It would be the urban areas applying to the state with the criteria we build into the authorizing language setting aside specific funding would make those as part of the requirements the state would have to fund so what we would do is still identify the hazard analysis. The areas and types of activities and capabilities they would need to build in that area but it would give the state the ability to make those allocations. Part of this was welding this more collaborative so we have local jurisdictions in the state working together to come up with these final allocations and recommendations using criteria to drive that decision decision. Ike send us a little bit confused with respect to the communities and you have expanded it once again as i stated in my opening remarks to 39 communities so are you saying that those are the 39 communities that would be eligible to apply to states that others would not be . No, it would be based on in the case of some of the expansionexpansion s we looked at this year for the secretary. Last you if you remember we were capped in that cap is lifted this year. One of those concerns as some of the proximity in some communities is due to large tourist venues or Strategic Military installations that did noise factor into some of the other risks that were significant enough to look at. So i need to take my home state of florida. We have not identifieidentified every location that has a military presence but if you look at florida at 10dollar force base where we are getting the f35 up and running you have jackson where ph caught quadrants are at. None of these are necessarily on the security list but these would are the areas if there are concerns about threats. They could look at that verse is just looking at certain urban areas that are only designated. Moving on to another issue the npgp proposal seeks to change the focus of grants from terrorism to all hazards and now these programs were in large part established in response to the 9 11 attacks as the Ranking Member has eloquently pointed out and you know i personally dont believe the terrorist threat to the United States has diminished significantly since 9 11. There are a lot of incredible dangers around the world and a lot of terrorist threats that we still face so what is the rationale for changing the focus of these grants to all hazards when we know we have so many natural disasters and so is it that we will be able to keep our focus on terrorism threats . The prevention piece i dont think change is as much with the change in language and the Homeland Security grants have always allowed for all hazards base. What we want to focus on our consequences of events. The need for searchandrescue teams in the recent mudslide that is occurring in rushing to an the state or the searchandrescue teams were built of Homeland Security funds. Its more of a recognition that we need to build capability against potential consequences not just for specific one threat that there are elements within that are very germane to terrorism such as Fusion Centers and other activities and again this is where we think prioritizing that to ensure that funding that allows states to look at the consequences of the types of events they face. Mississippi got slammed with tornado several years ago. Many communities were literally the proverbial term wiped off the face of the map. It was the ability to deploy sources that allow that initial response to give Public Safety. It isnt just about the hazard. Its really about looking at the various consequences and these are applicable across a variety of events just like the mass casualty in boston. It could have been it an industrial accident producing a similar number of burned and traumatized patients. The capability respond to that. It doesnt detract from the prevention piece. Thank you. Thank you precis my time is up. I now turn to Ranking Member payne for five minutes of questions. Thank you madam chairman. We hear what you are saying that i have repeatedly been told that the goals of your grand consolidation proposal are to foster better collaboration. I am not convinced that achievement of these important goals warrens fundamental changing of the program as the chairwoman read into the record. Stakeholders including the National League of cities the National Association of counties in the interNational Association for firefighters to name a few have come up with a list of principles that in my view are very constructive guide posts for any grand reform effort. There are transparency, local involvement, flexibility and accountability, local funding terrorism prevention and incentives for work regionalization. Are you open to working with this committee and the stakeholders on the way the homeland Grant Program could be redefined to not only meet your goals but also to hear some principles outlined by stakeholder groups . Absolutely. Again we are basing this upon looking at some of the largescale threats this country faces and i was like to go to whats the worst thing in america. Its somehow a Nuclear Device is detonated in any city would require the full capabilities not only at the local jurisdictions in the state of impact not only the federal government at the nonimpacted jurisdictions. I think we have to look at this again what are the national gaps and capabilities based upon the most significant threats we face while recognizing each jurisdiction has unique responsibilities but i also have to go back to when may bypass governors we set up the imbalance of dealing directly through jurisdictions not involving the governors in that process and i were to reach all of the concerns as best we can in Building National capability. Director i know there have been some concerns about keeping it parochial but you have wanted out in your experiences in florida so let me point out my experiences in new jersey. We suffered through Hurricane Sandy and there are still issues about how those funds that we allocated are being handled by our governor and whether he is using them sometimes and political ways and so in new jersey we have concern with that ache as we have seen we still have communities that are still suffering a year later after congress has put those funds out there and i know a lot of it does not fall under you but thats our concern. We are concerned about giving that power to certain people when we have seen the funds have not necessarily gotten where they should need or used in a proper manner. I understand. I also understand the constitution was not built around the individuaindividua ls. It was built around the entire system and that is what im proposing is looking at the constitutional structure and the responsibilities that governors have under state constitutions. Then why was this grand never set the way it is . The grants originally came from the states. Jurisdictions were concerned that they werent getting the recognition and the funding directly. They went to congress and congress began funding and created the urban security areas. The urban security areas came after the original Homeland Security fund. It was not the origination of that. It came about jurisdictions coming to you looking to get funding or direct lakes and bypassing the states and so they were given that capability. Okay. I see my time is up. I yield back. The chair recognizes vice chair the committee the gentleman from mississippi mr. Mr. Palazzo. Thank you mr. Fugate for being here today. Im going to change the subject a little bit a topic that is on my mind and the mind of many communities around the nations Flood Insurance relief. I know you were in front of the senate panel i believe last year and we were discussing affordability issues with biggertwaters 2012 and you called on congress to help you with that and we responded and we did in a bipartisan bicameral way. Just this past friday the president signed into law the homeowner flooded insurance affordability act so the key word is affordability. We think we have given that to you. We all know biggertwaters had a lot of unintended consequences and our number one priority for many members of congress from the coastal areas is to make sure Flood Insurance remains available and affordable to the homeowners who need it. The law that was just recently signed by the president it was paid for. He keeps npgp on the path of solvency so let me move quickly. I know this law was signed this past friday but has fema began to plan for the implementation of this law . Yes sir. We were looking at the language prior to the senate actually taking it up. We are looking at timeframe she gave us to do refunds, also how to now change the rate increases there a certain language in there that it shall much exceed 18 so we are going back to that. You also have put in a Fee Structure so that Fee Structure will now have to go back so we set a point at which they will be collecting that and that collection once that data said it will not be collected immediately on all policies. It will be renewed so once we set that date we can see seed a year before everybody has paid the fee as they are renewing their policies. We have begun looking at the center currently working on the language and again as you can understand we have to look at this as an implementation with their two biggest priorities right now the recovery of previously paid fees and their insurance claims or not insurance claims but the insurance claims that will be retroactively reimbursed and setting up for their rights policy implementation rules and timeframes for the new increases in the Fee Structure. We need specific funding to implement this law as you did in biggertwaters. And again we are still looking at what the cost will be and whether or not it will be within that program with these additional fees and what that what cost. We are still running the analysis of what the additional costs would be. One of our challenges is because they receive if he is a percentage. When we do the refunds we still have not addressed the percentage of fees they collected as far as theyre having to pay any of that back. Whether we have to absorb that out of the program. Congress added a provision to provide immediate rate relief to the homebuyers that would eliminate the hold sales trigger. And the provision buyers are property of what it be allowed to assume the policies in the current rates of sellers. This would prevent homebuyers from seeing drastic Flood Insurance premium increases. While fema works with implementing the rest of the new law. We understand we hope that lives extremely swiftly because its definitely a wet blanket on real estate markets across the nation and caused homeowners a lot of grief. The lot was just signed friday. Do you know when its going to be set out to write your own . Congressman i will have to get back to you. Since this will be grandfathering a it preferred risk to a new homebuyer we have to make sure that the write your own has clear directions on the transaction takes place in this will be for the mortgage industry that where you have the requirement to have Flood Insurance that they are getting the preferred rate that was originally with the original seller. So we will have to basically do the current rate and make sure the right your wrongs in the administration have it transferred to a new buyer. We still have some questions we are working on what is the best way to do that in the training and time for implementing that but we will report back to you with that. Thank you and i just want to continue to urge you to act swiftly on this. You touched on the refunds real quick. In the meantime while all of this is being implemented and work out is there any advice that you can give us that we can provide her constituents so they can begin getting answers to their questions . I think its important to educate them that these new grandfather greats are transferable because its going to take time to get out to every agent and get that in the system so i think you can help people advocate that the laws changed and they are still not getting what they need work back with us because we may have to handle some of the most immediate ones literally hand walk you through the system and tell the system is up and running. My time has expired. I yield back. Thank you. At this time i would recognize the gentleman from new york mr. Higgins for five minutes. Thank you madam chair. Administrative urban Area SecurityInitiative Program originally started with 64 communities and was then reduced to 25 and bumped back up to 39. The criteria that was built into legislation which was intended to determine eligibility is something the community does not desire. They want to be put into the program. They are put into the Program Based on an independent analysis it says you have highimpact targets. The buffalo region that i represent has is the second busiest northern Border Crossing between United States and canada. As am i grab power project that produces the largest allotment of electricity in all new york state. Niagara falls is a destination of tens of millions of people every year from every country in the world. It has Toronto International city. It is home to the lackawanna six that were in an al qaeda Training Camp in afghanistan in several other justifications for including the buffalo region and the usc program. The last edition of inspire magazine which is a magazine distributed to jihadist throughout the world to encourage homegrown terrorism not only in the United States but throughout the world that magazine identified the buffalo region as being vulnerable to terrorist attack. This is not a distinction that we are proud of. I would think that Homeland Security would be very concerned about that specific reference because terrorism experts say regarding inspire magazine as a threat in and of itself in the magazine is intended to promote and encourage aspiring jihadist in the United States and around the world. What is the department of Homeland Security response for excluding the community that never asked to be included in this program in the first place and that was excluded and now this new information which is very alarming for anyone who lives in the community and it should be alarming for everybody in this administration that is responsible for that program . Again we could find jurisdiction by jurisdiction but the capability is to respond as a nation also have to be looked at. There are other jurisdictions who also have compelling reasons to think or justified they are on the list but its a finite capability and it is prioritized in the secretary reviews that list listen makes decisions based upon all threats not just populations, not just quick Critical Infrastructure not just threatened intelligence that looks at everything so there is no one single factor. It is based on an overall look at the nation and those communities are not being on that list does not mean we dont agree that there are finite resources and the secretary would have to prioritize which of the cities made that list. Because there is not a limitation to the list list. Climbing back my time. The new information but one region and the entire nation is identified by a magazine intended to inspire jihadist activity by jihad against communities attacks on the homeland, attacks on communities that have been deemed eligible. Their region did not request to become part of the program. It was brought into the Program Based on independent criteria that was established by Homeland Security officials. Now this new information is a Homeland Security official who is put in place as has a responsibility to protect the homeland. Does the reference of one community in this nation in inspire magazine that originates out of al qaeda and the Arabian Peninsula that promotes violent jihad against the homeland in specific communities does this new information cause concern on your part as a Homeland Security official for this nation . Im concerned about a lot of threats and im concerned about terrorism. You are not entering the question. The threats we look at. You run the program and i represent a Community Identified in inspire magazine which every terrorism expert recognizes is a thread in and of itself and you were telling me about wider jurisdiction. What do i say to my constituents sir . That we fund the nation and the state receives additional funds. We look at these threats across the nation. It is not to say that a jurisdiction does not have a mention or maybe specifically identified but it does say the funding decisions are based upon states nation threats based and we try to look at all the information to make decisions about where we are going to funded and what we can fund. Well this new information play into an evaluation of communities included or not . It potentially can depending on how the information or intelligence analysis is looking up is based upon threat information that is in public and looks at the Intelligence Community to verify whats in this. We have seen mismatches between the state of and what Intelligence Services will find out going home so we try to look at not only the public available information that the threat streams to make sure we are addressing these threats. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina for five m