Response On the Record to Terrorism- Related Issues at the Confirmation Hearing for Director Allbaugh-January 2001
Background
In response to the comments on the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century (the Hart-Rudman Commission) Report raised by Senators Lieberman and Akaka at the confirmation hearing, the following provides an analysis of areas of the report that most impact the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) followed by comments specific to each Senator’s comments, issues or concerns.
FEMA Analysis of the Hart-Rudman Commission Report
The report advocates fifty recommended changes in five areas to improve U.S. national security to include ensuring security, recapitalizing educational strengths, redesigning Executive Branch institutions, overhauling the personnel system, and reorganizing the role of Congress. Many of the recommendations, particularly with respect to creating a new agency to combat terrorism, directly impact FEMA.
The Commission finds that the United States is “very poorly organized to design and implement any comprehensive strategy to protect the homeland.” With resources scattered across various Federal agencies, the report argues for major organizational changes based upon a national strategy. The first recommendation is for the development of a “comprehensive strategy to heighten Americas ability to prevent and protect against all forms of attacks on the homeland, and to respond to such attacks if prevention and protection fail.”
The Commission recommends the creation of the National Homeland Security Agency (NHSA) responsible for “planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security,” using FEMA as its key building block. The director of the NHSA would be a member of Cabinet and advisor to the National Security Council and the single person accountable for homeland security.
Because the NHSA would be built upon FEMA, it would be chartered to “provide a focal point for all natural and manmade crisis and emergency planning scenarios.” Most of FEMA’s current functions at the Headquarters level would be incorporated into the Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response. Regionally, the NHSA would employ the FEMA Regional Office structure, with much of its daily work taking place “directly supporting state officials in its regional offices.”
Additionally, the NHSA establishes two additional directorates, including a Directorate of Prevention for border security and the Directorate of Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) to handle the ever increasing cyber threat. In order to accomplish the tasks of these two directorates, the Customs Service, the Border Patrol, and the Coast Guard be transferred to the NHSA, while “preserving them as distinct entities.”
Additionally, the existing National Domestic Preparedness Office (NDPO), the Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs), the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (CIAO), the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC), and the Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection (I3P) also would be relocated to the NHSA.
Also, the Commission recommends the creation of a National Crisis Action Center (NCAC) to be located in the NHSA. Directed by a two-star National Guard general, the interagency center would be “the nations focal point for monitoring emergencies and coordinating federal support in a crisis to state and local governments, as well as to the private sector.” During the response phase of a crisis, the NCAC would be accountable for the monitoring of ongoing operations and requirements.
Stating that the NHSA would strengthen FEMA’s ability to response to natural and manmade disasters, the Commission outlines the mechanism for responding to emergencies. This would include State officials having the initial lead role for response, with the President designating a Federal Coordinating Officer only during major crises. In the event that the National Guard is federalized or Reserve forces are used, a Defense Coordinating Officer would be appointed to provide civilian oversight.
The National Guard would have homeland security as its primary mission. This would require that the Guard be “reorganized, properly trained, and adequately equipped to undertake that mission.” In accomplishing this mission, the Guard would participate in planning for a WMD incident, train and help organize responders, maintain inventories of available resources and equipment, plan for inter-state support, and develop an international capability for humanitarian assistance.
Another restructuring change that the Commission recommends is for Congress to create a single body to deal with homeland security issues that would include members of all relevant Congressional committees but would not have a legislative or oversight mandate. Additionally, there would be only one committee in each house with responsibility for appropriations and oversight for homeland security functions.
Senator Lieberman’s Comments
During the confirmation hearing, Senator Lieberman brought up the threat of domestic terrorism specifically referencing the Hart-Rudman Commission Report that recommends the formation of a new agency (involving FEMA and others) to prepare the United States in case of an attack. Senator Lieberman encouraged Mr. Allbaugh to get involved in this. Mr. Allbaugh said he would review the report and respond to Senator Lieberman.
Director Allbaugh’s Response to Senator Lieberman
FEMA agrees with the concerns of the Commission regarding the need to seriously examine the current efforts and associated roles and responsibilities to prepare for and respond to terrorist events and other national security incidents that are spread across several departments and agencies. We also agree with the need for a comprehensive national strategy addressing terrorism prevention and preparedness. The preparedness effort needs to focus primarily on local and State responders so they are adequately prepared to respond to terrorist incident of all kinds. Under its current authorities and Presidential guidance, FEMA has a key role in leading the response to the effects of a terrorism incident as well as helping States and local governments to be adequately prepared to respond to such an event. We agree with the need for a defined and accepted Federal leadership role, supported by the White House and Congress, that includes the authority for a lead agency to provide overall direction, integration and oversight for the implementation of all Federal terrorism preparedness programs and activities, to include the authority to preclude duplication of effort among various Federal departments and agencies.
The concept of a National Homeland Security Agency (NHSA) attempts to address this need, but raises some specific concerns as well. One is the creation of a new agency that duplicates much of what FEMA already does on a daily basis in working with State and local governments in preparedness and response. Under the Federal Response Plan (FRP) structure, FEMA coordinates the activities of 27 Federal departments and agencies and the American Red Cross in providing Federal assistance to supplement the efforts of the affected local and State governments responding to a variety of natural and manmade disasters and emergencies. This is a well known and tested structure that incorporates many of the agencies active in homeland security, including the Department of the Defense and the National Guard. The role of the National Crisis Action Center (NCAC) in the NHSA to monitor and coordinate Federal support to State and local governments is an unnecessary duplication of FEMA’s primary role under a Presidential declaration of a disaster or emergency, to include the response to a terrorist incident. The vesting of homeland security functions with the National Guard, to include planning, training and resourcing also presents challenges, in that the Guard is first of all a State asset on call by the Governor for a variety of missions, not just terrorism response, and that these activities are already being addressed by FEMA and other agencies under existing authorities. In short, FEMA would become the basis of an organization that would create more complexity in both the preparedness and response arena that currently exists.
We are in agreement with the recommendation the report for some restructuring within Congress to create joint committees to consolidate the several program committees and funding streams that now take in terrorism preparedness and response.
Senator Akaka’s Comments
Senator Akaka asked how did Mr. Allbaugh think this restructuring would take place and potentially impact FEMA as a whole – especially activities such as floodplain mapping and national hazards research. Mr. Allbaugh said he would respond.
Director Allbaugh’s Response to Senator Akaka
The restructuring would potentially impact FEMA’s other all-hazard preparedness and response missions. Although terrorism is an important threat, FEMA also is responsible for preparedness programs in other areas involving significant natural hazards such as floods, hurricanes and earthquakes. Restructuring the agency as a homeland security agency could diminish FEMA’s lead role as a natural disaster preparedness and response agency. FEMA must be able to continue to address the larger threat spectrum consisting of both natural hazards and national security threats with adequate resources in both areas.
FEMA agrees with the concerns of the Commission regarding the need to seriously examine the current efforts and associated roles and responsibilities to prepare for and respond to terrorist events and other national security incidents that are spread across several departments and agencies. We also agree with the need for a comprehensive national strategy addressing terrorism prevention and preparedness. The preparedness effort needs to focus primarily on local and State responders so they are adequately prepared to respond to terrorist incident of all kinds. Under its current authorities and Presidential guidance, FEMA has a key role in leading the response to the effects of a terrorism incident as well as helping States and local governments to be adequately prepared to respond to such an event. We agree with the need for a defined and accepted Federal leadership role, supported by the White House and Congress, that includes the authority for a lead agency to provide overall direction, integration and oversight for the implementation of all Federal terrorism preparedness programs and activities, to include the authority to preclude duplication of effort among various Federal departments and agencies.
The concept of a National Homeland Security Agency (NHSA) attempts to address this need, but raises some specific concerns as well. One is the creation of a new agency that duplicates much of what FEMA already does on a daily basis in working with State and local governments in preparedness and response. Under the Federal Response Plan (FRP) structure, FEMA coordinates the activities of 27 Federal departments and agencies and the American Red Cross in providing Federal assistance to supplement the efforts of the affected local and State governments responding to a variety of natural and manmade disasters and emergencies. This is a well-known and tested structure that incorporates many of the agencies active in homeland security, including the Department of the Defense and the National Guard. The role of the National Crisis Action Center (NCAC) in the NHSA to monitor and coordinate Federal support to State and local governments is an unnecessary duplication of FEMA’s primary role under a Presidential declaration of a disaster or emergency, to include the response to a terrorist incident. The vesting of homeland security functions with the National Guard, to include planning, training and resourcing also presents challenges, in that the Guard is first of all a State asset on call by the Governor for a variety of missions, not just terrorism response, and that these activities are already being addressed by FEMA and other agencies under existing authorities. In short, FEMA would become the basis of an organization that would create more complexity in both the preparedness and response arena that currently exists.
Senator Akaka’s Comments
Senator Akaka asked Mr. Allbaugh how FEMA could improve awareness among health care professionals regarding biological weapons threats. Mr. Allbaugh said he has also discussed this issue with Sen. Mikulski and would respond back to both of them.
Director Allbaugh’s Response to Senator Akaka and Senator Mikulski
Of all the terrorism threats, the use of biological weapons presents the most complex preparedness challenges. As the lead agency for the response to a terrorist event, including the use of biological weapons, FEMA work closely with our Federal and State partners involved in the health care delivery system to support awareness and expand training in this important area. With the Department of Health and Human Services and others, FEMA is a partner in the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) that provides awareness training in hospitals across the country. FEMA also provides grants to the States that can be used for planning, training and exercises, to include improving awareness among government health care responders. We will continue to work with our local, State and Federal partners to enhance this awareness to the greatest degree possible.
