Interview With Rep. Peter King of New York on Government Response to Disasters and Emergencies
By: Interviewed by Elaine S. Povich Source: AARP Bulletin Today Date Posted: 2005-11-10 10:56:00-05:00
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., was tapped by the House Republican leadership to head the House Homeland Security Committee just two weeks after Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast. He brings a unique perspective to disasters—more than 100 of his friends and Long Island constituents were killed in the 9/11 attacks of 2001. Suddenly King, the son of a New York City cop, found himself going to several funerals a day. King is looking at the federal response to the hurricanes with an eye to holding the Department of Homeland Security's feet to the fire. But he also thinks local governments have a crucial role to play—a role that was not handled well in Katrina.
Q: What lessons should we learn from Katrina that would assure more prompt response by health and medical care providers to a natural or man-made disaster?
It would be very difficult for the federal government to get in early. So what we have to do—and I've discussed this with Secretary [Michael] Chertoff—is to use Homeland Security funds as a wedge, or as a hammer, or as leverage with local governments, to say we're not going to give you Homeland Security funds unless you show you have plans in place for the local government to carry out evacuations. The important thing is for those who really need help to get out first. Obviously, that includes senior citizens.
Q: Do you mean having the local people evacuate them early to a central place so the federal government could then come in and help?
That would be part of the plan. So when the federal government did come in they would have senior citizens centrally located to receive medical care.
Q: How would you compare the combined local-state-federal response to 9/11 and the response to the hurricanes?
It was totally different. In many ways the 9/11 response spoiled the federal government. Based on 9/11 the presumption was that the fire, the police and the emergency services and the medical professionals would be able to handle an attack or a disaster for the first several days on their own. The federal government came into New York, but not really in large numbers until after the first few days. The initial onslaught was handled by the local government.
In New Orleans, and in the state of Louisiana itself, that didn't happen. There was a breakdown at the local and state level. The big lesson we've learned from this is that the federal government has to be ready to move in at an early stage. The federal government will have some knowledge of how equipped the local government is.
Q: Is there a preoccupation with terrorism, particularly in the Homeland Security Department?
As bad as Katrina was, a terrorist attack could kill hundreds of thousands of people. Katrina shows that we have to be awake and alert when it comes to natural disasters, and more should be done. But not at the expense of terror.
Q: Is there a better way to enforce "mandatory" evacuation orders. One woman said she was going to ride it out, but when rescued by helicopter, she said her decision was a bad one.
It's difficult in a free society to pull people from their homes. I think Katrina may have been the best impetus we had toward mandatory evacuations, and I think people will take it more seriously because of that.
Katrina Survivors Try to Rebuild Their Lives (October 2005)
Watch Out for Hurricane Relief Scams (October 2005)
How to Develop a Disaster Action Plan for Older, Distant Relatives (May 2003)
Share
preview