FEMA and Wee People

This search on "Executive Orders and Anti-Hoarding" and "State Legislation on Anti-Hoarding" began after reading numerous posts on with contradictory information about what is legal to store, what isn't, can we store, how much constitutes hoarding, what are the penalties, etc. After writing quite a few preparedness articles, finding information on hoarding seemed a normal consideration.

Initially it appeared to be a fairly straight-forward task to word search EOs written during the Clinton Administration and look for specific amounts or length of time constituting hoarding. What a surprise to find it doesn't exist! Instead, each state has its own legislation on hoarding and it varies greatly. To research it for your own state, please see "State Legislation on Anti-Hoarding". You may need to dig through several layers of legislation to locate the specifics.

When researching the background material for EOs, it seemed prudent to make sure all the material gathered was accurate. This meant verifying Title numbers and document information. Since FEMA plays an important role in Clinton's EOs, it became necessary to do checks on it as well. While wading through the Stafford Act that created FEMA and Sections 5121, I found some conflicting information on other web sites for Title numbers, just minutia, nothing ostensibly significant.

I posted the confusing information to Lynn for her assessment of the seemingly simple issue. What ensued was a shock to both of us and with her permission, her private email to me is posted for all of you to read. After this page, it is not my intent to print any more FEMA/government/Clinton info. This emergency preparedness site's goal is to bring you practical, helpful information and part of good planning is avoiding some of the not-so-obvious pitfalls. It is a sad occasion when some of this planning must include protection from our own government. We encourage you, all of you, to read the information provided and then LOOK IT UP YOURSELF, so you too, will know what's written here is real. For matters this important, do not rely on hearsay.

From: "PRRG" <fadaar@psn.net>
To: "Holly Deyo" <hollyd@netconnect.com.au>
Subject: FEMA Information Requested
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998

Dear Holly-

I going to give it to you straight. I think I would be a lot happier being simple and stupid. I know, I know, you asked what appeared to be a simple, straight forward question. Well, the answer is like a Gordian knot, and if you like reading legalese, frightening. The best place to get answers to a lot of questions are to turn to GAO (General Accounting Office) reports; if the laws are not clear on their face, which is the case with FEMA. The Congressional Research Bureau puts together the background of the agency to be reported on by the GAO and the report, cum audit, goes forward.

In a nutshell - What once was a federal agency formed under President Carter to respond to domestic disasters has turned into a Darth Vadar kind of empire. It got that way after Clinton became president. When you examine the incidents that occurred, and well-crafted EOs (Executive Orders) and PDDs (Presidential Decision Directives) put in place very shortly afterwards in response to the "emergency" is not coincidental. Right after Oklahoma City in April of 1995, PDD 39 was issued. This was laid down to crystalize the issues that came out after Waco, in which Clinton responded with an EO.

After TWA 800 - it got real wild. After wading through more than 40 GAO reports, I do not believe I could ever look another patriot-conspiracy theory-militia proponent in the face again and call him crazy. We're the ones that are crazy for not paying close attention. The only problem is the non-legal beagles are not trained to read law and sometimes confuse what is meant or take something out of context and place undue emphasis on it. I must applaud you - you understand far better than most. Bless you!

What is so frightening?? There are placed around the United States and territories, lots and lots of chemical, nuclear, and biological storage facilities. These locations include other research facilities and nuclear plants. States are very concerned over seismic activity, weather threats, chemical leaks and the list of potential disasters that could happen or have happened, are endless.

In one of the GAO reports, Alabama wanted the guarantee of federal funds to evacuate the population near a huge Army storage site of chemicals, prepare 21 or more sites for people to stay for more than 3 days at and protective gear, in the event of contamination in the safe places. FEMA overrode the state's concerns and said, "No, you will leave the population in place. There will be no evacuation. There will be no protective measures taken other than to tell them to stay in their homes for about 8 to 10 hours." Well, the representatives in Alabama went off on FEMA which has resulted in a bureaucratic nightmare and nothing achieved. The original costs to implement the plan Alabama wanted was $110 million. Now FEMA/U.S. Army says it's over $1.03 billion and rising. Huh?

The conclusion? It appears that FEMA feels it's much more economical to let 'em all die. You know, what with the population explosion problem and all. Not one of these federal (people) can get their act together to see that the glorious 800Meghz emergency alert system is up and running like it should. Nice - huh? So if you read a blurb in the news someday that a mysterious cloud descended on Calhoun County, AL. late one night and no official knew anything about it, and the entire city is dead - you'll know why. Farfetched scenario? With the types of people at the helm of this country, I am not so sure any more. The way the GAO wrote their reports, they don't sound so sure either.

To answer your question directly, which came first, the chicken or the egg - GAO said many state officials are confused and don't understand - so where does that leave us? Jimmy Carter established the Office of Emergency Management in 1979 - The Stafford Act in 1988 codified FEMA into law under 42 USC 5121 et.seq. In 1988, FEMA was NOT sinister. Not until after 1993, did FEMA really change. Clinton turned domestic terrorism into a juggernaut to get control. However, a lesson in law and history tells us what an EO is. The manner in which Clinton uses EOs overreaches the law and tells us that Clinton's delegated authority over the departments themselves is ever-expanding and recognizes no constitutional limitations on what he can or cannot direct his cabinet to do. They in turn operate according to Clinton's administrative directives. The consitutional provision to any EO state or federal, is the Congress or legislature timely objections. And Congress is not made up mostly of lawyers?? Come on...give us a break!

Americans run around like Chicken Little thinking it is direct law on them - no - the governor of their state must ask for FEMA help - except in a rare emergency like the Oklahoma bombing (remember it's FEDERAL property). If voters would tell their turncoat governors to tell the president and Congress where to stick FEMA - you know the place where the sun don't shine - we would not have anything to worry about. It's called: "Take Control and Responsibility for our government." That Holly, IS THE LAW. So how are we going to educate 200 million Americans who would rather watch television? Cuz that is the message that needs delivering.

I have two attachments to send you in the next e-mail and of course the data below on FEMA - Below is the latest organizational structure of the chameleon-like FEMA. It's all direct excerpts copied from the report identified. Sorry, most of it's classified, but you still get the picture.

FEMA: Fact, Fantasy, or Failed Democracy? FEMA assessment by R. Louis Richards, Hs.D.

At the policy level, the FEMA-led Senior Interagency Coordination Group on Terrorism serves as the interagency forum for domestic terrorism-related consequence management issues. This group, established in November 1996, meets monthly, or as needed, and consists of FEMA, DOD, Justice, FBI, DOE, HHS, EPA, Transportation, Agriculture, the General Services Administration and the National Communications System. This group was established by the director of FEMA and focuses on domestic consequence management only. It is separate from the NSC-sponsored Interagency Working Group on Counterterrorism and its subgroup on consequence management (which focuses on international consequence management). The coordination group sponsors multiagency working groups to address specific issues, initially focused on training.

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (of 1988) authorizes the President to issue emergency and major disaster declarations in response to a governor's request.
\1 Such a declaration can be made without a governor's request in rare emergencies, including some acts of terrorism, for which the federal government is assigned the exclusive or preeminent responsibility and authority to respond.
\2 The Stafford Act provides FEMA with authority to assign missions to any federal agency in the event of a disaster or emergency declared by the President.

For a terrorist incident, PDD 39 directs FEMA to:
(1) appoint an officer to direct the federal consequence management response, (2) issue and track the status of consequence management actions assigned to federal agencies
(3) establish the primary federal operations centers
(4) establish the primary federal centers for information
(5) designate appropriate liaisons
(6) determine when consequences are imminent that warrant consultations with the White House and governor's office
(7) consult with the White House and governor's office
(8) coordinate the federal consequence management response with the lead state and local consequence management agencies.

\3 FEMA coordinates the federal response through a generic disaster contingency plan known as the Federal Response Plan. The plan, which implements the authorities of the Stafford Act, is used to respond to incidents or situations requiring federal emergency disaster assistance and to facilitate the delivery of that assistance. The plan outlines the planning assumptions, policies, concepts of operations, organizational structures, and specific assignment of responsibilities to lead departments and agencies in providing federal assistance. The plan categorizes types of federal assistance into specific emergency support functions (e.g., information and planning, health and medical services, urban search and rescue).
\1 42 U.S.C. section 5121 et. seq.

\2 As an example of this, the President made such a declaration after the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City under subsection 501(b) of the Stafford Act.

\3 Several other federal agencies, such as EPA and HHS, also have protocols and experience coordinating with state and local governments in emergency responses. For example, EPA, works with local governments on chemical releases through Local Emergency Planning Committees.

The transition from crisis management to consequence management can occur in a variety of ways. In general, crisis management and consequence management activities may occur concurrently. If consequences become imminent or actually occur, state and local authorities would initiate consequence management actions, while FEMA would monitor the situation in consultation with the President and the governor. If state and local capabilities are overwhelmed, the President could then direct FEMA, with the support of appropriate federal agencies, to assist the state, in coordination with FBI. When the Attorney General, in consultation with the directors of FBI and FEMA, determines that the FBI no longer needs to function as the lead agency, the Attorney General may transfer the lead agency role from FBI to FEMA. Table 4.1 compares the federal government's organization for crisis management and consequence management in a domestic terrorist incident.

In PDD 39, the President tasked FEMA to review the adequacy of the Federal Response Plan to deal with a terrorist incident, including those involving WMD. FEMA and other agencies (i.e., DOD, HHS, FBI, DOE, and EPA) reviewed the Federal Response Plan and, in February 1997, published a supplemental Terrorism Incident Annex to provide guidance for responding to terrorist incidents within the United States.

FEMA, in coordination with other federal departments and agencies, also assessed the capabilities of federal agencies to provide consequence management in a WMD incident. As part of these assessments, FEMA developed five detailed scenarios, describing various WMD incidents which were used by federal officials to assess their current capabilities to meet response requirements.\6 As a result of the assessment, FEMA and the other agencies identified 12 critical areas that needed to be addressed, including the need for baseline information on capabilities; combined federal/state/local planning; and timely federal augmentation of local authorities.\7 Since the assessment, a number of agencies have started initiatives to improve federal capabilities.

FEMA also assessed the capabilities of state and local governments to deal with the immediate effects of a terrorist event, including one involving WMD. The President and Congress have tasked FEMA and other agencies to assess the capabilities of state and local authorities to respond to terrorist incidents. For example, PDD 39 tasked FEMA to ensure that state response plans and capabilities are adequate and tested. Consequently, FEMA and other agencies worked with state and local authorities to assess the needs of local first responders. FEMA surveyed state terrorism response capabilities through the National Governor's Association and held focus group discussions with emergency first responders from four metropolitan areas on the capabilities and needs of local governments to respond to terrorist incidents. In making these assessments, FEMA again used its five detailed WMD scenarios for state and local officials to assess their current capabilities.
\6 These five scenarios were a
(1) terrorist exploding a plutonium device
(2) terrorist exploding a nuclear uranium device
(3) terrorist using anthrax
(4) terrorist using nonpersistent nerve agents (Sarin)
(5) terrorist using persistent nerve agents (VX).

\7 The results of this assessment were documented in the Report to the President: An Assessment of Federal Consequence Management Capabilities for Response to Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical Terrorism, dated February 1997, and Report to Congress on Response to Threats of Terrorist Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, dated January 31, 1997.

Federal training efforts for local first responders for WMD incidents are being coordinated by the FEMA-led Senior Interagency Coordination Group on Terrorism. This Group and its associated Training Task Group provide policy-level guidance in the development of a governmentwide terrorism training strategy. These groups also develop and oversee the interagency training strategy.\9 The strategy includes the following elements: prioritize Nunn-Lugar-Domenici training, continue to analyze training needs, compile a compendium of existing training, deliver training in nontraditional ways, develop training for unmet needs, and work better with states and cities.

Before providing targeted training, FEMA and DOD assessed the general training needs of local first responders. FEMA/DOD-led assessments have found several areas where additional training was needed. Specific needs included, training for first responders on incidents in which the WMD agent is unknown, training on how to use the media, and multiagency and multijurisdictional training and exercises. Assessments of specific state and local training needs are ongoing to prepare for initial training.

A few of the laws supporting PDD 39 and FEMA, DOD, FBI et al.

Directed that the U.S. government, while participating in enumerated international financial institutions, shall seek to channel assistance to countries other than those whose governments provide refuge to individuals that commit acts of international terrorism by hijacking aircraft (Title VII, P.L. 95-118).

Required the U.S. Executive Director to the International Monetary Fund to oppose the extension of any financial or technical assistance to any country that supports terrorist activities (P.L. 95-435).

Listed compatibility with U.S. efforts to counter international terrorism as a factor in determining whether certain controls should be imposed for a particular export license on foreign policy grounds (P.L. 96-72, sec.6).

Authorized the President to ban the import into the United States of any good or service from any country that supports terrorism or terrorist organizations (Part A of Title V, P.L. 99-83).