    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

           PROGRESS REPORT: HURRICANE SANDY RECOVERY--ONE YEAR LATER

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

                                    (113-41)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               NOVEMBER 14, 2013

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                   __________

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    85-550 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

                      BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
    DON YOUNG, Alaska                    NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
    THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin           PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee,          Columbia
      Vice Chair                         JERROLD NADLER, New York
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    GARY G. MILLER, California           ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 RICK LARSEN, Washington
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
    DUNCAN HUNTER, California            MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania           DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania         DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    RICHARD L. HANNA, New York           JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
    STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida       JANICE HAHN, California
    JEFF DENHAM, California              RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
    REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin            ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              DINA TITUS, Nevada
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
    TOM RICE, South Carolina             ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas                CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
    TREY RADEL, Florida
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
    RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
    MARK SANFORD, South Carolina

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

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

                                   TESTIMONY

    Hon. Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit
      Administration.................................................     3
    Hon. Victor M. Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway
      Administration.................................................     3
    Hon. Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad
      Administration.................................................     3
    Elizabeth A. Zimmerman, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of
      Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency.....     3
    Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick, Commanding General and
      Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers...............     3

     PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED
                                  BY WITNESSES

    Hon. Peter M. Rogoff:

        Prepared statement...........................................    43
        Answers to questions for the record from the following
          Representatives:

            Hon. Bill Shuster, of Pennsylvania.......................    48
            Hon. Tom Rice, of South Carolina.........................    50
    Hon. Victor M. Mendez:

        Prepared statement...........................................    51
        Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Bill Shuster, a
          Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania..    58
    Hon. Joseph C. Szabo:

        Prepared statement...........................................    60
        Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Bill Shuster, a
          Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania..    67
    Elizabeth A. Zimmerman:

        Prepared statement...........................................    71
        Answers to questions for the record from the following
          Representatives:

            Hon. Bill Shuster, of Pennsylvania.......................    86
            Hon. Jeff Denham, of California..........................    92
    Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick:

        Prepared statement...........................................    99
        Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Bill Shuster, a
          Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania..   105

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           PROGRESS REPORT: HURRICANE SANDY RECOVERY--ONE YEAR LATER

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2013

                      House of Representatives,
        Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room
    2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Shuster
    (Chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Mr. Shuster. The committee will come to order.
        We are pleased to welcome our distinguished panel of
    witnesses for this morning's hearing: the Honorable Peter
    Rogoff, the Administrator of the Federal Transit
    Administration; the Honorable Victor Mendez, Administrator of
    the Federal Highway Administration; the Honorable Joseph Szabo,
    Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration; Elizabeth
    Zimmerman, Deputy Associate Administrator for the Office of
    Response and Recovery for the Federal Emergency Management
    Agency; and Lieutenant General Thomas Bostick, Commanding
    General and Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
        Thank you all very much for being here this morning.
        The purpose of today's hearing is to review the progress of
    the gathered agencies in implementing the recovery objectives
    and meeting programmatic deadlines authorized and mandated in
    the Sandy Supplemental.
        Hurricane Sandy made landfall on October 29th, 2012, as a
    Category One hurricane just south of Atlantic City, New Jersey.
    Sandy was responsible for more than 130 deaths and $50 billion
    in economic losses. As a result of the storm, the President
    made major disaster declarations in 12 States and the District
    of Columbia.
        In response to this historic natural disaster, last January
    Congress passed and the President signed into law the combined
    Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 and the Sandy
    Recovery Improvement Act of 2013, known collectively as the
    Sandy Supplemental. The law authorized a new Emergency Relief
    Program within the Federal Transit Administration and provided
    $50.5 billion to certain Federal agencies who support disaster
    recovery and assistance.
        The law also authorized much-needed reforms and streamlined
    disaster assistance programs authorized by the Robert T.
    Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Key
    reforms included expedited debris removal, public assistance,
    alternative procedures, Federal assistance to individuals and
    households, and streamlined environmental review of hazard-
    mitigation projects.
        Since Hurricane Sandy devastated the east coast, the
    Federal agencies have worked together with State and local
    partners to get storm-affected areas and its citizens back on
    their feet. Much has been accomplished, but there is still
    considerable work to do.
        The committee is committed to continued oversight of
    recovery efforts and to working with the agencies represented
    in this morning's hearings to achieve programmatic goals laid
    out in the Sandy Supplemental. I look forward to hearing from
    the witnesses on this important progress made to date and how
    the committee can partner with agencies to ensure ongoing
    efforts are efficient and that any challenges to recovery
    efforts are addressed promptly.
        Since your written testimony has been made part of the
    record, the committee requests that you limit your summary to 5
    minutes.
        And, with that, I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Rahall.
        Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join with you in
    welcoming our witnesses this morning.
        Today's hearing is certainly timely. Over the weekend, we
    were reminded once again of the wrath that Mother Nature can
    visit upon humankind. News reports of the typhoon that struck
    the Philippines paint a grim picture of devastation and
    suffering, the magnitude of which is difficult to fathom.
        It was just over a year ago that Hurricane Sandy made
    landfall on our own shores. Ten months ago, Congress
    appropriated tens of billions of dollars to aid in those
    recovery efforts.
        Helping each other in times of need is an honorable
    American tradition and one that I believe deserves recognition
    as we tackle Federal budgetary constraints. It is in our nature
    to provide emergency aid to hard-hit communities, and it is our
    duty to ensure that funds Congress has appropriated are
    provided in a timely manner.
        Although this hearing is entitled ``Progress Report:
    Hurricane Sandy Recovery--One Year Later,'' Hurricane Sandy
    actually collided with a nor'easter, morphing into a monstrous
    superstorm. While the bulk of the damage occurred on the
    northeastern seaboard, the storm's reach extended far and wide.
    My own district in southern West Virginia experienced massive
    snowfalls and widespread power outages. The roofs of family-
    owned stores collapsed, destroying businesses. Trees toppled
    under the weight of the snow, creating impassible roads,
    isolating some residents and cutting them off from emergency
    assistance.
        In addition to providing needed post-Sandy funding,
    Congress enacted the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act in January
    to provide more flexible recovery tools. I look forward to
    hearing from FEMA on the status of the implementation of that
    act, particularly on the status of the rulemaking to review,
    update, and revise the individual assistance factors, a matter
    I had specifically requested in the legislation, to ensure more
    timely and responsive disaster assistance and to direct greater
    attention to the kinds of losses that we saw in West Virginia
    and elsewhere.
        I also look forward to hearing about the response and
    recovery efforts of public transportation systems damaged by
    Sandy. The damage to subway stations, tunnels, tracks,
    maintenance facilities, and rolling stock was staggering. By
    all accounts, transit systems in affected areas undertook
    impressive efforts to quickly restore service to their millions
    of riders and took interim precautions for this storm season to
    better protect their assets. But now the longer term work must
    be done to ensure that systems are built back stronger.
        Again, I thank you for this timely hearing, Mr. Chairman,
    and I yield back.
        Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman. And, with that, we will
    start off with the Administrator for the Federal Transit
    Administration, Mr. Rogoff.

       TESTIMONY OF HON. PETER M. ROGOFF, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
     TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION; HON. VICTOR M. MENDEZ, ADMINISTRATOR,
         FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; HON. JOSEPH C. SZABO,
     ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION; ELIZABETH A.
     ZIMMERMAN, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF RESPONSE
        AND RECOVERY, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; AND
     LIEUTENANT GENERAL THOMAS P. BOSTICK, COMMANDING GENERAL AND
            CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

        Mr. Rogoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rahall,
    members of the committee.
        Hurricane Sandy devastated communities in its path and
    triggered the worst public transit disaster in U.S. history. On
    the day that Hurricane Sandy hit the northeast region, more
    than half the transit trips in America were not available. And
    even days after the storm, as systems in Boston and Washington,
    DC, and Philadelphia came back online, fully a third of
    America's transit trips weren't available.
        This truly was a national transit disaster that required a
    national response. And the Federal Transit Administration has
    been fully engaged in that response, beginning even days before
    Superstorm Sandy made landfall.
        We are proud of the tremendous progress that FTA has made
    over the last year to help the region recover. As the chairman
    pointed out, a lot of work has been done and much remains to be
    done. Today, work is underway to repair transit substations in
    New Jersey, the Montague R Line train tube connecting Brooklyn
    and Manhattan, the Green Point Tunnel connecting Brooklyn with
    Queens, and many, many more projects are ongoing.
        To date, we have allocated $5.7 billion to the hardest-hit
    transit agencies in New York and New Jersey and affected
    agencies in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and
    Massachusetts. The funding window is open. There are billions
    of dollars in restoration and construction activity going on as
    we speak. And we will be reimbursing the transit agencies for
    this work as they bring funding applications to us.
        Our rapid response to help restore service would not have
    been possible without FTA's Emergency Relief Program. When
    President Obama first proposed this program in his fiscal year
    2012 budget, it was envisioned as an important mechanism for
    strengthening FTA's ability to provide timely disaster
    assistance to transit agencies whose assets are damaged or
    destroyed.
        I commend this committee for agreeing to the President's
    request and establishing this new program through MAP-21. It
    came just in time for Hurricane Sandy and has more than proven
    its worth. Through this new authority, we believe FTA's
    response stands as a model for Federal disaster assistance.
        That said, I need to sound an important note of caution. At
    present, unlike our partners at the Federal Highway
    Administration, the FTA has no emergency relief funds available
    for any catastrophic event other than Hurricane Sandy. That
    means that we will not be able to respond in a timely way
    should transit assets suddenly be destroyed by a tornado in
    Arkansas, or a hurricane in Florida, or an earthquake in
    California.
        The President's budget request for fiscal year 2013 and
    again in fiscal year 2014 each sought $25 million to capitalize
    the FTA Emergency Relief Program so that we can be at the
    ready. I strongly encourage Congress to appropriate these funds
    so, when the next disaster strikes, FTA will be in a position
    to respond.
        For Sandy relief, as in all of our work, we are committed
    to the highest level of financial stewardship. We are ensuring
    that grantees don't receive both insurance money and Federal
    reimbursements for the same claims. We are also ensuring that
    grantees don't receive payments from both FTA and FEMA for the
    same expenses. We are expanding on our well-established
    procurement reviews and oversight processes to better detect
    and prevent any possibility of waste, fraud, and abuse.
        Good stewardship also means that taxpayers should not be
    asked to pay for the restoration of the same assets a second or
    third time. It is important to remember that many of the
    transit assets that were flooded during Hurricane Sandy were
    also flooded just 1 year earlier during Hurricane Irene. The
    transit riders of New York and New Jersey should not have to
    put up with the stress, the cost, and the inconvenience of
    having the same transit facilities destroyed by one storm after
    another.
        That is why FTA, in accordance with the Disaster Relief
    Appropriations Act, has dedicated a significant portion of the
    appropriated funds to projects that will help transit agencies
    better withstand future disasters. Importantly, we feel that
    the taxpayer should not have to pay to restore these facilities
    a second or third time. That is also why, in allocating these
    resiliency funds, our highest priority will be on better
    protecting the existing vulnerable infrastructure that is
    serving millions of passengers each day.
        Without adequate coordination, investments to protect one
    rail yard against rising waters might only serve to flood a
    neighboring rail yard that serves even more people. So FTA will
    be very focused on regional solutions that consider the entire
    tristate network as a whole.
        As you can imagine, when making these resiliency
    investments, there is no point and no value to the traveling
    public or the taxpayer to protect one segment of a rail line if
    it is only going to flood out 5 miles farther down that rail
    line. So we will be looking at the systems as a whole and
    ensuring that the taxpayers' dollars get the greatest bang for
    the buck in protecting existing assets.
        Thank you for your time. I will be happy to answer
    questions when all of the other panelists have spoken.
        Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much.
         And, next, the Administrator of the Federal Highway
    Administration, Mr. Mendez. You may proceed, sir. Thank you.
        Mr. Mendez. Thank you very much. And good morning, Chairman
    Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, and members of the committee.
    Thank you very much for this opportunity to discuss the Federal
    Highway Administration's Hurricane Sandy response efforts.
        Our country has experienced a number of devastating
    disasters over the past year, from Hurricane Sandy to the
    recent Colorado floods. The Obama administration is committed
    to helping Americans recover from the damage caused by these
    and other natural disasters.
        Although lives lost from such disasters can never be
    replaced, programs like FHWA's Emergency Relief Program play a
    pivotal role in helping communities rebuild critical
    transportation infrastructure. The ER Program provides funding
    to States for the repair and reconstruction of Federal-aid
    highways that have suffered serious damage as a result of
    natural disasters or catastrophic failures from an external
    cause. The program also provides funding for roads on Federal
    lands.
        In MAP-21, Congress made some changes to the ER Program,
    and FHWA acted quickly to issue ER implementing guidance to
    States prior to the act becoming effective. The Department also
    acted quickly to issue MAP-21 rulemaking establishing a new
    categorical exclusion for emergencies. We have already used the
    authority to help expedite the delivery of critical
    transportation projects in emergencies.
        Transportation infrastructure plays a critical role in
    maintaining mobility for the American people, supporting our
    residents, our businesses, and our economy. The importance of
    our infrastructure comes into its sharpest focus after a
    natural disaster like Hurricane Sandy.
        From the moment that Hurricane Sandy hit in late October of
    2012, Federal, State, and local agencies worked closely
    together with an unprecedented level of cooperation to help
    impacted States rebuild and recover.
        I am proud to say that the Department and FHWA have been at
    the forefront and center of all these efforts. Our priority was
    to provide needed aid very quickly to help get the region back
    on its feet and moving again by restoring the transportation
    system.
        At FHWA, our response started less than 24 hours after the
    storm made landfall, as we began to process the region's first
    requests for ER funding to rebuild roads and bridges. Less than
    48 hours after Sandy hit, FHWA made available the first quick-
    release funds, $10 million to New York and $3 million to Rhode
    Island. Days later, FHWA made additional quick-release funds
    available: $4 million to North Carolina, $10 million to New
    Jersey, and $2 million for Connecticut. About a month later, we
    provided an additional $20 million to New York and an
    additional $10 million to New Jersey.
        To date, FHWA has provided nearly $671 million in ER
    funding to States and for Federal lands impacted by the storm.
    This includes funding to reopen a nationally significant
    landmark, Liberty Island, as well as funding for critical
    coastal routes, including 12 miles of the Ocean Parkway in New
    York's Long Island and 12 miles of Route 35 along the New
    Jersey coast.
        These are just a few examples of how States have used ER
    funds in the past year to restore important transportation
    facilities that were damaged by Hurricane Sandy. Emergency
    relief funds are helping States across the country undertake
    the massive job of restoring damaged roads and bridges so that
    the public can travel safely and communities can rebuild.
        In addition to implementing the ER Program, FHWA is looking
    ahead to determine how we can help our infrastructure better
    withstand natural disasters and how we can deliver projects
    more quickly. We are engaged in activities across the country
    to identify vulnerable highway infrastructure and minimize the
    effects of natural disasters and catastrophic events.
        We have also made some changes to our financial management
    practices and quick-release process to help States receive ER
    funding even more quickly.
        As we continually brace for new natural disasters and
    catastrophic failures, FHWA remains committed to helping States
    repair and reconstruct infrastructure damaged by such events.
    We will continue to explore innovative technologies and other
    tools to help highway infrastructure better withstand the
    effects of extreme weather events.
        So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my remarks and will
    be happy to answer your questions. Thank you.
        Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much.
        With that, the Administrator of the Federal Railroad
    Administration, Mr. Szabo. Please proceed.
        Mr. Szabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To you and Ranking
    Member Rahall and members of the committee, I appreciate this
    opportunity to testify this morning.
        Hurricane Sandy is a vivid example of how closely our
    Nation's economic and social wellbeing is tied to the health of
    our transportation systems. With Northeast Corridor services
    shut down, already-overwhelmed highways experienced even higher
    levels of gridlock. Travel times for many commuters in so many
    cases doubled or tripled, if service was available at all. And
    when our transportation system suffers, travelers and
    businesses feel the pain.
        This should serve as a lesson to us that, as we rebuild, we
    must ensure our transportation is more resilient. We must build
    more redundancy into the system. And we must continue
    approaching transportation planning regionally, just as we are
    today through a multistate rail planning effort we call NEC
    FUTURE.
        FRA started preparing for Hurricane Sandy before it came
    ashore. We activated an emergency relief docket so railroads
    could apply for temporary regulatory relief to aid a timely
    response and recovery. And after Sandy's landfall, we
    coordinated technical assistance calls with railroad and
    industry associations that safely fast-tracked the recovery
    effort.
        The damage was extensive. And let me be clear: The effort
    that went into quickly repairing ties, ballast, tracks, signal
    systems, pumping stations, circuit breakers, and other vital
    infrastructure was truly remarkable. Overall, Amtrak had $31
    million in infrastructure and equipment damage and $41 million
    in lost revenues.
        To support the recovery effort, we provided $30 million to
    Amtrak through the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013.
    And to be better prepared in the future, we invested a transfer
    of $185 million from the FTA's Sandy recovery funding into the
    Hudson Yards right-of-way preservation project to secure a
    permanent path into Penn Station.
        Another big step forward for increasing Northeast Corridor
    redundancy and resiliency came through the Sandy Appropriations
    Act, which included $81 million to assist such efforts.
    However, this money cannot be spent unless the restriction is
    lifted on Amtrak's ability to use working capital funds for
    operating expenses, as currently provided for under PRIIA. We
    propose an amendment in an appropriations bill to amend the
    Sandy Act to delete this prohibition on temporary fund
    transfers. That way, the money can be fully invested in better
    preparing the Northeast Corridor to face future natural
    disasters.
        The Northeast Corridor has been the backbone of the
    region's economy for two centuries. Today, it serves a
    passenger rail market that is as strong and full of potential
    as any in the world. But its capacity is constrained and its
    resiliency, as Sandy taught us, must be fortified.
        Clearly, we must better prepare the Northeast Corridor for
    future natural disasters. That is one challenge. But this
    challenge will be further served if we fully commit to
    positioning this vital transportation asset to support the
    Northeast's continued prosperity.
        Our NEC FUTURE program is preparing us to move forward. It
    will provide Northeast Corridor States and stakeholders with a
    shared vision for investing in the types of rail services
    needed to meet demand through the year 2040. But an additional
    $25 million is needed to complete this critical effort.
        Now is the time to complete the program. Now is the time to
    provide rail with the predictable and reliable Federal funding
    needed to strengthen the Northeast Corridor's resiliency and
    its redundancy, in addition to its overall safety, reliability,
    and efficiency.
        Thank you. I look forward to questions.
        Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Szabo.
        And, next, from FEMA, Ms. Zimmerman. Please proceed.
        Ms. Zimmerman. Good morning, Chairman Shuster. Good
    morning, Ranking Member Rahall and members of the committee. I
    am very pleased to be here and have this opportunity to speak
    with you today.
        When Hurricane Sandy hit landfall----
        Mr. Shuster. Can you pull your microphone a little closer?
        Ms. Zimmerman. Sure.
        Mr. Shuster. Thank you.
        Ms. Zimmerman. Is that better?
        When Hurricane Sandy made landfall, battering dozens of
    States along the east coast, FEMA was there. We were on the
    ground before the storm, during the storm, and, obviously,
    after the storm. We were there supporting our State and local
    partners. We will be there for as long as it takes to help the
    disaster survivors and the communities recover.
        But FEMA does not do this alone. As it is noticed on the
    panel here, our partners from Department of Transportation as
    well as the Army Corps of Engineers are a part of the community
    that we refer to as a community as a whole--everybody working
    together in disaster response.
        When it comes to the community working together, with our
    friends at the Department of Transportation and FTA, we have
    been working together very closely with the Sandy Recovery
    Improvement Act and those efforts that came together to join us
    in the partnership. We also have a longstanding partnership
    with the Corps of Engineers in response and recovery.
        In response to Hurricane Sandy, this committee is more than
    aware of the 23,000 people that sought refuge in the temporary
    shelters as well as the 8.5 million people who lost power as a
    result of Hurricane Sandy. The storm flooded numerous roads,
    tunnels, blocked the transportation corridors, deposited
    extensive debris along the coastline, and displaced hundreds of
    thousands of people.
        FEMA coordinated the Federal Government's response to
    Hurricane Sandy, working with its partners through the National
    Response Framework and issuing 425 mission assignments to 29
    Federal agencies.
        The recovery efforts from Hurricane Sandy were guided by
    the National Disaster Recovery Framework, which was published
    in 2011. The NDRF is a guide for how the whole community works
    together following disasters to best meet the recovery needs of
    the individuals, families, and the communities, States, and
    tribes.
        It established a coordination structure for all interagency
    partners, called the recovery support function, to work
    together to solve problems to improve access to resources and
    foster the coordination among Government and private
    stakeholders. This structure remains in place and continues as
    we transition from our joint field offices to a Sandy recovery
    office, which will include both New Jersey and New York
    disasters, that are still open and will be transitioning within
    the next month.
        For public assistance, FEMA is also providing grants
    through the Public Assistance program which assists State,
    local, and tribal governments, as well as certain private
    nonprofits, in response to recovery efforts. FEMA has obligated
    more than $3.2 billion in Hurricane Sandy Public Assistance
    Grants. This is for the 15 States that were impacted by Sandy.
        In addition to assistance for the emergency protective
    measures and debris removal, FEMA's Public Assistance program
    provides funding for the repair, restoration, reconstruction,
    and replacement of infrastructure that was damaged or destroyed
    by the disaster.
        Over 3,400 public assistance projects have been approved
    and more than $2.1 billion has been obligated in New York. In
    New Jersey, over 5,000 public assistance projects have been
    approved and over $950 million has been obligated. Eleven
    additional States that were declared for public assistance due
    to the efforts for Hurricane Sandy have been obligated an
    approximate $150 million in assistance.
        For individual assistance programs, FEMA has provided
    assistance to over 182,000 disaster survivors in New York, New
    Jersey, and Connecticut. The forms of assistance include
    financial assistance, eligible home repair assistance and
    personal property loss, as well as medical and funeral expenses
    resulting from the disaster.
        For the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, the Sandy
    Supplemental, just under 100 days after Sandy made landfall,
    the Recovery Improvement Act came into law. It gave FEMA a
    great opportunity to implement many of the initiatives they
    have been working on and we have made significant progress on
    legislation impacting the agencies so that we could move
    forward from the post-Katrina reform act. But the Sandy
    Supplemental was by far the biggest change to the Stafford Act
    since the Stafford Act was signed into law.
        FEMA has aggressively been applying the Sandy Recovery
    Improvement Act, tackling 18 lines of action, 8 regulatory
    projects, 2 reports, and at least 9 policies in the 383 days
    since Sandy descended on our shores. To date, 13 of the 17
    provisions are tracking for the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act
    as we move these forward--provisions for public assistance, the
    alternate procedures for permanent work, public assistance,
    alternative procedures for debris removal, and the ability to
    federally recognized tribal governments as sovereign nations.
        I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you
    for the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act and the work that has
    moved forward on that.
        In conclusion, I look forward to answering any questions
    that you may have on that as we move forward. Thank you.
        Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Ms. Zimmerman. I appreciate that.
        Finally, the Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers, General Bostick. Please proceed.
        General Bostick. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rahall, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify before you today on the Corps' continued work on
    Hurricane Sandy recovery. I am also happy to join this panel of
    interagency partners because it truly is a team effort.
        The support from the Federal Government during the response
    to Sandy was unparalleled, and the Corps was part of a larger
    team that provided technical assistance and rapid-response
    activities across the impacted areas. The success of these
    efforts was a result of a dedicated and determined interagency
    team, including the Corps, other Federal agencies, State and
    local governments, and many others.
        On January 29th, 2013, the President signed into law the
    Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013. The act appropriate
    $5.35 billion to the Corps to address damages caused by
    Hurricane Sandy and to reduce future flood risks in ways that
    will support the long-term sustainability of the coastal
    ecosystem and communities and reduce the economic costs and
    risks associated with large-scale flood and storm damages in
    areas along the North Atlantic coast.
        The Corps' Hurricane Sandy recovery program is structured
    with three components: first, near-term; second,
    investigations; and, third, construction components. We
    continue to make progress on all of these efforts.
        The near-term component supports emergency operations and
    repair and restoration of previously constructed Corps projects
    along the coastline and dredging of Federal navigation channels
    and repair of Corps-operated structures.
        I will mention a few areas: Beach repair and restoration of
    existing projects along the Atlantic coast began in February of
    2013 and is scheduled to conclude in the fall of 2014. The
    Corps has placed approximately 12 million cubic yards of sand
    to repair dunes and berms. Work continues to ensure these
    projects are restored to their original design conditions.
        Thus far, the Corps has obligated over $400 million to
    restore damaged projects. The repair of navigation channels and
    structures damaged in the storm began in February of 2013, and
    most projects are scheduled for completion in the spring of
    2015. Over $170 million has been obligated for this purpose.
        The investigations component expedites completion of
    ongoing studies at full Federal expense and also funds the
    North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study to develop a risk
    reduction framework for the 31,000 miles of coastline within
    the North Atlantic Division's area that was affected by Sandy.
        The comprehensive study team, which includes experts in
    coastal planning, engineering, and science from more than 90
    governmental, academic, and nongovernmental entities, has
    developed a draft framework that is currently under review. The
    team will continue its review and develop various tools to
    assist with future planning efforts.
        The study will also serve as a catalyst for future analysis
    that will reduce risk to vulnerable populations, property,
    ecosystem, and infrastructure. Up and down the coast, areas
    where there were risk reduction projects in place prior to
    Hurricane Sandy fared much better than those areas without
    protection.
        The third component of the program, the construction
    component, will implement projects that were previously
    authorized but not constructed at the time of Hurricane Sandy
    landfall. It will also address projects identified for
    implementation following the investigation process as well as
    projects that fall within the Corps' Continuing Authorities
    Program.
        Planning, design, and expedited reevaluations are underway
    for 18 authorized but not yet constructed projects, and
    construction on several projects is anticipated to begin early
    in 2014. Construction work on roughly half of these flood risk
    reduction projects is expected to be completed by mid-2015. The
    remaining construction is dependent upon the outcome of pending
    reevaluation reviews.
        Of the identified continuing authority projects,
    Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware,
    Maryland, and Virginia are currently scheduled to receive beach
    erosion and coastal storm damage risk reduction projects. We
    expect the majority of this work to be completed by 2016.
        In the year since Hurricane Sandy, we have heard from many
    residents in the impacted communities regarding their concerns
    about coastal storm damage risk reduction features. We continue
    to communicate with the local communities about the purpose of
    these projects and to clear up misconceptions about the use of
    real estate.
        Hurricane Sandy demonstrated the vulnerability of our
    coastal communities and the need for all levels of Government
    to communicate risk clearly and to continually take this on as
    a collective, shared responsibility to reduce residual risks.
        I look forward to your questions.
        Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much, General.
        I appreciate all of your testimony.
        Now I would like to ask several questions, mostly to Mr.
    Rogoff.
        You spoke at length about the significant amount of money
    you are setting aside for resiliency projects in the transit
    system. What you didn't mention in your verbal testimony, but
    it is clear in your written testimony, is that you also believe
    there is a need to protect against threats from climate change.
        My concern is that the Supplemental package was not sold to
    Congress as a bill to fight global warming. However, it appears
    in your testimony, at least your written testimony, that it is
    a top priority for the FTA, resiliency moneys to mitigate the
    effects of climate change.
        Therefore I guess we need to know how you are going to
    ensure that that $5.8 billion, I believe, in resiliency money
    will be spent directly on Sandy-related expenses and not on the
    administration's agenda or climate change.
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, Mr. Chairman, our focus is on protecting
    the existing transit infrastructure that supports millions of
    people, almost a third of the Nation's transit ridership, from
    whatever threats it is exposed to. We are keenly focused on,
    obviously, the impact of the last storm but also scenarios that
    protect us from the next storm. So if the wind was coming from
    a different direction in the next hurricane, we need to be
    prepared for those water incursions.
        I can assure you, we are looking principally, first and
    foremost, at the damage assessments that resulted from Sandy
    and what needs to be protected going forward. We are going to
    be mindful of the fact that the water levels are rising in that
    region; they have been. And we want to make sure that we are
    not going to make investments with taxpayer dollars that are
    then going to be inadequate as the water level continues to
    rise.
        Mr. Shuster. How are you going to prioritize those
    resiliency projects?
        Mr. Rogoff. As I said in my oral remarks, and I believe
    they are also in my written remarks, our highest priority,
    number one, right away, is to protect the existing
    infrastructure, especially the subway infrastructure but also
    the Long Island Railroad, Metro North, and New Jersey Transit
    infrastructure.
        Much of this infrastructure was built decades ago. Mr.
    Nadler and I were at an event in Brooklyn over the Montague
    Tube. That is one of the pieces of infrastructure that we will
    be looking to protect. That infrastructure is 93 years old and
    was never built with water incursions of this kind in mind. And
    that is what we need to protect, because the R train that runs
    through that tube is serving tens of thousands of people a day.
        Mr. Shuster. And what criteria will you base the
    competitive grants to be awarded?
        Mr. Rogoff. First and foremost we will base it on whether
    they have a comprehensive plan to protect existing
    infrastructure that is serving passengers now, and how many
    passengers. We know what we want to avoid. We want to avoid an
    investment that protects one part of the line but not the other
    part of the line.
        We also are going to infuse in that criteria a regional
    approach because, as I said in my oral remarks, much of the
    infrastructure is so close together, between what the Long
    Island Railroad uses, what the Subway uses, New Jersey Transit,
    and Amtrak, we could cause inadvertent harm by protecting one
    piece of infrastructure from water incursion only to flood a
    neighboring piece of infrastructure that could be serving even
    more passengers and could do even more damage.
        So our highest priority is going to be on the
    infrastructure that serves existing passengers and, also,
    making sure that all of the agencies are playing well in the
    sandbox and have a comprehensive plan so that the taxpayer
    investment has the maximum level of protection.
        Mr. Shuster. And talking about taxpayer investment, will
    the cost-benefit analysis be----
        Mr. Rogoff. It will be.
        Mr. Shuster [continuing]. The highest priority?
        Mr. Rogoff. It will be an elemental part of the application
    process. We need to be careful, like I said, to make sure that
    there is a regional approach and the cost-beneficial project
    for one piece of infrastructure doesn't do unknown damage to
    the neighboring piece of infrastructure.
        Mr. Shuster. Well, but the cost-benefit really needs to be,
    in my view----
        Mr. Rogoff. It----
        Mr. Shuster. And it is up to us, the stewards of the
    taxpayer dollars, to make sure that that is central.
        Mr. Rogoff. And that is one of the recommendations that has
    also come out of Secretary Donovan's Sandy Task Force and is
    going to be an elemental part of our analysis.
        Mr. Shuster. And how will you make this transparent to the
    taxpayers? What process will you go through to make sure we can
    see how the process was laid out so that everybody is clear
    that cost-benefit was the highest priority?
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, I think we have a good history now, I
    believe, with this committee in terms of providing transparency
    in our discretionary grant-making decisions. Obviously, the
    committee has oversight authorities. We also have the Inspector
    General, who has considerable resources to oversee our
    processes. And we are more than happy to brief any subgroup or
    group of the committee on precisely how we are going to go
    about it.
        Mr. Shuster. It is also a concern to me, making certain
    that these transit authorities are not diverting these funds to
    their own projects out there that aren't part of the moneys
    that Congress intended and that you ought to be administering
    towards the resiliency, towards mitigation. Is that----
        Mr. Rogoff. I totally agree. We have been very clear. In
    terms of the volume of potential resiliency investments that
    have been identified for us, they go well beyond the amount of
    funds that we will have available. So we are going to be
    focused on the have-to-haves, not the nice-to-haves.
        Mr. Shuster. I didn't hear the last part.
        Mr. Rogoff. We are going to be focused on the have-to-have
    projects, the ones that have the maximum impact with the
    taxpayer dollars on protecting existing infrastructure. The so-
    called nice-to-have projects will have to take a backseat.
        Mr. Shuster. All right. Well, and we have seen throughout
    our recent history, a lot of times, when you put these kind of
    dollars out there, they are diverted, they are not used wisely.
    So it is extremely important, obviously, to this committee and
    to the taxpayers that those things are done in a way that are
    transparent and they are done for its intended purpose so that
    we don't get mitigation malpractice, which we have seen, you
    know, many, many times in our recent history.
        Mr. Rogoff. I completely agree, Mr. Chairman. I think one
    of the benefits of running this program now through FTA, this
    is not to criticize the FEMA approach, but we have had an
    ongoing relationship with these transit agencies, knowing
    precisely what their capital plans have been for years. And we
    will be able to see straight up whether dollars are going
    towards something that has been planned for 9 years without a
    mitigation benefit versus true protection against the next
    disaster.
        Mr. Shuster. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Rogoff.
        And, with that, Mr. Rahall?
        Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First, I want to commend the entire panel for your
    dedication to public service.
        I want to also commend, Mr. Chairman, an individual that is
    in the audience listening to the testimony today, and that is
    the president of Amtrak, Joe Boardman.
        Welcome, Mr. Boardman. And I, again, commend you for your
    being here and listening to this testimony.
        I have a question for Mrs. Zimmerman. And I want to
    particularly thank FEMA, as well, for assisting on a particular
    issue in my congressional district in Logan County with which I
    have discussed directly with your director. And it is moving
    forward in a very positive resolution. I appreciate that.
        But my question to you, Mrs. Zimmerman, is in regard to the
    Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, which directed FEMA to review,
    update, and revise the individual assistance factors, as you
    know. What is the implementation status of this provision? And
    has FEMA reached out to States and tribes to identify the
    issues and concerns that resulted in this provision being
    enacted?
        Ms. Zimmerman. Yes, we did. Thank you, Ranking Member.
        First off, as soon as it passed, we took a look at that,
    and we made outreach to our partners through the National
    Emergency Management Association and the International
    Association for Emergency Managers, as well as the tribal
    constituents, to talk to our State and local and tribal
    partners to examine the individual assistance criteria.
        As you know, the criteria has been out there for a long
    time, and we needed to take a look at that and what really
    indicates when a community has been impacted and those disaster
    survivors and what it means. So we did that outreach starting
    almost immediately after the act was passed, pulled together
    those pieces of information, and we have been working with that
    to move it forward to be able to provide some guidance.
        We have drafted our proposal, and we are going to be
    working through the process of rulemaking to put that out there
    for stakeholders to once again take a look at it and to make
    comment before it goes into law. So we are in the process of
    that, and we appreciate all the outreach and the comments that
    we did receive from our constituents.
        Mr. Rahall. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all the questions I have.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Shuster. Thank you.
        Mr. Gibbs is recognized.
        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shuster. Microphone.
        Mr. Gibbs. Is it working? There we go. I can see, it has a
    loose wire in there, I think. Anyway, I wanted to----
        Mr. Shuster. Flood damage.
        Mr. Gibbs. Yeah. Flood damage, he says.
        A couple questions to General Bostick.
        General, you know, we are working through the WRDA bill, as
    you know, the Water Resources Development Act. And one thing we
    are trying to do in the WRDA bill is streamline some of the
    studies, not eliminating studies, but, you know, doing it in a
    shorter period of time to bring the costs down and bring these
    projects to fruition.
        And I know especially in the construction authority part of
    the emergency legislation for Hurricane Sandy, it talks about--
    and you mentioned this in your testimony--previously authorized
    Corps projects designed to reduce flood and storm risk, you
    know. And then it goes on to say in the law, ``modifying these
    existing Corps projects that do not meet these standards,'' and
    it goes on. But in that area of the law, I believe that
    environmental NEPA and economic analysis are waived.
        And so I guess my first question is, what impact are you
    seeing, you know, by--that is going further into streamlining
    in this emergency legislation. Has it been positive? Or what
    challenges for the Corps have we seen by, you know, doing some
    things and not having to do the economic analysis on those
    modifications or environmental impacts? Have you got any
    comment on that?
        General Bostick. Yes, Representative Gibbs. First, thanks
    to the entire congressional team that has been working WRDA. It
    has been very positive for us, that we will execute some of the
    missions that come out of that, assuming it is passed, to see
    the bipartisan support and the progress.
        In terms of the work that we are doing in Sandy, we feel
    fairly good at the progress that we are making. And the
    interagency support has been fantastic, from my view. We have
    been given authorities to move quickly, especially on the flood
    control and coastal emergency projects, where we are able to
    bring those back to the design conditions for those that are in
    the North Atlantic Division area.
        So that work is proceeding well. The work that we are doing
    in O&M is proceeding well. We still are working with the
    interagency partners, as we should, and we have not seen any
    holdup in our progress. So we feel good about where we are at.
        Mr. Gibbs. And you feel comfortable about any modifications
    to those authorized construction activities, not having to go
    through more studies and more analysis, that, you know, things
    are going along fine? You are OK with that?
        General Bostick. I am comfortable with the way the law was
    published, or it was passed. And we are working within that law
    and have no issues with it. Any modifications to the projects
    that we have are approved at the Assistant Secretary of the
    Army of Civil Works level, Ms. Darcy. And our work with her and
    in conjunction with OMB has gone well.
        Mr. Gibbs. Good.
        A second question regarding nonstructural alternatives. Has
    there been local requests versus--you know, lots of times,
    there is lots of--I think the locals request a lot of
    structural alternatives. What is the status on nonstructural
    alternatives? I know that you have had that authority since the
    1940s.
        And then, also--well, I guess answer the first part. Has
    there been requests from any locals on doing nonstructural
    alternatives?
        General Bostick. We have not had requests for nonstructural
    alternatives, but, as an engineering agency, we believe that is
    one of the options. And as we do the comprehensive study review
    that was directed as part of the Supplemental--we received $20
    million for that--I am certain that those types of
    nonstructural opportunities will be an option to consider.
        Mr. Gibbs. After Hurricane Katrina, was there much
    nonstructural alternatives implemented, put in place? Or what
    is the status?
        General Bostick. There were no nonstructural alternatives
    that were requested, but one of the first--or, actually, the
    first Chief's Report that I signed was an ecosystem restoration
    project of the Barataria Basin.
        And it is lines of defense that help reduce the risk of
    these disasters. When a storm comes in, it could hit flush on a
    city or you can have some lines of defense. Part of that lines
    of defense is ecosystem restoration, marshlands, it is barrier
    islands----
        Mr. Gibbs. Yeah. Let me just ask a followup on that. I know
    during our WRDA hearings there were some entities that were
    really pushing nonstructural alternatives. So let me make this
    clear. So I think you said in Hurricane Sandy there hasn't been
    any requests for nonstructural alternatives, and the
    nonstructural alternatives for Katrina was limited to some
    restoration but not anything more comprehensive than that?
        General Bostick. We had no requests for nonstructural
    alternatives.
        Mr. Gibbs. OK. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you.
        Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman.
        And Ms. Norton is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
    you for this followup. I have already learned and begun to
    think about things I did not know.
        I thank all the witnesses for their very important
    testimony.
        I have been struck by the differences between emergency
    relief for highways and for public transportation. And I
    understand why--apparently, since 1972, we have authorized out
    of the Highway Trust Fund, apparently automatically, $100
    million for emergency relief for the Highway Administration.
    And, of course, I guess that is because you can see the damage
    to the bridges after a hurricane, and to the highways.
        Now, shall I say, in our wisdom, apparently in MAP-21, for
    the first time, we authorized emergency relief for transit, as
    well. But, unlike highways, no funding source was allocated, so
    we had a big fight here to make sure that there were funds for
    Sandy for that relief.
        Now, there are major cities of the United States which
    grind to a halt if their subways, their underground transit,
    does not go. And we already know about New Jersey and New York.
    I hope we never have to hear about Chicago. And I certainly
    hope we never have to hear about the national capital area
    region, because when Metro stops, the entire Federal Government
    shuts down. We have had Snowmaggedon here, several days
    shutdown. We know what happens. I think Sandy sends a shot
    across everybody's bow about your underground transportation.
        Now, this committee has long supported pre-disaster
    mitigation. Indeed, we have had studies done that show, on the
    average, four-to-one savings for pre-disaster mitigation.
        Now, I would like to know what these words, ``resiliency
    projects,'' mean. I understand New York is up and running, but
    that is about all you can say for it. When you say a resiliency
    project, Mr. Rogoff, what is the difference between a
    resiliency project and a repair project?
        Mr. Rogoff. A resiliency project, Mrs. Norton, is one that
    protects against the next storm rather than repairing----
        Ms. Norton. So who did the repair in New York or New
    Jersey, and is that different from who did the resiliency? Or,
    I suppose what I should say, are the fund sources different?
    They had to get up quickly just to get people to work.
        Mr. Rogoff. That is correct. But the emergency relief
    statute that you have identified in MAP-21 provides authority
    to fund both. And, indeed, the President's budget request, when
    he sent it up here for Hurricane Sandy, identified requests for
    both. I would----
        Ms. Norton. But what is the request for the emergency
    relief funding for transit?
        Mr. Rogoff. Originally, the request was $11.7 billion, if
    my memory serves. We then were given $10.9 billion. And after
    sequester, that was lowered to $10.5 billion.
        Ms. Norton. No, that is for Sandy.
        Mr. Rogoff. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. I am talking----
        Mr. Rogoff. Oh.
        Ms. Norton. Has the administration supported anything
    comparable to the $100 million that comes out of the Highway
    Trust Fund for highways?
        Mr. Rogoff. Yes, it has. For the last 2 years, both in the
    2013 budget and in the 2014 budget, the administration has
    requested $25 million as an initial capitalization for the FTA
    Emergency Relief Program so that we could be ready to respond
    immediately, just as the Federal Highway Administration is, to
    disasters as they occur. We are still waiting to see funding
    for that request.
        Ms. Norton. None of us knows what will happen, but I
    certainly--given what this committee already knows about what
    we call pre-disaster relief on the ground, I would certainly
    hope that at least this small amount, $25 million for MAP-21,
    as a starter could begin us down the same road for underground
    transit, bearing in mind that not only do we have that clearly
    the case for large cities, but increasingly what cities and
    counties want to do is to put their own transit below where we
    could all see them.
        And I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentlelady.
        Mr. Rice from South Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rice. I am just curious about Federal participation and
    State and local participation and what the relationships are. I
    live in a coastal area and, obviously, am very concerned about
    hurricanes. And I just think we need to have a conversation
    about what the appropriate level of Federal response is.
        With respect to the Highway Administration and replacing
    these roads, is the Federal Government putting the roads back
    on its own, or are we looking for State and local
    participation, as well?
        Mr. Mendez. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question.
        We work very closely with the State DOT, and, in turn, we
    work indirectly with the local governments. But based on our
    rules, I believe, it is only the State DOT that can request the
    funding. But they certainly are looking for local issues, as
    well, during an event.
        Mr. Rice. Well, is the Federal Government providing 100
    percent of the replacement funds, or are the State and local
    governments participating? Is there a set percentage that the
    Federal Government does, or are we looking for a 60/40 split, a
    two-thirds/one-third split? What are we doing?
        Mr. Mendez. There are two scenarios. First of all, there
    is, after the event, a 180-day scenario where you want to get
    things back on track. So you are not doing permanent repairs;
    you are doing interim repairs. At that point, if it is on a
    Federal highway system, it is a 100 percent Federal share. For
    permanent repairs to an interstate, it is a 90/10 split. If it
    is not an interstate, it is generally an 80/20 split.
        Mr. Rice. What confuses me is the total appropriations that
    we approved in Congress were over $60 billion between the two
    Sandy relief bills that we did. I heard earlier testimony and I
    read in the papers that the damage was $50 billion. So what I
    am curious about is where the extra $10 billion is going.
        We need to have a conversation about what the appropriate
    level of Federal contribution should be. What about on the
    transit systems? I mean, the Federal Government doesn't own or
    control or run any of these transit systems; is that correct?
        Mr. Rogoff. That is correct, we don't own them. But we do
    provide the majority of the capital funding for them as opposed
    to State and local government.
        Mr. Rice. OK. So when we are putting these things back, are
    we contributing 100 percent of the money to do it, or is
    State----
        Mr. Rogoff. Only in--following with the Presidential
    emergency designations, which follows not just FTA relief but
    other forms of Federal relief, there is a period right after
    the storm for which reimbursable expenses are at 100 percent.
    Then that ratchets down to 90 and 75, depending on the
    President's emergency designations.
        Mr. Rice. How much is going into the transit systems in New
    York and New Jersey for these repairs? Have you got an estimate
    of what the total is going to cost?
        Mr. Rogoff. We do for disaster. We can't necessarily say
    yet for----
        Mr. Rice. Can you give me a range?
        Mr. Rogoff. I can give you a number, sir, if you just give
    me a moment. In terms of our estimates for what we expect,
    response and recovery for the New York-New Jersey area we
    expect to be $5.827 billion. And agencies will get resiliency
    funds on top of that. Some of this resiliency money was sent by
    formula. Roughly $3 billion of it, at least, will be done on a
    competitive basis to make sure we are getting the best projects
    for the buck.
        Those estimates were done jointly by the FTA and FEMA as a
    result of damage assessments done together very shortly after
    the storm.
        Mr. Rice. OK. So that total, is that the Federal obligation
    or is that both?
        Mr. Rogoff. That is a combination of Federal and local
    because, like I said----
        Mr. Rice. OK. And what percentage of that is Federal?
        Mr. Rogoff. You know, Mr. Rice, I am going to ask you to
    let me get you those numbers as part of the record because----
        Mr. Rice. Just roughly. Is it over 50 percent?
        Mr. Rogoff. Oh, yes, sir.
        Mr. Rice. Seventy percent?
        Mr. Rogoff. Over that, because----
        Mr. Rice. Ninety percent?
        Mr. Rogoff. Part of it will be--like I said, part of it
    100, part of it 90, part of it 75, depending on when the actual
    bills come in. And that is not just an FTA dynamic; it covers
    other disaster relief programs across the Government.
        Mr. Rice. It seems to me that the Federal response to
    disasters has kind of changed in the last 10 years. I know when
    Hugo hit South Carolina, I believe the damages were about $6
    billion and the Federal Government contributed about $2
    billion. But now we are talking about damages of $50 billion
    and the Federal Government is contributing $60 billion.
        Mr. Rogoff. I am not sure that is correct. I think the
    thing to look at, Mr. Rice, here is what falls under the
    definition of ``damage,'' because there are other damage
    expenses that are not reimbursable by any Federal program that
    I am sure the New York and New Jersey folks would point to the
    costs for which they are not getting reimbursed for.
        Mr. Rice. And I think you are explaining some of it when
    you say you are putting money into resiliency, which is more
    than just repair. You are talking about further capital
    improvements.
        Mr. Rogoff. Correct.
        Mr. Rice. But I think we need to have a conversation about
    what the Federal role is.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman.
        And, with that, Mr. Nadler is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator Rogoff, the chairman talked a few minutes ago
    about climate change. And forgetting that for the moment, we do
    know that, whether it is caused by climate change or not, we
    are getting more of these bad storms, the sea level is rising,
    and we are getting higher storm surges.
        Does the FTA have enough resources to protect the transit
    system in New York and other vulnerable areas, given our
    expectations over the next--and our--in light of our experience
    what the recent storms and storm surges have been, do you have
    enough resources to protect the transit system in New York and
    other vulnerable areas, or will there still be unmet needs?
    Will the $3 billion for resiliency projects be enough to do
    everything necessary to protect our coastal and low-lying
    cities from the long-term threat of rising sea levels and
    extreme weather events?
        Mr. Rogoff. No, it won't, sir. As I said in my oral remarks
    earlier, the stakeholders in the area have identified potential
    resiliency investments that far exceed what we have in the
    Federal envelope as a result of the Sandy Supplemental, which
    is why we are going to seek to ruthlessly prioritize the
    Federal dollars to the best projects with the greatest impact.
        Mr. Nadler. When you say ``far exceed,'' $3 billion, when
    you say ``far exceed,'' do you mean 4? 44?
        Mr. Rogoff. I have heard numbers well north of $11 billion
    or $12 billion. But I can't individually verify those estimates
    because they----
        Mr. Nadler. Order of magnitude $11 billion, $12 billion.
        Mr. Rogoff. At least. If you look at the reports that Mayor
    Bloomberg and Governor Cuomo have done, as well as others, you
    will see a wide universe of potential investments----
        Mr. Nadler. This is a problem we are going to have to
    address.
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, you are talking about the most transit-
    dependent region of the country. I don't need to tell you that.
    This is an area where car ownership is at the lowest levels in
    the Nation. And the entire economy in the region is dependent
    upon an operating transit system.
        Mr. Nadler. Some people think, and I can detect in the
    questioning by the prior Member, I think, that maybe we
    shouldn't spend money on--disaster money on resiliency; we
    should only spend it on recovery. What would happen if we only
    spent money on recovery, we restore the systems exactly the way
    they were? After all, the Montague Tunnel has served us for 93
    years, serve us another 93 years. Why should we improve it?
        Mr. Rogoff. Because we will pay to restore it over and over
    and over again.
        Mr. Nadler. So it wouldn't be cost effective.
        Mr. Rogoff. We do not believe so.
        Mr. Nadler. OK. Let me ask you also that--Sandy
    Supplemental provided $118 million to Amtrak, which included
    $32 million for expenses related to consequences of Hurricane
    Sandy, and $86 million to advance capital projects on the
    Northeast Corridor infrastructure recovery and resiliency. I
    think you said before that Amtrak was not able to use the $86
    million. Why is that?
        I am sorry, Administrator Szabo.
        Mr. Szabo. There is language in the Sandy Act that actually
    restricts a provision under PRIIA which provides for the
    temporary transfer of funds for Amtrak to help smooth out their
    cash flows. And so it is important. All it takes in order to
    correct this problem is the deletion of four words in the Sandy
    Supplemental Act, and those four words are ``or any other
    act.''
        Mr. Nadler. Why were those four words put in there?
        Mr. Szabo. I can't speak as to why they were put in there.
    But I certainly know what the effect of them are, it was to
    undo, in essence, a provision that is provided for in PRIIA
    that allows for more effective cash management. And so with
    this money restricted, there are so many important projects
    that are necessary. You know, you just talked about the need
    for resiliency to make sure that when we repair something that
    we are going to be able to build it to a higher standard that
    will be flood resistant. I think of Substation 41, just there
    between New York and New Jersey, which was out during the storm
    and ended up severely restricting the flow of Amtrak commuter
    trains in and out of New York.
        Mr. Nadler. So if those words were removed and the $86
    million were made available, it would be used for hardening
    infrastructure, in effect.
        Mr. Szabo. Exactly. Making sure that it is built to modern
    standards that are going to resist----
        Mr. Nadler. Making sure that existing infrastructure would
    be more resistant for future forms.
        Mr. Szabo. Exactly.
        Mr. Nadler. Let me ask one thing. My time is beginning to
    run out. But, Administrator Rogoff, I think it is important for
    people to understand the real impact of the storm on our
    region's transit system. Can you talk a little bit about the
    extent of the damage, the number of people affected, and the
    timeline for how quickly service was restored?
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, the timeline in which service was
    initially restored is actually a large success. But you are
    talking about a service between Metro North and the Long Island
    Railroad and the subway system that serves close to 40 percent
    of the transit riders of America, and I should add, obviously,
    New Jersey Transit in that region. Right in the tristate
    region. And the damage was extensive.
        For New Jersey Transit, whole rail lines were washed out,
    we had to procure 350 buses immediately after the storm just to
    provide alternative mechanisms for the commuters from New
    Jersey to get to work. As you know, Brooklyn and Manhattan were
    cut off from one another. And even in the case of the
    Rockaways, Queens was cut off from Queens. You are talking
    about a region where, like I said, it is the largest transit-
    dependent population where the economy could not function
    absent the mobility of workers. You are talking about the need
    for getting people at all hours to hospitals. Just for health
    care of the people in the region. I don't think you can
    overstate the impact or the elemental importance of the transit
    system.
        Mr. Nadler. My time has expired. Thank you.
        Mr. Shuster. Thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Hanna is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Hanna. Thank you for being here. Mr. Rogoff, in your
    written testimony, you indicate that the FTA will be holding
    back about a billion dollars, $4.5 billion remaining in the
    public transportation recovery projects. How long do you
    anticipate holding that back and why? And are there not enough
    existing recovery needs identified?
        Mr. Rogoff. No, that isn't the issue, Mr. Hanna. The issue
    really has to do with the fact, as I said earlier, that roughly
    $5.8 billion estimate of recovery costs was a very early
    estimate. It was done very quickly after the storm by FTA teams
    in concert with FEMA teams and our project management oversight
    contractors. We want to make sure--we believe, first and
    foremost, we have an obligation to pay for the recovery costs.
    And we want to make sure that we don't find that there are
    latent recovery costs that are discovered for which we would
    then need to come back to Congress for yet more money.
        And there have been examples that we are already seeing in
    the tristate area. We learned from Katrina that subsurface
    damage only starts to rear its head months after the storm. We
    want to hold moneys in reserve for that purpose. We are
    concerned about the fact that project costs may rise from these
    initial estimates, especially when everyone is competing for
    the same contractors to do them.
        So again, we do believe that our first and highest
    responsibility is to pay for the recovery and we want to make
    sure we have enough money in the bank to do it without having
    to come back to you all.
        Mr. Hanna. Is that because you don't have the capacity to
    anticipate the full extent of the damage or the recovery
    process? Twenty percent is a substantial amount of money to be
    guessing at.
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, but 20 percent, when you add the
    possibility of latent damage that we haven't yet seen. We are
    already getting reports from the Port Authority and from New
    Jersey Transit and the MTA of a higher than expected level of
    failures. There may be some equipment that we hoped to repair
    that may have to be replaced. I think it is prudent to withhold
    those funds. You can be sure they are not going to lay fallow.
    We will put them to appropriate use. But we think it is
    critical to make sure we do not send out resiliency grants only
    to discover that we shorted ourselves on the needs for
    recovery.
        Mr. Hanna. I understand. Also, Mr. Rogoff, in your written
    testimony, you highlight the rebuilding of the A train subway
    tracks to the Rockaways and Queens as a major success for rapid
    completion. Are there--I guess the question is, what did you
    learn about that? Are there means and methods and ideas that
    you have come up with that might be similar to how we went
    about repairing the I-35 West Bridge in Minnesota and that may
    work in a nonemergency situation that we can apply to things
    like the new WRTA and MAP-21.
        Mr. Rogoff. Understood. I believe, sir, that one of the
    things that we need to be attentive to, and I don't necessarily
    want to say this is a parallel with the I-35 bridge. But I can
    tell you in the transit experience, one of the reasons why the
    Rockaways was a success is because the MTA already had a very
    capable contractor on board that they were able to put to work
    right away. And I think one needs to understand, this committee
    will be in receipt of reports from the inspector general and
    one of the things they are going to tell you is that we had to
    take an openminded view on certain procurement issues as to
    whether we were going to allow limited competition procurements
    or even sole-source procurements to enable the transit agencies
    to get service up and running as quickly as possible. I commend
    that to your attention, because I think sometimes when we get
    too burdened by the rigor of Federal rules it can slow us down.
    The President said that he was going to eliminate red tape
    wherever he could to put this money to work. I think we have
    made great progress in doing that, and we look forward to
    explaining the judgment calls that we made there in order to
    get service on the street as soon as possible.
        Mr. Hanna. Do you have an idea of the premium generally
    that you pay for hiring contractors under emergency
    circumstances, if it is 10, 20, 30, some percentage?
        Mr. Rogoff. I wouldn't want to venture a guess.
        Mr. Hanna. Would you agree that there is one?
        Mr. Rogoff. I think so in terms of--you are talking about
    people who are able to deploy overnight and have the equipment
    or have access to the equipment. And when you are talking about
    a project as expansive as the Rockaways, I toured it very
    shortly after the storm. You are talking about literally
    hundreds of feet of railroad that were dangling in the air like
    a swinging bridge because all of the supports had been washed
    away. That was a ton of concrete to have to replace. And to do
    it smarter, I don't doubt that there was some premium to be
    paid. I am also concerned about the premium that we may pay
    when all of these contracts are being competed for at the same
    time in the years to come. We need to be mindful of that.
        Mr. Hanna. My time has expired. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Maloney has a commitment to--the ranking member would
    like to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Maloney so he can get his
    question in.
        Mr. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that
    very much. And I want to commend you and the ranking member for
    holding this important hearing. Thank everyone on the panel for
    their service.
        General Bostick, if I am not mistaken, you and I were
    together at Stewart Air Force Base, Air National Guard Base, in
    January or February welcoming home the Joint Task Force Empire
    411th Engineer Brigade. Am I right about that, sir?
        General Bostick. Yes, sir. Good to see you again.
        Mr. Maloney. I also think, if I am not mistaken, you are a
    graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point,
    which I have the honor of representing. Am I right about that?
        General Bostick. You are correct.
        Mr. Maloney. Which explains your outstanding service to
    your country.
        And I want to tell you, sir, because that, of course, that
    is in my district in the Hudson Valley, but it is also one of
    the great jewels of the United States. And thank you for your
    service. But my question, sir, is--I have a quick question, I
    have a more complicated question. My quick question is, there
    was a commitment as part of the Sandy Supplemental Aid package
    to conduct a coastal flooding study, $20 million study. And it
    is my understanding that it is meant to include areas in the
    Hudson Valley that would extend up to both sides of the river,
    up to Poughkeepsie. I was hoping to get your thoughts on the
    status of that study. And if I can get your commitment that the
    Hudson Valley will be, as I believe it is supposed to be
    included in that study.
        General Bostick. This comprehensive study was in the
    Supplemental directed the Corps of Engineers to work with--
    working with up to 90 different organizations, interagency
    locals. And we are looking at the whole North Atlantic Division
    coast. And that whole coastline. And the areas impacted by
    Sandy in North Atlantic Division. The draft report is near
    completion, we are reviewing it, and the final report will come
    to Congress January 2015.
        Mr. Maloney. And that will include a look at the Hudson
    Valley, sir?
        General Bostick. I will have to look at the specifics of
    the Hudson Valley. But my understanding is anything that was
    impacted by Hurricane Sandy in the North Atlantic Division and
    the Hudson Valley would be included.
        Mr. Maloney. Well, if I could ask you to take a look at
    that and get back to my office, I would appreciate that, sir.
        General Bostick. I will do that.
        Mr. Maloney. My second question relates to the timeliness
    with which we are conducting these projects. I think I would
    direct this to Administrator Mendez. Sir, there is--it is a
    fact that Hurricane Sandy did unprecedented damage in the
    Northeast. But prior to that in the Hudson Valley we also
    experienced Hurricane Irene in August of 2011, and Tropical
    Storm Lee. You know, there is a community I represent called
    New Windsor, New York; there is a little bridge there called
    Forge Hill Road bridge. It is Route 74. It is how you get
    between Route 32 and Route 94. The bridge was washed out as
    part of the flooding. The embankment gateway. It is a little
    two-lane bridge. If you went there the morning after the storm,
    sir, this is--this is what it would look like. It is a simple
    little bridge. It could be in any town in America. There is no
    doubt about what caused the damage. There is no doubt that it
    needs to be replaced. But it is a two-lane bridge. It could be
    anywhere. And folks got to go all the way up to Route 94, all
    the way around. It is causing all kinds of bottlenecks. If you
    went to Route 74 today, this morning, this is what it looks
    like. It is taken over 2 years, sir, and still no construction
    has started.
        Can you tell me--I would like to--I would like to get your
    commitment that we can find out what the heck is going on with
    the Forge Hill Road bridge, specifically. But can you tell me
    why it takes 2 years to get a simple little bridge built. If
    Task Force--if Joint Task Force Empire, the 411th Brigade,
    which was building bridges, if I am not mistaken, General
    Bostick, all over Afghanistan, that we welcomed home earlier
    this year, was put on this in a combat environment in
    Afghanistan, General, is it fair to say you could do this in
    under 2 years?
        General Bostick. I don't know the conditions of that
    specific bridge. But we did bridges and we could do bridges in
    Afghanistan in under 2 years.
        Mr. Maloney. Right. In a combat environment with people
    shooting at them. They built a lot of them in Afghanistan. Why
    can't we get a bridge built in America in the State of New York
    in under 2 years? If you could help me with that, sir, I would
    love to understand. And I would love to get your commitment on
    this specific project.
        Mr. Mendez. You do have my commitment. I don't know the
    details of that. But we will go look at it. I will raise some
    questions with our folks in New York.
        But let me just kind of step back a little bit. I can
    assure you that at least in today's environment, as an example,
    in the State of Washington earlier this year on I-5, a major,
    major interstate, a bridge got hit by a vehicle and the bridge
    dropped. And working with WSDOT, Washington State DOT,
    ourselves, and the Coast Guard, and a lot of other people, they
    were able to restore that, replace it, a permanent replacement
    in less than 6 months, I believe. So it can be done. I just
    don't know what happened on your situation. So let me look into
    that and we will get back to you.
        Mr. Maloney. I appreciate that very much. I would like that
    very much. And I think that--I think that if we--you know, it
    would be nice thing, wouldn't it, if we--if we can't do it in
    less than 2 years, maybe we ought to get Joint Task Force
    Empire to build some things in the United States as rapidly and
    as efficiently that is they are building them in Afghanistan
    and we might be a better country.
        My final question would be directed towards the--towards
    FEMA. And I guess I would like to know, I guess this would be
    directed to Deputy Administrator Zimmerman. Ms. Zimmerman, if
    you could help me with the Wallkill River, in particular. There
    is a--there is a--there was a rule in existence--my time is
    out; so maybe you could just give me this commitment and
    contact my office. But there is an issue with providing FEMA
    relief to lands that are largely agricultural property. This
    means a lot of folks who are farmers aren't getting help right
    now under the FEMA programs. It is a real issue in Orange
    County that is really suffering from Hurricane Irene and these
    other storms. If I could get your commitment to work with me on
    this I would sure appreciate it.
        Ms. Zimmerman. Yes, you have our commitment to work with
    you.
        Mr. Maloney. Thank you. I will yield back my time, Mr.
    Chairman. And thank you again for the indulgence.
        Mr. Shuster. The gentleman doesn't have any time to yield
    back, but that is OK. That is OK. I want members of the
    committee to take notice, I let Mr. Maloney go on because he
    was asking a question that every member of this committee has
    asked at some point in their career probably many times, why we
    can't get things done faster. And hopefully with the passage of
    MAP-21 they have some stuff in there for transit, which has
    enabled the Federal Transit Administration to move quicker on
    problems like this.
        So again, that is--that is the question we all keep asking
    around the table, let's do stuff faster. If you take one thing
    away from this committee, I think it is a very bipartisan
    approach; let's move things quicker.
        And with that, I yield to Mr. Webster for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a timing
    question also. So thank you for highlighting that.
        Back in 2004--this would be to Ms. Zimmerman--central
    Florida in a 45-day period of time were impacted by three
    hurricanes, all of which were stronger than Sandy, Charley,
    Frances, and Irene.
        And there are--there were many local municipalities and
    others who were sub-grantees from our grantee, which is the
    State of Florida, our division of Emergency Management, headed
    at that time by your administrator now, Mr. Fugate. And today,
    the audits are taking place, 10 years later. Many of the people
    are gone, people don't remember, whatever, but they are being
    audited. And in many, many cases asked to give back money that
    supposedly was given to them. And the point is, the timing to
    recover funds a decade after a disaster, and this is only the
    first, Charley, and there are two other hurricanes that will
    follow after this, which were again within that 45-day
    framework, that these local communities are going to have to
    produce documents, which they may or may not have. I don't
    know. But I know it is a difficulty.
        I heard another member of this committee talk about that
    when we were doing the bill, the FEMA bill. She was the mayor
    of West Palm Beach and they too were having the same problems.
    I guess my question is in the case of Sandy recovery, what
    initiatives are being taken by FEMA to provide greater level of
    certainty for these grantees and sub-grantees to avoid a
    similar recovery process 10 years from now that will--as
    opposed to possibly closing out these public assistance
    projects earlier and so that audits could occur hopefully in a
    timely manner.
        Ms. Zimmerman. Great. Yes. That is one of our concerns too,
    is to make sure as projects get completed that we are auditing
    them and going through and working with the paperwork with the
    applicant so that the grantees, as they administer the money
    and as the sub-grantees are out there doing the project and
    completing them. So one of the things is, we have taken a
    stronger approach when we set up and we put together the
    project worksheets, working with the applicants, the folks that
    are on the road, on the ground, it is the damages that they
    have incurred. So we are putting stronger criteria out there so
    that when we are documenting the projects to see what has been
    completed or what needs to be completed, making sure we have
    all of that documentation upfront as well as monitoring it as
    we work through the process.
        So working closer with our grantees and sub-grantees to
    make sure that documentation is there and the closer
    collaboration throughout the project.
        Mr. Webster. I have one other question, and that is, there
    has been a lot of talk about resiliency and resilient
    construction. Do you know anywhere in a statute or in rule or
    in guidance documents--even though I know we have had documents
    here from FEMA that talk about resilient--that ``resilient
    construction'' is defined?
        Ms. Zimmerman. So, yes. So when we have projects, whether
    it is through our public assistance program or our hazard
    mitigation grant program, we include mitigation to a project--
    when something's been destroyed, and it might be old
    construction, whatever, we look to make those more resilient.
    Through the public assistance program we do have mitigation
    dollars that can be used on top of the project funding.
        Mr. Webster. Right. But what I am asking, is there a
    definition of ``resilient construction'' anywhere in any
    document that you know of?
        Ms. Zimmerman. I would have to get back with you on that
    one.
        Mr. Webster. OK. Thank you. Yield back.
        Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman.
        Ms. Brown is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rogoff, thank you very much for meeting with the mayor
    of Orlando, Buddy Dyer, and the other mayors and everybody from
    central Florida with their concern about the projects that I
    guess, because of the $24 billion shutdown and the sequester,
    12 projects are caught up that are ready to go. But because of
    what is going on in Congress, these projects may not be able to
    move forward. Can you expound on--it is not just Orlando, it is
    central Florida, it is 12 other projects around the country.
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, there are a number of projects. You are
    talking specifically about our New Starts program?
        Ms. Brown. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rogoff. Our New Starts and Small Starts program. And we
    did, in 2013, as we have in prior years, ask for increased
    funding for that program, because we were signing up more
    meritorious projects around the country. Some of them very
    large that are going to serve a great many passengers. And as
    Mr. Shuster pointed out, we are speeding up our processes at
    the request of this committee and others, and our own desire to
    move projects more quickly. Unfortunately, in 2013, rather than
    get the funding increase that we sought, we got frozen through
    the continuing resolution and then sequestered below that. And
    the result is that every FTA New Start project that had a full
    funding grant agreement had their scheduled payment reduced in
    2013.
        Now, looking forward, we obviously don't know the outcome
    of the appropriations process for 2014. So we don't know
    whether we will be able to fully fund all of our existing
    obligations in 2014. And not knowing that, it is very hard to
    predict whether we will have additional funding as we have
    requested in our budget to fund additional projects.
        Our entire appropriation may be taken up with the multiyear
    commitments we have already made. I think SunRail Phase 2 is
    the project of greatest concern to you, it is one of those
    projects that is in our pipeline. We have--I testified here and
    elsewhere before that our ability to fund new projects in the
    pipeline will only be determined by whether we can get
    sufficient appropriations to pay off our existing obligations.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you. Mr. Szabo, I need to go back--I know
    Mr. Boardman is here, and that has been acknowledged. But back
    to the $118 million that only $32 million have been able to be
    spent. Have the leadership in the House Transportation
    Committee and in the Senate, have they been contacted? Because
    basically after the hurricane, we took the train up. And we met
    with the stakeholders all the way up. And they told about the
    importance of harding the area so that, you know, we wouldn't
    have the flood coming in.
        So this is--can we have a list of how that $86 million is
    intended to be spent? And what is the status? Have you
    contacted the leadership? Because I am sure that the leadership
    on both Houses would want to make sure that what happened with
    Sandy doesn't happen again.
        Mr. Szabo. Yes, Congresswoman, we will be able to provide
    for you for the record a list of projects that would be
    appropriate for the additional what is now $81 million to
    ensure that resiliency of the infrastructure. We have continued
    to have dialogue, with what it would take for an appropriate
    fix. And again it is really a matter of simply deleting four
    words, and those four words ``or any other act.''
        Ms. Brown. Well, did not the President have the authority
    to just, you know, change those words?
        Mr. Szabo. Not once it is adopted into--you know, into
    statute.
        Ms. Brown. I see.
        Mr. Szabo. If we go back to the original provisions under
    PRIIA, the Secretary has the authority, we provide the
    appropriate oversight at FRA to ensure that these temporary
    transfers are just that, temporary. Those things that are
    appropriate on a day to day to smooth out cash flow, and ensure
    at the end of the year that it is a clean audit. And that is
    important----
        Ms. Brown. Is this what the attorneys told you?
        Mr. Szabo. That is correct.
        Ms. Brown. Fire those attorneys. Thank you very much. I
    yield back my time.
        Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentlelady.
        Mr. LoBiondo is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank our panel for
    being here. I would like to thank my colleagues in the House
    for the strong bipartisan effort that it took to get the Sandy
    relief package passed. Our entire delegation in New Jersey and
    many others worked very hard. But I particularly want to thank
    Mr. Sires, Mr. Pascrell for some incredible work. We have
    partnered together on many issues, and this was another one
    that yielded a very good result.
        As we look to the aftermath of Sandy, I want to point out
    that our strong support and efforts continue for the thousands
    of people who are still displaced. A lot of folks think that
    since we are a year afterwards that everything is pretty well
    settled. And we made a lot of progress. But there, again, are
    thousands that are still displaced and devastated by the
    aftermath of the storm. I think reforms that Congress put in
    place after Katrina have resulted in a marked improvement with
    a Federal response to Sandy, and much good progress and work
    has been done because of the strong partnership that has been
    created.
        And for a lot of people they think this is just some
    Federal money poured into it. But this is the Federal
    Government, numerous agencies, the State of New Jersey, local
    communities that have come together in an extraordinary way. In
    the Sandy relief package, we gave a lot of flexibility to the
    State of New Jersey. Governor Christie has an incredible hands-
    on attitude about how to work with the Federal agencies and
    determine where this money could be best put. But with all that
    good progress, because of flaws in the formula which no one
    could foresee, we have a number of communities that have just
    fallen through the cracks. The Bayshore communities in
    Cumberland County, while a very small part of Cumberland County
    geographically, have just been devastated.
        We have got Little Egg Harbor Township, we have got Mystic
    Island, we have got Tuckerton. These places have fallen through
    the cracks, and the suffering that these folks are undergoing
    is no less than the ones who were in the more inclusive areas.
    So we need to try to find the flexibility. And we are working
    with Federal agencies to continue to see if there is room in
    the language. So we are going to be that coming back, trying to
    see what we can do on this.
        Tourism is a tremendous mainstay for New Jersey. It is
    almost a $40 billion industry. So the recovery efforts focused
    early on on trying to recover for the tourism season were
    pretty successful. Infrastructure projects had great success.
        And General Bostick, I want to tell you that the Army Corps
    in Philadelphia has been nothing short of outstanding. These
    folks understand how to partner to get results, to get things
    done. They have been a pleasure to work with. They have gone in
    each and every community, looked at what we needed to do of how
    to get this done, and I think a real model for how some other
    Federal agencies to work. So while this Federal, State, and
    local partnership has been mostly effective, we still need to
    work even harder to make sure that we finish the job for those
    people who really have fallen between--between the cracks.
        Again, this is a result of a strong bipartisan effort that
    I think we can look to with a lot of pride. We can see that
    this work has resulted in tremendous amount of progress. But
    sort of unrelated to Sandy, but certainly a part of it, is what
    is happening with the flood insurance maps. And here again, we
    have had a pretty united effort from our delegation. Senators
    Menendez and Booker are fully engaged. But this is adding to
    the misery that the people of New Jersey along the coast are
    experiencing with the aftermath of Sandy.
        So we have a very strong bipartisan effort with a number of
    folks that are working on this. And we hope to have a
    successful conclusion. So I would like to once again thank
    those Members of the partnership for their work, but remind
    everybody that we still have an awful lot that has to be done
    and we need the strong effort to continue. Mr. Chairman, thank
    you very much.
        Mr. Duncan [presiding]. Thank you. Mr. Bishop is next.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
    panel both for your presentation today and also for all the
    work that you have done and continue to do on behalf of the
    people we all represent. I want a particular word of thanks for
    FEMA, who was on the ground in my district within hours of the
    storm hitting and stays there and has done a great job, and a
    particular word of thanks also to the Army Corps of Engineers
    who continues to do great work.
        And, General Bostick, in addition to thanking you, I want
    to pay particular thank you and commendation to David Leach and
    Joe Vietri, who are sitting behind you, who have done great,
    great work in our district and throughout the Northeast.
        Real quickly the gentleman from South Carolina before was
    raising issues having to do with cost and what--the remedy we
    have put in place. And he was suggesting that we had a $50
    billion need against which we were proposing a $60 billion
    solution. And I just--I think it is important that we all have
    the same set of numbers. The Governors of New York and New
    Jersey provided a very, very detailed list back in the fall of
    2012 to the White House. That list was north of $80 billion
    worth of needs that they were requesting the Federal Government
    to address. The response was $60 billion, $10 billion of which
    was essentially additional borrowing authority for the flood
    insurance program. So that left roughly $50 billion, which has
    been reduced by discrimination.
        So what really we are doing is providing approximately $45
    billion or $47 billion against an $85 billion need. So plenty
    of money. I mean, lots of money, $47 billion. But it is not as
    if we are throwing money at problems and not having identified
    problems with any degree of specificity.
        Let me just go to a couple of things real quick. The
    President made a commitment to eliminating red tape for the
    Sandy recovery efforts. And my question, General Bostick, is to
    you, is, is that commitment really being acted upon? And do we
    really have a commitment to expedite projects to the greatest
    extent possible from the partners that the Corps must work
    with? And I am speaking specifically about OMB, Fish and
    Wildlife, Department of the Interior. Is there truly a
    Governmentwide commitment to eliminating red tape so that we
    can put solutions in place as quickly as possible? And, if not,
    is there anything this committee can do to assist you in
    completing your efforts?
        General Bostick. Mr. Bishop, thank for that question, and
    also thanks for recognizing members of my team and also the
    team that is doing the work in North Atlantic Division and
    across the Corps.
        To your question, in terms of Sandy and the post-Sandy
    work, we feel like we are moving as fast as we can safely move.
    And we think the interagency work, the work with OMB, the work
    that is happening on the ground with the locals is moving as
    fast as we can safely move. And we feel good about the
    authorities that we have been given. I think if you look
    broader in terms of the work that the Corps must do, there is
    more work to do in terms of streamlining our efforts and making
    us all work together to move quickly. But in terms of post-
    Sandy construction, we feel good about where we are at.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. Thank you for that. We talked a little
    about funding. The Corps had $5.35 billion. And that is--that
    is an enormous amount of money. But is it sufficient to repair
    the damage that was caused by 100-year storm, and is it
    sufficient to repair the damage in such a way that we will not
    have damage to that extent if we are hit by additional storms
    going forward? And let me just add a little bit also. One of
    the things that I am very concerned about is we are going to
    make repairs, particularly to our shorelines, but those repairs
    are going to require ongoing maintenance. And to the extent--is
    it possible for the Corps to sequester some portion--bad word--
    set aside some portion of the funding so that there could be a
    pool available for ongoing maintenance so that it doesn't all
    fall on either the annual appropriations process or the local
    governments?
        General Bostick. That is a complex question, sir.
        Mr. Bishop. Sorry.
        General Bostick. What I would say is it is going to be yes-
    and-no answer. Yes, it is enough in the areas that we have been
    asked to respond to immediately. The flood control and coastal
    emergency. Those projects, the O&M projects that were direct in
    our authorities. The comprehensive study, the $20 million to do
    the comprehensive study. I feel we have adequate funds to do
    what we have been asked to do there. There are some projects
    that are authorized but not constructed. There are some
    projects that may come out of ongoing investigations. The
    comprehensive study is not going to produce projects, but down
    the road it may produce ideas that the Congress may want to
    seek projects. And there is not enough money for that.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Shuster [presiding]. With that, Mr. Davis is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thanks
    for holding this hearing.
        Thank you to each and every one of you for being here
    today.
        Joe, I would really like to talk to you about some high-
    speed rail issues in Springfield to Chicago to Saint Louis, but
    we will save that for another day.
        I really have enjoyed hearing some of the questions and the
    testimony relating to some of the processes that are followed
    post-disaster. And I think in this country, when it comes to
    disaster relief, we do a great job on the ground early. FEMA
    needs to be congratulated. All of your agencies do a phenomenal
    job. But we have the problems post-disaster. And it seems to
    me, too, that in many of the processes that take place
    afterwards we don't dedicate enough time to try and make them
    easier on the average hardworking taxpayers of this country,
    too, who may still have to deal with agencies like FEMA and
    others.
        And with that in mind, I know Mr. Webster talked about the
    audit process that sometimes takes up to 10 years to address
    issues relating to taxpayer dollars being spent. We all want to
    save taxpayer dollars, Administrator Zimmerman, but we have to
    get a better process, too, that is in place so that those
    audits get done more quickly, not just on the public assistance
    projects that my colleague, Mr. Webster, mentioned, but also
    when it comes to individual assistance.
        And we are going to see this in the aftermath of Hurricane
    Sandy. We have seen it in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina
    and many disasters near my district along the Mississippi
    River, where, years from now, individuals will get letters
    stating that they now owe FEMA money.
        So I would urge you to continue to work towards making the
    process on the front end better so that we avoid these problems
    in the future. Because you know who they call? They call us.
    And then we call you. And it is unfortunate when that process
    has to happen.
        I do want to address, because I know that flood maps and
    mapping issues are frustrating folks along the eastern
    seaboard, too, as they are in and along the Mississippi River.
    As you know, we have a project that we are working with the
    Corps of Engineers to try and upgrade our levies in the metro
    east, while it seems we are in a race with FEMA to avoid the
    flood insurance rates going up drastically. It seems we should
    have better coordination.
        And along that line, the LOMA process. The LOMA process is
    a process that I found some personal frustration with in
    helping individuals walk through that. And I want to ask you a
    question. What is your average time it takes for a LOMA request
    to actually be--from filing date through adjudication?
        Ms. Zimmerman. Thank you for that question, Representative
    Davis. That falls within our Flood Insurance and Mitigation
    branch. I come from Response and Recovery. And I would not be
    able to give you a quote, as far as how long that process
    takes. So we would be happy to get that information back to you
    and give you that timeline.
        Mr. Davis. Can you get that person here in the next minute
    and 42 seconds?
        Ms. Zimmerman. Well, let me see.
        Mr. Davis. Would you take my question back?
        Ms. Zimmerman. Yes, definitely.
        Mr. Davis. Because it goes with the whole--it also goes
    within the responsibility of FEMA and within the area that you
    are responsible for, too. Because it is the entire process,
    whether it is a mapping process, whether it is the disaster
    assistance process, whether it is actually making sure that
    individuals and public entities get the funds that they need
    and deserve. And it is an overall frustration for Members like
    me that we just see one agency within different departments
    seemingly work against themselves. And that is what we are
    trying to fix here.
        And I believe this committee--I agree with Chairman
    Shuster. We have seen Chairman Shuster and so many people on
    this committee in a bipartisan way put forth efforts to
    streamline processes. Because what is happening now sometimes
    isn't the best. And each and every one of you know a better way
    to move the bureaucracy. And we need to hear from you, too, and
    we need to hear from all of your agencies on how we can make
    the processes better post this disaster and the many more that
    are sure to come.
        And, with that, since I asked the question to the wrong
    person, I will yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman.
        Now Mr. Sires is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    meeting.
        Before I start, I want to thank my colleague LoBiondo for
    his hard work and the kind words. He took the leadership and we
    were able to secure the money that New Jersey needed. So I feel
    real good about my colleagues.
        You know, one of my pet peeves when I was in the New Jersey
    Assembly was always putting money, every year--beaches,
    replenishment, and everything else that went along when we had
    a storm. And this resilience program, to me, I think it is
    extremely important. Because we would build it, and it would
    break again.
        So I guess my question to you now is this: Knowing that we
    need to do this resilience and knowing that we need to fix this
    or we can have the money to do the infrastructure that is going
    to be able to withstand the storms, are we better off now or
    better prepared for a future storm than we were before Sandy?
    Have we done some of the work that needed to be done in
    infrastructure to withstand some of the storms in the future?
        Mr. Rogoff. I will take a quick piece of that, but I only
    have a small piece of that answer, Mr. Sires.
        We have at the FTA allocated not just recovery money but we
    have also allocated $1.3 billion to the transit agencies in the
    region, including New Jersey Transit and the MTA, for what we
    call local priority resiliency.
        The concept for that funding was this: If you are going to
    go into a tunnel and you are going to restore it and do the
    necessary restoration, it makes sense and certainly is
    efficient from the perspective of the taxpayer to complete the
    resilience element of that project at the same time.
        So the classic example is you have rail tunnels that also
    have the signal and the electrical work and the ductwork at the
    ground level. And putting it up to the roof doesn't cost all
    that much, and, Lord knows, you don't want to have to shut down
    the tunnel twice.
        So, yes, we are in the midst of doing that construction. It
    is not completed yet, but there are what I would call, kind of,
    small bore resiliency efforts that are underway.
        Mr. Sires. Well, I am glad to hear that, because one of the
    problems that we had in Hoboken, New Jersey, was the signals.
    Apparently, there were, like, 1,200 signals that went because
    of the slope of the--so this is where the resilience money will
    be spent, I would assume.
        Mr. Rogoff. That is one part of it. We----
        Mr. Sires. There are others, I am sure.
        Mr. Rogoff. We expect to compete a larger chunk of it for--
    --
        Mr. Sires. Because the other question is going to be to
    Lieutenant General Bostick.
        You know, one of the visits that I made after the storm
    were the ports. And the ports were hit hard, their
    infrastructure. So I was just wondering if you are working with
    the ports in order to raise the grid, you know, the electrical
    grids, and make everything somehow able to better stand the
    storms and the floods that hit these ports. Because, as you
    know, the ports in our area, there were 250,000 jobs, and that
    is impacted. And I must say that they were back within a few
    days. Almost a week, they were back functioning.
        So I was just wondering if the Army Corps of Engineers was
    working with the ports on their resilience program to make sure
    the infrastructure is capable of handling some of these storms.
        General Bostick. Representative, we work with the ports,
    but our responsibility by the authorities that we have are
    primarily in the O&M and the dredging work that we do. And then
    we do some work on the coastlines.
        We are working very closely with the Department of Energy
    and Deputy Secretary Poneman and his team in terms of response
    capability. Our authorities also allow us to respond quickly
    with generator support.
        But in terms of the infrastructure of the electrical grid,
    that is not an area that we work.
        Mr. Sires. All right.
        One of the questions that I asked Governor Christie during
    this whole storm is, we had a ton of generators delivered to
    New Jersey, but some of these places weren't able to hook them
    up because, you know, the way where the hook is--or it did not
    fit.
        So I was just wondering, is that a State, I guess,
    requirement or a Federal requirement where we can make
    something that everybody has the same ability to switch on?
        Maybe I am not making myself clear. For example, the gas
    stations, they couldn't get the power because, although you had
    a generator, these generators couldn't be hooked on. You
    couldn't deliver the gas because they didn't have the same way
    of delivering the gas.
        Do we need something that is--everybody is the same,
    basically?
        Mr. Rogoff. One thing I think does touch on this, Mr.
    Sires, is if you look at the Hurricane Sandy Task Force report,
    the whole issue of the availability of fuel in the event of a
    storm was actually quite critical. So, yes, they could get
    generators, but they couldn't necessarily get the fuel to fire
    them up.
        Mr. Sires. Right.
        Mr. Rogoff. And, similarly, for transit operators and even
    for evacuation needs, how we redeploy fuel so it is available
    when we actually need it at its most critical time is one of
    the issues that the task force is looking at.
        Mr. Sires. That would be a State issue or Federal issue? I
    am sorry.
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, I think, like everything else here, it is
    a partnership.
        Mr. Sires. OK.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman.
        And, with that, Mr. Farenthold is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much, Chairman Shuster.
        And I have seen a great improvement in the response to
    Sandy after Katrina. And my goal is to continue that level of
    improvement as we continue to face natural disasters. We all
    hope and pray that they won't happen, but they always do.
        Obviously, there are funding issues associated with this.
    You know, I think it is a whole other issue about how we
    address funding for natural disasters. Do we continue to do
    these as supplemental bills, or is it something that we should
    be planning for because we know it is going to happen?
        But along the lines of continuing improvement and learning
    from these issues, I know, Ms. Zimmerman, you aren't the flood
    insurance maps expert, but is there some analysis that you all
    are working with that department to determine the accuracy of
    these maps as predictors of damages, specifically with respect
    to hurricanes? They are, kind of, unusual, very powerful
    weather events. Is there some process underway to determine the
    accuracy of the flood maps and, for that matter, any of our
    other predictive mechanisms?
        Ms. Zimmerman. Yes, I can guarantee you that we are looking
    at the maps, looking at their accuracy, as we are updating all
    of the maps going forward. And they are one of the tools that
    we do look at as to when we are looking and doing our hazard
    and risk analysis of all communities across the United States
    and really working with the State and local partners to assess
    those risks. So it is one of the many pieces that we have when
    we do look----
        Mr. Farenthold. And I ask this question because I am
    concerned about--I am also concerned about the science and
    accuracy behind the map. I think Mr. LoBiondo and Mr. Davis and
    several other folks have expressed some concern about the
    mapping process. And I do think that is important in our
    preparation for disasters, even above and beyond just
    determining the flood insurance rates. And I would join with
    the other Members in encouraging you to take back to your
    office that the maps are an area of interest to this committee
    and to Congress as a whole.
        Let me ask General Bostick with the Corps real quickly,
    there is a constant battle for dollars between maintenance and
    new projects. And, you know, one of the concerns that I hear
    from some of the folks back in Texas is that there isn't enough
    money for maintenance. And there is an attitude within the
    community, and I am not sure how deeply it extends into the
    Corps, but an attitude of, well, we will wait till the next
    hurricane and it will fall down and then they will have to find
    money to fix it.
        How are we determining in the Corps what is necessary to do
    in maintenance to keep vital facilities open? Where are our
    challenges there, and how successful do you think we are being
    at that?
        General Bostick. This is a significant area of concern for
    me and all of the Corps leaders and employees. We are managing
    about $250 billion worth of projects that the Congress has
    authorized and asked us to manage, and we have very little
    dollars in which to do that. The reality is we are doing mostly
    operations and maintenance versus new construction. Very little
    new construction work, in fact.
        So our focus is how do we use the precious dollars that we
    have to continue to operate. One of the things that we are
    doing in our Civil Works Transformation is to look at our
    infrastructure strategy and determine, within that strategy,
    that portfolio of $250 billion worth of infrastructure, what
    should we retain? What should we repurpose? And what should we
    divest of? There is just too much infrastructure that we can no
    longer properly maintain.
        So part of the strategy has got to come back to the local,
    the State, and the Federal leaders and say, this is no longer
    serving the purpose for which Congress authorized it.
        Mr. Farenthold. Or, of course, we could pull all the Harbor
    Maintenance Trust Fund back into harbor maintenance. That might
    help.
        And, Mr. Mendez, let me ask you a question. Also, thank you
    for coming down to the district I represent, Corpus Christi. I
    hope you enjoyed your visit.
        One of our ongoing problems throughout the country is the
    condition of our bridges. And can you tell me quickly what
    happens when we have a weather event, a hurricane, lots of
    water, to substandard bridges? And can you just spend the next
    couple seconds telling us how bad it is or is not?
        Mr. Mendez. Well, let me just give you numbers that I do
    have. Throughout the Nation, we have close to 600,000 bridges.
    Of that, about, I would say, maybe 150,000 of them may not meet
    current design standards or could use some form of either
    replacement or some kind of refurbishment, if you will. So that
    gives you an understanding as to how the bridges are.
        And, obviously, depending on a specific condition on a
    specific bridge, a lot of water may not be a good thing if you
    have a lot of scour or your columns are being eroded.
        Mr. Farenthold. All right. Well, I see my time has expired.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Farenthold.
        Mr. Carson is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Zimmerman, your written testimony mentions the
    President's Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force. This task
    force recently published its reports with recommendations to
    help the impacted areas and effectively encouraged resilient
    rebuilding approaches.
        I am very interested in the benefits of resilient building
    and rebuilding techniques which can improve pre-disaster
    mitigation. Will you highlight some of the task force
    recommendations for us and describe how this committee can help
    these recommendations become implemented?
        Ms. Zimmerman. Sure. Thank you, Representative.
        The task force report did come out. I believe there are 69
    recommendations in the report. And as we move forward to build
    more resilience, as we have been talking about on a number of
    questions and answers here today, looking at projects and we
    would look at it holistically instead of just the FEMA Public
    Assistance Program. We repair what was damaged or destroyed,
    but we want to make sure what we are repairing has some degree
    of resiliency to it, some mitigation efforts to go into it, so
    that we are not continually rebuilding the same structures and
    putting them back the way they were.
        So, throughout the report, it has a number of
    recommendations and things that I know folks are working on,
    the working groups, to move that forward and to define how do
    we build back more resilient. And as experienced here on this
    panel, bringing all Federal agencies together, as all of us
    received different funding sources through the Sandy Recovery
    Improvement Act, and how do we put those dollars to the best
    use so that we are not duplicating funding. Also, to make sure
    that when we come to the resiliency that we are looking at what
    is the best case, going back to what is the benefit-cost of
    this and are we making sure that we are using the best use of
    the money so that we are not going to come back in and have to
    rebuild.
        So I know, through the recommendations in the report,
    several Federal agencies, as well as working with our State and
    local partners--because it goes beyond that, and it is looking
    beyond just Sandy, whenever disaster strikes, and how we come
    together to make sure that we are building more resilient.
        Mr. Carson. Thank you.
        My followup is for the entire panel. A common complaint
    after past disasters is the constant changing of FEMA staff,
    who often provide conflicting answers on project eligibility.
    This leads to problems not only early on but often later on in
    the process when the audits are conducted and find various
    costs and projects were ineligible for funding.
        What steps might FEMA be taking to provide continuity in
    FEMA's decisionmaking with respect to recovery projects and to
    really ensure that correct information is being provided to all
    applicants?
        Ms. Zimmerman. I will take that one.
        What we have done is we have really instituted to
    documenting our process and to do training. We have put forward
    in the last 2 years a number of guidance documents and to
    making sure that our staff is trained out there in the field.
        Mr. Carson. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Zimmerman. So when there is transition, a lot of our
    workforce are disaster reservists. They are out there for a
    period of time and move from disaster to disaster. But we want
    to make sure that when somebody has to leave and somebody new
    comes in that there is a transition period. So that they are
    working through getting to understand the applicants that they
    are assigned to and working with their projects.
        And, as I say, just the guidance documents and the training
    to make sure folks are doing it the same way so that you are
    not getting that one person says one thing and the next person
    comes in and says the other thing. So we are trying to put that
    together, and we have been doing a lot of training. We have
    trained over 400 of our Public Assistance Cadre members so that
    they are trying to do the system the same way.
        Mr. Carson. What, from the individual witnesses, are the
    top two factors that have effectively restricted your agency
    from being able to implement what Congress directed you to do
    in the Sandy Supplemental legislation? I only have a minute
    left.
        All right. Think on it.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman.
        If anybody would like to answer that in writing, we
    certainly would appreciate those types of responses. You could
    maybe even make it the top three. That would be helpful to us.
        With that, Chairman Duncan is recognized.
        Mr. Duncan.Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
    had to speak on the floor and had other obligations that kept
    me from being here the first hour or so of this hearing, so I
    apologize if I am repeating something.
        But I have a news report from just a little over 2 weeks
    ago that says, though the Government aid has been slow to
    trickle over the past year, already the cases of fraud have
    piled up, and officials are warning that as more money gets
    freed up, more will try to bilk the system. And it says that in
    just one county, Monmouth County, there have been 210 cases in
    just that one county that have been opened.
        And then, also, I understand that there is concern from
    past disasters and also possibly in this one that some agencies
    or individuals have been given money that--that FEMA had
    already reimbursed the people or they had gotten from insurance
    proceeds.
        And I am wondering--so I have two questions. One, what is
    being done, or is enough being done, to make sure that there is
    not as much fraud in this situation as there has been in some
    of the other disasters? And, secondly, what happens when you
    later find out--or do you later make efforts to find out
    whether agencies have gotten money from more than one source?
        Mr. Rogoff, we will start with you.
        Mr. Rogoff. Sure. Well, Chairman Duncan, we have a very
    limited universe of grantees. We are making grants directly to
    transit agencies, so we are not making them to individuals
    within the communities.
        But we have stood up a number of measures to ensure that we
    ensure the absolute minimum and hopefully embody a zero
    tolerance for waste, fraud, and abuse. For any grantee
    receiving over $100 million or more, which includes all of the
    big ones in the New York-New Jersey region, we are requiring
    them to have their own integrity monitors. We are doing a risk-
    based approach not only to every grantee but to every grant.
        We have procedures in place with FEMA. We see every award
    they might make to any transit agency and they are seeing every
    award that we make to every transit agency to ensure that there
    is no duplication. And we are currently working with FEMA to
    make sure that transit agencies cannot double dip on insurance
    and Federal assistance, and we are going to be modeling our
    approach on theirs.
        It gets complicated. We have hired insurance experts to
    help us in the following respect. Some transit agencies have
    individual facilities that were insured. Some are getting a
    lump-sum settlement from their insurer for all of the damage,
    which includes both transit assets and nontransit assets. And
    we are going to make sure that even when they get a lump sum,
    it is prorated on their transit damage so they are not just
    putting their insurance settlement against some other universe
    of cost and letting us pay for all of the transit damage. So I
    think we have a very good series of procedures in place.
        Mr. Duncan. All right. Ms. Zimmerman.
        Ms. Zimmerman. Going back to the cases for individual
    assistance, post-Katrina we had an improper payment rate of
    between 9 and 14 percent. Since that time, we put into place a
    number of stopgaps and a number of things that we do internally
    to be able to doublecheck, and a year ago, our improper payment
    rate was .03 percent. So as we go forward in trying to get the
    money out there quickly to disaster survivors following
    disasters, there are a lot of checks and balances that we do
    within our own system at our processing centers.
        So moving forward we are hopeful there won't be a lot of
    that. But, as you know, when we get the money out there after
    we have been able to validate damages in someone's home, if
    they do get insurance coverage, then we do go back and ask them
    to see what the insurance covered and what things were not
    covered and if we are able to cover those, so there will be
    some cases where we may have to ask for refunds back based on
    money that we have provided to disaster applicants.
        For our public assistance projects, as was stated, we are
    working----
        Mr. Duncan. Have you asked for any refunds in this
    situation yet?
        Ms. Zimmerman. From disaster applicants? I believe we have
    from a few.
        Mr. Duncan. Let me ask you about something else. When Mr.
    Sires mentioned, as he said, a ton of generators that were sent
    there that couldn't be used, I remembered when FEMA had many
    thousands of trailers that they ended up with, brand new
    trailers but for another disaster that just ended up sitting
    there. Are you familiar with the generators that he is asking
    about and are we going to read about things like in the future
    on this?
        Ms. Zimmerman. I know we work very closely with the Corps
    of Engineers when it comes to generators. We provide
    generators, working with the Corps of Engineers to install
    them. General Bostick?
        General Bostick. What we did in post-Sandy, I think there
    was an effort from the President on down, including the
    Governors, to push forward with as much assets as we could. So
    we had more assets available in some areas than they needed.
        The other thing that Representative Sires brought up is the
    connections. What we do prior to a storm is to conduct
    assessments, and the Corps conducted about 2,400 assessments of
    critical infrastructure, like hospitals, police stations, fire
    stations and those sorts of things. Since Sandy hit a major
    city, the type which we had not seen before, there were
    generator requirements on things that were not critical
    infrastructure. So we did not have connections on those. And it
    is really up to the States to help us with that.
        Mr. Duncan. All right. My time is up. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman. With that, Ms. Esty, 5
    minutes, please.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
    the panel for your answers and for staying all the way to the
    last person, who I think is here today. I, too, have been
    shuttling back and forth with the Science Committee where we
    are having a vigorous debate about climate change.
        It is my hope that we can learn from what your agencies
    have done, what best practices should be going forward. I come
    from the State of Connecticut. We still have people rebuilding
    in my State. So there are two areas I would like to get your
    comments on and feedback about.
        First, to return to the remarks from my colleague, Mr.
    Gibbs, a little bit earlier, so General Bostick, this is for
    you, we have learned a lot in Connecticut about the
    vulnerability of our shoreline, most of which is unprotected.
    The State has been trying to address through nonstructural
    alternatives, but, frankly, there just hasn't been support for
    that. And as our policies tend to focus on replacement, I would
    hope that these comprehensive surveys are used with now rising
    sea levels, increasing severity of storms, to really take a
    good hard look at nonhard structure alternatives that may allow
    us in places like Long Island Sound, both on the Connecticut
    and the New York side, and I would like your comments and
    thoughts about what we could do on a congressional level to
    facilitate the Corps and any of your agencies to really explore
    cost-effective ways of expending taxpayer dollars to better
    protect life, limb and property.
        General Bostick. Thank you for that question. I think we
    are going to learn a lot from the comprehensive study. It will
    come to Congress in January of 2015, and I think Congress will
    have the opportunity to act on that and determine the way
    forward. We will and have considered climate change and sea
    level rise and more frequent storms and higher storm surges and
    the impact that that could have. Part of that study will
    include the kind of options that you are talking about,
    nonstructural options, as well as structural. So I think all of
    that is on the table and we will have great flexibility in the
    way forward.
        I think the critical thing for the country is to decide how
    it wants to prioritize and where it wants to prioritize its
    precious resources; and realize it is going to be not just a
    Federal solution, but a non-Federal, local, tribal and all of
    us working together.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you. Now I would like to turn to the
    transportation side. As you well know, we had rail lines
    underwater in Connecticut for a considerable period of time.
    That will not be the last time we have that happen. So I would
    like you to talk a little bit about what alternatives,
    particularly given the complexity of the ownership of those
    rails in Connecticut, and whether there might be funding that
    is available to address what, in some ways, this is the
    resilience question we have been talking about over and over
    again here today, what that has to do with everything from 100-
    year-old catenary lines that we are relying on, and an energy
    transmission system that is inadequate to deal with these
    issues, as well as rail beds that are too low. And all of
    these, and as we know, any one piece, the weakest piece is
    going to bring the whole system down on the most heavily used
    passenger rail system in the country.
        So if you can talk about sort of the intermodal impact of
    that, I-95 is already jammed, there is no place for those cars
    to go. We have experienced this twice already this year, and it
    wasn't Sandy, it was accidents that caused this. So if you can
    give us some thought. And frankly, the Governor is here for
    Connecticut today and he is going to want to know from me is
    the State going to be able to get some assistance in raising
    those rail beds, which is, indeed, clearly one of our choke
    points and one of our risks for resiliency.
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, Ms. Esty, I can tell you that all the
    transit agencies that were impacted by Sandy are eligible for
    this resiliency funding. And we are already obviously in a
    detailed conversation with Metro North about it.
        Certainly, you make a good point. The fact that Joe and I
    should jointly address this question is indicative of the
    challenge. The line that runs along the shoreline is shared by
    Amtrak, ConnDOT trains and Metro North trains. It is a critical
    asset. Probably more rail passengers use that than most every
    other district represented here on the dais, with the exception
    of Mr. Nadler's probably.
        That is why our priority for our resiliency funding is
    going to go to regional approaches where we see that
    cooperative conversation between Metro North and Amtrak and
    ConnDOT--making sure that there is one comprehensive solution,
    not a solution that protects one segment of rail only to flood
    another.
        Mr. Szabo. I think I would just add to that, I mean, Peter
    gave the appropriate answer for the immediate solution. For the
    longer term solution I come back to a couple points I made in
    my testimony talking about the importance of regionalism,
    regional planning, the importance of moving forward with our
    NEC Future vision and making sure that we are then meeting the
    needs of all of these transit and intercity passenger rail
    operators comprehensively, because the point has been well
    made, it is the weakest part, you know, link in the chain, that
    ultimately breaks down the whole system.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentlelady. I have just one final
    question and just a remark. Mr. Rogoff, the final question will
    be to you, but I have a remark first.
        I just want to make sure that Members and panelists know
    and one of my colleagues may have alluded to that I think we
    are only about recovery, when certainly this committee and what
    you do with these funds are about recovery. They are also about
    mitigation. But we certainly want to do what is smart and try
    to raise the level to prevent these things from happening again
    or mitigating so that there is a lot less damage.
        But there comes a point, with the limited dollars that we
    have, that we may be able to raise it a level or two. But to go
    to that third and fourth and fifth level, I believe that is
    when the States and the local governments have to step in and
    say, OK, if we want to take it three or four levels up, that is
    something the taxpayers of New York or New Jersey or New York
    City need to do, because the Federal Government is coming in
    with taxpayer dollars from the States that are not directly
    impacted by it.
        So, again, I want to make it clear that I think that
    certainly recovery, raising it up, let's be smart about it,
    make the investment, if it makes sense to do it.
        The other concern that I have is this is a new program, the
    transit program, and many times administrations spend the money
    that is not intended, what Congress had intended. In fact my
    mother used to say to me, I gave you an inch, you took it a
    mile. And whether it is a Republican administration or a
    Democrat administration, that kind of thing, my mother's wisdom
    is right, we give you an inch and you take a mile.
        So the final question, Mr. Rogoff, is back to the cost-
    benefit. I think it is so important to make sure that a cost-
    benefit is paramount, also making sure it is transparent so the
    public can see that, and I think the public understands cost-
    benefit analysis. What would you see as a scenario where you
    would say, well, the cost-benefit analysis is here and we
    really have got to take a different tact on that? Because maybe
    there are those scenarios out there. Can you think of one that
    might give us some guidance?
        Mr. Rogoff. Quite frankly, not offhand. Well, let me
    provide one. Depending on what you include in costs and what
    you include in benefits, there could be a community for which
    the transit access is absolutely critical but the number of
    transit riders doesn't generate as much by way of benefits so
    the solution is that those people lose service. I don't even
    have a place in mind when I think about that right now.
        But why do we have an Essential Air Service program? Well,
    a decision has been made by some that we need to maintain that
    connectivity for those communities and those airports where
    they otherwise wouldn't get it. I could see a scenario where we
    would make a judgment that it is absolutely essential that that
    community continue to have access to transit, even if there are
    comparatively few riders. But we are not there yet. I can
    assure you, as I said earlier, cost-benefit is going to be
    elemental to our analysis.
        If I could raise one other thing only because Mr. Webster
    is still here and he raised a question that I feel I could help
    answer. He asked earlier if resiliency investments were defined
    anywhere on paper. They will be shortly, at least for purposes
    of the Federal Transit Administration, because we will be
    putting out a notice of funding availability inviting
    applications for those resiliency investments and we will
    obviously, in that notice, have to define what is eligible and
    what is not. So I just wanted to call that to his attention,
    because there will be something on paper to look at at that
    time.
        Mr. Shuster. I appreciate that. And, again, this committee
    and this Congress needs to have that transparency. We saw the
    TIGER grants and nobody can ever figure out exactly why they
    went where they did. I have my own thoughts on that. But,
    again, transparency is important and I think cost-benefit
    analysis is absolutely central to the whole question.
        So, again, I thank all you for being here. I appreciate you
    spending your time here. Are there any further questions from
    any Members of the panel? Seeing none, I would like to thank
    each of our witnesses for their testimony today.
        I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
    remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
    answers to any questions that may be submitted in writing and
    unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for
    any additional comments and information submitted by Members or
    witnesses to be included in the record of today's hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        Again, thank you all for taking the time today. I
    appreciate it greatly. This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]