[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S EMERGENCY FOOD SUPPLY SYSTEM
=======================================================================
(110-30)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 20, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-802 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia JOHN L. MICA, Florida
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon DON YOUNG, Alaska
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
Columbia JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JERROLD NADLER, New York WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
CORRINE BROWN, Florida VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
BOB FILNER, California STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JERRY MORAN, Kansas
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California GARY G. MILLER, California
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington Carolina
RICK LARSEN, Washington TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
JULIA CARSON, Indiana SAM GRAVES, Missouri
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri Virginia
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DORIS O. MATSUI, California TED POE, Texas
NICK LAMPSON, Texas DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio CONNIE MACK, Florida
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa York
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina Louisiana
MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
JOHN J. HALL, New York MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
VACANCY
(ii)
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency
Management
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chairwoman
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SAM GRAVES, Missouri
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania Virginia
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota York
(Ex Officio) JOHN L. MICA, Florida
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Glasco, Larry, Deputy Director, Logistics Operations and
Readiness, Defense Logistics Agency............................ 4
Johnson, Vice Admiral Harvey, Deputy Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.................................... 4
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania............................. 27
Graves, Hon. Sam, of Missouri.................................... 28
Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia......... 33
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4802.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4802.002
HEARING ON THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S EMERGENCY FOOD
SUPPLY SYSTEM
----------
Friday, April 20, 2007,
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and
Emergency Management,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eleanor
Holmes Norton [Chair of the committee] presiding.
Ms. Norton. Good morning. I am pleased to open this
morning's hearing on FEMA's Emergency Food Supply System.
Our Subcommittee began what is intended to be a vigorous
oversight agenda on FEMA and FEMA-related issues by working
with the Democratic leadership and quickly passing out of
Committee H.R. 1144, the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Federal
Match Relief Act of 2007, to provide significant relief for
communities devastated by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma,
and focus on unaddressed concerns since these disasters.
An amended form of the legislation is included in the
emergency supplemental appropriations that passed the House and
the Senate and will go now to conference.
We also collaborated with the Committee on Financial
Services on H.R. 1227, the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing
Recovery Act of 2007, to ensure that the legislation allows
Louisiana to use its hazard mitigation program funds for its
Road Home program. These protections were included in the
legislation that passed the House last month.
Following our recent hearing on post-Katrina housing, our
Subcommittee today holds another in a series of oversight
hearings on FEMA issues. As part of this Subcommittee's
jurisdiction over FEMA operations and programs, we are
especially interested in and will conduct oversight on all
aspects of the so-called ``new'' FEMA.
This morning we will focus on FEMA's distribution system,
especially distribution of perishable items, an issue that was
addressed in last summer's FEMA reform legislation. According
to the recently-passed Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform
Act of 2006, FEMA is required to develop an ``efficient,
transparent and flexible logistics system.'' Yet recently, the
press reported that $70 million in food aid was lost or had to
be distributed for unintended purposes due to a failure of
logistics.
With negative press reports concerning the availability of
trailers when they are needed and disposal of trailers that are
stored, and now new food distribution and storage issues, it is
fair to ask whether the new FEMA is any different from the old
FEMA. The public witnessed the tragic breakdown of FEMA
operations. And the public will not be convinced that there is
anything new unless news accounts concerning problems in FEMA's
operations cease.
In 2005, FEMA was soundly criticized for not anticipating
what should be done, not doing enough and not doing it fast
enough in response to Hurricane Katrina. In 2006, FEMA was pro-
active in participation of what was predicted to be an active
hurricane season. That did not occur.
Surely, however, professional emergency experts should have
anticipated, even hoped that weather predictions would not be
accurate. Any citizen who follows daily weather predictions
knows that the nature of weather movements causes these reports
to frequently miss the mark on a daily basis. Consultation with
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, on which
FEMA relies, would confirm the difficulty inherent in
predicting an entire season of weather. Not preparing proved to
be tragic.
Over-preparing, without sufficient plans for storage and
timely and appropriate disposal of perishable supplies, wasting
millions in taxpayers' funds, is unprofessional. We are
distressed about what the problems highlighted by FEMA's
emergency food supply system indicate about FEMA's entire
logistics response system. There has been more than enough time
and telling experience to expect that the new FEMA logistics
system will be state of the art, anchored in comprehensive
logistics and materials management expertise.
I am particularly interested in hearing from the Defense
Logistics Agency regarding its distribution system, and about
its partnership with FEMA, something one would have assumed
would be automatic, given their experience.
Moreover, FEMA failed to accurately report the facts
concerning the food supply systems failure, specifically a
press statement in last Saturday's newspaper by a FEMA
spokesman, who had to correct what he had said the day before.
Specifically, he said, ``In the process of standing up the new
logistics directorate, some of the information was mis-handled
and inappropriately directed to FEMA leadership,'' for whatever
that means.
If the agency cannot effectively determine what kind of
food was stockpiled last summer, or what it did with it, how
can FEMA track and supply commodities in the middle of a
hurricane? My fear is that this is symptomatic of a brain drain
at FEMA, where experienced emergency managers have left and the
morale of employees is reportedly at serious lows.
The Subcommittee has received a lengthy letter from the
American Federation of Government Employees detailing troubling
personnel hiring, morale and other issues. Replacements by
well-intentioned people who nonetheless have little or no
experience in emergency management only assures a redux of the
old FEMA.
We welcome today's witnesses and look forward to a hearing
that will add to the Committee's body of knowledge and that
will enable us to assist the agency, and the agency to help
itself live up to its marketing as the new FEMA.
I would like to ask the Ranking Member, Mr. Graves, if he
has an opening statement.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
holding this hearing on FEMA's logistics and commodity
distribution system. I look forward to learning about FEMA's
efforts to develop a 21st century logistics system that I see
will dramatically reduce Government waste and improve disaster
response.
I am a fiscal conservative. One of the many appalling
aspects of the response to Hurricane Katrina was the tremendous
waste and high prices that Government paid for supplies and
services. The American taxpayer paid too much during Hurricane
Katrina because the Government did not have the systems or
contracts in place to manage a disaster of that scale. Instead,
massive contracts were let in the middle of a crisis, and the
American taxpayer paid dearly for supplies and services.
After Hurricane Katrina, the House conducted an exhaustive
review of what went wrong with the Government's response to
that terrible storm. One of the key findings was that FEMA
lacked an effective logistics system for delivering critical
commodities and equipment to the right place at the right time.
Once a truck entered into the disaster zone, FEMA had
little idea where it was or when it would arrive at its final
destination. As a result, there was significant waste and human
suffering as critical supplies reached their destination late
or they didn't reach at all.
During the 2006 hurricane season, FEMA's outdated logistics
system once again cost the taxpayer too much money. In this
case, FEMA's inability to procure and deliver large quantities
of food in a fast and efficient manner compelled FEMA to
stockpile roughly 30 million means in hurricane-prone States.
When the National Hurricane Center's prediction of another
record-breaking hurricane season failed to materialize, FEMA
was forced to donate about $70 million in food to Second
Harvest before its shelf life expired. Fortunately, FEMA was
able to put those meals to good use rather than discard them.
The potential savings from the 21st century logistics
system are considerable. Improved asset visibility and just in
time meal delivery will enable FEMA to scale back its
inventories, save on storage costs and avoid expired
commodities in the future. More importantly, a modern logistics
system will enable FEMA to deliver critical supplies and
equipment where and when they are needed, thus saving lives and
reducing suffering.
There is an old Army saying that amateurs study tactics,
but professionals study logistics. In many ways responding to a
catastrophic disaster is like fighting a war, and logistics are
the key to winning. I believe it is safe to say that our
efforts to modernize FEMA's logistics are one of the top five
priorities of the FEMA reform bill our Committee enacted last
year. This Committee has had a long history with FEMA, and I
want you to know that we want you to succeed. I do believe
that. We are here to help you.
Again, I would like to thank the witnesses for coming in on
short notice and for being here today, and I look forward to
hearing the testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Does any other member of the Subcommittee have
a statement?
Mrs. Capito. No, I don't. I will just listen to the
testimony and ask questions. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. I understand that Mr. Paulison was invited to
be a witness. I understand that he is the head of the agency,
and I am pleased to have you, Mr. Johnson, here. You need to
tell Mr. Paulison, and you need to report in some detail to Mr.
Paulison concerning this hearing. I am sorry he could not be
here. We felt we had to have this hearing, particularly after
repeated reports concerning this question. Now our fear is that
we are approaching a new season.
So I hope you are prepared to give the same kinds of
assurances that I would expect from Mr. Paulison. We would like
to hear first from Vice Admiral Harvey Johnson, who is the
Deputy Administrator, and then we are pleased also to have Mr.
Larry Glasco, who is the Deputy Director of Logistics
Operations and Readiness of the Defense Logistics Agency.
Mr. Johnson.
TESTIMONY OF VICE ADMIRAL HARVEY JOHNSON, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; LARRY GLASCO, DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, LOGISTICS OPERATIONS AND READINESS, DEFENSE LOGISTICS
AGENCY
Admiral Johnson. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and members
of the Subcommittee. I am Harvey Johnson, I am the Deputy
Director and Chief Operating Officer for the Department of
Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency.
I am here today to address the concerns that have been
raised about FEMA's ability to account for all the food
commodities that it had on hand in preparation for the 2006
hurricane season. As well, I would like to describe for you the
actions that FEMA is taking to improve our logistics management
capabilities.
The forecast for the 2006 hurricane season produced very
heavy activity: 13 to 16 named storms, 8 to 10 that
strengthened into hurricanes, including 4 to 6 major
hurricanes. With that forecast in mind, FEMA assessed its
inventory, and after planning and coordination with 11
hurricane impact States, FEMA identified the need to procure
additional meals to add to its existing foodstocks left over
from the 2005 hurricane season.
Our combined foodstocks then consisted of pre-packaged
meals, chiefly of two types, examples of which I have here
today. The first type is a commercial shelf life stable meal,
which is a pre-packaged meal that contains items you might find
on your grocery store shelf. When properly stored, these meals
have a shelf life of six to nine months.
The second type, meals ready to eat, MREs, typically
contain a full meal, ready to eat, replete with entree, side
dish and dessert. Depending on the storage conditions, these
meals have a shelf life of between 36 and 60 months. MREs come
in both military commercial versions, and we buy each. The
difference between the two primarily is the package is not as
sturdy, and a commercial MRE is lower in calories. All of these
meals are stored in a variety of FEMA-maintained and commercial
storage facilities located throughout the ten FEMA regions in
our Nation.
This sizeable inventory of disaster food supplies was
strategically positioned for rapid and effective response
during the hurricane season. We were ready to respond to four
to six major hurricanes. Yet as nature gracefully played out in
2006, only one relatively minor storm, Hurricane Ernesto, made
landfall. The forecast was incorrect.
Though thankful for a mild hurricane season, FEMA was left
with an unusually large inventory of unused, unpackaged ready
to eat meals. And like the milk in the refrigerator, each of
these meals comes with an expiration date. In some cases, the
date was such that the meals could last through the 2007
hurricane season. These meals have been put back into storage
for use this coming summer.
However, nearly 13 million meals, valued at $70 million,
were very close to expiring. Those meals would not have lasted
for another hurricane season.
At that point, FEMA had two choices. We could dispose of
the meals, or we could find another use consistent with our
initial purpose. FEMA donated these meals to Second Harvest,
which is a community support organization that distributes food
to those in need of assistance. With them, we have an
established relationship just for this type of scenario.
While the Post considered these meals as lost, FEMA
considers them as found, and that by our donation they found
value as welcome food supplies for those in need. That said,
there was one loss during the season that was preventable and
regrettable, and that was the spoilage of some meals that were
regrettably stored in overheated containers. I am truly sorry
for this error in managing our inventory.
Yet even this incident reflects the challenge of planet
against nature to maintain a mobile, ready and sufficient
inventory of food and licensed commodities against 11 hurricane
impact States from June through November.
The most important benefit we received from our experience
in the 2006 hurricane season was four principal lessons
learned. First, we will only stock MREs and will no longer
stock commercial shelf life stable meals. While these meals are
appropriate when purchased for immediate use, it is not a wise
investment to stock them in anticipation of an uncertain
forecast.
Second, there is value in an established partnership with
DLA and other public and private sector logistics experts.
Having a revolving stock of fresh MREs in a DLA warehouse
demonstrates good value. FEMA need not carry the full cost of
disaster logistics alone.
Third, it is important to have ready access to alternative
food supplies. MREs are an excellent option for immediate
response purpose. But at 3,000 calories per meal, they are
better suited for 18 to 35 year old soldiers than for 8 to 85
year old disaster victims.
Fourth, we simply can't store perishable food supplies in a
metal box exposed to the heat of the sun along the Gulf Coast.
We must be more attentive to how we store our pre-positioned
commodities.
As we plan for this upcoming hurricane season, we will
apply these lessons learned in three specific ways. First, we
are evaluating the forecast for the 2007 season, refining our
models for food consumption. The University of Colorado, Dr.
Gray, predicts a very active season, with 17 named storms, 9
hurricanes, including 5 major storms. We are starting out our
season with 12.8 million meals, significantly less than the
31.5 million meals with which we began the 2006.
Second, we will expand on strategic partnerships with DLA
and have a commercial contract available in the event that we
need a short-term supply of alternatives to the MRE. Finally,
we are going to take better care of our commodities. We will
know where they are and how they are being stored every day and
be better able to put them in the right place just as they are
needed.
Madam Chairwoman, FEMA is building a 21st century logistics
system that will be better managed by a new cadre of
experienced leaders, better supported by technology,
strengthened by strategic partnerships and reflective of
additional resources that we have requested in the President's
fiscal year 2008 budget. This is a logistics system that will
gain your confidence and that of the American public.
With that, I would be pleased to answer any questions you
may have.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Glasco.
Mr. Glasco. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the
Subcommittee. I am Larry Glasco, Deputy Director of Logistics
Operations and Readiness at the Defense Logistics Agency, or
DLA.
My purpose today is to talk to you about DLA, our
relationship with FEMA and the food supply that we provide to
FEMA. DLA's mission is to function as an integral element of
the military logistics system of the Department of Defense and
provide effective and efficient world-wide logistics support
for the military departments and the combatant commanders under
conditions of peace and war as well as other DOD components and
federal agencies like FEMA.
DLA is responsible for the procurement, management, storage
and distribution of some 5 million items that we manage. We
provide food, fuel and medical items, as well as most of the
clothing, construction materials and spare parts for worldwide
support of this Country's land, sea and airborne platforms and
weapons systems, and the forces that operate and sustain them.
Our number one priority is logistics support to the American
warfighter.
We also work increasingly closely with Northern Command, or
NORTHCOM, and FEMA to provide the specific elements of relief
and recovery support during natural and/or man-made disasters.
In coordination with NORTHCOM, we are prepared to respond to
DOD requests for logistics support; that is, for supplies and
related services from other Federal agencies, such as FEMA And
when authorized by law from State and local government
organizations, such as in response to the deadly hurricanes
that ravaged the Gulf States.
DLA's support capabilities are reflected in domestic
disaster plans. We are an active partner in disaster
preparation exercises. With specific regard to FEMA, our
relationship is defined by an inter-agency agreement signed in
March, 2006, between FEMA and DLA, which outlines the items we
manage and may provide to FEMA in preparation for, during and
after domestic disasters.
Upon receipt of a funded requirement, DLA can provide FEMA
with those items for which we are the material manager. These
include basic human comfort items like clothing, food, water,
medical supplies, tents, cots, generators, fuel, et cetera. DLA
coordinates these requirements with FEMA headquarters, which
then directs distribution of these items from DLA sources to
the locations where FEMA determines they are required.
Following the joint signature of the inter-agency agreement
in March 2006, as part of preparations for the hurricane
seasons in 2006 and 2007, FEMA allocated approximately $91
million for the following DLA-managed items: approximately
$60.7 million for subsistence items; approximately $14 million
for medical supplies; approximately $7.3 million for clothing
and textiles; and approximately $9 million for construction and
equipment items.
I will focus on the types of meals DLA has provided FEMA:
military MREs, commercial shelf stable meals and commercial
MREs. Probably the most familiar to you is the military MRE,
which is used to support military requirements. DLA manages a
wide variety of MRE entrees, and part of our management process
is to rotate stock to ensure use before expiration date.
The next type of meal, the commercial shelf stable meal, is
like a pre-assembled lunch. It is less costly than an MRE and
has a shelf life of six to nine months when properly
maintained. DLA provided the contractural vehicles for FEMA to
obtain commercial shelf stable meals for Katrina support.
The third type of meal, the commercial MRE, was the
commercial sector response to the civilian desire for MREs. The
majority of commercial MREs will be assembled on demand by
vendors and are not a DLA-stocked item. To ensure that we
maximize their usability, they are ordered only when required
and delivered directly from the vendor. We have contracts in
place that allow a surge of requirements when needed. In the
event of an emergency, FEMA's strategy is to start with the
military MRE, then move to commercial MRE, since it has the
same shelf life as a military MRE and similar nutritional
value.
DLA has leveraged our capabilities to help support FEMA's
mission. For example, today, we have increased our MRE stock on
hand to make MREs available to FEMA subject to DOD mission
priorities and subject to our normal stock rotation program.
The commercial MREs are another example of how we worked
together to develop a solution and put surge contracts in place
to meet emergency requirements.
We are continually working with FEMA to help plan their
support. Earlier I mentioned the interactions we have in
planning the disaster support exercises. We also meet with FEMA
every other week on phone conferences, and have a senior level
customer account representative assigned to the Department of
Homeland Security to ensure we have planned and prepared for
any contingency.
In conclusion, DLA has a well-defined role to play in
assisting FEMA in preparing for and responding to contingency
situations. I believe that our work together has resulted in a
strong partnership, better logistics support of disaster
relief, and ever-improving stewardship of related resources for
the American taxpayer.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions you or the other members of the Committee may have.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Glasco.
Did you advise, or did the DLA advise FEMA with respect to
the foods it stored for the last hurricane season?
Mr. Glasco. No, ma'am. What we did is, working with FEMA
for the 2005 hurricane season, when there was a potential that
we would------
Ms. Norton. I am talking about 2006. This is when the food
was pulled. I am asking whether or not you worked with FEMA
during that hurricane season or advised them in any way
concerning the distribution and storage and acquisition of
food.
Mr. Glasco. For 2006, our primary interaction with FEMA was
associated with MREs and commercial MREs, not with the
commercial shelf stable meals.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Johnson, you do not deal with commercial
shelf meals?
Admiral Johnson. We do, Madam Chairwoman, but the
commercial shelf life stable meals were acquired for us in
2005, and initially to respond to Katrina, Wilma and Rita
support. Then those were retained by FEMA for the upcoming 2006
hurricane season.
Ms. Norton. So you speak of a partnership. I am just trying
to establish when a partnership began, given that there was
some lost food, and that DLA has considerably more experience
that it could share with FEMA and other agencies.
Mr. Glasco. The partnership officially was established in
March 2006, when we signed the inter-agency agreement between
FEMA and DLA.
Ms. Norton. So did that agreement take into account the
supplies that FEMA brought, both commercial supplies, MREs, did
they ask for your advice on all of the supplies, and did you
offer such advice? Who approached who to get this partnership
going? Did you approach FEMA or did FEMA approach you?
Mr. Glasco. We approached FEMA in November of 2005 to get
the partnership underway.
Ms. Norton. So by the time of the hurricane season, there
was a partnership? You have the, well, let me put it this way.
FEMA appears to have acted like a start-up agency here. It made
decisions that one would not expect of an experienced agency,
or at least an agency with experienced personnel. So I am
trying to find out, since DLA has some experience around the
world, what kind of relationship exists, if in fact it existed
at the time that the foods and types of foods were purchased.
Whose expertise are you relying on, Mr. Johnson?
Admiral Johnson. Madam Chairwoman, perhaps let me try a
description and see if it answers your question. Prior to
Katrina, where FEMA responded to relatively small disasters, we
were able to manage our requirement and our inventory and the
system flowed and it seemed to work okay.
Post-Katrina, when the requirement was significantly
increased, it got a little bit out of our comfort zone. For
example, in the middle of the 2005 hurricane season, as you
recall, in the 2005 hurricane season, we went beyond the
alphabet. We went beyond Wilma, went to Alpha Alpha, Bravo
Bravo, Charlie Charlie, and it was a huge hurricane season.
In August of that season, NOAA increased their forecast for
storms. FEMA was nervous about not having enough supplies. We
went to DLA, and at that time DLA was supporting a large effort
and could not give MREs, could not sell MREs because they were
at their war limit. So we bought these commercial shelf life
meals. We knew they had a short shelf life, but this was, with
five to seven storms continued for that hurricane season. As it
turned out, Wilma required very few MREs.
Ms. Norton. In other words, you bought enough food for the
entire season at one time?
Admiral Johnson. We bought enough food for what we thought
was going to be an extended 2005 season.
Ms. Norton. Why did you buy food for the entire season,
rather than, for example, at full term contracts? When you
might have brought in some food, based on weather reports,
buying food which had shelf life for the entire season would
seem not only unnecessarily but predictably wasteful.
Admiral Johnson. We did not buy for the whole season. We
bought what we thought was required for the rest of the season.
When DLA watched what FEMA was doing, the decision made at the
time I think was a good decision. But from that point on, from
September on, it did not, even the changed forecast did not
turn out to hold true. But we bought supplies for the rest of
the season, not for an entire season.
Ms. Norton. Whether it is the rest of it, or what are you
calling the rest of the season? How many months?
Admiral Johnson. In September, the season runs through
November. So we still had September, October, November to go,
three months to go.
Ms. Norton. What I am trying to do is see if you have a
``logistics'' system or whether or not you simply buy because
you think you might be caught without enough food. I could do
that. The real expertise is, of course, in calculating what is
needed or, as the old folks say, ask somebody. If you don't
have the expertise in the agency in trying to find out, since
this relationship existed, and since they have the experience.
Admiral Johnson. Well, Madam Chairwoman------
Ms. Norton. Well, let me ask Mr. Glasco. Would your agency
rely on short-term contracts sometimes and longer term
contracts at others?
Mr. Glasco. Yes, Madam Chairwoman, we would.
Ms. Norton. It does seem to me, I am speaking with no
expertise, that yes, you want to be able to have enough food.
You also know, if you are an expert, that hurricanes don't
happen simultaneously at the same time. You could get a big
one. If there is a big one, like Katrina, for example, let me
give you the worst case scenario. Couldn't food be flown in and
distributed as easily as if it was in a place certain from
which it also had to be distributed?
Admiral Johnson. Madam Chairman, during the 2005 hurricane
season, the impact of hurricanes was in fact simultaneous. The
hurricanes came with frequency. We were responding in one
community while a second community was being hit by a
hurricane. So we felt, at the middle of the 2005 hurricane
season, when they changed forecasts, that good decisions were
made. At that point, our relationship with DLA was primarily
one of a purchaser and a seller. DLA recognized the track that
FEMA was on and came to us and offered their expertise. As Mr.
Glasco mentioned, that led to a memorandum of agreement in
March of 2006, and we are seeing the benefit of that agreement
as we proceed now into the hurricane season for 2007.
Last year, we began the season with 31 million meals in
storage. This year, we begin the season with 12.8 million. Had
we followed old FEMA practices, we would have spent another $70
million perhaps buying meals. Now with our new practices and
our partnership with DLA, we rely on DLA's storage. We have
saved funds we would have spent in older practices.
So I believe we are demonstrating the partnership and the
experience that you referred to.
Ms. Norton. You are all in the same Government. It is of
some interest to me that DLA was used as, the way you would use
a commercial enterprise, to get food, rather than to, at the
same time, use their expertise. We are very confused, frankly,
by the stories in the paper.
Last Saturday, that was April 14th, there was a headline,
FEMA doubles the estimate of lost meals to 13 million. And the
logistics director, Eric Smith, is quoted as saying ``We don't
have the rated facilities, management structure or the know-how
to make sure that the meals and products that we buy are
adequately managed to later meet approved standards for
consumption.'' That is a very, very chilling thing to read in
the newspaper. Don't have the rated facilities or management
structure or know-how.
Is that the current state of affairs, and if so, when was
that understood? And was the Secretary informed?
Admiral Johnson. Madam Chairwoman, that statement reflected
in the paper last Saturday was an act or an assessment of where
FEMA has been. In the months that------
Ms. Norton. He says, we don't have. He didn't say, we
didn't have.
Admiral Johnson. That was an accurate reflection, and I
think the context of that article was how did we get where we
are. That statement reflects how we got where we are.
Ms. Norton. He says, we don't have the rated facility. Do
you have the rated facilities, management structure or know-how
now?
Admiral Johnson. Part of what you allowed us to do in the
legislation in 2006 was a chance to restructure FEMA. Eric
Smith, who stands with me to assist me today, he made that
statement, I think on his 15th day at FEMA. Eric Smith
represents where we are going in new FEMA in logistics. He
comes from DLA background and more than 25 years of experience
in logistics. FEMA has never had a director of logistics with
that degree of capability.
Ms. Norton. I tell you what. I think you probably had
somebody who had some expertise who came in and just told the
truth. I don't think you can take the ``we don't have.'' Let me
ask you, how much food was spoiled? How much food specifically
was spoiled?
Admiral Johnson. It was about------
Ms. Norton. And what amount of money?
Admiral Johnson. Two point two million dollars worth of
food was spoiled because we stored it in containers at a
temperature that accelerated the decrease in shelf life. We had
to take $2.2 million worth of food and basically dispose of it,
because it had been held in containers that were not stored
with shelter or temperature control devices.
Ms. Norton. I am going to go to the Ranking Member. Where
was that food held?
Admiral Johnson. It was stored along the Gulf Coast,
primarily I believe in Selma, Alabama.
Ms. Norton. In facilities managed by whom?
Admiral Johnson. Managed by FEMA. They were in FEMA's
custody. We pre-position, every hurricane season we meet with
States and meet the requirements. We pre-position------
Ms. Norton. Did the managers of that facility understand
what the shelf life was of the food?
Admiral Johnson. We have certainly learned that lesson,
Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. With respect to the 2006 season, I think you
guys had a tough call. You had two options. You either
stockpiled food or you crossed your fingers and you don't
stockpile food, cross your fingers and hoped that nothing
happens. I am in the food business. I am a farmer, my family
has been farming for six generations. One of the things that
makes this Nation great is, we have the safest, most affordable
and most abundant food supply in the world. All you have to do
is look at export numbers to see that we feed the world. The
United States feeds the world.
We have a system today that, if there is a disaster
anywhere around the world, whether it is a tsunami in southeast
Asia or it is a war in Afghanistan and Iraq, we dump millions
of these things, whether it is MREs or whatever the case may
be, all over those countries, and we flood them. Those
countries have no system whatsoever. And food has a shelf life.
We waste millions of dollars of food in this Country in our
schools every single year. For heaven's sake, in my
refrigerator, I have stuff in there that used to be milk, and
now it is cottage cheese. We waste food in this Country because
we can take it for granted. We take our food supply for
granted.
So now, let's move on. I don't think that excuse the fact
that we wasted some food, pre-positioning food and it is
unfortunate, again, that that food supply goes to waste. But
again, I don't know how you make any other decision. We know
what would have happened had a disaster taken place and there
wouldn't have been any food.
You went to these folks, you all didn't have the MREs
available at the time, because you are at war, war supplies. So
you have to make a decision. So let's move on. Let's see what
we are going to do in the future. You all are implementing the
system.
What I want to know, in your new logistics system, are you
preparing right now for something, because obviously the
hurricanes are the biggest disasters we have had. I think it is
the largest natural disaster, at least Katrina was, that we
have ever had in this Country. Is your logistics system, is it
just going to focus on those areas, or are you also looking at
the rest of the Country? I live in Missouri. Obviously
everybody is concerned about the New Madrid earthquake that
could possibly happen and the amount of damage and disaster
that that is going to be. We obviously have problems in
California. We know we have problems here and there.
Are you setting this up now, or are you just trying to
concentrate on the Gulf Coast at the moment so you can get it
in place? I am just looking at how you are going to set this
thing up and if you are going to be prepared for other areas.
Admiral Johnson. Thank you for your question, sir. We are
preparing disaster response preparedness, not just hurricane
preparedness. We are doing that in partnership with DLA.
As Mr. Glasco mentioned, we signed an IAA in March of 2006.
We continue to expand that relationship, not in commodities,
but in leadership and business practices and in uses of models
and to help us prepare better. What we are doing right now, for
example, we developed a total asset visibility system, where
with our trailers, we put transponders aboard those trailers.
Now we can track supplies as they move across the Country
toward a disaster site. We now have an electronic management
system for our warehouses that we did not have two years ago
that helps us make sure we know what is in our warehouse and
how old it is, and make sure we can rotate our own stocks and
supplies through. A lot of that system was designed by working
with DLA.
We have a management system that allows us a singe point or
place to order. That gives us order visibility and order
management that FEMA did not have two years ago. All that
technology will help us now manage a supply less than half of
entering last year, because of becoming more efficient. We work
with States to develop pre-positioned supplies and
requirements, thinking about New Madrid fault and how would we
respond to those events.
So we are bringing people on, like Eric Smith and others,
who can bring that expertise to FEMA, leveraged with our
strategic partners, we will do a much better job of planning
for those eventualities, and to be more efficient and effective
in our supply system. Sharing the burden with DLA and others,
not trying to do it all ourselves.
Mr. Graves. Do you have enough personnel to do that, or are
you going to bring on, are you going to have to expand your
personnel? Are you going to be able to do this? You may even be
at a position where you are going to be able to reduce.
Admiral Johnson. I liked the term that you said. You said
preparing. That gets back to Madam Chairwoman's point in that
FEMA logistics system is not as robust as it needs to be. When
you look at the President's request for fiscal year 2008, one
specific line item in FEMA's vision is to expand to have a
disaster logistics core competency. That requires additional
investment.
We are asking the Congress to support us this year to
invest in more people and funds that will allow us to buy the
kind of modeling and technological systems that can help us
track and be more effective in managing our inventory.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Graves.
Mrs. Capito.
Mrs. Capito. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Glasco, for coming today. If
you could take me back to 2005, Katrina, what was the extent of
the meal shortage? I am interested in the water supply, too,
because there was a lot of post-Katrina reports about that.
Could you give me a status of your assessment after Katrina in
terms of the meals and the food supply?
Admiral Johnson. During Katrina, we used all of FEMA's
supplies of MREs. We were able to draw on DLA during Katrina.
In a disaster, we have an ability to do a mission assignment.
So we can mission assign other agencies to support us and to
meet the requirements that exist in the disaster. So we were
able to call on others to help us meet that requirements post-
Katrina.
But in that hurricane season, that drove us, midway through
the season, to think that we really needed more. We did not
want to be caught short again. We were scrambling during
Katrina itself. That caused us to buy these short shelf life
meals.
Mrs. Capito. But you were caught short in Katrina or not?
Admiral Johnson. We used all of the supplies we had. So we
were concerned about that. At that time, by circumstances, when
we asked for MREs, we couldn't buy MREs with a longer shelf
life, because they were at a war reserve limit, and we were
forced to buy this meal. It had a short shelf life and we know
that, but we also had an updated forecast, thinking more
hurricanes would occur in 2005. When those did not occur, then
we did have 13 million of these meals that were going to expire
within nine months.
That is how we entered the 2006 hurricane season, with that
leftover inventory. And that was a very, very light season, and
we didn't get a chance to use these. If we had had a hurricane,
we would have been heroes. We would have responded with these
and you would have been thanking us for that. But since there
was no hurricane, we were caught short by a decision we made
the prior year. That left us with a choice of disposing of them
or donating them. That caused us to donate these to Second
Harvest.
Mrs. Capito. Thank you. I think it is a huge step in the
right direction, the partnership that you have now with DLA and
certain other partnerships that you have.
In terms of the spoilage of the $2.2 million food that was
thrown out, that is bad. I think all of us recognize that was a
huge mistake. Hopefully that mistake won't be made again.
I feel a little bit sympathetic toward FEMA and anybody who
has to react to a disaster, when you have to rely on the
weather predictions. We do this every week, flying back and
forth, is it going to snow, is it going to storm. Sometimes it
does what it says and sometimes it just doesn't. And I think
certainly after what happened in 2005, an over-preparedness
state of mind had to exist in FEMA and every single other
emergency agency, State, Federal and local.
So I think that hopefully lessons learned, big lessons and
expensive lessons learned. I would also like to say in a
positive sense that reacting and making sure that your overage
in food went to Second Harvest, went to food banks across the
Country, I am sure that it is an established relationship that
you have, very smart. Also, they have a lot of expertise,
obviously, with storing and maintaining food for long periods
of time. If you have ever been to a food bank, I am sure you
have, they are enormous facilities. So I think those
relationships hopefully will be maintained and ongoing. Because
we are going to run into this again.
One last question. While FEMA is managing food supply, and
I want to hear the water answer, because I probably cut you off
on that. While you are managing the food supply and other
things, you are also managing a lot of other things at the same
time. Hopefully with this logistics expertise that you now
have, you will be able to focus in more specifically on these
particular areas. If you could address the water situation and
how you handle that, I know it doesn't have the shelf life
issue. But it certainly does in terms of maintaining the
hydration and health of those who are afflicted in a disaster.
Admiral Johnson. I don't think that we have had a problem
in water. I will check and get back to you if we have. The good
thing in water is we have, and I don't have the numbers for
you, the volume of water that we have, it is significant. And
it doesn't have the shelf life issue and it doesn't have the
storage concerns, the same as MREs. It doesn't spoil. So we
haven't seen a problem with that.
But I will inquire further and provide information to your
staff.
Mrs. Capito. Mr. Glasco, let me ask you a question. Is DLA
under the Department of Defense?
Mr. Glasco. Yes, it is.
Mrs. Capito. Where are you located?
Mr. Glasco. Fort Belvoir.
Mrs. Capito. All right. That is a big job you have. Thanks.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mrs. Capito.
Mr. Dent?
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Glasco, my question for you is, how does the DLA, how
are you able to provide FEMA with a continuous inventory of
fresh meals for disaster victims? How does that work?
Mr. Glasco. Out of the lessons learned from the 2005-2006
season, we have an agreement with FEMA. Well, first off, we
maintain an MRE inventory of approximately 60 million meals
located throughout the Country and the world. FEMA has bought
access to 3 million meals out of that 60 million meals.
What we are able to do with a volume of meals like that is,
as we support the military with MREs, we are able to rotate out
food to the military as they consume it, and maintain a fairly
robust shelf life capability within that 60 million meal
inventory. We purchase about 300,000 cases of MREs per month.
Based on recent consumption averages, this is what the Military
consumes on a monthly basis.
Mr. Dent. How much is that?
Mr. Glasco. Twelve per case. So 300,000 cases. So what that
allows us to do is, as we acquire new MREs, we pull those into
inventory, and we move other MREs out of the services for the
consumption. You keep a fairly fresh stock of MREs available.
And those are the ones that are available, out of that 60
million plus that are available to FEMA at any given time, if
they call for them.
Mr. Dent. When you say a fresh stock, typically how long
does an MRE stay on your shelves?
Mr. Glasco. I would say probably about six months, as we
rotate them in and out and receive new ones and issue out new
ones to the military.
(Subsequent to the hearing, Mr. Glasco revised the above
six months to eighteen months).
Mr. Dent. I have had MREs, but how long can one sit on a
shelf, conceivably, if it is stored properly?
Mr. Glasco. If it is stored properly, and properly is 80
degrees Fahrenheit, they can sit on the shelf for three years.
And they are extendable, if inspected, and can be extended
beyond that if they are stored in environments that are even
more cold than 80 degrees.
Mr. Dent. So three years under good circumstances?
Mr. Glasco. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dent. And if it's not under good circumstances,
considerably less time?
Mr. Glasco. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dent. What other services is DLA providing to FEMA
currently, beyond MREs?
Mr. Glasco. We have worked with FEMA to put fuel contracts
in place in two of their regions to provide bulk fuel support,
if required. We have in the 2006 season provided medical items
to outfit their caches. We have provided some minimum repair
parts capability. But the primary support from us has been in
the area of food, the MREs. We do, at FEMA's request, will send
individuals over to work with them in advance of contingencies
or disasters.
Mr. Dent. So maybe you answered the question I am about to
ask. But if we were to have another disaster similar to
Katrina, what types of services are you prepared to provide to
FEMA?
Mr. Glasco. In the food world, we are prepared to provide
them access to the 3 million MREs that they have paid for.
Should they make more funds available, they can have access to
additional MREs, if they choose to. Mr. Johnson talked about
transition from MREs to commercial MREs. We have vehicles in
place that allow us to surge and begin acquiring commercial
MREs for FEMA as well if they desire those.
Beyond those, if it is determined that there is a need for
shelf stable type meals for immediate consumption, we have 18
vendors standing by, ready to surge and be able to produce in 7
days and be able to provide shelf stable meals as well.
Likewise, should FEMA desire medical item support from DLA, we
have contracts in place that provide access to medicine and
surgical types of equipment. That is available to FEMA to
access should they choose to do that.
Likewise, as I mentioned, we have two fuel contracts in
place, and we are working to put others in place. But we have
two in the southeast and the Gulf area, two contracts in place
to provide bulk fuel support.
We also operate something that we refer to as the Defense
Reutilization and Marketing System. On occasion, and this is
just a matter of timing, we may have items that are being
considered for re-use within the Department of Defense, for
example, generators. If they are available at the time that a
contingency occurs, FEMA has access to that as well.
Mr. Dent. So fuel, generators, food and medical supplies?
Mr. Glasco. And some repair parts if they choose to.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Dent.
Did I understand, Mr. Glasco, you to say that you now have
a contract not only for food, for the MREs, but for medical
supplies, generators? Would you tell me what else FEMA is
already contracted to get from DLA?
Mr. Glasco. Madam Chairwoman, as I indicated, food items
for sure, bulk petroleum and------
Ms. Norton. How about medical supplies?
Mr. Glasco. Medical supplies. We have contracts in place to
support the Department of Defense, and FEMA can access those
when they need to.
Ms. Norton. So FEMA, do you intend, do you now use this
supply system or do you use another system for medical supplies
or the other items that Mr. Glasco spoke of?
Admiral Johnson. Madam Chairwoman, our primary source of
supply is through DLA. Through the interagency agreement that
we signed in March, we have access to all the items that Mr.
Glasco has mentioned.
We also have separate contracts with private sector
suppliers. So we have a lot of flexibility. But we primarily
use DLA for those supplies.
Ms. Norton. Did you already have those contracts for
commercial food that was brought when DLA could not supply
MREs?
Admiral Johnson. We did. We had some contracts, but what we
have now I think are stronger partnership with DLA and a better
sense of those contracts, of which ones are of greater provence
with DLA versus the private sector. So while you focused on the
commodities that we get from DLA, as Mr. Glasco mentions, they
send people to work on our staff to help us in framing where we
are going in our new logistics.
Ms. Norton. As you can see from my questions, I have
greater confidence in DLA, at least at this time, than I do in
FEMA. Therefore I am interested in the partnership and in as
much relationship as possible. For example, I think that in
buying supplies from DLA, you probably get them for a better
price than if, because they buy in even larger bulk than if you
went to a private contractor. Is that true?
Admiral Johnson. That is not completely true. In the
commercial meal, we have a relationship with the same supplier
that supplies------
Ms. Norton. Well, wait a minute. Do you do commercial
meals?
Mr. Glasco. We have that ability. The commercial meals that
we have talked about for the 2005 season, DLA contracting
vehicle was provided or used to acquire those.
Ms. Norton. And the private sector can do better, you can
do better with contracts on your own with for DLA for the
commercial meals?
Admiral Johnson. In some cases, we can. Because we are not
the only purchaser of those meals, either. So there is a large
market for those. And in a relationship, again, we approach
this in partnership with DLA, even discussing these issues,
what we should buy from them, what we should not. So we have
other contracts available.
Ms. Norton. That is very important, because again, they
ought to know.
What about an even more perishable item, like ice? That was
a big issue in Katrina.
Admiral Johnson. We are currently on the street now with a
competitive bid, seeking a supplier of ice. Our primary partner
in ice is the Corps of Engineers. They currently have a
contract that can provide a volume of ice just about anywhere
we need in the Nation within 24 hours. So we are relying on
Corps of Engineers as our primary partner for ice, then we are
competing a contract now for a direct relationship with a
vendor.
Ms. Norton. Have you gotten any advice from GSA, which has
an extensive distribution system as well?
Admiral Johnson. We work extensively with GSA over a far,
broad range of issues, from transportation items to all sorts
of supplies.
Ms. Norton. I am talking about logistics and distribution.
Admiral Johnson. We do not, I don't believe we use their
distribution system.
Ms. Norton. I am not suggesting that. I am only suggesting
that the agency obviously needs outside help, and that that
outside help is probably available within the Federal
Government itself. That is all I am suggesting. There are large
agencies that have been doing this for some time, well, FEMA
has been doing it for some time.
Admiral Johnson. We seek their advice. The GSA also is a
strong partner with FEMA.
Ms. Norton. I am asking you, Mr. Johnson, to provide the
Committee with information regarding contracts for distribution
of items after a disaster, beyond any that are beyond DLA. We
would like to know the name of the vendor, the quantity, the
value of the contract, its terms and conditions. And we will
assume they are competitive contracts in keeping with existing
law.
In what amount, in what amount, a number of meals
thankfully went to people who needed them and you have had that
relationship for some time. How many millions of dollars of
meals went to Second Harvest?
Admiral Johnson. It was about 13 million meals, valued at
$70 million, was the donation we made to Second Harvest.
Ms. Norton. As pleased as I am to see these meals go to
people who need them, the notion of spending so much money in
this way was not what the taxpayers intended, here. I don't
agree with my good friend to my left, who operates as a farmer
and knows how the weather is and sometimes it is too much and
too little. Nobody can tell you what farmers can. Sometimes
there is a drought, sometimes there is no season.
The difference is, it seems to me, that you don't grow
anything. We depend upon you for expertise. And therefore,
unlike a too much/too little in the ordinary course of events,
one would not expect, frankly, over-supply. That would bother
me. That would bother me tremendously if we said, look,
taxpayers, you saw what happened in Katrina, you don't want
that again. Tell you what, we are going to buy more food than
you can shake a stick at, so there.
The point is that there are, the alternatives are not too
much or too little if there are professionals who are guiding
the agency when it comes to logistics. So what I am interested
in is this new system, and here I am using your jargon, total
asset visibility, where the private sector also will play a
role, or has played a role in developing something called the
total asset visibility. I hate Government jargon. Nobody knows
what it means, even people in the Government.
But I believe that that is an important, those are
important words, and are related to this issue. So would you
please explain to the Subcommittee what role the private sector
would play, now knowing that you have a good relationship with
DLA in developing this so-called total asset visibility
program?
Admiral Johnson. The good news, Madam Chairwoman, is that
is not a Government, bureaucratic term. That is a term of art
within logistics systems as well as supply chain management and
those concepts we are bringing into FEMA. So for example, in
total asset visibility, what that means to us is you want to
have visibility of your asset end to end, you want to know what
you have, where you have it, where it is and how quickly it is
getting to the site that you need it.
Ms. Norton. Who is developing that?
Admiral Johnson. We have outside business consultants who
have helped us develop the system. We have taken advice from a
range of all the companies that deal in logistics, draw them
from best practices and even the practices with DLA to help
develop this system.
Ms. Norton. So you have a business consultant working with
you now on knowing what asset, where your assets are? And what
you need?
Admiral Johnson. Yes, ma'am, we do. And when we provide
this list of contracts to you, we will identify a number of
companies who we have contracted services who are helping us to
develop this system.
Ms. Norton. Did FEMA offer any of these meals to Government
agencies before offering them to Second Harvest?
Admiral Johnson. We have an MOU with Second Harvest, and
the MOU was developed in part to respond to this type of
scenario. So rather than go out to other Government agencies,
we followed through with the MOU that we have.
Ms. Norton. I am sorry, you have an existing contract with?
Admiral Johnson. With Second Harvest.
Ms. Norton. So how was Second Harvest chosen? What about
schools? What about hospitals? I don't even know the food is
fit for these institutions, but normally we would look for, if
we are dealing with Government funds, we would look to
Government operations to see if any of these------
Admiral Johnson. In large part, one of the reasons for
Second Harvest is they are a large organization. They will
actually come and pick up the supplies. We are talking about
900,000 meals. They come in truckloads. So it would be very
difficult to distribute truckloads of meals to individual
schools. Second Harvest really is a very efficient community
service organization to handle that volume of donated meals.
Ms. Norton. What other areas of logistics concern have you
at FEMA identified?
Admiral Johnson. We have a wide range of logistics concerns
in FEMA. As we develop the 21st century logistics system, not
only will it address commodities, but it also will address our
housing, how many short-term houses in terms of travel trailers
and mobile homes should we have and how should we distribute
those housing units. So that is another large part of
logistics, is dealing with our housing program.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Johnson, we had a hearing on the
distribution of trailers. I am asking this question, because we
wanted the agency to work, to work with the recreational
vehicle association. Our concern was the logistics on trailers
seemed to be heartbreaking, because on the one hand, they are
stored, and on the other hand, there are people who need
trailers. Some of those who needed trailers turned out not to
be located in the kind of disaster area that FEMA services.
Complicated questions, if you want to deal with logistics, got
raised because I said to staff I wanted to have the industry
brought in. And what was most enlightening was to hear the
industry speak about what dumping these trailers would do to
particular small jurisdictions where the only industry may be
the trailer industry. Because in smaller towns, people actually
live in these trailers.
What can you tell us about any progress you have made on
the distribution of those trailers or allowing access to, I am
sorry, disposal of trailers or allowing access to trailers to
people who might need them, like the Governor of Utah, who was
prepared to buy some of them until somebody threw some
regulation in his face which again, some spokesman found, well,
after all, maybe we can supply some trailers after the fact and
after it hit the newspaper that they had in fact refused the
trailers in the first place? I am trying to figure out what
would happen now, if, for example, the Governor of another
State tomorrow came forward and said, we are not a FEMA area,
but we do have a dozen people who need trailers and we are
prepared to buy them, what would happen, Mr. Johnson, in that
case today?
Admiral Johnson. Madam Chairwoman, as you know, FEMA can
provide trailers when the president declares a disaster and
there is a requirement for temporary housing. Recently, there
has been a number of disasters, tornadoes and other disasters--
----
Ms. Norton. I am talking about new and used trailers
already in your storage.
Admiral Johnson. I am trying to draw the distinction. You
mentioned areas that FEMA does not cover. Well, there are no
areas in the Nation FEMA does not cover, but yet there are
events------
Ms. Norton. They are not designated as a disaster area,
sir.
Admiral Johnson. Yes, so in------
Ms. Norton. Therefore, in Arkansas, we found people that
didn't have access to your services, because there is a certain
amount of damage you have to have before you call on the
Government.
Admiral Johnson. The most recent example is Colorado. About
three weeks ago, they had weather in Colorado that devastated
several small towns, yet they did not qualify for a
presidential declaration. The State asked FEMA to provide
trailers, and they acknowledged that they would pay the cost of
transporting those trailers. We met the requirement, we
provided more than 50 trailers. They were very satisfied with
the quality of those trailers. They actually picked them up at
Hope, Arkansas, at our storage facility, transported them to
Colorado. Then they own them, they provide them to their
citizens, they installed them and it worked out to be a very
agreeable------
Ms. Norton. Mr. Johnson, that is interesting and I am very
pleased to hear that. Has FEMA issued any notice to governors?
You have all these trailers stored. Some of them you may well
need, and I am sure somebody at FEMA knows how much you ought
to have. But has anybody at FEMA, since you made them readily
available in Colorado, made the calculation as to how many of
these trailers might be made available to Governors or others
who are public officials? I mean, I ask this question the same
way I ask the question about does the food get offered to
Government agencies first. This suggests that there may be some
people, or sorry, some jurisdictions willing to take any excess
trailers off your hands who are public officials, in States and
counties around the Country, if they knew that was available.
Are there trailers that you think might be sufficiently in
excess of what you need that that might be appropriate?
Admiral Johnson. Madam Chairwoman, we owe your staff and
will comply shortly, we owe a briefing on our trailer disposal
policy. We are in the process of finalizing a rewrite of our
policy that reflects now provisions that were contained in the
Post-Katrina Reform Act. So we will provide that to your staff
shortly.
Just in quick order, for a new travel trailer or mobile
home, one of the pieces of legislation required that we first
offer them to tribal organizations before they are made
available to anyone else.
Ms. Norton. Have you done that?
Admiral Johnson. We have not done that yet. We are working
with the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs to finalize our------
Ms. Norton. I mean, you have had these trailers ever since
Katrina. Tribal organizations would be among those, because
they live often in rural areas. They might well by this time
have taken those off of FEMA's hands.
Admiral Johnson. We are working, given the legislation that
passed in October, we are about to finalize and brief your
staff on how we will implement that legislation.
Ms. Norton. What legislation?
Admiral Johnson. The Post-Katrina Reform Act.
Ms. Norton. Yes, you think the legislation, it is only
pursuant to that legislation that you can offer these trailers?
Admiral Johnson. That legislation gave us new restrictions
or new guidance into how we should dispose of trailers. So
given the legislation, we are now writing the policy of how we
will implement that legislation.
Ms. Norton. Okay, tribal organizations. Did it also mention
State and county organizations?
Admiral Johnson. It did not mention specifically those, no,
ma'am. But as we now prioritize and provide an avenue to both
new trailers that are in excess of our required inventory, and
access for used trailers, then those will likely be available
for State and local------
Ms. Norton. You would think that the legislation does
authorize that.
Admiral Johnson. It does.
Ms. Norton. I think that, so, how many trailers exist now
in your supply, among your assets, that are in excess of those
you think you might need?
Admiral Johnson. I think, well, we look at our trailer
population in three groups. We have those that are in use now,
of which there are more than 84,000 being used in communities
around the Country, primarily------
Ms. Norton. I want to discount those. I am only interested
in those being stored at Government expense.
Admiral Johnson. We think there may be as many as 20,000
new units, I am sorry, about 9,000 new units, perhaps 20,000
overall, some used, that can be made available to other
organizations. We will pursue, as I mentioned before------
Ms. Norton. How much does it cost to store those trailers
at this time?
Admiral Johnson. I don't recall the number off------
Ms. Norton. I would like that figure. We would like those
trailers moved if you think you don't need them, as soon as
possible.
Admiral Johnson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Government regulations take time. But to the
extent that taking time on a Government regulation is costing
taxpayers money, that ought to be given priority. Those
trailers have been a scandal, just sitting there. They weren't
made available. There needs to be notice, as soon as the
regulations are done, I ask that you brief the staff within one
week. As soon as the regulations are done, it seems to me that
the first thing we ought to do, that the FEMA ought to do, is
issue a notice saying, for sale, as it were, there are trailers
here. But you have to come get them. People would be glad to do
that. And the taxpayers wouldn't be paying a storage expense
for trailers that can be used probably in almost every State.
Go ahead.
Admiral Johnson. Yes, ma'am. You make very good points.
Believe me, the States are very well aware of the opportunity
to come to FEMA. We use the National Emergency Management
Association, which has all the emergency management of the 50
States and territories------
Ms. Norton. Mr. Johnson, the States did come to FEMA in
Arkansas and were turned down. That was after the legislation
was passed. So I am asking you not to depend upon the
``relationship'' you have with States. If there are some
trailers for sale, let people know it.
Admiral Johnson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. And please let them know it as soon as
possible, to get that off of our budget.
Admiral Johnson. We will work very hard in that direction.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
I want to say that, while both of you are here, in a real
sense, the closest relationship FEMA can get, not only for what
appears to have been the former relationship, which is buyer-
purchaser, but purchaser of experience and advice, the more
confidence we will have as you set up a new system using this
visibility whatever jargon is used.
Mr. Glasco, are you consulting with Mr. Glasco as this
system is set up, this system I just asked you about called the
total asset visibility? Do you have that system?
Mr. Glasco. What we use for products that FEMA acquires
from us is a Department of Defense system called Defense
Satellite Tracking System. The acronym is DSTS. What it allows
us to do is when items are transported from a DLA facility or
from a vendor who supports DLA, we contract the movement of
that until we exchange custody with FEMA. And we can track and
tell them where the items are on the highway as they move to
their destinations designated by FEMA.
Ms. Norton. What other agencies does DLA have contracts or
relationships with besides FEMA? I mean agencies outside FEMA?
Mr. Glasco. GSA, we work very well with GSA. For example,
GSA uses a warehouse complex in Kuwait that we operate. They
previously had not availed themselves of that capability. They
use this warehouse we have in Kuwait. I would say probably that
the two larger organizations that we work with are FEMA and
GSA, outside of DOD.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Johnson, are you working at all with Mr.
Glasco or DLA in your work that you are about in trying to
install total asset visibility? Or are you depending entirely
upon your consultant?
Admiral Johnson. We are consulting with DLA on all of those
systems.
Ms. Norton. I just think you can save us all some mistakes
if an agency that is already doing it can look at it and give
it a kind of second look, your whole new logistics system.
Let me finally say, before I close the hearing, we received
an extremely long, extremely troubling letter from one of the
unions in your agency. I am used to receiving letters from
unions, and they have a different view of matters than an
agency head. To be clear with you, I have run a Federal agency,
had to work with unions, so I know how to receive these letters
and read them. Very long, it is very troubling, it is very
different from letters I have received from unions before. It
is extremely detailed and it describes hiring problems,
personnel problems. It goes well beyond the normal kinds of
complaints from unions, who often do have valuable inside
knowledge, but obviously see the agency from your own point of
view. Are you aware of this letter?
Admiral Johnson. I am aware of the letter, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Do you have any comments you would like to make
at this time concerning the letter?
Admiral Johnson. I would just say that we have received the
letter informally. It was not sent to us. We think there are a
number of elements in the letter that perhaps merit review. We
think there are also elements in the letter that seem very
short on facts. But we get concerned when we see a letter that
has those types of issues. We will take a look at the letter,
we will evaluate every element and find which of those really
needs to be explored.
What I would say is that FEMA has a strong relationship
with our unions. Both Director Paulison and I meet with our
labor management partnership council every quarter. This
headquarters union has opted out of that process, and so does
not meet with all the other unions.
Ms. Norton. Why did it opt out of the process?
Admiral Johnson. It was the union president's choice to opt
out of that process. That is the only union president that does
not meet inside the labor management partnership council. Dave
Paulison has worked with unions his entire professional life
and has had great relationships with unions. We feel very
strongly at FEMA that we have experienced people, we feel very
strongly that we have a zero tolerance for racial or gender
bias. And we believe that we are managing the agency with every
degree of care that you would expect.
Ms. Norton. I am going to obviously be replying to the
union. I am going to ask the union whether this conglomerate
process or not, to meet with you and you to meet with them, I
don't think it does any good to have a non-communicative
relationship with a major union in your headquarters operation.
Again, I say, that was not fact-finding, it was their view of
issues. I am a grown-up lady when it comes to receiving such
letters.
What was unusual about the letter was its length, its great
detail and what everyone thinks of the letter. It does indicate
very serious morale problems that I believe the agency needs to
attend to. In that way I am going to ask that you seek a
meeting with the headquarters union and I am going to ask the
headquarters union to be open to such a meeting.
Admiral Johnson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. I thank you very much. It has been very helpful
testimony. There is a lot of work to do. I have put FEMA on
notice, the agency is an agency in process of building. The
whole notion of a new FEMA does not sit well with the public or
with the Subcommittee when we see these repeated stories of
breakdowns that frankly give the appearance of an agency that
is just starting up.
You may know that on both sides, on both sides of this
Committee, the chairs and ranking members favored removing FEMA
from the Department of Homeland Security. I can't identify
these problems as having locational roots. Therefore, they are
especially serious, because they have seen FEMA, perhaps
wherever it is, has the kinds of problems you would expect if
you were saying, here is a new agency, we expect you to make
mistakes.
What is most troubling to the Subcommittee is that Katrina
does not seem to have left lessons in place that are being
followed. If it has, it leaves lessons like, you need some
food, over-supply them food. It leaves lessons like, whatever
the oceanic service says must be gospel, therefore, make sure
that you have as much food, including perishable food, on hand.
And by the way, forget about it until it is time for it to
expire and then throw it away.
You have to understand, I am putting myself in the head of
the public. And from the point of view of the public, that
seems to be the, that seems to be what you have taken from
Katrina, that there is a way to do it if you do too much of it.
When it comes to the trailers, I am very bothered by the fact
that you haven't swiftly, swiftly gotten rid of as many of
those trailers as possible.
So as far as I am concerned, and since I have been chair,
there are nothing but black eyes for the new FEMA. I would like
to see a new face and believe that you don't want to go around
talking about a new FEMA and then have this kind of stuff in
the newspapers. Yes, sir, I want to hear from you. Go ahead.
Admiral Johnson. I believe that you and the Committee and
the public will judge FEMA by our performance.
Ms. Norton. And that is what we have done with trailers and
with food, sir.
Admiral Johnson. And I believe if you look at what FEMA did
in the tornadoes in Florida and Georgia and Alabama, what we
have done in floods, right now, Administrator Paulison is in
Maine looking at those who are impacted by the nor'easter. He
will be in New York and New Jersey on Monday.
I believe that you are seeing the new FEMA in the field. We
are responding much more quickly than we have in the past. Our
people are moving forward. We are leading forward in
establishing partnerships, business partnerships. I believe
that we are showing new FEMA.
As you know, from your experience, to judge an agency by
the Washington Post or other newspapers, who only write bad
articles, there are very few articles about the good things----
--
Ms. Norton. But they were true articles. The fact is that
$2 million worth of food had to be thrown down the drain. The
fact is that most of the food had to be given away. The fact is
that nobody calculated how much food would or would not be
needed.
Admiral Johnson. And as I pointed out, this driving down
the road looking through the rear-view mirror, as we look
toward the 2007 hurricane------
Ms. Norton. So that was rear-view, that bothers me, in
other words, planning could not have, in fact, resulted, even
given what we have said here about short-term contracts,
planning, better planning, it would not have resulted in better
action from FEMA with respect to the food that was thrown away.
I mean, if FEMA doesn't even do debriefing, if FEMA is not
even self-critical, but it sees all this as Monday morning
quarterbacking------
Admiral Johnson. Madam Chairwoman, that is an unfair
characterization.
Ms. Norton. You said rear-view mirror, sir.
Admiral Johnson. I am saying------
Ms. Norton. That is what got my attention.
Admiral Johnson. To be quite direct, Madam Chairwoman, if
you continue to say that we are planning for the 2007 the way
we planned for 2006, that is incorrect.
Ms. Norton. No, that is wrong. You didn't prepare for the
way. You over-prepared for it. As if there weren't experts on
the ground who could have informed you, even at DLA.
Admiral Johnson. In 2007, where we sit today, we have less
than half the inventory that we had last year. That represents
good planing and a resistant------
Ms. Norton. I understand that, sir. I am talking about the
planning post-Katrina that resulted in the loss of taxpayers-
funds. Obviously, if what you are saying is after every huge
mistake we do good planning, this Subcommittee is here to tell
you, that is unacceptable. The point is to plan so that you do
not have to throw away $2.5 million worth of food or give
millions of dollars even to a good cause.
And sir, in terms of what you have done with the small
hurricanes, we were very pleased to see that. But you must
understand that nobody will think there is a new FEMA until you
have been tested by a major disaster. So don't throw some small
hurricanes, some of which were not even disasters, under the
FEMA statute at us. What we are looking at and what we are
going to have hearings on is the possibility that you could
have a great earthquake in San Francisco and a major hurricane
here, given global warming, on the East Coast. Now, that is
going to be your test. And you have got to be sufficiently
self-critical so that FEMA asks itself every day, are we ready
for that test, rather than, there were a few small tornadoes,
we weathered that, so what is there to complain about.
Admiral Johnson. We are very self-critical, and we are
preparing very well for the upcoming hurricane season, and we
will be prepared, as we are now, for New Madrid and for
earthquakes on the West Coast. We have been very self-critical
and we are making significant changes inside FEMA. I welcome
the opportunity to meet with you or your staff to talk about
the many, many changes across the entire breadth of FEMA that
Dave Paulison is bringing to the people of our Nation.
Ms. Norton. We will be having a hearing on FEMA's
preparedness for truly large disasters. We think we are in a
period of the truly unpredictable. We believe that there are
climatic changes that will befuddle even the best of our
scientists. I for one would have had a whole lot less problems
with FEMA after Katrina if there had been even minimal kinds of
preparedness. What we saw at Katrina was the total breakdown of
the agency to understand. It was, of course, that it was beyond
what any agency had a right to expect, or we had the right to
expect from any agency.
But nobody can now claim after multiple reports that this
agency was ready for anything remotely like a huge disaster.
The reason that some of us take great lessons from that,
certainly people like me, who are also on the Homeland Security
Committee, is that we believe that Katrina was a dress
rehearsal for a terrorist disaster, except for one thing.
Nobody will forecast the terrorist disaster, whereas there at
least was an accurate weather forecast about Katrina.
So you will not find the Subcommittee anything but
disappointed and critical as we hear repeated failures in the
agency. We will expect you to be proactive, yes. But we will
expect there to be experts in the agency, apparently there are
some in DLA, who can help the agency recover. I very much
appreciate your being here. If you have anything further to
say, I would be glad to hear it. But you need to know just how
stringent is going to be the oversight of FEMA. We believe that
FEMA is the most troubled agency still in the Federal
Government.
Admiral Johnson. We welcome your review.
Ms. Norton. Thank you so much, sir.
[Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4802.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4802.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4802.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4802.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4802.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4802.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4802.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4802.010