus have not had
access to post-disaster mitigation assistance through the Disaster
Relief Fund. In addition, pre-disaster mitigation assistance is an
effective means of meeting the ongoing need in all communities to plan
for future floods and reduce their vulnerability before the next flood
disaster.
Unfortunately, the Administration's support for the new Pre-
Disaster Mitigation program is based on the premise that the existing
post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) will be
eliminated. This would be a major mistake. Although the PDM program
will be very useful, funding for that program should not come at the
expense of the HMGP. The HMGP has been a particularly popular and
enormously helpful program. Authorized under Section 404 of the
Stafford Act, the HMGP provides grants to states and local governments
to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major
disaster declaration. Because grant funds are made available during the
immediate recovery from a disaster, it offers a particularly attractive
option for communities that may not otherwise consider mitigation. It
is critical to maintain this post-disaster option, in addition to
creating a new pre-disaster mitigation option. Local communities need
both. In addition, by retaining the HMGP, mitigation assistance
specifically for flood damages would continue to be available to
communities that experience disastrous flooding. In contrast, flood
mitigation projects under the new pre-disaster program will need to
compete for funding with mitigation projects for a wide variety of
other potential disasters, thus diminishing the likelihood that flood
mitigation needs will be met.
Therefore, UMRBA supports funding of $300 million in fiscal year
2004 for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant program and urges Congress
to continue to make post-disaster mitigation funding available through
the HMGP, by authorizing allocation of the full 15 percent of disaster
relief funding to the HMGP.
Flood Map Modernization
UMRBA enthusiastically supports the Administration's proposal to
provide $200 million to modernize and digitize Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRMs). Among other things, flood maps are used to determine
risk-based National Flood Insurance Program premium rates and develop
disaster response plans for Federal, State, and local emergency
management personnel. However, most flood maps are over 15 years old
and are rapidly becoming obsolete. Many flood maps are outdated by the
effects of land use changes in the watersheds. When outdated maps
underestimate flood depths, it can often lead to floodplain development
in high risk areas. It is therefore important that flood maps be
updated on an ongoing basis and in a timely way.
The Corps of Engineers will soon complete its Flow Frequency Study,
updating the discharge frequency relationships and water surface
profiles for approximately 2,000 miles of the Upper Mississippi, Lower
Missouri, and Illinois Rivers. This data will have a variety of uses,
including updating Flood Insurance Rate Maps used by hundreds of flood
prone communities along these rivers. The Corps and FEMA have estimated
that 4,237 map panels in the 130 counties along these rivers will need
to be revised at a cost of approximately $30 million. Using data from
the Corps study will be a far more cost-effective way to update FIRMs
than having FEMA independently study flood hazards and update the maps.
UMRBA therefore urges Congress to designate funding specifically for
the Upper Mississippi flood mapping project and direct FEMA and the
Corps to coordinate their efforts to advance FIRM updates.