Good morning.  I would like to welcome David Paulison, the Acting Director of FEMA, as he presents the agency’s fiscal year 2007 budget request.

Last year was a turbulent year for FEMA.  Secretary Chertoff’s Second Stage Review altered the organization by separating Preparedness functions from FEMA.  No sooner were these changes made than Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit and tested FEMA and DHS to their limits.  Today, we are faced with changes in leadership and a “FEMA re-tooling”.  While I have many questions about the fiscal year 2007 budget request, I have even more questions about the current state of FEMA and where it is headed in the short-term.  It is difficult to consider appropriations for fiscal year 2007 when there is so much urgency within the current year stemming from the glaring deficiencies brought to light in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

I hope you have come prepared to tell us how things have changed and not just how you plan to change things in the coming year.  Remember, hurricane season starts in just nine weeks.   Proposed initiatives for fiscal year 2007 are all well and good, but we need to know what is being done today to ensure FEMA is adequately prepared to carry out its mission—another failure is not an option.

Chief among our concerns is how FEMA and the Administration have addressed the inadequacies of the National Response Plan (NRP) and the National Incident Management System (NIMS).  NRP and NIMS were designed to guide our disaster response—obviously, they did not live up to our expectations.  Both the House Select Committee on Hurricane Katrina and the White House believe they should be reviewed, revised, and improved.  Today, we will discuss the status of FEMA’s review.

Secondly, how has FEMA addressed the fundamental issue of information sharing?  Katrina showed us the value of accurate reporting and communications during disasters.  With all the technology and communications available to DHS, it still baffles me that its leadership could not get a timely report on whether or not the levees had been breached. 

Third, what is the status of the Louisiana and Mississippi recovery efforts?  Over the past few months, Congress provided the staggering sum of $35 billion towards Hurricane Relief.  Not only are we interested in how this money is being used for recovery, but what is being done to prepare for future hurricanes in this region.  The Gulf Coast may get hit hard again in 2006 and it is no secret that this region is now more vulnerable than ever.  So understanding how the recovery efforts are related to 2006 disaster response and mitigation is of paramount concern to this Subcommittee. 

Finally, on FEMA retooling.  My concern on reforming FEMA comes down to a very simple question:  will it prevent future Katrina-like failures?  From staffing to procurement to communications, there is no shortage of areas that need improvement.  While the fiscal year 2007 budget request addresses some of these, it ignores others.  If 2006 is about avoiding a repeat to last year, then 2007 is about transforming FEMA into a more capable and responsive organization that meets the emergency management needs of a post-9/11, post-Katrina world.  This is a topic that I’m sure we are all interested in learning about today.

We have been saying for three years that great progress has been made and that our country is safer today than it was before September 11^th.  I continue to believe that to be true.  However, Katrina was our first big test since September 11^th.  It was a tangible event to measure our progress against.  And so Director Pauilson, I hope you take the lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina and move FEMA forward.  I will be looking to you for results—trust me when I say that no one wants to see you succeed more than the Members of this Subcommittee. 

Before you proceed with your testimony, let me recognize my good friend from Minnesota , Mr. Sabo, for any opening comments he may wish to make.