Chapter Appendix E - Endnotes
Section Chapter Six: Transforming National Preparedness
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter Six: Transforming National Preparedness
1 The National Security Act of 1947 mandated a major reorganization of the foreign policy and military establishments of the U.S. Government. The act created many of the institutions that Presidents found useful when formulating and implementing foreign policy, including the National Security Council (NSC). The Council itself included the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and other members (such as the Director of Central Intelligence), who met at the White House to discuss both long-term problems and more immediate national security crises. A small NSC staff was hired to coordinate foreign policy materials from other agencies for the President. Beginning in 1953, the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs directed this staff.
The act also established the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which grew out of World War II era Office of Strategic Services and small post-war intelligence organizations. The CIA served as the primary civilian intelligence-gathering organization in the government. Later, the Defense Intelligence Agency became the main military intelligence body. The 1947 law also caused far-reaching changes in the military establishment. The War Department and Navy Department merged into a single Department of Defense under the Secretary of Defense, who also directed the newly created Department of the Air Force. However, each of the three branches maintained their own service secretaries. In 1949 the act was amended to give the Secretary of Defense more power over the individual services and their secretaries.
See generally National Security Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 495, codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 401—403-3 (2005).
2 The White House, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (Washington, DC, September 2002); The White House, Office of Homeland Security, National Strategy for Homeland Security (Washington, DC, July 2002); and The White House, National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (Washington, DC, February 2003).
3 See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Response Plan (Washington, DC, December 2004); U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Incident Management System (Washington, DC, March 1, 2004); U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Interim National Preparedness Goal (Washington, DC, March 31, 2005); and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Interim National Infrastructure Protection Plan (Washington, DC, February 2005).
4 Interim National Preparedness Goal, 3.
5 Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 (HSPD-8) establishes policy that all Federal departments and agencies will cooperate to issue relevant State and local financial assistance, program announcements, solicitations, application instructions, and other guidance documents in a manner that is consistent with the National Preparedness Goal. The White House, Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8: National Preparedness “HSPD-8” (Washington, DC, December 17, 2003).
6 Congress requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive examination every four years (known as the “Quadrennial Defense Review”) of the national defense strategy, force structure, force modernization plans, infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of the defense program and policies of the United States with a view toward determining and expressing the defense strategy of the United States and establishing a defense program for the next twenty years. See 10 U.S.C. § 118 (2005).
7 See note 2.
8 Among other reforms, the Goldwater-Nichols legislation clarified the chain of command from the President to the Secretary of Defense to the Combatant Commander. It also elevated the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be the President’s principal military adviser and strengthened the Joint Staff as a truly “Joint” organization that works for the Chairman, not the armed services. Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, Public Law 99-433, 99th Congress, 2nd session, 101 Stat. 992 (October 1, 1986).
9 Eligibility to receive State Homeland Security Grant Program funding is dependent upon DHS approval of statewide, territory, or regional homeland security strategies that adopt capability-based planning and a prioritization of assets based on risks and need in conformance with the National Preparedness Goal. The Urban Area Security Initiative is a subset of the State Homeland Security Grant Program, providing funds to address the unique planning, equipment, training, and exercise needs of high threat, high-density urban areas, and assist them in building an enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FY 2006 Homeland Security Grant Program (Washington, DC, December 2005).
10 HSPD-8, § 1.
11 See generally Interim National Preparedness Goal.
12 In particular, DHS would benefit from sufficient funds to permit the Department to deploy additional assets and resources upon warning of a catastrophic event. Furthermore, we as a Nation must not penalize DHS and other Federal responders when they undertake anticipatory actions for false alarms. To use medical terms, a false negative is unacceptable while we should be willing to accept some false positives.
13 As described in the National Incident Management System, the command function may be exercised in two general ways: 1) through a “Single Command” structure led by an Incident Commander (IC), or through a “Unified Command.” In a Single Command structure, the IC is solely responsible for establishing incident management objectives and strategies and for ensuring that all functional area activities are directed toward accomplishment of the strategy. In a Unified Command structure, the individuals designated by their jurisdictional authorities jointly determine objectives, strategies, plans, and priorities and work together to execute integrated incident operations and maximize the use of assigned resources. National Incident Management System, 12-16.
14 The White House, Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5: Management of Domestic Incidents (Washington, DC, February 28, 2003). See also Homeland Security Act of 2002 “Homeland Security Act” , Public Law 296, 107th Congress, 2nd session (November 22, 2005), § 101, codified at 6 U.S.C. § 111 (2002).
15 HSPD-5, § 14.
16 There is no reason to eliminate the FCO role in the Stafford Act as there is a wide-range of incidents that are not nationally significant—such as most wildfires—where an FCO is essential to coordinate the Federal response, but a PFO is not necessary.
17 HSPD-5, § 5.
18 First issued in 1992, the Federal Response Plan (FRP) outlined how the Federal Government implemented the Stafford Act to assist State and local governments when a major disaster or emergency overwhelmed their ability to respond effectively to save lives; protect public health, safety, and property; and restore communities. The FRP outlined policies, planning assumptions, concept of operations, response and recovery actions, and responsibilities of twenty-five Federal departments and agencies and the American Red Cross, that guided Federal operations following a Presidential declaration of a major disaster or emergency. An interim edition of the FRP was released in 2003 to reflect the passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and the establishment of DHS. Federal Response Plan (Interim), January 2003.
19 See generally National Response Plan, pg. ESF-i et seq. Under current arrangements, the NRP Emergency Support Functions (ESF) do not cleanly connect to the ICS structure required by NIMS, thus causing at time dueling systems or organizations to be created—one based on the ESF structure and one based on the ICS system. The Incident Command System (ICS) adopted by NIMS has five major sections (Command, Operations, Planning, Logistics, and Finance/Administration), each with their own subordinate groups that are modular and scalable to account for situations of various size and nature. See National Incident Management System, 7.
20 An eligibility requirement for States, territories, and regions to receive State Homeland Security Grant Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative grant funds is compliance with the phased implementation of NIMS. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FY 2006 Homeland Security Grant Program “FY 2006 Homeland Security Grant Program” (Washington, DC, December 2005). The implementation of the National Incident Management System is also one of seven priorities for spending Federal homeland security assistance as outlined in the NPG. Interim National Preparedness Goal, 10.
21 The National Defense University, located at Fort McNair in Washington, DC, prepares military and civilian leaders from the United States and other countries to address national and international security challenges, through multi-disciplinary educational programs, research, professional exchanges, and outreach. For additional information, see .
22 See Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, Public Law 99-433, 99th Congress, 2nd session (October 1, 1986), § 401-406.
23 HSPD-8 directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a national program and a multi-year planning system to conduct homeland security preparedness-related exercises in coordination with other appropriate Federal departments and agencies. See generally HSPD-8.
24 The National Strategy for Homeland Security directed the establishment of a National Exercise Strategy. HSPD-8 directed Secretary Tom Ridge to establish a “National Exercise Program” (NEP). Secretary Ridge charged the DHS Office of Domestic Preparedness to develop a program that identifies and integrates national level exercise activities to ensure those activities serve the broadest community of learning. In addition to full scale, integrated National level exercises—the NEP provides for tailored exercise activities that serve as the Department's primary vehicle for training national leaders and staff. The NEP enhances the collaboration among partners at all levels of government for assigned homeland security missions. National-level exercises provide the means to conduct "full-scale, full system tests" of collective preparedness, interoperability, and collaboration across all levels of government and the private sector. The program also incorporates elements to allow us to identify the implications of changes to homeland security strategies, plans, technologies, policies, and procedures. The cornerstone of national performance-based exercises is the Top Officials (TOPOFF), biennial exercise series. TOPOFF included a functional exercise in 2000 (TOPOFF I) and a full-scale exercise in 2003 (TOPOFF II). For additional information, see . The “Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program” (HSEEP) is both doctrine and policy for designing, developing, conducting and evaluating exercises. HSEEP is a threat- and performance-based exercise program that includes a cycle, mix and range of exercise activities of varying degrees of complexity and interaction.
HSEEP includes a series of four reference manuals to help states and local jurisdictions establish exercise programs and design, develop, conduct, and evaluate exercises. For additional information, see .
25 Office of Management and Budget, The President’s Management Agenda (Washington, DC, 2001). See also FY 2006 Homeland Security Grant Program.
26 U.S. Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, Report to the President of the United States “WMD Report” (Washington, DC, March 31, 2005), 337-341; National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States “9/11 Report” (New York: WW Norton and Company, July 22, 2004), 420-421.
27 Prior to the 109th Congress, the Department was subject to the oversight of eighty-eight different Congressional committees and sub-committees. See 9/11 Public Discourse project, “Fact Sheet on Congressional Reform” (Washington, DC, July 11, 2005), . Subsequently, the committee structure has been changed to attempt a consolidation of homeland security oversight through the formation of a Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and a House Committee on Homeland Security.
28 For example, using a risk-based formula, the Urban Area Security Initiative is funded for FY06 at $765 million. This compares to the $950 million of FY06 funding allocated in both equal distributions and risk-based justifications across the States and territories through the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program. Moreover, when other “all-hazards” grant programs (e.g., Firefighter Assistance Grants and Emergency Management Performance Grants) are added to the equation, risk-based grants account for less than 30 percent of homeland security grants for preparedness and other responder needs. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2006, Public Law 90, 109th Congress, 1st session (October 18, 2005). See also Shawn Reese, “Risk-Based Funding in Homeland Security Grant Legislation: Analysis of Issues for the 109th Congress,” CRS Report # 33050, August 29, 2005.
29 The Interim National Preparedness Goal defines capabilities-based planning as “planning, under uncertainty, to provide capabilities suitable for a wide range of threats and hazards while working within an economic framework that necessitates prioritization and choice.” Interim National Preparedness Goal, 4.
30 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Planning Scenarios, Draft Version 20.1 “National Planning Scenarios” (Washington, DC, April 2005).
31 Figure 2 duplicates Figure 1.1 in the previous “Katrina in Perspective” chapter, with the addition of the September 11th terrorist attacks and National Planning Scenarios 1, 3, and 9. For sources for these additions, see 9/11 Report, Executive Summary, 1-2; Robert Looney, “Economic Costs to the United States Stemming From the 9/11 Attacks,” Strategic Insights 1, no. 6 (Monterey, CA, August 2002), ; and National Planning Scenarios. Table 4, below, contains the data used in Figure 2.
Table 1. Worst Natural Disasters in the United States, 1900-2005, with
September 11th Terrorist Attacks and Selected National Planning Scenarios
Damage in Third Quarter 2005 dollars
Top Disasters Estimated deaths Estimated damage
Galveston Hurricane (1900) 8,000 < $1 billion
San Francisco Earthquake and Fire (1906) 5,000 $6 billion
Atlantic-Gulf Hurricane (1919) 600 < $1 billion
Mississippi Floods (1927) 246 $2 billion
Hurricane San Felipe and the Okeechobee Flood (1928) 2,750 < $1 billion
New England Hurricane (1938) 600 $4 billion
Northeast Hurricane (1944) 390 < $1 billion
Hurricane Diane (1955) 184 $5 billion
Hurricane Audrey (1957) 390 < $1 billion
Hurricane Betsy (1965) 75 $7 billion
Hurricane Camille (1969) 335 $6 billion
Hurricane Agnes (1972) 122 $8 billion
Hurricane Hugo (1989) 86 $11 billion
Hurricane Andrew (1992) 61 $33 billion
East Coast Blizzard (1993) 270 $4 billion
September 11, 2001 2981 $18 billion
Major 2004 Hurricanes (Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne) 167 $46 billion
Hurricane Katrina (2005) 1,330 $96 billion
National Planning Scenarios
#1. 10-kt Improvised Nuclear Device
Hundreds of thousands
Hundreds of billions of dollars
#3. Pandemic Influenza
87,000
$87 billion (low estimate)
#9. Major Earthquake
1,400
Hundreds of billions of dollars
32 Governor Kathleen Blanco estimates that 8 percent of the New Orleans population stayed behind: “Hurricane Ivan threatened us last year. Our evacuation looked like Houston’s—not very pretty. Before Katrina came, I developed a new evacuation plan that includes contra-flow, where both sides of the interstates are used for outbound traffic. I am proud that we rapidly moved over 1.2 million people—some 92% of the population—to safety without gridlock or undue delay prior to Katrina.” Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, written statement for a hearing on Hurricane Katrina: Preparedness and Response by the State of Louisiana, on December 14, 2005, submitted to the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, 109th Congress, 1st session.
33 9/11 Report, 336 (quoting then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz).
34 “1984: Tory Cabinet in Brighton bomb blast,” BBC.co.uk, October 12, 1984, .
35 The 9/11 Commission report describes the 9/11 attacks resulting partly from a failure in imagination. In particular, the Commission report highlights the importance of institutionalizing imagination in our methods for detecting and warning of surprise attacks. See 9/11 Report, 336, 339-348.
36 National Response Plan, 5.
37 See also Frances Fragos Townsend, Remarks at the National Emergency Management Association’s 2006 Mid-Year Conference, February 13, 2006, available at .
38 Current programs aimed at increasing the preparedness of individual citizens and communities include Citizen Corps, the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program, the Fire Corps, the Neighborhood Watch Program, the Medical Reserve Corps Program, as well as Volunteers in Police Service. For summaries of these programs, see U.S. Citizen Corps, “Partners and Programs,” .
39 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Good Story: Harris County, Texas Citizen Corps’ Response to Hurricane Katrina,” Lessons Learned Information Sharing (LLIS.gov) database, November 17, 2005, .
40 9/11 Report, 318.
41 “The Ad Council has declared Ready one of the most successful campaigns in its more than 60-year history. Since its launch the Ready campaign has generated more than $466 million in donated media support and its website has received more than 1.9 billion hits and 22 million unique visitors. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security promotes individual emergency preparedness through the Ready campaign and Citizen Corps as part of a broader national effort conducted by the Department’s Preparedness Directorate. Ready is a national public service advertising campaign produced by The Advertising Council in partnership with Homeland Security. The Ready campaign is designed to educate and empower Americans to prepare for and respond to emergencies, including natural disasters and potential terrorist attacks.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Homeland Security and the Advertising Council Provide Parents and Teachers with Resources to Educate Children about Emergency Preparedness,” news release, February 2, 2006, . See also .
42 The “Learn Not to Burn” curriculum, first released in 1979, teaches twenty-two key fire safety behaviors and is organized in three learning levels. The curriculum is intended for use by teachers in planning classroom activities and can be re-used from year to year. “Learn Not to Burn” incorporates fire safety behaviors into regular school subjects, so children absorb life-saving information while developing skills in reading, math, art, history, and science. National Fire Protection Association, “Learn Not to Burn,”
43 A 2004 study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported a record 80 percent of Americans wear their safety belts while driving or riding in their vehicles. Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta said the 80 percent safety belt usage will save 15,200 lives and $50 billion in economic costs associated with traffic related crashes, injuries, and deaths every year. Donna Glassbrenner, “Safety Belt Use in 2004—Overall Results, Traffic Safety Facts,” prepared for the National Center for Statistics and Analysis (September 2004). See also U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,“Safety belt use jumps to record 80%,” news release, September 16, 2004.
44 Additional advertising campaigns that were successful in helping to change citizen behavior include efforts to stop the use of drugs through the ‘Just Say No’ message created by First Lady Nancy Reagan and ‘Drug Abuse Resistance Education’ (D.A.R.E.); prevent drunk driving originating with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD); help quit smoking through the Surgeon General’s campaign to educate people on health risks and the American Cancer Society’s Great ‘American Smoke Out’; and stop littering through the ‘Keep America Beautiful’ message promoted by First Lady Claudia ‘Lady Bird’ Johnson.
45 For example, the development of the Interim National Infrastructure Protection Plan has developed upon a close partnership between governments at all levels and the private sector owners of the Nation’s Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources. Our national efforts to improve air transportation security, furthermore, have depended upon unprecedented partnership between DHS’s Transportation Security Administration and the airline industry. See generally, Interim National Infrastructure Protection Plan (Washington, DC, February 2005).
46 National Strategy for Homeland Security, viii.
47 For information on BRT, see Business Round Table letter to PresidentGeorge W. Bush, January 31, 2006, and . For information on BENS, see . The BENS “Business Force” project partnerships of regional, State, and local officials, together with businesses and NGOs, have been successful in emergency response planning and using private sector resources and volunteers to fill gaps in preparedness and response capabilities.
48 “A basic premise of the NRP is that incidents are generally handled at the lowest jurisdictional level possible. Police, fire, public health and medical, emergency management, and other personnel are responsible for incident management at the local level . . . In the vast majority of incidents, State and local resources and interstate mutual aid normally provide the first line of emergency response and incident management support. When an incident or potential incident is of such severity, magnitude, and/or complexity that it is considered an Incident of National Significance according to the criteria established in this plan, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with other Federal departments and agencies, initiates actions to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from the incident.” National Response Plan, 15.
49 EMAC was developed in the 1990s and officially ratified by Congress as an organization with thirteen member States in 1996. Emergency Management Assistance Compact, Public Law 104-321, 104th Congress, 2nd session, (October 19, 1996). As of October 2005, 49 States, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico had enacted EMAC legislation. National Emergency Management Association, “EMAC Overview,” December 2005, . EMAC is administered by the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA). During an emergency, NEMA staff works with EMAC member states to coordinate ensure information passes easily through the EMAC system.
Contents
Prev
Next
Last
