ADVOCACY
05/16/04 IAEM Statement for the Record on DHS Appropriations - United States Senate
By Daryl Lee Spiewak, CEM, TEM, TCFM
April 9, 2004
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 2005 budget proposal for the Department of Homeland Security.
My name is Daryl Lee Spiewak, and I am the emergency programs manager for the Brazos River Authority in Waco, Texas. I am a certified emergency manager, a certified Texas emergency manager, and a Texas certified floodplain manager. I currently serve as the President of the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM). Our over 2000 members include emergency management professionals at the state and local government levels, the military, private business and the nonprofit sector in the United States and in other countries. Most of our members 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 two particular issues relating to the Department of Homeland Security budget for 2005.
• Reject administration request to cap at 25% amount which can be used for personnel
• Request that the funding cut be rejected and the amount increased.
• Request the program retain all hazards emphasis, including terrorism.
• Urge that funding be specifically designated in the Appropriations Bill and maintained as a separate account
• Urge the Committee to return the funding level to 15% of certain eligible disaster costs
In addition, we would like to offer our support for the Administration’s request for $200 million to continue the Map Modernization program and for the $150 million request to continue the PreDisaster Mitigation program.
The Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG) are pass-through funds to state and local emergency management offices to provide a foundation for basic emergency preparedness and response capabilities. Congressional report language has referred to the program as “the backbone of the nation’s emergency management system.” This funding has existed in the past under several different names such as the Emergency Management Assistance Program and State and Local Assistance Program which were actually more appropriate names. This program is different from most grants, in that it is a continuing program with deliverables and requirements which must be met in order to receive funding the following year.
We very much appreciated the support of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees for EMPG in the FY 2004 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. Congress specifically designated funds in a separate account, increased the amount from the FY 2002 level to $179 million; specifically indicated the funds could continue to be used for personnel costs and supported the all hazards approach. The House Report recognized that “State and local emergency managers rely on these funds for a variety of expenses, but predominately for personnel who plan, train, coordinate, and conduct exercises and other functions essential to effective preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery efforts.”
Reject Cap on Expenditures for Personnel. Since the purpose of the program is to provide support for state and local emergency management personnel, the Administration’s request to cap the amount of funds which can be used for personnel at 25% of each grant is puzzling. Since the functions of emergency management are almost 100% personnel driven, such as planning, coordinating, exercise design, training, and public education, the effect of the 25% cap would be devastating. States have estimated that this cap would result in potential losses of up to 60 percent of their emergency management staff. In some localities it would result in the elimination of whole programs. We would be cutting capacity at the very time we need to be building capacity.
Perhaps to put this proposed cap in perspective one could consider the effect on the functioning of a Congressional office or a Congressional Committee if directions were given to only spend 25% of the funds received for running the offices on personnel and administrative costs.
Reject Funding Cut and Increase Funding. Historically, funding for EMPG has been inadequate. The program was intended to be 50% Federal and 50% state or local funding. Currently many jurisdictions receive 20% or less. Some jurisdictions do not receive any EMPG monies due to inadequate funding levels. State and local emergency management programs are in desperate need of financial support if they are to continue to meet the requirements of all hazard planning and coordination as well as implement the President's homeland security strategy in states, counties, cities and neighborhoods across America. The new security concerns arising from the current world situation make the coordination and unifying role served by emergency managers more important than ever. 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.
We respectfully request that the $9 million reduction in the President’s request be rejected and that the funding be increased. A 2004 study by the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) indicates that at the 50-50 shared cost level there is a $245 million shortfall.
Maintain the All Hazards Approach. Legislative language is included in the Administration’s 05 request giving “priority to homeland security activities.” The simple fact is that almost all emergency management activity creates a generic capacity to deal with crises. For nearly 50 years, the Federal Government has provided funding assistance to state and local governments to support a comprehensive national emergency management system. During that time, the Federal emphasis has shifted on numerous occasions and our members have adjusted programs accordingly. There is no doubt that “homeland security” (currently, although we believe, incorrectly, defined as terrorism) has priority today, but the proposed language certainly has the potential to limit the ability of the emergency management system to adjust to changes in the future and is therefore problematic.
Restore Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) to 15%. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program in the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate provides post disaster mitigation funding. The program is authorized in Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (P.L. 93-288) and the monies are provided from the President’s Disaster Relief Fund. We appreciate the House and Senate Appropriations Committees retaining the program rather than terminating it as requested in the Administration’s Budget requests in FY 2003 and FY 2004. However, the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill changed the formula used to determine hazard mitigation funding from 15% to 7.5% of eligible disaster costs. 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 HMGP funding, those opportunities will be missed.
The House unanimously passed H.R. 3181 in November of 2003 which would have restored the funding to 15%. This bill is pending in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and at this time it is not known if action will be completed given the limited time left in this legislative session. We, therefore, urge that the HMGP program be restored to 15%.
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 seven-year period. We support this multi-year effort.
IAEM supports the Administration’s request for $150 million for predisaster mitigation. We believe that both predisaster and post disaster funds are important for reducing future disaster costs. We support administrative funds being available to FEMA to administer the program and urge that FEMA review and streamline the application process.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to provide this testimony. We would welcome the opportunity to provide additional information to the Subcommittee.
|
