January 2003 saw President George W. Bush nominate Michael D. Brown as the first under secretary of emergency preparedness and response in the newly created Department of Homeland Security. Brown now coordinates federal disaster relief activities, including implementation of the Federal Response Plan. He also oversees the National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Fire Administration.

Previously, Brown served as FEMA's deputy director and the agency's general counsel. Before joining FEMA he practiced law in Colorado and Oklahoma. He also has served as an assistant city manager with emergency services oversight and as a city councilman.

Tell us about the DHS mission.

Post 9/11, throughout the federal government we had different agencies doing different things, all over the board, some duplicating efforts in terms of preparedness and of how people were responding.… Homeland security was also set up to do prevention.

I think we often muddle the terms prevention and preparedness. Prevention … is up to the law enforcement, it's up to the intelligence agencies, it's up to the systems we have both domestically and internationally to detect and deter incidents, but to the extent that we can marry prevention and preparedness so that they can understand how each other works, that should be one of the goals of the department and eventually that falls to the Department of Homeland Security.

I continue to be frustrated by this clash, for lack of a better word, between the law enforcement and the firefighter communities. We should absolutely respect each other's roles and responsibilities by understanding what those two systems are. We have different actions we have to do at the end of the day. It's still based on an incident command system; it's taking advantage of the smallest unit and doing what's best for the neighborhood and community.

Secretary [Tom] Ridge wants to do is bring those together without losing the attributes that each brings to the table.

The word “terrorism” seems to be the focus of the government, but the truth is that the fire service deals with an increasing number of responses. What determines a terrorist event?

You keep hearing about terrorism because this is Washington, D.C., and people seek and give money based on what the issue of the day is. The issue of the day isn't terrorism — when you get down at the end of the day talking to appropriators, talking to the secretary, talking to the president, talking to the first responders, talking to everybody, it is an all-hazards approach. This is my drumbeat, and … you'll hear me talk about all hazards constantly because I think that is the only way we can truly develop a more robust system in this country to be able to respond to anything.

I think back to the terrorist events that I know personally — the Oklahoma bombing and 9/11 — and then I think back to the disasters I've seen personally — tornadoes, the California fires and wildfires I've seen in my home state of Colorado — every single one of those incidents when it comes to the preparedness side and the response side is the same.

When firefighters were going into the Alfred P. Murrah building, they didn't know nor did they really care at that point whether it was a natural-gas explosion — which was the news of the day — or did this doofus Timothy McVeigh blow it up. I'm sure the firefighters were all wondering what was the cause of this, but it didn't matter to them because they were going in to save lives whatever the cause; their job was to diminish the impact. The same is true of the California wildfires. Firefighters respond because they want to save lives and protect property without regard to what the cause was, and so in that sense there is no difference.

You have to be concerned about a bio incident, but I can argue myself into a circle over this because if there is an incident on an interstate highway and you have a chemical spill or biohazard truck that was taking waste material from a hospital, once again if that incident occurs, all the firefighters care about going in is to save lives and protect property regardless of the cause. They're going to have to be concerned about the hazard they face and do they have the right kind of gear and respond to that incident. They don't care if it was turned over because the driver was driving too fast or fell asleep at the wheel or if al Qaeda targeted that truck; all they know is that they have a job to do, and that's what I mean by all hazards. What we do at the end of the day applies across the board, regardless of the cause of that disaster.

A chief in Amarillo, Texas, was telling us recently about the fear of agricultural terrorism. He said that within their area, they have more cattle than the surrounding 48 states.

If you define terrorism, it's specifically someone who is trying to disrupt the fabric that's trying to keep the country together and is trying to invoke a distrust of government.

Terrorism can also exist in the sense that we live in an incredibly complex society and those feedlots around Amarillo, Texas, produce incredible amounts of waste and ammonium nitrate used in fertilizer; these are incredible hazards and can affect water supplies. Everyone has to be concerned.

If you put it under the mantle of all hazards and you think about the all-hazards point of view, then it's our job to make sure the firefighters are trained and have the things they need, regardless of the incident.

There's been a lot of talk about fire versus some other departments and funding areas. Where does the fire service really stand in DHS?

That's really one of the president's top priorities. This president gets it when it comes to the fire service. I'll give you some examples: This president has put more money into the Assistance to Firefighters grant program than any president in the history of this country. President [George W.] Bush actually put requests in the budget to Congress to fund the FIRE Grant program; it had not been done before. Last year, $500 million — he has now put a total of over $2 billion going to over 20,000 fire departments, more than any other president and yet we hear other people saying this isn't a priority with the president. I think that's nuts.

[Ed.: Bush is the only president who has been in office since President Bill Clinton signed the FIRE Act into law Oct. 30, 2000. Congress approved the FIRE Act's first $100 million for FY 2001 on Dec. 15, 2000.]

The game that is played here is that the president requested $500 million…. Congress, which does the appropriations, decided to tack on another $250 million. When the president comes back and asks for $500 million again, everyone screams, “Oh, he's cutting the request!” No, his request has been consistent and firm because he knows that's $500 million he can get. Congress has decided to put more money in and he's accused of making a cut.

What about the volunteer segment? A lot of money appears to be destined for metro departments, but the majority are volunteers.

I think with the FIRE Grant program you're not going to see a drastic change in the direction of those dollars. The whole purpose of the grant program is to find where the needs are the greatest, where it will have the greatest impact and make sure the money goes there. That's the Congressional intent, that's the president's intent and that's something we intend to adhere to.

We can't forget that those smaller departments are important in that food chain of first responders. In New York I was talking to the commissioner, and there had to be other things going on during 9/11 and the WTC disaster. Sure enough, there were still the calls for transport or a fire in the Bronx and someone had to respond to those fires. It was departments from Connecticut and New Jersey that responded to Manhattan to backfill for FDNY. It's an endless chain that goes on. We can't ignore and say we're going to do just the larger cities.

Questions have been raised as to whether FIRE Grants are going where they're most needed.

I would not change the peer or competitive process. I'd say based on my experience, that the FIRE Grant program is the best-run program anywhere. I think the taxpayers would be tickled pink to know the money is well spent and goes to places where its needed.

Does it cover everything? No. Do I wish we had more money? Sure! In terms of setting priorities and how we can go with the amount of resources we have, there's no better program.

The other thing we can't forget is that it's not just free money. It comes with certain requirements and we want to see what you do with it, but they also have to have buy in. City councils, county commissioners, whoever is the overseer has to pony up and say, “Yeah, we will chip in for the program.” I've heard stories of departments having bake sales or whatever it takes to get enough money to get the matching funds.

In terms of requirements, what do you think of the National Incident Management system?

I think that President Bush and Secretary Ridge get it. We know that the incident command system out there works well. We need to nuance this so that different departments around the country that might have unique ways of doing things can come together and have a broad-based template by which the entire country can use the incident command systems. When we have to respond and bring departments in from all over the country, they have the basic tenets of how that system works.

One of my goals, since the National Incident Management System and integration is going to be housed in FEMA, is to make sure that it's all hazards and to make sure we bring in all the states and locals so they are partners with us and can develop this system nationwide. At the end of the day, they're the ones that have to understand and be able to use it.

Secretary Ridge has said there will be an interoperability standard by the end of this year.

It's a very high priority with Secretary Ridge, and it will be out by the end of the year. We're pushing it through 25 demonstration projects where we've put dollars on the street and said we don't want to tell you how to do it because they competed for this money. We want them to come back and tell us what works and how, and incorporate those through the Science & Technology Directorate.

What is the focus of FEMA's Science & Technology Directorate as it relates to the fire service?

FEMA has never had an R&D department that we could tap into, and that's what Science & Technology is, our R&D shop. We've already seen the results from it with the standards for the personal protective equipment. This is a way we can go within the department and say we need X, or as responders we found this problem, what can we do about it? That's what their job is. We can work with them on interoperability, on personal protective gear, biosensors.

The thing I like about this department is they don't have any preconceived notions that you've go to do it this way. What best practices or products exist out there that we can somehow transfer into the government sector?

The National Fire Academy is an absolute jewel of the fire service. Are there plans for expansion or linking with other universities to get the training to communities?

It truly is a jewel. Former FEMA Director Joe Albaugh talked about it. I've talked about it. I would like to get more space in terms of dormitories and more training, but I'd also like to take what's good about Emmitsburg — the people, the teachings and what they do — and take that on the road. There's a limitation to what we can do there, so if I can hook it up with universities or road shows, I'd like to do that.

After training, where does the fire service need to focus in terms of public safety?

It's about residential safety, firefighter deaths; it's unbelievable and unacceptable that we have as many firefighter deaths as we do. It's mindboggling.

I think the issues of residential sprinkler systems is critical. My home state of Colorado does not require residential sprinklers. When my wife and I bought our house here in Washington, D.C., we were amazed, there were sprinklers there! It's the code in Alexandria, Va. — they have to do it. I understand the frustration of builders and developers. I've been to city council meetings, but this simple thing could save so many lives. If someone has never been in a burn center, never seen the devastation, it's amazing.

Already this season, the issue of wildland fires is increasing across the United States.

Getting back to my home state, people love to build — just like me — love to build a house right out in the mountains, but I've got the area cleaned out around it. I don't have my firewood stacked up against the house. It's a matter of getting people educated.…

I think it goes back to my point about all hazards.… In some of the less urban areas, they're not convinced that terrorism is a threat to them. I happen to think that maybe terrorism is not a threat to them in that community, but I know that wildfires are and regular fires are. I know that Mother Nature is and that everyday, complex things that involve interstate highways and transportation of goods and services, that there are all these hazards and they are going to face some disaster at some time.

So the hook that I use is that I try to find an interstate highway or some plant near a school — I can walk into any community and find a hazard. If I can focus that community on that hazard and what they can do to better prepare themselves, then I've taken it out of the context of terrorism and back in the context of all hazards. Then they'll listen to you and look at what they need to do to protect their family and community.

When I lived in Singapore, the fire service was rolled into the military as the Civil Defense Force. What are the chances that the United States is going in a similar direction?

It's a zinger of a question and one that has not been lost on me…. I tend to think not. I tend to think people assume that's the direction we're going because of the force of terrorism and what it's causing us to re-think. I'm not sure we can do that.

In Singapore it's easy because of the size and culture of the country. It's easy in the [European Union] countries because of their size, and it's easy to do that in Russia because they've never had a system before and so it can be done. I think we're too diverse, too geographically spread out, and with too many hazards. That's not to say 20 years from now we won't go that direction, but I don't think that's where trend line is going.

Do you have a final message for our readers?

I would encourage them to hang in there with us because I know these are trying times and there's a lot of anxiety and nervousness out there. But there are a lot of questions too — what's happening to FEMA, what's happening to the Fire Academy and fire in general.… I know that there is no more important organization than the men and women fire chiefs lead into any kind of disaster. I can't, and the government can't do that right now without them.