BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. HIRONO. Thank you very much.
I thank the two gentlemen from Oregon for bringing this matter to our attention.
I think we make a very serious mistake when, in a fervor to cut budgets and to do it in a meat-ax way, we cut the very programs that we're going to need to rely upon in times like this, meaning in the times of the kind of devastation that has hit Japan. Of course, Hawaii is the first U.S. State to be hit with the tidal wave that followed that disaster, and it's still playing out. We still haven't done the ``all clear'' sign in Hawaii, by the way.
With the kinds of cuts that we are contemplating in H.R. 1, FEMA is going to have a major impact. I also want to say, before I go further, that our hearts go out to the people of Japan, and we stand ready to assist them in any way. I think that it is so important at a time like this that we have the resources to employ the best technology, cutting-edge equipment, well-trained personnel to respond when these emergencies occur.
In fact, when this tragedy occurred in Japan, they dedicated Federal employees at the National Weather Service at a specific tsunami warning center, and they were there to provide advance warning to the people of our islands. This early warning allowed the Coast Guard, Hawaii State Civil Defense, and the other State and county officials to put into motion the State's emergency warning response plans.
This whole thing began to unfold in Hawaii in the very early morning hours. I'm just grateful that all of our first responders had everything they needed in order to be able to take the appropriate action. They had to decide whether or not schools would be open and whether public buildings were going to remain open. In fact, they did evacuate people in the low-lying areas just to make sure that the safety of our people and of our visitors would be protected.
So, right now, the reports are encouraging in Hawaii. There has been some flooding on several islands, but the level of damage, however, thankfully, is not severe. There have been no reports of injuries or fatalities, but as I mentioned, the ``all clear'' sign is not there yet.
So the kind of cuts to FEMA, we mentioned already the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, would have seen its budget cut by $454.3 million, including our $126 million cut to the National Weather Service. So there goes advance warning.
The cuts would not have spared the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, either. And according to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's analysis, cuts to FEMA and the Coast Guard would have totaled $441 million. This includes a $105 million cut to the Coast Guard's acquisition, construction and improvement accounts, money for ships and equipment to deal with emergencies; a $50 million cut to FEMA's Interoperable Emergency Communication Grants program, money that helps our first responders get the equipment to communicate with each other.
This was a huge problem when 9/11 occurred, where our first responders could not keep track of what was going on, couldn't talk to each other. So a $35 million cut to FEMA's predisaster mitigation grants, hurting our communities' ability to implement necessary prevention measures against threats.
So we've heard all the time about we should learn to do more with less. Well, in our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing where we had the people from the Coast Guard come to testify, these kinds of cuts mean that they really are facing doing less with less. And we also hear about how families understand the need to cut. Well, when families cut, they do less with less.
So these kinds of slogans and the kind of meat-ax approach to the kinds of cuts we're looking at in H.R. 1 are devastating, and especially now when we are once again confronted with a huge, huge natural disaster in Japan that can have ramifications particularly on Hawaii and the west coast.
It, again, shows the foolishness of these kinds of massive cuts that really disable our ability to deal with these disasters.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT