[Senate Hearing 113-496]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-496
THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AGENCY'S BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 13, 2014
__________
Available via http://www.fdsys.gov
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-284 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 HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JON TESTER, Montana RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MARK BEGICH, Alaska MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
Gabrielle A. Batkin, Staff Director
John P. Kilvington, Deputy Staff Director
Keith B. Ashdown, Minority Staff Director
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Lauren Corcoran, Hearing Clerk
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, AND
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MARK BEGICH, Alaska Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JON TESTER, Montana MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
Pat McQuillan, Staff Director
Brandon Booker, Minority Staff Director
Kelsey Stroud, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statement:
Page
Senator Begich............................................... 1
WITNESSES
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Hon. W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security................... 3
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Fugate, Hon. W. Craig:
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 17
APPENDIX
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record:
Mr. Fugate................................................... 25
THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Emergency Management,
Intergovernmental Relations,
and the District of Columbia,
of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:45 p.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Begich,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senator Begich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEGICH
Senator Begich. I call the Subcommittee to order. Thank you
for being patient as we had a vote on the floor. We may be
interrupted again. The staff will keep me informed of some
potential votes that will be coming up.
But again, good afternoon. Welcome to the Subcommittee on
Emergency Management, Intergovernmental Relations and the
District of Columbia.
We are here today to discuss the President's Fiscal Year
(FY) 2015 budget submission for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). We welcome Administrator Fugate.
Thank you again for being patient while we got down here. I
look forward to our discussion.
The past few years have been very busy for FEMA. In 2013,
the agency responded to 62 major disasters and made 28 Fire
Assistance declarations.
In addition to responding to last year's events, the agency
continued recovery and mitigation work following catastrophic
disasters from the past years, including Hurricane Sandy.
FEMA continued to do this work under pressure to cut costs
as we were asking agencies across the government to do. We also
are asking FEMA to do more to aid State and local governments
that face increasingly unpredictable threats.
While the number of declared disasters was down this year
from the high water mark of 2011, severe storms and flooding
were once again common. Flood ravaged parts of the United
States, including communities along the Yukon River and the
Kenai Peninsula in Alaska.
Overall the President has requested $14.7 billion in total
discretionary funds for FEMA with almost half of that
supporting the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).
DRF is vital in ensuring the Federal Government has the
resources it needs to respond to disasters declared across the
country, and I am pleased to see it fully funded under the
responsible limits of the Budget Control Act.
I am also happy to see that the budget would maintain
funding for the emergency management performance grants and
fire grants that fund critical operations for our Nation's
first responders.
While FEMA is provided with the largest increase in
appropriations among components of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), there are some decreases that are troubling and
could affect the key missions of the agency.
State and local grants receive nearly a 15 percent cut
which seems in direct conflict with the increased need for
local resources we see across the country. The Administration
has said the decrease is partly a result of efficiencies that
can be found within the consolidated grants proposal in the
budget. But concerns remain to what operational impacts these
reductions might cause.
The proposal for the National Preparedness Grant Program
will require a change in the 9/11 Act to restructure the
grants. This could shift the responsibility for setting
priorities from the Federal to the State level.
While I am encouraged that FEMA has listened to Congress's
request for more detailed and stakeholder outreach,
responsibility for overseeing reform lies within the Committee.
I look forward to working with FEMA as well as the State
and local organizations across the country to determine if
changes are needed. We must make sure the vital funding is
distributed in a way that strengthens our security and
preparedness while fulfilling our obligation to be good
stewards of the public's money.
Last, I continue to be concerned with the decreases in the
flood hazard mapping and risk analysis program. This program
plays a critical role in the development and maintenance of the
flood maps throughout the country.
Even as recent flood insurance legislation has made the
accuracy of maps more important, the Administration is reducing
the resources available to help communities, homeowners, and
businesses understand the risk they face and make smart
choices.
Coastal and riverine communities across Alaska face
increasing flood risk, yet for many, their most recent flood
map may be decades old and not taking into account the
increased development or changes in geography.
I recognize the limited resources FEMA has but continuing
to only prioritize the areas with highest populations and
highest home values ignore the needs of rural communities that
have built their homes and businesses along the river's edge
dual or near the coast.
Many of those affected are subsistence communities or
native communities that may not be able to relocate but could
benefit from the risk information that flood maps can provide.
I appreciate the work that FEMA has done over the last year
and I am sympathetic from the pressure that the agency has been
under to implement the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act.
I look forward to hearing more about the agency's plans for
the upcoming year and I appreciate your willingness, Mr.
Fugate, to continue to open dialogue with this Subcommittee.
I will let you go ahead and have your testimony. Then I
have some questions. I will followup. If any Member attends
additionally, we will allow them their time for opening as well
as questions.
Again, thank you for being here. Hopefully we will not be
interrupted by a vote.
Thank you very much.
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. W. CRAIG FUGATE,\1\ ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Fugate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will go ahead and
submit my written testimony for the record, if that will please
you, and go to some very brief remarks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Fugate appears in the Appendix on
page 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any budget is always based upon your available resources
with competing needs, and the needs have to be balanced across
the entire Federal Government.
We think this is a responsible budget. We think it
addresses our key missions, and again it is based upon the
priorities of an overall budget within certain parameters of
maintaining budget controls.
We do appreciate the fact what Congress has done for FEMA.
Most probably, as you mentioned, the Disaster Relief Fund, part
of the Budget Control Act that allowed that to be fully funded
on an annualized basis versus only using supplemental processes
to fund that.
That has enabled us to respond this past year without
having to shut down or reduce any level of response due to lack
of funds. It allowed us to respond to Hurricane Sandy, one of
the largest responses post-Katrina, again without having to
shut down, reduce, or go into what we call immediate needs
funding for any program.
So, we are learning and I think what Congress is doing to
fully fund that is a key part of our ability to continue to
rebuild from these disasters but also be prepared for future
catastrophic events.
Other areas of the budget again are based upon the
parameters of our targets. Again, it is a continuation of many
times what we have been looking at in the past.
I do want to highlight one thing, Mr. Chairman. In regard
to the mitigation and understanding that the level of disaster
response and the type of things we are facing in this Nation,
we have been basically forced into responding to more and more
events with higher population impacts.
Yet we have not really been able to look at how do we make
investment strategies to start buying down that risk. The
President is recommending above-the-line budget requests of
which, in the pre-disaster mitigation program, which we below
the line have recommended zeroing out because of fitting in
those priorities that if Congress would look at that to make
some large-scale investments over a recurring basis, the
requests there for about $400 million in disaster mitigation to
look specifically at how do we mitigate against climate
disruption, particularly when we have too much water, not
enough water.
Drought, as we are seeing across the Southwest, and the
increased flood risk both coastally and from riverine flooding
due to extremes in weather are such that if we do not make
investments and we are not willing to get ahead of this we will
continue to see the drawdowns in the Disaster Relief Fund in
outyears and disasters.
So, the President is looking at this as part of the
investment strategies of putting the funds in the pre-disaster
mitigation, looking before disaster strikes at how do we
address the issue of adapting to a changing world and buying
down future risk.
Other areas of the budget again are based upon the input of
all of the process to get in the budget. You covered your areas
of concern there and I am willing to take questions.
The last piece I wanted to briefly address was, in the
Hurricane Sandy supplemental, you also gave us a tremendous
amount of work to do under the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act.
And in that program, one of the key things, Senator, we much
applaud was a provision within the Stafford Act to change the
designation of who could request from the Presidential
declarations.
Previously tribal governments were identified in the
Stafford Act as political subdivisions that could only request
assistance through the Governors, notwithstanding their own
sovereignty in this country and recognition as federally
recognized tribes. You change that. Congress gave that
authority.
That is a very large undertaking for us. We are going from
about, between the States and territories, about 54, 55
entities to over 500 additional new entities that can request
disaster declarations.
Based upon that legislation, we made a decision not to wait
until we had drafted any new rules. We were using existing
rules. So, we were able to begin receiving and processing
disaster declarations within weeks of the law being signed into
law.
Notwithstanding that, there is a lot of work and
consultation to take place in developing the policies and
procedures for declarations for tribal governments, recognizing
that it is going to require additional tools than what we would
normally have available just to the State declaration process
and a consultation process that requires us to go meet with
tribal governments.
This is something that we feel strongly that we have to be
able to sit down with folks at the tribal level to discuss
this, to get their input and to build these policies.
Our budget reflects that internally the additional
resources required to do that but it is a commitment that we
are not waiting until we have all the answers to implement it
but we have a lot of work to do to be able to successfully
provide the tools to tribal governments for disaster
declarations and to be able to ensure that our consultation
process is built around those needs.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I am open to questions.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much. I appreciate all your
work.
If I can start maybe with the tribal issues. As you know in
Alaska with almost half the tribes in the Nation and also as a
matter of fact this week we are having many of the tribes from
my State and across the Nation here and Washington, D.C., for
one of their conferences.
Let us start with the ability for tribes to declare
disasters. I hear what you are saying but help me understand
your timetable because it has been a year since the authority
was granted, and honestly I am nervous that the way this place
works in Washington it takes time and usually time means it
happens many years later.
I need you to be more definitive on what you think, I guess
there are a couple of parts to this question. When do you think
you can move forward on these regulations in order to really
clarify what the tribes can do, recognizing, that you are
allowing some flexibility at the same time?
But how and when will you get back into play?
Second, I recognize from some discussions we had last night
and this morning, our staff with yours, that there is some more
effort going to be applied to the tribal consultation.
So, in your regulation drafting and rules, what is the role
you take and where are and how will you engage the tribes? I
will be frank with you. Just doing it by phone calls and
teleconference is great, but physically going out to some of
these locations I think is very important.
There are a lot of unique moments. For example, the
National Indian Congress had met here this week, it would have
been a great opportunity to have that engagement and discussion
and work around or work session. The Alaska Federation of
Natives has huge events off and on.
Give me your thoughts on a timetable and how you will
engage the tribes in a very meaningful discussion, not just
check the box. I am not saying that you are doing that. But to
be frank with you on some Federal agencies, they checked the
box on travel consultation by making a call and then they say
they are done. That is honestly not acceptable.
Tell me your thoughts there.
Mr. Fugate. My experience tells me that, unless we go to
where the tribes want us to go and we meet in person, we are
not done in consultation. I fully agree with you that
conference calls, emails, and other tools do not work. At least
the initial consultations.
But that required me to shift resources. Coming out of
sequestration and the other difficulties, again we are very
pleased to be back in normal order with a budget because that
does allow me now to move resources to provide travel budgets
so that we can get out in the field.
We are basically looking at between our various tribal
liaisons and other program areas about three quarters of a
million dollars so far that we are identifying that we are
going to require to support this that we have internally made
available to start that process.
So, the tribal consultation is, the policy, is in the first
phase to be implemented; and from that, we are also building a
draft policy guidance for tribal declarations.
We plan to implement that, Mr. Chairman, as a draft, not
waiting until we have final rules. We will do it under our
authorities under the pilot authorities you gave us in that. I
will see that this year but we do not want to go too fast there
because I do not want to get ahead of the consultation.
When you are trying to make this fit for a variety of
tribal governments, some that are in multiple States and have
very large sophisticated governments down to villages that are
incorporated, we want to make sure that we have that input.
So, we are moving toward that for this year. We will do it
as a draft pilot to begin the implementation not waiting for
the rules to be finally published. We also want to build some
flexibility in that as we are going for that process and go
through actual tribal declarations. We can build that back into
any final product that we would then submit for rules.
Senator Begich. To narrow it down, it sounds like you are
moving forward on this. The budget that we just did through the
Appropriations Committee that I sit on, we have been able to
give you your authority through 2014 and the money.
You think about three quarters of a million, give or take,
to start giving you the flexibility you need to get out into
the field, and I think you are right. I mean, talking to Alaska
tribes will be different than talking to Oklahoma tribes,
Arizona tribes, or Washington State tribes.
So, do you see that process that you are engaged in as
going to happen throughout this year then or shorter than that?
Help me understand that outreach part.
And the reason I ask you this is I want to make sure that
we do not miss these opportunities when these groups are
meeting to connect, because this is very important. Some tribes
will never take this authority, although depending on the
State, because it requires match and other things. But some
tribes really want to do this, and I know they have contacted
your office already just in inquiry but also in action.
So, help me understand the timeline we are trying to work
through.
Mr. Fugate. The timeline is now, and again we had been
attending the major conferences. This will give us some more
flexibility to go to more of the regional conferences.
But the other part of this, Mr. Chairman, is I want to make
sure that I have the ability to go meet tribal leaders where
they are. In some tribes, if we meet them at the associations
and conferences, that has met that need.
But we also are prepared to literally go to reservation
land to sit down with tribal elders and elected leaders to talk
and listen more than anything about this policy.
So, this is starting an ongoing, I would see this
throughout the year but we will not wait on the draft policy
for a year. We are doing this kind currently.
And so as soon as we feel we have enough of the feedback to
have a good framework for the draft policy, we want to begin
implementing that as pilots but to constantly continue to
update that.
Part of this we are going to learn through doing. But I
have been very clear to staff that I do not consider
consultation, by our definition, successful because we said we
consulted unless the tribal government said we consulted with
them on their terms.
Senator Begich. Got it. As you progress then, I am assuming
you will keep us informed here in the Committee on the progress
on that.
Mr. Fugate. Mr. Chairman, what I can do is have staff
submit to your staff our current work plans----
Senator Begich. Excellent.
Mr. Fugate [continuing]. Our current tribal consultation
policy, the direction we have, and the group that we have
established within FEMA to manage this and give you progress
updates on that and some timelines of when we expect products
to be coming forward.
Senator Begich. Fantastic. That would be great. Because
another role that I have, I sit on the Indian Affairs Committee
and I know this will come up potentially in some of the
discussions. It is our way to get input in another venue, and I
would want to make sure we are keeping on track. So, that would
be great.
Let me ask you about some of the efforts, two part. One, I
know within some of the work you are doing the definition of
local government is potentially being expanded a little bit
including ports, potentially nonprofits, some other
organizations.
The overall concern is that we have a certain amount of
money available, but now we are adding more definitions so the
amount that may go to what we would call traditional defined
local governments is going to potentially be diminished because
now you are increasing capacity.
Are you worried that, we are going to be giving less out to
more and therefore not getting the bang for the dollar?
And then on top of that, do you think there will be other
groups now coming out of the woodwork and say, well, you
included, the ports; you included the service nonprofits, what
about and then fill in the blank.
The next thing is we have a laundry list of the groups we
are now having to deal with. Can you give me some thought on
that definition?
My second part to this will be a much broader sweep of
dollars for your consolidation effort and some of that go to
the States where local governments, as you can imagine as a
former mayor, I hear plenty from mayors on a regular basis that
State governments are notorious for not delivering those
dollars all the way down to local governments.
Now, there are some that are very good about that, that
have a good working relationship. But that is not the case
across the Nation.
So, first question on definition; the second is on the
delivery.
Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir. Definitions are coming out of the
authorizing language that would be required to implement a
national preparedness grant system because, under the
definition of 9/11, we would not be able to fund the port
authorities and some of the transit authorities which are not
considered local governments. So, the definition there is to
allow for that and the consolidation of the grants.
Again giving flexibility to the States often times runs the
issue of dilution. But it is also the prerogative, I think, to
give that flexibility where appropriate to look at other groups
that would benefit from this.
It does not preclude people coming already. When I was at
the State of Florida, just about anybody who thought they had
an nexus to terrorism funding were making their case that they
should be funded out of the State homeland security grants.
It did not mean they were eligible, and even if they were,
did not mean they were going to get funded if they did not
contribute to the mission.
But the purpose in the national preparedness grant was to
do no more than to provide for no exemptions against port
authorities in the consolidation of the grant because under the
current language, as I understand it, they would not be
identified as a local government entity.
That was not the intention of consolidating those grants,
to shut out the port authorities. They again have been
receiving funding so we would not see this as any more or less,
just clarifying the language so that if we consolidate them,
they would still be eligible.
Senator Begich. What about this whole issue, and again I am
very biased here and I recognize your history but also, I think
our State does a pretty good job in working with local
communities but that is not the case in most States. I should
not say most States. In several States.
How do we solve this problem and are we premature in moving
this forward with a State kind of directive? I appreciate it is
going from Federal down because the less the Federals touch,
the more we can get it to the service levels we need.
But when it comes to disaster relief, most time it is local
communities that are dealing with it anyway on the first front.
They are the first responders. They are the ones dealing with
the outcome and they are usually the ones hanging it on. While
the State leaves them after a year or two, they are still
cleaning up the messes.
So, how will you and your office manage this in order to
ensure that the local governments in States that may not be as
receptive to local governments are?
I know that is a little tricky because we do not want to
dictate how State sovereignty in the sense of these governments
work but, let us assume for a second that we consolidate, we go
through legislative action and it all happens, the first people
we are going to hear from is not the State governments because
they are going to get the money. It is going to be the local
governments of those States that are not seeing the money.
So help me in understanding your thought there and I want
to underline this, I understand this will take legislation and
a whole different process. But as part of your budget, you are
recognizing this as a potential budget element in consolidation
of some of these programs.
Mr. Fugate. Mr. Chairman, the issue between State and local
governments, whether the money goes through the urban security
areas and the State does not have the visibility to prioritize
overall State issues, the money goes to the State and the urban
areas feel they are not getting their fair share.
I have been a local. I have worked at the State. I built
and worked under Governor Bush to build the first State
homeland strategies before urban areas were created.
I dealt with that after they were created, and I would have
to say that again we recognize that there are certain priority
grant programs. We are not recommending consolidation. We are
not recommending the emergency management preparedness grant
programs. That goes back to the Civil Defense Act. That is a
stand-up program. It is not tied to this directly, the same
with the fire grants.
But when you talk about the homeland security grants
whether they are port and transit, whether they are the urban
security area initiatives, or they are the State homeland
security grant programs. Those are prominently focused on the
potential of either preventing a terrorist attack or in the
event a terrorist attack occurs, the capability to respond.
The challenge you have is, once it exceeds the local
authority, the local official you as mayor remember, you go to
the State.
Senator Begich. That is right.
Mr. Fugate. If the State is not part of that process, we
produce the potential disconnects. Now, as much as everybody
says the problem of trust about the funds, the reality is the
response structure and the authorities and the Constitution for
this arise from these States' constitutions and authorities and
powers they present.
And so, this is really bringing funding back and
recognizing that those structures may be imperfect; but if we
are moving away from that, we create disconnects. And the
challenge in the legislation and the authorization language is
to put enough guidance and tools in there to really build a
better team of State and locals planning together versus----
Senator Begich. You just hit on what my next question was
going to be, and that is, do you think that the tools can be
applied in legislation like this?
Obviously, you can never get down to the management of it
because the goal here is to allow States and local governments
to manage their affairs which is a great step, in a lot of
ways.
But do you think there can be enough tools in that
legislation or the authorizing legislation to give a strong
enough guidance, and also oversight from you as an agency, this
is, as a Committee, that we could watch this process.
So if we think or you think as an agency a year, 2 years, 3
years out there are problems, that we can create tools that can
give flexibility to solve that problem rather than having to
have all new kinds of legislation, because around this place,
if you can pass a piece of legislation, you want to go.
And if you have to tweak it later, do you think we can
create tools in the legislation to allow some of that from your
experience as an administrator?
Mr. Fugate. From my experience, if we have in the
authorizing language clear outcomes and within that we have
clearly identified who must be part of that process and the
representation that it requires to have that consensus
decision, recognizing that there needs to be a certain amount
for the law enforcement community that has to be addressed, so,
Mr. Chairman when I got here this was all a bunch of different
grants.
We are down to basically three large pots and all we are
really talking about is can we close that down into one stream
to get better prioritization.
But when I got here, we had funding just about broken into
seven different categories. We are really talking right now the
State homeland security grants, the urban security initiative
grants, and then a competitive grant amount for port and
transit.
And again I realize every constituency wants to see the
visibility and have those funds rather than such a way that
they have minimum outside influence on that but I also
recognize that by putting that money together, we have a better
chance of building the cohesive team of forcing that interplay
that, when disaster strikes, the funding is actually driving
better collaboration versus separating out funding by issue or
by level of government.
It is not a popular opinion that I have and I have a lot of
people that would tell me that after my fourth attempt I should
be backing off of this. But also I have a duty, Mr. Chairman,
to present to Congress what I recommend but I also have a duty
to implement what you then appropriate and tell me to do.
Senator Begich. Understood. Let me ask you about the $400
million and I want to make sure I connect with you on this.
This is a pre-disaster mitigation. This is the initiative, the
billion plus initiative, is that correct----
Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir.
Senator Begich [continuing]. Encompassed within that?
And you see that $400 million as an opportunity to really
look at what we talked about, in Alaska----
Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir.
Senator Begich [continuing]. Which was how to coordinate
some of the efforts maybe between your agency, the Corps of
Engineers, and others to look into the future rather than
waiting for the action to occur or the natural disaster to
occur, trying to say what can we do to lower future costs by
mitigating some of these situations.
Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Fugate. That is absolutely the intentions, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Begich. OK. Is there a concern to have within your
agency not necessarily a robust funding of this issue and
sometimes defunding that this does not just become a one off
and that we should think about a two-part equation here.
For example, within FEMA that pre-disaster mitigation
program to make sure that is robustly funded and recognizing
this over here is potentially kind of juice it up for a period
of time, I do not want to call it a stimulus because everyone
around here freaks out when you call it names like that but
basically it is to help move it and accelerate it.
Is not our best bet to say, look, that is a good idea and I
am all for it and I am one of those, despite the way the press
likes to report things around this place, I am actually one of
those from an oil and gas State that believe in climate change.
It is happening. My State is the direct result more than
any State in this country and we see the impacts. It may be in
the Arctic or what you have seen in disasters that have
occurred where FEMA is called in.
I mean Galena is an example. People say, well, that it is
just another disaster. Well, it is warmer in Anchorage today
than it is here today here in Washington. I mean, I am leaving
tomorrow to Anchorage to go get the warmer weather, to leave
Washington, D.C.
So, I mean, that is what is wrong with what is going on,
and climate change is real. It is happening. We have action to
take.
So, is it not in our interest to figure out a sustainable
funding level within your own program and then stimulate it,
add to it, accelerate it with some additional, because if we do
not do that and this money goes away after some period, then we
are back to square one because mitigation does not disappear,
right?
I mean, we should be doing this on an ongoing basis because
the needs are so great, I mean, help me understand. I do not
want the Administration to keep defunding the program that is
annual and replacing it with a one-time hit.
Mr. Fugate. Well, the challenge with----
Senator Begich. I know that puts you in an awkward position
because any time you put more money into the program that----
Mr. Fugate. The pre-disaster mitigation program was
originally envisioned to fund ahead of disasters significant
mitigation investments. Unfortunately, that never really
happened and over the years that fund was cut lower and lower
and lower to the point where it was essentially providing not
much more than planning capability and we were not really
seeing a lot of mitigation.
There were some good examples but the funding levels just
were not there. And so, in looking at when you have to make
hard choices, we found that in many cases it may be unpopular
but sometimes it is better to eliminate an entire program and
not try to maintain any infrastructure if it is not really
accomplishing its stated goals.
Senator Begich. But are we not doing that with the $400
million, almost replicating?
Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir. Well, what we are looking at now is
because we are authorizing this as a spending program, there
would not be any additional work to create the program. It
already exists, and it would bring for the first time large,
substantial funds to the pre-disaster mitigation program.
But the pre-disaster mitigation program would be looking at
all hazards. These would be more targeted and we want to look
specifically at what are the drivers and the impacts for the
future to climate disruption and make investment strategies
through there.
Senator Begich. So, it becomes more narrow focused, and you
correct me if I say this wrong at all.
Mr. Fugate. Yes.
Senator Begich. More narrow focused, a sizable lift on it.
And then do you see the ability to have that money in that fund
limited in time of use or is it a period of time you can use
it?
What can we do to make sure that fund does not--because if
you are forced to do it all in one year, for example, it would
be insane. You just never can do that. Your system would not
allow it no matter what you tell me here, and I think you will
agree with me on that.
So, how do we manage it so 2 years down the road, there is
not a Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit and it says,
you only spent ``X'' dollars and then we could come along and
say well, let us just take that money and use it for something
else.
Help me. Walk through that with me.
Mr. Fugate. You are absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. This
would have to be built into the whole timeframe of getting
plans developed, submitted, approved, money awarded, and then
construction. We would see everything from acquisition and
buyouts to construction of projects would take years to do.
Senator Begich. This is like 5-, 10-years easy, right?
Mr. Fugate. Yes. So, the funding would have to be tied in
such a way that we do not want to give them unlimited
timeframes because the other thing I have learned is that if
there are no timeframes, it never seems to get drawn down and
the work is not done.
Senator Begich. Well, you can build a road for a lifetime.
Mr. Fugate. But it used to be tied to performance and
awards so that work is done over a period of time. It would
have to be funded on a multiyear process to allow projects to
be brought forward, construction, and the final payments made
without running the risk of not being able to finish the
projects.
But again, I think, if we were able to see this move
forward, to work on those timeframes, again when we are dealing
with disaster relief fund mitigation dollars there, those are
considered no year-end dollars but we try to move those
projects through. This may require more definitively a
timeframe but it has to account for, many of these would be
construction type or acquisition projects.
Senator Begich. For example, in Kotzebue was a great
example where we built a road which also was a break and the
net result was they had a huge storm just last year. If that
was not there, the town would have been flooded.
That is a project that someone might have said, well, that
is just a road but actually, it was a road on the coast with a
design built into it to protect the area. Literally, it saved
FEMA, to be frank with you, probably millions of dollars. I
mean, I was there and I saw the positive impact of that road.
Is that how you envision that kind of resource?
Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I think President Best
gave me this guidance when we were traveling in Hurricane Sandy
and says there is still a lot of discussion about climate
change. He says I am concerned. We need to be really focused on
climate adaptation.
So, it is how do we go forward with our built
infrastructure and selectively make the improvements and the
investments for the future risk that then, as you point out,
saved the taxpayers the cost of responding to another disaster,
that we have built mitigation, not just for what we have
experienced in the past, but more importantly the types of
impacts that we are seeing occur with unfortunately more
frequency, with often times larger populations that----
Senator Begich. Yes, that are more severe.
Let me walk through a couple. I know they have called a
vote. We probably have about 10 or 12 minutes on it so far.
They will guide me here but a couple more. Again, I appreciate
you being here.
As I mentioned in my opening on the cuts and the flood map
program, this is almost an ongoing issue and it seems like
between, let me just say mapping in general.
You guys do mapping. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) does mapping. Interior does mapping. The
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) does mapping. It almost seems
like we should just, because we all have the same, I do not
want to say the exact same purpose. But when you are mapping,
for example, a coastline which now Hurricane Sandy for example,
we are going to have to do re-mapping there. There is no
question about that and there is some money that has been put
aside for that.
But also with flood maps and everything else, it seems like
there is something here that should just be done in a more
comprehensive way.
Do you agree or disagree with that?
Mr. Fugate. Yes.
Senator Begich. It seems like everyone has resources.
Mr. Fugate. It is something that I had been very passionate
about and working in the interagency is standardizing the
digital elevation map collection data. If we have standardized,
and we are getting good progress. When one agency is using
LiDAR or other techniques to develop these, if they are doing
it at a scale and resolution that other agencies use, then we
do not have to re-map that.
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Fugate. But again those digital elevation maps are key
to a variety of programs. So, I think this really goes back
into the world of the geospatial, that as we are collecting
elevation data as much as we can collect at resolution for the
best possible community use, then it avoids us having to go out
and repeat studies.
Senator Begich. Got you.
Mr. Fugate. Now, we will still have to do the maps for the
flood risk, but the key part of that is, if we all have
consistent high resolution digital elevation maps, whatever
agency is producing it, then that in turn lowers the cost of
the production of these products and then allows a variety of
agencies, both the State and local and the private sector----
Senator Begich. To utilize them.
Mr. Fugate [continuing]. To utilize them for a variety of
issues.
Senator Begich. Let me ask you more specifically then on
the flood map program. I know it is a pretty good size
schedule. On the one hand we are about to, probably today we
might do a UC on the flood insurance issue. How are we going to
accomplish this as if we are going in the wrong direction?
I know you had to make priorities. But what are we going to
do here to make sure you have the resources? Now, I am sure we
are going to pass a flood insurance bill which requires, as you
know, some work in mapping and some other issues?
Mr. Fugate. Mapping is an annual event, and again as we had
to make choices, this does not eliminate mapping. It slows it
down. So again, the resources that we can bring to bear and the
maps that we can update are tied to the budget but this is an
ongoing process. We have been funding mapping for a long time
and we are going to be continuing to update maps as we go
through the out years.
Senator Begich. Do you think you have adequate funding and
do you need more funding for mapping?
Mr. Fugate. Mr. Chairman, it really comes back to the speed
at which you want maps updated.
Senator Begich. If you had more money, could you expedite
the process?
Mr. Fugate. It would not be so much expedite as we could do
additional mapping.
Senator Begich. In other words, more mapping, more
capacity, more areas handled. OK.
I knew you could not answer the questions of saying you
want more money because then the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) will call you very quickly and say, and they might
be out in the audience for all I know, so.
But I want to make sure that if you had more resources----
Mr. Fugate. No.
Senator Begich [continuing]. Then you could expand more
areas of the mapping.
Mr. Fugate. Yes, this is two parts. This is how much can we
actually manage through our contracts in working with local
governments that are ready to go.
Another part, though, is also to continue to look at the
technology and the cost of maps and finding newer ways to get
good resolution maps at a lower cost. As that continues to
evolve, we will look at it.
But this is really, as much as we talk about FEMA, we have
to remember this is also local communities. It is their maps
that they have to adopt. So, part of this is also the bandwidth
for local communities who are working on maps.
Senator Begich. I understand. We had a flood plain map, we
had the wetlands map. We go through the whole process so I am
very----
Mr. Fugate. So, you are aware, Mr. Chairman, that is also
going to be tied, even if we had more resources, the local
communities have to be ready to go with that.
Senator Begich. That is right. There is a whole process
they have to go through even to accept those maps in the
legislative process depending on the community they are in.
Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir.
Senator Begich. Let me ask you this last question and then
I will end here but I do appreciate your testimony, your
written testimony too. I am going to look forward to having
more conversations with you on the legislation issue on
consolidation. I have some concerns there.
But one, I hear where you are going and we will want to
work with you to see how you are going to engage the local
communities, maybe NACo, League of Cities, Mayors Conference,
but let me put that aside here for a second.
I know one of the programs that you have to transfer
responsibility, I think, is for the emergency food and shelter
program to Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Mr. Fugate. Yes, sir.
Senator Begich. So, are there other types of programs
within your organization, I mean, you are gathering some
efficiency there. I am assume that is what is happening there.
That is why you are doing it.
Are there others like that with other Federal agencies, you
can see partnerships or transfers that make sense to create
some better efficiencies or better utilization of your
resources.
Mr. Fugate. This was one that was kind of an anomaly. I
think when people talk about emergency food and shelter, this
is not for disasters. This is for homeless and for feeding.
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Fugate. These are more aligned with HUD's mission. So,
our recommendation is----
Senator Begich. It just aligns with their mission better.
Mr. Fugate. It is better aligned with their mission. This
goes back to, let us focus our resources on things that we are
charged by Congress. We do not think this is something that is
not important but it more aligns with HUD's missions. It would
be a more appropriate fit for their program.
Senator Begich. Very good. I am going to end here. I will
have a couple more questions probably just for the record but
generally first thank you very much for your testimony.
Again as I said, I want to look toward you and working with
you with regard to how you move forward on the consolidation. I
have some concerns. We can have those conversations.
On the tribal land, again I know there were some
conversations last night and this morning. We are going to be
anxious. I will be following that very closely because I think
that is a unique opportunity for tribes. I think it is a huge
responsibility for tribes.
I think there are some that may not realize what this all
means yet. That is why the rulemaking you are doing is going to
be critical to how you engage them. Not only through this
Committee but through my office we will be happy to assist you
in some of those groups to make sure they are not missed and
engage in that as best we can.
In regards to the consolidation, I am sure there are plenty
of people who are watching this conversation they care about
their specific, one of those 10 items or 12 items that are on
the list.
And as we go down this path, I can only ask you to come and
I am not going to put words in your mouth, but I can assume
that you will obviously be open to hearing from these groups to
figure out what the right way, if at all, to do this. Is that a
fair statement?
Mr. Fugate. That is a fair statement, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Begich. Very good. Thank you for your leadership.
Thank you for your willingness to recognize Alaska is what I
call every 2-week disaster that we seem to have because it
seems like it never ends.
Most recently oddly enough we are now concerned about how
little snow that we have which is amazing when you think about
Alaska but it is now becoming a problem from a lot of aspects,
even in some of our winter construction.
I will be on the Arctic, North Slope on Saturday and
because of some of the conditions, the ice roads they build, I
will have to be on a snow machine and other types of equipment
in order to get to where I need to get to because full loaded
trucks will not necessarily be adequate.
So, I appreciate FEMA's interest in understanding climate
change too. I think you all are starting to see and your
interest in seeing mitigation as a part and a significant role
of FEMA is a huge shift. I appreciate that and I think there
will be more from us on that and more discussion I know. So,
thank you very much.
At this time, the record will be kept open for 2 weeks for
additional comments from other Members and/or questions.
At this time, we will adjourn the meeting.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 3:27 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]