[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.]