    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                         A REVIEW OF THE PREPAREDNESS,
                           RESPONSE TO, AND RECOVERY
                              FROM HURRICANE SANDY

    =======================================================================

                                   (112-112)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                DECEMBER 4, 2012

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

             Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
            committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation

                                      ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    77-210 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2014
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                        JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
    DON YOUNG, Alaska                    NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin           PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey            Columbia
    GARY G. MILLER, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York
    TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois         CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania           ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
    JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio                   TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          RICK LARSEN, Washington
    DUNCAN HUNTER, California            MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    ANDY HARRIS, Maryland                TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
    JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania           DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota             MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania         LAURA RICHARDSON, California
    RICHARD L. HANNA, New York           ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana         DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida        VACANCY
    JEFF DENHAM, California
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
    REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
    CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
        Tennessee
    VACANCY
                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................    iv

                                   TESTIMONY

    Hon. W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management
      Agency.........................................................    15
    Major General Michael J. Walsh, Deputy Commanding General, Civil
      and Emergency Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.........    15
    Frederick Tombar, Senior Advisor to the Secretary for Disaster
      Recovery, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.....    15
    Robert R. Latham, Jr., Director, Mississippi Emergency Management
      Agency.........................................................    15
    Mark Riley, Deputy Director, Governor's Office of Homeland
      Security and Emergency Preparedness, State of Louisiana........    15
    David J. Popoff, Chief Emergency Management Coordinator,
      Galveston County Office of Emergency Management, State of Texas    15

              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Hon. Andy Harris, of Maryland....................................    53

                   PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

    Hon. W. Craig Fugate.............................................    55
    Major General Michael J. Walsh...................................    66
    Frederick Tombar.................................................    73
    Robert R. Latham, Jr.............................................    80
    Kevin Davis, Director, Governor's Office of Homeland Security and
      Emergency Preparedness, State of Louisiana, submitted by
      witness Mark Riley.............................................    90
    David J. Popoff..................................................   133

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Hon. W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management
      Agency, responses to questions for the record from the
      following Representatives:

        Hon. John L. Mica, of Florida................................    62
        Hon. Nick J. Rahall II, of West Virginia.....................    64
    Major General Michael J. Walsh, Deputy Commanding General, Civil
      and Emergency Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
      response to question for the record from Hon. Eleanor Holmes
      Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the District of Columbia...    71
    U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, responses to
      questions for the record.......................................    78

                             ADDITION TO THE RECORD

    Ed Bolen, President and CEO, National Business Aviation
      Association, letter to Hon. Jeff Denham, Chairman, and Hon.
      Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic
      Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, and
      list of efforts undertaken by the business aviation community
      to assist Hurricane Sandy victims, December 18, 2012...........   147

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

                         A REVIEW OF THE PREPAREDNESS,

                           RESPONSE TO, AND RECOVERY

                              FROM HURRICANE SANDY

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2012

                      House of Representatives,
        Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in room
    2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica
    (Chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Mr. Mica. Good morning. And I would like to call this
    hearing of the House Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure to order.
        This is a full committee hearing. We conduct our oversight
    and investigations at the full committee level. We are
    conducting this in cooperation with our subcommittee that
    oversees FEMA, economic development, public buildings, and
    emergency management services.
        The title of today's hearing is, ``A Review of the
    Preparedness, Response to, and Recovery from Hurricane Sandy.''
    We have a list of witnesses, and we will welcome those
    witnesses in a few minutes. The order of business today will be
    as usual. We will have opening statements by Members, hear from
    our witnesses, and we will hear from all of them, and then we
    will go into a round of questions.
        So I want to welcome everyone and thank you for your
    participation, and also yield to myself for an opening
    statement, and then we will go to other Members.
        Well, again, I am pleased that we have come together here
    as a committee to review the progress from Hurricane Sandy,
    recovery progress. But this hearing actually goes beyond the
    most recent hurricane and storm.
        We have attempted as a committee to make some reforms and
    also deal with some of the problems we have had from past
    storms and natural disasters. And the House, prior to this most
    recent storm, passed H.R. 2903, which was the FEMA
    Reauthorization Act. That was passed on September 19th, before
    the storm began. And it was passed specifically to deal with
    some of the problems we have had with previous natural
    disasters and also the ability of FEMA, our emergency
    management organization at the Federal level, to deal with some
    of those issues.
        The bill, unfortunately, is languishing in the United
    States Senate, along with other pieces of legislation, but I am
    hopeful that we can dislodge it. And I think we will hear from
    this hearing that we need some of the mechanisms and reforms in
    that legislation to help FEMA and other agencies better do its
    job in helping folks restore their lives and their property
    and, really, the country and the regions' and communities'
    economies.
        The bill, for example, creates a public assistance pilot
    program. It is a grant-like program based on cost estimates,
    not actual damages. And we think that that can also speed up
    the process, cut some of the redtape, paperwork. And we will
    hear a little bit about some of the impediments to getting
    folks back on their feet through the FEMA process today.
        It also requires cost-estimating, shortens FEMA's appeals
    process. And we will hear also about the constraints that FEMA
    works under now under current laws and regulations. And,
    hopefully, that can be expedited so people who have experienced
    damage most recently can be made whole or at least get the
    Federal part of the assistance underway in an expedited
    fashion.
        The legislation also allows State administration of hazard
    mitigation. And we think that that is important, also, in the
    process and some of the problems we have seen in the past.
        The legislation, if passed by the Senate, would reform the
    rebuilding process, cut through redtape and sometimes the
    bureaucratic nightmare that we have seen other States have to
    deal with.
        The legislation was formed on a bipartisan basis, and we
    reviewed different disasters in States. Of course, the premier
    disaster we are all familiar with is Katrina, but storms in
    Louisiana, natural disasters in Texas, Mississippi, Florida,
    Arkansas, Iowa. And I had a chance to visit most of those
    venues and talk to folks and hear about the problems they
    incurred in dealing, again, with the Federal Government and
    FEMA programs.
        Some 10 years from now, we don't want to be having hearings
    and asking FEMA why it is taking so long to rebuild from
    Hurricane Sandy. We know what is awaiting, unfortunately, some
    of the folks in New York and New Jersey and other areas that
    have been impacted in the Northeast by this most recent storm.
    And we know the redtape, paperwork, and sometimes confusing
    process that they have to deal with. And, hopefully, again, our
    legislation can be passed before this Congress leaves.
        Let's see, I guess it was the week before last, this past
    week, I led a congressional delegation, some of our committee
    members, to New York. And it was kind of interesting to meet
    with local officials and also see where they are in this stage
    of recovery.
        First, I have to say how much I admire the people of New
    York, New Jersey, the northeast region that were hit. Some
    absolutely incredible people who worked 24/7--local officials,
    State responders. We had different agencies--DOD, the National
    Guard. We had private individuals who came out--churches, Red
    Cross, community organizations, just thousands of people who
    were helping their fellow Americans in recovery. And we also
    saw our FEMA folks on the scene. And we will talk about what
    their role has been and, again, how, hopefully, we can help
    them.
        Interestingly enough, they were praising the FEMA folks in
    both New York and Staten Island where we visited. When I left
    Staten Island, the president of the borough said to me as I was
    leaving the meeting and we were getting a briefing, he says, By
    the way, Mr. Mica, he says, do you think you could help us with
    some FEMA recovery? And I said, What is that? And he said,
    Well, they promised us I think it was $25 million, and so far--
    I guess it was Hurricane Irene almost a year and a half ago--so
    far they have only gotten $7 million from that. So I said,
    Well, hang on to your shorts because, you know, if you are
    looking at multibillion-dollar recovery and you can only get $7
    million out of $25 million promised, you may be in for a long
    ride.
        We then met with Mayor Bloomberg and toured some of the
    damage in New York City. And he also praised some of the work
    for FEMA and others. But as also he was leaving, he took me
    aside and said--he had talked, I guess, to Secretary
    Napolitano, and he was still having difficulty getting money
    from FEMA from Hurricane Irene.
        So, again, there appears to be difficulty in past storms. I
    had asked staff about Katrina, and I think we will hear more
    about that. But I understand Louisiana still has $1.7 billion
    in unreserved claims from 2005. That was August 29, 2005.
        So I think the point here is that we want to find a way to
    make certain that this process moves forward as quickly,
    efficiently, and as responsibly. And FEMA does have to comply
    with the law that we set on the regulations and certainly be
    good stewards of taxpayers' money.
        So, again, we now find ourselves with the current
    situation. The President has visited the Northeast. And on the
    15th of November, the President announced that HUD Secretary
    Shaun Donovan would be in charge of coordinating some of the
    rebuilding and recovery effort--a little bit different. Maybe
    his intent is to sidestep some of the bureaucracy; we don't
    know. But we hopefully will find out--we have a witness today,
    in addition to FEMA, from HUD--and find out where we stand with
    that new approach. The announcement did not supply us with any
    details, and subsequent statements made by Secretary Donovan do
    raise a number of serious questions as to who will be in charge
    of that particular activity and how it will fit into the FEMA
    recovery scheme.
        So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. And we
    hope to make this a productive hearing in which we can, again,
    keep people from going through redtape and paperwork, maybe
    passing that. I asked staff to pull a couple of clips from the
    most recent--and we will hear from our Representative from
    Maryland in a minute. The headlines say, ``FEMA denies help to
    Maryland homeowners.'' ``New Yorkers hit hard by Hurricane
    Sandy denied aide by FEMA bureaucracy.'' ``After disasters,
    FEMA does not help every State.'' The clips go on and on. And I
    think that we will also hear from some other people that have
    had issues with this storm and past storms.
        What we need to do is make certain that these folks, again,
    get the very best response and that we give FEMA the very best
    tools so they can respond.
        With that, I am pleased to yield to the ranking member,
    distinguished gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Rahall.
        Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I commend you for
    holding this hearing today, and certainly welcome all of our
    witnesses and commend each of you and your organizations for
    the tremendous work that you have done to help our people, for
    your service to our Nation. We all are deeply indebted to you
    for that.
        I also want to recognize the work and thank those who
    selflessly gave of their time to help others in need before,
    during, and after the storm--Federal, State, and local
    emergency responders, National Guardsmen, and numerous
    volunteers, who themselves often reside in the path of oncoming
    storms. They say goodbye to their loved ones for whatever time
    is necessary so that they can help prepare for and respond to
    disasters. Their dedication and their commitment is truly
    commendable to their fellow human beings.
        Superstorm Sandy inflicted brutal damage up and down the
    east coast, but it also severely impacted inland States, such
    as West Virginia, where the hurricane and a nor'easter
    collided, leaving in some areas up to 6 feet of snow.
        It appears with each storm these days there are different
    circumstances. And certainly I know that we are learning from
    each storm so that we can be prepared for the next one, no
    matter what circumstance it takes or what nature of a storm
    hits us.
        But in this last one, roofs collapsed because of
    accumulated snow, destroying businesses; roads were impassable
    for days, cutting off emergency assistance to households; power
    outages were long-lasting and widespread; property was
    destroyed; and lives were seriously disrupted and even lost.
        Last week, President Obama issued a major disaster
    declaration for 18 counties in West Virginia, including 7
    counties in southern West Virginia. It took nearly a full month
    before the full extent of the public assistance program was
    granted to these counties.
        And I commend you, Administrator Fugate, for your work. We
    have talked on this issue. You have kept Members of Congress
    briefed, all of you have, throughout this recovery process.
        West Virginia families, however, are still waiting for a
    decision on whether individual assistance will be made
    available. It has been nearly 5 weeks now and still no
    response. Our citizens need and deserve timely answers,
    especially when such disaster assistance is so critically
    needed.
        In the FEMA reauthorization bill passed earlier this year
    by the House, at my request a provision was included to require
    FEMA to update its rules regarding the issuance of individual
    disaster assistance.
        Clearly, Sandy is yet another reminder that such updates
    are very much needed in order to ensure more timely and
    responsive assistance. Over 300,000 West Virginia customers
    were left without power after Sandy. This comes just months
    after more than twice as many West Virginia customers lost
    power, some for several weeks, following the June derecho.
        While I appreciate FEMA's updated guidance on the
    eligibility of generator purchases for critical facilities
    under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, I do encourage FEMA
    to determine whether even broader eligibility is appropriate
    and to clarify how FEMA intends to determine the cost-
    effectiveness of generator requests. I hope FEMA will consider
    the full range of potential costs of power outages at public
    facilities in order to ensure generators can be more readily
    available using Hazard Mitigation Grants.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        Let me yield now to the chair of the subcommittee of
    jurisdiction, Mr. Denham, from California.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
    holding this hearing, not only on such an important issue, but
    at such a critical time for this issue.
        As a Representative from California, my constituents and I
    know very, very well how important it is to plan and prepare
    for disasters, from earthquakes, floods, wildfires. We know
    that good planning and preparedness saves lives and mitigates
    against damages.
        That is why, as chairman of the subcommittee with
    jurisdiction over FEMA and emergency management, I have held
    numerous hearings focusing on emergency management capability
    and authored the FEMA Reauthorization Act, which passed the
    House in September and is currently over in the Senate now. We
    look forward to seeing that passed all the way to the
    President--meaningful reforms that would help us out in today's
    current situation.
        And I want to thank Mr. Fugate for not only your
    partnership and your expertise in this area but certainly for
    being willing to go out there and help us to get both parties,
    both Houses working together to get this very important
    legislation passed.
        What is critical to communities and people devastated by a
    disaster is not only the initial response but also how quickly
    people can rebuild and get back to normalcy. We have seen
    improvements made since Katrina in how we prepare for and
    respond to disasters, but we still see many problems. Despite
    prepositioning of certain assets, we still saw massive fuel
    shortages, people in places like Staten Island who did not have
    help for days, and millions without power.
        In addition, we have seen meaningful improvements in
    recovery and rebuilding. We don't want to see New York and New
    Jersey still haggling with FEMA over every different doorknob
    and light switch. We want to see bills paid immediately and
    that rebuild done immediately.
        That is why the FEMA Reauthorization Act, H.R. 2903,
    includes a new public assistance pilot program that would
    immediately allow FEMA to waive duplicative and outdated
    regulations and give more flexibility to the rebuilding
    process. We direct FEMA to review and streamline its
    regulations, require the use of cost estimates, shorten the
    FEMA appeals process, and make it easier for communities to
    have access to temporary housing units.
        I am pleased that we have emergency managers from States
    who are still rebuilding from prior disasters. I hope today we
    can hear from them what their experiences have been with the
    current process, what are the lessons learned, and what
    improvements they might recommend to the process.
        I am also interested in hearing how FEMA and HUD intend to
    address the current housing issues. Thousands are still without
    homes, and it still is not clear what will be the total number
    of people who will need longer term housing while they rebuild.
    It is also not clear what exactly will HUD's role be in the
    recovery process, given the President's announcement that the
    Secretary of HUD will lead redevelopment and rebuilding
    efforts. I hope today to get more details on that process, how
    it will work, and what the timeline will be to get people back
    in new homes.
        Again, I want to thank the witnesses for being here today
    and thank Chairman Mica for holding this important hearing.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        And I am pleased to yield now to the ranking member of the
    subcommittee of jurisdiction, the gentlelady from the District,
    Ms. Norton.
        Ms. Norton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I especially
    thank you for holding this very timely hearing on yet another
    unprecedented storm in our country.
        I ask to revise and extend my remarks so I may summarize
    them.
        This event covered 24 States and saw a confluence of
    climate I don't think we have ever seen before: a hurricane
    colliding with a nor'easter, and whiteout snow conditions. That
    is what has lots of scientists thinking about the effects of
    climate change.
        Thousands of people, when you have an event this large, are
    still living in temporary housing. Twelve States received
    emergency declarations before the storm, and so far, 10 States
    have received disaster declarations. The District of Columbia
    has a disaster declaration pending.
        Our Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, I
    believe, has proved useful during this storm. We provided FEMA
    with new tools, clarified their duties and functions. And we
    see some of this not only with respect to FEMA but also its
    nonprofit partners and the, apparently, good prepositioning of
    supplies, the closing of subways and of the Metro system, to
    name two of the most obvious.
        But I hope this hearing will focus on forward thinking as
    these States rebuild, and especially hazard mitigation to
    prevent similar loss of life. I don't know if anyone could have
    mitigated what happened to New York and New Jersey because in a
    real sense these storms brought as unprecedented conditions as
    one might expect in a terrorist disaster. You didn't know what
    to expect; you never would have expected this. How do you
    mitigate, given our hazard mitigation legislation and funds, so
    that the next time, should it come, these important States are
    not put in the position that they are today?
        I am also concerned about the failure of FEMA to put into
    effect cost-estimating for the recovery phase. In the last
    Congress, our Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
    Buildings, and Emergency Management held a hearing in which
    among the issues focused was the failure of FEMA to, in fact,
    use cost-estimating for the removal of debris and the like,
    just as the insurance industry does.
        Now, the insurance industry is known for conserving its
    funds and going after people who cheat. Now, if the insurance
    industry can use cost-estimating to hurry up the process of
    clearing after an event, I will be very interested to learn
    whether or not cost-estimating, which we first mandated in the
    Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, will for the first time be
    used after Hurricane Sandy.
        I will also be interested in the President's announcement
    that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development agency will
    lead the Government's Sandy assistance. I believe this is the
    first time. It appears to be a coordination function. I
    normally am for such coordinating functions. I will be
    interested, however, to see how they will operate in this new
    joinder of agencies; FEMA to continue to have, however, the
    individual and public assistance function. It will be important
    for the two agencies to sort out whose regulations apply so
    that there is a real coordination function rather than a
    stepping on one another's toes.
        I look forward to today's witnesses. And I particularly
    commend and thank FEMA for the Herculean work it did in the
    beginning of this storm and all the partners who assisted the
    Agency.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mica. Thank the gentlelady.
        Pleased now to recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
    Harris.
        Dr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
    this hearing today and for the opportunity to discuss the
    impact of Hurricane Sandy on the area I represent and the
    response efforts to date.
        The First Congressional District includes all of Maryland's
    Eastern Shore, much only a few feet above sea level. Somerset
    and Worcester Counties and particularly the communities of
    Crisfield, Smith Island, Marion, Fairmount, Deal Island, Ocean
    Pines, and Princess Anne were particularly hard-hit with flood,
    wind, and rain damage from Hurricane Sandy.
        While these communities continue to recover, our thoughts
    and prayers certainly go out to our neighbors from New York,
    New Jersey, Delaware, and other areas where the lives and
    businesses of families were disrupted as they dealt with
    massive property loss.
        On October 31st, 3 days after the storm, I toured the
    affected sites in Crisfield and Ocean City with Governor
    O'Malley and FEMA and local officials to see firsthand the
    serious impact of the superstorm. While Army Corps beach
    engineering projects protected Ocean City, I was stunned to see
    the evident devastation that some of our bay coastal
    communities like Crisfield suffered.
        Three weeks ago, I hosted a tele-town-hall meeting with
    over a thousand residents from impacted communities
    participating, with officials from FEMA and Maryland's
    emergency management agency also on the phone. I was encouraged
    by the Federal and State coordinated response efforts to date.
    But a message I did hear loud and clear is that few citizens
    have an understanding of the different responsibilities of
    Federal, State, and local governments in disaster response and
    recovery.
        Two weeks ago, President Obama issued a major disaster
    declaration for Maryland and approved Governor O'Malley's
    request for public assistance and hazard mitigation. However,
    yesterday, a request for individual assistance has been
    rejected. I am puzzled by that rejection, given the lack of
    resources in our lower shore counties, and hope this hearing
    may shed some light on the reasoning behind that decision.
        Mr. Chairman, this hearing will underscore the need for all
    levels of Government to be prepared for these catastrophes in
    the future, ensuring that scarce resources can always be made
    available to those of our communities most in need of
    assistance.
        I look forward to hearing the testimony of our panel of
    witnesses this morning, and I thank you again, Mr. Chairman,
    for holding this hearing.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        And I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from New York
    and thank him for his hospitality he extended to the committee
    in viewing some of the damage in his district in Manhattan.
        Mr. Nadler?
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you and the
    Ranking Member Rahall for holding this hearing on the Federal
    response to Hurricane Sandy.
        I currently represent New York's Eighth Congressional
    District, which includes Lower Manhattan and the Brooklyn
    waterfront communities of Red Hook, Sea Gate, and Coney Island,
    all of which were hard-hit by this storm.
        Although the emergency response agencies worked hard to get
    the city back up and running, there were gaps in the recovery
    operations, and there are many challenges that remain,
    particularly for a dense urban area like New York. Our
    transportation system is too vulnerable. Our infrastructure is
    old and harder to replace. The power grid runs more than just
    lights and computers; it also powers heat and hot water, and
    all water in the highrises all over the city, and it operates
    the elevators that the elderly and disabled rely upon to escape
    their homes when they become unsafe.
        Although FEMA and the National Guard set up distribution
    centers around the city, in many cases people were unable to
    leave their apartments to pick up supplies, and deliveries
    didn't make it to many buildings. My office, along with other
    elected officials, organized volunteers, collected supplies,
    and hand-delivered blankets, food, and water to people stuck in
    highrises. Lugging goods up flights of stairs is no easy task,
    and it is better left to trained professionals. But if we
    hadn't done it, with the help of students from NYU and other
    good samaritans, many people would not have received any help
    at all in the weeks after the storm.
        This is just one example, but I fear it illustrates the
    particular challenges of an urban setting that our emergency
    response agencies are ill-equipped to handle or at least
    haven't had to contemplate on a scale of this magnitude.
        Another particular challenge in New York is the lack of
    available hotels and rental units for displaced storm victims.
    FEMA has issued millions of dollars for transitional housing
    and temporary rental assistance, but vacancies in which to use
    that money are hard to find, and the reimbursement rates are
    often too low for whatever is available.
        The lack of a viable long-term housing plan is one of the
    biggest challenges we face going forward. All levels of
    Government need to work together to solve this problem. Our
    most basic responsibility is to ensure that people have a safe
    place to stay following a storm, and yet it is the biggest
    question for which we now have no answer.
        For people who can stay in their homes, we are hearing
    increasing reports about environmental contamination from toxic
    mold, sewage, and other hazardous substances. Although there
    are some resources available to assist with the cleanup, in
    many cases it is inadequate, particularly for those living and
    working in densely populated buildings that share common spaces
    and HVAC systems.
        Given New York's recent history with environmental hazards
    caused by the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11, we
    know all too well the danger presented by indoor contamination.
    We must not repeat the mistakes of 9/11 by leaving people to
    their own devices to clean up complex toxins in their homes
    without proper guidance and assistance from the Federal
    Government. I have asked the EPA to conduct or oversee
    comprehensive testing to ensure that people's homes and
    workspaces are safe to inhabit, and I urge my colleagues to
    join in that request.
        I am also concerned that OSHA rules are not always being
    followed and that many cleanup workers are not being given
    proper protective equipment. This is another mistake from 9/11
    that is too often repeated in response to disasters, and I have
    asked OSHA to ensure that its rules are adequately enforced.
        State and city agencies estimate the cost to repair the
    damage caused by Hurricane Sandy will be at least $40 billion
    for New York State alone. Within New York City, the mayor
    estimates public and private losses of $19 billion, including
    $4.8 billion in uninsured private losses and $5.7 billion in
    lost gross product from business closures.
        For many small businesses, who are already operating on a
    thin profit margin or who are only now paying off loans from 9/
    11, the SBA loan program will not suffice. We will need to
    provide grants or some form of direct aid, as we did after 9/
    11, if we want these businesses to survive.
        With costs this high, New York State and New York City,
    like its counterparts in the region, cannot shoulder this
    burden alone, and the standard FEMA reimbursement process will
    not work. The State and the city do not have billions of
    dollars sitting in their coffers to advance to fund repairs,
    and FEMA reimbursement is slow and cumbersome. In fact, New
    York is still waiting on the payments for Hurricane Irene. And
    I am sure many of my colleagues have had similar experiences in
    their States. That is why we will be requesting that the
    Hurricane Sandy supplemental be distributed through the various
    agencies in direct aid to affected areas, as we have done at
    times in the past to expedite recovery.
        And we were must pass an emergency supplemental without
    requiring offsets, as some have suggested in past disasters. As
    the current debate over the pending sequestration shows,
    finding offsets is no easy task, and it makes no sense. It
    defies the very nature of emergency aid, and it impedes the
    Federal Government from doing its most important job:
    protecting our citizens when calamity strikes.
        It will be expensive to rebuild, but we must. And it would
    be foolish not to do so with the next storm in mind, which will
    undoubtedly come. We must fortify our shorelines and seawalls
    and better protect low-lying areas from storage surge. I expect
    the Army Corps to finally construct the Coney Island shorefront
    protection project. It is fully funded. The local match is
    already secured, and it was ready to go out to bid this summer.
        The Corps must move forward as originally intended without
    delay, but, frankly, that is the bare minimum we could do, and
    it is not enough. We should invest in research and explore
    technologies to better protect our road and rail tunnels from
    flooding. We should allow the MTA to upgrade its aging transit
    system rather than require it to use Federal funds to replace a
    70-year-old switching system with equivalent 70-year-old
    technology. And we must have a better plan for restoring power
    lines and gas supplies.
        Hurricane Sandy should be a major wakeup call. When
    disaster strikes, our densely populated urban areas and
    economic centers must be able to recover quickly. If we are
    going to invest billions of dollars in rebuilding storm-ravaged
    areas, we should do so in a way that will protect people from
    future storms. And we have every reason to believe that major
    storms will threaten us again and soon.
        The devastation and chaos brought by Hurricane Sandy have
    had a lasting impact on our city and region, and the lives of
    thousands of New Yorkers are still upsidedown. But if we all
    stand together, we can rebuild quickly, stronger, and better
    than before.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing,
    and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
        Mr. Mica. Thank the gentleman.
        And from nearby New Jersey, we have the gentleman from New
    Jersey, Mr. LoBiondo, who was also hit by this storm.
        You are recognized, sir.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members
    of the committee.
        As many of you know, I represent the Second Congressional
    District in southern New Jersey. It is a little bit more than a
    third of the State, geographically, with an awful lot of
    coastline. We faced catastrophic destruction with the storm and
    as a result of the storm. The images speak to the sheer
    destruction. The personal story of those affected detail the
    physical, emotional, and financial toll on our community and
    their residents.
        I spent a great deal of time on the ground visiting
    communities, discussing the response and recovery with
    emergency management officials, meeting individually with
    constituents and business owners who are determined to not let
    the storm stand in the way of getting back on their feet. But
    we need to work together, and that is why I have joined with my
    colleagues in DC to ensure that Congress provides additional
    Federal support that has been requested and is desperately
    needed.
        Even though the coverage of this devastation has left the
    front pages of many media outlets, it is still in the forefront
    of my mind and the minds of my constituents, who are responding
    with strength, courage, and resiliency as they do their best to
    pick up the pieces in an unprecedented recovery effort that is
    underway.
        When President Obama visited Brigantine, which is in my
    district, he also saw firsthand the way this storm has impacted
    individuals' livelihoods and how their ways of life have been
    forever changed due to the horrific flooding and wind.
        To date, Federal Emergency Management Agency--and, Mr.
    Fugate, we thank you for what you are doing and thank you for
    being on the ground that day in my district--along with U.S.
    Small Business Administration, Department of Agriculture,
    Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other Federal
    agencies and departments, have truly been boots on the ground,
    ensuring disaster assessments are being conducted in a timely
    manner. These emergency management personnel have gone above
    and beyond the call of duty, many of them working around the
    clock tirelessly to ensure the safety of our residents, and
    they deserve tremendous praise.
        Likewise, Governor Christie has shown tremendous poise and
    unwavering leadership during this crisis, coordinating all of
    the different emergency response units and leading the State,
    maybe very importantly, in the days prior to the storm hitting
    as well as during and after the storm has hit.
        However, it is going to be a long and challenging road
    ahead, a challenge my colleagues in the New Jersey delegation,
    including my friend Congressman Sires, and I recognize and are
    prepared to deal with. The most recent damage assessment by
    Governor Christie of approximately $37 billion for all of New
    Jersey makes it clear that the State will not be able to handle
    this financial burden alone and emergency supplemental funding
    will be needed.
        I am working with President Obama's administration and the
    House leadership, as a long recovery is planned, specifically:
    requesting funding for the Flood Control and Coastal
    Emergencies Account; imploring the President to fund all
    previously authorized Army Corps beach and flood control
    projects in New Jersey; requesting a Federal fisheries resource
    disaster declaration for New Jersey; expediting an emergency
    supplemental bill to the floor to provide Sandy relief; and
    insisting that redtape be eliminated and minimized and the
    bureaucracy be set on notice to get everything moving, just to
    name a few of the things.
        Congress has worked together in a bipartisan and bicameral
    manner in the past to respond to other national natural
    disasters. New Jersey and the States affected by this storm
    should not be treated any differently than any of these past
    natural disasters. So we are expecting that when it comes to
    Federal relief and recovery efforts from Hurricane Sandy, we
    must stand ready to provide the aid and assistance to the
    people and communities devastated by this storm as we have done
    for other States and other parts of the Nation when this has
    hit.
        I thank the witnesses for being here today to testify. I
    look forward to hearing their testimony on the recovery efforts
    from previous disasters and lessons learned by the recovery
    effort that may help inform us as we move through this latest
    disaster.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much.
        Mr. Mica. Thank the gentleman.
        Another gentleman from the hard-hit State of New York, Mr.
    Bishop.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of
    time, I won't make a formal opening statement, but let me just
    make a couple of points.
        First, I want to thank Mr. Fugate from FEMA and General
    Walsh from the Army Corps for the effectiveness of your
    response thus far to the thousands of homeowners in our
    district that were dislocated by the storm. And particularly
    with respect to the Army Corps, we had three new breaches, and
    the Army Corps has moved very quickly. One has already been
    closed, one is in the process of being closed now, and a third
    is being reviewed to see if it will close naturally. So I thank
    you very much for that.
        An observation: The engineered beaches in our district
    fared vastly better than the nonengineered beaches. I think
    that is, in my view, an open-and-shut argument for beach
    nourishment and for the role that the Corps can play in
    stabilizing our shoreline.
        And, thirdly, let me echo what Mr. LoBiondo and Mr. Nadler
    said with respect to the necessity for an emergency
    supplemental. We absolutely need one, and we need one without
    offsets. That has been the way this Congress has responded to
    natural disasters elsewhere in this country. We need to respond
    in the same way, with the same degree of commitment as we did
    for Katrina, as we did for the tornadoes in the Midwest, as we
    have for fires elsewhere. So I very much hope that our
    colleagues on both sides of the aisle will respond quickly and
    appropriately for the need for an emergency supplemental
    without offsets.
        With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        And we do have another Member from New Jersey, also hard-
    hit State, as you know. Pleased to recognize Mr. Sires.
        Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing today.
        I will just agree and echo, and I won't repeat myself, with
    my colleague from New Jersey, LoBiondo. I think he said it best
    when he made those statements, and I agree with my colleagues
    from New York. But I would like to make a couple observations.
        You know, I represent what they call the Gold Coast, which
    is the Eighth Congressional District. Hoboken, Jersey City,
    Bayonne, that area got hit very hard. And one of the things
    that is still not clear is, when is the PATH in Hoboken going
    to be ready for people to go into New York City? You know,
    right now they are taking the ferries, $9; the PATH $2.25.
        I spoke to a former Congressman, Frank Guarini, who still
    has no power in his building in Jersey City. So we are just
    wondering if anybody can talk a little bit about that. It is a
    whole building.
        I also would like to compliment all of you because every
    time I made a phone call people got back to me. You were
    terrific. I don't know how you do it, staying so calm when
    people are yelling at with you all their frustrations. But I
    certainly compliment you, Mr. Fugate; and I want to compliment
    you, because the Army Corps of Engineers has always responded
    professionally; and everybody else.
        But certain things we have to certainly do. We have to
    certainly coordinate the fuel situation better. You know, in my
    district, it was difficult to get the fuel. And I expressed
    this to Governor Christie, about possibly getting generators
    for some of these places, and he suggested that at some of
    these places the problem was the hookup. It wasn't the fact
    that you did not provide the generators.
        The other issue that I have in Hoboken, you know, it is a
    very congested area. A lot of people live in basements, and
    their basement is their home. It is their first home. And they
    want to know, you know, what is going to happen to them. So
    there are a lot of questions.
        And the last thing, which is my pet peeve, is we had so
    many people volunteer, come into the State to help, and it did
    not seem it was well-coordinated with the power companies. We
    had trucks parked behind hotels, people in the hotels, and two
    blocks away in Weehawken, New Jersey, people had no power.
    There has to be a way of working the coordination when so many
    people want to give of their time and volunteer to help other
    people, that we must find a way to coordinate these people as
    they come into any State, so you can send them into the most
    devastated area.
        But I just want to thank you.
        And thank you for the extra time.
        Mr. Mica. Thank the gentleman.
        If there are no other Members that seek recognition--oh, I
    am sorry, Ms. Edwards. And thank you also for joining us in the
    committee visit to the affected area. Ms. Edwards, you are
    recognized.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do appreciate
    being able to visit the storm-affected areas in Staten Island
    and through New York City.
        I think that although we didn't have tremendous impacts
    here in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area from Hurricane
    Sandy, there were some. Certainly, our State in Maryland, as we
    heard from my colleague from the Eastern Shore, had damage
    there.
        You know, one of the things that it occurs to me, Mr.
    Chairman, is how important it is for us to have actually been
    able to visit and to see some of the damage firsthand and to
    meet with local officials and with residents because I think it
    gives you a different perspective about what the need is for
    recovery. And for me as a Member, even though there is not a
    personal concern for my congressional district, it makes me a
    stronger and better advocate for the people in the worst-
    affected areas.
        Also, on the ground, I will say to Administrator Fugate,
    your personnel on the ground remind us of the importance of a
    strong and talented and equipped Federal workforce. And I
    really appreciate that. And I think for all of the time that is
    spent beating up on our Federal workers for various reasons, we
    heard over and over and over again how competent and talented
    and organized and resourceful the assets are on the ground.
        It is also true that, you know, while there have been
    clearly, as was pointed out to us both by the chairman and
    other Members as well as the officials in New York, you know,
    problems with payout for previous storms, we have to clear
    those things up, but it shouldn't stop us from moving forward
    and from making a commitment to the people of all of the storm-
    affected areas that we are going to provide what is necessary
    to rebuild and to replace.
        I hope that the members of the panel today will address
    questions regarding how we need to rethink our infrastructure
    in light of these kinds of storms in these low-lying areas. The
    elephant in this room that needs to be spoken about is the
    impact of climate change and the increasing intensity of storms
    and the variedness of the storms, the breadth of a storm like
    Sandy. And I think that we have to rebuild and rethink our
    infrastructure in those terms. And that is something that this
    Congress and our next Congress ought to address sooner rather
    than later.
        Things like our power grid in densely populated areas; what
    is it that we can better do to better protect them to make sure
    that we are able to bring them back on line as soon as
    possible? Our water infrastructure, sewer infrastructure that
    is located close to the coastline so that it is more
    vulnerable; and of course our transit infrastructure. To know
    that at least one tunnel in New York that is brand-new is
    devastated. And the tunnels, the tubes are old. And while the
    city, I think, has done an amazing, amazing job in getting
    things back on line and people moving from one place to
    another, that infrastructure is really vulnerable, as it is
    vulnerable all across this country.
        And so I think, you know, at a time where we are constantly
    haggling, as sometimes we need to, over budget constraints, the
    importance of investing in this infrastructure now so that we
    don't make it more vulnerable later on needs to be high on the
    priority list because the damage to us in terms of our long-
    term economy and competitiveness I think is really huge.
        Mr. Chairman, in addition, I think one of the things that
    we will come to learn, and not in this committee, is that we
    are challenged by our weather prediction assets, as well.
    Although we had a lot of warning with Sandy, it allowed for
    prepositioning and for moving in assets, that that is
    vulnerable to budgets as well. And the impacts, whether on the
    east coast or any of our other coastal areas, will be
    tremendous.
        And then lastly, I know with respect to Maryland, although
    I want to hear addressed why it is that we were denied the
    final kind of recovery and rebuilding, I understand the
    importance of balancing when it is appropriate for Federal and
    State assets to take over. And we have had the great benefit of
    Maryland being provided assistance in the last year's derecho
    and the three blizzards the year or two previous to that and in
    other storms. Maybe our Governor will appeal that decision. But
    I am just interested to know the process by which FEMA goes
    about making a final determination.
        And I thank you all for your testimony today.
        Mr. Mica. If there are no other Members that seek
    recognition, then we will go now to our panel of witnesses.
        And we have today appearing before the committee Craig
    Fugate, the Administrator of FEMA; Major General Michael Walsh,
    Deputy Commanding General, Civil and Emergency Operations for
    the Corps of Engineers; Mr. Fred Tombar, and he is the senior
    advisor to the Secretary for Disaster Recovery with HUD; Mr.
    Robert Latham, executive director of the Mississippi Emergency
    Management Agency; Mr. Mark Riley, deputy director, the
    Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency
    Preparedness, State of Louisiana; and then Mr. David Popoff,
    and he is the emergency management coordinator for Galveston
    County, Texas.
        So, first of all, welcome. Thank you for your
    participation.
        The order of business will be we will hear from each of the
    witnesses; then we will go to questions. And I was told--we
    don't want to delay Mr. Fugate. So what we will do when we go
    to questions, we will limit the first round of questions to Mr.
    Fugate and then get the rest of the panelists, if that is--
    well, that will be the way we are going to do it, so just want
    to let you know upfront, to accommodate the Administrator's
    schedule, particularly in this very difficult timeframe that he
    faces.
        So, with that, let me welcome the gentleman, former
    gentleman from Florida, who we are very proud of to have had us
    help in so many ways in Florida. And I think we are prone to
    every disaster. We have had hurricanes, multiple hurricanes, we
    have had floods, we have had fires. Everything but locusts we
    have dealt with. And now he is here leading the Agency in the
    capacity of FEMA director.
        So welcome. You are recognized.
        And let me tell you, too, I saw some long testimony here.
    You all have 5 minutes. Longer testimony we will put in the
    record. And some folks have done a great job in preparation.
    But this is an opportunity to summarize that and also have a
    discussion about where we are.
        So, Mr. Fugate, welcome.

       TESTIMONY OF HON. W. CRAIG FUGATE, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
     EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; MAJOR GENERAL MICHAEL J. WALSH,
    DEPUTY COMMANDING GENERAL, CIVIL AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS, U.S.
     ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; FREDERICK TOMBAR, SENIOR ADVISOR TO
    THE SECRETARY FOR DISASTER RECOVERY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
        AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; ROBERT R. LATHAM, JR., DIRECTOR,
      MISSISSIPPI EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; MARK RILEY, DEPUTY
    DIRECTOR, GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND EMERGENCY
     PREPAREDNESS, STATE OF LOUISIANA; AND DAVID J. POPOFF, CHIEF
     EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR, GALVESTON COUNTY OFFICE OF
                  EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, STATE OF TEXAS

        Mr. Fugate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Norton,
    and other members of the committee.
        Mr. Mica. Could you pull that up a little bit, Craig?
        Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir. Is that better?
        Mr. Mica. Yeah.
        Mr. Fugate. You know, I submit my testimony for the record,
    and my talking points are here, so I will keep it brief.
        Mr. Mica. Without objection, it will be included in the
    record.
        Mr. Fugate. First thing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank this
    committee and the House of Representatives for finally
    recognizing the sovereignty of the federally recognized tribes
    in your legislation which would have added them to the Stafford
    Act, allowing those tribes to request from the President a
    disaster declaration. That was an historical act that the House
    took. And, again, we eagerly await the Senate's action on that.
        The second thing, Mr. Chairman, I need to thank this
    committee and the appropriators for fully funding the Disaster
    Relief Fund in the previous budget. Those of us that were here
    remember Hurricane Irene and knew the challenges we had with
    very little funds left in that account and how it affected the
    response. Right now, in the Disaster Relief Fund we currently
    have a balance of $4.88 billion that has not been obligated
    yet.
        However, we do anticipate with Sandy, as well as other
    outstanding disasters--Congressman Long, we are still working
    in Joplin. We have still got people that need housing. We are
    still recovering from Irene. We had Isaac earlier this year. We
    had Debby in Florida. So we are working with the administration
    on what that supplemental request will require.
        The response to Sandy I think was due in part to a lot of
    the reforms that this committee took to amend the Stafford Act
    in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act. It
    clarified roles and responsibilities and gave us tools that we
    have been able to utilize successfully.
        Challenges remain. And I think some of the questions, as we
    talk about how we are looking at the longer term recovery,
    actually come from the requirements of that act. One of the
    things that Congress directed that FEMA was to develop was a
    long-term recovery plan. We have developed the National
    Recovery Framework that recognizes that FEMA programs by
    themselves will not successfully recover from storms of the
    size of Sandy. We have both preexisting conditions, and we have
    other areas where FEMA programs are not the best tool to engage
    in the types of work that will need to be done.
        And so, in recognizing that and using the framework, we
    partner with HUD. And the President concurred that it made
    sense that FEMA's programs, which FEMA will continue to
    administrate, all those funds out of the DRF, all the recovery
    dollars, all the individual assistance, all the mitigation
    dollars, will be administered through the States at the
    Governors' direction based upon eligible requirements.
        However, those programs by themselves will not address the
    preexisting housing conditions, as was pointed out, where
    people who lived in basements have nowhere to go. We will have
    a lot of challenges dealing with the housing needs far beyond
    the FEMA repair programs. And that is why it is so important
    that HUD, Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. DOT, and other programs
    that will be required receive the funding, but that FEMA's
    programs, working in partnership with the rest of the Federal
    team, will be working to support the Governors and their
    communities in recovery.
        The other lesson that we learned from Sandy, as was pointed
    out, is when you have a disaster of this size and this
    magnitude, it takes a lot of people, it takes a lot of
    resources. Some of those resources, because of the way that you
    have supported FEMA in our budget, allowed us to do things this
    year we had not had before, one of which is a partnership with
    the Corporation for National Service, in utilizing their
    AmeriCorps program, where we had just brought in the first
    classes under a program called FEMA Corps and deployed people
    in support of our response. These individuals, many of them
    very enthusiastic in their opportunity to serve this country,
    were there on the ground in the hard-hit States providing
    direct services and helping people register with FEMA
    assistance.
        Another thing, Mr. Chairman, that we took from your bill is
    something that we know is a regulatory impediment, is that we
    have not allowed jurisdictions to use straight time or their
    regular public works and other debris folks to pick up debris.
    We always said it had to be the extraordinary costs, oftentimes
    causing the unintended consequences of greater costs as they
    contracted out for services rather than using their own
    resources. The President concurred, and through emergency rule
    we were able to provide for Sandy force account or direct cost
    to local jurisdictions for picking up debris as a result of
    Sandy.
        Again, we have tried to address the concerns of this
    committee, and, where we can, we have implemented those
    procedures.
        One last thing that we have done, in working with our
    partners, is we recognized that the current household
    reimbursement that we would provide under individual assistance
    is capped at about $31,000. We know that is insufficient to
    provide repairs to many of the homes that were heavily damaged.
    However, if we can provide temporary repairs, many people can
    get back in their homes while awaiting more permanent
    assistance, which may require other Federal programs.
        So rather than being constrained by that, we actually used
    our shelter authorities and are providing expedient repairs to
    homes that allow people to get back in their homes but do not
    necessarily constitute permanent work, reducing demand for
    temporary housing and allowing the people to stay in their
    communities. Again, these are authorities that we have been
    using to address the fundamental issues.
        But I want to get to the last thing, Mr. Chairman, you and
    the ranking member brought up, and that is how do we further
    speed up the process while maintaining accountability and
    ensuring that work that is to be performed in a disaster is
    that that Congress has authorized, without necessarily treating
    it as a reimbursement process that takes indefinite timeframes
    to complete the review and rebuild cycles.
        We have identified impediments and are willing and are
    eager to work with your committee on technical language to
    address some of the shortfalls that we have incurred in Sandy
    and continue to provide questions for us as we attempt to look
    at how to speed up more of an estimate process that provides
    protection for both the applicants but also the Federal
    Government, and also ensure that we don't unintentionally
    create situations that may result in IG findings that could de-
    obligate substantial funds from jurisdictions after the fact.
        I think being a steward of the money sometimes, Mr.
    Chairman, is if we can't do it, we need to say no and not make
    promises or allegations that we can do something we can't. But
    when we do make a decision, I want those decisions not to
    penalize local jurisdictions if, after the fact, the IG finds
    other issues which would result in deobligations.
        And so with estimates, we want to make sure that as we go
    forward we are providing fiscal accountability to the taxpayer
    but also ensuring that the applicant isn't in a double jeopardy
    where perhaps the IG finds that they may have had a project
    that the funds weren't all required. Do they have to pay back
    the funds overages, or can they use those in their programs?
    What happens if we find that in those programs, they came up
    with an alternative project, and is the IG going to find that
    that was not allowable? So we want to work with the committee
    and look at technical language that would ensure that as we do
    these estimates, they are do done in good faith, both the
    applicant and the Federal Government have equal protections,
    but more importantly, it addresses issues, how many times can
    the applicant appeal that decision? How many times do we go
    back and look at projects, and what happens if the original
    estimate is up or down a certain amount, what happens to those
    shortfalls or to those surpluses? And we will need guidance
    from Congress to answer some of those questions, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
        We will now move to General Walsh with the Corps of
    Engineers.
        General Walsh. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of
    the committee. I am pleased to testify on the Corps activities
    to prepare for, respond to, and recover from Hurricane Sandy.
        In partnership with other Federal agencies and States and
    numerous local entities, the Corps has engaged in a multitude
    of response activities in an effort to mitigate the risk to
    public health and safety and to facilitate the recovery of this
    severe weather event. The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
    Appropriation Account provides funds for the Corps of Engineers
    to prepare for and implement emergency response activities to
    natural disasters, including flood fighting, infrastructure,
    search-and-rescue operations, and rehabilitation of flood
    control and hurricane protection structures.
        Disaster preparedness activities include the coordination,
    planning and implementation of response exercises with local,
    State and Federal agencies. These exercises provide Federal and
    non-Federal agencies an opportunity to plan for natural
    disasters and learn about partner agencies' capabilities,
    resources and their responsibilities.
        Corps leaders, including district commanders and tribal
    liaisons and emergency management staff, regularly meet with
    State, Federal and local officials and other interested parties
    to discuss Corps authorities under our Public Law 84-99, which
    authorizes the Corps of Engineers to undertake activities
    relating to advanced preparedness, emergency flood fighting
    operations and rehabilitation of eligible flood control works
    or shore protection features adversely impacted by flood and
    storm events.
        These meetings provide an opportunity to share lessons
    learned from previous flood events and conduct table top
    exercises, review flood fighting techniques and strengthen the
    collaboration among the Corps, State and local governments, as
    well as tribal entities.
        In preparation for Hurricane Sandy, the Corps took steps to
    ensure its personnel, facilities, and equipment were prepared
    and prepositioned before the event. The Corps took preventative
    measures, such as lowering the pool elevations behind our dams;
    closing hurricane barriers in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and
    Connecticut; moving Corps vessels into safe harbors; and
    securing Corps construction projects and facilities.
        The Corps also deployed mobile command-and-control vehicles
    to key locations, prepositioned power generators and moved them
    into intermediate staging areas, located 512 truckloads of
    water to move into New York and New Jersey, as well as issued
    approximately 200,000 sandbags to the States.
        The Corps conducted pre-storm inspections along the coast
    by updating survey plans and employing extensive use of LIDAR,
    an optical remote sensing technology that is used to assess
    existing conditions on shoreline protection features. Personnel
    were activated to the district and division emergency operation
    centers, liaison officers were deployed to State emergency
    operation centers, and emergency support function team leaders
    and their assistants were assigned to the States. Before and
    during our response to Hurricane Sandy, the Corps continued its
    tradition of close collaboration and coordination with the
    Federal, tribal, and State partners. The Corps participated as
    an integral part in FEMA's Joint Information Center,
    coordinating activities among all the responsible agencies and
    transparently communicated with all the affected parties.
        Described as a superstorm, Hurricane Sandy brought over 80-
    mile-per-hour winds and storm surges above 13 feet. Flood
    damages in the hardest hit areas severely impacted public
    infrastructure, flooding subways, highway tunnels, public
    housing structures, wastewater treatment plants, causing
    extensive power outages, impacting mass transit systems, and
    affecting public housing as well as private residents. Although
    the north Atlantic shore suffered severe coastal storm damage,
    existing Corps shoreline protection and beach nourishment
    projects performed as designed and helped mitigate the flood
    damages.
        In response to the disaster, the Corps of Engineers moved
    folks from six different districts, and their division
    emergency operation centers were activated in numerous
    response, and we surged a number of members forward. The Corps
    responded to mission assignments from FEMA and provided over
    1,000 highly trained technical personnel, including the 249th
    Prime Power Battalion, to 13 States.
        To date, the Corps has accepted 69 FEMA missions for over
    $380 million to New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Delaware,
    Ohio, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, West Virginia, and Rhode
    Island. These missions include emergency support function
    management, as well as technical assistance, temporary housing,
    commodities, temporary power, and debris management and
    removal. We worked closely with the Coast Guard to determine
    threats to navigation and waterway closures, and affected ports
    were cleared for operation.
        In conclusion, the Army Corps of Engineers continues to
    stand ready to respond to and assist in disasters like
    Hurricane Sandy.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy
    to answer any questions from you and other members of the
    committee.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you. And as I said, we will hold questions.
        Mr. Fred Tombar, senior advisor to the Secretary for
    Disaster Recovery with HUD. Welcome. And you are recognized.
        Mr. Tombar. Thank you.
        Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Norton and members of the
    committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today
    regarding Federal actions in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy,
    particularly by the Department of Housing and Urban
    Development.
        As senior advisor for disaster recovery to HUD Secretary
    Shaun Donovan, I have been deeply involved in those activities,
    including with respect to the role that President Obama has
    announced for Secretary Donovan.
        As I described in my written testimony, Hurricane Sandy and
    the nor'easter that followed caused widespread damage and
    forced hundreds of thousands of families from their homes. This
    is an issue of particular concern to me, as I directed a key
    project in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Road
    Home Program in Louisiana. This project served as the single
    largest housing recovery program in the history of the United
    States.
        As someone born and raised in New Orleans, I have seen
    firsthand both the devastation that storms like Sandy and
    Katrina have brought and the tremendous results of sustained
    and effective recovery and rebuilding efforts.
        Let me describe HUD's participation in the ongoing response
    and focus on recovery efforts concerning the storm and discuss
    the role that the President has announced for Secretary Donovan
    with respect to Federal rebuilding efforts. HUD has played a
    significant role in response to recovery from past major storms
    and is doing so with respect to Sandy.
        It is important to note the unprecedented cooperation that
    is taking place across the Federal family and in cooperation
    with State, local, and tribal authorities. This cooperation and
    partnership is how we will continue to speed the recovery of
    affected areas. Key to HUD is providing immediate help to
    storm-displaced families to find temporary replacement housing.
    We have identified thousands of housing units, including more
    than 12,000 in HUD subsidized housing.
        HUD has also focused on help to persons living in and
    owners of HUD-assisted housing damaged and destroyed by the
    storm. For example, to rapidly deliver safe and decent housing
    to displaced public housing and subsidized multifamily housing
    residents we are helping to temporarily find places for these
    persons, giving boilers and generators to impacted developments
    that house low-income families, and waiving administrative
    requirements.
        Relief from the storm cannot be accomplished by the Federal
    Government alone. That is why HUD is working to encourage the
    private sector to help displaced families. Shortly after the
    storm, HUD Secretary Donovan reached out to several private
    sector organizations to encourage their involvement in this
    effort and a number have stepped forward. We have deployed
    scores of HUD personnel to help staff FEMA's disaster recovery
    centers and do other storm-related work.
        HUD has provided foreclosure protection to more than
    200,000 homeowners in affected portions of the tri-State area
    who are storm victims, through a mandatory 90-day moratorium on
    foreclosures. For storm victims who must rebuild their homes,
    FHA insurance is available for new mortgages, providing
    borrowers 100 percent financing, including closing costs. HUD
    has directed FHA lenders to provide insurance payments they
    receive related to the storm directly to homeowners to avoid a
    problem that occurred after Hurricane Katrina, where some
    mortgage companies used insurance payments that were supposed
    to be used to rebuild damaged homes for other purposes.
        HUD is also providing help to affected State and local
    governments. For example, we have provided waivers to existing
    rules so that Federal Community Development Block Grant and
    HOME funds can be used for disaster relief.
        On November 15th, President Obama announced that HUD
    Secretary Donovan will lead the coordination of Federal action
    relating to Hurricane Sandy rebuilding efforts. This role is
    different from the role the HUD Secretary usually carries out
    with respect to disasters in relation to the National Disaster
    Recovery Framework. Early in his first term, President Obama
    recognized that previous experience concerning Hurricane
    Katrina highlighted the need for additional guidance, structure
    and support to improve how we as a Nation address disaster-
    related recovery and rebuilding challenges.
        In September of 2009, President Obama charged the
    Departments of HUD and Homeland Security to work together in an
    effort to establish the Long-Term Disaster Recovery Working
    Group, composed of more than 20 Federal agencies, HUD, DHS and
    the working group consulted with State and local governments,
    as well as experts and stakeholders, and worked on improving
    our approach to disaster recovery and on developing operational
    guidance for recovery efforts. As a result, FEMA published a
    final version of the NDRF in September 2011.
        The Secretary's responsibilities in this additional role
    will occur in coordination with the NDRF and will involve
    cooperating closely with FEMA and other agencies already
    involved in the recovery efforts. A key objective, as President
    Obama has directed, will be to cut redtape for State and local
    governments and tribes as they seek Federal assistance for
    longer term projects and identify priorities for community
    development. As a person who has been the lead for Secretary
    Donovan since the start of the administration on disaster
    recovery, I can tell you that cutting redtape and helping
    communities recover stronger, safer and smarter than before is
    a responsibility he takes seriously.
        Work on structure and functioning of this effort is
    proceeding rapidly. Secretary Donovan has already met with a
    number of most directly affected Federal, State and local
    officials, as well as many of his colleagues in the cabinet. He
    asked me to express that he is looking forward to working with
    this committee and other Representatives and Senators on this
    important effort.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I
    will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        And we will turn now to Mr. Robert Latham, who is the
    director of the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency.
        Welcome. And you are recognized, sir.
        Mr. Latham. Thank you, Ranking Chairman Mica, Ranking
    Member Norton and distinguished members of the committee, for
    allowing me the opportunity to provide you with a statement for
    the record on what Mississippi has learned in responding and
    recovering from more than 20 Presidential disaster declarations
    since 2000, including Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
        Today many communities in the Northeast are facing some of
    the same challenges that the Mississippi Gulf Coast experienced
    following Hurricane Katrina. The landscape in these communities
    is changed forever. Large disasters affect every aspect of a
    community, where people work, where people live, where they
    worship, where they raise their families, where they shop and,
    yes, where they work. Recovery is a shared responsibility and
    must be driven by a well thought-out long-term recovery plan.
    This strategy can only be successful when driven at the local
    level. I would like to emphasize that; it must be driven at the
    local level. The absence of such a plan will often result in
    hasty decisions guided by political posturing and constantly
    changing priorities.
        There are never enough resources to rebuild the way we want
    to, but that does not mean we can't rebuild better, smarter,
    safer and more resilient communities. By engaging the whole
    community, we provide a much better chance for success. Unity
    of effort, transparency in activities and managing expectations
    is critical; managing expectations is absolutely critical.
        Every decision must ask one question: Is what we are doing
    in rebuilding best for the community, and more importantly, can
    we sustain it? In the rush to recover, community leaders
    sometimes fail to take advantage of unique opportunities they
    have. By thinking beyond temporary solutions to move to more
    permanent sustainable solutions, leaders can make the community
    attractive for repopulation and growth. Basic Government
    services must be reestablished, and shifts in population must
    be considered for housing, schools and health care. They must
    address, how do we stimulate an economic recovery and restore
    our tax base? And how can we leverage the resources, which are
    limited, from the very sources to maximize what we want to
    achieve?
        Avoid the temptation to constantly shift priorities for
    short-term gains. Housing, transportation, schools and business
    development must be considered when repairing or rebuilding
    infrastructure. Stafford Act funding never gets you back where
    you want to be or makes you whole again. Public-private
    partnerships is critical.
        So what are some of the barriers to recovery? The Public
    Assistance Program is a reimbursement program. Current law
    restricts FEMA from providing recovery funds based on
    estimates. Quite often, it makes sense to build a community
    back with a different footprint than what existed pre-event.
    When this happens, communities are faced with an extensive
    approval process for alternate or improved projects. The
    current Disaster Assistance Policy cap State management cost is
    3.34 percent of the Federal share of public assistance program
    cost; far much too inadequate to help a community recover like
    it should. Lack of flexibility in the Public Assistance Program
    often limits or restricts rebuilding a community the way that
    it should be.
        But applicants must understand that they cannot expect FEMA
    to pay for everything. Understanding Stafford Act eligibility
    early in the process and managing expectations in this process
    is critical to minimizing conflict throughout the recovery and
    delay in rebuilding. Many Federal agencies contributing funds
    to a recovery project must conduct its own environmental and
    historic preservation reviews. This oftentime results in
    multiple reviews for the same project resulting in extensive
    delays in the rebuilding.
        So what can with do to make the recovery process easier?
    FEMA and States must continue to work to identify potential
    opportunities in the PA program to make it easier for
    applicants, including implementing the results of the PA pilot
    program that was tested from June 2007 until December 2008.
    Congress should work with FEMA to change the language in the
    law that would allow FEMA to advance the Public Assistance Fund
    using estimates similar to block grants allowing for
    flexibility within specific guidelines for applicants, explore
    additional opportunities for PA pilot projects that can
    expedite the recovery process and help applicants recover;
    increased State management costs from the current 3.34 percent
    cap to 7 percent so grantees and subgrantees can afford what
    managing recovery actually costs; and streamline environmental
    and historic preservation reviews.
        In the face of disaster comes a tremendous opportunity for
    a community to build back smarter, better, stronger, safer and
    more resilient. Every disaster begins and ends locally.
    Successful recovery demands local leadership with a vision and
    a strategy and the resources to help achieve their community
    rebuilding efforts. Decisions must be made based on what is
    best for the community, not what is best for the State or the
    Federal Government. Finding ways to make the Public Assistance
    Program work better and more efficiently could significantly
    reduce recovery time and expedite disaster closeout. The
    consequences of every disaster are the same, except for the
    size of the event, the population and the cost of the recovery.
    We have to take advantage of the lessons learned in the past if
    we are to change the future.
        I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this
    committee to share my experiences in disaster preparedness
    response and recovery in Mississippi.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I would be glad to
    answer any questions that you or the committee may have.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        And will now turn to Mark Riley, who is with the Governor's
    Office Emergency Preparedness, State of Louisiana.
        Welcome. And you are recognized.
        Mr. Riley. Thank you. Louisiana is currently managing $14.5
    billion in Stafford Act funding for the recovery from nine
    Presidentially declared major disasters since Hurricanes
    Katrina and Rita struck in 2005. As a result of these events,
    we think of Louisiana as the largest living laboratory for
    recovery in the Nation, and we have a lot of experience.
        On behalf of the State of Louisiana, I would like to thank
    this committee for the opportunity to discuss our experiences
    with disaster recovery.
        Thank you, Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Norton and
    distinguished members of the committee, for taking an interest
    in providing leadership in this very vital discussion.
        Currently, there is considerable conversation among
    recovery professionals in both the public and private sectors
    that Federal recovery assistance needs to be rethought. We
    agree. The current process is too cumbersome, too bureaucratic
    and does not support the rapid, strong, resilient recovery of a
    community. Today we want to talk about the difficulties of
    recovery which Louisiana has experienced and New York, New
    Jersey, Maryland, and other States impacted by Hurricane Sandy
    are beginning to experience.
        Although we are discussing the Federal recovery process,
    that process is only one of the challenges that communities
    face during recovery. Seven years after the Nation's largest
    disaster, Hurricane Katrina, communities in Louisiana are still
    struggling, and the problems exceed just the implementation of
    the Stafford Act. To illustrate the issues of delivery of the
    Stafford Act Public Assistance Program, I would like to present
    an exhibit to your right and bring your attention to the
    foldout that was provided to the committee. It chronicles the
    project worksheet of the development of the Youth Study Center
    in New Orleans. Before I begin, let me emphasize that this is
    not an anomaly but is typical of thousands of facilities that
    were damaged by disasters in Louisiana. The Youth Study Center
    had significant damage. And from the city's perspective,
    supported by an analysis from its professional architects and
    engineers, the building was eligible for replacement under the
    Stafford Act.
        However, a year after the storm, despite the assessment
    from the city's professionals, FEMA would not agree that the
    building needed to be replaced and fixed the value of repair at
    $1.6 million. More than 7 years later and 182 meetings, FEMA
    has agreed to the replacement of the facility at $27 million,
    an increase of $25.5 million, but they still do not accept the
    architect and engineer's design assessments as to the number of
    pilings that are needed to support the facility. That shortfall
    is still $1.2 million. If we come to an agreement by the end of
    the year and after the city engages in design bid and
    construction, it is projected that the building will be
    completed in the year 2016, 11 years after Hurricane Katrina
    made landfall. As the timeline illustrates, this process does
    not support a rapid recovery.
        To compound matters, FEMA has limited the availability of
    direct administrative costs. In our single example, the city
    has incurred considerable cost preparing for and attending the
    182 meetings for the Youth Study Center. These costs will not
    be recoverable under the new FEMA policy, further inhibiting
    the city's ability to recover.
        Again, the Youth Study Center is not an anomaly. The
    challenges they face can be multiplied by thousands of similar
    projects across Louisiana. Another example is Charity Hospital
    in New Orleans. Originally estimated at $28 million for repair,
    we were finally able to break ground this year, after 7 years
    of disagreement and bureaucracy, for a replacement hospital
    valued over $530 million.
        Just for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we have over 2,000
    projects that have doubled in funding. More than 450 have grown
    by a factor of 10. And 1,300 projects have been amended more
    than five times. Clearly we need a recovery program that
    results in more accurate and timely identification of eligible
    work.
        In my written testimony, you will see some recurring
    themes. The size of a disaster significantly changes the
    requirements of delivering of disaster assistance. Time is
    critical. The FEMA PA program is too complex. Existing policies
    and processes are inconsistently applied at the ground level.
    Policies are inconsistent with the Stafford Act language and
    intent and limit authorized recovery support. Capacity for
    recovery from catastrophic events is limited at all levels, but
    especially at the local level.
        Let me be quick to say FEMA is a good partner, especially
    in the response phase. However, it is our experience that the
    regulatory process and its implementation is unnecessarily
    highly bureaucratic and cumbersome, seriously complicating a
    community's recovery from a disastrous event. Again, I thank
    the committee for its leadership and attention to recovery
    issues, and I am available for any questions.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        And we will turn to David Popoff, for our last witness,
    with Emergency Management for Galveston County, Texas.
        Welcome. And you are recognized.
        Mr. Popoff. Good morning, Chairman Mica, Ranking Member
    Norton and distinguished members of the committee.
        I am honored for the opportunity to provide testimony on
    this important topic. I along with a small and highly skilled
    staff are responsible for overseeing disaster response and
    recovery for all the unincorporated areas of Galveston County.
    I report directly to County Judge Mark Henry.
        First of all, I would like to thank the committee for their
    strong support in the Emergency Management Performance Grant
    Program, which is critical for building emergency management
    capacity at the local and State level. I would also like to
    thank you for your critical role that you played in the post-
    Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act to strengthen FEMA.
        Galveston County has a population of 300,000, which
    includes Galveston County and the Bolivar Peninsula. With about
    60 miles of coastline, our population swells during hurricane
    season. Most of the population in Galveston County lives in the
    10 incorporated cities on the mainland. Galveston County is a
    great place to live, work and play.
        Since 1960, Galveston County has been declared a
    Presidential disaster area 19 times. Galveston County also has
    the unfortunate distinction of being home to two of the worst
    Nation's disasters: the 1900 storm, which killed 6,000 people,
    and the 1947 Texas City explosion, which killed 581 people,
    injured 5,000, and vaporized all but one of the members of the
    Texas City Fire Department. As you can see, I work in a dynamic
    threat environment, so we take preparedness seriously.
        Our hearts certainly go out to all the people impacted by
    Superstorm Sandy. One of the most critical components of a
    hurricane response doctrine is never stop learning. Everything
    we do is learned at the pointy end of the stick. In the last
    decade, we have had three signature storms that we have learned
    from. The first one is Katrina. Katrina taught us about mass
    care and sheltering. From that experience came initiatives to
    pre-identify shelters and develop more detailed shelter concept
    of operations and to locate missing people.
        From Hurricane Rita, we learned about mass evacuation of
    major population centers. Who will ever forget the cars stuck
    in gridlock that ran out of gas in the Texas heat. From that
    experience, we developed traffic management plans; we developed
    State fuel teams to supply fuel to people who were evacuating
    and people who stayed after the storm. We also redefined our
    evacuation zones through a massive outreach program, and today,
    we actually use zip codes.
        Hurricane Ike was a dangerous storm beyond all
    preconceptions. Hurricane Ike's path was eerily similar to the
    1900 storm. Damage to Galveston County was catastrophic. Early
    recognition to the threat is critical. They say it was only a
    Category 1. Reclassifications of hurricanes is a priority one
    to dangerous, major, catastrophic. We need to stop using the
    numbers now.
        Cooperative relationships are critical. Galveston County
    has put a great deal forward in bringing together the entire
    team; the local, the State, the Federal agencies,
    nongovernmental organizations, private industries. We produce
    policies, procedures and we plan, train, and we operate
    together. Evacuation needs to be done, but it must be done
    quickly and remove the perceived barriers.
        The first point-to-point sheltering agreement was penned by
    the city of Galveston and the city of Austin after Hurricane
    Rita. No longer will we just tell people to go north and hope
    for the best.
        Reentry and recovery: Hurricane Ike destroyed the
    infrastructure and disabled most of ourmodern conveniences. We
    are fortunate that Texas deployed the Public Works Response
    Team. Debris removal was a challenge because most of the debris
    was on private property or in open fields. Bolivar Peninsula
    was a devastated community, so a local team was formed, and
    with extensive outreach, we were able to produce the Bolivar
    blueprint, and Bolivar is now a thriving community.
        Jurisdiction struggled with a wide variety of FEMA
    interpretations of policy, particularly with public assistance.
    This slowed down the completion of a project. Just as we
    thought we were in agreement that we reached on a project, it
    would require us to start over. We applaud the effort of
    Director Fugate for obtaining consistency in urging his
    recovery officials to get it right the first time.
        In conclusion, thank you for allowing me to testify today.
    On the Texas Gulf Coast, we say we have two seasons: We say we
    have hurricane season and preparing for hurricane season. As I
    have always said, emergency management is open book; we learn
    from our neighbors; and we won't fail if we use the system.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        I thank all the witnesses.
        And as I said, we will turn first for questions to
    Administrator Fugate, and then we will come back to the rest of
    the panel. And I will lead right off.
        Again, thank you for your work and your efforts and
    participating with us here today. I was pleased to hear your
    testimony, much in support of our pending legislation in the
    Senate and how you used some of that as a template for trying
    to take action and initiatives, but you do need the law.
        I might say one thing to you. I know OMB has not given--I
    don't think they have given you a sign off on providing us with
    the specifics, but any technical assistance you can provide to
    the committee so that we can improve the Public Assistance
    reforms in our bill, we would welcome that. The bill--you know,
    2903, I believe is the number, is over in the Senate--we are
    welcome to improving that. I heard a couple of suggestions here
    today, too, that we might consider in reform of our reform bill
    or additions to our reform bill. But we think that--we believe
    that, again, hearing the testimony of folks that have
    experienced problems, and a lot of the bill came actually from
    Members who had experienced problems in their own districts or
    States dealing with past storms, has the tools that will help
    you. Is that acceptable? Can you agree to participate.
        Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mica. OK. Good.
        And let me jump now to a couple of major questions. One,
    you indicated we have about $4.8 billion left in the account.
    You have moved quickly to distribute some funds and make up--
    how long will that last, and how soon do you expect a
    supplemental bill to come to Congress?
        Mr. Fugate. Well, Mr. Chairman, based upon what we are
    seeing and some of the obligations, as the Corps pointed out,
    some of the mission assignments we have already made that have
    already been subtracted from that, we would look at early
    spring. We don't have an exact date. Part of this will be as
    projects are coming forth, particularly on some of the large
    projects that we are dealing with. But we will look at early
    spring. We would probably reach the point where we would have
    to go to immediate needs funding.
        Mr. Mica. So you probably won't submit to Congress a
    supplemental and the administration won't until after the
    beginning of the year?
        Mr. Fugate. Mr. Chairman, I can't speak to that. I just
    know that where the DRF stands, we do not anticipate immediate
    needs funding until early spring. And again, thanks to the work
    of this committee and others making sure we were fully funded
    gives us that capability to continue a response. But we are
    working very closely with OMB as well as other Federal agencies
    as the administration looks at what additional funds will be
    required for Sandy.
        The one thing I am confident is, Mr. Chairman, FEMA will
    need supplemental funds, not this calendar year but this fiscal
    year, in order to continue the response to all other disasters
    as well as the obligations that will be expended in this fiscal
    year for Sandy.
        Mr. Mica. We have heard other disasters, Irene, still back
    to Katrina, in which there are obligations that have been made.
    Any estimate as to what that total is?
        Mr. Fugate. Based upon the $4.8 billion, that is already
    factored into what we are requesting----
        Mr. Mica. That would cover it?
        Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir. We were actually looking at, based
    upon your full funding of the DRF outside of Sandy, we actually
    had funds to go through the fiscal year, based upon not only
    your appropriations but also as we have closed out older
    disasters that put money back in the DRF. So we were not
    anticipating, outside of a catastrophic disaster, any request
    for additional funding. So, obviously, Sandy falls in that
    category as a catastrophic disaster. So it will be in addition
    to all of the existing disasters that we are working.
        Mr. Mica. Well, some of the temporary housing assistance we
    have provided will soon be expiring. Will there be
    opportunities for renewal? And then you heard one of the things
    we wanted to do is have HUD in here to explain what they were
    doing. And could you describe the cooperative effort, and will
    that be sufficient? But we were in New York and also--well,
    Manhattan, which is a whole unique venue for a disaster, and
    then Staten Island, I guess Long Island, New Jersey. They have
    very unique housing requirements and also higher costs. So how
    will what HUD has committed to and the President has said they
    are going to do coordinate with your efforts?
        Mr. Fugate. Mr. Chairman, the housing program, we are
    actually looking at three pretty substantial areas. The first
    one was the temporary sheltering. And that is where maybe the
    home wasn't destroyed, but they couldn't get back in; they had
    power outages or other damages. We would provide in
    cooperation, this is a State request, on a cost share basis
    short-term mainly hotels, motels, short-term leases, measured
    in weeks, and we are extending that as the States request it.
    The traditional temporary housing where people have qualified
    and are leasing for a longer period of time goes to 18 months
    and we are working that. The other thing was, and this is
    something the committee had looked at before, is, how can we
    repair damaged homes to the point where if they could get back
    in their homes but it is not permanent long-term work, would
    that be more cost effective than renting a hotel or renting an
    apartment? So we are implementing that. But I think you hit
    upon one of the key reasons why we have been working very
    closely with HUD. Our programs do not do the permanent work
    that will be required to ensure there is sufficient affordable
    housing in these areas of devastation. And that is that part of
    that rebuilding that the Stafford Act doesn't address, but if
    we are not successful, we will end up like we did in Katrina
    where people were in temporary housing units, not for months
    but for years. We want to avoid that. That is why we thought it
    was important, why Secretary Donovan stepped up to the
    challenge as the President asked. If we don't have housing
    solutions in the short term, the temporary programs will not
    provide the long-term solution.
        Mr. Mica. From information provided by your staff to me
    earlier, there were 1,100 approximately housing units
    purchased. I know when we went through Katrina, we had hundreds
    of thousands of trailers, and we had them condemned because of
    the formaldehyde, and then we had them in storage and then we
    had to pay to get rid of them. It turned into a nightmare. Is
    this the only anticipated acquisition of housing from FEMA? I
    have also encouraged some temporary housing that could be
    reused. There are different products on the market. These
    will--the ones that I was told are not recyclable or would be
    pretty subject to some type of demolition or disposal at the
    end, the 1,100 that have been required--or I am sorry, not
    required; acquired.
        Mr. Fugate. These were units that we had that we moved into
    the area. We are working with the State housing task force. We
    did this preliminarily based upon not so much in the urban area
    but out in Nassau, Suffolk County and places in New Jersey
    where they indicated that may be a solution. Our preference is
    rental property. Quite honestly, Mr. Chairman, if we can put
    money back in the local economy, we would much rather rent than
    have to do the temporary housing. And we have moved towards
    manufactured housing to replace the temporary units that we
    used previously.
        But again, we are making options available to the State-led
    task force. How many they use we are not sure yet, but we
    thought it was prudent to move them in the area based upon the
    initial numbers----
        Mr. Mica. Do we have any--maybe you could supply the
    committee with, because they had told me the same thing but
    haven't seen any figures, and wondered what is going to be
    acquired and, again, what the needs will be. We have no
    assessment complete yet?
        Mr. Fugate. Mr. Chairman, I don't at this point, looking at
    what I have seen, I don't anticipate us acquiring any more
    additional units based upon some of the earlier reports. But
    again, as we work with this housing task force, we are going to
    find what the longer term needs are going to be. And quite
    honestly, it is going to come back to how much of that housing
    can be built in the timeframes that will be needed.
        Mr. Mica. Just two quick other questions: One, Katrina got
    so bad, we had such a backlog. We had the guy from--this guy
    was in Charity Hospital. And I had that opened up, even though
    it was closed, and we held a hearing in there to try to move
    that forward. I guess you are breaking ground you said this
    year. But we had a huge backlog, thousands I believe it was, of
    public projects that were being debated. We came back and
    changed the law and instituted arbitration. But staff tells me
    that was only good for Katrina.
        We don't have that in the 2903, but I would like your
    recommendation for arbitration or mediation, particularly on
    the public side, but I mean, it can also work on the private
    side because sometimes you are held to you know certain
    requirements and things do get sticky, but they need to get
    more than anything resolved. What do you think?
        Mr. Fugate. Mr. Chairman, I would like to think we make the
    best possible decisions we can. But I also recognize,
    particularly if we go to cost estimates, what happens when we
    cannot agree with the applicant on that estimate? What is the
    appeal process? And as the ranking member has oftentimes said,
    when you are appealing to yourself, the answer is usually going
    to be the first answer you gave. Why would you change your mind
    if you already told them no the first time? So I would look at
    that, sir, as we are looking at how to best facilitate public
    assistance, either in a grant process or some kind of a cost
    estimate, is how do we ensure that the States and locals are
    provided ample protection against arbitrary decisions on the
    Federal side but, on the other end, we don't create an
    unnecessary administrative process which then adds a regulatory
    burden to the Federal taxpayer. So it has got to be balanced.
    But I tend to come back to----
        Mr. Mica. I go back to Mr. Riley's chart you have got up
    there. He has got the large one up there that everybody can
    see, and actually produced a brochure. But 7 years of the thing
    going on and on, there has to be some ability for us to move
    forward in a more expedited fashion.
        Mr. Fugate. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is one advantage that
    Louisiana has on all of those outstanding projects that they
    have not agreed with. They can always go to arbitration.
        Mr. Mica. Well, again, the question would be, we have seen
    what happened in Katrina and we want also our legislation to
    reflect opportunities to resolve this so we don't have these
    situations occur in the future. So I will take your counsel.
        Mr. Fugate. Mr. Chairman, my recommendation is, you need to
    talk to the Governors and to the local officials. If we go the
    route of an estimate, how do we avoid multiple appeals to that,
    and how would they feel most comfortable that once we do an
    estimate, we are done? Because I think if we continue to come
    back after that, it isn't an estimate, it is just a project in
    another name. But if we go with a true estimate where we say we
    have made a decision, we are done, I would talk to the States
    and locals how they want the assurances that later on, they
    have not made a decision that cost them unfortunately that they
    didn't get what they needed to be rebuilt.
        Mr. Mica. Well, again, we are looking for solutions and
    also ways to expedite this process. We will work with you.
    Finally, just one little thing. We have done a good job in the
    past getting water, some food supplies, things in reserve. And
    I see now repeated again, and this northeast storm was no
    different, the difficulty with getting fuel and power,
    particularly with a jam up we had of people in long lines and
    everything, it seems like we could contract with simple
    suppliers and maybe have some equipment. I have seen where they
    can even put meters on some of these tankers and get them into
    areas. They prepositioned a lot of the power assistance. We
    prepositioned, and you have done a good job with food and some
    basic supplies, but I think we need some plan for
    prepositioning fuel and power, and we will be glad to work with
    you on that.
        Mr. Fugate. Mr. Chairman, the inherent danger of trying to
    replicate what the private sector does every day, just to give
    you an example, on fuel we had contracted with a defense
    logistic agency that was providing emergency fuel to responders
    as well as to some of the public. The total amount which was
    having to go again oftentimes competing with the same vendors
    that were doing it locally, so we were having to even bring
    fuel from further away. I don't think we ever got to one-tenth
    of what the total demand on an average day was in New York. I
    think part of this is we need to look back at critical
    infrastructure, which is primarily owned by the private sector
    as an investor-based operation and look at how we can ensure
    resiliency in those systems. For us to replicate that and on
    the scale that would have been required would be staggering.
        Mr. Mica. Again, I don't advocate replicating it. It
    somehow hasn't worked. I think we need to find a better
    mechanism for power and then fuel. Power, most of our problems
    I was told was from the public utility, I guess in Long Island,
    and they dropped the ball there. The others were
    prepositioning, and that went off very well. But I meant power
    to essential fuel generating and also fuel providers. And that
    can be brought in I think faster in the future. So we should
    look at that. Not getting into the weeds too much, and we will
    have some more discussions on that, let me turn to Ms. Norton.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have been listening closely, Mr. Fugate, at what you have
    been saying about cost estimation, especially since there are
    difficulties. And you have talked about the appeal process.
    That seems to be the basic difficulty. We got so fed up with
    money lying on the table and the appeals during the Katrina
    recovery process, that is how we came up with the arbitration
    notion. One thing arbitration, where both parties have to agree
    on the arbitrator, is that is the final result. And I am not
    sure there is any way to get around it. As you have said, and
    as we said here, you can keep appealing to yourself and
    expecting a different answer.
        Now, I understand there was a pilot project, and I am going
    to ask you about that first, that there was a pilot project for
    cost estimation up to half a million dollars, projects of half
    a million dollars or so. And that while some chose cost
    estimation, others, which I take it would have been expedited,
    others chose to go with the old system. And to expand, part of
    the difference was that if you used cost estimation, you gave
    them flexibility on straight or overtime; whereas, with the
    present system, you pay for straight time.
        What did that pilot project--how did that pilot project
    inform you? What did it tell you about whether or not cost
    estimation is just a figment of our imagination? Here you have
    done something on the ground that I would respect. What did you
    learn from the pilot project? Because people could choose one
    or the other. They didn't choose cost estimation. Why they
    didn't choose it, I would be interested to know. And I would be
    interested to know whether or not choosing cost estimation to
    get rid of debris--nothing is worse than living in such a
    storm-tattered place and the debris is there month after month
    after month. Did the jurisdictions themselves believe that
    better to have it lie there than to go to cost estimation? And
    if they didn't use it, why didn't they figure they should use
    it? Why did they go for the sure thing?
        Mr. Fugate. I would hesitate to say exactly why. I know
    some of the reasons were this. In the cost estimation, if it is
    going to be working and it is going to be effective, is we come
    to a number, we agree to it and we are done. I think the
    concern has always been we may not know all of the cost at the
    time the estimate is made. And the question was always, well,
    what if we find out it is going to cost more? If we agreed to
    the estimate, we can't get any more money. If we go through the
    traditional process, we literally can come back multiple times
    as we see incremental cost increase and add those in.
        I think, though, with debris we are gaining more confidence
    in the Corps modeling. And having looked at what the Corps
    models are versus actual debris cost, I think we can come up to
    a much closer number. But it is always the concern that if I am
    an applicant, I always want to come back and if it cost me more
    money, get more money. Well, that kind of defeats the purpose
    of doing it as a cost estimate.
        I think there is another part of that, though, that does
    make more sense. And this goes back to the charities and these
    other big projects. And that is looking at a design-build
    phase, where we do a design phase where we fund them to come in
    and take these complex projects, get their cost estimates, get
    their design, do all of the environmental historical review,
    come in with the architect or the professional engineer
    certifying these are the costs and we agree to that. And then
    the second part of that is, we issue the grant and we are done.
    That would get a lot of these potential unknowns out early, it
    would get a lot of the regulatory issues on the front end, so
    we know what those costs are, and once we have an agreeable
    cost, then we issue the grant. As it is now we do a
    reimbursement process where, again, we don't give them all the
    money upfront, it is reimbursed, it takes time. We would like
    to approach that, but we think there is some technical issues
    we have. And counsel may be more aware of this, but we are
    running into issues where actual cost versus estimated cost and
    also, what happens if the project comes in under what we
    authorized, what happens with those dollars if they have a
    surplus, and do they have any recourse if it turns out the
    project cost them more money? And again, we are back to they
    want to come back and get more funds, which is a more
    traditional project. So we are working this. We think if we can
    get the skill to make sure States and the locals are
    comfortable with these decisions, it is faster for everybody to
    do this as a block grant estimate versus a project that is
    reimbursed that literally can take years in the rebuilding
    process.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Fugate, have we once and for all gotten rid
    of the process, which perhaps was even worse for us during
    Katrina, where the Government hired somebody to do an estimate,
    the State hired somebody to do an estimate, and we paid for
    both of these estimates and then we are caught betwixt and
    between these estimates that we have both paid for? I thought
    we agreed that that was not the most cost-effective way to get
    an estimate; that we could agree in the beginning on somebody
    that we both agree should come up with an estimate and then we
    would go with it. Are we using that?
        Mr. Fugate. Yes. Let me give you a specific example. I was
    up at NYU University's Hospital, which was heavily damaged in
    the flooding. I had my senior public assistance official, Bill
    Roche, with me. We were walking through the basements. Senator
    Schumer had brought us there. Devastation. The facility wanted
    to know what kind of documentation; do we need to get our
    inspectors down there to look at the electrical system that had
    been damaged by the seawater? And Bill said, look, if you will
    get your engineer to certify the damages, we will accept it, we
    will not have to come down here and look at it. So we are--
    again, I won't say it is 100 percent. There is probably
    somebody that didn't get the email. But if you have a licensed
    engineer, professional engineer, architecture or other licensed
    individual certifying the damages, we will accept that and have
    been using that to make those determinations.
        Ms. Norton. That is a very important efficiency, and I
    commend you on that.
        I am very interested in this program that apparently is
    being used in New York to allow people to stay in their own
    homes without power instead of going to temporary housing. I
    don't know if we have ever done that before. It does seem to me
    that that is very important to do. And does it apply to people
    that live in apartment buildings? Does it apply to other States
    other than New York? The only information I have is New York.
        Mr. Fugate. Yes, ma'am. This is something New York has
    asked. We have made it available to other States to have
    individual assistance. What we are looking at is those people
    that cannot take power, you know this is where the power has
    come back on, but they can't take power because they had water
    damage; we are providing funds to do more than just--if you are
    familiar with the blue roofs, where we do temporary roof
    repairs trying to get people back in their homes, we have
    extended this to look at what things can we do just to get the
    power turned back on so people could stay in their homes and
    not put a demand for other housing assistance at a much greater
    cost to the taxpayer. It didn't mean we are doing all the
    repairs, but we are doing just enough to get the power back on.
    In some cases, because of the way their homes are built with
    basements, we are having to look at also water heaters and
    boilers. But we are just doing enough so they can get back in
    their home. They are still going to have to take care of
    permanent repair costs and are going to probably still need
    help from HUD and other programs or volunteer agencies like Red
    Cross. But this at least gets it back where the power company
    can hook them back up and they can stay in their home while
    they make repairs versus leaving their home, their community
    and going to a temporary housing source.
        Ms. Norton. And does it apply to people who live in
    apartment houses?
        Mr. Fugate. To be honest with you, I don't think so,
    because in those cases we are dealing with an occupant where we
    either are working with the housing authority, which HUD is
    working very closely with those on bringing in boilers and
    other things to get power back up. So this is mainly directed
    at attached or single family, not so much the large apartment
    buildings. But HUD has been working with both those of the
    housing authority and those that provide low-income housing and
    are providing assistance as we are supporting them in the Corps
    in getting their critical life support up, not only power but
    also boiler operations so they have heat.
        Ms. Norton. And perhaps this wouldn't work in New Jersey,
    where so much of the housing was wiped out, but is there any
    reason why this stay-in-place approach could not be used in New
    Jersey or some of the other States that were devastated by
    Sandy?
        Mr. Fugate. No ma'am, it can be used. In fact, we are
    working with the State of New Jersey's State-led housing task
    force. This is one of the tools that we are giving them as they
    look at what those needs are and how to best meet their needs.
        Ms. Norton. Could I ask you, HUD and FEMA have always
    worked when there has been a major storm. How would you
    describe the major difference now between this new relationship
    with HUD, with HUD as apparently the lead coordinating agency
    and yet FEMA, and you can see that we are talking to you first
    and foremost here this morning, still in charge of much of what
    the public expects. What is the difference between what you are
    doing now and what you were doing for example in Katrina?
        Mr. Fugate. I think, in Katrina, the problem was there was
    not a concerted effort to address what the housing needs would
    be. And as Fred pointed out, in some of the programs he ran,
    the Federal Government never really anticipated that kind of
    rebuilding efforts, and initially, everybody turned to FEMA.
    FEMA doesn't do a lot of the permanent work, nor do we deal
    with the preexisting conditions. So it is a natural fit of
    existing programs and authorities that take what we can do in
    the short run and match it up with what HUD is best at, which
    is providing longer term affordable housing solutions.
        And we are going to go far beyond housing. As was pointed
    out by several members, we have transportation issues that go
    far beyond merely repair work. We have Corps of Engineer
    beaches that are authorized. But again, as the damages mount
    funding those programs. So as we looked at this it became clear
    that we are dealing with not only State issues; we are going to
    have regional issues that go beyond the States. And so having a
    cabinet level member leading the non-Stafford Act programs and
    funds and plugging in so that, as we go forward with our short-
    term programs, there is an end where there is housing
    available. What we don't want to get into is what we saw in
    Katrina. We do a lot of short-term events and 5 years later
    people are still living in a trailer because there is no
    housing solution at the other end. And again, this goes far
    beyond what FEMA does; it goes far beyond the Stafford Act. The
    Stafford Act is a key part of this initial fix or repair, but
    it does not get to the preexisting conditions; it does not get
    into things that FEMA has historically not done well that other
    programs are much more successful in doing with their
    authorities; and it doesn't get to some of the regional
    challenges that we have in that dense populated the area.
        Ms. Norton. So HUD will be dealing exclusively with
    preexisting conditions, what is to be rebuilt and not FEMA?
        Mr. Fugate. I would let Fred speak to it, but I think the
    term is rebuilding and looking at how do we work long-term
    housing solutions, particularly given the density of some of
    the housing authorities as well as other parts of the
    communities that were devastated?
        Ms. Norton. I have one more question. When we did the Post-
    Katrina Act, in fact after 9/11, when FEMA was made a part of
    the Department of Homeland Security, we were focused mainly on
    terrorism. Now what we have learned as a result of the
    droughts, as a result of Sandy, as a result of Katrina, is
    that, I don't know, we may not have another 9/11; we certainly
    have done a lot to prepare in case we are faced with another
    tragedy of that size.
        But we almost surely are finding ourselves each and every
    year with a major unprecedented set of storms--not just storms.
    I don't even know what is happening on the west coast, but that
    looks like something other than their usual rainfall.
        Has being in the Department of Homeland Security been of
    any material advantage to FEMA, as opposed to when FEMA was not
    a part of the Department of Homeland Security? And as a State
    official, you have participated in the before-and-after of this
    question.
        Mr. Fugate. The short answer is yes, because of the
    availability of the other resources.
        I will give you an example. One of the things that we have
    launched that I didn't put in my comments, in my testimony--it
    is a fact that FEMA has a finite workforce. And even with our
    reservists and the ability to call people up, it takes time to
    get people into a disaster area. We were able to leverage
    Department of Homeland Security and send over 1,200 Homeland
    Security folks from various components of the Department into
    New Jersey and New York to do the initial response support.
    That would not have readily been available without that.
        So I would continue to support that our role within
    Homeland Security, as you have directed in that act, as the
    principal advisor to the Secretary and the President as well as
    Congress on emergency management, thrives in this environment.
    And it is the additional resources we can tap in to as part of
    the Department that enables us, in some cases, to actually
    augment our FEMA resources.
        Ms. Norton. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Fugate. And,
    again, thank you for your work on Sandy, in particular.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        Other Members?
        Mr. Harris?
        Dr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator Fugate, thank you for appearing before the
    committee today.
        I was informed yesterday that Maryland's request for
    individual assistance had been denied. Given that some of the
    counties in my district are some of the poorest counties in
    Maryland and these individuals really are going to have
    difficulty rebuilding, can you explain what specific
    qualifications were lacking in our request as compared to other
    States that were successful?
        Mr. Fugate. The number of destroyed uninsured losses was
    not very high. The number of affected would suggest that it was
    within the capabilities of the State of Maryland.
        The trouble with trying to do this is it never addresses
    the individual trauma of the destruction; it is always based
    upon the impacts to the State as a whole. And we look at the
    availability of other programs, such as Small Business
    Administration disaster loans, and, again, the State's ability
    to redirect community block development grant dollars to
    address some of these issues.
        So it is not based upon the trauma to the individual. You
    know, our hearts go out to them. It is based upon the impacts
    to the State as a whole. And we looked at that and made a
    determination and recommendation that the President concurred
    with that at this point the information does not support a
    major Presidential disaster declaration.
        And it is not uncommon that in a same storm system States
    side-by-side may find different outcomes for individual
    assistance, whether it is tornadoes, floods, or storms. But it
    is always based upon our best estimate of the information the
    State provides against the available programs that may be
    there.
        Yesterday I spoke to Gail McGovern, president of the
    American Red Cross. The American public has been very generous
    to the Red Cross. And that continued support allows them to
    support not only those that are in the areas that have been
    declared by the President but also in those areas that have not
    been declared. And I brought to her attention, again, the State
    of Maryland, that there are individuals there and communities
    that still need help. And even though it did not warrant a
    Presidential disaster declaration, it should never take away
    from the fact that people did have damages and losses due to
    the storm.
        Dr. Harris. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        Mr. Nadler?
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Major General Walsh, I want to follow up with you on the
    Sea Gate protection project in Coney Island, New York. As you
    know, the Sea Gate community has been vulnerable to storm
    damage for decades because of an error in the previous Army
    Corps project in Coney Island. The Sea Gate correction was
    finally slated to begin construction this fall. It has been
    fully funded by Congress, fully appropriated, and the local
    match secured. I know you are familiar with the project, as we
    discussed it in person earlier this year before the storm hit.
        Now that the area has been devastated by Sandy, it is more
    important than ever that the project be completed as originally
    intended and funded. I raised this with the Corps and with
    Secretary Napolitano during a tour of Sea Gate storm damage,
    and everyone said they would find a way to get it done.
        I assume the Corps will move forward quickly, but we
    haven't received confirmation of how the Corps intends to
    proceed. Can you confirm now that, in fact, the Corps will move
    forward quickly with the Sea Gate protection project as
    originally intended and funded by Congress?
        General Walsh. Sir, as you know, there is an authority
    problem with the funding. So we are going to move ahead with
    the project at a lesser funding requirement. So we will be
    looking at the----
        Mr. Nadler. So that is a ``no'' to the full funding that
    was appropriated by Congress.
        General Walsh. We will work with the authority that we
    have, and the project will move forward.
        Mr. Nadler. Well, of course our contention was that,
    considering the President's instructions to cut through redtape
    and find a way to say ``yes,'' and considering the more than
    considerable legal ambiguity, that I can't imagine anyone wants
    to tell the community they should remain vulnerable, given what
    just happened there, and that given that Congress has
    appropriated all the funds necessary to do the project. But I
    gather from your reply that we are going to have further rather
    difficult conversations.
        Mr. Fugate----
        Mr. Mica. Mr. Nadler, just a second.
        If you wanted to quickly--did you want to respond to his
    comment?
        What we had asked was that we try to get any questions for
    Mr. Fugate first.
        Mr. Nadler. That is why I am going to him now.
        Mr. Mica. OK. Well, that is the Major General. But if you
    go to him next. And other Members, please. Because I promised
    Mr. Fugate we would get him out as soon as possible.
        Mr. Nadler. I just said----
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        Mr. Nadler. Administrator Fugate, I recently wrote to you
    and to the EPA about environmental contamination from mold and
    other hazardous substances inside buildings following Sandy.
        Although FEMA will reimburse some homeowners for hiring an
    environmental contractor, in some places it is not that easy.
    In public buildings, such as public housing, it is more
    incumbent on public agencies to properly remediate. And in
    highrises, including private highrises, or densely populated
    buildings that you find in New York City, residents share
    walls, HVAC systems, and common areas, so that cleanup has to
    be done in a coordinated manner. If one resident cleans up his
    apartment but gets recontaminated through the HVAC system, it
    is not terribly helpful.
        Will FEMA support tasking EPA with overseeing comprehensive
    testing and cleanup of contaminated buildings and develop a
    plan that ensures that people's homes and workplaces are safe
    to inhabit?
        Mr. Fugate. We will take that message back to our partners
    at EPA.
        The other thing, Congressman, is those public buildings and
    public spaces that they need to do those inspections, that is
    eligible work for reimbursement of FEMA.
        But this is also something that Secretary Donovan is
    looking at. As you point out, in some of the privately owned
    apartment buildings, it is not clear what programs may be
    available. So we are looking at what additional programs and
    authorities may be needed outside of those that it is clear
    where FEMA can support activities, particularly in those that
    are privately owned buildings.
        Mr. Nadler. I appreciate that. So you--and I appreciate
    what you are saying, and I thank you for that.
        So I gather that you are saying there is a problem now, and
    especially in apartment buildings which are privately owned,
    where you can't simply isolate each apartment, you can't
    isolate each residence.
        Mr. Fugate. Obviously, there are going to be some
    challenges there. We are not sure exactly, particularly in
    those that are private, not public, how that would best go. A
    lot of this is going to come back to State and local health
    codes, those inspections, EPA providing technical guidance.
        But we will work with the State. We know this is an issue.
    It is something that we have dealt with before. But I think
    because of the number of buildings and densities and past
    history here, there is going to be required additional scrutiny
    as we look at what will be necessary to ensure air quality
    standards in these homes and businesses.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
        Let me go now to Ms. Schmidt.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Chairman Mica.
        I have a couple of questions for Mr. Fugate. Number one is
    I noticed in the testimony from Mr. Robert Latham that he
    talked about the duplicative environmental and historical
    preservation reviews, in that in each and every case, whenever
    you are dealing with an agency, each and every individual has
    to reinvent the wheel on those very time-consuming reports.
        And it seems to me that FEMA could have a box, that once
    somebody has done all of that assessment, that it can be passed
    down to everyone else in the chain that also has to go through
    FEMA or another governmental agency for money; that, in other
    words, just one process for those reviews that can be used for
    everybody, instead of everybody reinventing the wheel.
        And couldn't FEMA be the one to lead that charge?
        Mr. Fugate. Certainly something we have been working on.
    Part of it comes back to, though, is how our authorizers have
    given us authorities. Both the Corps, us, EPA, we all have
    responsibilities in doing these reviews. But since they all
    come from the same original Federal legislation, we are working
    on how we can reduce and share those findings.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Well, that doesn't make sense to me. If you
    are all trying to work together, why didn't you come up with a
    master plan? Or does it need legislation to say there is going
    to be one review when you all can look at it?
        Mr. Fugate. Where we can, we have. And we will take this
    back to work on.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Mr. Latham, you are the one that brought this
    up in your report. Do you want to respond to that?
        Mr. Latham. I think part of the problem has been when there
    are multiple funding sources and who the lead agency is for
    that particular project in the rebuilding process. And when
    there are multiple funding sources or multiple Federal agencies
    involved in that project, then we have to go through those
    multiple reviews. And I think what Craig is saying is that, you
    know, I think that there are some statutes, probably, that
    require the Federal agencies to do that.
        You know, I think what I am saying is, when we have those
    rebuilding projects that have multiple funding sources, Federal
    agencies oversight, there has to be a single historic
    preservation review process because multiple reviews extend the
    project tremendously.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Well, let me ask you, how do you think we can
    fix that? Should it be done by legislation, or should it be
    done by a mutual agreement?
        Mr. Latham. You know, I don't dare to understand all the
    Federal regulations, but, you know, from someone that has
    worked at the State and local level, you know, the fact that
    there is a declaration, number one, ought to trump just about
    everything. So when those funding sources contribute to the
    rebuilding of the project as a result of a disaster, then
    maybe--I am not sure; I certainly wouldn't dare speak for
    Craig--then maybe FEMA does take the lead.
        But, you know, I do agree that until we expedite those
    reviews and try to get them down to one review, that it is
    going to continue to drag out the rebuilding process.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you.
        Mr. Fugate, the second question is, in my district, back in
    March we had a tornado that hit and devastated a very small
    community. And our Governor really didn't want to go to the
    Federal Government for help because he said that he felt if we
    looked at it from a State perspective we could get it done
    quicker and cheaper and that there was a time gap between
    presenting the bill to the Government and getting
    reimbursement.
        And I forget whose testimony I read today that talked about
    the time gap between getting reimbursed and how it really is
    costly to local communities. Is there any way to resolve that?
        Mr. Fugate. Well, I would think the first response would be
    to the Governor's request. It is not only just timely; it is
    also, was it within their capabilities? I would assume that if
    it had not been within the capabilities of the State or they
    exceeded their per capita threshold for public assistance, they
    would have asked.
        What they may have been referring to has been a previous
    issue with Small Business Administration where, if you are
    appealing individual assistance, Small Business Administration
    historically had not moved forward with their authorities to
    issue a declaration. They have changed that and will do that
    separately.
        But as far as the reimbursement process, both Louisiana and
    Mississippi saw what we tried to do in the storm earlier this
    year. One of the things that is most immediate for them is the
    cost of the debris removal and their protective measures.
    Historically, we had always waited for the final bills. This
    kind of comes back to the estimations. We have been working and
    using estimates to forward initial funds for both debris and
    protective measures, those first dollars that go out the door,
    oftentimes within the first 30 days or less of the disaster. We
    are using estimates; we are not waiting for final numbers. And
    we are working to get money back in that is expended on the
    front end before we get to the permanent work.
        We are doing that in Sandy, working particularly with New
    York and New Jersey, where a lot of their smaller communities
    have expended literally millions of dollars, and have started a
    process of getting those initial reimbursements done based upon
    estimates. We are not waiting for the final bill.
        So we have been pushing to get cash back into the
    communities faster based upon those that they have expended
    when a declaration does occur.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        Additional questions for Mr. Fugate?
        Mr. Bishop?
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just one
    question for Mr. Fugate.
        I want to talk to you a little bit about the hazard
    mitigation piece of FEMA reimbursement. As I understand it, it
    is 15 percent of the first $2 billion of public assistance that
    goes to a State and then 10 percent of between $2 billion and
    $10 billion.
        So my question is, is that cap not too limiting?
        It seems to me that, given what we are going to be dealing
    with in New York, we have two problems. One, even though there
    is going to be a fair amount of public assistance money that
    will flow to the State, 15 percent of that, or 10 percent of
    that, will fall short of the kinds of preventive measures that
    we could take statewide. And then more specifically, it is
    going to set up a competition between, let us say, New York
    City, which has enormous needs, and counties such as the one I
    represent, Suffolk County, which has significant needs, nowhere
    near as significant as New York City, but we have our own needs
    with limited capacity to address them.
        So the question is, wouldn't we be wise to either adjust
    that cap upward or eliminate that cap so that we could be
    putting into place preventive measures that will save us money
    down the road and will also save our citizens a great deal of
    consternation and dislocation?
        Mr. Fugate. I will defer to Congress on raising the caps,
    sir. But I would also think we need to recognize that the FEMA
    mitigation programs are not well designed for some of the
    things that may be required.
        I will give the example of Louisiana, where a decision was
    made to build the protective levee structures. It was going to
    be primarily a Corps project. It was fully funded through the
    Corps. And it was a project that they expedited and got done
    rather quickly given the history of building that type of
    protection system.
        So I would not assume that merely increasing the FEMA
    dollars, which would go to the Governor and would then have to
    be determined by the State, the priorities--there may be other
    things to look at more holistically that would go beyond those
    FEMA mitigation dollars, particularly with some of the coastal
    communities----
        Mr. Bishop. Well, if I may, I am going to have the same
    question for General Walsh with respect to repairs that are
    pursuant to Public Law 84-99 with restoration to, in effect,
    pre-storm conditions as opposed to design standards. It is
    basically the same issue, which is, ought we be restoring in a
    way that would prevent future disasters or at least mitigate
    them, as opposed to just getting to pre-storm conditions or
    just spending up to a certain cap?
        Mr. Fugate. And, Congressman Bishop, you are going to have
    a lot of folks in your communities already wanting to elevate
    their structures because they saw where elevated homes went
    through the storm with very little damage and it was a very
    successful mitigation.
        Knowing that there is finite FEMA dollars, again, this is
    why we were looking at other Federal programs that have been
    used previously to support those activities, but also taking a
    look at some of the regional needs that are going to be
    critical infrastructure protections.
        And so whether or not Congress chooses that, I think the
    administration is actually looking bigger than what FEMA's
    mitigation programs do and looking at some of the challenges
    and what would be the best funding mechanism for some of the
    larger mitigation projects that may be required.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. Thank you very much.
        And I want to thank you again. Your people on the ground,
    at least in my county, have been phenomenal. Thank you very
    much.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        Mr. LoBiondo wanted a 30-second personal privilege here.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Major General, I just wanted to tell you what an
    extraordinary team you have in Philadelphia. Not just with this
    storm but over the years they have done just an exceptional
    job. Dedication above and beyond the call of duty. Finding ways
    to work with us, with all the coastal communities. And the
    outstanding work they have done has resulted in an enormous
    amount of money being saved from damage and I think from
    hurting people or loss of life.
        So I just wanted to make sure I publicly thanked you and
    congratulated and thanked them.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. LoBiondo.
        General Walsh. Thank you, sir. I will pass that information
    down.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        Mr. Sires?
        Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Fugate, what can I bring back to these people in the
    city of Hoboken that live in basements, that have lost
    everything, that this is their primary home where they have
    lost all their belongings? Is there any place that they can tap
    into where there is an assistance for these people?
        Mr. Fugate. Well, the most immediate assistance, if they
    are uninsured, is the FEMA individual assistance program, the
    1-800-621-FEMA, or they can register online at
    disasterassistance.gov.
        And we have set up and we have disaster recovery centers
    there. So if they have registered and they are still working
    through that, we are providing both short-term assistance as
    well as longer term housing.
        But I think you have to understand that, what are we going
    to do if we can't fix those basements? Where are they going to
    live? And I think that is why we are working very closely with
    HUD and why the President asked Secretary Donovan to take this
    lead. Because I think we can do some stuff in the short run,
    but if those basements--again, they are going to flood the next
    storm. Does it make sense always to go back where they were or
    to look at things differently?
        And I think this goes back with Congressman Bishop and
    others. There is a sense among the communities there that they
    don't just want to repair what was there. They want to really
    look at, how do we minimize people at risk next time? And
    because those basements oftentimes were affordable housing
    units, they are not as easy to replace because people didn't
    own them. It was a good place to rent. They were able to work
    and live in their communities. And that is gone. And it may not
    be repairable. And if it can be repaired, great. But how long
    is that going to take? But if we cannot repair all of that,
    where are people going to be able to live so they stay in their
    community, where their jobs are, where their schools are, where
    their kids go to school?
        And I think that is why the President recognized we are
    going to look far beyond Stafford Act programs. Because some of
    these issues will not be something that will get addressed
    immediately. We can deal with some of the immediate needs. But
    longer term, if we can't prepare all repair all those
    basements, or in the next storm, would it make sense to have
    people live somewhere else or have moreaffordable housing
    solutions so they weren't vulnerable next time it floods?
        Mr. Sires. Now, is that going to be a coordinated program
    with HUD?
        Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir. And that is again why the President
    has asked Secretary Donovan to take that lead, because, again,
    much of what is going to be needed longer term are not programs
    that FEMA has. They are really the programs that HUD and other
    Federal agencies have. And that is why we have looked at this
    from the standpoint of the recovery framework. Much of this is
    going to go far beyond what the Stafford Act programs were
    intended to do by Congress.
        Mr. Sires. And according to the mayor, she told me she has
    over a thousand families that were impacted by this.
        Mr. Fugate. Yep.
        Mr. Sires. The other question that I had is regarding fuel.
    And one of the problems that we had was getting the fuel to
    these places. And then once we got into these places, they
    couldn't hook up.
        Mr. Fugate. Yep.
        Mr. Sires. And, you know, like the Governor said, it was
    not an issue that we didn't have the fuel. It was an issue of--
    how do you deal with that? How do you----
        Mr. Fugate. Here is a recommendation from States that have
    been through it, since this is something that State
    legislatures are much better at doing.
        Mr. Sires. I actually talked to them also.
        Mr. Fugate. Many of the States that have dealt with this
    have come back with requirements to look at pre-wiring, not
    necessarily putting a generator in, but pre-wiring gas
    stations. Part of the challenges with underground wiring, it is
    not easy to get a generator hooked up. And so, doing some
    things ahead of time, where it does involve the private sector.
    It is going to be their money, but it is also their customers.
    Looking at pre-wiring stations and identifying key stations and
    key areas that have capacity, that the State would want to make
    sure that if the power went out and we got a generator, there
    they could service that community.
        But these are really things that I think we will be working
    with our State partners, as much of this, I think, is going to
    be the State legislature looking at lessons from other
    Governors, how to best address those distribution issues.
        Mr. Sires. I also think you should look at food stores to
    do the same thing. Because the other issue was, you know,
    obviously, all the food that went bad, you know, in all that
    area.
        Mr. Fugate. If history tells me anything, there will be a
    lot of retailers, particularly the food service industry,
    pharmacies, gas stations, that will be looking at either pre-
    wiring, transfer switch, or installing generators. We have seen
    this repeatedly after major hurricanes across the South, where
    it becomes a business decision that it is much better to have
    that generator versus deal with the losses and disruptions that
    occur when power goes out for not just days, in many cases, but
    weeks.
        Mr. Sires. And, again, thank you for the work that your
    people do.
        Mr. Mica. I thank you.
        And if we don't have any further questions for
    Administrator Fugate, we will excuse you at this time. Thank
    you for your participation.
        Mr. Fugate. Mr. Chairman, appreciate it. We expect that you
    will have further questions, and we will be responsive as the
    committee looks at additional information.
        Mr. Mica. And working with the other side of the aisle, we
    will leave the record open for a period of 2 weeks. And we may
    give all the witnesses additional questions, and appreciate
    their response.
        But we will excuse you now, and then we will go to
    questions for the other panelists.
        Mr. Fugate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        First, we have pending a question from Mr. Bishop from New
    York.
        Mr. Bishop, you are recognized.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want
    to thank you for holding this hearing.
        I just have one question for General Walsh, and you know
    what I am heading toward. It is the same sort of issue as the
    hazard mitigation cap.
        My understanding of existing law, Public Law 84-99, it
    limits repairs to pre-storm conditions as opposed to design
    specification. And as our Governor has said, we seem to be
    having a 100-year storm every 2 years. And so, it begs the
    question, shouldn't we be repairing to design specification as
    opposed to pre-storm condition?
        And I will just give you a very specific example in my
    district that I do not expect you to be familiar with, but
    there is a section of our shoreline called Tiana Beach. Tiana
    Beach is enormously subject to a breach. It was very badly
    eroded during the most recent storm. There is an effort in
    place between the Corps and the State of New York to put some
    sand on the beach at Tiana. But to restore it to its pre-storm
    condition continues to leave it very vulnerable to a breach.
        And so it just seems logical that we should be making a
    greater effort there so as to hopefully create something that
    withstands storms, such as we did in West Hampton Dunes, which,
    as I said in my opening statement, held up remarkably well
    compared to, you know, beach on either side of West Hampton
    Dunes.
        So there is my question. How does the Corps feel about
    this? I know it is the prerogative of Congress, but what would
    be the Corps reaction to lifting that restriction and being
    able to repair it or restore it to design specification?
        General Walsh. Sir, the Public Law 84-99 is an emergency
    authority to bring systems back to pre-storm condition. It is
    not a construction authority----
        Mr. Bishop. Right.
        General Walsh [continuing]. Or funding. And that is where
    the difference is.
        And I believe the answer to your question is there are a
    lot of construction requirements that are here on the coasts
    and in other areas that would go through a prioritization
    process in regards to bringing things to full design. Again,
    the 84-99 is an emergency authority.
        Mr. Bishop. If I may, though, but aren't we then, in
    effect, throwing good money after bad? I mean, it seems to me
    that, again, this is an issue we are going to have to confront
    given the frequency of such devastating storms. So I understand
    the distinction between emergency repair and construction, but
    I, at least, am going to push for a lifting of that restriction
    and push for design specification as opposed to pre-storm
    condition.
        General Walsh. Yes, sir. And I would agree that those
    communities that live behind an engineered beach probably fared
    better than those that did not.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. Thank you, General. Appreciate it.
        Mr. Mica. Other Members with questions?
        Mr. Sires?
        Mr. Sires. Yes, I have two questions.
        One, General, every spring I seem to get an awful lot of
    calls from people for debris on the river. Obviously, after the
    storm there is a going to be a lot of debris in the Hudson
    River. Are you making plans to pick up some of that debris,
    some of the piers that were destroyed and are floating around?
        And I know you have done a great job picking up debris up
    till now, but this is a constant problem on the Hudson River,
    as you know. So I was just wondering, you know, are you gearing
    up for this?
        General Walsh. Yes, sir. We have three debris vessels that
    are working on the Hudson and in the port.
        Mr. Sires. Great.
        And, Mr. Popoff, you mentioned that you had a plan for fuel
    delivery that you came up with since you get so many
    hurricanes. Is that what I heard?
        Mr. Popoff. Yes, sir. It was actually the State of Texas
    which came up with the plan.
        Mr. Sires. And what does it consist of?
        Mr. Popoff. It was developed by creating a partnership of
    the fuel vendors, the fuel distributors, and then taking the
    critical fuel locations--the locations along the evacuation
    routes, the interstate highways--the gas stations, making sure
    that they are full of fuel. And through their local emergency
    management partners, making sure that those facilities had
    emergency generation power for both evacuating and then
    reentry, including emergency responders.
        Mr. Sires. So they do have generators. You require them to
    have the generator?
        Mr. Popoff. No, sir. There is no State law or legislation
    that requires a private business to have a generator. But most
    of the retailers, as Director Fugate said, most of the
    retailers have realized it is just good business practice to
    install emergency generators.
        In my county, I actually have a service station on an
    evacuation route that has two emergency generators, and they
    did that as an initiative on their own. They weren't compelled
    to do it. They just realized it was good business practice.
        Mr. Sires. Do you know if food stores have the same
    approach? Are you aware of any?
        Mr. Popoff. Well, I am not too sure on food, sir. I can
    tell you the one instance in Galveston County, that particular
    store is a food store, but they have a large distribution of
    gasoline that they do there.
        Mr. Sires. All right. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        Ms. Norton, additional questions?
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do.
        We have seen a shoreline devastated that I cannot believe--
    and I suppose this is for Mr. Walsh--but I cannot believe that,
    even in the 100-year exercise that we have just gone through,
    that kind of devastating loss along the northeast shoreline was
    anticipated.
        Now, we have had a lot of talk about what happened and
    rebuilding, but rebuilding here is going to be very different
    from rebuilding in the Katrina-affected areas. To be sure,
    there were--for example, in Mississippi there were some
    business interests. Gambling along the shore, that was wiped
    out. I think they even went back and built. But it is hard to
    imagine talking about the shoreline of New Jersey, for example,
    and New York, that we aren't talking about millions of people
    who lived on or close to the shoreline or had second homes
    there. And I am not sure that any of our thinking about natural
    disasters has been left intact.
        Let me just read a section of what the National Weather
    Service provided to me, speaking about this area, where the
    Nation's Capital and many of its resources are located. ``It is
    not out of the question''--and here I am quoting--``under the
    right set of circumstances''--that is what you had in Sandy--
    ``a strong hurricane, Category 3 or higher, making landfall
    south of Washington and tracking to the northwest, a stronger
    storm could collide with a southern mid-Atlantic and generate a
    higher storm surge than Isabel for a Sandy-like storm displaced
    to the south. The reality of such a possibility, along with the
    slowly creeping sea-level rise from climate warming, should
    serve as a compelling call to action for local infrastructure
    planners.''
        Well, General Walsh, you are going to be in the midst of
    that, and so will you, Mr. Tombar.
        As the Corps helps to clear the debris and will almost
    surely be called upon to help build at least some of the public
    resources, what is the best way to protect the shoreline of New
    York and New Jersey, for example, so that we are not faced with
    such a disaster in the future?
        General Walsh. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
        The best approach that we have seen in a number of
    different areas is to look at things from a systems
    perspective. Trying to put a structural fix on one side of a
    city or a State and not on the other could have competing
    impacts. So what we advocate is looking at things from a
    systems approach.
        The other thing that we look at----
        Ms. Norton. I don't understand what that means. Here we
    have the shoreline busted. We had apartment buildings, we had
    single-family homes, we had multifamily homes along there. I
    don't know what a systems approach means.
        So please give me the common language in describing, if you
    are the Corps of Engineers, the Governor of New Jersey, the
    Governor of New York, are you going to rebuild there? What are
    you going to do to protect in the places that were devastated?
    What would the Corps recommend, what would HUD recommend to
    respect the shorelines of this part of our country?
        General Walsh. Yes. There are a number of projects along
    the coast. Many of them have their own authorities, and some of
    them have their own construction funding. What we try to do is
    we work through those designs to make sure that when we put a
    structure, a sea wall, or we put a beach renourishment project
    in one area, that it doesn't have negative impacts on another
    area.
        So we are looking at it from a systems approach to make
    sure that when we do a beach renourishment project that it is
    wide enough and long enough that it is not having negative
    impacts in another area.
        Ms. Norton. Are there island barriers of the kind that were
    in Louisiana that didn't prove as useful because we hadn't kept
    them--we hadn't grown them? Are there barriers, natural
    barriers, that could be useful or could be planted in the
    Atlantic close to these two States?
        General Walsh. Yes, there are barrier islands across from
    each of the two States. And we need to be looking at them from
    both a structural and nonstructural solutions to solving the
    storm surge.
        Ms. Norton. ``Structural and nonstructural'' meaning what?
        General Walsh. Structural means a beach renourishment
    project. A nonstructural is that people perhaps would move away
    from the risky areas.
        Ms. Norton. Are we sure that there will be no rebuilding,
    Mr. Tombar, in the affected areas until some barriers are
    constructed that would go far toward making a similar disaster
    not impossible?
        Mr. Tombar. Unfortunately, ma'am, no. What typically
    happens is that you have individual homeowners or building
    property owners who will move quickly to try to restore that
    which was damaged. And it will often outpace decisions that--
    some of these tough decisions that local political leaders and
    State political leaders have to make about mitigation. And so--
    --
        Ms. Norton. Isn't there something we can do about that? I
    mean, I can understand that people who have lived in an area
    all their lives, they can't possibly imagine not living there.
    But the Government is having to reimburse them, at least in
    part, for the damage they have accrued.
        Isn't there something that the Government can do to make
    sure that they don't get ahead of the Government and thereby
    perhaps incur additional costs to the Government at a later
    date?
        Mr. Tombar. Yes, certainly. We have, as Administrator
    Fugate mentioned, been working with the State-led housing task
    forces in all the affected States to begin to identify some of
    the tough decisions that need to be made and suggest to the
    local leaders, as well as the State leaders, some of the things
    that have been done in the past that we have seen that have
    proven effective in mitigating against subsequent disasters.
        For example, a recent storm, Hurricane Isaac, impacted
    areas that were impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Ike and
    Gustav prior to that, but because of the mitigation measures
    taken by individual homeowners at the direction of the State
    and local leaders, many of those homes that did, in fact,
    mitigate against future disaster by elevating were left, as we
    say, high and dry, without any impacts from Hurricane Isaac.
        Ms. Norton. Yeah, and that was not the case here because we
    had never experienced that kind of storm here. So what I am
    really asking is, could the Governors of New Jersey and New
    York use their governmental authority, their--yes, their
    authority to forbid rebuilding until an assessment was made as
    to the safety? Or is there nothing in place to keep people from
    going ahead and saying, To hell with it, I am putting up my
    house since there is nothing here to keep me from doing it?
        Would you recommend to the Governors of the affected States
    that they take some kind of action to at least delay the
    immediate rebuilding of homes in the devastated area?
        Mr. Tombar. Yes, ma'am. I am not quite certain what the
    authorities are for the individual Governors, but I can tell
    you that we have already been in discussions with them and
    their staffs about the fact that some of these hard decisions
    that are important for the long-term viability of these areas
    and to guard against repetitive loss in future storms like this
    need to be made as expeditiously as possible. But we have----
        Ms. Norton. I wish you would, within 30 days, get
    information to the chairman about what action HUD and FEMA have
    together taken, perhaps, to ask the authorities in these two
    States in particular whether something can be done to keep the
    rush to rebuild from occurring.
        Mr. Tombar. Certainly.
        I will say that what we are talking about here,
    essentially, are decisions around building codes. And those are
    things are not even controlled by a Governor's office.
    Typically, they are very locally driven decisions that rest
    with a mayor or county executive. And so, trying to drive some
    consistency and consensus around those decisions is that much
    more difficult because of the several layers of Government and
    authority that need to be acknowledged in this process.
        Ms. Norton. To be sure. I am still not convinced that
    Governors don't have authority, perhaps with their legislators,
    to keep from smacking us in the face with more liability
    because nobody could figure out who to turn to.
        Could I ask about Mississippi? Excuse me, one of our
    witnesses, or maybe it was the Corps, can tell me about the
    decision of the gambling interests to rebuild. Did they not
    rebuild precisely where they were before?
        Mr. Latham. Ms. Norton, I would like to answer that for
    Mississippi because, prior to Katrina, the gambling industry
    and the permitting for that required them to build on the
    water, to limit expansion. The legislature and the Governor
    moved quickly after Katrina to allow them to move inland.
        So the casinos have rebuilt, yes, but to a different
    standard that would minimize future impacts of storms. So I
    think that that part of our economic development side is much
    more resilient now than it was pre-Katrina.
        Ms. Norton. So they are not on the water but they are on
    land close to the water, and you think they are essentially
    protected.
        Mr. Latham. Yes. And most of them have moved all of the
    critical components of the casino. They all require hotels, but
    they are pretty much elevated so that the ground floors are
    built to blow out or are maybe parking areas so that the cost
    of recovery and rebuilding and the time required to get back up
    and going is minimized.
        Ms. Norton. One more question. It is really for Mr. Walsh.
        We have just gone through this 100-year exercise. And
    anyone who went through it, great hardship, because people
    didn't want to buy flood insurance. And it is the outcome,
    really, of Katrina that made FEMA, in fact, take us all through
    another 100-year exercise. And that really meant, you know,
    every 100 years, I mean, roughly speaking, you could get a
    Katrina-like, or here it would be a Sandy-like event, except
    that I don't think anybody contemplated even in 100 years a
    Sandy-like event.
        Is the 100-year storm notion, has it been made obsolete by
    recent storms in the last, let us say, 3 or 4 years?
        General Walsh. Congresswoman, the word ``100-year'' storm
    is actually a misnomer. It is a 1-percent chance of that event
    happening, and so it is 1 percent every year. And some people
    have used that 1 percent a year to say the event wouldn't
    happen in 100 years. But that is a misnomer. You have a 1-
    percent chance of----
        Ms. Norton. That is a good point. So is the 1-percent
    notion obsolete, or do we need to be rethinking even that? Does
    this fit? Did what happened to New York and New Jersey fit the
    1-percent notion?
        General Walsh. I believe it is a 1-percent storm, but I
    would have to go back and look at the storm surge.
        Ms. Norton. I wish you would get that information to the
    chairman, too, because maybe that is what 1 percent means.
    Makes a lot of sense to me.
        Final question for Mr. Tombar, and that is about exactly
    what resources that FEMA could not use, as I understand HUD to
    have a much broader array of resources and greater flexibility.
    And what is the value added of HUD being the coordinator,
    bringing to the table flexibility and resources that would not
    otherwise easily be available to FEMA? We discussed one of them
    with, of course, Mr. Fugate, but go right ahead.
        Mr. Tombar. Certainly. There are a few things I would say
    in that regard.
        One is, personally for Secretary Donovan, he is a native of
    the affected area, and his previous role was actually as
    housing commissioner for the city of New York. And so he has
    relationships because he worked directly with Mayor Bloomberg
    and----
        Ms. Norton. Is that the chief reason that HUD was made the
    lead coordinator?
        Mr. Tombar. It certainly has had some bearing on that
    decision. He worked for Governor Cuomo, as well, in the
    previous administration and led one of the large financial
    institutions that was based in New Jersey. So he has deep
    connections to the area and has been using those to great
    effect already to lead to some coordination around the Federal
    role in working with the State and local governments.
        Beyond that, there is, as pointed out by Administrator
    Fugate, in HUD's programs great flexibility. In particular, I
    will call out the Community Development Block Grant program
    that has in this disaster already been used in places like
    Maryland, where an individual assistance designation has not
    been given, been used to actually house on a temporary basis
    some of the families that have been impacted.
        Ms. Norton. You mean right now.
        Mr. Tombar. Right now, yes, ma'am.
        Beyond that, there are plans underway, in talking to the
    State and local governments, that are CDBG entitlement
    communities--meaning that they receive annually CDBG grants
    from us--what waivers would be available to help them to do
    something that I think has been alluded to a number of times in
    this hearing, and that is to build back in a way that is
    smarter and safer than what has been done before.
        I am sure any of the witnesses to my left can tell you,
    because each of their States benefited from allocations of
    Community Development Block Grant in their recovery processes
    in the past. And that money was used where, at the edge, you
    have FEMA only allowing rebuilding up to a standard that
    existed prior to the disaster impacts. That HUD money
    essentially can make things better.
        And we have made a priority of that during this
    administration to, quite frankly, to focus on mitigation, to
    make sure that that which is done benefits the taxpayers in the
    long run. In fact, there is a study that HUD often cites and
    the Secretary often cites that says that for every dollar used
    in mitigation, there is a four-to-one return on investment in a
    subsequent disaster.
        It is why we have worked with places like Cedar Rapids,
    Iowa, to actually buy out homeowners in a neighborhood that
    flooded in 2008 and move them to higher ground.
        Ms. Norton. Using CDBG funds?
        Mr. Tombar. Yes, ma'am, using CDBG funds.
        Similarly, in the States of Louisiana and Texas, buyout
    programs have been underway to move families out of homes away
    to places that are less vulnerable to subsequent storms.
        It is something that we have already begun to discuss with
    State and local leaders and are working with them to find ways
    to implement that using existing resources and any additional
    resources that Congress may provide for that benefit.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        Following that line of questioning by the ranking member,
    Mr. Tombar, this is the National Disaster Recovery Framework
    that was published in September 2011 by FEMA. Now, we looked
    through this and we did not see any mention of HUD or some of
    the activities you described. Have you read this?
        Mr. Tombar. Not only read it, sir, but I had a hand in its
    production.
        Mr. Mica. OK. But maybe it would--and I have no objection
    to HUD's participation, but maybe it would be good to--and you
    said you have also used CDBG grants before. Maybe it would be
    good to have that as part of this plan, your participation. And
    Ms. Norton asked within 30 days. If you could supply an outline
    of what you plan to do.
        Again, we are crafting legislation to try to expedite this
    whole process. And I have no problem even moving some of FEMA's
    current responsibilities over to HUD if CDBG grants get things
    out faster, get it done more efficiently with less redtape.
        Did you see Mr. Riley's description here of--we got it over
    there--of how long some of these projects get to be resolved?
    So we would call on you to--have you read our bill, 2903?
        Mr. Tombar. No, sir, I have not.
        Mr. Mica. OK. Well, maybe you could review that, too. We
    welcome your suggestions. I know sometimes the agencies have
    constraints, going through OMB and all of the bureaucracy you
    face. But we are really trying to craft--finalize legislation--
    we have crafted legislation--but finalize it with the best
    provisions possible so that people who have been through
    Katrina, Irene, tornadoes and floods and everything else don't
    have to go through the same long, drawn-out, redtape process.
    And if there is an easier way to do it, we welcome it. So we
    would like to hear from you, if we may.
        Mr. Tombar. If I might, Mr. Chairman, you will find that in
    my testimony I said that Secretary Napolitano and Secretary
    Donovan actually worked together under an effort started in
    2009 by the President called the Long-Term Disaster Recovery
    Working Group. That NDRF that you held up is an outgrowth of
    that process.
        You will find in it that there are six recovery support
    functions. The housing recovery support function is one led by
    HUD. And it is the very one that we are using right now to
    begin those communications and those conversations with State
    and local leaders that I raised in answering Ms. Norton's
    question. And so what we have found is that this framework is a
    useful way for us to do some of that work.
        Mr. Mica. Well, two things then. Secretary Donovan and you
    all, if you revise this, maybe you should include yourself. And
    also, if you can provide the committee with what you are doing
    and then any of your recommendations. If we do need legislative
    authority to revise FEMA's role and your role, we would be glad
    to look at that, those suggestions.
        Mr. Popoff, I was trying to get the Administrator--he is
    gone now--but to look at maybe not trying to replace what the
    private sector is doing, but to help facilitate, help initiate
    some assistance or coordination of efforts from the private
    sector to deal with the fuel situation. We have seen it
    repeated time after time. Fuel and some sources of energy,
    maybe--again, we are not trying to supplant what the private
    sector is doing or public utilities are doing.
        And I think you described, again, a cooperative plan. And
    we are going to submit a question to you and also to the
    Administrator to see if he can't initiate on a larger scale
    what you have done and you described before the committee
    today. Because every disaster, it appears, we have this issue
    with getting fuel and power generation to specific activities
    or to individuals who could make things be restored again.
        So thank you for your recommendation. You think it would
    work on a larger scale?
        Mr. Popoff. Yes, sir, absolutely. You know, I believe that
    we truly--we only respond to seven different types of
    disasters. And with those seven, and understanding the
    mechanics of it, it is how we manage the organization is how we
    respond to these folks and how we provide the necessary
    assistance. And the fuel plan that was produced by the State is
    a great example of how government can work with the private
    sector and put a significant plan together.
        Mr. Mica. Good. Well, again, your testimony was most
    helpful. And we are trying to address where we have gaps,
    again, and repeated experiences with these disasters.
        Mr. Riley, I don't think we have ever had anybody so
    graphically describe Government redtape and bureaucracy, at
    least dealing with disasters. We have some charts on health
    care and other Government proposals, but that is pretty
    amazing.
        Now, Administrator Fugate did point out, however, and I
    mentioned that after we came down there, we came back and did
    this arbitration mediation. Why didn't you turn to that as a
    solution?
        Mr. Riley. It is a very complicated process. And if you
    follow the timeline, there was ongoing discussion during the
    whole thing. So, you know, it was just a matter of we never got
    a ``no'' completely, so we never went to arbitration.
        The frustrating thing about this is that if you look at the
    timeline, early on in the timeline, there was the cost estimate
    and recommendation of professional architects and engineers
    concerning the status of the building. FEMA's process didn't
    allow them to accept that, and they went through their own
    process, and we ended up in the same place.
        Mr. Fugate indicated that currently they are in a position
    to allow their staff to accept the applicants' architects and
    engineers reports and use that as the basis for funding. We
    certainly support that. We don't always see that. And maybe
    they just haven't gotten the email in Louisiana, as he said.
        But, you know, that is certainly a way that this particular
    process--and like I said, this is not an anomaly. There are
    thousands like this, in Katrina, in Gustav, in Ike, even in
    recent storms. And so a process that would, you know, get to
    the result a lot quicker--arbitration is a good tool, and we
    have used it, and we have used it successfully.
        We would recommend that the tool be continued, that the cap
    be lowered so that the smaller communities that have smaller
    projects have access to that independent, you know, third-party
    review of the FEMA process. And we do feel, from the large
    projects, we have seen these large projects be sped up simply
    by the threat of arbitration.
        Mr. Mica. Well, we would like to have as many tools at the
    disposal of FEMA to get these issues resolved and get the
    claims settled. We welcome your recommendations, too.
        We are trying to get the Senate to conclude their
    consideration of the legislation. I think that that measure can
    do more than all the money we throw at the problems, or try to
    throw at the problems. Sometimes, as you heard the
    Administrator, they are still dealing with so many settlements
    from so many disasters because of the way their hands are tied
    and our inability to be a little bit more flexible or have,
    again, some options that don't currently exist.
        So any other recommendations you can provide us. We are
    going to leave the record open for the next 14 days, by
    unanimous consent.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        And I want to thank each of you for being with us today. We
    will have additional questions we will submit to you.
        The hearing has gone on for 2 hours. You have been most
    patient and also, I think, most productive in your
    recommendations and observations to the committee. So we thank
    you so much.
        And there being no further business before the committee,
    this hearing of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
    of the House of Representatives is adjourned. Thank you.

        [Whereupon, at 1:02 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]