59

safety programs and codes, that we find ourselves locking horns
with FEMA over repair issues.

California has 60 years of experience in drafting and enforcing
some of the world’s strictest building codes. Our schools and hos-
pitals are built to a higher standard than those of any other State.
Yet, we find ourselves negotiating with FEMA over which stand-
ards are to be enforced and how repairs are to proceed.

For example, over a year of negotiation and debate has sur-
rounded the issue of repairing some 20 hospitals. While we applaud
FEMA’s recent willingness to consider more flexible approaches to
repairing these essential facilities, the need for these innovative
strategies speaks to the inherent limitations in Federal regulations
and current policies.

It is troublesome that a small number of FEMA staff, who are
not licensed California structural engineers or architects, have be-
come the principal arbiters of the level of damage and the strategy
for repair of very complex structures. Suggestions of those who dis-
agree with these judgments are motivated by a desire to inappro-
priately enhance Federal assistance have exacerbated tensions be-
tween the State and FEMA.

We recognize that there are legitimate grounds for disagreements
over very complex technical assessments, but we believe that there
should be prompt, independent, third-party reviews when such
technical disputes arise. FEMA is not and should not try to be the
national building code authority and design firm, that is a local
and State role.

California has a worldwide reputation for seismic standards and
should not be second guessed at every turn by an agency with little
background in that field, most of which, ironically, has been
learned here in California. We understand the need to keep tight
controls on spending and we operate under those same restraints
in the State.

We recognize that there are steps that we can and we must take
at the State level and within my own agency to make our own proc-
esses more efficient. We recognize and fully support Congress’ de-
sire to limit disaster assistance costs whenever possible. We only
seek eligible assistance under current Federal laws and regula-
tions.

Since the enactment of the Field Act in 1933, which set stand-
ards for the construction of public schools in this State, California
has enacted a broad range of mitigation measures. The Northridge
earthquake demonstrated the need to reduce our earthquake risk
even further. The Governor has made the retrofit freeway the high-
est priority for the State Department of Transportation. Propo-
sitions on the California ballot in March will ask the State’s voters
to approve $3 billion in bonds to continue the seismic retrofit of the
State’s freeway system.

The Governor’s recently announced budget includes proposals for
over $900 million in general obligation bonds for higher education
infrastructure improvements, particularly seismic safety initiatives.

At the Governor’s request, the State’s Seismic Safety Commission
has undertaken a thorough review of our building codes and stand-
ards in construction practices.


123

California Community Foundation Testimony
January 19, 1996
Page 3

. £ . , ‘ .

cui
© Evenagencies that were FEMA eligible had to find “fram money” to begin structural

We made no-interest loans to 12 agencies to help
them with the rebuilding process; two years later, only five have progressed far enough
to pay us back.

‘or even reimbursement for the provision of emergency services. We made several
grants to legal services and other advocacy organizations to prepare materials and
provide direct assistance to nonprofits lost in a maze of government procedures.

© Community clinics and other smaller nonprofits have found themselves “carrying” for
months or years what they hope will be receivables in the form of government
reimbursements for services, but their cash flow and operating reserves are seriously
strained in the meantime. (The smaller the agency, the more burdensome the wait.)

tender,

© Even in non-disaster situations, we lack adequate forces of bilingual health and human
services personnel to assist clients in all the primary languages that are spoken in Los
Angeles. After the earthquake. some culturally specific nonprofit agencies whose

resources to translation and other disaster relief work--and had little or no-suoness in

© Generally, in light of our experience, it would help if we could codify a broader

Mr. Chairman, it has been fairly noted by more than one commentator that Los Angeles


25

the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It has been 2 years.
We are all gratified that it appears to have been resolved.

What recommendations would you have dealing with that in the
future?

Mr. Witr. I think we have learned a lot from that situation par-
ticularly. But, you know, we did send over $300 million in advance
to help the schools and other critical facilities to do emergency
work in getting their schools back open. I think that one of the is-
sues that we have that really needs a lot of work, as I said earlier,
is the inspectors, also the engineers and the architects in defining
what is eligible and what is not eligible so that they understand
that and it is clearly put to them in the information that they need.
That has caused us more problems than anything.

Mr. DREIER. My colleague, George Brown, and I, following that
1987 quake to which I referred earlier, worked through the past
several Congresses to try and figure out a way in which we could
put into place some sort of insurance plan, a national insurance
plan. We know that in this Congress we have the Natural Disaster
Protection Act. We have a task force that has been put together to
deal with that. We are faced with some serious problems here, with
a potential of 95 percent of those who would be looking for insur-
ance policies not able to get those because underwriters are not
geared toward coming into troubled areas.

I would just like to ask you, James Lee, is there a chance that
you would be able to—maybe you have been involved, but it is my
understanding that there has been some problem with your poten-
tial support of the Natural Disaster Protection Act, some of these
things—is there a chance that you could see us come together with
some legislation on that?

Mr. Wirt. Absolutely. I did have some serious concerns about the
Natural Hazard Reduction Act because I don’t think they are really
telling you just like it should be told and what it would realistically
do. I don’t think it would have benefited the people in the
Northridge earthquake as much as it should have if it had been in
place. We are only talking about a 2 or 3 percent difference it
would have made.

If we are going to have a Natural Hazard Reduction Act, an in-
surance program, that is going to benefit the homeowners and is
going to benefit the taxpayers across the country, not just those liv-
ing in high risk areas, I totally support that.

January 26th, I have a meeting with the major CEOs of every
insurance corporation and also Frank Nutter with the Insurance
Association, where we can all sit down and say, OK, what do we
need to do to make a difference so people can buy insurance?

Mr. DREIER. I can’t tell you how much I really appreciate that,
because I have: been working with those people for a number of
years to try and bring about some kind of package. So I hope you
will be able to do it.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome Tom Davis, Mr.
Chairman, it is great to see somebody get out of that weather.

Mr. Horn. OK. Has the gentleman completed his questioning?

Mr. DREIER. Yes.


154

after-shocks and to make crucial academic scheduling decisions was facilitated.

The deployment of experienced people. who became intimately knowledgeable about
the nature of the damage and about the technical and managerial capac: :y of the
University was a second strength of the inter-agency process. During this time a
critical decision was made to provide the University with advance funding! without
which we would have been totally unable to reopen the University. On-site decision-
making is critical for effective and swift response.

‘As a result of the federal policy regarding per diem eligibility, however, this pattern of
effective collaboration and decision-making was interrupted when Region IX FEMA
representatives were required to return to their home offices because they no longer
qualified for travel status and per diem after one year at the Northridge site. As I
understand it, per diem and travel reimbursements for FEMA staff beyond this time

frame are categorized as taxable income.

In mid- and late-1994, experienced FEMA and OES employees were replaced with
either contract employees or temporary help.2 Many of these individuals had no
prior experience in or knowledge about the basic regulations under which FEMA.
operates [Code of Federal Regulations), and they did not, in all cases, honor decisions
made by their predecessors.

The Federal Coordinating Officer was replaced by other regional officers, sometimes
as often as twice per month, when the national office took over the administration of
the recovery effort. DSRs, on which we depended for funding, were delayed “in

" Disparate interpretations of

review” or “suspended pending further documentation.’
codes and standards in the repair process emerged, resulting in confusion and some
conflict among the agencies. The organizational hierarchy appeared to us to become

1 Cal State Northridge received $24.7 million: CSU systemwide received $10.0 million,

2FEMA contracted with Construction management firms for staff: OES used temporary help.


149

experience in preparing DSRs and related funding policies. They
became intimately knowledgeable about the nature of the damage
and the technical and managerial capacity of the university and
they had the kind of onsite authority to make decisions.

Chief among those was an early decision to provide the univer-
sity with advance funding, without which we would have been un-
able to open this university.

As a result of a Federal policy regarding per diem eligibility,
however, this pattern of effective collaboration and decisionmaking
was interrupted when Region IX FEMA representatives were re-
quired to return to their fomes, because they no longer qualified
for travel status and per diem after 1 year at the Northridge site.
I understand that the per diem and travel for FEMA staff beyond
this time would be categorized at taxable income to the employees.

What occurred then is that these experienced employees, knowl-
edgeable about this disaster, were replaced with either contract
employees or temporary help and that ensued a period of difficulty
for us in our recovery, a slow down in the processing of DSRs and
some confusion.

Many of these individuals, as you would understand, had no
prior experience or knowledge about the basic regulations under
which FEMA operates. And they did not in all cases, honor deci-
sions that had been made by their predecessors. We experienced a
period of delay, where DSRs were in review or suspended pending
further documentation. Disparate interpretations of standards and
codes occurred and that is the kind of testimony you heard from
other organizations today.

Our recommendation is—and I should say that period fortunately
has ended since the arrival of Federal coordinating agent Leland
Wilson, the issue of continuity in the office of the Federal Emer-
gency Management organization has been superbly and effectively
addressed. So we are now in a period where we are working, I be-
lieve, most effectively.

To think about this issue from a policy perspective, for your sub-
committee, we would recommend that FEMA review its hiring and
staffing policies to ensure continuity, efficient processing of re-
quired documents, and smooth collaboration for disasters of this
magnitude. At least one member of the emergency response team
should continue at a disaster site throughout the several phases of
recovery. That person should be an experienced FEMA officer who
is empowered to make decisions and provide effective orientations
for new employees or even for temporary borrowed employees.

The second area, again, briefly, and it has been mentioned, is the
DSR process itself. In the emergency phase of disaster response
FEMA agreed to write DSRs based on cost estimates provided by
campus consulting engineers. In actual experience these estimates
were consistently lower than actual costs, so there is no evidence
that FEMA was subject to overfunding repair costs. Later, how-
ever, these consultant reports were criticized as being too gross in
their estimates.

The documentation required to support each DSR has become in-
creasingly onerous and exacting and, from our point of view, some-
times appears to go beyond the scope of established DSR require-
ments.


COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR., Pennsylvania, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South Carolina
WILLIAM H. ZELIFF, Jk, New Hampshire © LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER, New
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York York
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California
PETER BLUTE, Massachusetts COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JON D. FOX, Pennsylvania THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
RANDY TATE, Washington GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
DICK CHRYSLER, Michigan BARBARA-ROSE COLLINS, Michigan
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana Columbia
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, New Jersey JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida GENE GREEN, Texas
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, Illinois © CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire BILL BREWSTER, Oklahoma
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
MARSHALL “MARK” SANFORD, South

Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Je., Maryland (Independent)

James L. CLARKE, Staff Director
Kevin Sano, General Counsel
JupitH McCoy, Chief Clerk
Bup Myers, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY

STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman
MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, Illinois CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

PETER BLUTE, Massachusetts MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia JOHN M. SPRATT, JRr., South Carolina
JON D. FOX, Pennsylvania PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
RANDY TATE, Washington COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
Ex OFFicio

WILLIAM F. CLINGER, Jr, Pennsylvania © CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois
J, RUSSELL GEORGE, Staff Director
JEFF WitMot, Professional Staff Memebr
AnpREW G. RICHARDSON, Clerk
CHERYL PHELPS, Minority Professional Staff Member

aD


119

Moving to direct impacts on non-profits, and let me just state the
obvious. Emergency case loads displaced ongoing client services
and sometimes regular income streams for non-profit agencies, and
not in all cases was that reimbursable.

Forgive me, gentlemen. I am fighting a cold. I usually sing so-
prano, and today I could do tenor really easily.

Non-profits housed at low or no cost in facilities like churches or
in one or two cases public schools found themselves indefinitely dis-
placed when those facilities suffered serious damage, which meant
that the tenant non-profits suddenly needed money to rent space
elsewhere, and sometimes the host agencies, particularly in the
case of churches, couldn’t qualify for rebuilding loans very easily at

I can remember a couple of very specific cases, one in the San
Fernando Valley and one in Santa Monica, where we were provid-
ing rental assistance or the hire of temporary portable buildings for
the non-profits to be able to continue their services.

Even agencies that were FEMA-eligible had to find front money
to begin structural repairs, since the nature of the Federal process
is to reimburse expenses.

Non-profits historically have a hard time obtaining funds from
commercial lending institutions and few of them have adequate
cash reserves. The California Community Foundation made no-in-
terest loans to 12 agencies, mostly to help them with that rebuild-
ing process and it’s useful to note that 2 years later only 5 of them
have progressed far enough to pay us back.

Non-profits had a hard time understanding when they were eligi-
ble for public assistance or even reimbursement for the provision
of emergency services, which simply echoes something that you
have heard several times during the course of the day.

We made several grants to legal services and other kinds of advo-
cacy organizations to prepare materials, coordinate pro bono serv-
ices, and provide direct assistance to non-profits who were havin,
a hard time dealing with the maze of Government procedures an
the ambiguities of the regulations.

Community clinics and other smaller non-profits have found
themselves carrying for months or years what they hope will be re-
ceivables in the form of Government reimbursements for services,
but their cash-flow and operating reserves is seriously strained in
the meantime. Generally speaking, the smaller the agency, the
more burdensome the wait.

Memoranda of Understandings, or some other kind of contractual
mechanisms, need to be put in place for those kinds of non-profits
ahead of time so that they can receive timely payment for basic dis-
aster relief services they render when there is an emergency.

Even in nondisaster situations in southern California, we lack
adequate forces of bilingual health and human services personnel
to assist clients in all the primary languages that are spoken here.
After the earthquake, some culturally specific non-profit agencies
whose missions have little to do with basic social services divert
significant resources to translation and other disaster-relief work
and had little or no success in recovering their costs.

Generally, in light of our experience, it would help if we could
codify a broader definition of what may, given the particular disas-


68

‘The Northridge Earthquake, however, demonstrated the need to reduce earthquake risk
‘even further. Governor Wilson has made the retrofit of the freeway system the highest pric-*y for
the state Department of Transportation. Propositions on the California ballot in March will 2: the

state's voters to approve over three billion dollars in bonds to continue the seismic retrofit ¢: :he

state's freeway system. The Governor's recently announced budget includes proposals fo- cver
$900 million in general obligation bonds for higher education infrastructure improvements,
particularly seismic safety initiatives.

At Governor Wilson’s request, the state Seismic Safety Commission undertook 2

review of our building codes and standards and construction practices. The Commission's
contains a series of recommendations to reduce earthquake risk in California. Included arz
recommendations to improve design and construction, improve building codes, reduce
nonstructural hazards, and reduce risks from existing buildings. The state Building Standards
‘Commission is evaluating the possibility of making performance standards the foundation of the
code system.

The Northridge Hazard Mitigation Grant Program that results from Stafford Act authority
will include approximately $650 million in federal funds. Together with task forces representing
schools, hospitals and local governments, OES has defined a set of priorities for use of these *inds
that will enable the state to accelerate risk reduction efforts in the three counties declared par’ «"t

Northridge disaster area.

‘The first $106 million from the Northridge hazard mitigation grant program is being
committed to schools to replace lighting fixtures and false ceilings. It is clear that had schoo!
in session at the time of the Northridge earthquake the hazard posed by these nonstructural
elements in classrooms would have caused significant injuries to students. Additional grani> 2°":

be made to hospitals and local governments to accomplish other risk reduction measures
by the working groups established after Northridge.

CONCLUSION

Page 8


152

Field Hearing conducted by the
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology
Chair: Rep. Stephen Horn

January 19, 1996
“The CSUN Experience”

TESTIMONY of Blenda J. Wilson
President, California State University Northridge

Since January of 1994 members of the Cal State Northridge community have had
many opportunities to reflect on our experience and to share what we learned about
disaster planning and response with other Universities throughout the country. We
have done so as generously and helpfully as we could recognizing that most
institutions of higher learning are as unprepared as we were for a disaster of this

magnitude.

The testimony you will be receiving today will address your interest in improving the
federal response to disasters; we commend you for taking this initiative to learn from
the experience of the Northridge earthquake. I should state at the outset, however,
that FEMA and OES made it possible for almost 24,000 students to continue their
education. Because of the expertise and encouragement of your staff over 6,000
students graduated in June of 1994.

Cal State Northridge and the CSU system are very appreciative of the assistance given
to us by FEMA and OES; we have made great progress since 1994, which in large
measure, is attributable to their advocacy and funding. However, because we have
experienced a full cycle of recovery, from emergency response to “normalized”
operations, I believe we can contribute some useful insights to the emergency
response from an institutional applicant's perspective. Our suggestions for
improvement are offered in gratitude and with the spirit of partnership which has

characterized our working together.

We believe the initial FEMA/OES response to the University was exemplary. The
most important aspect of their effectiveness was establishing immediate


19

U.S. Department of Housing (HUD) and Urban Development (con’.t)

Before the next earthquake, state and federal agencies should formally review and revise
their programs and policies on housing and the provision of temporary shelter so that all
victims have some access to assistance. One way to encourage a more equitable
distribution of recovery funds would be to channel all federal and state housing assistance
through local government rather than aiding building owners directly. We suggest that
this could more equitably be done with the County having the lead role since there are
88 cities within the County of Los Angeles. Distribution of resources could be handled
in an equitable way to all cities and residents based upon need. This would give the
flexibility to target areas and/or to combine various funding sources to meet specific
problems.

FEMA'S Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Grants

The County's Department of Mental Health cites experiences after three recent disasters
which suggest regulations should be changed to improve FEMA's Crisis Counseling
Assistance and Training Grant programs. By making some changes to the regulations
governing Crisis Counseling Grant programs, essential mental health services could be
more quickly provided to disaster victims. Following are areas that we respectfully
request be reviewed:

* The Immediate Services Grant (ISG) application must be filed within two weeks of
a disaster; this deadline is difficult to meet considering the need to respond to the
disaster, assess the needs, and prepare an application. A four-week deadline
would be more realistic.

. The ISG award is for only the first 60 days after the declaration of the disaster.
The period covered by this award is inadequate, since for all practical purposes
the first two weeks are spent assessing needs and preparing the application. A
90-120 day award period would be more practical.

* Depending upon the severity of the disaster, the County may apply for a
continuation grant which runs subsequent to the ISG and must be filed within 60
days of the disaster declaration. This 60 day deadline should also be changed to
conform with revised deadlines recommended fcr ISG. Doing so would be more
realistic in terms of: 1) assessing needs, 2) preparing an adequate application
and, 3) assessing the amount of funds that are needed and can be spent within
the prescribed time.


15

Our individual assistance programs meet the immediate temporary housing and other critical
needs of disaster victims. To date, FEMA has obligated over $1.4 billion to the more than
680,000 people seeking housing repair funds, mortgage and rental assistance, disaster
unemployment assistance and a variety of essential unmet needs. Since January 17, 1994,
more than 2.6 million people have called our helpline seeking disaster relief information;
FEMA has reached more than 1.7 million people to offer crisis counseling services through
providers in the three-county disaster area with FEMA’s disaster mental health programs;
and more than 134,000 people have applied for funding to repair and strengthen their homes
to prevent future earthquake damages.

Through our infrastructure program, FEMA has obligated more than $1.7 billion to help
local and state governments and certain non-profit agencies. More than $600 million has
been provided to help rebuild public facilities such as schools and hospitals. We have also
provided $278 million for debris removal, $435 million for emergency protective measures,
$13 million for repairs to roads and bridges, $3.7 million for water control facilities, $260
million for utility repair and $117 million for various other recovery costs in the public
sector.

These cold numbers represent real human needs and hopes. Three months ago, I visited
Santa Monica Community College, a campus of 22,000 students, which boasts the proud
distinction of sending more community college students to California's four-year university
system than any other local school. I went to the campus to announce that FEMA would be
providing almost $19 million for the reconstruction of their science building which was
totally demolished in the earthquake, Since the earthquake, students took science classes in
what they called "Science Village,” a remote set of temporary mobile classrooms which are
also being funded by FEMA. With construction set to begin soon on this new science
building, we are providing the funds to construct a facility that complies with current
earthquake building codes which will protect the building against similar damage in the
future. This is only one example, out of 513 infrastructure applicants where FEMA funds
not only rebuild the buildings, but in doing so rebuild community

Our preference of course is to reduce the number of devastated communities and families in
the future. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program provides funds to reduce or prevent
property damage in future disasters. We anticipate providing $700 million in matching funds
under this authority. The program is just getting underway, but we have already made
significant mitigation investments in this earthquake recovery. For example, when I toured
schools immediately after the earthquake, I noticed that many ceiling systems had completely
collapsed onto desks, onto labs and onto the shelves of school libraries. There is no question
that, had the earthquake occurred during school hours, a number of students and faculty
would have been seriously injured or killed. Last month, I approved the allocation of $106
million in mitigation funds to retrofit school ceilings in 63 school districts throughout
Southern California. These funds will be used to secure suspended ceilings and attached
lighting systems in more than 13,000 school buildings to assure the future safety of our
children


128

1994 Earthquake Response Funding

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Subtotal - Repairs, Equipment Replacement, and Relocation (43 grants)

Southern California Indian Center, Los Angeles
$15,000 to assist with costs of relocating and re-equipping the destroyed Van
Nuys office.

St. Barnabas Senior Center, Los Angeles
$1,226 for repairs.

Tree People, Beverly Hills

$3,500 to replace television used for training and school programs; and to help
replace damaged stone walls along educational outdoor wails at agency's park
headquaners.

‘United Liver Association, Los Angeles
$2,000 to replace printer.

Vista Del Mar Child and Family Service, West Los Angeles
$4,500 to replace damaged equipment.

Wellness Community, Santa Monica
$26,187 towards moving costs, increased rent, and tenant leasehold improvements
necessary to relocate the agency's programs from quarters destroyed by the
earthquake. -

‘West Hollywood Homeless Organization, West Hollywood
$9,600 for security deposit on a 12-unit apartment complex where WHHO will
move its 60-bed shelter program for 4-6 months while its present site is being
rehabilitated.

‘West Valley Family YMCA, Canoga Park
$6,000 for cost of relocation to and rent of temporary trailers, where most services
have continued to be provided on site.

YWCA of Santa Monica

$20,000 for the immediate conversion of a disused men’s locker room into offices
for administration and the child care and vocational counseling programs. The
building that previously housed these functions suffered major structural damage,
and will require many months to repair. (A loan has been recommended to help
with the latter process.)

$372,115



134

1994 Earthquake Response Funding

rants for Special Pi

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Chinatown Service Center FBO Asian Pacific Planning Council, Los Angeles
$32,100 for a staff person to coordinate earthquake, relief referrals and services
of APPCON -- a consortium of Asian-Pacific Islander service providers.

Community Partners FBO Los Angeles Volunteerism Project, Los Angeles
$24,900 toward the costs of screening and deploying volunteers countywide to
respond to needs caused by the earthquake.

Habitat for Humanity-San Fernando/Santa Clarita Valleys, Van Nuys
$22,600 for purchase of a network server and six work stations to handle the
increased work volume resulting from HFH's long-term earthquake response
building program.

Hollywood Community Housing Corporation, Hollywood

$20,000 for the first six months’ salary of a project manager to assist with the
acquisition and rehabilitation of approximately 240 units of low-income housing
in the East Hollywood area damaged during the earthquake and presently
uninhabitable. :

Info Line, Baldwin Park
$25,000 toward $75,000-80,000 estimated extra staffing and printing costs incurred
handling disaster referral calls.

KCRW-FM
$4,000 to support "The Earthquake Report” from January 24 to February 16, 1994.

Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), Los Angeles

$40,000 for outreach, assessment, and implementation of a training/technical
assistance program for nonprofits in the San Femando Valley area interested in
affordable housing development,

Los Angeles Earthquake Arts Recovery Fund
$10,000 toward a pool of funds to assist individual artists and arts organizations
make repairs and replace supplies and materials damaged in the earthquake. (This
fund will be jointly administered by the California Comrmunity Foundation and the
Cultural Affairs Department of the City of Los Angeles.)

National Council of La Raza, Los Angeles
‘$20,000 toward the provision of technical assistance and interagency coordination
for Latino community-based organizations in the San Fernando Valley whose
services have been stretched by the earthquake.


74

dents based on need. This would allow flexibility to target areas
and in some cases to combine various funding sources to meet spe-
cific problems.

I would like to turn your attention to FEMA's crisis counselling,
assistance and training grants. The county’s Department of Mental
Health cited experiences after three recent disasters which sug-
gests regulations should be changed to improve FEMA’s crisis
counselling assistance and training grant programs. Essential men-
tal health services could be more quickly provided to disaster vic-
tims by making some changes to the regulations governing these
grant programs. I will just highlight a couple of those areas.

The immediate services grant application is currently required to
be filed within 2 weeks of a disaster. This deadline is difficult to
meet, considering the need to also respond to the disaster, assess
the needs and prepare an application.

A 4-week deadline would be more realistic. The award is only for
the first 60 days after the declaration of disaster. A 60-day award
period is inadequate, since, for all practical purposes, the first 2
weeks are spent assessing needs and preparing the application. A
90 to 100-day application period would be more practical.

Moving on to the elderly and disabled populations, the Los Ange-
les County Area on Aging estimates that over 50,000 Los Angeles
County senior households, including 5,600 mobile homes, were
damaged or destroyed by the quake and it is important to note that
these figures don’t even include the senior citizens within the city
of Los Angeles.

Within hours of the quake the County Area on Aging took bigger
steps to reach out into the communities to locate and provide im-
mediate crisis intervention services to those in need. Their primary
target group consisted of isolated, frail elderly who might otherwise
fall through the cracks.

The vast majority of senior citizens wanted to know how to ob-
tain FEMA’s services through its network DACs. They needed rent
vouchers, loans and other assistance to repair damaged homes or
to find other housing. Although some applied for assistance
through the FEMA teleregistration number, they were not able to
obtain all of the other services typically housed in DACs. FEMA
and other governmental programs should be made available on a
mobile basis, perhaps by means of mobile vans or specially des-
ignated staff who can respond to homebound victims.

It would also be useful if applications could be made available
through agencies such as senior multi-purpose centers and inde-
pendent living centers. DACs and other public service locations
should be fully accessible to the disabled. Accessibility services
should include deaf interpreters, wheelchair access, and assistance
in moving disabled and frail persons forward in long lines.

FEMA should work with local disabled and elderly advocate
groups in establishing accessible programs to achieve this aim.

FEMA did a good job of accommodating the needs of the disabled
in the San Fernando Valley DACs. We believe what they did in the
San Fernando Valley can serve as a model for other stricken areas
in future disasters.

The county suffered enormous damage to its public buildings as
a result of the Northridge earthquake. The estimated damage to


32

Then we let the public know that the State has not responded
in the way they should and they will not be eligible for X number
of dollars unless they do that. We have got to work together on this
and not just hope it doesn’t happen on our watch. Do you agree or
disagree?

Mr. Witt. Absolutely. You know, you look back, and since I have
been at FEMA, we have a responsibility by law to do our job and
do it well. The State has a responsibility, the local government has
a responsibility. But, Congressman, individuals have a responsibil-
ity, too. They have the responsibility to know what kind of home
they are buying and where it is sited, is it in the flood plain or it
is on an earthquake fault, is it retrofitted, is it built to code and
standards to meet that risk. All of us have one.

Mr. Dixon. I guess, maybe another way to say it, Director Witt,
is that I have had constituents contact our office and say, I had my
house refinanced, but why do I have to buy flood insurance, I have
never seen a flood on my street. I think we have to do a better job.
FEMA has to do a better job of educating people about, ultimately,
who is going to have to take responsibility.

Tf I didn’t see a flood on my street, why should I pay for it? In
Congress many Members take the attitude. We don’t have earth-
quakes in our State, nor do we have hurricanes, so why should I
be sympathetic to this? I think we need an educational job before
these disasters hit. That is my whole point.

Mr. Wirt. Absolutely. Public awareness can make a tremendous
difference.

Mr. Dixon. Thank you.

Mr. Witt. The flood insurance program has never been pub-
licized. People didn’t even know we had a flood insurance program.

Mr. Drxon. Until they went to refinance their house.

Mr. Witt. That is right. So we are doing a marketing campaign
which has made a tremendous difference in that program. Most
people think homeowners covers flood insurance. A lot of people
think their homeowners covers earthquake insurance. So we all
have to do a better job in that.

Mr. Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Horn. I just want to followup on that a minute.

I think the gentleman has pinpointed one of the major problems
we all face, and I think we all agree on, and it needs to be done.
As you know we have a panel at the end of today’s session on miti-

ation and what needs to be done there, which is basic education.

think, when we chatted last week, I mentioned the Agricultural
Extension Service and the great job they have done to turn around
agriculture in America over the last 100 years and consumer edu-
cation and everything else, home economics. I feel we need to really
get that tri-partite cooperation, local, State and Federal, on the em-
phasis on education.

Iam reminded that when Earl Warren was Governor he created
a rainy day fund. He was ahead of his time. He gathered the reve-
nue during World War II to help solve a lot of California’s explo-
sion problems in population after World War II.

I would like to, at this point, mention the building code situation.
The fact that you have had vast experience as to people building
in certain areas, certainly below some minimal standards that


103

room for professional judgment with regard to earthquakes, and I
think we need to find a way to quickly involve independent third
party review.

We spend far too much money at every level including the Fed-
eral level simply administrating these protracted programs that go
on for years and years and years after the disaster.

Again, FEMA has done a lot to try to shorten it, but it is still
a problem. Whether some kind of initial grant to the States to ad-
minister these programs with audits to follow—I think again if we
cut the administrative costs, we are going to be a long way ahead.

Mr. Davis. You are saying cut the red tape and the bureaucracy
and the procurement rules which—I mean you have to have most
of the time, but when you get into these mega-emergencies where
the magnitude is so great and you have got to get results in a
hurry, basically these processes slow down the kind of result we all
want to get—is that what I hear?

Mr. ANDREWS. Exactly. Exactly. And again, there may be a relax-
ing of rules in the first days and weeks, but again we are 2 years
after the disaster and we still have a long way to go, and the tend-
ency is for all those rules to begin to creep back, and I think many
of the things that the city did, the State did, that FEMA did in
those first days we need to do that on a consistent basis, again
with absolute fiscal accountability for how those dollars are being
spent.

Per Davis. The rules are important but we spend so much of our
time, it seems to me, passing rules and procurement regulations to
make sure somebody doesn’t give a contract to their brother-in-law
that sometimes you prevent that, but you prevent doing anything
else either in a timely manner.

In mega-emergencies I think you have got to have adequate
waiver provisions.

It’s not FEMA’s fault. Maybe that is our fault for not dealing
with them a little differently, but I just had wanted to get your re-
action.

Ms. Perett, any comment?

Ms. PERETT. Thank you. I agree that you do need to be able to
act swiftly following a mega-disaster.

Being the ones who are the victims or are at the end of the
chain, if you will, we naturally want to be able to have a fast re-
sponse and see anything that would be characterized as red tape
be done away with as quickly as possible.

One of the things that is really important, I believe, is because
there are a myriad of Federal programs, sometimes one program
will actually have regulations that are in conflict with another and
it ends up stymie-ing us and we can’t use the service or the benefit
that was intended.

Excuse me, my voice is going. It would be so helpful if Federal
Government could take a look at ways to coordinate some of those
regulations and make sure that even if something is being waived
in an emergency, they have talked to their counterparts and their
other agencies to make sure that it will be productive for all con-
cerned.

Mr. Davis. You know, I think everybody did work well together
from what I gather.


39

called the head of one of the supermarket chains and we had water
out there within an hour. They had also a lack of a lot of products
like Pampers and things for young children. We also brought psy-
chologists and clergy out to convince some of the homeowners or
apartments dwellers, generally, that it was safe to go into their
dwellings.

Another thing, which I am sure you will hear about from others,
is we were able to get Section 8 housing subsidies for over 10,000
Angelenos who were essentially displaced from their, mostly, apart-
ment dwelling for anywhere from a year to 2 years.

While everything was excellent, I would like to make a number
of suggestions. I will try to cut this as short as I can. The Federal
Government should look at allocating disaster relief funds to local
governments, rather than to the SBA and FEMA. I am not saying
this is black and white. I think it is something you should look at
and we should negotiate, for want of a better word.

In particular, I am referring to the unique needs of multi-unit
dwellings and businesses after the earthquake. Because each disas-
ter is different, each recovery effort should include a real-time proc-
ess for identifying problems and amending programs.

Second, the SBA and FEMA are not optimal in responding to dis-
asters, as I mentioned, effecting multi-family housing. Federal ma-
chinery is quite often designed for rural, single family areas. There
needs to be a Federal response vehicle in urban areas. The SBA
loans did not work for multi-family apartments where the aggre-
gate damage exceeds the SBA limit of $1.5 million. Also, SBA un-
derwriting and debt service load eliminated even moderately lever-
aged properties. Multi-family housing cash-flows are insufficient to
service $25,000 to $40,000 per unit’s worth of damage.

Next, SBA recourse lending criteria eliminated many loan appli-
cants. There is a need for an SBA multi-family housing program
for future urban areas. And I have in my written materials sugges-
tions as to what should be in that program. The SBA should also
look at distinguishing whether they were funding apartments or
commercial buildings. This data is not readily available.

Next, FEMA should hire more temporary disaster response em-
ployees from the local areas. Many of the employees were from out
of State. I also have a series of suggestions on using local archi-
tects, engineers and other temporary employees from the commu-
nity.

From a city point-of-view, something that we are doing and I
found out in preparing for the next disaster, is that we do not have
centralized authority within the city and we are repairing that at
this moment. We have, in effect, worked through a committee
called the Emergency Operation Board, but this does not have the
day-to-day power to make the various departments involved listen
to them. So we are about to appoint a so-called “czar” for the city
that will report directly to me.

Also on the State level, the county of Los Angeles is the conduit
through whom State aid goes to the various cities in the county
and this can be cumbersome. Fortunately, it worked very well in
the Northridge earthquake, but it was potentially a problem and it
was a problem for a short period of time until I called, directly,


164

4

+ Assisting local, state and federal agencies in developing relevant policies for reducing
natural disaster damage and in responding to the requirements of federal and state
legislation

+ Demonstration, verilication and promotion of reciprocity for rapid transition of appropriate
processes and technologies

+ Development and implementation of strategies for motivating the public to adapt natural
disaster hazard reduction practices

+ Interaction with code-enactment bodies to influence the extent to which technolog
products are specified within codes, including training programs.

+ Establishing a technology clearinghouse from which potential users can obtain information
+ Assuring that reconstruction fotlowing a natural disaster utilizes cost-effective, appropriate
technologies to protect people and property as well as the government and insurance

companies against future losses

+ Assuring that effective action is taken to maintain critical communications links following
a major catural disaster

+ Developing international liaisons to effect the transfer of technologies developed abroad to

the United States

Owners and managers of public and private facilities must be provided the mcentives to retrofit existing
structures with damaze reduction technologies as well as to incorporate these technologies into new or
reconstructed facilities. There are a number of Ways to provide incentives and remove disincentives.
including tax deductions, lower insurance premiums, reduced overall life-cycle costs and building code
modifications. CPAND will explore and assist with the implementation of a system of incentives that will
vastly increase the utilization of natural disaster damage reduction technologies.

First ofall. creating and operating CPAND would save many lives and greatly reduce injuries in a major
natural disaster. In addition, CPAND would save a substantial pan of the fuure cost of natural disasters
to the federal government and insurance companies, conservatively estimated to be in the range of

$5 billion to $10 billion 2 year. For this purpose CPAND will evaluate the life-cycle cost-effectiveness of
the application of appropriate technologies to determine which of them will provide the preatest benefit
for the largest number of people at the least cost. The cost-etlectiveness of the establishment and
continued operation of CPAND will be measured by well-documented real and projected natural damag.
reductions directly attributable to CPAND activities.

A plan to protect the people of this country against major natural disasters must be established before the
Buy One” hits. The time for action is now! There isa great deal of work to be dong, The Natural
Disaster Protection Partnership Act was introduced last year in the House and a companion bill introduced
in the Senate. Both bills include funding for CPAND. This legislation should be strengthened to assure
weressive and effective deployment of damage prevention technologies. The Centers far Protection
Against Natural Disasters stand ready to assist



64

Federal Response Support

Let me emphasize that although we greatly appreciated FEMA‘s readiness to augment local
response efforts, additional resources were not needed. The local and state-managed respcnce
‘was quick, timely, and thorough, and essential life saving and medical assistance efforts were
brought under control in a few short hours, despite repeated aftershocks.

‘The primary responsibility for protection of public safety and property rests with local and
state officials. The most effective emergency response will, in my view, always occur at the local
and state level. It is clear that FEMA has greatly improved its emergency response capabi!
since the unfortunate events that followed the devastation of Hurricane Andrew in August 1922
Recent responses during the 1995 hurricane season demonstrate that FEMA is now a much miste
effective emergency response organization.

Nevertheless, I must repeat my concern expressed in April of 1994 to a Disaster Recovery
Field Hearing conducted by Senator Feinstein, when I cautioned against efforts to "nationalize"
emergency management by promotion of the concept of a “Federal 911" operation. The role of the
federal government during an emergency is to provide support to specific resource requests. It is
particularly important that federal emergency response efforts not be undertaken solely to showcase
a presence for the media when no critical resource needs are present and requests from states have
not been made.

RECOVERY

‘The Northridge recovery effort began concurrently with the emergency response. OES ard
FEMA established a Disaster Field Office (DFO) in Pasadena immediately after the earthquale
coordinate disaster assistance. More than 2,000 local, state and federal employees were as:
to various DFO operations. California worked closely with FEMA to establish long-term rei =
recovery operations. Aftershocks continued to shake the area, in some cases calling for res7~
efforts after recovery operations had begun.

Despite the magnitude of the damage from the quake, responders shifted quickly from
putting out fires to restoring roads; from pulling the dead and injured from collapsed struct
establishing shelters and providing meals; from issuing emergency information to providing
housing and financial assistance. To smooth the recovery process, OES established an

Page 4


148

Mr. Horn. Welcome.

STATEMENTS OF BLENDA J. WILSON, PRESIDENT, CALIFOR-
NIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE; ROBERT MAXSON,
PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH;
AND J. RICHARD WILLIAMS, DEAN OF ENGINEERING, CALI-
FORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH

Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman Horn.

Since January 1994, members of the Cal State Northridge com-
munity have had many opportunities to reflect on our experience
and share what we have learned with other organizations and cer-
tainly with the University. This is one of the most welcome oppor-
tunities to do that, because we have experienced a full cycle of re-
covery, from emergency response to, what I called this morning, al-
most normalized operations. I believe we can contribute some use-
ful insights into the emergency response from an institutional ap-
plicant’s perspective.

I would start at the outset, however, by stating that FEMA and
OES, without question, made it possible for almost 24,000 students
to continue their education following the January 17th earthquake.
Because of the expertise and availability and talent of the FEMA
staff, over 6,000 students graduated in June 1994 from Cal State
Northridge. And all of my remarks are with the spirit of gratitude
and partnership, which characterized our working together to make
that possible.

We believe the initial FEMA/OES response to Cal State
Northridge was exemplary. Within hours of the earthquake FEMA
Director, James Witt, and OES director, Richard Andrews, were in
contact with the chancellor of the CSU system and officials of the
CSUN campus.

Everyone has spoken about the technical aspects of disaster re-
covery. I would want to have you note that the encouragement and
assurances and advocacy of experienced disaster personnel were
also relevant, in that they gave us the confidence that we could
overcome what appeared to be, at that time, an overwhelming chal-
lenge.

There are only two areas that I would mention as possibilities for
revision in FEMA regulations. I think they might facilitate full re-
covery for institutions like ours from these kinds of disasters. Both
have been mentioned before, so I will not belabor the point except
to mention them.

The two areas are human resource deployment and the damage
survey report or the DSR process. With regard to human resource
deployment, we have gone through what I would call three phases
in our relationships with FEMA.

Early in the disaster, Cal State Northridge was fortunate to re-
ceive the assistance of experienced FEMA and OES personnel.
They sent a Federal coordinating officer, a public assistance officer,
a deputy public assistance officer and various staff members from
the Region IX office in San Francisco. These individuals were well
informed on Federal regulations, policies and procedures. They
were knowledgeable about construction and engineering. They un-
derstood the academic enterprise, which is, again, a unique talent
within these disaster relief agencies and they had many years of


35

Mr. Horn. Any further questions from the minority?

Mr. Dixon. Just one.

Mr. Horn. Mr. Dixon.

Mr. D1xon. Director, I guess I may be overemphasizing this, but
the point that Mr. Horn made about the administrative costs, that
should be well established prior to any disaster that you are going
to get 18 or 22 percent, because there is a tendency in the politics
to try to negotiate something rather than resolve it, if you don’t
have the capacity to resolve it.

Mr. WITT. Absolutely.

Mr. Dixon. So you look for things to negotiate so that you can
say, our administrative cost is 40 percent and things haven’t moved
because we are fighting with the Feds to do this. Those are the
kinds of things that FEMA and Federal agencies and State agen-
cies should be telling people maybe on a monthly basis. Reminder
for this month, administrative costs have been fought out, and they
are 20 percent, no exceptions; or 35 percent, no exceptions. So don’t
raise this when the disaster hits.

Mr. Wirt. Right.

Mr. Dixon. The preplanning has got to start today for the thing
that is going to hit maybe 7 years from now or 70 years from now
so that the predecessor to the predecessor of Mayor Riordan knows
it is going to be X number of dollars, it is going to be a certain per-
centage, don’t come in here and start negotiating when the damn
thing hits.

Mr. Wirt. I agree. That is why good, clear policy that everybody
understands, and put in place, will be good.

Mr. Dixon. I am sorry I am taking the time, but it has to be a
good, clear policy ahead of time that everybody, including the citi-
zen, understands.

Mr. Wirt. Absolutely.

Mr. Horn. No. I agree with that.

Mr. Wirt. That’s why we are working on it.

Mr. Horn. I was only thinking, since you are so vigorous on this,
I was going to move the vice chairman in here so he could take the
wound.

But, anyhow, I think that has been an excellent dialog, and you
and this committee are thinking along the same ways, what is the
preventive route, what is the educational route, and it is a constant
challenge, as every official here knows, because of the turnover in
local, Federal, both professional and elected officials.

So we are going to have, Mr. Director, at the end of this session,
an open mike where any citizen can speak for a minute or so, or
file a document with us. We would appreciate it if we could refer
some of those to your staff, and if we could have a factual response
that might solve the problem in the case, or at least build a record
so we don’t have to go over these in the next disaster.

Mr. WITT. We will have someone here.

Mr. Horn. We thank you very much for coming out and escaping
the snow of Washington and seeing sunny California and we wish
you well in the future.

Mr. Witt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.
I really appreciate the opportunity, and may I make one last clos-
ing remark?


67

Over a year of negotiation and debate has surrounded the issue of hospital repairs. While
we applaud FEMA’s recent willingness to consider more flexible approaches to repairing these
essential facilities, the need for these innovative strategies speaks to the inherent limitations ‘=>
federal regulations and FEMA policies. It is, for example, questionable that a small numbe:¢*
FEMA staff, who are technically knowledgeable but not licensed as Califomia structural engir=:
or architects, have become the principal arbiters of the level of damage and the strategy for rez
very complex structures. Suggestions that California engineering firms and state and local
agencies that disagree with these judgments are motivated by a desire to inappropriately enhance
federal assistance have exacerbated the tensions between the state and FEMA. We recognize ¢

there are legitimate grounds for disagreements over very complex technical assessments,
believe that there should be prompt, independent third party reviews when such technica!
arise. rather than suggestions that only federal employees have the correct answers.

FEMA is not -- and should not try to be -- the national building code authority and design
firm. That is a local and state role, and one in which California has long been a model for the
nation and the world. California has a world-wide reputation for seismic standards and sho:
be second-guessed at every tum by an agency with little background in that field, most of which,
ironically, has been learned here in California.

We understand the need to keep tight controls on federal spending, We operate under
same restraints in the state. In the past year we've had the FEMA Inspector General, the

accounting firm of Price Waterhouse, and our own Bureau of State Audits review our co:

practices, We recognize that there are steps we can take to make our own processes more e
And we recognize and support Congress's desire to limit disaster assistance costs whenever
possible. We only seek eligible assistance under current federal laws and regulations. Thes=
policies should be applied consistently, with commitments made by lead federal officials
the disaster honored.

Hazard Mitigation

California Jeads the nation in seismic safety policies and hazard mitigation. Since the
enactment of the Field Act in 1933, which set standards for the construction of public schools in
the state, California has enacted a broad range of mitigation measures. The overall effectiveness of
these mitigation efforts was evidenced when the Northridge Earthquake hit. Clearly the damage
would have been far greater had it not been for the building codes, standards for schools and
hospitals, retrofit measures, and emergency management systems that are unique to California.

Page 7


104

I was sitting in Virginia but coming back here and talking, read-
ing the backup material, but this is an honest time for us before,
heaven knows, another disaster like this happens, that we be pre-
pared in a proactive way to deal with it and can honestly assess
what worked and what we can improve on.

I think we are hearing that from all sides today—not trying to

it one group against another and pointing fingers, as some Mem-
Pers might have thought—so I think this is helpful in that regard
and hopefully we can go back to Washington to make appropriate
changes, working with FEMA and the people who really want these
things to work better.

That’s all my questions and thank you all very much.

Mr. FLANAGAN. General Brandt, I have one last question for you,
I have been asked by counsel. There are always at any given hear-
ing, I don’t know if you know this or not, there are a laundry list
of questions that must be asked, so they kind of get passed around
amongst the Members to ask them, apart from the stuff that inter-
ests us, and I have one such question here for you.

Will the integration of the Army Reserve Medical and Logistic
Units, which have obligations only to the Federal Government, en-
hance your readiness, the Guard’s readiness and the ability to deal
with future disasters?

I put you in a hard spot there because you have to divorce your-
self from it but——

Major General BRANDT. Actually, I don’t think it is a hard spot,
because I think going back to what Dr. Andrews has pointed out
right at the outset was that, you know, the local people and the
local responsible authorities are the best ones to deal with the
problem, and as it expands out there is an appropriate time for
other agencies and organizations to be included in and to match
the requirement that we are faced with once we understand the
full dimension of it.

I think in most emergencies we have in California, the system
we have works very well. We work it every day. We expand to that
requirement.

hen we run into a larger requirement and specifically with
medical units because the National Guard here in California we
have lost two hospitals that were formerly part of the California
National Guard. The Army Reserve has some hospitals that are lo-
cated in California.

There would be an appropriate time where those organizations
could come in under the supervision and control of the State or the
county or city that is really trying to manage the problem.

There is room for everybody but the issue is, from my perspec-
tive, is when they come in and how they come in, because it can
be very disruptive and confuse the issue if the response is self-gen-
erated, as we have had in some cases in the past.

Now everybody wants to help. We all understand that right
upfront. But California, due to our uniqueness and the fact that we
have the four seasons—fires, floods, earthquakes, and riots—you
know, we get involved in this all the time and we do have a sys-
tem, a very good system for handling this.

Mr. FLANAGAN. So can the Army Reserve and the active Army
and Air Force and other agencies come in?


167

Testimony Before the Government Reform and Oversight Committee
J. Richard Williams, Ph.D., P.E.
Dean of the College of Engineering
California State University, Long Beach
Long Beach, CA $0840

‘The damage from the Northridge earthquake, as great as it
‘was, was minuscule compared fo the damage that would result
from a major earthquake a magnitude larger. An earthquake of
‘this magnitude is certain to strike California. In order to
prepare for such an eventuality, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) has embarked upon a program
to increase the earthquake resistance of schools, hospitals,
public service buildings, and other critical facilites. As these
projects are undertaken, it is imperative that we learn how
effective these projects really are in protecting the public
against the destruction caused by future earthquakes.

For example, the Cty of Long Beach has submited a proposal
to te California Office of Emergency Services for funding
from FEMA through the State of Califoria Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program. The funding source is the $600 million which
Congress provided the State of California after the Northridge
exthquake to support this program. The City of Long Beach
proposes to uperade its Public Safety Building to seismically
strengthen the structure in order to protect personnel,
soners, and the public from risk of injury, loss of life, and

mage fo property, and also reduce the risk of incapacitating
the City's public safety infrastructure, as a result of amajor
earthquake, Structural bracing inthe building is minimal, and
the building falls wel below cunent seismic code standards.
City engineers have developed plans for seismie bracing to
rake th building seismically safe, and for other modifications
required to ensure safety to occupants and facilities during and
following a major seismic event. Since there are many
buildings ofthis type around the United States, itis proposed
thatthe building be instrumented and analyses performed to
determin the effeivenes ofthe sive hardening and
provide information to facilitate future seismic revofits ofthis,
pe

‘The proposed project to protect this building against
corguskes represents a major opportunity to demonstrat the
Use of modem, existing technolosies to entre that he
moitiatons are done inthe mast costeffective mancer and
the benefits ofthe modifications are carefully measured and
alyzed ‘The project as proposed will suit in considerable
cost-savings by ensuring tha thereof is cost-effective, by
really estending the life ofthe building, by providing @
darabise fr making similar flue erofit projects more cost
‘fective, and by mitigating damage tthe Public Satery
iiding before it occurs ~ and more importantly, by ensuring
<ontnued fre and police protection far Long Beach following
a major eartiuake. This project wil also provide an
opportunity for interaction with cods-enactment bodies 10
infuence the extent 0 which applications of appropriate

damage prevention technologies are specified within codes.

‘The City of Long Beach is a major seaport, transportation,
communications ceater for the United States and a major
center for commerce in the Los Angeles area. The Long
Beach Public Safery Building, dedicated in 1958, houses the
police and fire departments ofthe City of Long Beach. A team
‘of architects and engineers from the offices of HOK/LA.
(architects), KPFF (structural engineers), and Syska and
Hennessy (mechanicaVelectrical engineers), assessed the
Public Safety Building and concluded that the building
"extremely delicate condition" end would be in danger of
structural fafure in a majo earthquake. This would leave the
City of Long Beach without fire or police protection. The City
is notable to demolish and replace the building at this time.
Seismic hardening is needed now to ensure that the City isnot
Without police and fice protection following a major
earthquake

tn addition to structural hardening, other modifications that are
needed to bring the building up to code and make it
seismically safe include bracing of ceiling elements asbestos
abatement, and bracing of equipment. Areas of suspended
acoustic tle ceiling have been collapsing within the facility.
‘Also, there is virtually no bracing of ceiling elements, such as
ductwork, piping and lighting fixtures. Failure of ceiling
elements due to an earthquake could result in a shutdown of
operations. There is linle bracing of building mechanical or
electrical equipment, and electrical switchgear and mechanical
components, such as chillers and roof cooling towers, are
lunanchored. The facility includes unbraced records storage
units and equipment inthe area of the crime lab on the first
floor, and evidence storage racks onthe fifth floor. Seismic
bracing for these elements is needed. Likewise, the wiring is
old and subject to shorting in an earthquake, possibly setting
the building on fie. In order to effect the structural
reinforcing and install the instrumentation and replace wiring,
the asbestos in the building must be abated.

‘This building will play a pivotal cole during the period after a
strong seismic event. It must therefore remain intact and be
completely functional, since it will be used as the emergency
‘management center after a major earthquake. In view of the
pivotal importance of the Public Safety Building to the City of
Long Beach, the City proposes 10 cary out the necessary
‘modifications to the building to ensure that police and fire
protection forthe Ciry ate aot disrupted in the event of a major
‘earthquake. An integral part of this project is establishing a
‘monitoring capability to ensure the adequacy of these
‘modifications. This will include a comprehensive


126

1994 Earthquake Response Funding

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:
Agency:

Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Families in New Directions, Los Angeles
$1,000 to replace equipment damaged in the earthquake.

The Gathering Place, Los Angeles

$7,000 to replace the earthquake-damaged refrigerator with a lockable industrial
refrigerator to support the meal program for people with AIDS, as well as 10
replace the television and VCR used for children’s programs.

Glendale Family YMCA, Glendale
$12,500 to assist with emergency repairs and clean-up at the residence and low-
cost housing sites.

Haven Hills, Inc., Canoga Park
$8,000 to replace photo copier damaged beyond repair, and for materials necessary
to repair six small apartment units.

Hollygrove (L.A. Orphans), North Hills
$10,000 for repairs to the group home.

Los Angeles Commission on Assaults Against Women, Hollywood
$7,000 to add counseling staff for the increased patient load due to the earthquake,
as well as funds to repair and replace office equipment (printer, typewriter,
bookcases, doors).

Lula Washington Contemporary Dance/Los Angeles Contemporary Dance
Foundation, Los Angeles
$5,000 to replace dance studio mirrors shattered in the earthquake.

Martin Luther King Legacy Association, Los Angeles
$6,000 to replace equipment and furniture damaged or destroyed at the Rosa Parks
Rape Crisis Center and other agency sites.

MEND (Meeting Each Need with Dignity), Pacoima
$5,200 toward three months rental of space and purchase of chalkboards for
agency's ESL program, which had to be moved from its original site because of
earthquake damage.

Mid Valley Family YMCA, Van Nuys
$7,500 toward repairs, equipment replacement, and the costs of extending child
care hours and providing showers for families displaced by the earthquake.

National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Glendale
‘$9,800 to replenish the Emergency Needs fund, used to assist MS patients with
uninsured costs of medications and “necessities of life,” exhausted by unusually
numerous demands due to economic dislocations caused by the earthquake.


45

$2.8 billion for loans to individuals & businesses from the Smal] Business Administration; -
$i billion in housing, individual & family assistance from FEMA;

$550 million in assistance to city government from FEMA and Transportation;

‘$350 million for housing rehabilitation from HUD;

$100 million for economic recovery & business assistance from HUD and Commerce;

‘$30 million for human services from HUD, Labor, and Health & Human Services.

‘We estimate that the insurance industry has paid out an additional $10 billion within the City of
Los Angeles.

While overall the federal response to the Northridge earthquake was excellent, let me suggest a
few arcas of improvement for the federal response. Many of these suggestions and observations
are not a criticism of operational issues, but require legislative and regulatory changes for federal
departments.

1, The Federal government should look at allocating disaster relief funds to local government
rather than to SBA/FEMA in cases where disaster issues are particularly unique to a locality.’ In
particular, I am referring to the unique needs of multi-unit dwellings and businesses after the
Northridge earthquake. Because each disaster is different, each recovery effort should include a
real time process for identifying problems and amending programs.

2. SBA and FEMA programs are not optimal in responding to disasters affecting multi-family
housing: Federal machinery is designed for rural single family areas; there needs to be a Federal
response Vehicle in Urban areas.

= SBA loans did not work for multi-family where the aggregate damage exceeds the SBA
limit of $1.5 million.

+ SBA’s underwriting and debt service load climinated even moderately leveraged
properties: multi-family housing cash flows are insufficient to service $25,000 to $40,000
per unit worth of damage.

- Also SBA’s recourse lending criteria eliminated many loan applicants.

There is a need for an SBA multi-family housing loan program for future urban disaster
Tesponses.

~The program should be project-based; establish fixed predictable terms; based on credit
4


87

Partl
Military Support to Civil Authority

The National Guard is a unique organization and the only military service with three missions;
National Defense, State Public Safety, and Community Support. The National Guard is organized
and equipped for national defense as part of the Departments of the Army and Air Force. Army and
Air National Guard units are a vital part of the Total Force and have served in every major national
security mission in this century.

Training for our primary mission of National Defense prepares us for our secondary mission,
State Public Safety. Each year the California National Guard is called to help civil authorities protect
life and property during state emergencies. California averages 33 percent of our nation's military
support to civil authority missions. In 1994, year of the Northridge Earthquake, the California
National Guard responded to 51 percent of the nations military support to civil authority missions, A
chart comparing California’s response with other states is provided below.

Our third mission is Community Support. Youth Programs and community service projects
are the principle focus of our Community mission, Our programs target inner-city youth, providing
education and training in various formats that build self-esteem, discipline, and leadership skills.
National Guard units also support recreation activities and public service events that benefit all
members of the community.

The personnel and equipment required for our national security mission also supports
community based programs throughout California and provide essential resources to the State for
public safety.

Part II

Response to the Northridge Earthquake

On January 17, 1994, Northridge, California experienced a magnitude 6.7 earthquake at 4:31
AM (Pacific Standard Time). The epicenter was about one mile south of Northridge and shaking
lasted more than 30 seconds. The intense ground shaking caused in excess of $25 billion in damages,
57 fatalities, and 8,716 serious injuries. More than $0,000 people were left homeless.

Within one hour of the earthquake, the Governor's Office of Emergency Services contacted
the California National Guard and we activated our Crisis Action Center in Sacramento. In less than
two hours, the 40th Infantry Division Emergency Operations Center was activated at Los Alamitos
Armed Forces Reserve Center and subordinate National Guard units were placed on alert. Liaison
officers were sent to critical civil authority operation centers to coordinate military support and
provide damage assessment. Two hours after the earthquake a command and control and planning
staff were fully operational in Northern and Southern California to receive missions from the Office
of Emergency Services. Over 2,600 members of the California National Guard were activated to
ensure public safety, distribute food and water, assess damage, house victims and provide air
transportation to damaged areas.

The California National Guard had sufficient resources to provide timely support to civil
authorities. The missions performed are described below.

- Airborne command and control for State, Federal, and Local Government Agencies.

1


8

It is my pleasure to welcome you to Cal State Northridge. We are
pleased that you would elect to hold a hearing on this important
agency and important topic on our campus. We are pleased also to
welcome back to the campus Director James Lee Witt and the Di-
rector of the Office of Emergency Services, Dick Andrews, and
members of the staff of FEMA and OES, many of whom we have
come to know quite well over these past 2 years.

Sitting in this lovely climate today, in a campus that, for all the
previous damage, looks pretty normal, to us at least, it is hard to
visualize last week’s blizzard of 1996, a storm with enough awe-
some power to paralyze the entire eastern seaboard, a circumstance
in which the services of FEMA were once again tapped and mobi-
lized. It is also difficult in this almost normal environment to vis-
ualize the devastation of another catastrophic event, the
Northridge earthquake of 1994.

Seen through the prism of time, for sure, much has been accom-
plished at the campus, but the road to recovery has been long and
winding. All 107 structures within the physical plant, 53 of them
major facilities, were effected by the earthquake. It was only
through the extraordinary and dedicated efforts of university fac-
ulty, staff and students, relief and community service agencies,
local government officials, construction crews and contractors and
particularly our California congressional delegation that we were
able to open the campus on February 14th, only 2 weeks off the
normal schedule.

FEMA's performance during that time was essential and exem-
plary. During the 4-week window, we moved rapidly from operating
the campus out of one tent to multiple tents, to off campus sites
and finally to 480 temporary structures, trailers and domes.

Six months later, by the beginning of the fall of 1994, we were
able to move back partially or fully into some of our buildings.
Most importantly, we were able to reopen the main core of the
Oviatt Library, just 3 days before the start of fall classes, a feat
no one thought could be accomplished, including the project engi-
neers.

We are eager at this time, near the second anniversary of the
earthquake, to conclude discussions, which we are currently having
with FEMA, to provide a summary grant to Cal State Northridge,
to enable the campus to complete repairs totally by December 1997.

Later in the program I will testify more directly and specifically
on the university's emergency response and how the campus inter-
faced with FEMA and other governmental agencies, what worked,
as well as some ideas on improvement and some of our experience
about those things we learned as a university. I believe our experi-
ence can be both useful and helpful to the subcommittee members.
And I look forward to hearing the testimony today.

Again, our welcome. We are delighted you are here.

Mr. Horn. Thank you very much, Dr. Wilson. It is a great pleas-
ure to have you here.

We will now begin with our first witness, the very distinguished
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. en I
first came to the House in 1993 and served on the then Public
Works Transportation Committee and this committee was called
Government rations, after a few hearings in which the Director


THE GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO THE
NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE

FRIDAY, JANUARY 19, 1996

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT,
Northridge, CA.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., at the
California State University, Northridge, CA, Hon. Steve Horn
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Horn, Flanagan, and Davis.

7 Also present: Representatives Dreier, Dixon, McKeon, and

‘orres.

Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director and counsel; An-
drew G. Richardson, clerk; Kevin Sabo, general counsel; Jeff
Wilmot, professional staff member; and Cheryl Phelps, minority
professional staff member.

Mr. Horn. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on Gov-
ernment Management, Information, and Technology will come to
order.

On January 17, 1994, an earthquake measuring 6.7 percent on
the Richter scale struck the Los Angeles area. It was one of the
most devastating natural disasters ever to confront our Nation. In
its wake, more than 70 people lost their lives, and thousands were
injured. Tens of thousands of structures were damaged, leaving
over 25,000 people homeless. Severe destruction to the freeways oc-
curred tying up the region’s transportation network. The damage
resulting from the quake was estimated to exceed $20 billion.

Immediately following the earthquake, the Federal Government,
working with State and local governments, mobilized its responses.
Coordinated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
FEMA, the recovery effort continues through this day.

The purpose of today’s hearings is to determine the adequacy of
the Federal Government’s response, the cooperation between Fed-
eral, State, local governmental entities as well as the work of non-
profit and community organizations. In a region where earthquakes
are a constant threat, it is imperative for Members of Congress to
understand first-hand what occurred in the aftermath of the
Northridge earthquake in order to learn from it.

The witnesses who will be assisting us in this effort are James
Lee Witt, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency; the mayor of Los Angeles, Richard Riordan; Mr. Richard
Andrews, the director of the Governor’s Office of Emergency Serv-

()


150

As Director Witt testified this morning, one of the areas which
would benefit greatly from a review of FEMA policy is the DSR
process itself and the degree of bureaucratization and, not the ne-
cessity of documentation, but the degree to which documentation
can be questioned from one FEMA official to another.

Similarly the decision to provide advanced funding for the cam-
pus, as I indicated, was absolutely critical. There can be no doubt
in your minds that the California State University system and the
Northridge campus in particular did not have a working capital re-
serve to be able to advance moneys for repair and other reconstruc-
tion needs.

While we understand that FEMA is established as a reimburse-
ment program, we noted Director Witt’s comment about the viabil-
ity of an advance as well as a reimbursement program. We think
FEMA might consider an explicit advance program, particularly for
public agencies and local governments as was requested by Direc-
tor Andrews. This approach could result in eliminating a lot of time
delays and confusion. And, in our experience, would result abso-
lutely in cost savings to the Federal Government because process-
ing and oversight could be streamlined.

The applicant would also realize cost savings because the recon-
struction program could be completed much faster. In that regard,
we are eager to receive the balance of the funding needed to com-
plete our repairs and to restore the kind of academic environment
that our students and faculty deserve.

Mr. Horn. Excuse me, at this point what is the balance of fund-
ing? Is there an estimate on that?

Ms. WILSON. Yes, the balance that we have requested of FEMA
is approximately $139 million.

Mr. Horn. $139 million?

Ms. WILSON. Correct. Our request, which Congressman McKeon
referred to earlier, is supported by full documentation, which is in-
deed the work of an extraordinary effort of Leland Wilson and his
staff with our staff. This would complete the repair of what we call
the major buildings, the central part of the campus, and enable us
to be completely restored to full operations by December 1997.

Relative to the benefit of this final close-out grant—which I
would say we have been pleased today that both Director Witt and
Leland Wilson are considering the request and considering it in a,
what I hope and what I have experienced, very sensitive and posi-
tive way.

The benefit to both the applicant and to the Federal Government
would be that doing that now would save an additional $60 million.
The longer we are paying costs for temporary facilities, the more
costly the total outcome of the repair. Our original estimate was
that Northridge damage would be $350 million. We are now clear
that if we were to receive a final close-out grant now, we could
complete our repairs for $301 million.

I would like to leave the subcommittee with two videos which
capture the accomplishments which were made possible by this
partnership between FEMA, OES and the CSU. The first is a short
8-minute account of the early days immediately following the
earthquake. The second is a lengthier 46-minute depiction of the
quake’s long-term effects at Cal State Northridge and the kinds of


42

Testimony to Sabcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology.
Mayor Richard J. Riordan
January 19, 1996

‘Thank you, Chairman Hom, We have worked well together in the past and I look forward to
continuing the positive working relationship we have established.

‘The Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994 was the most serious natural disaster in United
States history. The dimensions of the quake were staggering: magnitude 6.7; 60+ people killed
and thousands injured; 40,000 people needing immediate shelter and food; 65,000 housing units
destroyed or suffering major damage; the loss of electrical power, safe water, roads and

freeways. In all, the Los Angeles region suffered more than an estimated $20 billion in damage.

Two years later, Los Angeles is back -- and better than ever. We've shown the Angeleno spirit
once and for all. In fact, the slogan we coined last year says it all: “You can shake L.A., but you
can’t break it!”

‘The federal government has played a vital role in our recovery efforts. Within the City of Los
Angeles alone, an estimated $4.8 billion in federal assistance has been provided to individuals,
businesses and the city government. Further aid has been given to other jurisdictions, such as the
Los Angeles Unified Schoo! District and the University of California.

In addition to the sheer number of dollars, the federal government provided a response that was
rapid and all-encompassing, Within 24 hours, President Clinton declared a major disaster, and
high-ranking officials arrived from Washington: James Lee Witt, Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency; Henry Cisneros, Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development; and Federico Pena, Secretary of Transportation.

Within 48 hours, the President arrived in Los Angeles. FEMA inspectors joined local and state
officials in reviewing damage, and the National Guard began to erect tents to house those
displaced by the earthquake. Secretary Pena joined in creating an Emergency Transportation
Relief Task Force, and Secretary Cisneros activated the HUD Emergency Response Team.

Within one week, the federal government established Disaster Application Centers as one-stop
locations for earthquake assistance information, and FEMA provided $75 million in advance
funds to the City of Los Angeles. Decisive leadership from the Federal Emergency

Agency (FEMA) and quick opening of the Disaster Assistance Centers (DACs) inspired
confidence.

The federal government put forth its most expedient disaster response ever and dispatched
experienced, top-level officials. HUD provided temporary housing rapidly; Transportation


161

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT COM

Robert Maxson, President - California State University, Long Beach

Natural disasters and the devastation they unleash are becoming a more frequent and more costly threat to
cour country. Coupled with this is a growing crisis of insurance in disaster-prone areas such as Southern
California, With increasing frequency, the United States is being subjected to natural disasters ranging.
from severe winter storms and hurricanes in the East to voleanoes and earthquakes in the West. We
cannot control the natural events that produce these disasters, but we can protect people from them by
aggressively applying appropriate technologies that are now available to reduce damage to people and
property.

Protecting people and reducing damage from natural disasters must be principal goals of any national
natural disaster mitigation program. In such a program, preventative measures to reduce damage caused
by natural disasters, such as the earthquake that struck here in Northridge, are essential because they help
reduce the number of victims, property loss, environmental damage, disruption of the economy and
insurance rates. In addition, damage prevention and reduction should be viewed as the means to decrease
‘demands for disaster response resources. They reduce the principal causes of injury and death; they enable
a quicker lifesaving response and economic recovery because the community infrastructure remains
intact, and they reduce the societal impacts of natural disasters because they result in less disruption of the
social environment. In essence, damage prevention and protection of the public are foundations of
sustainable community development.

Regardless of their cost or frequency, the fact is that catastrophic natural disasters are inevitable.
According to the United States Geological Survey, 39 states are prone to damaging earthquakes and
‘elated seismic disasters. There is a 67% chance for a catastrophic earthquake in the San Francisco Bay
‘Area and a 60% chance in Southern California during the next 25 years, Also, the odds of a destructive
‘earthquake striking central or eastern portions of the United States ae at least 40% within the same
period.

Other types of natural disasters are also striking this country with increasing frequency. Hurricanes, in
particular, are recognized as nature's most destructive phenomena. More hurricanes of at least the
magnitude of Andrew and Hugo will strike vulnerable United States coastlines in the near furure. At least
18 Gulf and East Coast states are hurricane-prone. Sixty-seven million Americans live in coastal counties
where hurricanes are most destructive. In addition. flooding is another natural peril which regularly
inflicts substantial damages, as underscored by the Great Floods of 1993 in the upper Mississippi and
Missouri River valleys. Other natural disasters include voleanic eruptions, tornadoes, cyclones, wildfires,
land and mud slides, sink holes and severe winter storms.

Beyond the tragic human destruction, the economic losses from catastrophic natural disasters are
devastating. The United States, prior to 1989, had never experienced more than $1 billion in insured
losses from a single natural disaster. Since then, there have been several natural disasters-including the
Northridge earthquake~that have exceeded $1 billion. Over the past seven years, the taxpayers’ bill for
disaster relief just in the form of special supptemental appropriations bills exceeded $34 billion. The
appropriations supplemental (o aid victims of the Midwest floods totaled $5.7 billion. The total federal
aid package, including subsidized loans for Hurricanes Andrew and fniki was over $8 billion, and the
relief funds appropriated for the 1989 “World Series/Loma Prieta” earthquake topped $3 billion. In 1994
Congress passed an $8.6 billion emergency appropriations aid package for the victims of the Northridge
earthquake, The losses to state and local governments and to individuals and corporations were many


73

FEMA Director, James Lee Witt, for his leadership. FEMA re-
sponded to the Northridge event in record time.

We are also extremely grateful to HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros
for his leadership and personal commitment to the residents of Los
Angeles County. FEMA, HUD and the many other Federal agencies
that responded demonstrated a high level of national commitment
to our needs.

I would be remiss if I did not also thank Dr. Andrews, who is
sitting right next to me, for the exemplary response that we re-
ceived from the State Office of Emergency Services.

I would like to begin with some observations about the emer-
gency Section 8 housing vouchers. Because of HUD’s desire to pro-
vide immediate housing assistance, they made approximately
12,000 Section 8 certificates available to disaster victims who had
been forced to move from damaged homes. This action was de-
signed to address immediate housing needs. However, there is a
downside to this approach which should be thoughtfully considered
before similar action is taken in the future.

First, there is a downside of taking a significant pool of Section
8 certificates out of the existing program with nothing to replace
them. On a daily basis there are more than 100,000 people on a
Section 8 waiting list in Los Angeles County alone. These appli-
cants, who have the lowest incomes of all residents, must some-
times wait for as long as 6 years before they can expect to be is-
sued certificates. To them it seemed highly unfair that thousands
of People instantaneously received certificates because of the earth-
quake.

An additional problem is the realization that once the Section 8
certificates expire, these disaster victims may potentially be home-
less again. A new crisis could be in the making as they all try to
find affordable housing at the same time. Affordable housing is one
of our greatest needs in Los Angeles County during normal times.
It can only be exasperated by the influx of this new group of home-
less people.

Because the Section 8 housing certificate holders only pay 30
percent of their rent and the balance is subsidized, many were able
to move into substantially better housing. When the vouchers ex-
pire and the families must pay the full rent without subsidy, the
only option for many will be to return to living in overcrowded,
substandard housing.

We believe the problems associated with this well-meaning hous-
ing assistance could have been avoided if there had been better co-
ordination among the Federal agencies immediately following the
disaster.

Before the next earthquake, we would respectfully request the
State and Federal Government to formally review and revise their
housing and temporary shelter programs and policies. One way to
encourage a more equitable distribution of recovery funds would be
to channel all Federal and State housing assistance through local
government, rather than aiding building owners directly.

There are 88 cities in the county and we have the means to co-
ordinate effectively with them. Therefore, we are suggesting that
consideration be given to assigning housing block grants to the
county to be distributed in an equitable way to all cities and resi-


82

FEMA Reimbursement (con't.)

Much of the damage was not immediately apparent. Consequently, two years later we
axe stilin the process of tying to get our Damage Survey Reports (OSRs) epproved and

by FEMA. That process is frustrating, has been more time-consuming than
predicted, and the delays have worked a hardship on the County’s recovery efforts. Two
important issues are described below:

* The Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) sets the
‘standards for construction of hospitals. OSHPD approval is contingent upon
facility compliance with the California Building Code. FEMA's unwillingness to
accept OSHPD’s standards has resulted in seven appeals, all of which have
already delayed the restoration of essential County buildings for more than two
years. FEMA's personnel have substituted the engineer of record method of repair
with their own, which is based on FEMA's interpretation of State and County
codes. We are very concerned about this issue because it could delay the
restoration of the more than 240 damaged County buildings indefinitely. We
suggest that a panel of building code experts research the code interpretation and
application and find a solution acceptable to all parties.

. Debris removal and emergency work done by County employees is not reimbursed
by FEMA. However, if the same work is done by contract with non-County
employees the cost is fully reimbursable even though the contracted cost exceeds
the cost of using County employees. We recommend that the ruling on
reimbursement of emergency work done by applicants’ force account labor be
changed back to pre-1983 eligibility criteria when such work was fully funded by
FEMA. We believe reimbursement for County employees using regular time to
perform emergency work will ultimately save time, money and effort for Federal,
State and local government.

In recognition of the protracted approval process, we would like to congratulate Mr. Witt
and his team for developing an attemate approach of using mitigation money in place of
the traditional damage reimbursement funds in order to expedite our hospital claims.

Mr. Witt places a high priority on hazard mitigation and this approach recognizes that it
is cost effective to restore damaged buildings to current design and code after each
disaster, as the Stafford Act mandates. In the long run it makes financial sense to
seismically retrofit earthquake-damaged buildings which house essential public services,
‘such as jails, hospitals, and schools during restoration so that they can withstand a future
major magnitude earthquake. In our view, this approach should be expanded and used
for all public buildings.


THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO THE
NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE

HEARING

BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION

JANUARY 19, 1996

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

ee

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-930 CC WASHINGTON : 1997

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
‘Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

ISBN 0-16-055201-X
a



108

We had 46 fixed feeding sites that we were supporting these mo-
bile operations from as well as feeding people in all of those.

We treated over 1,100 people for injuries that were sustained in
the earthquake and our Disaster Mental Health line of service
counselled 40,000—a little over 40,000 victims. You heard Mayor
Riordan talk a little bit about that this morning. There were a lot
of what I refer to as fright victims out here and we did some very
unique things, I think, to try to accommodate those needs.

One of the things that Mayor Riordan and we did in cooperation
with the city was to set up reassurance teams. These were teams
that were comprised of American Red Cross Disaster Mental
Health workers, clergy, building inspectors that would go into the
parks and talk to the people who were living in cars, under plastic
during those rainy situations out there, and tried to convince them
that their homes were safe for re-entry.

Again, we had over 15,000 people here during the period of time
that we are responding—14,000 volunteers and 1,000 paid staff
members.

Now approximately 1 week after the earthquake we opened what
we referred to as service centers. These are facilities when victims
come in. They tell us this is what we lost and this is what we need.
We had a needs-based system. At that point in time, we would pro-
vide what we referred to as a disbursing order, a piece of paper
that they could take to a vendor. It may be food. It may be shelter,
clothing. It may be rent. It may be some utilities money. It may
be assistance in medical bills. It could go for various things.

We did things such as replace household items, limited home re-
pairs, paid some medical bills, replaced prescriptions, hearing aids,
dentures, things of that nature—anything that the victim needs at
that point in time we try to assist them in meeting those needs.

When we have completed that phase of the operation, there may
be groups of people out there that are kind of hanging out that
there are no Federal, State or local facilities or resources to assist
them. If needs are still there, we have one more phase of assistance
called “additional” assistance. That is kind of a safety net. They
have no savings. They have no insurance. There are still needs
there and then we step in and do that.

But as you would imagine, all disasters are very, very expensive
and certainly the Northridge earthquake was no exception. In fact,
the cost of this disaster to the American Red Cross was the third
largest in our 113-year history. We spent a little over $38 million
in service to people. That does not include any value placed on the
in-kind services that we provide to the people, nor does it include
any value for those 14,000 volunteers who came out and worked.

But I talked about those complex efforts and unique needs that
we tried to deal with. I talked about the reassurance teams. We did
do something else. Because many people here were fearful of after-
shocks we had excess space in dry shelters, but because of the fear
of aftershocks, they would not go in those, so because the weather
was bad we were able to set up tents and we housed several hun-
dred people until the bad weather had passed.

But I think one of the strengths of the American Red Cross is
that we are in the area. Mr. Haigwood and his chapters here are
in the area. We stay after the mishaps. We form these community


131

1994 Earthquake Response Funding

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Jewish Family Service of Santa Monica
$10,000 for additional staff for bilingual case managers serving frail elderly who
are displaced and in need of services and counseling.

Koryo Health Foundation, Los Angeles
$15,000 for three months” follow-up screening and medical services for earthquake
victims, particularly those with hypertension and stress-related disorders.

L.A. Works, Los An;
$13,000 to hire two additional staffers for two months to handle enormous quake-
related demand for volunteers and to replace the badly damaged photocopier.

Latino Resource Organization, Santa Monica
$11,260 for the delivery of groceries, and short-term case management to
homebound, Spanish speaking senior citizens effected by the earthquake.

Library Foundation of Los Angeles, Los Angeles

$59,000 to help replenish the bilingual reading materials and other inventory in
the four bookmobiles that are in use six days a week since 12 branch libraries
were closed by quake damage in San Fernando Valley; to maintain the
dookmobiles during the six months of extremely heavy use until most of the
branches are repaired; and to replace materials destroyed ih the Pacoima branch
library.

Los Angeles Free Clinic, Los Angeles

$25,000 toward the costs of providing additional services to the frail elderly,
clients living with AIDS, homeless youth, people living in the Hollywood Red
Cross shelter, and others requiring primary medical care or counseling as a result
of the earthquake. (A portion of this grant is a designated contribution from
Doctors Without Borders.)

Los Angeles Regional Foodbank, Los Angeles

$25,000 toward purchase of truck and driver salary 10 distribute food in the San
Femando Valley and other areas of the county where local agencies are unable to
come to the Foodbank to pick up their weekly food allocations.

Lutheran Social Services of Southern California, Van Nuys

$10,810 for one month's salaries, space costs, and administration of post-quake
‘counseling services, food distribution, case management and the Family Assistance
Program, all extended through at least the end of May, 1994,

Mission City Community Network, Sepulveda

$12,000 to purchase medications and laboratory services otherwise unavailable to
uninsured patients seeking medical assistance in the family medicine clinic in the
aftermath of the quake.



159

Mr. Horn. Well, we are delighted to have your first-hand oppor-
tunity. We know you are an outstanding president and I think you
have demonstrated that twice today.

So we now turn to another outstanding president, Robert
Maxson, the president of California State University at Long

each.

The next two gentlemen will give us a perspective that I think
every key official has mentioned should occur and that is mitiga-
tion and education and what do we do to get a broader constituency
educated, regardless of the type of disaster.

So, Dr. Maxson, it is all yours.

Mr. Maxson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, want to thank you for this opportunity to be here and
want to commend you and your colleagues for holding this hearing.
Of course, everyone in Long Beach knows you quite well and, as
I went about my campus yesterday and this morning and told peo-
ple where I was going to be, almost to a man and a woman, they
said, please give Steve my best regards and thanks for all he has
done for us. hough you have, certainly, an outstanding and spec-
tacular record of service to the Long Beach area, I do commend you
for holding these hearings on this campus.

Dr. Wilson and I had lunch today, and I was telling her some-
thing that she already knew and many people have said: There has
not Seen a president in American history that has ever been
through what this president has been through nor a campus that
has been through what this campus has been through. Of course,
it is through her strong and steady hand that the young men and
young women have received and continue to receive the quality of
education that they have been accustomed to here.

So I think you picked the absolute right spot to hold this hearing,
because it dramatizes what these hearings are about; and also I
think it is one of the great American success stories that happens
to be on this campus.

You are here, I know, because you are interested in doing what
you can for the men and women who were directly impacted by the
Northridge earthquake, but I also know that you are here to try
to learn a lesson from this and to learn what we can from this so
we might do something to mitigate the devastation of natural dis-
asters, and that is what we are interested in. I will be very brief
because you do have our written testimony.

As you know, we have an interest in developing centers that will
protect us against the devastation of natural disasters. And we all

ow the only and the real purpose of any mitigation is to protect
people. It is the lives and the property and welfare of people that
we are concerned about. We are very interested, Mr. Chairman, in
collaborating with some of the major universities around the coun-
try in developing these centers and then, some way, through using
technology——and not just technology to be developed, but also tech-
nology that exists today—using these technologies to some way
mitigate against the devastation that takes place in occurring with
natural disasters.

This is not a research project that we are talking about, this is
an action project. It is my understanding that there have been bills
introduced in both the House and the Senate that carry funding for




109

groups to try to meet needs of victims, not just immediate needs,
but bring people together to meet those needs over the long term.

If I ask myself were we successful, certainly we could have done
better in all areas. We learned a lot of lessons. We do a lot of oper-
ational reviews in what we do, but I do believe that we were suc-
cessful.

We had a quick response team out here the day of the event to
do damage assessment and needs assessment, working with Mr.
Haigwood and his people. We established liaison with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, with Mayor Riordan’s office, with
the State Emergency Management Office as well as the voluntary
agencies.

But we were not without challenges. The damage on the roads
caused delays in getting people and supplies to the areas where we
needed them most. Access to those areas, again due to the heavy
traffic—the backlogs of traffic to those roads—limited or slowed
down our process in doing the damage assessment and doing the
needs assessment.

I think the relationships that we had with the organizations,
Federal Government, State government, local agencies, was very
good. We do outreach teams. If there are people who cannot get to
a center to get our services, we have teams rotating through the
community trying to see are there clusters of victims that we have
not reached yet, and we are continuing to do that.

Certainly the organizations, the volunteer organizations, we had
team meetings. We shared information. We attempted to keep from
duplicating effort, but still meeting the needs of people and trying
to provide service in the most cost-effective and responsive means
possible.

One of the things that I would like to make one comment on that
was brought up earlier this morning by one of the previous mem-
bers, that we have a very active program in community disaster
education and in mitigation, we really do try to make the commu-
nity aware of what the threats are. We have a course that we
teach, “Living on a Fault Line,” for volunteers. We have the same
thing for floods and other types of things, so I do think I would like
to reinforce the comment this morning that that is extremely im-
portant.

But I would be remiss if I didn’t take a moment and to thank
all the organizations and the agencies that did provide support to
us. We are very appreciative of that and without their help, we
would be unable to provide that service, so thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]


30

In your opinion, are FEMA's information requirements for such
studies reasonable; have the studies facilitated the repair or re-
placement of infrastructure; and do you have any suggestions for
changes we might be able to make?

Mr. WITT. Mayor Riordan and I had this conversation in his of-
fice not too long ago. Any time we have architects and engineers,
they do a fantastic job. We are very appreciative of the ones we
have in California working for us here. But any time you have—
you could take four engineers and have all four engineers to look
at one individual building and you would have four recommenda-
tions.

What is important is that we do the architect’s and engineer's
study. I think that the State and that facility and FEMA can all
agree on one firm doing the engineering study, say this is what it
is going to cost, let’s do it.

mean, we have engineers and architects. The subgrantee has
engineers and architects. The State has engineers and architects.
By the time you get all of these details down and by the time you
ret everybody to the table and go through that process, it is long.
t is tedious. It takes time and it is frustrating.

Mr. Davis. What would be worse would be all having their own

lawyers, I think. [Laughter.]
r. WiTt. They do that too.

So if we can improve that, then I think it will make a tremen-
dous difference.

Mr. Davis. OK, thank you very much.

I yield back.

Mr. Horn. The gentleman from California, Mr. Dixon.

Mr. Dixon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have noted that the chairman hasn’t asked any questions and,
if you would like——

Mr. Horn. No, go right ahead.

Mr. Dixon. Director, I would like to talk about two aspects of
this and just lay them out so you can take 4 of the minutes. I un-
derstand what you are talking about when you talk about a
predisaster trust fund, but it suggests to me that States and local
entities won’t do anything without the encouragement or a pot of
money available from the Federal Government, one.

Two, now, let’s talk about the politics of disasters. We have the
mayor of the city of Los Angeles, the Governor's office is rep-
resented here. What can be done to better coordinate efforts be-
tween States, local mayors and the Federal Government ahead of
time?

What were the problems? Although a lot of things went well,
there have been several hearings and we will hear testimony today.
So if you could take those 3 or 4 minutes to talk about the need
for the predisaster fund and the politics of disasters, because there
is a clear politic in disasters.

I am not talking about Republican and Democrat, but clearly
there are politics in disasters, probably driven by television. Never-
theless, if you could talk about those two issues, I would appreciate
it.

Mr. WITT. Politic, any time you have Federal, State and local dol-
lars into a disaster you will have politics. I mean, that is just the


89

In addition to the loss of key support units, the Department of the Army is considering a proposal to
eliminate or restructure National Guard Combat Divisions. Elimination or restructuring of
California's largest unit, the 40th Infantry Division, will have a devastating impact upon the
availability of critical Guard equipment and personnel.

The 40th Infantry Division forms the core of the California Guard's emergency response
capability. This organization's warfighting structure provides aviation, transportation, engineer,
mass care and shelter, riot control, and command and control elements that are essential emergency
response entities. All of California’s plans for response to massive emergencies rely on the units of
the 40th Division, Soldiers from the 40th Division have been the backbone of the Guard's response
to every major disaster in the state, including the Watts Riots, the Loma Prieta Earthquake, the 1992
Los Angeles Riots, and the Northridge Earthquake.

We are asking your assistance in retaining and fully resourcing the California National
Guard’s force structure, with emphasis on retaining California’s 40th Infantry Division.

NOTE: The charts on page 6 provide information regarding the reductions affecting the California
National Guard.


84

Mr. Horn. Thank you. Now it is my pleasure to introduce Major
General Brandt. Major General Robert J. Brandt is the Assistant
Adjutant General and the Commander of the California Army Na-
tional Guard. Welcome.

Major General BRANDT. Mr. Chairman, I am extremely happy to
have the opportunity today to appear before you and this body to
explain the California National Guard’s part in the recovery from
the January 17th earthquake.

First, I would like to point out for clarification that the National
Guard has three missions. We look at it as three missions in Cali-
fornia.

We have our Federal mission. Our Federal mission, of course, is
to protect and defend the United States. Our State mission is, pure
and simple, public safety, and we in the California National Guard
are involved in public safety throughout the year with respect to
earthquakes, snow removal, fires, wildfires, whatever. Our primary
California mission is public safety and assisting the citizens of
California.

Then we have a third mission that we have been involved in
throughout our history, and that’s community support and youth
programs in those communities where the National Guard is based.

With respect to military support to civil authorities, a point often
confused is that we hear comments that, well, maybe we ought to
organize the National Guard to support their State missions.

Tn actual fact, a close look at the situation points out that it is
just the opposite. What makes the California National Guard effi-
cient and readily available in emergencies such as the earthquake
is the equipment, the organizations, the units, the staffs that we
have in the California National Guard, and the National Guard of
the United States for our Federal mission, because it is our Federal
mission that provides us with the trucks, with the communications
systems, with the medical equipment, supplies, medical personnel,
aircraft.

These are all provided to the State of California and to the citi-
zens of the United States at a very nominal cost and that prepara-
tion for the Federal mission allows us to respond adequately for
these State missions.

It is not organize the Guard for State missions. It is the Guard
should be organized for the national defense mission, and that
quite adequately has provided the citizens of California with a pro-
fessional response.

I would like to also point out that the California National Guard
has responded on an average of a little over 33 percent to all
MSEA mission support in the United States. In 1994, we responded
to over 51 percent.

We have a great deal of expertise in various areas, working
under the direction of the State governmental agencies that we
work with to support them. As you know, we work with and for the
Governor through Dr. Andrews, and the Office of Emergency Serv-
ices.

We have an excellent relationship and an excellent communica-
tions system that allows us to operate and activate our organiza-
tions in a very short period of time. As a matter of fact, on the
morning of January 17th, we received a call at our headquarters,


12

clear we had to bring in some very competent people that could set
these programs up very quickly.

When we got through with that we went back to Washington and
I said we have to form some teams. We formed three teams of very
highly skilled people to be part of these teams. These teams now
are the red, white, and blue, teams that would respond to disasters
like Hurricane Marilyn and they would stay on the scene for 3
weeks just setting the programs up, the disaster field office up, and
making sure everything was functioning and functioning correctly.
These teams are on alert every month and we activated them in
Marilyn, we activated them in Hurricane Opal and they worked ex-
tremely well, much faster.

The difference between the urban and rural disasters, as I said
earlier, it was the language barriers. It was very critical that we
had people to come in to help with that. The State OES and FEMA
and also American Airlines supported that effort, as well as Na-
tional Guard and Army Reserves. The American people, local and
State officials and Congress had expressed their desire for us to be
expedient, flexible and compassionate when we administer our dis-
aster funds, but in doing so we must find solutions which will up-
hold our responsibilities as well and we must be good stewards of
the American tax payer’s dollars, as well.

So what do we find ourselves in? We find ourselves in a situa-
tion, many times, where as we respond and we go into recovery ef-
forts we find ourselves having to solve problems. We find ourselves
trying new approaches which creates problems. We find ourselves
trying to evaluate and modify, but it may cause problems during
that time right then, but it is going to improve our agency and the
Federal Government’s response in the future, which I think will
make a big difference.

Building back better? Absolutely. Mitigation is the key to make
a difference in California, in the midwest, in the Virgin Islands,
wherever it may be. The schools, when I walked through the
schools and saw all of the suspended lighting and the suspended
ceilings that fell on all the school desks, just think what we would
have had if those children or those faculty members had been in
those schools. The fatality would have been much higher, injuries
would have been much higher.

So it is important that we secure those ceilings in the future that
they will not fall and that is what mitigation can do. Hospitals, we
have been working very closely with the hospitals in California and
the State OES and we have made some changes and some rec-
ommendations instead of the normal process that we have been
going through and going through that appeal process if need be.

So we have worked with them in establishing what we call algo-
rithm in doing mitigation and letting them use those dollars for al-
ternate projects, where they can build back better. Has that caused
some problems? Absolutely? Is it going to be better? I think so. Will
it make a difference? I think it will, because what is critical is for
those hospitals and those critical care facilities be up and operating
the next time we have an earthquake. And that those patients
know that they are secure and they are safe when they are in that
hospital. Because that function is absolutely critical. With the peo-
ple that we had injured in Northridge and the people that were in


54

As you know, President Clinton raised the Federal contribution
to 90 percent from 75 percent on this very special occasion. Am I
correct?

Mr. RiorDAN. That is correct, yes.

Mr. Torres. That is correct, and then I understand that the
State, which has to make up the matching portion, the 10 percent,
was not able—at least as I understand this, the State was not able
to come up with the 10 percent and the city of Los Angeles dipped
into its budget and provided it from Federal housing funds in order
to bail out the State, so to speak.

So in this kind of robbing Peter to pay Paul, how will you fulfil
the Federal housing obligations which you took from the budget to
help the State?

Mr. RIORDAN. Other people have a little more knowledge on that,
but I know that we got significant new, additional Federal funding
shortly after. I think somewhere in my prepared remarks we talked
about $200 million that we got from HUD for emergency housing
funding and others and we have gotten other pockets from HUD
and from the Federal Government over the last couple of years.

So we haven’t—quite honestly, I think we have done, as of now,
about as much as we can do with the Federal credits, the amount
that we are allowed in L.A., and other funding, as we can put into
operation, you know, to actually put the projects together and
make it work.

We do have a real fear as to the future because with the
sunsetting, possibly, of the Federal—the tax housing credits and
also some cutback on Federal funding, we do have a worry as to
the future.

Mr. Torres. In your estimation, what additional impacts have
the Northridge earthquake and other disasters had on your budg-
et?

Mr. RIORDAN. I have to admit that they have not had a major
impact on our budget. I think that is where I have to really thank
the Federal Government for what they did for us, but we were able
to, 1 think, get along without dipping deeply. We had to dip to some
extent, but not enough to really notice. I think a lot of the effi-
ciencies it forced us to do, by getting permits out quickly and oth-
ers, made us more efficient.

Mr. Torres. I asked Director Witt whether the Federal Govern-
ment had fulfilled its obligations in the case of Loma Prieta and
also mentioned the L.A. riots. Is that still affecting the city’s budg-
et?

Mr. RIORDAN. Well, I mean, obviously they are. I mean, right
now, like Loma Prieta in San Francisco, but the riots are some-
thing that I consider in my own mind. The Federal funding is a
thing of the past and it is our duty to clean up these areas and if
you go down there you will see in the last year it has been cleaned
up dramatically in the riot areas.

Now we have to do and we are working on doing a lot of major
projects, particularly putting retail shopping into those areas.

Mr. Torres. I thank the mayor for his responses to my questions
and again, Mr. Mayor, thank you for being here today.

Mr. RiorDAN. Thank you, Congressman.


171

pany deal with a major shutoff per block or something like that,
where the gas would stop flowing?

Mr. WILLIAMS. That would definitely be the correct approach
and, as you have pointed out, the problem with individuals buying
shutoff valves is, if you get one and your neighbor doesn’t——

Mr. Horn. Right, he burns, you burn.

Mr. WILLIAMS. He burns, you burn, yes. Yes, having the gas com-
pany do it would be the best way to do it. Again, they have been
reluctant to do it because of having to go out. You can’t shut off
back at the source. You have to, as you say, shut off on each block,
because there is a lot of gas in those lines. You could shut off, cer-
tainly, on each block or each group of houses.

This is one of the things CPAND would work on, how do we over-
come the regulatory inhibitions or provide incentives to the gas
companies to actually deploy this very simple existing technology,
which is an example of many. There is structural bracing you can
put on overpasses that are at risk. It is just a matter of which ones
need it and how to do it, which ones are cost effective, which ones
are likely to be damaged in a probable earthquake.

Therefore, you are paying pennies to save dollars. It is the ounce
of prevention versus a pound of cure, when it is applicable. That
is what CPAND, the Centers for Protection Against Natural Disas-
ters, C-P-A-N-D, would focus on.

Mr. Horn. Let me ask each of the other witnesses, before I yield
to Mr. Davis, do you have anything in addition to add to this dialog
on how we go about early warning, educating constituencies to
mitigate the damage that might be done to the particular struc-
ture, house, apartment, whatever?

Any thoughts, Dr. Wilson?

Ms. WILSON. Not profound ones, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Horn. Those are sometimes the best ones that aren’t too pro-
found, but are common sense. So go ahead.

Ms. WILSON. There was a time when the schoolrooms, elemen-
tary and secondary schoolrooms, were the places in which children
learned how to protect themselves about a whole variety of things.
I am a newcomer to California, but people who have lived here
have told me about the habits that were ingrained in school chil-
dren and over time, for reasons I am not quite sure about, stopped.
It is clear to us that so many people did not have the faintest clue
of what to do and not only at home, but in our offices.

It wouldn’t surprise you that I am an advocate for education
being the solution to so many of our problems. A public education
campaign, somewhat like the city of Los Angeles began to do
around earthquake preparedness—unfortunately after the disas-
ter—seems to me has to be a standard way of life.

If that is the case, the consumer will be requiring the gas com-
pany to think of ways to have the gas shut off or to have the kinds
of products in homes and in offices that would enable people to sur-
vive for 2 or 3 days without water or without—so I think education,
as with many things, is the place to start.

Mr. Horn. I think you are right. Now, when you have 70 lan-
guages spoken in the Los Angeles and the Long Beach school sys-
tem, you have a good chance to at least get the youngster to under-
stand some of these things, take it home and hopefully commu-


96

-2-

Minor Cosmeiic Repalr Program: This program includes minor patch and paint
‘work for City facilities. including fire and police stations. A total of 141 projects were combined into
thirteen groups and advertised and bid in blocks to increase efficiency. Construction has been
compleied on this group of 141 projects. Approximately 25 additional projects will be assembled and
prepared for bid in the near future.

Aschitectural und Engineering Studies: Of the 26 projects (including City Hall)
requiring architectural and engineering reports, 17 projects now have received approval for
construction funding (seven additional projects since our last report). Construction has been
completed on six projects: the Foothill Police Parking structure, the Granada Hills and the Vermont
‘Square Libraries and the three Getty House projects. Eight projects are still in the FEMA/OES review
and approval process. The Bureau of Engineering is preparing to contract out for the design of these
projects. Attachment B shows the status of the projects.

Recrentlon und Purks facilities: A total of 173 DSRs have baen submitted to OES
and FEMA with an estimated repair cost of $21.3 million. The facilities repair status is as follows:

105 projects completed/dlosed out
34 projects in progress

11 projects pending funded construction DSRs

3 projects under appeal

2 projects pending change of scope

3 projects reassigned new numbers

15 projects where no damage was found and a “O* dollar DSR was issued

Deparment of Water and Power/Watex Systexn: DSRs totaling $46.6 million have
been submitted to FEMA and OES. Funding in the amount of $12.8 million has been approved to
date (no change since our last report of July 1996). Cash payments of $5.5 million have been made
to the Waier System.

An additional $33 million in Architectural and Engineering Reports and Hazard
Mitigation applications are still pending (no change since the July 1996 CAO report)

Major Project Status:

Under Construction:

+ Maclay Reservoir

Construction completed:

+ Citywide Main Lines/Services Repairs 04/94
+ Citywide Trunk Line Repair 05/94
= Lower San Femando Dam 1095

Lower San Fernando Drain Line Repair 06/95
Solano Reservoir Lining 1296


170

need to be put into place. We see many examples of cost effective
technologies that have been developed and are not being used.

In conversations with executives at FEMA and others who are
knowledgeable, it has been pointed out again and again that this
is not currently being done as effectively as it needs to be done.
There is a great deal of new technology that is being developed in
some very good research facilities, but there is no organization
really devoted purely to deployment. It has been pointed out that
it is not a good idea to have a research organization also focus on
the deployment, because of the tendency to naturally try to deploy
the things that you have developed, but to have an organization
that does not do research, but that interfaces and—that interfaces
with the community, State, local and Federal officials and focuses
on doing whatever needs to be done in the way of education and
helping to get the technologies from the research labs, from foreign
countries where many have been developed, into the United States
and get them used by the public.

Mr. Horn. Let me give you an example. There are, as I under-
stand it, some cities, Long Beach is one of them as I recall, try to
put in the gas company bill, how do you turn off the gas when one
of these occurs? Because we all know with the San Francisco earth-
quake, the earthquake while it did damage was not responsible for
all of the deaths and the destruction of the city of San Francisco
in 1906. It was the water mains cracking the gas mains, all the
rest, they couldn’t put out the fires. And so you try to teach people
where is that gas switch or whatever. There are also automatic
shutoff switches one can have. What else along that line can you
think of?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, you have hit on a classic example of existing
technology that could be used very easily that would prevent most
of the fires resulting from earthquakes and, of course, as we know,
most of the damage from major earthquakes come from the fires.
That is seismic shutoff valves on gas lines, and they can be in-
stalled inexpensively.

Mr. Horn. What is the cost of something like that?

Mr. WILLIAMS. One hundred to one hundred and fifty installed.
The problem is that there are a number of things that inhibit that
from happening, which we, of course, don’t have time to go through
right now. But one of the problems is that the gas company would
have a problem if we used standard seismic shutoff valves if you
had a small earthquake which didn’t cause a lot of damage, and
a lot of these valves activated. Then they have to go out and turn
them back on. But if you used modern electronically actuated
valves, which could be turned on and off, perhaps by the early
warning system could be shut off. Then, the minute that you are
confident that it is safe to turn them back on, this could be done
by sending a signal from a central point. Then it becomes practical,
and some of the problems associated with doing that disappear.

Mr. Horn. Well, one of your problems if you deal with each indi-
vidual is, your neighbor might not buy the shutoff valve.

Mr. WILLIAMs. Right. That is one thing.

Mr. Horn. On the other hand, the gas company can always add
that cost to its rate structure that it goes to the public utilities
commission to cover. Wouldn’t it be simpler to have the gas com-


7

our Government facilities is in the neighborhood of $2.4 billion, and
at least half of that amount can be attributed to damage in de-
stroyed hospitals and other medical facilities.

In order to expedite this in light of the time constraints, I am
going to really defer to the report that Dr. Andrews made, the is-
sues and concerns that he expressed having to do with building
codes and the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Develop-
ment (OSHPAD) standards are the same concerns that we have in
the county. I think that he said it eloquently and I certainly
couldn’t do a better job, so I will move on and eliminate those re-
marks.

I would just like to mention for a moment, and I believe it was
Mayor Riordan who said this—the issue of force account labor.

Currently debris removal and emergency work done by county
employees is not reimbursed by FEMA. However, if the same work
is done under a contract with noncounty employees, it is fully reim-
bursable, even though the contracted cost exceeds the cost of using
county employees.

We recommend that the ruling on reimbursement of emergency
work be rolled back to the pre-1993 eligibility criteria when such
work was fully funded by FEMA. We firmly believe that Federal,
State, and local government will ultimately save time, money and
effort if the county is reimbursed for its employees who respond
using regular time to perform emergency work.

Although my remarks have focused on concerns, FEMA and the
many other Federal agencies that responded to Northridge are to
be commended for the outstanding support they have provided to
local government. We are extremely grateful to them.

I think the key to Government’s future success will largely de-
pend on greater coordination and cooperation between all levels of
Government, community-based organizations, and the private sec-
tor. We did a good job this time, but I think we can do an even
better job next time.

Thank you again for providing me with this opportunity to share
some of the county’s concerns.

Mr. Horn. I notice you skipped the section in your summary on
the Small Business Administration. Do you want to make that
point orally for the record?

Ms. PERETT. I will be glad to do that.

Mr. Horw. It’s on page 5.

Ms. PERETT, I had eliminated it——

Mr. Horn. I realize you were being very good and listening to me
on summarizing and all that, but you have some important points
there, and they are critical points, and just so the rest who aren't
able to read all the statements, why you might want to mention
them and then we'll go on to Major General Brandt.

Ms. PERETT. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your graciousness and
as soon as I find that note, I will do just that.

Mr. Horn. Page 5. Small Business Administration.

Ms. PERETT. Thank you very, very much.

The Small Business Administration provides low-interest loans for rebuildin;
damaged residential properties. SBA has approved almost 90,000 loans for $2.7 bil
lion in repairs related to the Northridge earthquake. However, there are some prob-

lems with the SBA program. Narrowly defined loan criteria can exclude even quali-
fied borrowers—for example, a home that has twisted may not qualify it if has no


36

Mr. Horn. Certainly.

Mr. Witt. When we had the shutdown of the Federal Govern-
ment, not because of the snow, budgetorial, budget reasons, it con-
cerned me a great deal, because it hindered what we did in the dis-
aster field office and what we do in this disaster field office in Cali-
fornia, because we were shut down in Washington and they were
shut down here for 2 weeks and activated again. They couldn't get
anything processed because we were shut down in Washington. I
think that looking at what we do and our role and responsibility
as an emergency management agency that we literally look at
FEMA's budget and that responsibility some time.

Mr. Horn. One of my colleagues noted it was too bad the Presi-
dent vetoed the budget, but I don’t want to get into that. [Laugh-
ter.]

Mr. FLANAGAN, All right, then we won't. (Laughter.]

Mr. Horn. Go ahead.

Mr. FLANAGAN. There was a lot of laughter on this side, because
the answer is, that is the answer. This is terribly important. There
are a lot of people suffering because of this budget crisis, if you
will, and God’s snow shutdown of the Federal Government notwith-
standing. The answer to these larger questions is beyond our scope,
today, to take and your gratuitous remarks, Mr. Chairman would
prefer we ignore them, but I think they require that we sit here
and actually stand up and say that this budget crisis is the single
greatest problem of our Nation right now and this is not something
that needs to be shunned to the side spending our children and our
grandchildren’s money for the sake of current needs, however im-
portant that they may be.

Mr. Wirt. I understand.

Mr. FLANAGAN. And without affixing blame on any side of how
this is going, the long and the short of it is that the colossal fight
that is going on now, over the most basic policy questions of fed-
eralism, the most basic policy questions of the role of the Federal
Government, the propriety of our spending, where the funds will
come from, how much more funding that will be and those ques-
tions are of greater importance than anything else happening right
now.

And the product of having a Government shutdown is regrettable
on all sides to be sure, but it is a portion of that debate, regretfully.
So, consequently, I thank you for your remarks, but we will cer-
tainly make sure that FEMA is funded and that no one that needs
disaster relief will go wanting.

Mr. Wirt. I will share that with the President.

Mr. Horn. If you can give us a signature, we might tie the whole
rest of the Government to FEMA.

We now have the very able mayor of the city of Los Angeles with
us. If the mayor will come forward.

{Witness sworn.]

Mr. Horn. The clerk will note the mayor has affirmed.

And we are delighted to have you with us today. We know you
have busy days and disasters make them even busier. So we are
looking forward to your wisdom on what you went through and
how we improve the situation.


48

Mr. Horn. We thank you, Mayor.

Let me open the questioning with this one. You perhaps were in
the room when I asked Director Witt that question. Building codes,
what did we learn from this experience, in terms of the city of Los
Angeles’ building codes and what do you suggest we do on either
a city basis, a State-wide basis, a national basis?

I come from Long Beach and their 1933 earthquake did result in
the toughest building standards in this State in terms of earth-
quakes and many cities adopted them, but some cities didn’t adopt
them.

Mr. RIORDAN. First of all, let me say that the trouble, you know,
when you are in politics, there is a tendency to want to overdo
things, because if you have an incredible disaster and one person
is killed, you feel responsible, but I think as leaders we have to bal-
ance safety and the economic health of the economy of an area.

Let me also say that the city of L.A. has very tough building
standards and we have had for about 20 years or longer against
earthquakes, such as sheer walls, things like that. Very few new
buildings were damaged, it was mostly a lot of the older buildings.

Now, we learned a lot about tilt ups, about how to anchor them
down, such as the garages here at Cal State Northridge. I think we
also learned a lot about mobile home parks, that with maybe $300
or $400 each you can simply put the foundation on blocks of wood
where you have the mobile home attached to one large block of
wood, or four, I mean four or five, and that on top of another block
of wood so that they slide. Some people have that.

When I went out the day of the earthquake to a mobile home
park that had been virtually destroyed, there were about 20 mobile
homes that were hardly damaged at all and they had put this new,
simple idea into their mobile homes. I think there is a lot to be—
I think there is a lot of simple things that we—by the way this is
in front of the city council now and has been for quite a while and
hopefully they will be coming out soon with our suggestions on it.
But simple things like tying in roofs on tilt up buildings and a vari-
ety of things like that.

The problems are that you have to be realistic. I use an example
of automobiles, you can design an automobile that will save a lot
of lives and will cost $500,000, but you would be denying transpor-
tation to all but the very rich. So we have to use a little common
sense.

Mr. Horn. Well, on the trailer park example, if it costs $400-——

Mr. RIORDAN. We should require it, obviously.

Mr. Horn. Yes. Is there a way to adjust those existing trailers
that predate your code? If $400 is what it takes, I realize that is
tough for some people, but if it could be spread over time?

Mr. RIORDAN. That clearly makes good economic sense and safety
sense, together, and it is something that is in front of the city coun-
cil. It is something that should be required. When I talk about $300
or $400, you could do it on existing ones for that, too.

Mr. Horn. So it would be retroactive, in a certain extent, in some
areas?

Mr. RiorDAN. Right. Yes.


117

Mr. FLANAGAN. Wonderful. Thank you, Mr. Haigwood.

Ms. Jones.

Ms. Jones. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name
is Terri Jones and I am director of special projects for the Califor-
nia Community Foundation. On behalf of the community and its
Board of Governors, thank you for your invitation to offer our
thoughts and experience on the needs and conditions of non-profit
organizations in the aftermath of a community-wide disaster like
the Northridge earthquake.

We in the private funding community are well-accustomed to
viewing non-profits as the senior partners in any effort that we
make to address human needs. Increasingly and appropriately,
non-profits have also come to be recognized as a key ingredient in
community disaster response and recovery.

I would say that there is a greater role and more recognition of
the role that non-profits have played in each successive emergency
in southern California, from the civil disturbances in 1992, to the
fire storms that followed in 1993, to 3 months later the Northridge
quake. In some ways I would like to observe that we have the lux-
ury of suggesting improvements in those relationships and ways of
working together because we have come such a long distance in
recognizing that non-profit organizations are an integral part of
community response and recovery.

It is good that the non-profit community has really shown up on
the radar screen at this point.

After the Northridge earthquake, the California Community
Foundation’s Board of Governors took the unprecedented step of in-
vading principal on our endowment for the first time in our 80 year
history in order to establish the Los Angeles Earthquake Recovery
Fund, through which grants could be made to help non-profits re-
cover and in turn provide relief and recovery services in neighbor-
hoods devastated by the quake.

With $800,000 thus raised directly from our own coffers and
$900,000 more raised through the generosity of our donor advisors,
other foundations and corporations, and the general public, we
were ultimately able to distribute $1.7 million in grants and loans
for earthquake response to 111 non-profit agencies. Most of those
dollars were disbursed within the first 3 months after the quake
and I would add that the first dollars were out of the door within
the first week.

You have got an attachment to the copy of the testimony that
has been distributed to you of all of those grants and loans, and
I won’t belabor them now.

The grantmaking process, however, and the community needs as-
sessment that preceded it, revealed certain broad themes that we
believe have implications for the Federal disaster response plan-
ning in the future.

They may specifically have some bearing on determining what
kinds of non-profit services and agencies should be declared eligible
for disaster relief before a disaster hits—in the way you were dis-
cussing this morning.

Generally, the points I would like to mention today fit into two
broad categories—what we can call case load and service issues
that confronted non-profits in the aftermath of the quake, and


53

I hope after each of these episodes you continue to take a look.
It is a very tricky thing. It is like, you know, a sheer walling is—
in effect, the old houses did not have cross pieces of wood to stop
the walls from breaking when they shook sideways. Now, as I say,
we have required that for a number of years, at least 20 years,
maybe 30 years.

To require it in every old house would have been an incredible
economic burden on particularly the economically disadvantaged.

Mr. Dixon. Thank you.

Mr. Horn. Now, I yield to the gentleman from California, Mr.
Torres.

Mr. Torres. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to yield a
minute to my colleague, Mr. Dixon.

Mr. Dixon. Thank you very much, Mr. Torres, because I wanted
to ask the mayor something on unfunded mandates.

Mr. Mayor, I think I understand the philosophy that you have
on unfunded mandates and, as a matter of fact, I voted for the part
of the contract that dealt with unfunded mandates. But this hear-
ing is dealing with, it is my understanding, disasters and what can
be done in the future.

So I didn’t want anyone to get the impression, unless that was
the impression you intended to leave, that unfunded mandates are
a substantial problem as it relates to disasters and what we should
be doing in the future.

Mr. RIORDAN. You are correct, it is not.

Mr. Drxon. It is not?

Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RioRDAN. And I think—let me just comment on that one on
the SBA——

Mr. Dixon. We kind of wandered off there when we got into this.

Mr. RiorDAN. I think that it is really not practical to think that
we can gear up a lending institution like the SBA overnight in a
disaster. So I think what we would like to see is improvements and
more flexibility in what they do.

Mr. Drxon. You know, how things go. All of a sudden on the floor
of the House of Congress it will be, Mayor Riordan said that un-
funded mandates were a major issue in disaster relief, and I just
wanted to make that clear.

Mr. Davis. Would my friend yield for 1 second?

Mr. Dixon. Yes.

Mr. Davis. I just note, I think he made it clear in my questions
to him that they weren’t a problem. In point of fact, they were a
larger global one. But I had asked him some specifics and I think
he made it clear that they were not really a part of the problem
here.

Mr. Torres. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time.

Mayor, I thank you for coming today. It is good to see you again,
and to hear from you.

I was struck by your closing statement where, in the record, you
thanked the Federal Government for its expeditious action and,
while it is not in your statement, you said, verbally, that you also
thanked the State as well.


138

Mr. FLANAGAN. Certainly—and for your edification and all the
members of the panel, future panels and past panels, your written
testimony will be included in its entirety, so it isn’t necessary to
read it. A summary of it will do very nicely—not that you were
reading it, Ms. Jones, but a summary will get us through because
we have all read it. We have been there. Mr. Suggs.

Mr. SuGGs. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am
John Suggs, the director of public policy and government affairs for
the United Way of Greater fos Angeles.

As you have already heard from the previous testimony of my
colleagues that the non-profit sector has an enormous resource and
availability for responding to disasters, that often the community-
based organizations are the first ones on the scene and the first
ones that local communities turn to because they are known and
they are respected and they understand the particular needs.

At United Way, what I would like to talk about besides in deal-
ing with our core competencies, because we raised $1.7 million and
allocated that within the first few weeks of the earthquake, we also
co-sponsored with the Interfaith Hunger Coalition a publication on
how to get food, disaster assistance and money, and had that dis-
tributed to the DACs, the Red Cross shelters, churches, hospitals,
the schools, et cetera.

What I would like to talk to you about briefly in my time with
you today is greater detail about a long-term project that United

ay in conjunction with the Los Angeles Emergency Food and
Shelter Program local board developed in response to the
Northridge earthquake.

It is not_well-known that non-profits, certain non-profits, are eli-
gible for Federal reimbursement. However, they are, and that is
under the Federal Code of Regulations. It stipulates that private
non-profits which provide qualified food, shelter, and/or similar im-
mediate disaster relief as well as those agencies with building and
equipment damages qualify for public assistance reimbursements if
the services are open to the general public and are of an essential
governmental nature.

The regulations include under this such agencies as homeless
shelters, community centers, senior citizen centers, rehab agencies,
food pantries, et cetera, among those agencies that are qualified
under this.

What we attempted to do was, recognizing that the “mom and
pop” agencies out there that were providing these services that
were legally eligible for Federal reimbursements, knowing that
they would have enormous difficulties if they applied on their own
and worked through the maze of the relief recovery bureaucracy,
we attempted to bundle their claims and to be able to provide our
organization as a liaison for the community.

‘here were more than 90 organizations that were ultimately
bundled into the United Way claim for a total of approximately $30
million. What we found there was that this is an excellent exercise
that bears replication throughout the country as disasters are
prone to hit anywhere throughout the United States.

Because the service being that the non-profit sectors with the
funders having in pre-existing relationships with them and with
the community-based organizations being very familiar with the


49

Mr. Horn. Would you agree that if that is not done within a cer-
tain time period, emergency assistance for rebuilding should not be
approved? How do you feel about that?

In other words, are we serious or aren’t we?

Mr. RIORDAN. My father said, beware of immediate reactions to
things. So your question sounds reasonable, Congressman, but I
would want to think about all the ramifications.

Mr. Horn. Well, obviously some people aren’t going to like it.
They are going to say, hey, Federal Government, write me a check.

Mr. RIORDAN. Are you talking about an individual level?

Mr. Horn. I am t: alking on individual choices.

Mr. RIORDAN. I agree with you on an individual—

Mr. Horn. We face the same thing in L.A. in building in can-
yons, time and time again, when fires come down canyons.

Mr. RiorDAN. I agree with you, provided that we have ways to
help people who are economically disadvantaged finance this type

Mr. Horn. Right, but that having been done, then, you agree
that we ought to tie future possible benefits and give it to the re-
sponsible people, not the irresponsible people?

Mr. RIORDAN. I agree.

Mr. Horn. Mr. Riordan, I will yield to my colleague Mr. Dixon.

Mr. Dixon. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mayor Riordan, I noticed in your prepared statement, Item No.
5 on, I think, your summary, the last page, indicates, and I share
your view, that there are probably some inequities as it relates to
small business and in there you suggest that the guidelines should
be revised specifically for disasters.

Congressman McKeon as well as Congressmen Berman and Beil-
enson and myself and others work hard for a pot.of money for busi-
nesses that had been first turned down through ‘SBA. There seem
to be two classes of people that really get caught in the cracks here.
One are businesses that perhaps aren’t doing well at the moment
and, therefore, an SBA loan cannot be justified.

Mr. RiorDaN. Right.

Mr. Dixon. The second appears to be, to me, to be those that are
on a fixed income, a retired couple that just don’t have the money
to repair their home and then they are obviously in that group, an
expanded group, are a group of people where, when they consider
the mortgage and the SBA loan, assuming that they can get one,
and they total it, it equals more than the value of the house and
there is some walking away.

Do you have some ideas, Specifically how we can liberalize the
loan procedures, because it is an area that I think needs to be fo-
cused on?

Mr. RiorpDAN. Certainly I think the SBA, I don’t know in prac-
tice, but in theory now, they are making what you call working
capital loans, because generally they have just been asset-based
loans.

But I think, first of all, as alluded to, or talked to briefly in my
prepared remarks, although they aren’t written down there, I
added them at the last minute, is to relax the banking rules so that
loans can be restructured. If you have, let’s say, a house with a $1
million loan on it and in this case, let’s say, because of the real es-


78

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (con’t.)

Because the 1994 earthquake affected more muti-family units than single family dwellings,
HUD allocated an additional $100 million from the President's discretionary funds to the
City of Los Angeles for fiexible subsidy loans to assist owners of apartment complexes.

In addition, HUD also moved quickly in a different direction, thanks to HUD Secretary
Cisneros’ desire to provide immediate housing assistance. Approximately 12,000 Section
8 certificates were made available for persons who had to move from damaged
residences. Although resources were being provided by FEMA and the American Red
Cross, this was a creative and unique way to meet an immediate housing need. This
action was designed to address immediate housing needs; however, there is a
“downside” to this approach which should be thoughtfully considered before a similar
action is taken in the future.

First, there is the downside of taking this significant pool of Section 8 certificates out of
the existing program with nothing to replace these diminished resources. On a daily basis
there are more that 100,000 people on the Section 8 waiting list in Los Angeles County
alone. These applicants, who have the lowest incomes of all residents, must wait for as
long as six years before they can expect to be issued certificates. To them it seemed
highly unfair that thousands of people instantaneously received certificates because of the
earthquake.

Further, once the certificates are no longer renewed there will be a crisis in the making
as many of these people all start looking for affordable housing at the same time.
Affordable housing is one of the greatest needs in Los Angeles County during normal
tumes. It will only be exacerbated by the influx of this new group of homeless people.

in many cases, the Section 8 earthquake certificates holders were able to move into units
far nicer than their original residences because the Section 8 owner is paid market-rate
rent, whereas the certificate-holder has to pay only 30% of his/her adjusted income for
the rent. The emergency Section 8 vouchers gave many renters the opportunity to live
in decent housing for the first time. When the vouchers expire and the families must pay
for rent without subsidy, the only option for many may be to return to living in
overcrowded, substandard housing.

We believe the problems associated with this well-meaning housing assistance could have:
been avoided if there had been better coordination among the federal agencies
immediately following the disaster. As a matter of fact, in HUD’s well-written research
report, "Preparing for the “Big One": Saving Lives through Earthquake Mitigation in Los
Angeles, California", one of the concerns cited is ‘insufficient coordination among the
agencies to shape a unified, coherent program” for the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program.


88

- Solider deployment for public safety, and security missions
~ Urban area search and rescue support
~ Area Damage assessment

~ Air transportation support for medical supplies, deployment of law
enforcement officers, government officials and military support equipment

= Ground transportation of personnel and equipment (military and civilian)
= Setup and security of temporary mass care and tent shelter complexes

- Armories used for temporary shelters for quake victims

- Air ambulance medical evacuation support

= Logistical and Linguist support to disaster assistance centers

= Potable water supply and distribution services

NOTE: The charts on pages 4 and 5 identify the key California National Guard commands involved
in the emergency response and a brief description of the mission request process

Challenges

A challenge that we faced at the unit level in responding to this disaster was the lack of
tactical communications interoperability with local law enforcement and fire response agencies. The
nillitary communications equipment available to National Guard units is not compatible with civilian
radios. We overcame this hurdle during the earthquake response by dispatching liaison officers to
local Emergency Operations Centers. We must, however, develop and acquire technological
solutions to allow National Guard units in the field to communicate directly with the local agencies
that they support. Inter-agency planning and training must also be resourced to maintain an effective
statewide emergency response team

Part HE
Resource Trends

The resources the California National Guard had in 1994 were adequate to meet the needs of
civil authorities in responding to the Northridge Earthquake. Each year since the quake, however,
the California National Guard has experienced significant resource cuts. The continuation of this
trend could impact our ability to respond to future large scale emergencies. As the enclosed chart
indicates, the California National Guard has experienced reductions in money for training, full time
technician personnel, medium lift helicopters, and transport aircraft. In the next three years, these
resource reductions will be accompanied by the elimination of several key units from the National
Guard’s force structure, Our emergency response capabilities will be impacted by the loss or
reduction of transportation, medical, military police, air traffic control, and engineer units, The units
we will lose are of the type that we historically have relied heavily upon during emergencies. These
force structure changes will degrade our response time and will challenge our ability to fully respond
to the needs of civil authorities during a major disaster.


43

helped us repair our freeways far ahead of schedule; FEMA dispensed grants to both single-
family homes and non-profit corporations, and referred rental homes and commercial businesses
to the SBA. Eugene Ludwig, Comptroller of the Currency, gave lenders comfort that financing
accommodations would be favorably received by regulators.

Td like to detail a few of the major accomplishments made possible by federal government
assistance:

Demolition and Debris Removal

The earthquake caused widespread damage to infrastructure, buildings and personal property.
Thousands of buildings were declared unsafe. Many structures required demolition. Block
walls, masonry chimneys and other debris lay in the streets after the earthquake. Aftershocks
caused additional damage and further safety problems.

$200 million in assistance from FEMA made it possible for the city to manage a successful
demolition and debris removal program. Between January 17, 1994 and July 17, 1995, 2.4
million tons of debris was removed and more than 300 unsafe structures were demolished

Ghost Towns

Groups of severely damaged and vacated apartment and condo complexes rapidly became
pockets of blight. These buildings attracted vandals, squatters, drug dealers and prostitution
rings. These sites became known as “Ghost Towns.”

‘Undamaged housing complexes nearby began to lose tenants who feared for their safety, and
local businesses were losing customers.

FEMA, HUD and the SBA cooperated with the city’s Ghost Town Task Force to rebuild the
vacant complexes and move tenants back in. With $6 million from FEMA, the City boarded,
fenced and provided private security guards for these properties until repair and reconstruction
work could begin.

‘The SBA dedicated a special office to processing Ghost Town loan applications. If property
owners’ loan applications were tumed down by the SBA, these owners were referred to the
City’s Housing Department. With $200 million from HUD, the city’s housing department was
able to offer earthquake repair and reconstruction loans at generous terms. HUD’s waiver of
cumbersome rules and regulations allowed expedited access and use of $324 million made
available to the City.

As of December 31, 1995, 299 of the 301 vacant buildings had funds committed for repair and

2


129

1994 Earthquake Response Funding

Gri

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:

Grant:

‘Agency:

Grant:

Agency:

Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:

Grant

Agency:

Grant:

Agency:

Grant:

Agency:

Grant:

for Affected by the Eartl

African Community Refugee Center, Los Angeles

$12,000 to replace computer and printer, and to cover a substantial rise in
expenses due to the increase in clients’ requests for assistance. Many of the
center's low-income, recent immigrant clients were displaced from their
apartments. Because of language and cultural barriers, most of the affected clients
need assistance from center staff to help them relocate and to determine what
resources may be available to them.

American Thai Institute, Los Angeles
$16,000 for Thai-speaking outreach worker and to replace equipment damaged in
the earthquake.

Bet Tzedek, Los Angeles
$30,000 to hire additional legal staff in the North Hollywood office to help clients
obtain earthquake relief.

Boy Scouts of America-Western L.A. Council, Sherman Oaks
$8,000 for special camp program provided to children in three emergency shelters.

Bridge Focus, Inc., Burbank, CA
$8,000 to support increased crisis intervention counseling services for children in
the Valley.

CARECEN, Pico Union

$15,000 for repair and replacement of computers and printers, staff assistance and
outreach for distribution of food and clothing, and to reimburse agency for food
purchased for earthquake victims.

Clinica Para Las Americas, Pico Union
‘$25,000 for increased medical and mental health services following the quake.

Community Coalition for Substance Abuse Prevention & Treatment, Los
Angeles

$12,000 to help meet critical staffing needs caused by the quake, and expand the
substance abuse support groups for four months. (This South Central agency
relies heavily on senior citizens as volunteers and many of the volunteers’ homes
suffered serious earthquake damage, necessitating paid temporary help to replace
lost volunteers.)

‘Community Counseling Services, Pico Union
$1,500 for ouveach effons 10 quake victims in San Fernando Valley and Pico-
Union,


113

Mr. FLANAGAN. Before Mr. Haigwood begins, I have one very
quick, very brief question.

You said 92 percent of the moneys that is disbursed by the Amer-
ican Red Cross go to victims?

Mr. JONES. That is correct.

Mr. FLANAGAN. Are those national figures?

Mr. JONES. That is national, throughout the organization. Since
we are chartered by Congress, we are audited by the Army audit
agency every year.

Mr. FLANAGAN. That is not a localized number, that is a national
figure?

Mr. JONES. That is a national average, yes.

Mr. FLANAGAN. Thank you. Mr. Haigwood.

Mr. Haicwoop. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to be
here to have an opportunity to address the committee.

As Mr. Jones pointed out, some of the major assets of the Amer-
ican Red Cross are the fact that we are indeed a community-based
organization and we rely heavily on volunteers to do our work.

ecause we are a community-based organization, our relief vol-
unteers were able to respond quickly to Red Cross chapter locations
throughout the affected area. Staff from our San Fernando Valley
location were on the scene within minutes after the shaking to as-
sist in the recovery efforts in a building that had virtually all of
its windows blown out and broken by the earthquake, but once we
cleaned up that damage, we were in operation.

That became a focal point for our disaster response in the initial
days to follow.

The relief efforts by the Red Cross were accomplished by a large
number of volunteers who were indeed victims themselves—the
people who in many cases responded to our Van Nuys location and
other areas of heavy impact—had suffered damage in their own
homes. Once they had assessed the situation, secured their homes
and jnade arrangements for their families, they responded imme-

jiately.

The relief efforts were started independently by many chapters
based on their own local needs, but through our State Disaster Re-
sponse Plan, which had been recently developed prior to the earth-
quake, these individualized efforts became part of a coordinated
plan very early on in the operation.

Don mentioned the number of shelters that we opened and the
speed at which that was accomplished. One of the things that cer-
tainly occurred in this disaster which is unusual for us as it relates
to most disaster operations is the shelter population changed in lo-
cation and in size. Many buildings were perceived by those who re-
sided in them to be safe, but once the local governmental agencies
were able to get out and really take a look at the facility, and tag
it as either needing some major repair or needing to be demolished
and reconstructed, that added to our shelter population.

Don addressed the other issues, which was the one where being
in an area where we have many new arrivals from countries where
the building codes are considerably different than they are here in
California, there is great concern about being inside after a major
earthquake has occurred. In those cases, we were able to work with
other agencies, Government, and non-profits to go out into the


122

California Community Foundation Testimony
January 19, 1996
Page 2

‘The grammaking process, and the community needs assessment that preceded it, revealed
certain broad themes that, we believe, have implications for Federal disaster response planning
in the future, Generally they fit into two categories: what we can call caseload and service
issues that confronted nonprofits, and direct and indirect impacts of the disaster and relief
efforts on nonprofits themselves. To summarize some key points:

Caseload issues:

.

Community clinics and counseling agencies needed help to deliver primary medical and
Sane

the county, and the county's corresponding execution of service agreements with these
agencies. Clinics and other agencies that had suffered damage themselves needed high
priority emergency assistance within the first few hours of the earthquake to effect
running repairs and return to operational status: others saw short-term increases in
client load because they were the most accessible service providers, and had to
scramble for basic supplies to meet the volume of clients. Problems were predictably
worse and of longer duration in neighborhoods with high percentages of uninsured
residents.

Very high demands were placed on any agency whose primary clients were older
adults. who tended 10 suffer higher degrees of disorientation. isolation. frustration with
bureaucratic processes. and transporiation and mobility problems,

. Extended
day services were essential. especially in communities where transportation systems and
commuting patterns were disrupted; there was a dearth of service available in
neighborhoods where damage to housing stock displaced significant numbers of home-
based child care workers. This last group was particularly isolated and in need of
assistance, often even more than the families that relied upon them for child care, and
they are hard to reach through nonprofit mechanisms.

degree: transportation system disruptions meant client agencies were often unable, at
least in the first weeks after the quake, to pick up commodities for distribution in the
hardesi-hit communities. The same principle applied to agencies like sheltered
workshops, whose clients ordinarily traveled to them each day, often across significant
distances.

Direct impacts on non-profits:


127

1994 Earthquake Response Funding

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:

Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:

Grant:

Agency:

Grant:

Agency:

Grant:

Agency:

Grant:

Agency:
Gram:

Agency:

Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

North Valley Family YMCA, Mission Hills
$8,700 toward unreimbursed clean-up and repair costs as well as the cost of
Providing free child care at two disaster centers immediately after the quake.

Nursery Nature Walks, Santa Monica
$2,500 to help cover expenses for two months due to lost revenve following the
cancellation of all school-related programs for several weeks.

Ocean Park Community Center/Turning Point, Santa Monica
$20,000 to set up three trailers to replace temporarily the 35-bed homeless shelter
destroyed in the earthquake.

Optimist Youth Homes, Highland Park
$7,000 to demolish and rebuild the exterior wall at the Altadena group home,
which sustained $13,000 of damage in the earthquake.

Pacifica Radio Archive, North Hollywood
$1,000 for tape restoration and clean up in Reseda and North Hollywood.

Parent Institute, Inc., Los Feliz
$2,500 to replace two computers (critical to their education program) that were
destroyed.

Plaza de Ia Raza, East Los Angeles
$1,000 for equipment damaged in the earthquake.

Regis House, Pico Union

$5,900 to relocate programs to the building next door, and to cover the cost of
purchasing milk (not provided by foodbanks) for the additional children needing
nutritious meals.

‘San Fernando Valley Association for the Retarded, North Hills
$7,250 for office equipment, machinery and produce losses in the Ceramics
Workshop, which employs and tains clients with developmental disabilities.

‘San Fernando Valley Girl Scout Council, Chatsworth
‘$20,000 toward repair costs incurred and not covered by insurance.

SEA (Soledad Enrichment Action), Pacoima

$13,890 for rental and installation of two mobile units to continue an alternative
education program for youth at-risk in Pacoima after SEA’s original site was
destroyed in the earthquake.

Senior Health and Peer Counseling, Santa Monica
$17,217 for furniture, equipment, and supplies damaged in the earthquake.


151

decisions we had to make. It was done to help other universities
or other organizations, for that matter, prepare for similar disas-
ters. Produced by Sue Ellen Hirschfeld, who is a professor of geo-
logical sciences at Cal State Hayward, with a grant of $100,000
from FEMA and OES, so it would be used as a training film by
those agencies as well.

The second film is entitled Academic Aftershocks and includes a
variety of technical information, as well as campus-wide and disas-
ter response roles. I request that these video tapes be placed in the
record.

Mr. Horn. Without objection they will be placed in the files of
the committee and those parts that we can excerpt, in terms of ei-
ther charts, tables, some pertinent comments, not only will the
staff review them, but I will take them and see them this weekend.

So I thank you. I know you have a very excellent media service
here and I thank you for submitting those, because they are going
to graphically show us what all the reading will not really tell us.
So we appreciate it.

Ms. WILSON. You would be interested in knowing that, several
days ago, the video Academic Aftershocks was shown, through com-
pressed video technology, to 17 campuses, simultaneously, in the
CSU, even for those of us at Northridge who knew what it was
like, it did trigger a memory that we had forgotten.

Mr. Horn. Sure.

Ms. WILSON. I hope these videos and my comments will be of
some benefit to you in supporting the extraordinary men and
women of FEMA whose personal sacrifice enabled us to repair
buildings and to repair lives after this disaster.

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to address

ou.
(The prepared statement of Ms. Wilson follows:]


155

more rigid, more vertical, and less able to make timely decisions. In some
circumstances, the hierarchical structure led to counter-productive discussions
surrounding some of the earlier decisions that had already been made.3

Early in the disaster, knowledgeable FEMA and OES officials were involved in the
decisions we made about proposed repairs and structural calculations, and
determined them to be reasonable and eligible for FEMA funding. Later, however,
replacement officials raised questions about the efficacy of those decisions and their
eligibility for funding. All of these frustrating experiences, many occurring at
critical stages in our recovery, appear to be related to the many changes in personnei
at the Disaster Field Office.

T would like to say, however, that since the arrival of Federal Coordinating Officer.
Mr. Leland Wilson, the issue of continuity in the office of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency has been superbly and effectively addressed. The comments
that I have made regarding transitory directors are still germane within the scope of
disaster management, but our personal situation is vastly improved.

To address the problem for future emergency situations, we would recommend that
FEMA review its hiring and staffing practices to ensure continuity, efficient
processing of required documents and smooth collaboration for disasters of this
magnitude. It would be desirable for at least one member of the emergency response
team to continue at a disaster site throughout the several phases of recovery. This
individual should be an experienced FEMA officer who is empowered to make
decisions and provide effective orientation for newer employees so that a consistency

in interpretations and decisions is maintained.

} For exampie, the early decision by FEMA/OES that 5% of construction cost was eligible for campus
project management and another 5% for campus project-related costs. This decision was challenged
in October 1994 and required a report from the State Controller's Office in March 1995 to resolve the
issue. In the meantime, all DSRs in process were on hold.


CONTENTS

Hearing held on January 19, 1996 ......
Statement of:
Andrews, Richard, director, Governor's Office of Emergency Services,
California; Constance Perett, manager, Emergency Services, county of
Los Angeles, CA; and Major ‘Genera ni Robert J. Brandt, Assistant Adju-
tant General and Commander, California Army National Guard .
Jones, Donald W., vice resident, disaster services, American Red Cross;
James T. Haigwood, CEO, Los Angeles Chapter, American Red Cross,
Terri Jones, director, special projects, California Community Founda-
tion; and John Suggs, director, public policy and government affairs,
the United Way of Greater Los Angeles
Riordan, Richard, mayor, city of Los Angeles, CA .
Wilson, Blenda 3, president, California State Uni
Robert Maxson, president, California State University. "Long. Beach;
and J. Richard Williams, dean of engineering, California State Univer:
sity, Long Beach
Witt, James Lee, Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Andrews, Richard, director, Governor’s Office of Emergency Services,
California, prepared statement of
Brandt, Major General Robert J., Assistant Adjutant General and Com-
mander, California Army National Guard:
Information concernin, ne cost and grant summary ...
Prepared statement o
Haigwood, James T., CEO, Los Angeles Chapter, American Red Cross,
prepared statement of .
Jones, Donald W., vice President, disaster services, American Red Cross,
prepared statement o!
Jones, Terri, director, special projects, California Community Foundation,
prepared statement of .
Maxson, Robert, President, California State University, Long Beach, pre-
pared statement of ..
Perett, Constance, manager, Emergency
CA, prepared statement of
Riordan ‘ichard,
o

Suggs, " » P policy vernmen|
Way of Greater Los Angeles, prepared ‘statement of...

Williams, J. Richard, dean of engineering, California State
Long Beach, prepared statement of

Wilson, Blenda J., president, California State University, Northridge,
prepared statement of .. ;

Witt, James Lee, Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency, pre:
pared statement of ..

ay

Page
1

57

106
37

148
9
61
94
86
115
110
121
161
77
42
140
167

152
14


145

Again, the more notification that can take place in advance of an
emergency, the better.

I mean that is a recurring theme. You are now hearing it from
the non-profit perspective. You heard it this morning from Mr.
Witt’s perspective and from various Government agencies’ perspec-
tive.

Something that I said off the cuff while you were out of the room,
Mr. Chairman, was that to some degree I think that the problems
that we are reporting and the issues that could stand some fine
tuning are a result of FEMA's and generally speaking Govern-
ment’s recognition of, increased recognition of the role of non-prof-
its in providing disaster relief.

We didn’t have the luxury of complaining about whether or not
non-profits were eligible for reimbursement in 1992. Generally they
weren't.

In 1994 when the regulations had changed significantly, as John
reported, then the question got to be of interpretation of new regu-
lations with which people were unfamiliar, and that again is one
of the reasons I think that a strategic grant to public counsel to
develop materials to acquaint non-profits with the new regulations
was a particularly useful thing.

Mr. Horn. I wonder, Mr. Suggs—or did you want to add to that?
Go ahead.

Mr. Sucas. One of the things is with each of these disasters we
have gotten better at our jobs. No question about it.

A point of history is in the social unrest in 1992, the United Way
and the local board of the Emergency Food and Shelter Program
did file umbrella claims for impacted agencies and that totaled ap-
proximately $1 million.

It was based on that first experience that when the earthquake
hit that there were still enough people around that within the 2-
year period both in the Government sector as well as in the non-
profit sector that we were able to come together to be able to
launch a similar response to do that.

We were all amazed when the claim that we filed came up to
over $30 million. None of us expected it to go that high.

But one of the nice things about working in collaboration has
been that the California Community Foundation makes available,
and you heard in her testimony from Ms. Jones, bridge loans, and
so how we have been able to work together is when the non-profit
agencies have been obligated finally at that stage of the process, we
have been able to serve as a reference to the California Community
Foundation for agencies that were desperate for the funding, and
the California Community Foundation provided bridge loans for a
handful of those agencies.

Mr. Horn. That is very helpful.

T was going to ask you, Mr. Suggs, because Congressman Dixon
made some comments in this area and I have talked with a num-
ber of people both privately and in this hearing about mitigation,
education, and so forth, of the potential impact on a particular pop-
ulation given certain types of disasters.

Could you expand on any of the educational programs that Unit-
ed Way has that will educate the public as to what the United Way


106

have to be established and the time to establish those is definitely
not during an emergency. It has to be before.

The other thing is I think the active Army coming in and the Na-
tional Guard—there are command relationships that can work very
well to allow them to do their things and us to do ours in a con-
certed, concentrated, coordinated manner.

Mr. FLANAGAN. Tremendous. Mr. Davis, do you have questions?

Mr. Davis. No questions.

Mr. FLANAGAN. We have nothing further. I thank the panel. Your
testimony has been most enlightening.

We have the last panel today—fourth panel, I’m sorry—next-to-
last panel.

We have Mr. Donald W. Jones—how are you, Mr. Jones—is the
vice president for disaster services of the American Red Cross. We
have Mr. James T. Haigwood. Mr. Haigwood is the CEO of the Los
Angeles chapter of the American Red Cross. We have Ms. Terri
Jones, director of special projects for the California Community
Foundation; and Mr. John Suggs, the director of public policy and
government affairs for the United Way of Greater Los Angeles.

If I could ask you to all stand and take the oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. FLANAGAN. Having been sworn, we will start with Mr. Jones
and work across and take your prepared statements.

f if you can keep them within 5 minutes, that would be very help-
ul.

Mr. JONES. We will definitely keep it within 5 minutes, Mr.
Chairman.

Mr. FLANAGAN. Apiece.

Mr. JONES. As a fellow field artillery officer for 35 years, I
wouldn’t dare do that.

Mr. FLANAGAN. I saw those red legs a mile away.

Mr. JONES. Time on target—which you are very familiar with.

Mr. FLANAGAN. Steel on target. That’s it.

Mr. Jones. I never thought I would travel 2,300 miles up here
before my own Representative, Mr. Davis, from Fairfax County, but
I am delighted to see him here.

STATEMENTS OF DONALD W. JONES, VICE PRESIDENT FOR
DISASTER SERVICES, AMERICAN RED CROSS; JAMES T.
HAIGWOOD, CEO, LOS ANGELES CHAPTER, AMERICAN RED
CROSS; TERRI JONES, DIRECTOR, SPECIAL PROJECTS, CALI-
FORNIA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION; AND JOHN SUGGS, DI-
RECTOR, PUBLIC POLICY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, THE
UNITED WAY OF GREATER LOS ANGELES

Mr. JONES. You mentioned I am the vice president of disaster
services for the American Red Cross and Mr. Gene Dyson, the act-
ing president, asked me to come in. I thank the panel conducting
this hearing and for giving the American Red Cross the oppor-
tunity to appear and report out.

On the second anniversary of the Northridge earthquake, the
American Red Cross again expresses its heartfelt sympathies to
those victims who were affected by this disaster and we hope that
what we learned in doing the operational reviews—and what we
have heard this morning, the things that have been accomplished—


66

costly to administer, too often applied in an inconsistent and arbitrary manner, placing FEMA in
roles and decisions that sometime directly conflict with the authority of local and state
governments.

Only recently has the FEMA personnel situation in support of the Northridge recovery
effort been stabilized. Five Federal Coordinating Officers have been responsible for the
Northridge recovery effort, and the policies of each have been different. Over fifty million dollars
in administrative and operational costs that various federal coordinating officers have assured
California are eligible for federal reimbursement have recently been deemed ineligible.

These inconsistencies in federal policy have had a dramatic impact. California intend to
pursue appeals on each of these rulings, though it is disconcerting that the only course of apg
to precisely the same individuals who have made these arbitrary judgments.

Building Codes and Standards

Earthquakes and the damage they cause are unlike any other natural disaster. Much of the
damage inflicted by earthquakes is hidden, masked by seemingly sound structures. We have
found cracks in steel beams, visible only by removing the building's skin to examine its weakened
skeleton. Determining the overall level of damage, as well as the appropriate repair solutions,
requires professional judgments and often results in differences of opinion.

Itis in part because of the unique nature of earthquake damage, as well as the history of
Califomia seismic safety programs and codes, that we find ourselves locking hos with FEMA
over repair issues. Its a state and local responsibility to insure that building codes and standards
‘meet local needs and risks. California has 60 years of experience in drafting and enforcing some
of the strictest building standards in the world. Our schools and hospitals are built to a higher
standard than those of any other state. And yet we find ourselves negotiating with FEMA over
Which standards are to be enforced and how repairs are to proceed.

One indicator of the difficulty we face has been the issue of hospital repairs. We have had
to craft new ways to deal with the extensive damage suffered by more than 20 hospitals in the IA
areas. Because of the inherent complexity of the technical issues involved, FEMA and OF are
attempting to find a way to accomplish hospital repairs that we believe fall under the scope of
current disaster assistance programs.

Page 6


52

I wonder if I could just go along, following what Mr. Flanagan
said on the unfunded mandate issues to the floor and maybe you
can address them.

The ADA which would require new construction and alterations
to meet the standards for access by the disabled, basically you are
tearing up streets that were damaged in the earthquake that didn’t
meet those standards and having to lay down new streets that
meet a higher standard. The highway, steel and manufactured
products used are made in America, we have that act which can
add to costs. The Davis-Bacon Act, which I am a co-sponsor of a
bill to repeal that, which will require prevailing wages be given to
potential bidders 10 days before bidding begins, but often my expe-
rience has been there is a 2-week delay between the Department
of Labor issuing the rates and the States receiving them. And vio-
lations of the Clean Air Act, you noted debris removal and demoli-
tion and those kind of issues, were those real issues in this case?

Mr. RIORDAN. No, to us they really weren’t. I suppose they—in
some fairly not particularly material way they added to things, but
certainly they added to things, but certainly we require in the city
any new or reconstruction of anything that we comply with the
ADA. Where the big money is going to cost us is going in and tear-
ing out good sidewalk streets and a variety of things like that, that
is what is going to cost us an awful lot.

But unfunded mandates come in a lot of disguised ways and I
wonder if you can ever, Republican or Democrat, trust them not to
come up with some ideas because they think they can do some
things better than we can on the local level. It is like talking to—
lam sorry to get off the subject.

Mr. Davis. That’s fine.

Mr. RIORDAN. But Education Secretary Riley, who was in Ireland
on bilingual education, and this has become a giant bureaucracy
and bilingual education means 10 different things in 10 different
localities, and what I tell them is, why don’t you let the local—par-
ticularly let the schools decide. Hold them to some standard and
let them decide rather than in some laboratory in Washington.

Mr. Davis. As Mr. Torres, knows, in our local school in Fairfax
we have 50 native languages spoken. Can you imagine what bilin-
gual education—we have an English as a Second Language pro-
gram that we have gotten a waiver on. It makes it much less ex-
pensive and, frankly, it is a better program. We have 136 different
languages just in one school, just in one school, which is my son’s
intermediate school.

The other question I want to ask is, following up on what Mr.
Horn had noted, in terms of building code, do you feel your build-
ing code now is satisfactory to meet for future construction?

Mr. RIORDAN. I think it is very good, but it has to be improved.
This is, you know, in carrying on to what Congressman Horn
asked, I think that there are improvements and we have to not just
say, OK, we are going to improve it once. We have to look at it all
the time. We are not looking for the $500 solution to the $5 prob-
lem, but frankly when you are talking about dipping into the Fed-
eral Treasury for some of these items that might have been pre-
vented with a stronger code, we have got to have a balance there.


173

one to have right codes and, second, to make sure they are really
enforced. They both need to be examined, because we know that.
there are shortcomings, there are shortcomings in the code, al-
though they are stronger than they used to be, and there are short-
comings in the enforcement of the codes.

Another issue comes up in the use of new technologies. I will just
pick one, base isolation of buildings. You can base isolate a build-
ing so the ground shakes and the building doesn’t or doesn’t shake
very much. The problem is, that is not in the code and if you do
that you are taking a risk, because if a builder does base isolation
and anything goes wrong, the builder is liable. Whereas, if the
builder sticks strictly by the code, which does not include base iso-
lation, they are not liable.

So we need to work very hard to ensure that the appropriate
technologies are included in the codes in the right way. If you do
it the wrong way you have created a worse problem.

So the codes need to be updated, modernized, the codes need to
require technologies, such as base isolation and many others, that
are proven to be cost effective. These are things you can do that
will actually reduce your insurance premiums by more, in the long-
term, by more than the cost of doing it, because you have reduced
the damage that is going to ultimately occur.

Mr. Davis. That is beyond the building code?

Mr. WILLIAMS. That needs to be upgraded, they also need to be
enforced.

Mr. Maxson. The codes are sort of interesting, too, and it seems
to me, from a layman’s standpoint, they fit in almost every area ex-
cept earthquakes, in the sense that—well, 2 years ago when I ar-
rived at Cal State, Long Beach, as president, we were getting ready
to open an $11 million parking deck.

That parking deck--before we opened that parking deck—as we
were getting ready to open it the earthquake hit this campus. It
was built to the exact same code which was the accepted code that
caused the collapse here on this campus. We put a stop—now, it
met the code. We were in full compliance with the codes of the
State of California. We then spent another $3 million and opened
it up this fall, a year later, based on what we learned from this ex-
perience.

So, in some ways it is the nature of natural disasters, they are
so unpredictable and uncontrollable, when are codes, when do we
learn that they no longer work. Again, I know why it sounds like
Il am making a pitch, but that is why we are here, that is where
I think centers like this can respond quickly to that and can make
judgments on that and not go through the slow machinery of
watching it happen someplace else.

My university, at no encouragement of anyone, spent $3 million,
just to make sure that parking deck was safe before we let a car
in it, based on what happened to this woman and her campus. Lit-
erally weeks before we were to open.

Mr. Davis. You may spend that $3 million and in our lifetimes
we never realize the benefit of that.

Mr. Maxson. Exactly.

Mr. Davis. Let me just ask another question I think you will
want to answer. In a July 1995 report, FEMA’s Inspector General


101

land or clearing flood channels or designation of areas that were
clearly intended to be flood channels for which various kinds of
habitat areas might have just occurred over time—those have been
real areas of conflict and we think, as the Governor attempted after
the flooding that we had earlier in 1995, there needs to be a period
of time when there can be a waiver for those in order to accomplish
public safety objectives.

Mr. FLANAGAN. It is a difficult process to even wrestle with con-
ceptually because among less noble people than those before us
today, it would seem like a golden opportunity to accomplish that
which the law would not otherwise permit.

I know that in my own State, I assume the same here, wetlands
are both necessary and wonderful and terrific to preserve, but are
also a great economic burden in a specific way on specific people,
and to turn a locality loose, exempting them from all of those laws
would be problematic.

Perhaps you could provide us, if you are able, a written disserta-
Hon of what you believe a happy medium may be to accomplish
that.

Mr. ANDREWS. I'd be happy to do that.

Mr. FLANAGAN. To accomplish the goal of helping people in des-
perate need and at the same time not using some sort of relief from
the law as a way to circumvent what you—to accomplish what you
otherwise could not accomplish.

Mr. ANDREWS. We'll be happy to do that, sir.

Mr. FLANAGAN. Terrific. Also in your testimony, it indicated that
some $12.5 billion in losses were sustained that were covered by
insurance.

Just from your point of view, how responsive have the insurance
companies been in responding to individual claims?

Mr. ANDREWS. I think they have been very responsive in re-
sponding to individual claims.

Their initial estimate of the losses were approximately $2.5 bil-
lion, so they have expended far above what they thought they ini-
tially would. What happened here in California is analogous to
what happened in Florida after Hurricane Andrew and Hawaii
after Hurricane Iniki.

It’s caused a real crisis in the insurance industry and that is why
we are very interested in the various proposals for a national natu-
ral disaster insurance. We think we need to find a way to use the
insurance mechanism and the market mechanisms of the insurance
to both prefund losses, as well as provide incentives for people for
risk reduction measures and that we really need to take a look at
the question of repetitive losses.

Again I say this as the Director of Emergency Services in Califor-
nia, where we have repetitive disasters. We think we need to be
very tight on the question of repetitive losses and there is no rea-
son either for local government or State government or the Federal
Government to have to continue to subsidize risk-taking behavior
when there are other alternatives available.

Mr. FLANAGAN. That is a nice way of putting it, but it would be
put more bluntly where I come from—you got bit by the dog once
and you get bit again and expect to be recompensed constantly for
it, and I don’t think the Federal taxpayer—Americans are wonder-


26

Mr. Horn. I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Califor-
nia, Mr. Torres.

Mr. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me also welcome Mr. Tom Davis to sunny California. He is
actually my Congressman in Virginia. I live in his district and he
has problems with snow and flooding out there at this moment.

Mr. Horn. All I can say to my distinguished colleague is, vote
early and often, then. [Laughter.]

Mr. Torres. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Director, I thank you for your eloquent statement. I want to
thank you personally, really. I know I speak for the California Del-
egation, we have talked a lot about this during those trying periods
when we were feeling the impacts of the Loma Prieta earthquake
and, of course, the L.A. riots and then the Northridge earthquake.
Certainly, your coming to the forefront in a very decisive way was
critical to our State and our surrounding area by being able to co-
ordinate the various agencies, the Departments of Government,
HUD, SBA, EPA, the Corps of Engineers, and others.

While this is all auditory and we really acknowledge your tre-
mendous contribution and leadership here, some things fell
through the cracks. There have been concerns raised that FEMA
brought in temporary staff when local hires would have been much
more cost effective to effect, and also better prepared and informed
on regional impacts, the knowledge of codes and the area.

My question to you would be, what efforts has FEMA taken to
ensure that the use of local hires is maximized to the fullest extent
in the future if anything should happen?

Mr. WITT. What we have tried to do—and you are absolutely cor-
rect and we have made changes where that will not happen in the
future as far as we are concerned by establishing these three
teams, highly professional teams that could come in and be here
maybe 2 to 3 weeks to set up the disaster field office and support
the Federal coordinating officer and then phase in very quickly the
local hires to come in and support that disaster field office.

We are moving in that direction because it is very important. We
learned a very valuable lesson here.

Mr. Torres. I am sure you have learned from that experience.

Mr. WITT. Yes.

Mr. Torres. Also in the learning process, I was just recently this
week up at Cal Tech, the seismic laboratories, and I was able to
delve in depth at the important high-technology that is providing
earthquake information, seismic information, to us. I was really im-
pressed by the seismologists up there and the great work that is
taking place.

I would tell Mr. Flannery, if he is still here, that they told me
and I saw it on the computer that we have an average of 30 earth-
quakes a day taking place here in California. Very small mag-
nitude, but they are taking place, 10,000 a year to be sure. We
need to be able to in the future understand quickly, for everybody
concerned, FEMA especially, a method of recovery, to deal with re-
covery and response.

I know that Cal Tech and the associated organizations, the Fed-
eral Government included, have requested FEMA to provide the
necessary program levels that will bring forth this recovery re-


22

But the long and the short of it is, did things like that help or
were there other things in the way that we can remove now, that
we can fix? I mean, this is the opportunity to tell us about these
things.

Mr. Wirt. I think the report that the IG had done on the disaster

fund and the responses that we do was a very, very critical and
very in depth report that I think identified a lot of areas that you
are talking about that we can make a difference. I supported the
ICs report with the recommendation that I went back to Congress
with.
I think the most critical thing that we have faced, not only Cali-
fornia but other disasters, is the eligibility part of our programs.
What is eligible? What is not eligible? Force count in labor, which
is what we pay in overtime and equipment and so forth or what-
ever it may be, but that is an issue, and Dick has an issue with
that.

Where should we pay just overtime, or should we pay straight
time? Is it a responsibility of us, or is it a responsibility of State
and local government when they have those employees that they
are paying 40 hours a week, but they shift them over to another
job to do other work in a disaster?

Should we be responsible for that time, such as disaster applica-
tion centers, where Dick had staff in disaster application centers
working right along with our staff, that were not back in the office
doing the job that they were hired to do, that is an issue that we
need to resolve in the future?

Mr. FLANAGAN. Well, I think that you, with this particular one
that you have mentioned, have identified a problem that is resolved
on this side of the microphones not so much on that side. It is a
matter of federalism, it is a matter of policy that Mr. Dreier was
articulating so well earlier.

If you are lacking in that and, consequently, it is an impediment,
tell us so. It is what we are doing here. We are oversight, let us
help you get what you need to get it done better because, when you
do your job well, people survive and things happen that are good.

Mr. Witt. There will be a lot of recommendations coming from
us to Congress to make sure that the lessons that we have learned
in Northridge we can implement in future disasters and I am look-
ing forward to that.

Mr. FLANAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Witt.

lL yield back.

Mr. Horn. I now yield to the gentleman from California, Mr.
Dixon, for 5 minutes.

Mr. Dixon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Director Witt, I would like to continue along the line that Con-
gressman Flanagan was speaking, talking about the future. I am
not sure that we in California or a general national constituency
understand a desire to reshape policy as it responds to national
disasters.

At the present time the Federal Government, as I understand it,
icks up 90 percent of the money. In the most recent situation I
‘elt, unfortunately, but it was certainly the will of our body that

there had to be offsets made on other programs in other States to
cover that. I don’t want to argue the equity of that, but picking up


105

Major General BRANDT. Yes, they can. It’s when they come in
and how the command and control system is set up at the time
which will facilitate or retard the progress on restoring——

Mr. FLANAGAN. I think you have actually put your finger on the
button. I was a field artillery officer for 5 years and I happen to
know that Presidents are loath to hand active duty Federal troops,
for whatever good reason, to a Governor. In fact, more times than
not, you have the reverse happening, where the National Guard is
Federalized or activated for Federal service, and so consequently
your command and control problems of who is in charge today, as
these units come in to help, can be extremely difficult.

It is a difficult problem to wrestle with, to be sure.

Major General BRANDT. I would like to add one comment. During
the L.A. riot, a serious command and control problem took place be-
tween the way when the Federal forces came in and activating the
Guard created a serious problem.

That was corrected during Hurricane Andrew and the Florida
National Guard basically stayed in a State status and the active
Army and the Guard worked very well together.

My recommendation is any time there is an emergency that the
local responsible authorities and the National Guard be—the Na-
tional Guard be kept in that State status where they can have the
full range of responsibility and authority to work with the agencies
that they are used to working with.

Mr. FLANAGAN. I doubt that there can be any argument with the
validity of that, but to hand the Guard Federal units that would
be under your command and control is a difficult situation inso-
‘ar——

Major General BRANDT. Well, it would be difficult for them, but
it is not difficult for us.

Mr. FLANAGAN. That’s what I mean. That is what I am talking
about—and there are way more of them than there are of you, un-
fortunately, so that is the difficulty with that.

It is unfortunate. The reason these questions are generated—be-
cause, well, even after the close of Fort Ord there are enormous
numbers of active troops in California which seem to be a resource
that could be used on this very limited emergency basis, but be-
cause command and control is in the way, that is retarded, and it
is regrettable and there ought to be a way to fix that, perhaps with
defined tasks in different spheres—one could do one and the other
could do the other.

Integrating them is just so difficult unless you are Federalized
and you have identified all the problems with doing that and ex-
tracting you from the chains—not chains of command but with the
relationships you have with the agencies and consequently making
it extremely hard to do that. It is a difficult problem to wrestle
with.

Major General BRANDT. I think one of the real problems that you
are faced with is it is the same as the city of Fresno has a serious
fire and the fire department from Monterey responds. Well, they
are all trained firemen. They have the equipment. They have
standardized equipment, but they are in a community that they
don’t know—the radio communications, the police—all those things


162

times greater than the amounts cited. There is a growing lack of insurance in disaster-prone areas--and
when insurance is available, the rates are often prohibitive.

Asa resull of she Nomtheidge earthquake, many of California's largest property insurers are restricting
theic writing of new policies in the state for both residential and commercial clients. The lack of
homeowner's insurance is having en impact on home sales that is further dampening California's stow
economic recovery. California adopted a state earthquake insurance fund following the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake, but the California program didn’t have the resources needed to capitalize its fund. Similar
efforts following the Northridge earthquake have also been unsuccessful. The insurance availability crisis
is not limited just to consumers in California, Florida and Hawaii. Property owners from Cape Code to
New Orleans report that coverage is harder to find and increasingly more expensive. A major cause af the
insurance availability crisis is the lack of availability of catastrophic reinsurance for property and casualty
insurers. Due to the increasing frequency of major natural disasters, reinsurance availability has declined
dramatically over the past seven years

Many cost-efiective technologies exist that can substantially reduce the damage caused by natural
disasters and, therefore, hold down insurance rates. However, many of these technologies have not been
deployed significantly for a variety of reasons including adverse codes and regulations and a lack of
potential beneficiary and end-user knowledge The Centers for Protection Against Natural Disasters
(CPAND), a not-for-profit corporation, has been formed by a group of universities and a large private
‘non-profit technology transfer firm with extensive experience in the application of the relevant
technologies. CPAND is dedicated to ensuring the rapid and widespread deployment of established and
new technologies that will significantly reduce the damage caused by natural disasters and will, therefore,
realy reduce costs incurred by the federal gavemment, states, local communities, private sector
insurance companies and uninsured individuals as a result of a natural disaster. CPAND will focus on
cstablished and new technology deployment, not on research. CPAND will use modern
telecommunications technologies and management techniques to function effectively as a virtual. agile
organization with service centers steategically located throushout the United States

We must act now to reduce the damaging consequences of earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, fires and other
natural disasters in order to protect the citizens af the United States. their homes and businesses, and the
nation’s infrastructure and industrial facilities, A great deal of technology exists that can dramatically
reduce both the loss of life and damage to property caused by major natural disasters, and the cost of
deploying these technologies would be a tiny fraction of the savings achieved through the reduction of
death, injury and property damage resulting from a major natural disaster. However. the deployment and
implementation of many of these available technologies have been delayed for a variety of reasons,
including the following:

+ Lack of comprehensive understanding of the cost drivers for damage losses

+ Lack of widespread knowledge of available natural disaster damage prevention/reduction
technoloyies

+ Lack of information on the cost-effectiveness of damage prevention/reduction technologies

+ Lack of strategies to effectively and efficiently deploy damage prevention/reduction

technologies


165

Mr. Horn. Thank you, Dr. Maxson.

Dean Williams, would you like to add to that?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was pleased to participate a few days ago in the Academic
Aftershocks——

Mr. Horn. Put the mic a little closer.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I was pleased to participate a few days ago in the
Academic Aftershocks teleconference. Those of us who viewed the
46-minute video and participated in that teleconference are cer-
tainly aware of the tremendous damage caused by the Northridge
earthquake. It certainly refreshed our memory of what happened 2
years ago. We can imagine the damage that would result from a
major earthquake a magnitude larger. An earthquake of this mag-
nitude is certain to strike California.

In order to prepare for such an eventuality, FEMA and the Office
of Emergency Services have embarked upon a program to increase
the earthquake resistance of schools, hospitals, public service build-
ings and other critical facilities.

As these projects are undertaken, it is imperative that we learn
how effective these projects really are in protecting the public
against the destruction caused by future earthquakes.

As an example, the city of Long Beach proposes to upgrade its
public safety building to seismically strengthen the structure in
order to protect personnel, prisoners and the public from risk of in-
jury, loss of life, and damage to property, and also reduce the risk
of incapacitating the city’s public safety infrastructure as a result
of a major earthquake. City engineers have developed plans for
seismic bracing to make this building seismically safe and for other
modifications required to ensure safety to occupants and facilities,
during and following a major seismic event.

Since there are many buildings of this type around the United
States, the city has proposed that the building be instrumented
and analyses performed to determine the effectiveness of the seis-
mic hardening and provide information to facilitate future seismic
retrofits of this type.

We believe that projects to protect buildings against earthquakes
should demonstrate the use of modern technologies and ensure that
the modifications are done in the most cost effective manner and
that the benefits of the modifications are carefully measured and
analyzed. The projects should result in cost savings, by ensuring
that the modifications are cost effective, and provide opportunities
for interaction with code enactment bodies to influence the extent
to which applications of appropriate damage prevention tech-
nologies are specified within codes and that these codes are en-
forced.

The Long Beach Public Safety Building houses the police and fire
departments of the city. A team of architects and engineers con-
cluded that the building is in extremely delicate condition, that is
a quote, and would be in danger of structural failure in a major
earthquake. That would leave the city without fire or police protec-
tion. Seismic hardening is needed to ensure that the city is not
without police and fire protection following a major earthquake.

This building, which is an example of many similar buildings
around the country, will also play a pivotal role during the period


169

Mr. Horn. Thank you, Dean Williams.

Dean, as I recall, you are fairly knowledgeable in the use of early
warning systems and advances when it comes to this type of disas-
ter. Would you share with the committee some of the advances that
are occurring in this area?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, there is an early warning system in Mexico
City, which is kind of traditional. Basically, an earthquake starts
at one location and spreads outward at the speed of sound. So you
can have a network installed, so whenever an earthquake starts
alarms immediately go off everywhere and people know an earth-
quake is coming.

Technology exists today to develop and install a cost effective
early warning system using modern telecommunications technology
that would literally allow you to install inexpensive alarms in
homes and buildings and, with the system in place, when an earth-
quake starts at some location, you would then have—your alarm
would go off and a countdown would be heard. You might say,
beep-15, beep—14.

You would know an earthquake is coming and you would know
when it is going to hit and how much time you have got. You would
have half a minute or a minute, depending on how far away you
are from the epicenter, but this would provide time for people to
duck and cover and protect themselves and their children, to grab
the child, get under the table and be prepared before the earth-
quake hits.

This could greatly reduce, and there have been assessments, you
could dramatically reduce death and injury from earthquakes with
an early warning system of this type. Twenty years ago this
couldn’t be done in the manner I have described, but it can be done

jay.

Mr. Horn. Some have argued, when they have tried various civil
defense measures and warnings, that it might just create panic and
everybody gets in their car and clogs the highways and you have
chaos. What do you think about that reaction?

Mr. WILLIAMS. An early warning system without training and
education, of course, could be counterproductive. People have to
know, they have to plan, they have to practice. They have to know
what to do and they have to understand that with an early warn-
ing system for an earthquake there will be no time to get in the
car and go anywhere. An earthquake comes rather quickly, at the
speed of sound, and they do need to duck and cover and they will
have time to do that, but there won’t be time to clog the highways.

Mr. Horw. If you had these natural disaster centers in operation,
what are the priorities you see in terms of the use of those centers
to reach the potential disaster constituency, if you will, and educate
them and help them with mitigation? How would you go about it?
What do you see on that front?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, the Centers for Protection Against Natural
Disasters, which is proposed as a partnership between the univer-
sities and a major non-profit technology transfer firm that has a lot
of expertise in the relevant technologies would focus on working
with FEMA and with all State and local entities in deploying; not
developing new technologies, but in deploying the technologies that


34

In the case of Northridge, challenges to FEMA’s administrative
overhead allowances have halted the processing of damage claims,
specifically claims for CSU Northridge were delayed for 4 months
due to a dispute over administrative costs. The California State
University requested 20 percent overhead while FEMA rec-
ommended a 2 to 5 percent allowance.

To what extent have disputes over administrative cost allow-
ances delayed the recovery from the Northridge earthquake and, in
your opinion, are changes needed in the manner by which FEMA
computes allowable administrative costs? What is your thinking on
that?

Mr. Wirt. I think that earlier when I stated that the administra-
tive costs that we provide definitely needs to be looked at. I think
it needs to be fair. And we are willing to look at it and provide you
with the information that we would recommend on future adminis-
trative costs and disasters. I think we need to be very careful here.

As I said earlier, each of us has a responsibility, the State sub-
grantees and all of us. I don’t want us to get in the position of hav-
ing to reimburse subgrantees or State or local governments for
budgets that they should normally have to be able to fund those
costs anyway. But if we have a disaster of any magnitude, like with
Northridge, then we definitely need to have something in place
that will help them to administer those programs.

Mr. Horn. Another question that is sort of technical, but let’s get
it on the record, and we are going to submit a few and if you and
your staff wouldn’t mind responding, we will put them in the
record at this point.

Mr. Wirt. Be happy to, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Horn. Damage survey reports, I take it you call it DSRs, are
the basic documents FEMA uses for public assistance projects.
Now, DSRs which are prepared by the teams of FEMA representa-
tives and applicants, as I understand it, typically contain a descrip-
tion of structural damage and estimated repair restoration costs. In
past disasters, FEMA has been criticized regarding the timely
preparation and approval of DSRs.

In addition, according to this July 1995 report which you have
referred to several times by the Inspector General of FEMA on
their audit of FEMA’s disaster relief fund, DSRs were neither pre-
pared nor reviewed in a consistent manner. The Inspector General
also identified a lack of standards in training for Federal inspectors
which contributed to disagreements between Federal and State offi-
cials regarding the eligibility of repair/restoration costs.

What actions have been or should be taken to help ensure con-
sistent timely preparation and review of these DSRs?

Mr. Wirt, I don’t think it is the DSR application that is the ques-
tion here. I think it is a good form, and I think there probably
could be some improvements on it. But, I think the biggest problem
we have with the DSRs is the process of after that DSR is written,
and the process of moving it along and getting that money obli-
gated so they can start rebuilding. That is the area that we need
to improve in.

. Mr. Horn. Very good. Any further questions on the majority
side?

(No response.]


175

ation with less money being paid out of either the Federal, State
or local governments and, more important, minimize the tragedies
and the loss of life that come with these disasters. All the money
in the world doesn’t make up for a life.

On the other hand, some sensible program, education mitigation,
which will minimize the effect on human beings of these disasters
which we can’t stop anyway. Earthquakes are going to be earth-
quakes no matter what we do. The fact that the cows in San Benito
County sense them long before the U.S. Geological Survey, we
quite haven’t captured how the cows do that, but they do it.

So thank you very much for coming and we appreciate it.

Now we will move to our public forum, where those of you that
have any suggestions and have listened to the testimony or haven't
listened to the testimony, we would welcome you to come forward,
use the microphone and give us your suggestions. If they are a par-
ticular point about a Federal, State or a local agency, we will ask
that agency, we will ask that agency to respond at the point you
comment in the record.

So does anybody want to come forward and make some com-
ments or suggestions?

I see the distinguished associate chancellor for planning and
physical development of the California State University System.
This is the first time he has been at a loss for words in the 25
years that I have known him.

Mr. Davis. We know how to tempt him.

Mr. Horn. I think he is worried about me swearing him in and
taking the oath.

But anybody else that wants to come forward?

[No response.]

Mr. Horn. Well, if not, let me thank a lot of people that have
had a hand in putting this hearing together, as is our custom for
the majority staff.

Well, let me first thank, again, the president of California State
University, Northridge, and a lot of her staff, which I will get into,
for the fine facility in which we are meeting.

Then the leader of the majority staff, J. Russell George, the staff
director and general counsel; Andrew Richardson, the subcommit-
tee clerk; from the full Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight; Kevin Sabo, the general counsel; and Jeff Wilmot, pro-
fessional staff member on the full committee.

For the minority staff, we thank Cheryl Phelps, professional staff
member, and we thank our official reporter, Dennis Davis.

Then the thank yous on the Government Relations staff, here in
Northridge, Dorena Knepper and Gail Lafrendien, and video tap-
ing, the instructional media center did a great job, and Tony
Hilbrenner, we thank you.

Let’s see, we have also the university student union facilities,
Marty Cox, Louis Martiz, Stella Lopez. The physical plant manage-
ment, with the signs and the easels. I must say even I could find
the parking lot, which is more than I can say I usually am able
to do. Bill Chaddam, Marty Holsman, Mike Witner, parking; Mary
Cooley, Carol Lowing, security; Marlin Hines, Chief Ed Harrison
and Lieutenant Mark Kausinc.


115

LOS ANGELES CHAPTER
(213) 739-5201

DATE: January 18, 1996

FROM: James T. Haigwood
CEO, Los Angeles Chapter
American Red Cross

SUBJECT: Statement to the Houge Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information and Technology

January 19, 1996

I would like to preface my remarks with a statement about the
nature of the Red Cross response, that the Red Cross relief effort
is a partnership between volunteer and paid staff. Often, thoy
working on a relief operation are referred to aft", £
refers to both volunteer and paid personnel. Leadership positions
during the relief effort were filled with a variety of volunteer
id paid £ from the Los Angeles and other California Chapters
as well as staff brought in from across the county.

Items to be addressed include the following topics:

@ Relief workers responded quickly to Red Cross Chapter
locations through out the affected area. Staff in the Van Nuys
office were on scene within minutes of the shaking organizing
assistance efforts from a building that had virtually all it's

erior windows broken.

Relief efforts were being accomplished largely by workers who
were themselves disaster victims. Many workers left home:
families) heavily damaged by the quake; they
immediate safety of their households and went to help others.

.

Relief efforts were started independently by many Red Cross
Chapters, based on their local needs, but those efforts
quickly became part of a coordinated effort to better meet the
demands imposed by the quake throughout the affected areas,

.

More than 15 shelters were opened the first day, but the peak
numbers of shelters opened wasn't reached until six days la
when about 35 shelt ing. (Shelters remained
opened until February 19th.)

°



136

1994 Earthquake Response Funding

D. Earthquake Loans

Agency:
Loan:

Agency:
Loan:

Agency:
Loan:

Agency:
Loan:

Agency:
Loan:

Agency:
Loan:

Agency:
Loan:

Agency:
Loan:
Agency:
Loan:

Agency:
Loan:

Agency:
Loan:

Total - Earthquake Response Loans (Ii loans) .....

Community Corporation of Santa Monica
$50,000 to begin structural repairs to numerous low-income housing units
damaged during the earthquake.

Los Angeles Free Clinic, Los Angeles
$50,000 to begin structural repairs to two of its social service facilities, in
Hollywood and West Hollywood.

Lula Washington Dance Ensemble, Los Angeles
$40,000 to repair or relocate the dance studio, and help with disrupted cash flow
caused by cancellation of performances.

Northeast Valley Community Health Corporation, San Fernando
$35,000 to begin structural repairs and replace equipment/supplies damaged or
destroyed in the earthquake.

Plaza de la Raza Community Cultural Center, Los Angeles
$40,000 to begin structural repairs to the Boathouse Gallery.

San Fernando Valley Association for the Retarded, Sepulveda
$38,000 to begin structural repairs to sheltered workshop facilities.

San Fernando Valley Child Guidance Clinic, Northridge
$40,000 to begin repairs at the facility.

San Fernando Valley Girl Scout Council, Chatsworth
$30,000 to help cover the deductible from their earthquake insurance, and to assist
with revenue shortfall caused by loss of income from cookie sales.

Senior Health and Peer Counseling, Santa Monica
‘$35,000 to begin structural repairs to this social services center.

TAKE, Clinic for Women, Los Angeles
$50,000 to begin structural repairs to the clinic building.

YWCA of Santa Monica
$40,000 to begin structural repairs to the Amaranth Home.



58

The primary responsibility for protection of public safety and
property rests with local and State officials. The most effective
emergency response will, in my view, always occur at the local and
State level.

FEMA has, unquestionably, greatly improved its emergency re-
sponse capability since 1992. Their recent responses during the
1995 hurricane season throughout the Eastern Seaboard was really
exemplary and indicates that they have become a much more effec-
tive emergency response organization.

The appropriate role of the Federal Government during an emer-
gency is to provide support to specific resource requests. It is par-
ticularly important that Federal emergency response efforts not be
undertaken solely to showcase a presence for the media when State
resource requests have not been made.

The Northridge recovery effort began concurrently with the
emergency response. Seventy-two hours after the earthquake the
first disaster application centers opened for business. As has been
previously mentioned, the scale and pace in providing assistance to
individuals was unprecedented and here FEMA demonstrated great
flexibility. Twice as many people registered for assistance as in any
previous disaster in this country. More people received assistance
in the first 6 weeks after Northridge than in the first 6 months
after Hurricane Andrew.

At FEMA's request, California was involved in every phase of
this effort. For example, as Director Witt mentioned, FEMA used
our earthquake modelling capability to identify areas that could re-
ceive the initial aid checks, getting assistance into the hands of dis-
aster victims in record time. The administrative costs of these ef-
forts were substantial.

Yet, over a year after the disaster, FEMA reversed approval of
funds to the State by deobligating over $13 million in administra-
tive costs the State incurred in supporting this historic effort.

The Northridge earthquake has highlighted limitations in the
current structure of Federal disaster assistance regulations and
policies. I believe that Federal disaster assistance policies need to
be reformed. Current programs are too costly to administer and too
often applied inconsistently, sometimes placing FEMA in conflict
with the authority of local and State governments.

Only recently has the FEMA personnel situation here been sta-
bilized. Five Federal coordinating officers have been responsible for
the recovery effort and the rulings of each have differed.

Over $50 million in administrative and operational costs that
various Federal coordinating officers have assured California are
eligible for reimbursement have recently been ruled ineligible. Cali-
fornia intends to pursue appeals of these rulings, though it is dis-
concerting that the appeals are to the same individuals who have
made the judgments.

Earthquakes and the damage they cause are unlike any other
natural disaster. Much of the damage is hidden, masked by seem-
ingly sound structures. Assessing the damage and the appropriate
repair solutions requires professional judgments that often result
in differences of opinion. It is in part because of the unique nature
of earthquake damage, as well as the history of California’s seismic


112

WERE WE SUCCESSFUL AND TIMELY IN OUR RESPONSE TO THE NEEDS OF THOSE AFFECTED BY THE
DISASTER? IN MY OPINION WE WERE IN EVERY RESPECT .- THANKS TO CONCERTED EFFORTS THROUGHOUT
‘THE ORGANIZATION, DURING THE PAST THREE YEARS OR SO, TO REVITALIZE DISASTER SERVICES AND
BETTER POSTURE THE RED CROSS TO MORE EFFECTIVELY RESPOND TO DISASTERS SUCH AS THE
NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE THROUGH IMPROVED DISASTER PLANNING, PREPAREDNESS, COMMUNITY
DISASTER EDUCATION, AND RESPONSE ACTIVITIES. THE RED CROSS CHAPTERS IN THE AREA RESPONDED IN
‘A MATTER OF MINUTES TO THE DISASTER (MR. HAIGWOOD WILL REPORT ON THAT). THE NATIONAL
HEADQUARTERS QUICK RESPONSE TEAM BEGAN ARRIVING IN THE AREA WITHIN A MATTER OF HOURS TO
ASSESS THE DAMAGE AND CONDUCT A NEEDS ASSESSMENT. WE IMMEDIATELY ESTABLISHED LIAISON
WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, LOS ANGELES CITY AND COUNTY GOVERNMENTS, OTHER AFFECTED
GOVERNMENTS, AND VOLUNTARY AGENCIES. WE PLACED A LIAISON TEAM AT THE STATE EMERGENCY
OPERATIONS CENTER AND PROVIDED A SIX-PERSON TEAM TO THE FEDERAL DISASTER FIELD OFFICE.
‘THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD, WE HAD EXTREMELY GOOD RELATIONS WITH THESE AGENCIES,

ALTHOUGH WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IV OUR RESPONSE, WE WERE NOT WITHOUT CHALLENGES, THE
DAMAGE TO THE ROADS CAUSED DELAYS IN GETTING OUR PEOPLE AND SUPPLIES TO THE AREAS WHERE
MOST NEEDED. ACCESS TO THE AREA TO CONDUCT DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND MOBILE FEEDING
OPERATIONS OFTEN WAS DELAYED DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC. HOWEVER, WE DID MAINTAIN CLOSE CONTACT
WITH FEMA AND OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, DIRECTOR WITT AND I HAD NUMEROUS TELEPHONE
CONVERSATIONS AND MEETINGS, AS WELL AS MEETINGS WITH THE STATE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PERSONNEL. DAILY MEETINGS ALSO WERE HELD WITH CITY AND COUNTY GOVERNMENTS. A COMPETENT
NETWORK OF VOLUNTARY AGENCIES WAS ESTABLISHED, AND THE RESOURCES OF ALL AGENCIES WERE
USED EFFECTIVELY. HUD ASSISTED BY PROVIDING A LIST OF AVAILABLE HOUSING FOR USE BY CLIENTS
WHOSE HOMES WERE DAMAGED TO THE DEGREE THAT THEY REQUIRED MAJOR REPAIRS. IN THE NORMAL.
‘COURSE OF ACTION, WE HAVE LIMITED INTERACTION WITH THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,
ALTHOUGH OUR CASE WORKERS WILL MAKE CLIENTS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT ASSISTANCE MAY BE.
AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SOURCE.

‘THROUGH THE NATIONAL VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS ACTIVE IN DISASTER, WE ESTABLISHED
GOOD RELATIONSHIPS WITH ALL CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS PARTICIPATING IN THE RELIEF EFFORT.
MEETINGS WERE SCHEDULED AND CONDUCTED, AND INFORMATION WAS SHARED EFFECTIVELY. THE
AMERICAN RED CROSS HAS EXISTING MEMORANDUMS OF AGREEMENT OR STATEMENTS OF
UNDERSTANDING WITH MOST OF THESE AGENCIES. CONSEQUENTLY, ALL WE NEED TO DO IS TO IMPLEMENT
‘THESE AGREEMENTS, AS WE DID IN THIS INSTANCE.

‘THE AMERICAN RED CROSS HAS EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN RESPONDING TO DISASTERS. WE STILL
HAVE SOME AREAS IN WHICH ASSISTANCE I$ NEEDED TO ENSURE THE SUCCESS OF OUR FUTURE RELIEF
EFFORTS. WE HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTING TO GET THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TO ASSIGN
SOME FREQUENCIES IN THE 220 MEGAHERTZ RANGE TO THE RED CROSS FOR USE IN BOTH TRAINING AND.
DISASTER RESPONSE. THIS EFFORT HAS BEEN ONGOING FOR ALMOST FIVE YEARS. WE HAVE FOLLOWED.
GUIDANCE GIVEN TO US BY THE FCC, BUT WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO GET FINAL ACTION FROM THEM,
RECENTLY CONGRESSMAN JACK FIELDS FROM TEXAS WROTE A LETTER TO THE COMMISSION ASKING THEM
TO RESPOND TO OUR REQUEST. IF YOU CAN ASSIST IN ANY WAY IN GETTING THIS MOVING, IT WOULD BE
GREATLY APPRECIATED AND CERTAINLY FACILITATE THE AMERICAN RED CROSS ACTIVITIES IN RESPONSE
TO FUTURE DISASTERS.

LET ME TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PRAISE THE THOUSANDS OF VOLUNTEERS WHO TIRELESSLY
PROVIDED RELIEF TO THE VICTIMS OF THE NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE AS WELL AS THOSE WHO RESPOND.
‘ON A DAILY BASIS IN CITIES AND TOWNS EVERYWHERE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND BUSINESS.
COMMUNITY ALSO ARE TO BE COMMENDED FOR THEIR FINANCIAL AND IN-KIND DONATIONS THAT
CONTRIBUTE TO THE RELIEF OF DISASTER VICTIMS THROUGH THE EVER-READY RED CROSS NETWORK OF
PAID AND VOLUNTEER STAFF THROUGHOUT OUR GREAT NATION. THE SUCCESS OF THE RED CROSS IN
MEETING THE DISASTER-CAUSED NEEDS OF ITS CLIENTS IS DEPENDENT ON THE SUPPORT OF THESE PEOPLE
AND COMMUNITIES -- FOR WHICH WE ARE GRATEFUL

THIS CONCLUDES MY REMARKS, AND I NOW ASK MR. HAIGWOOD TO PROVIDE HIS REMARKS ON
WHAT THE CHAPTERS AND THE STATE DID TO ASSIST (N MEETING THE NEEDS OF DISASTER VICTIMS. AFTER
HE CONCLUDES HIS REMARKS, WE WILL BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE


76

cripple wall damage. SBA’s cap of $1.5 million is not sufficient to repair large apart-
ment buildings. Loans approved can take months and loan proceeds often arrive up
to7 months later, SBA loans are based on a project's credit worthiness. Financially
marginal housing, which is most likely to be damaged, is less likely to qualify for
a loan. We are not suggesting that SBA should change criteria to fund sure-losers,
but we are pointing this problem out as avoiding providing needed assistance. SBA
did not release the names of people denied assistance, although the information was
needed by other agencies in order to fill gaps.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Perett follows:]


28

In the past, FEMA, every disaster, set up a processing center for
each disaster. There was nothing tied in by computer linkage to the
financial management of the agency in disaster dollars. That just
cannot happen. In the disaster field office now that will all be tied
in, where we will—where if you call me and say, James Lee, how
many dollars do we have today, I can tell you. If it had been last
year or the year before I could not have told you. I would have had
to just do a guess or an estimate.

This is important and we have got to have this in place and we
are moving to get that done now. We are spending $1.6 million for
the financial management in the agency.

Mr. McKEOow. I think one of the things that was remarkable was
how quickly the roads were repaired. I know you worked together
with the State on that. The Governor was involved and it moved
very quickly and bonuses were paid. There was some talk about,
well, we paid all this extra money for bonuses. My understanding
is that by doing that we actually saved money. Do you have any
comments on that?

Mr. Witt. Rodney Slater the Federal Highway Administrator
just did a fantastic job. He was out here very quickly. He sat down
with CalTran. They went through, they cut the red tape, they did
some contracting very quickly, that first night, to get the debris
cleaned out of the way so they could put them back and it was very
successful. I think there is opportunities for all of us to look at
what they did there and to work with States in the future to expe-
dite the building of some critical facilities, particularly highways
and bridges.

Mr. MCKEON. By moving quickly like that and saving money, I
would like to put in a plug for C SUN.

Mr. Wirt. Yes, absolutely.

Mr. McKeon. You will probably hear a little later today, but I
know they are negotiating. We have about $139 million to finish
up the job.

Mr. Wirt. Yes.

Mr. McKeon. If we could get that money quickly and in a lump
sum we could save about $60 million and I think that is very im-
portant and I hope we can encourage that to happen.

Also there is just one final question. What did you find in all of
this were principal impediments to getting everything back to-
gether in a timely fashion?

Mr. Wirt. Everything.

Mr. McKEOoN. All of the above. [Laughter.]

Mr, Wirt. I think probably it was more the bureaucratic system
that we have than anything and trying to cut through that bu-
reaucracy and trying to support what the State and local needs and
trying to make that happen. Hopefully, by creating this and estab-
lishing some policies and having that available for the State and
local communities and our people it will make a big difference.

The eligibility requirements and how it is approached and what
is eligible and not, a lot of people don’t understand that. You know,
as a local official myself, it is very difficult to respond to a disaster
in the way that you need to and spend those precious dollars that
you have in the State and local budget and not understand what


94

orass'se's6 $ | oosos'eze'ty 3 | oo'epizpe'sts $ | covvas'cbo'ga 3 | oovben‘ata'cs 3 | oo'ssa'tacitso's S704 pueso|
couserr'e sfooresis ——$ | ooere'eze’s —_$ | op s0e'bye'b s{oosas‘ocs $|oozvoosror $s |__teanddy reraueolocov'- 260]
oozsszve'z  $ | ooosz’6s) S$ | oo'zse"ezs S$ [oosys'ats') $[ooszb‘ere — $ | 00°000'000'S $ |" Auoumy Gusnoy[e0t6- 260)
oorsosist'» $s] - $ | o0'ese'ys '$ [00 L2y'09r st ooero'zggy $s syodity|ze0v6-L£0)
ooer ze $l oorezezo'r — $ | onvea'Ze Aas $ oorcor's0s’9 Ss lge0te-2e0
oosos'yis’a $s] $ | o0"0s"201 y . QO'Ses rz 2 $ _s |se0+6-2e0|
oogrze: $$ | 00 000'00r'es $ | on'zse'zee'2 | OO'Z0z'veL'ZL s legot6- eo}
oosezeov'es “$[ooosrze $ [oo'zoy'aee'z $ [ ov eog'zru'on $| walzeor6-ze0)
oozes‘orset $[oo0c'08) _$ | oozes'eur't —s $ ult90i6-2c0
- Slooze'ss — “s | o0'san $ lo8046-2¢0}
OOZLE'LvO'rL $ | CO'OOO'00S'S! $ | co's0z'oss"sz  $| OOzEE'sEO'RS | 00°0 $ \6L06- C0}
oozzsess sl ooear'or —'s | ooreze’soz___$ | oo'se0'990'r ooruoz os. soweniacors-eeo
[= $fooor'ecoz s|aro6s'vss soo grr'ess |” yweunsedog sia}z)
yege'ele't _ $ | 00'00e'z. _$|ooszs'o6u'02 $$ _3 |. Aajes 3 Suipnng|
deg} 3809] TuSd Poaodddy jo|  sysa peaoiddy jo| Surpued susai| 51809 18301 353) jweuuedag|
Buypung egiseeu| i YW] BUS 1305 SLvis|  iFUS 180d YWaS|SLVWILSS Vad! uewprdegl
— _ a ee 968) ‘Sz NAGASAON JO SY)
ABVAWNS TWAOYddY INVED ONY 1S09 SH¥NOHIUVa JOONHLUON|

Y INDREAGLY



9

participated, all the old-timers, regardless of party, regardless of
ideology, said this is the best person we have seen in that job. He
has certainly lived up to that reputation. On a bipartisan basis he
is a highly regarded professional who had a distinguished State ex-
perience in dealing with emergencies and has brought that under-
standing of State-Federal cooperation to Washington, DC. So we
are glad to have him with us.

Now the tradition of this committee is to swear in all witnesses
as to testimony and I will shortly do that and with the key wit-
nesses, such as the Director, the mayor, the director of the Califor-
nia Emergency Services National Guard, we will have somewhere
between 5 and 10 minutes of oral presentation from the heart,
looking us in the eye. And they have all brought very full state-
ments which will be automatic for each witness that we put in the
record immediately after introducing them.

So we are interested in the highlights, the summary of those
statements and then we will have a round of questions, limiting
each Congressional Member to 5 minutes. We won't stop with one
round, we will stop when everybody says I have had it in terms of
the questions I have available. So we will alternate between parties
with 5 minutes.

Now, Mr. Director, if you will stand we will swear you in.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. Horn. The clerk will note that the witness has affirmed.

We are delighted to have you summarize your statement.

STATEMENT OF JAMES LEE WITT, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Mr. Witt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the com-
mittee. It is an honor to be here with you today for this very impor-
tant hearing and I really appreciate the opportunity to be here and
to discuss the response to the Northridge earthquake.

I really want to thank Blenda Wilson for her hosting this com-
mittee hearing as well.

As we look back 2 years ago today and what happened and the
disruption and cost with freeways being knocked down and lives
being put on hold——

Mr. Horn. Mr. Director and the staff, we are going to need to
keep that microphone very close. We have this happen often.

Mr. Witt. OK, I'll try better.

Mr. Horn. Otherwise they can’t hear.

If you can’t hear in the back put your hand up and we will get
it closer.

Mr. WiTT. We had 57 people that lost their lives in this earth-
quake and we had thousands of people that were homeless. We had
schools, hospitals that had been disrupted and we had search and
rescue teams from not only California, but other areas that came
in. And we had people sleeping in the parks. I will never forget
when Dick and myself and some of the staff had walked through
the parks and talked to these people and little kids laying on their
blankets in those parks without any protection. And every time we
had an aftershock the people that could go back in would run back
out. It was just devastating.


TT

. CONSTANCE PERETT
MANAGER, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, Honorable Committee Members:

Thank you for giving me the privilege of providing testimony today on behalf of the
County of Los Angeles. My name is Constance Perett and | am the manager of the
County's Office of Emergency Management.

We are grateful to your Committee for scheduling this hearing. The Northridge
Earthquake was the most devastating natural disaster to ever strike our area and it will
be many years before County government and the communities we serve will have fully
recovered. We appreciate your continued interest and desire to apply the lessons we
have all learned to the disasters we can all expect in the future.

Itis my understanding that your primary objective today is to assess whether the federal
government's response was timely and effective. With that in mind, | will focus my
remarks on the response and very early recovery issues that fall within the realm of
response activities.

INITIAL RESPONSE

Let me first of all say that federal agencies deserve the highest praise for their immediate
and caring response to the disaster. We would like to particularly express our
appreciation to FEMA Director, James Lee Witt, for his leadership. FEMA responded in
record time. In fact, they moved so quickly that they actually began opening Disaster
Application Centers (DACs) within the first week. The County was so focused on the
immediate response that we could barely keep up with FEMA and had a difficult time
simultaneously coordinating with them on DAC-related issues.

We are also extremely grateful to HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros for his leadership and
personal commitment to the residents of Los Angeles County. We believe that FEMA,
HUD and the many other federal agencies that responded to the earthquake
demonstrated a high level of national commitment to our response and recovery efforts.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

HUD's traditional response to disasters has been through a supplemental allocation of
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME funds. The Los Angeles area
received $400 million in supplemental CDBG and $100 million in HOME funds following
the Northridge Earthquake. All CDBG funds must benefit low-and moderate income
Persons, aid in the prevention of slums and blight, or address other community
development needs that pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of
the community. HOME funds are used for rehabilitation of housing.

1


FEMA Reimbursement (con't)

We believe that the negative press that FEMA has received in the past is undeserved,
artioularly given the frequency of disasters throughout this country and enormous

burdens placed upon very limited staff. After the Northridge Earthquake, Mr. Witt and all
of the FEMA Officials made every effort to meet the needs of our earthquake victims as
quickly as possible. We are extremely grateful to all of them.

Coordination

The County Board of Supervisors recognized the need for a coordinated approach to
recovery following the Northridge Earthquake and created the County Office of Recovery
(COR). COR consisted of representatives from the County departments and agencies
‘experienced in facilities issues, finance and social recovery. These representatives were
assigned on a full-time basis to work in one centralized location on nothing but
earthquake recovery issues. COR operated during the first nine months following the
earthquake and was very successful in initiating and expediting some of the critically
needed early recovery operations and programs.

We firmly believe that greater coordination and cooperation is needed among ail levels
of government, community-based organizations and the private sector. Community-based
organizations and local, state and federal agencies all did a good job in responding to the
Northridge Earthquake. In the future, we will even do better.

Thank you again for providing me with this opportunity to share some of the County's
concerns.

‘congrstes].19


5

quakes—I was watching the World Series, like many people, in
Washington, DC, in my office and, of course, we could see what
happened then. In the Loma Prieta earthquake, I believe, and
based on the reports that I got from our colleague, Tom Campbell,
and many others, we were able to respond more effectively to the
Loma Prieta earthquake because of the things that we had learned
from the Whittier Narrows earthquake in 1987.

Likewise, I believe that the Loma Prieta quake helped lay the
groundwork, with the fine leadership of James Lee and Dick and
others, for the tragedy of the Northridge quake.

As was said by Julian, the response was not perfect, but it clear-
ly has been a marked improvement over the situation that I faced
in the area I represented in 1987. I hope that this hearing will join
in our effort to bring about legislation which will allow us to deal
on a nationwide basis with the earthquake problem and the overall
natural disaster effort, which our colleagues Bill Emerson and oth-
ers have been involved in back in Washington.

It seems to me that we do need to realize that the American peo-
ple have had a pattern, a pattern of whenever any kind of natural
disaster hits they look to one place, the Federal Government. The
Federal Government has been, in the eyes of many, the panacea to
the challenges of natural disasters. I believe that that must come
to an end.

Last year, for the first time ever, in providing assistance follow-
ing the Northridge quake we were able to see the U.S. Congress
provide assets to deal with the emergency appropriation. I am glad
that after the President had vetoed that initial bill that he finally
signed the bill to provide assistance out here for that.

think that as we look toward the future it is very apparent that
we have to find ways in which we can develop a private/public
partnership to wean the American people away from total reliance
on the Federal Government as its source in the response to these
disasters.

So I would like to again say it is a privilege to be here with my
pal, Buck, and I am very proud of Steve Horn’s superb work. He

as done an excellent job on this and he has been very diligent in
every issue that he has undertaken. I look forward to the testimony
of our friends and I guess I should apologize right now that I am
going to have to be at a lunch down in Los Angeles. So I will cut
my Statement off, after having spoken for 15 minutes, and move

ead.

Mr. Horn. I now yield to the gentleman from California, whose
jurisdiction the campus at Northridge is located and a good part of
the damage of the earthquake occurred, Buck McKeon.

Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is intimidating having to sit here next to Mr. Dreier and follow
him at the microphone. le has this golden tongue and he is able
to go on and on and always says great things and says them in a
great way. But it is a real honor to be here with him and our other
colleagues here.

I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity
of working with you since we went to Congress. In my opinion you
are one of the hardest working Members in Congress. We went on
a trip, I remember, in the Public Works Committee early on, and


1

DISASTER AND FOR WORKERS WHO WERE REPAIRING THE INFRASTRUCTURE OR RESTORING UTILITIES. ONE
HUNDRED AND TWENTY-EIGHT EMERGENCY RESPONSE VEHICLES WERE USED TO DISTRIBUTE THESE
MEALS. WE ALSO HAD 46 FIXED SITES SUPPORTING THE OVERALL FEEDING EFFORT. DURING THIS SAME
PERIOD OUR PHYSICAL HEALTH SERVICES STAFF TREATED APPROXIMATELY 1,100 PERSONNEL FOR INJURIES,
AND OUR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES STAFF PROVIDED COUNSEL TO ABOUT 40,000 CLIENTS. DURING THE
‘COURSE OF OUR RELIEF EFFORTS, WE RECEIVED AND SUCCESSFULLY CLOSED MORE THAN 16,000 INQUIRIES.
ABOUT PEOPLE AFFECTED BY THE DISASTER, MORE THAN 15,000 PAID AND VOLUNTEER STAFF RESPONDED
‘TO THE DISASTER.

FOLLOWING THE ASSISTANCE PROVIDED DURING THE INITIAL RESPONSE, THE RED CROSS
‘CONCENTRATES ITS EFFORTS ON THE NEXT PHASE OF SUPPORT WHICH IS REFERRED TO AS FAMILY
ASSISTANCE. DURING THIS PERIOD, WE OPEN SERVICE CENTERS WHERE THOSE AFFECTED BY THE DISASTER
MEET WITH TRAINED, EXPERIENCED CASE WORKERS FOR ASSISTANCE FOR DISASTER-CAUSED BASIC NEEDS.

APPROXIMATELY ONE WEEK AFTER THE NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE, WE OPENED 18 SERVICE CENTERS,
GEOGRAPHICALLY DISPERSED, TO BETTER SERVE THOSE AFFECTED BY THE DISASTER. APPROXIMATELY
34,000 CASES WERE OPENED TO MEET THE DISASTER-CAUSED NEEDS OF INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES.
CLIENTS WERE PROVIDED DISBURSING ORDERS FOR FOOD, CLOTHING, TEMPORARY HOUSING, HOUSEHOLD
ITEMS, TOOLS FOR WORK, LIMITED HOME REPAIRS, MEDICAL BILLS AND OTHER NECESSITIES SUCH AS
PHARMACEUTICAL PRESCRIPTIONS, DENTURES, GLASSES AND HEARING AIDS. RED CROSS CASE WORKERS
ALSO ARE TRAINED TO SERVE AS COUNSELLORS AND TO BECOME ADVOCATES FOR COORDINATING OTHER,
ASSISTANCE, WHEN NECESSARY.

FOLLOWING OUR INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY ASSISTANCE, OUR RELIEF EFFORT [5 REFERRED TO AS
ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE. WHEN THOSE AFFECTED BY THE DISASTER HAVE NEEDS THAT CANNOT BE
PROVIDED BY THE ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, STATE OR LOCAL AGENCIES,
‘THEN THE RED CROSS SERVES AS A KIND OF SAFETY NET. WE PROVIDE ASSISTANCE, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH
MEDICAL BILLS, FUNERALS, AND BUILDING AND REPAIR OF PRIVATE RESIDENCES -- AND WE CONTINUE TO
PROVIDE ADVICE AND COUNSEL AS TO WHERE OTHER FORMS OF HELP MAY BE AVAILABLE.

BUT WE ALL KNOW VERY WELL THAT DISASTERS ARE EXPENSIVE. . . AND THE NORTHRIDGE
EARTHQUAKE WAS NOT EXCEPTION. IN FACT THE COSTS TO THE RED CROSS FOR ASSISTANCE IN RESPONSE
TO THIS DISASTER WAS THE THIRD MOST EXPENSIVE IN OUR HISTORY. DURING THE RESPONSE TO THE
NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE, WE SPENT MORE THAN 38 MILLION DOLLARS IN PROVIDING SUPPORT TO THOSE.
AFFECTED BY THE EARTHQUAKE. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE CASES IN WHICH WE PROVIDED SERVICES THAT
DID NOT INCLUDE MONETARY ASSISTANCE, NEITHER DOES IT (NCLUDE ANY VALUE FOR THE TIME
DONATED BY THE SEVERAL THOUSANDS OF VOLUNTEERS.

‘THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE EFFORT, WE DEALT WITH SOME VERY COMPLEX REQUIREMENTS AND
UNIQUE NEEDS OF THOSE AFFECTED BY THE DISASTER. FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAD EXCESS SHELTER SPACE
AVAILABLE, BUT MANY CLIENTS WOULD NOT ENTER THE DESIGNATED SHELTERS DUE TO FEAR OF DAMAGE
FROM AFTERSHOCKS. THERE ALSO WERE PERIODS OF UNSEASONAL STORMS WITH HEAVY RAINS;
CONSEQUENTLY, TENTS WERE ERECTED IN PROXIMITY OF THE FLXED SHELTERS, AND WE WERE ABLE TO
GET THE FRIGHTENED PEOPLE INTO A DRY, WARM ENVIRONMENT. TO ASSIST IN THIS EFFORT, WE
ESTABLISHED REASSURANCE TEAMS COMPRISED OF AMERICAN RED CROSS MENTAL HEALTH WORKERS,
CLERGY, AND BUILDING INSPECTORS TO CONVINCE PEOPLE LIVING IN PARKS OR IN AUTOMOBILES THAT
‘THEIR HOMES WERE SAFE TO REENTER. THESE PROVED TO BE VERY SUCCESSFUL ACTIVITIES,

ONE OF THE STRENGTHS OF THE AMERICAN RED CROSS IS THAT WE REMAIN IN THE AREA TO ASSIST.
‘THOSE AFFECTED BY THE DISASTER. LONG AFTER MANY OTHER AGENCIES HAVE DEPARTED. THIS WAS THE
CASE AFTER THE NORTHRIDGE DISASTER. WITH THE HELP OF SEVERAL OTHER CHARITABLE
ORGANIZATIONS, WE FORMED RESOURCE COORDINATION CENTERS TO FIND GOODS AND SERVICES FOR
‘THOSE WITH UNRESOLVED PROBLEMS. THROUGH THIS PROCESS WE WERE ABLE TO FIND SEVERAL MILLION
DOLLARS WORTH OF ASSISTANCE FOR THOSE WHO HAD UNMET NEEDS. OUR LOCAL RED CROSS CHAPTERS,
COORDINATED THIS EFFORT.


81

Elderly and Disabled Populations (con't.)

DACs and other public service locations should be fully accessible to the disabled.
Accessibility services should include deaf interpreters, wheel chair access, and assistance
in moving disabled and feeble persons forward in long. lines. FEMA should work with
local disabled and elderly advocate groups in establishing accessible programs.

FEMA did @ good job of accommodating the needs of the disabled in the San Femando
Valley DACs, which should serve as a model for other areas in future disasters.

‘Small Business Administration

The Small Business Administration (SBA) provides low-interest loans for rebuilding
damaged residential properties. SBA has approved almost 90,000 loans for $2.7 billion
in repairs related to the Northridge Earthquake.

However, there are some problems with the SBA program:

* Narrowly defined loan criteria can exclude even qualified borrowers. For example,
a home that has twisted may not qualify if it has no cripple-wall damage.

* ‘BA's cap of $1.5 million is not sufficient to repair large apartment buildings.

* ‘Loan approvals can take months, and loan proceeds often arrive up to seven
months later.

* SBA loans are based on a project's credit worthiness. Financially marginal
housing, which is most likely to be damaged, is less likely to qualify for a loan. We
are not suggesting that SBA should change criteria to fund sure-losers, but we are
pointing this problem out as a void in providing needed assistance.

* SBA did not release the names of people denied assistance, although the
information was needed by other agencies in order to fill gaps.

EARLY RECOVERY
FEMA Reimbursement

paphiotnood of ba. basen with at least half of that amount concentrated on hospitals
and other medical facilities.


107

we can take lessons from those to preclude future suffering that
took place in this specific one.

I will provide my full statement, but what I will do this morning
is to highlight some of the key points.

First of all, we are very proud of the fact that the American Red
Cross’s response to the Northridge earthquake and the role it
played. Joining me this morning is Mr. Jim Haigwood, as you men-
tioned, the CEO of the Los Angeles area. The way the structure of
the American Red Cross is set up, the local chapters play a very
vital role, and Mr. Haigwood has a major chapter in our organiza-
tion and also serves as a lead chapter for disaster in the State of
California and coordinates all activities for the Red Cross through-
out the State. He will report on some of the actions of the chapters
involved in the response.

Now the American Red Cross is a non-profit organization and
our funds for our program come from individual donations and
from corporate America.

We are very proud of the fact that 92 cents of every $1 that
comes in to the Red Cross goes to assist victims. The reason that
we are able to do this, that when we respond to disasters, 85 per-
cent of those responders are volunteers and so we are very proud
of that fact.

During the Northridge earthquake we had over 14,000 volun-
teers that responded to the earthquake here.

The American Red Cross is also a signatory to the Federal Re-
sponse Plan which FEMA produces. Under that mission, we are
given responsibilities for emergency support function six, which is
mass care. It’s food, it’s shelter, it’s distribution of bulk goods. It
can be clothing. It can be disaster welfare inquiries where families
from throughout the country call to see if their families are safe
and secure.

We also have responsibilities under the Federal Response Plan
for coordinating the activities of other charitable organizations. We
do this through a group called Voluntary Organizations Active in
Disaster—VOAD is what we refer to in the State. We do think that
worked extremely well during the Northridge earthquake.

Now immediately following the earthquake within just a matter
of minutes the shelters were opened by the local chapters, but over
the next few days the American Red Cross opened 47 shelters and
we had over 22,000 people, different people, that stayed in our
shelters during those times—some for up to as much as 6 weeks,
so we had several hundred thousand shelter nights in those 47
shelters.

We provided over 1.7 million meals to not only the victims but
to many workers, State and Federal workers, who were here restor-
ing infrastructure, getting utilities turned back on. That is one of
the missions that we have assumed also.

We deployed 128 emergency response vehicles to do mobile feed-
ing operations because victims often couldn’t get to a fixed feeding
site, so we use this to try to take the food products to the victims—
if they can’t leave their house, if they are fearful that something
will happen to their belongings, if they can’t secure it—then we can
take it to them.


92

Resource Trends

Funding Reductions Dollar figures are not indexed for inflation

% Lost] 1994 1995, 21996

Training 17.8% $4,972,800} $3,763,600} $1,100,000
Funds

Equipment Repair 19.0% $4,304,000 { $5,445,700] $4,410,000
arts

Personnel Reductions

oie

nes 1995

% Lost]

"1994 |.

‘Air National Guard
Personnel Strength ] 9.7% 5,734 5,440
‘Army National Guard
Full Time Technician | 17.9% 1,340 1,150
Personnel

Aircraft Reductions

Type Aircra! s : 21995
‘Medium Lift Helicopters 50% 16 8
€-130 Aircraft 20% 20 16



60

The Northridge Housings Mitigation Grant Program, that results
from the Stafford Act, will include approximately $650 in Federal
funds. Together with task forces representing schools, hospitals
and local governments, we have defined a set of priorities for the
use of these funds to accelerate mitigation efforts in the Northridge
disaster counties.

The first $106 million from the Northridge fund is being commit-
ted to schools to replace lighting fixtures and false ceilings. Addi-
tional grants will be made to hospitals, local governments and
State agencies to accomplish other prioritized measures.

California’s local and State emergency management systems per-
formed effectively at the time of the Northridge earthquake. Never-
theless, the seismic risk in this State is such that we need to con-
tinue to aggressively pursue preparedness and risk reduction ini-
tiatives.

The Federal Government has provided invaluable timely support
to local and State efforts and the flexibility and the problem-solving
approach of the current FEMA leadership represents a dramatic
and important step forward over where we were in 1989.

We stand at a critical juncture in the recovery effort and I be-
lieve we can overcome the hurdles and resolve our problems. James
Lee Witt and his staff have earned our thanks, our respect and our
gratitude for the accomplishments to date.

Again, on behalf of Governor Wilson and all Californians, my
thanks to Congress for their concern, commitment and support over
the last 2 years. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Andrews follows:]


56

gers. What I am looking for is things that we can avoid next time.
So if you have anything like that, if you want to add with written
testimony that would be no problem.

Mr. RIoRDAN. I think it would be better to do it, but let me just
say, I think that—my guess is, we won’t have any suggestions that
will help the next time, maybe we will ask you for some help right
now in some of the negotiations we are having with FEMA. I think
that overall they did a very, very good job. I think they are very
much to be complimented.

Mr. McKEOow. Very good. Again, thank you.

And I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Horn. Are there any more questions on this side?

[No response.]

Mr. Horn. Any more questions on this side?

INo response.]

Mr. Horn. If not, we thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, and ap-
preciate you coming over here on a busy day. Every day for the
mayor of the second largest city is a busy day.

Mr. RiorDAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Horn. Thanks for coming.

We do have the open mic session for those that are new to the
audience that will come up after the last panel and we will wel-
come your comments for a minute or so or the filing of a statement.
If they concern the State or the Federal Government or the city,
we will ask those officials to put a response in the record where
your question has been put and we obviously will appreciate your
reactions to that particular situation.

The third panel, three individuals, Dr. Richard Andrews, director
of the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services; and Ms. Constance
Perett, the manager of Emergency Services for the county of Los
Angeles; and Major General Robert J. Brandt, the Assistant Adju-
tant General and Commander of the California Army National

uard.

We have a tradition on this committee that we do swear wit-
nesses. So if all three of you will stand and raise your right hand.

(Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. Horn. The clerk will note that all three witnesses have af-
firmed and we will begin with our first witness, Dr. Richard An-
drews, the director of the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services.

The Governor very much wished to be here. Unfortunately, he
was tied up in northern California by a lot of precommitments and
we appreciate the emergency efforts the Governor made on this sit-
uation, working with the director and the mayor and others in-
volved and I hope Dr. Andrews will have a few examples of that
because I think that is worth noting in other States.

I think it surprised practically every Californian that we could
break some of these bureaucratic rules in an emergency and get
things done. So I congratulate you and the Governor on getting
those things done and we look forward to your testimony.


18

Another multi-year project which we are funding as a result of the earthquake is on the
performance of steel moment resisting frame construction. This construction method failed
to perform in Northridge as expected, and thus triggered a major review. The first phase of
the project was to develop interim guidelines to provide guidance for the repair and
retrofitting of damaged buildings. Following their development, to promote wider
awareness, we conducted a series of public seminars on the interim guidelines, including one
here in Los Angeles on September 19, 1995. The second phase of this project, anticipated to
take as long as three years, is the development of design criteria for steel moment resisting
frame construction to address the rehabilitation of existing buildings and the design of new
construction. This resource document could be incorporated into model building codes that
guide design and construction throughout the country and will have significant impact on the
efforts of jurisdictions not only in California, but in the central and eastern United States in
mitigating seismic risk

Partnership is a cornerstone of disaster response. The partnership that was formed between
the 27 federal agencies and the Red Cross responding to this disaster enabled us to avoid a
duplication of efforts and expedite disaster relief, Our partnership with the Governor's
Office of Emergency Services has been invaluable in getting disaster relief on the streets and
into the hands of individual victims, local governments and others who are recovering from
this catastrophe. I want to thank the state of California, and in particular Dr. Richard
Andrews and his staff, who have worked with us in meeting Southern California's rebuilding
needs. And our partnership with local officials, community leaders and community based
organizations, especially in the early days of the response, allowed us to forge a team which
effectively molded the disaster response to fit the nature and needs of this community

The saying that “hindsight is 20/20” is especially true for those who manage disaster
operations for a living. With an event as large as the Northridge earthquake, there are bound
to be recovery efforts that did not meet expectations, or, had unintended consequences for
the agency and for disaster assistance applicants.

Under the public assistance program, the Architectural and Engineering (A&E) review
process initially used is a case in point. As originally agreed to with the State, the state and
Jocal applicants for public assistance were charged with documenting structural damages to
facilities caused by the disaster. This was done for three primary reasons: (1) to be able to
provide funding eligibility decisions to State and local applicants while the project design was
still in the concept stage, thus reducing the amount of work necessary to obtain a FEMA.
decision and obtain assistance, (2) to reduce the time that inspections would require so
FEMA could reach as many applicants as possible in as little time as possible; and (3) to
identify and resolve issues at the beginning of the process, so that they would not impede
progress later, However, damage estimates submitted (0 FEMA revealed that applicant
consultants were not familiar with FEMA eligibility criteria, Ultimately, we did have to
conduct our own A&E inspections to clarify and verify applicants’ requests for assistance
which led to some discrepancies in what applicants requested and what the agency had the
authority to pay for


aT

5. With regard to the SBA, loan guidelines should be revised specifically for disasters.
‘Currently, SBA applies the same lending criteria after a disaster as at other times. Consequently,
individuals and businesses in Los Angeles experienced a high “tum down rate” after the
Northridge Earthquake. More relaxed underwriting rules and longer repayment terms would help
disaster victims.

6. Finally, let me reiterate my overall assessment:

‘The strong recovery of Los Angeles would not have been possible without the assistance of the
federal government, which acted in a quick and thorough manner to aid our city following the
Northridge Earthquake. The City of Los Angeles is grateful for this assistance, and we hope our
experience will be helpful in improving federal relief for future disasters, wherever they may
‘occur. As we move further from the crisis and urgency of the Northridge earthquake, we must be
careful to not let the bureaucratic nature of government stifle progress and recovery. This is a
challenge we must face at all levels of government. J thank you for letting me appear in front of
this committee to share these thoughts.


51

Tn many of the unfunded mandates that you grapple with every
day, you dexterously handle, as any large city mayor does, my own
does certainly, Mayor Daley, but in an emergency situation they
are particularly onerous and often they come in the form of holy
cows from the left and from the right, whether it be Made in Amer-
ica rules or ADA, whether it is the Clean Air Act, trying to move
debris or Davis-Bacon getting in the way of reconstruction. Could
you expound on that for a few minutes?

Mr. RIORDAN. I would love to for about 2 hours.

Mr. FLANAGAN. I have only 5 minutes so I can give you that.

Mr. RIORDAN. Rich Daley and I were in Ireland together when
the President was there and we cornered some of your Demo-
crats—

Mr. FLANAGAN. Mayor Daley was in Ireland?

Mr. RIORDAN. We cornered some of your Democratic colleagues
and Mayor Daley made a statement which shocked them, actually,
he said, do me a favor, in exchange for not sending us any money
at all, get rid of all mandates and we will be way ahead. And they
listened.

I mean, it was because in L.A. alone, if we were to follow by the
letter of the regulations and the mandates, we would have to spend
about $6 billion over the next 5 years. Something that I have used
in the anecdote a lot of times, and it is true, is, it is illegal to take
a glass of water out of the tap in your home and walk over the L.A.
River and pour it into the L.A. River. The fish are supposed to get
cleaner water than the human beings.

There is a lot of silliness, I think, on the ADA which is good in
a lot of ways, but I think, again, this is going to cost us well over
$1 billion to totally comply with and I think that that is something
that can be determined better at the local level.

Mr. FLANAGAN. Your Honor, apart from the general ranting on
these issues and the unfunded mandates, which Mayor Daley and
I have talked about at great length, and I think every Member of
Congress has talked about with his local mayors about, whether
big or small, I was more interested in how an otherwise good law,
ADA or Clean Air Act or the Made in America laws or other things,
have a particularly onerous impact in a disaster context?

Mr. RIORDAN. Well, I think the most obvious is, obviously, that
they eat into our budget so much that it is virtually impossible to
put anything aside for a rainy day. We are fighting now to over-
come a projected deficit of over $200 million in our next fiscal year.
We will get there, but it is excruciating.

Mr. FLANAGAN. Thank you, Your Honor.

I have no further questions.

Mr. Horn. Mr. Davis.

Mr. Davis. Thank you.

I wonder if I could pick up where Mr. Flanagan left off. I was
along with Ms. Burke, a county supervisor from here, chairman of
the Unfunded Mandates Task Force, with the National Association
of Counties, before I came to Congress and, along with Chairman
Clinger of this committee, one of the sponsors for the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act which passed this year. Unfortunately, that
act is not retrospective, it is prospective.


80

FEMA’S Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Grants (con’t.)

* FEMA regulations permit the nine-month grant to include provision of services for
@ consecutive nine-month period. Circumstances could dictate a shorter time
period, or a cessation of a period of time, such as for a school vacation, with
resumption of activities later. These regulations should be more flexibie.

* Crisis counseling regulations should permit treatment (6.9. medication) services
that are culturally appropriate, and expanded emergency services during the ISG
period.

Elderly and Disabled Populations

The Los Angeles County Area on Aging estimates that over 50,000 Los Angeles County
‘senior households, including 5,600 mobile homes, were damaged or destroyed by the
quake. Please note: These figures do not include senior citizens within the City of Los
Angeles. Within hours of the quake, the Los Angeles County Area Agency on Aging took
vigorous steps to reach out into the communities to locate and provide immediate crisis
intervention services to those in need. Their primary target group consisted of isolated,
frail elderly who might otherwise fall through the cracks.

The vast majority of calls they received were about how to obtain FEMA services through
its network of DACs (DACs). Seniors needed rent vouchers, loans and other assistance
to repair damaged homes or find other housing.

While the overall response to the Northridge Earthquake has been successful in many
ways, there is a need for greater acceleration in receiving federal disaster
recovery /response funds. To maximize the effectiveness of such funds, there needs to
be an established “presumption of need” so that when disasters of pre-identified
magnitude occur, emergency funds will become available immediately without the need
for an elaborate grant proposal and a lengthy negotiation process in the Congress.

Although some victims were able to apply by telephone, they were not able to obtain all
of the other services typically housed in DACs. FEMA and other governmental programs:
need to be made available on a mobile basis, perhaps by means of a mobile van or
specially designated staff who can respond to homebound/bed-bound victims for whom
traveling to a DAC is an overwhelming task. It would also be useful if applications could
be made available through agencies such as Senior Multipurpose Centers and
Independent Living Centers.


142

Mr. Horn [presiding]. Who’s next? Anybody? We thank each of
you. We are going to now proceed with the questioning. I had read
the testimony in advance. I found it immensely helpful and I ap-
preciate all of you coming here to share those ideas with us.

m will first yield 5 minutes to Mr. Flanagan, the gentleman from
inois.

Mr. FLANAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Happy to see you
back.

Ms. Jones, does your organization receive any of the Federal
moneys involved in disaster relief at all, in any way, shape, or
form?

Ms. JONES. No, not at all.

Mr. FLANAGAN. That’s terrific. I want to commend you on the
laundry list of fabulous services you have provided, but being from
Chicago I would be remiss if I didn’t ask you about one of them.

Ms. Jones. Certainly.

Mr. FLANAGAN. On page 4, third one down, who are the “tree
people of Beverly Hills”—I just want to know.

Ms. JONES. Tree People is an organization that provides environ-
mental—

Mr. FLANAGAN. Sounds like a bad “B-movie,” like from the
1950's.

Ms. JONES. Well, it sort of does, but they are a very much valued
organization. They provide environmental education in urban set-
tings around the city for both children and adults. They are respon-
sible for assisting in the sort of greening—particularly of low in-
come neighborhoods and the preservation of natural resources in
some of our urban park lands.

Mr. FLANAGAN. Tremendous. Well, I will not ask a question but
offer gratuitously that the work that you do collectively in helping
out in any disaster is indispensable.

It is the model upon which we should work for future disaster
relief efforts, as opposed to relying upon you as an augmentation.

The public-private partnership that must develop is developing.
The first line of defense in the public portion should be at the local
level, but with heavy emphasis on the private portion.

The infinite capacity of Americans to give in time of emergency
and filter through your various agencies and hands quite often
should be put in a position of more than being just helpful. It
should be relied upon. We should put you more in a position of au-
thority in these matters rather than in an augmentation pose.

I commend you all. I thank you all and I thank you for your tes-
timony today. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Horn. Mr. Jones, Mr. Haigwood, perhaps you could help me
with the overhead cost problem.

Tam sure you have covered some of this. That seems to be a bone
of contention with the university and with others in relation to
FEMA is the degree to which overhead would be covered in some
of these areas.

What has been the experience of the Red Cross in other disasters
across the country as to the amount of overhead, administrative
costs that were covered?


135

1994 Earthquake Response Funding

Agency:

Grant:

Agency:

Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:

Grant:

Agency:

Grant:

Subtotal - Special Projects (14 grants) . . .

Total - Earthquake Response Grants (100 grants)

Operation USA
$25,000 to revitalize free and community clinics in Souther California.

Operation USA/National Health Foundation, Los Angeles
$35,000 to support the development of a "Hazard Mitigation Plan” (HMP) to
enable improved coordination and preparation for medical services during disaster
situations. The plan will enable local groups to compete for a portion of $700,000
available from FEMA for competitive hazard mitigation grantmaking in Los
Angeles, Orange, and Ventura Counties. Relevant partners for the plan include
community clinics, school-based health programs, hospitals, parish nursing
programs, and other related programs. Funding covers the six month planning and
writing period (including costs for consultants/staff to facilitate the process,
provide disaster expertise, and write the plan).

Public Counsel, Los Angeles

$40,000 for the salary of an attomey 10 coordinate post-quake disaster assistance
to nonprofits, including training and intervention around FEMA, SBA, and other
reimbursement programs. (Project duration will be 12-18 months.)

Southern California Association for Philanthropy
$5,000 toward costs of the strategic assessment commissioned following the
January 17, 1994, Northridge earthquake.

Valley Economic Development Center, Van Nuys
$35,000 for six-month salaries of a Joan packaging position and an administrative
assistant position to assist small businesses in the Reseda area damaged or
destroyed by the earthquake.

$338,600



13

those hospitals, it is just essential that they be operational. So this
I hope will make a difference in helping them to build back better.

Homeowners mitigation and housing programs can make a dif-
ference. We have had thousands of people to be part of that. Have
we had some problems in that? Yes, sir. The bolting that you men-
tioned earlier, yes there were some problems there. We worked
through thousands of those and based on the thousands that we
have helped, it is a minor problem, considering how many we have
helped and with the people that are coming back with appeal.

In our guidelines for still movement frame buildings, we are re-
viewing those. We are looking at those, because the still movement
frame buildings did not do what they were supposed to do under
this type of an earthquake. So, hopefully, working together with
the State in engineering we can come back with recommendations
of how to improve that.

Closing remarks: there have been those who have questioned the
Government’s commitment to long-term recovery in California. On
behalf of myself and the administration, I can assure you that we
will be here as long as it takes to help support the State and local
effort in that recovery. It is important that we do whatever we can
to get these communities back in full operation, because it impacts
the whole Nation, not just California.

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

{The prepared statement of Mr. Witt follows:]


137

Summary

1994 Earthquake Response Funding

Grants for Repairs, Equipment Replacement, & Relocation (43 grants) ... $ 372,115

Grants for Services Affected by the Earthquake (44 grants) .......-.... $ 580,085

Grants for Special Projects (14 grants) ......+. +++ seeeeee seeeseees $338,600
Total - Earthquake Response Grants (101 grants) ........ seeeeresees $ 1,290,800
Earthquake Response Loans (11 loans) .....-.-0seseeeeeeees sees $448,000

Grand Total - Earthquake Response Grants & Loans .....-- 2. +++ +++ $1,738,800,


55

Mr. Horn. On the question Mr. Torres raised about the cost to
the city of Los Angeles, are there any figures available, that we
might put in the record at this point, as to what the expenditures
were by the city of Los Angeles beyond normal governmental oper-
ations?

Mr. RIORDAN. I will get you that. I don’t have it.

Mr. Horn. Great. Let’s just file it in the record at this point.

Without objection, so ordered.

I yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. McKeon.

[The information referred to follows:]

The City incurred total expenses of $1,054,000,000 for the earthquake and
$74,645,462 for the civil disturbance. A more detailed breakdown of these costs by
city department can be provided if necessary. These figures were provided by the
City Administrative Officer (CAO), who serves as the chief financial advisor to the
Mayor and City Counsel.

Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor. I also had the opportunity of being
mayor, but of a much smaller city, Santa Clarita, and I also served
for a while on the school board. And I had a lot of complaints about
mandates that came down from above, both the Federal Govern-
ment and Sacramento. I was really happy when we were able to
pass that law this year that we would have no more Federal man-
dates without the funds to carry them out. I wish we could go back
and get rid of some of the other ones.

Mr. RiorDAN. I do, too.

Mr. McKEON. Maybe that is something we should look at. Maybe
it is something that we can look at on an individual basis, if you
can give us some specific things that we can target, we would be
happy to do that.

T want to commend you for the leadership that you also provided
through this. I love the idea that you seek forgiveness rather than
permission, because there was a time that if you wanted to wait
for permission nothing would have ever happened.

I happened to be out of town, in Denver, when the quake hit. I
didn’t get back until the early afternoon. I remember driving up
and seeing all of the fire engines that were already in place, the
plans had been made already by the fire department, the police de-
partment, the public safety department. The work that they had
done was tremendous. I think that what you do, working with
other cities, where people come together and help each other dur-
ing these times is tremendous.

In your opinion, have there been disputes between the city and
the State and/or FEMA or other Federal agencies, significantly,
that affected the recovery and what types of disputes were typical,
and what steps, if any, have been taken to resolve these disputes?

Mr. RIORDAN. To give you a lot of detail on that I would have
to get somebody else in my administration, but obviously, when you
are the recipient of the money you are trying to get as much as you
can so you can get 100 percent financing. So we have had a variety
of, I wouldn’t even call them disputes, I would call them negotia-
tions.

Mr. McKEOon. Disputes may be the wrong word because that
sounds confrontational. I think we have tried to work harmoniously
through all of this. So I am not looking for something to point fin-


2

ices in the State; Constance Perett, the manager of the Emergency
Services for the county of Los Angeles; and Major General Robert
Brandt, the Assistant Adjutant General, California National
Guard.

We also have with us today representatives of private relief orga-
nizations which had a key role in the aftermath of the Northridge
Earthquake. Representing the National Headquarters of the Amer-
ican Red Cross is the vice president for Disaster Services, Donald
Jones. Along with us are James Haigwood, the Chief Executive Of-
fice, Los Angeles Chapter of the Red Cross; Terri Jones, director of
special projects, California Community Foundation; and John
Suggs, the director of public policy and government affairs, United
Way of Greater Los Angeles area. Then we will be hearing from Dr.
Blenda Wilson, our host as president of California State University,
Northridge, and I may say, as we all know, this campus was great-
ly damaged by the earthquake.

We will also have on the last panel Dr. Robert Maxson, the presi-
dent of California State University, Long Beach; and Dr. Richard
Williams, the dean of the College of Engineering at the University,
whose testimony will guide us in the direction of what mitigation
efforts can be made in advance of tragedies, be they earthquakes,
hurricanes, floods, all of the things FEMA and this State have gone
through with the exception of hurricanes in the case to California,
and their testimony will assist us in learning more about mitiga-
tion efforts which can be used to lessen the impact of similar earth-
quakes or other disasters in the future.

We thank all of them for coming out here on Friday and joining
us, and we look forward to their testimony. It is an indication of
the importance of this subject matter to the Members of the House
of Representatives by the number of Members we have visiting
with the subcommittee today.

To my immediate left is the vice chairman of the subcommittee,
Representative Michael Flanagan of Illinois, and he will be joined
soon by another member of the subcommittee, Tom Davis of Vir-
ginia, who was delayed in a fog in Chicago and is on his way.

With us today are a number of key representatives from the Los
Angeles Region, and we will be hearing from them shortly. Rep-
resentative Julian Dixon is on my immediate right, a long-time
member, key member, of Appropriations, was very active in secur-
ing the funds and, as I mentioned to Julian this morning, he was
certainly in every meeting I was in and played a major role in the
congressional response to this and many other disasters.

We also have with us a key member of the majority, David
Dreier, one of the principal leaders of the House as a member of
the Committee on Rules.

We will have with us Marty Martinez, who will be here, and we
have with us now Howard “Buck” McKeon, in whose district we
are, and president of the freshman class that I came in with, and
a very respected Member of the House.

With us later today will be Representative Esteban Torres and
Representative Maxine Waters.

I would now like to turn to the ranking minority member here,
Congressman Dixon, for any opening statement he might wish to
make.


174

proposed eliminating the eligibility of costs for repairing or restor-
ing the facilities of private, non-profit organizations that generate
income, such as universities, as one option for reducing Federal
public assistance costs. What is your response to that option?

I mean, could the repair of damage caused by the Northridge
earthquake be paid for out of the university’s existing funds or
raised tuitions?

Ms. WILSON. No, sir. Not at all.

Mr. Davis. I thought you might like this question, but I put some
distance between yourself and the IG report.

Ms. WILSON. I would say two things, as a State agency, State-
supported university, the assumption that has been made within
the CSU is that, as with the State, we are self-insured, meaning
that there would be funds available in the State coffers for any
kind of disaster that would befall a Cal State University campus.
In these economic times, that was obviously not true. Probably, for
a disaster of this magnitude, assuming the entirety of the
Northridge area magnitude, it wouldn’t be true in any case.

It is interesting because I have heard Federal officials worry that
we have become a country that is always depending on the Federal
Government for these kinds of things. But unless we have broad-
based insurance-type programs, whether it is for a private univer-
sity or for a public university system like Cal State, we don’t have
the means to move rapidly enough, because there is not funding
available, just sitting there, and we don’t have the means to pro-
vide funding to cover this large a cost, anywhere in the country.
So, no.

Mr. Davis. I thought that is what you might say.

Mr. Horn. That is an example of Mile’s law, where you stand de-
pends on where you sit. You are now sitting on this side and, as
a mayor, you would have said the same thing, right?

Ms. WILSON. Yes.

Thank you.

Mr. Horn. Well, we have appreciated your testimony. Are there
any other points you would like to make before we go to the next
event, which is public response?

Any thoughts any of you have from the testimony anybody else
made this morning?

Dean Williams.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I would just say, with regard to these projects,
retrofit projects, a lot of money is being spent and I am talking not
replacing panels in a ceiling, but major retrofit projects. When the
public taxpayers spend a lot of money, I do urge we would be will-
ing to spend a little bit more to learn from that project, so we can
do it next time. That is what my remarks were directed toward.
That is, if we are going to do this, let’s do it right, let’s instrument
it and let’s learn from it so we can do it better next time.

Mr. Horn. I think that you made some excellent suggestions and
I would hope, either on a stand-alone basis or as part of the pro-
posed insurance legislation that is before the Congress and has
over 200 sponsors, that something can be worked out where we
don’t simply think about how we pay money after the disaster, but
how we minimize that disaster, whether it be fire, flood, hurricane
or earthquake, in advance. So that we will be able to have remedi-


163

+ Il-conceived regulations that prevent or discourage the use of damage
preventionreduction technologies

+ Lack of incentives for imptementing damage prevention/ reduction technologies

The overall objective of CPAND is to achieve a large reduction in the damage caused by major natural
disasters by implementing cost-effective technologies that will lead to damage reduction. Life-cycle cost-
effectiveness analyses will be performed, and suitable cost-effective technologies will be identified and
disseminated. We will literally be spending “pennies to save dollars.” CPAND will provide leadership
and technical support for implementation of these technologies on a local, state and national level.
CPAND will be under the direction of FEMA and will work closely with governmental agencies and
insurance carriers to develop and implement policies that will provide the necessary incentives and
technical support to businesses, industries, contractors and homeowners to implement proven, cost-
effective damage prevention/reduction technologies. CPAND will also work closely with existing private
sector organizations and federal, state and local government agencies to overcome barriers to the
deployment of damage prevention’reduction technologies, and will ensure the rapid deployment of cost-
effective technologies to reduce the damage caused by natural disasters. CPAND will thereby help to
save lives and substantially reduce the cost of natural disasters to federal, state and local governments, to
insurance companies and to the affected individuals.

CPAND will operate outreach centers that will suppor the rapid deployment of both established and new
damage prevention/reduction technologies. Each of these Centers will focus on the rapid deployment of
both established and new technologies throughout their respective regions. but with particular emphasis
con those geographic regions most susceptible to natural disasters. Through modem telecommunications
and networking, CPAND will function as a single organization.

‘The mission and objective of CPAND will be attained by a combination of the following approaches:

+ Prioritize the demand-driven needs for process and technology change

+ Identification of currently available technologies that can be deployed for damaye
reduction

+ Identification of technological gaps or needs for natural disaster protection technologies

. Based on past natural disaster damage patterns, identification of critical areas where

technology deployment for damage reduction is most badly needed

+ Dissemination of information on natural disaster protection technologies through seminars,
publications, the media and by moder telecommunications technologies

+ Promotion of hazard reduction technologies through coalitions among, and liaison with,
manufacturing, insurance, goverament and educational organizations

+ Identification and assessment of proctices of other countries that would be beneficial for
application in the United States


72

Mr. Dixon. In the first hours and days is where these errors of
good faith are made. And so there is going to be some reneging.

Mr. ANDREWS. My statements with regard to the whole issue of
eligibility criteria, I think, are very similar to what Director Witt
said in his testimony and, that is, the concern is not necessarily
over the specific eligibility criteria, but the ambiguity surrounding
those and the fact that the rules kind of changed during the course
of the process and it puts everyone in an extremely difficult posi-
tion.

Mr. Dixon. Well, as I said, Mr. Andrews, I sincerely have a great
respect for you and I guess I also feel that James Lee Witt did the
best he could do with what he had to work with, which is about
$9 billion. Then we kick him on the other side and we make other
taxpayers and other communities and other States pay through the
nose for something that didn’t—through no fault of their own they
are going to lose projects in their own communities. Then when you
add those statements it kind of riles me up. But I have great re-
spect for you. I look forward to, if I am in Congress in the future,
I know that you are going to be in Washington and I look forward
to working with you there.

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Congressman.

Mr. Horn. Thank you very much.

We will now proceed with the second witness, Ms. Constance
Perett.

Am I pronouncing that right?

Ms. PERETT. No, sir. You are not. It is Perett.

Mr. Horn. Perett.

Ms. PERETT. Thank you.

Mr. Horn. Manager of the Emergency Services, county of Los
Angeles. Please proceed. And I think maybe some of you weren’t
in the room, the usual process is to sort of summarize the state-
ment in 5 to 10 minutes. We file your full statement immediately
after the introduction.

Ms. PERETT. Correct. I have summarized and will move along
swiftly.

Mr. Chairman, honorable committee members, first of all, thank
you for giving me the privilege of presenting testimony on behalf
of Los Angeles County. We sincerely appreciate your continued in-
terest and your desire to take the lessons that we have all learned
and apply them to future disasters.

Before I begin, I would like to mention one thing, the Office Of
Emergency Management doesn’t deal directly very often with the
Federal Government or with FEMA, we work with OES. So from
a purely response perspective, our knowledge of FEMA’s response
is somewhat limited. However, we are able to address some of the
programs that FEMA brought into place during the recovery effort
and I would like to focus my remarks on that. In doing so, and in
putting the testimony together, I did contact a number of our coun-
ty departments and their input is reflected in the testimony that
you have.

First of all, let me say that the Federal agencies deserve the
highest praise for their immediate and caring response to the dis-
aster. We would particularly like to express our appreciation to


27

sponse information, something called TRINET. Perhaps you are fa-
miliar with this. Could you speak to that at all?

Mr. WitTT. At the present time TRINET has a package in for
funding. I believe it is somewhere around $11 million. I believe it
is something like that. .

Mr. Torres. I am not sure of the dollar figure.

Mr. Wirt. I think it is somewhere around $11 million and it is
under review at this present time.

Mr. Torres. It is under review?

Mr. WITT. Yes, sir.

Mr. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Director. I hope that review meets
with satisfaction at some point down the road, because it is critical,
really, to the needs of the State. I thank you for your kind answers
to the comments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Horn. I yield now 5 minutes to the gentleman from Califor-
nia, Mr. McKeon.

Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you were talking about a policy manual, I was trying to re-
member back to those first few days when things were going in all
different directions. I thought, a policy manual would be good to
cover some things, but some things you just can’t cover with that
manual. Being on the site, do you remember when we opened that
first disaster center and a lot more people showed up than we ex-

ted? I remember instead of going to Symar you jumped on the
us and went down and brought in more people.

So I think that on-the-spot response and leadership is very im-
portant and it would be good to have some things in a manual that
you could cover, like who is eligible and those kinds of things, I
think. I think that would be really good.

I remember at one point in one of the meetings that we sat in—
in fact, I think it was back in Washington, I don’t even think it was
out here, I think it was a little later after the quick emergency re-
sponse—I remember that there was a discussion about what the
money was going to be used for. And I remember somebody asking
for money that was coming for the earthquake that really would
have been directed to fix other things.

Do you have pretty good controls on—this is a little different
than what Congressman Dreier was asking—where we have some
individuals, I think there was some concern early on that maybe
people that weren’t legal residents were getting help?

Mr. Witt. Right.

Mr. McKEon. But I am talking about a different kind of spe-
cific—I can talk to you later about some specifics, but do you have
controls set up so that the money that comes in is strictly fixing
the damage that come from the earthquake, in this case, or from
the floods or whatever, so that we are not using money to fix other
things?

Me Witt. Congressman, I think we now have better controls
than FEMA had in the past. By setting up the central processing
and going that way, I think we will have better controls in the fu-
ture, also putting in place this year our financial management sys-
tem in the agency that will be tied into central processing, into the
central processings in the country.


70

Mr. Horn. We thank you.

Ordinarily we would not question one of the panel until we had
heard all of the panel, but Representative Dixon has a prior com-
mitment and I do want him to have the opportunity to question Dr.
Andrews. So I am going to yield 5 minutes or more to Representa-
tive Dixon.

Mr. Dixon. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Director Andrews, I have the greatest respect for your talents
and abilities and I think that you are a fine officer of the State of
California, being the director of the Office of Emergency Service. I
have followed, not only in the newspaper, but in our personal con-
versations with you and with the dialog, the differences and I think
a lot of those can be addressed by some pre-understandings.

Mr. ANDREWS. Absolutely.

Mr. Dixon. As you are certainly more aware than I am that
when these disasters hit there is a tendency to try to show an ex-
pression of assistance by going overboard. As I understand it, upon
review of some of the claims that have been made, even in the area
that I represent, that a second look at them did not justify them.
So there raises the question, should we go ahead and compound the
mistake and be criticized or withdraw the approval of whatever
moneys were to be spent?

That is a very difficult situation. In particular because in the cli-
mate that existed at the time and exists now that any moneys that
were spent in California had to be offset by others. We didn’t add
it to the deficit.

So I do think a lot of what you said has a lot of validity and can
be addressed and perhaps you will address it 1 day, because I
think you are heir apparent in a Republican administration to
James Lee Witt’s job.

However, from my position, when California had to borrow $125
million from the city, when the Federal Government provided 90
percent of the money and it is something like $8.9 billion because
one person got on 10 minutes more than another person and
as far as the State resources are concerned, not manpower and
abilities, you brought nothing to the table, so it seems a little bit
ungrateful.

Yes, FEMA has taken the position and is negotiating with four
or five hospitals as it relates to whether, in fact, these rules and
regulations have been promulgated by a State agency or the State
legislature, but these are things in good faith.

am glad you set out in your statement some compliments, but
sitting up here and knowing that there has been $9 billion spent,
that California was to come up with 10 percent, they borrowed it
from the mayor and then you complain about somebody being on
TV. Politics is never going to be taken out of this thing. The Gov-
ernor of the State was on the TV about what a fine job was occur-
ring under his leadership as much as he could. So was Witt, on be-
half of the President, and so was the mayor taking credit.

For you to add some little small comment about someone being
in front of the media when they should have been doing more for
the Governor and the State of California, it seems like there is an
attitude of not being—not grateful, but an attitude of not under-
standing where the State was in all of this. They were bare, finan-


146

can do to assist disaster victims? Has that been given some
thought?

Mr. Succes. Yes, it has, and in fact it is not only the United Way,
but the larger body that this disaster has really brought out the
best in all of us and has really developed: strong collaborative ef-
forts.

The case in point is the Los Angeles VOAD, which was pretty
much moribund in the years preceding the earthquake. Now it
boasts a membership of over 700 CBOs and it has been renamed
the Emergency Network Los Angeles. Out of that as the main en-
tity and which has been recognized by the county of Los Angeles
and by the city of Los Angeles, and which has county and city,
State and Federal representation on the board, that there’s been a
great deal of organizing around CBOs.

One of the major issues that ENLA has tackled and as a member
of ENLA’s board, I can tell you that that is the issue of hazard
mitigation. A lot—a great deal of non-profit organizations, the
“mom and pop” variations, are in church basements, are in poorly
structured buildings, and one of the things that ENLA is attempt-
ing to do is to receive mitigation funding so that they can go in and
mitigate for the CBOs because the CBOs are not going to be good
to anyone if their building has collapsed and if they are not func-
tional and up in operation.

United Way also collaborated with the Interfaith Hunger Coali-
tion and others to publish a “how to get food, disaster assistance,
and cash” guide and that also included—this is a historical prece-
dent because it was the first time that the food stamp applications
were allowed to be published outside of the regular norm of the
Government bureaucracy and so there were over 200,000 of these
guides distributed within 6 days of the earthquake, through all the
DACs and so forth.

This was very helpful to individuals who were going to the DACs
for assistance Plus organizations——

Mr. Horn. Going to the what?

Mr. Succs. DACs, the Disaster Assistance Centers.

Mr. Horn. Yes, I just wanted you to spell it out. It’s like the in-
side-the-Beltway crowd in Washington. There is the inside-the-non-
profit sector crowd.

Mr. Succes. Exactly.

Mr. Horn. I just wanted to get it so we laymen can understand
it.

Mr. Suacs. And not only did we make sure that those got to the
Disaster Assistance Centers and the churches and the hospitals
and so forth, but we also made that available to human resource
officers throughout the corporate structure, because a lot of cor-
porations were finding that their workplace was being disrupted
because their employees were impacted by the earthquake, and so
their personnel departments were able to give them the necessary
information, so that got widespread dispersal.

Mr. Horn. Did you file that pamphlet as part of your testimony?
vr Suaes. No, I didn’t but I would be happy to make that avail-
able.

Mr. Horn. Good. If you would, we'll insert it in the record at this
point without objection.


63

complex regulations to allow government agencies to be problem solvers, rather than merely
regulators,

OES coordinated the response by all state agencies, including the collection, verificaticn
and dissemination of intelligence reports (a process that has been adopted by FEMA fer its on
use); the preparation of situation reports for the governor; coordination of all public information
activities; and activation of the state's mutual aid response. As requests for help poured into OES
from local governments and the regional operations centers, agency representatives quickly
responded by deploying available resources and seeking additional help as needed.

OES dispatched fire, law enforcement, and medical mutual aid from jurisdictions close to
the affected area. Six of the state's urban search and rescue task forces, created after the 1989
Loma Prieta earthquake by OES to detect and extract people from collapsed structures, were
deployed after Northridge. Teams from Arizona and Washington, modeled after the ones in
California, were also dispatched to Los Angeles but were not needed.

Response Effectiveness
The overall response was extremely effective, particularly at the local level. City and

county law and fire officials quickly identified the most serious situations and immediately
dispatched the necessary resources to those locations. The preparedness efforts of the

financed by local, state, federal and private sector dollars, plus the experiences gained in fi
various disasters since 1989, proved their effectiveness.

Local jurisdictions quickly tackled the problems of people driven from their damaged
homes. Within days, temporary housing had been arranged for more than 50,000 peop

The response by local jurisdictions was so effective that most additional resources >
by the mutual aid system were not needed. Additionally, the response by local and state r
was essentially completed before federal responders arrived in the state.

Page 3


20

function in the event of another quake. Critical care facilities, such as hospitals, must
continue to function after a disaster. The seismic retrofit of hospitals is a significant step in
mitigating the earthquake hazard in Southern California

We also want to work with the Congress to develop pre-disaster mitigation incentives and
opportunities, the intent being to help protect communities before disaster strikes by
providing assistance to undertake a host of mitigation activities. For example a pre-disaster
mitigation fund which could be used to retrofit critical facitities in high risk areas. Such a
fund would complement our current efforts to help states set up Disaster Trust Funds. We
are also interested in using cost share formulas for Federal assistance as a mitigation
incentive. We will continue to work on the development of new incentives that will make it
easier for state and local governments to invest in mitigation. Public buildings that are well-
built, and built (o codes will benefit us all in reducing the costs of disasters

The federal government has responded to the Northridge earthquake on an unprecedented
scale. Two years later, I am proud of the assistance that we have provided 10 Southern
Californians. Much more remains to be done in this recovery operation. It will take years
for impacted communities to rebound from this devastating event

There have been those who have questioned the federal government’s commitment to the
long-term recovery of Southern California. Today, I echo President Clinton's early pledge
that we will do everything we can to respond to the continuing needs of individuals, families,
businesses and communities arising from the Northridge earthquake. That promise is as real
today, as when it was made on January 17, 1994. I look forward 10 working with you as we
confront the recovery challenges that lie before us

Thank you, both for your interest today and in the support you have given me and the staff
of FEMA.


37

STATEMENT OF RICHARD RIORDAN, MAYOR, CITY OF LOS
ANGELES, CA

Mr. RIORDAN. Thank you very much, Chairman Horn, and
thanks for your leadership in your present endeavor and the lead-
ership you gave after the earthquake.

I see so many of my friends here, today, from the House who also
gave great leadership.

I have a statement I was going to read, but I, hopefully, have cut
about half of it out, so you can read it on your way back to Wash-
ington.

Mr. Horn. Generally, as I note, for all witnesses we do ask them
to summarize, 5 to 10 minutes, and then we file the whole speech.

Mr RiorDAN. OK. Well, then I have got to cut out more. [Laugh-
ter.

OK. Well, let me just say quickly the obvious, I have a lot of de-
tails about the history. The Northridge earthquake, as we all know,
is the biggest natural disaster in the history of our country and the
fact that L.A. came back so quickly and so well is attributable to
the leadership of many, many different people at all levels of Gov-
ernment, from the Federal, State, and local. I think it is particu-
larly attributable to the people of Los Angeles who, instead of los-
ing their confidence, confidently stood up and repaired their homes,
helped their neighbors, repaired their businesses.

I would like to share with you one tiny little anecdote, because
I think it describes very well why we did so well in city govern-
ment. I was shook out of bed at 4:41 a.m. and stood up and my
first thought was what is the mayor supposed to do. Nobody had
told me and I looked beside my bed and I saw there the novice
mayor’s manual and realized for the first time it had been written
by Congressman Sonny Bono, so I didn’t think that was—but I
headed downtown and got an emergency-—.

Mr. Horn. Did it come with a CD disc? [Laughter.]

Mr. RIORDAN. I hurried downtown to the Emergency Operations
Center, which is over City Hall, and was there a few minutes after
5. This is a huge room that has carrel’s for each department and
then separate rooms for the police and fire. But a couple of minutes
after me the head of transportation came in and I talked to him
about detours on the Five Freeway and the Santa Monica Freeway.
He explained that on the Santa Monica we had a real problem, be-
cause several of the intersections that we would use as a detour
went through Culver City and that we wouldn’t be able to get per-
mission from them until probably 9:30 or 10 a.m. And that is when
I told him my axiom, that in government it is much easier to get
forgiveness than to get permission.

So we commandeered those four intersections about a half-hour
later and I don’t even think Culver City realizes it to this day,
what we did. But I think it is an attitude that went through city
workers, it just spread like wildfire, just do it and don’t let rules
and regulations get in the way of human life and making things
get better.

In a few minutes, as you know, within hours after the earth-
quake, we had members of the Clinton administration on the
ground in Los Angeles, Secretary Pefia was out right away and, of


157

We believe that FEMA should consider deveioping an explicit advance program for
-epairing facilities owned by public agencies. We believe this approach would
eliminate time delays and confusion. It would also result in cost savings to the
federal government because processing and oversight could be streamlined and
administration would be simplified. The appiicant would also realize cost savings
because the reconstruction program could be completed faster. and many of the
ongoing costs. such as facility rental. construction management, and inflation of
construction costs, would be avoided.

While [ hope nothing like the Northridge earthquake every occurs again, we too have

learned a great deal from this experience.

Ms. Lorraine Newion, Director of Admissions and Records, observed three months
later that the earthquake

“..ed us to take more nsks. We've realized we can have an organization
without wails and that we don't always need pieces of paper. As a result,
we're taking a fresh look at our procedures and jettisoning some steps.

“If you can plan a registration while standing in a field with a cellular phone
and a hard hat, it gives you the contidence to make smaller changes.”

During the past two years, we've continued to make changes--in the academic
program, the delivery of counseling, financial aid, and other student services, in our
disaster preparedness plans, in our communications both internally and externally,
and in our administrative operations, We have learned, as I've said in previous
testimony about the earthquake, that the true gift of education is the ability to think
our way through a circumstance we have never experienced before. We're a stronger

community, a better university. and our facilities, once repaired, will be state of the


57

STATEMENTS OF RICHARD ANDREWS, DIRECTOR, GOV-
ERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES, CALIFORNIA;
CONSTANCE PERETT, MANAGER, EMERGENCY SERVICES,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CA; AND MAJOR GENERAL ROB-
ERT J. BRANDT, ASSISTANT ADJUTANT GENERAL AND COM-
MANDER, CALIFORNIA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the com-
mittee. Thanks for the invitation to testify today and share our per-
spectives on the Northridge earthquake response and recovery ef-
‘orts.

Mr. Horn. We are going to need to get that mic closer. You are
talking to the table not the mic.

Mr. ANDREWS. Because of our many risks and history, California
takes emergency management very seriously. We are proud of the
fact that we are considered international leaders in seismic safety
policy and practice. Virtually all of the Nation’s modern experience
in earthquake management results from events that have occurred
in this State.

On behalf of Governor Pete Wilson and all of the residents of
California, I want to thank the Members of Congress, especially the
California Congressional Delegation for the rapid, unprecedented
response to the needs created by the Northridge earthquake. Two
separate congressional appropriations should provide ample funds
to rebuild our damaged communities according to current State and
local codes.

Since January 1994, our working relationship has been, on bal-
ance, very positive. Two years following the earthquake there re-
main, however, important recovery issues to be resolved. They are
centered around fundamental differences over, first, technical as-
sessments; second, appeals policies; and, third, inconsistent eligi-
bility and reimbursement rulings.

I would like to review with you the series of events that bring
us where we are today. On the morning of January 17, within min-
utes of the Northridge earthquake, we had launched the Statewide
response to supplement the efforts of local governments. Within 2
hours of the quake, I personally spoke with James Lee Witt who
placed very generously and immediately any needed Federal re-
sources at our disposal.

On the flight from Sacramento to Los Angeles that morning,
Governor Wilson began taking steps that led to the most dramatic
early examples of how Government can act in times of crisis. Using
his executive authority he approved initial contracts for demolish-
ing sections of damaged freeways and, following a strategy initially
used by California after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, ap-
proved incentive contracts for freeway reconstruction that led to
the roadways being opened in record time.

The overall response was extremely effective, particularly at the
local level. City and county law and fire officials quickly identified
the most serious situations and rapidly dispatched necessary re-
sources. The response by local jurisdictions was so effective that
most additional resources provided by the State’s unique mutual
aid systems were not needed. The response was essentially com-
pleted before Federal officials arrived in the State.


23

on what Mr. Dreier has said, there is going, at some point, to be
a change.

If an earthquake occurs in the next hour, people will anticipate
it will be the same program and it probably will, but if it happens
6 or 9 months or a year from now, there will probably be policy
changes that will make the response, as it relates to making people
whole, different.

So I would like you to comment on whether the current money
that is committed is enough to keep commitments to California,
whether or not you think that 90 percent is a good national policy
and what changes you would make, other than overtime, in the fu-
ture.

Now, I certainly am a strong advocate for California. However,
I recognize that the climate, notwithstanding Mr. Dreier’s state-
ment, that earthquakes can occur in a lot of other States, the cli-
mate is that there is more frequency of these disasters occurring
in California and other State representatives aren’t as sympathetic
to our cause as Members from California.

So if you could comment generally about the future, where are
we going, I would appreciate it.

Mr. WIrT. First, let me say that California’s cost share was a 90/
10 cost share and I did make that recommendation to the President
that it be a 90/10 cost share. Of course, Dick Andrews would have
rather had 100 percent Federal, which he asked for, by the way.
And I don’t blame him, I would too. He was doing his job as State
director and I don’t blame him.

Mr. Dixon. Right.

Mr. Witt. I admire him for hanging in there. And we did a 90
percent cost share in the Midwest floods, because we had 9 States
and 500 counties effected. So the two times we have done this 90/
10 cost share and I did make that recommendation. But it is impor-
tant that the cost share—normally the cost share is 75/25, 75 Fed-
eral/25 percent State, unless it is a disaster of any magnitude that
involved as many people like this one did and State resources and
local resources. I think what we are looking at, and what we are
looking at now is, how can we change this? What can we do better
in the future?

Let’s look at giving the States and local communities an incen-
tive program. Let’s look at, if they develop a mitigation program in
their State that is a viable mitigation program, Statewide mitiga-
tion program, and they are supporting that program within that
State and making mitigation efforts—like California has very good
building codes and building standards, a lot of States don’t—if they
develop that mitigation, good building codes and building stand-
ards, and if they do a tremendous amount of work in being able
to meet those disasters, then let’s give them a better cost share, an
80/20 instead of 75/25.

Let’s give them some incentive in better administrative costs or
whatever we can do. Let’s give them something to work for and
that will save disaster dollars in the future. I think that could
make a difference.

We are looking at and just developed a national mitigation strat-
egy and had our very first conference on that, but, you know, we


144

that is also difficult I think and leaves a lot to interpretation on
the part of the administration of the program.

Mr. Horn. Yes, certainly if you had to move staff from central
Los Angeles to some of the outlying places and pay hotel rooms and
transportation costs and all that, that obviously increases the over-
head just as, say, coming out from Washington to help supervise
and add other resources does the same thing.

Mr. JONES. I even probably contribute to overheard because of
the need in the States that some of you mentioned this morning,
some of the States have very few disasters, but in order to main-
tain a capability, I have to give them on the job experience, and
so I may move someone from the State of Alaska here or from Ha-
waii here to get operational training and that gets very expensive.
An airline ticket from Hawaii to here is much more expensive than
bringing someone from Arizona.

Mr. Horn. Do either Ms. Jones or Mr. Suggs have comments on
this issue of overhead? Is that at all involved with your particular
operations?

Ms. JONES. The most I heard about overhead expenses in the
context of disaster response issues was from at least one non-profit
that approached us with some concerns, and I think the issue I
really want to report is a certain amount of confusion about what
kinds of activities were to be considered as direct disaster relief ex-
penses and what kinds of things were to be considered as adminis-
trative overhead because they were concerned about the limitation.

In fact, they were a subcontractor for the county and they were
confused about what they could charge off and what they couldn’t
charge off and be reimbursed for under the disaster relief issues.

I think again that is an issue of education, rather than a problem
with the system per se. You know, I didn’t hear—I didn’t hear a
widespread difficulty, although John may have.

Mr. Succs. No, I would say that basically the whole issue around
labor costs and so forth, that there was a great deal of confusion
around that for the agencies providing the services, but other than
that I did not hear any major issues.

Mr. Horn. Yes, we certainly had that problem with some govern-
mental units where they would reimburse for governmental staff,
but not for contracts made by Government doing the same thing,
so there could be. We need to look at that very carefully and clarify
it so that comparable actions regardless of entity are comparably
reimbursed.

Ms. Jones, I notice in your testimony, page 3, you said non-prof-
its “had a hard time understanding when they were eligible for
public assistance or even reimbursement for the provision of emer-
gency services. We made several grants to legal services and other
advocacy organizations to prepare materials and provide direct as-
sistance to non-profits lost in a maze or that grant was lost in the
maze of Government procedures,” and the question is obviously
your testimony spelled out the problems in understanding when
non-profits were eligible for public assistance and can the Federal
Government create some sort of a notification process, and would
that be helpful to you?

Ms. JONES. I think it would be very helpful.


90

___Army National Guard Units Activated

‘Army National Guard Units

Southern California Disaster Support Area -
Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center

40th Infantry Division

100th Troop Command

175th Medical Brigade

G-140th Aviation

69th Public Affairs Detachment

MISSIONS,

Maintenance Support

Quick Response Forces
Emergency Tent Shelters
Security Forces

Damage Assessment
Logistics Support

Tents & Supplies
Linguists

Medical Supplies /
Support

‘Transportation /
Medical Evacuation

Medical Evacuation
Law Enforcement
Transportation

Media Coverage

_ Air National Guard Units Activated eS at

Air National Guard Un

14th Fighter Wing,

146th Airlift Wing,

163rd Air Refueling Wing

162nd Combat Communications
Group

MISSIONS

Transportation
Tent Shelters

Transportation
Tent Shelters

Tent Shelters) Command
and Control

Transportation

Urban Search and

Rescue Team Transport

Command and Control
Communications Support



172

nicate with their parents who might not be speaking English.
There is no way you are going to translate 70 languages into var-
ious pamphlets. Yet you need to reach them. The 6-year-old and
the 10-year-old, if they repeat it enough, could be pretty good Am-
bassadors to solve some of those problems.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Absolutely.

Mr. Horn. Dr. Maxson, do you want to add anything?

Mr. Maxson. Mr. Chairman, I think the questions you have
asked are just the very questions that the centers, strategically lo-
cated at universities and other places around the country, would
respond to. There are a number of policy questions. When is it the
obligation of the individual or when is it the obligation of the com-
pany for the greater good?

Everyone has to submit their will to the greater good for all the
people. We are not just talking about earthquakes, whether we are
talking about floods in the Midwest or we are talking about fires,
we just know there is a lot of technology out there that is not being
used.

Mr. Horn. Right.

Mr. Maxson. You have to develop a set of incentives or maybe
even disincentives to make sure these technologies—I was in-
trigued when the mayor, whom I really admire, of Los Angeles was
talking about, as a builder, simply putting blocks in the construc-
tion and I thought, how simple that sounds. But of all the tech-
nologies out there if we can get this information and we can get
this done, some of it on an individual basis, some of it on a govern-
mental basis, some of it on a business basis. That is what these
centers propose to do and, as the deans says, we view it as spend-
ing pennies to save dollars, but the most important is this is the
conservation of human life.

Mr. Horn. I now yield to the former mayor of Fairfax County,
which might someday be as large as Los Angeles.

Mr. Davis. I don’t think we will ever be there, but we are
900,000 and growing.

Let me ask you, this plays on something the mayor addressed
earlier today and I asked in earlier questions, but I'll ask you. You
have a more dispassionate viewpoint on it. That is, do the current
building codes ensure that structures withstand modern earth-
quakes? Are the laws on the books now adequate for new construc-
tion, do you think, or should we constantly be looking at ways to
improve in light of the magnitude of quakes we are getting in?

Mr. Maxson. I think I would probably have to defer to the dean
on that. My graduate in Georgia Tech would probably be more able
than I to answer that.

Mr. Horn. With a good civil engineering department.

Mr. Davis. I am not going to touch that. That’s all right.

Mr. WILLIAMS. OK. Could you restate that?

Mr. Davis. The question was, to date, building codes and stand-
ards in the State of California, and local standard, are they really
adequate to ensure for new construction?

Mr. WILLIAMS. You know, if you look at it, the Japanese have
some of the best building codes in the world and you look at what
happened in Kobe. They simply weren’t being enforced and the
buildings that collapsed deviated strongly. So there are two issues,


44

rebuilding.

Earthquake Building Permits - Free of Charge to Applicants

Within 6 months after the earthquake, the city had identified 93,000 damaged structures. To aid
property owners in repairing their buildings, the City instituted a streamlined plan check and’
emit issuance program. With FEMA and HUD covering the City’s costs for plan checks and
inspections, all earthquake repair and reconstruction permits have been provided free of charge.
‘This program has provided a powerful incentive for property owners to repair carthquake damage
ina timely manner. By December 31, 1995 approximately 55,000 earthquake repair permits had
been issued by the City's Building & Safety Department.

Busi ‘ 0,

Prior to the earthquake the City sponsored a network of business financial and technical
assistance agencies. Immediately following the earthquake, HUD awarded additional funding to
four of these agencies to function as earthquake Business Assistance Centers. These centers
provided specialized technical assistance and loan packaging to owners of damaged businesses.
‘The major emphasis of the program has been to assist businesses in securing SBA disaster loans
or other financial assistance. As of October 1995, these centers had prepared 2,990 loan
application packages, provided technical assistance to 1,040 businesses, and conducted 81
business assistance workshops.

Emergency Temporary Housing

‘The first emergency shelters for earthquake victims opened January 17 at high schools and park
sites. Peak demand for shelter space exceeded 20,000 people. Within one week, the City had 44
shelters in operation. To avoid the crime problems experienced by Dade County, Florida after
Hurricane Andrew, the City sought and received assistance from the National Guard in providing
an around-the-clock security presence. By February 10, 1994, all of these shelters had closed
without incident.

Recognizing the shortage of affordable housing and the number of families displaced by the
earthquake, HUD provided Emergency Section 8 rental subsidy disaster certificates. Within 10
months after the disaster, City of Los Angeles “Section 8” recipients totaled 10,556.

As I mentioned earlier, the federal government has provided an estimated $4.8 billion in financial
assistance to individuals, businesses and the city government. The following funds have been
provided:


85

our staff duty officer, within 1 hour of the earthquake. Within 2
hours, our emergency operations center was in operation in Sac-
ramento, and at the same time, within that 2 hours, the 40th In-
fantry Division headquarters in their emergency operations center
had been activated at Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center,
which is also southern California’s disaster support area, and has
performed in that capacity during the L.A. riots as well as the
Olympics and other emergencies.

The requirements that we received based on the needs of the
communities through the Office of Emergency Services required us
to activate about 2,600 Air and Army National Guard personnel,
and they were activated basically—I think most of them—within
that first few hours.

We were prepared and we were fully prepared to follow on with
considerably larger forces and a considerable amount of equipment
that fortunately was not required.

The California National Guard in the Northridge earthquake had
sufficient supplies, equipment, personnel available to meet the
needs.

Challenges to our operation are basically on the taxable level and
that is a matter of merely activating our personnel, getting our key
liaison officers and personnel to the various county, city emergency
operations centers and establishing our communications system
and then linking that with the civilian communications system.

One problem that we do run into is the integration of Federal
and State forces during emergencies. It was a major problem dur-
ing the L.A. riot. It was a minor problem during the Northridge
earthquake.

I just mention that because what happens is if the Federal Gov-
ernment comes in and if the National Guard is Federalized and
brought into Federal service, immediately the advantages we have
as under the control of the State are reduced considerably.

For instance, in the L.A. riot, our 10 primary missions that we
could form in a State active duty status were reduced to 1 when
the Federal Government took over when we were Federalized.

Mr. Horn. Would you explain what those specific missions were?

Major General BRANDT. Well, yes. When we were in State status
and we had 11,000 plus National Guardsmen deployed on the
streets of L.A., working in conjunction with the L.A. County Sher-
iffs Department and Los Angeles Police Department, under their
direction and control, we were able to secure large areas and allow
the police and the Sheriff's Department to better utilize their re-
sources in other areas, but once we were Federalized, we were re-
stricted to protecting Federal property and there were other restric-
tions placed on us where we had to contract the size of the areas
that we could secure.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Brandt follows:]


176

Also my staff director and district director in Lakewood who
worked closely with the Northridge faculty and staff and also with
our subcommittee staff, Connie Szieble.

We also had a couple of interns as I remember, helping in this,
Lori was one of them and I have forgotten the other one, but we
will put it in the record, Connie, since I don’t have a sheet before
me on that.

So, with that, we adjourn this session and thank you all for com-

ing.
{Note.—The report entitled, “Status of the Northridge Earth-
quake Recovery” can be found in subcommittee files.]
[Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the hearing was concluded.)

oO


62

may turn out to be the most expensive natural disaster in this nation’s history. Our current estimate
of total dainages trom Northridge is $25 billion dollars, including a total of $12.5 billion in insured
losses. The funds allocated by Congress in two separate appropriations over the past two years

should provide ampie funds to rebuild our damaged communities according to current state and

local codes.

Let me state clearly that since January 1994, our working relationship with FEMA has
been, on balance, positive. James Lee Witt has demonstrated a refreshing and much appreciated
understanding for the problems California has faced in the last five years -- a series of disasters
that have caused losses totaling more than $35 billion, We are grateful to him and the Congress for
the extensive help offered to our state.

Two years following the earthquake there remain, however, important recovery issues to
be resolved. They are centered around fundamental differences over: (1) technical assessments: (2)
appeals policies and (3) inconsistent eligibility and reimbursement rulings.

Id like to review with you the series of events that bring us to where we are today.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE

On the morning of January 17, 1994, within minutes of the Northridge earthquake,
officials with the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) had launched the statewide
response to supplement the efforts of local governments. Governor Wilson declared a state of
emergency immediately and directed me to make all the resources of state government available to
assist communities in Los Angeles, Ventura, and Orange counties. Within two hours of the quake,
{ personally spoke with Sames Lee Witt who placed any needed federal resources at our disposal.

On the flight from Sacramento to Los Angeles the moming of January 17, Governor
Wilson began taking steps that led to the most dramatic, early examples of how government can act
in times of crises. Using his executive authority he approved the initial contracts for demolishing
sections of damaged freeways and. following a strategy initially used by California after the 1989
Loma Prieta earthquake, approved incentive contracts for freeway reconstruction that led to the
roadways being reopened in record time. Over the following weeks Governor Wilson took over a
dozen specific actions that expedited thé state's response, including making portable classrooms
available to damaged school sites in record time. thereby setting a clear strategy of waiving

Page 2


86

1994 Northridge Earthquake

Mr Chairman and members, it is a pleasure to appear before you to discuss the California
National Guard's emergency response to the Northridge Earthquake and some alarming trends that
may impact our ability to provide essential resources during future state emergencies

This report is divided into three parts.

PART I.
Military Support to Civil Authority

PART II.
Response to Northridge Earthquake

PART IIL.
Resource Trends



tome
exane
‘mtn
tovetor
sci
nc toa

snes nde Kane
Dae Vian Je
Leber Wit
aK Naame

te Mee
ab Shae
Gone Conant
har Radeguct

121

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY
OUNDATION

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD

Submitted to the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology

by Terri Jones, Director of Special Projects, California Community Foundation
Friday, January 19, 1996

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, and of the Southern California
Congressional delegation: my name is Terri Jones, and I am Director of Special
Projects for the California Community Foundation. On behalf of the foundation and its
Board of Governors, thank you for your invitation to offer our thoughts and experience
‘on the needs and conditions of nonprofit organizations in the aftermath of a community
wide disaster like the Northridge earthquake. Nonprofit organizations are the senior
partners in any foundation's efforts to address human needs, and increasingly and
appropriately they have come to be recognized as a key ingredient in community
disaster response and recovery. Less appreciated, however, are the particular problems
that can afflict nonprofit agencies even as they attempt to provide disaster relief. In
the worst cases, these difficulties can threaten the long-term stability of nonprofits and
the services they provide.

For the record, the California Community Foundation is now celebrating its 80th year
of activity in Los Angeles County. With assets that now exceed $170 million, we
manage, invest, and administer well over 500 charitable funds established by donors
‘who wished to contribute to a perpetual endowment fund for the benefit of this region.
Last year, we awarded $3.5 million in discretionary grants and distributed an additional
$9.6 million in donor-advised gifts and distributions to charitable beneficiaries.

‘After the Northridge earthquake the California Community Foundation's Board of
Governors took the unprecented step of invading principal in order to to establish the
Los Angeles Earthquake Recovery Fund, through which grants would be made to help
nonprofits recover--and in turn, provide relief and recovery services--in neighborhoods
devastated by the quake. With $800,000 thus raised directly from the foundation's
coffers, and $900,000 more raised through the generosity of our donor advisors, other
foundations and corporations, and the general public, we were ultimately able to
distribute $1.7 million in grants and loans for earthquake response to 111 nonprofit,
agencies. Most of those dollars were disbursed within the first three months after the
quake. (Please see Attachment A for a list of earthquake grants and loans.)

SERVING THE COMMUNITIES OF GREATER LOS ANGELES.

0G 8 Oe Sere Soe 2400 Law Anges Cains MS



124

California Community Foundation Testimony
January 19, 1996
Page 4

functions best as a community in genuine crisis situations, and indeed, we're getting better and
better at it. In the interests of time, | have not spoken about the considerable efforts made by
private funders, the United Way, local government, and others at the time of the quake and
since (0 coordinate our response and plan to meet future emergencies. ‘That activity has been
enhanced by our greater understanding of how state and federal disaster response works, and
by relationships we've developed with key agency leadership over the course of multiple
calamities.

We hope that this experience--which we really wouldn't have chosen to acquire--will be
valuable in helping to realize the potential and address the limitations of our disaster response
mechanisms, particularly as they involve--or rely upon--the nonprofit community. "ll be
happy to answer any questions you may have. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to be
heard.


31

case. I think it is more important to put politics aside, because if
we don’t put politics aside then the people that are going to suffer
are the disaster victims and helping with the long-term recovery ef-
forts. We have tried to make sure that everything we did was bi-
partisan.

Mr. Dixon. Assume for the moment that it will never be put
aside.

Mr. Witr. I understand that. But I think it is important that
whoever is at that disaster, whether it is the Federal coordinating
officer, whether it is myself, that the State and the mayor and the
local government has the lead in that response effort. We are there
solely to support that effort.

We are not going to bring snowplows and bulldozers. We don’t
have snowplows or bulldozers. It is important that the State and
local government take that lead and identify the resources that
they need to support that response or that recovery and we can do
that.

Many cases we find that we get the call—I am not saying in Cali-
fornia, I am just saying in many disasters——

Mr. Drxon. I understand that. You are talking generally, you are
talking perspective, and I think it is healthy.

Mr. Witt. We find that that State or that local entity expects
FEMA to come in and do all things and do the recovery and that
response. That is not our job. That is not what you mandate us to

o.

Mr. Dixon. So we ought to do a better job of educating mayors
and Governors ahead of time as to what the role of FEMA can be
in a disaster.

Mr. Wirt. Absolutely.

Mr. Dixon. Where, so, if another mayor gets elected 4 years from
now in San Jose, we ought to be up there telling him ahead of
time, if it hits, here is what we can do.

r. Witt. And here is what is eligible. It would make a big dif-
ference. The predisaster mitigation fund I was talking about, there
are, I think, seven or eight States, I may be wrong, that have a
disaster fund in place. In ‘Arkansas we had a $7 million disaster
fund. We had many State-declared disasters that we funded with-
out any Federal help. I think it is important if we can do a
predisaster mitigation fund and we say, OK, to the State of Califor-
nia, if you have a mitigation trust fund set up that will help match
this predisaster mitigation fund, then we will work with you on
identifying mitigation projects.

Give them an incentive to set that fund up. Give Dick Andrews
some leverage with his Governor and legislators, to say, if we es-
tablish this fund, then we have the opportunity to get this done.
That would make a big difference.

Mr. Drxon. Well, if you could respond, the thing, from my per-
spective in California, we know almost to a moral certainty that
there will be at some point in time another earthquake. Now, hav-
ing said that, I think we have a responsibility to meet with the
Governor and say, it may not occur on your watch, but here is the
deal, State legislature, how much money have you set aside. Here
is the deal, it is coming. Of course, you hope it doesn’t come on
your watch.


156

o

DSR PROCESS

In the ‘emergency’ phase of disaster response FEMA agreed to write DSRs based on
cost estimates prepared by the campus’ consulting engineers. In actual experience
these “estimates” were consistently lower than actual costs, so there is no evidence
that FEMA was subject to over-funding repair costs using this methodology. The
consuitants’ reports were praised, the time required to produce a DSR was
significantly reduced, and thus the time required to process payments was shortened

as well.

Later, however, these consultants’ reports were criticized as containing “gross cost
estimates,” and rejected as not being specific enough to be acceptable to FEMA
reviewers as the basis for preparing the DSRs. The documentation requested to
support each DSR has become increasingly onerous, exacting, and, at times, appears

to us to go beyond the scope of established DSR requirements.4

We have been engaged in a prorated discussion this past year regarding the early
decision to provide advance funding for repairs to the campus. There can be no doubt
that the California State University system. and the Northridge campus in
particular, did not have working capital reserve funds to advance for repairs and
other reconstruction needs--especially in light of our total need of over $300 million.
While we understand that FEMA is established primarily as a reimbursement
program, we also know that the Code of Federal Regulations allows for both an
advance and a reimbursement program.}

4 For example, at one time we were asked to identify the total number of linear feet of different types of
cable used for our communications system, along with identifying each relay and other smail parts

used in each building to support the DSR for communications restoration.

3 44°CFR. para, 13.21, “Payment: (c) Advances. Grantees and subgrantees shail be paid in advance,
provided they maintain or demonstrate the willingness and ability to maintain procedures to
minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds and their disbursement by the grantee or
subgrantee. id) Reimbursement, Reimbursement shall be the preferred method when the
requirements in paragraph {c) of this section are not met...”


7

While there are still several important issues facing us today,
such as the funding of several damaged hospitals and schools
under the public assistance program, defining hazard mitigation
regulations and the review of mobile home bolting inspections, the
vast number of disaster applications have now been completed and
adequately funded. Much has been learned from this disaster and
it has been reaffirmed the lesson that reducing property damage
and life loss in earthquake is a continuing process of improving de-
sign codes for new construction, expanding the capability of Federal
and State emergency response systems and educating every resi-
dent of California about how they protect themselves from the dan-
gers of earthquakes.

Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to participate
in this meeting and I look forward to hearing from our panels.

Mr. Horn. Thank you very much.

It is now my pleasure to introduce a very distinguished rep-
resentative from southern California, Esteban Torres, who is a
member of the House Committee on Appropriations and, at the
time of the earthquake, was a key member of the so-called “Veter-
ans Affairs, Housing Urban Development Independent Offices Ap-
propriation Subcommittee” under which the funding for the Fed-
eral Emergency Management Agency occurs.

So we are delighted to have you with us this morning. Would you
have some comments to add?

Mr. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kind introduc-
tion.

I want to thank you and the members of the panel for being here
with us today. I certainly want to welcome Director Witt and the
mayor to this very important hearing.

While I have no statement, I just simply want to acknowledge
and thank you for bringing this hearing about. It is very important
for us to be able to, after this anniversary of this disastrous occa-
sion to revisit what has happened and the role that the relevant
agencies of Government, the city of Los Angeles and the Federal
Government have taken. So that we can measure and look at for
future type situations.

I look forward to hearing from Director Witt’s comments, as well
as the mayor’s and to that degree, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
floor to you.

Mr. Horn. Thank you very much.

Before I introduce the director, we have with us this morning,
and she will be a very prominent spokesperson on the last panel,
Dr. Blenda Wilson, the president of California State University
Northridge. I would like her to come forward.

We want to thank you for all the help which your very fine staff
has given this subcommittee. It has really been superb and we
deeply appreciate it, when you are running one of the largest edu-
cational institutions in America, to have your staff take the time
they have with us. So thank you and I think you wanted to say
a few welcoming remarks.

Ms. Winson. I do.

Mr. Horn. We will be glad to hear that.

Ms. WiLson. Thank you Congressman Horn, Congressman
McKeon and members of the committee.


139

funders’ organizations and coming down to our offices rather than
going into a Federal office and a State office, that we were able to
serve as a vital liaison to the entire process.

In fact, at our high point we were basically a Federal disaster of-
fice with a dozen State and Federal inspectors working out of the
United Way building. I cannot stress enough the value of this type
of organization and response. However, the two problems that we
have seen that bear noting is the delay in getting the reimburse-
ments—there are still a very large number of non-profit agencies
still awaiting receipt of their reimbursements—and this has caused
tremendous hardships for them—and also in the organization of
this, that as has been stated earlier today on several occasions is
we recognize that there is a need to have a pre-existing Memoran-
dum of Understanding because what we found is that based on
word of mouth and written correspondence back and forth that as
we went forward with this effort to bundle disaster claims that a
lot had to be worked out over the course of the process.

This is a successful process that I think everyone can point to
with pride, both FEMA, the Governor's Office of Emergency Serv-
ices, and the non-profit sector.

I would strongly urge you to consider having FEMA and the
State agencies throughout the country to look at ways in which
MOUs can be established prior to disasters so that these facilita-
tions can continue. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Suggs follows:]


147

Having been a former—one of the five regional chairs for United
Way Los Angeles, I know the terrific job you do and I know the
terrific job the Red Cross does and I also know the terrific job that
California Community Foundation does—since my wife has served
on that board, so I congratulate all of you for what you have done
in this particular situation.

I think any suggestions that come to your mind as you drive
home today or fly back to Washington, as the case may be, please
feel free to write us. We will insert them in the record—keep the
record open for about several days, weeks, whatever—because we
are interested in ideas and we are interested in your experiences
in how we improve this process, because very frankly, regardless
of where that disaster occurs it cannot be mediated without the
help of fine non-profit, good will organizations such as yourself that
have lived through these, worked through these, experienced these,
and we need to share those experiences in advance of disasters,
and that is what our last panel was going to talk about is mitiga-
tion, education, and so forth.

We would certainly welcome your thinking as you listen to some
of the things that panel particularly says.

I now yield to Mr. Davis.

Mr. Davis. Thank you. I am not going to ask any questions. I
want to get to our next panel.

I think you have been very inclusive with what you said.

Let me just make one comment. Without all of you, the Govern-
ment would not have been successful in working through this dis-
aster and many, many others. We are kind of a means to an end,
but the bottom line is having groups like the United Way and the
Red Cross and Community Foundations out there.

You get much more bang for the dollar working through all of
you. It’s just been proved time and time again and I think in this
particular instance it helps stretch those Federal dollars farther
and you, were really the margin of excellence in this, in making
that bridge between what was going to be a tough time and making
it a lot better for a lot of people, so I thank all of you and thank
you for your testimony. Hopefully, Government can learn from
some of the experiences that you have had.

Mr. Horn. Well, thank you so much for coming and sharing a
busy Friday afternoon.

This is about the time the freeways are becoming packed, so
drive safely.

OK, we now have our fina] panel, Blenda Wilson, who we heard
earlier, president of California State University, Northridge; her
colleague, Dr. Robert Maxson, president of California State Univer-
sity, Long Beach; and Dr. Richard Williams, dean of engineering at
the College of Engineering, California State University, Long

each,

Welcome.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. Horw. All three have affirmed and we will proceed with Dr.
Wilson, the very able president of California State University,
Northridge, who knows what an earthquake can do to an institu-
tion.

Ms. WILson, Indeed.


153

communication and on-site visibility. Within hours of the earthquake, FEMA
Director James Lee Witt and OES Director Richard Andrews were in contact with
Chancellor Barry Munitz and campus officials. Regional field officers visited the
campus soon thereafter, evaluating the damage and offering total and unwavering
advice and assistance. Throughout the early weeks and months, these officials and
their deputies met with University officers on the campus regularly. They were
available to us by telephone to discuss major problems and to resolve them quickly.
Most importantly, their encouragement and assurances of support gave us
confidence that we could overcome what appeared to be an overwhelming challenge.

I should like to focus my remarks today on two specific areas where revisions in
FEMA regulations might facilitate full recovery from catastrophic disasters. In each
area I will be focusing on the difference between what we perceived to be extremely
effective operations in the earliest stages of disaster recovery which were later
replaced by procedures that impeded efficient recovery. The two areas are human
resource deployment and the Damage Survey Report (or DSR) process.

Human Resource Deployment

Early in the disaster, Cal State Northridge was fortunate to receive the assistance of
experienced FEMA and OES personnel. FEMA sent the Federal Coordinating
Officer, a Public Assistance Officer, a Deputy Public Assistance Officer, and various
staff members from its Region IX office in San Francisco. Similar roles were
represented by the state’s Office of Emergency Services from its regional and
executive offices in Sacramento,

These experienced officials and staff were well-informed on federal regulations,
policies, and procedures. They were empowered to make decisions on issues
surrounding the recovery. They were knowledgeable about construction and
engineering, understood the academic enterprise, and had many years of experience
in preparing DSRs and related funding matters. Thus, long delays and
uncertainties were eliminated, and our ability to respond literally to thousands of


46

worthiness of the property and the borrower's experience and capacity; and would not
require personal guarantees of the borrower.

- There is a need for gap financing; subsidies are needed to protect low income families,
property owners, and neighborhoods.

- Such a program should be augmented by a prior approved regulator disaster policy that
. provides clear, dependable regulatory relief essential to enable lenders to respond quickly.

SBA should look at distinguishing whether they were funding apartments or other commercial
buildings. This data problem made it difficult to know how much they funded for apartments,
thus complicating data assembly and analysis.

FEMA and SBA are designed primarily to assist single family homeowners and businesses. In
the case of the Northridge Earthquake, the majority of the damage was to apartment buildings,
which had less assistance available.

3. FEMA should hire more temporary disaster response employees from the local area. In
responding to the Northridge Earthquake, FEMA brought in hundreds of temporary employees
from out of state. We believe that FEMA's response would have been enhanced if it had
recruited and hired more local talent from the Southern California area.

+ Local engineers and building trades people are familiar with local building codes and
with the damage caused by an earthquake. Many out-of-state FEMA employees were
unfamiliar with California building codes and were accustomed to inspecting damage
from floods and hurricanes rather than earthquakes;

+ Temporary employees hired from the local community would be familiar with the
geographic area. The City of Los Angeles is huge, encompassing more than 400 square
miles;

+ Hiring local temporary employees would save FEMA considerable amounts of money in
housing and per diem expenses;

+ FEMA's policies encourage the hiring of teraporary disaster response employees from the
local area. Such federal employment for out of work personnel from the local community
can help ease the negative economic impacts of a disaster.

4. FEMA provided low levels of reimbursement to homeowners seeking to secure homes in the
event of another disaster; we would recommend greater reimbursement for this type of
preventive work. Retrofitting is a cost-effective way to save financial resources and avoid

personal injuries.


6

the rest of us, when we would get on the plane would kind of sit
back and relax and the chairman would start going through vol-
umes of books, reading and marking, and I thought he never stops.
I appreciate your coming here to our district and holding this hear-

ing.

I think early on in the disaster I talked to Director Witt and I
said, you know, it is really important, the leadership. I remember
the room when we opened the first disaster center, Dick was there,
the Governor was there and your first words were, we need to stick
together, and everybody did and I think that it was great to be a
part of that, that we could all pull together and we weren’t talking
about Democrats or Republicans or liberals or conservatives or
whatever. We were pulling together as Americans to try to help
people through a tough time.

I am pleased to be a part this morning of this House Subcommit-
tee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, to
evaluate the Federal Government’s response to the 1994 North-
ridge earthquake.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, on January 17, 1994, my district
was hit by one of the most damaging earthquakes in our Nation’s
history. This disaster resulted in over 70 deaths, more than 18,000
injuries and damaged nearly 60,000 structures, many of which
have not yet been repaired and are still visual reminders of that.
Several freeways and bridges linking Los Angeles with other parts
of the county collapsed, causing massive traffic disruptions. FEMA
estimates the total damages at $25 to $30 billion, making it the
costliest disaster in our history.

California State University at Northridge, which is hosting this
hearing today, suffered dramatic damage. Several buildings were
too damaged to be repaired and another 15 to 20 required major
structural repairs. The full and partial closings of buildings delayed
the start of spring term for 3 full weeks.

We were just getting ready to start classes and I think without
the leadership of Dr. Blenda Wilson, the president of the school,
and the way she was able to rally people and to get things going,
we probably would have lost a whole semester. And I want to com-
mend her for the great work that she has done.

In the aftermath of this terrible disaster, FEMA, together with
local government disaster agencies, rose to the challenge and im-
mediately implemented emergency plans and opened dozens of
emergency operations centers, to serve hundreds of thousands of
victims.

In those early days and since then, I have had the opportunity
to work closely with FEMA and OES to assess disaster recovery
plans and ensure the flow of Federal aid to rebuild homes, locate
temporary housing and procure low interest SBA disaster loans.

I was at a meeting just the other night where a local agency was
handing out awards for people who had done great things to re-
cover and to get their businesses back and to keep people working
through this period. While no one doubts the tremendous hardships
suffered by victims of this earthquake, I can assure you that with-
out FEMA’s early relief and recovery efforts the disruption of their
lives would have been far worse.


40

Governor Wilson on it. But I think cities over a certain size, the
State aid should work directly through the cities.

Next, is FEMA—well, I mentioned about hiring temporary em-
ployees before, I’ll skip that. In addition to that, also, FEMA should
provide low levels of reimbursement to homeowners seeking to se-
cure homes in the event of another disaster. In other words, this
is something you asked a lot of questions of Mr. Witt about.

In the city, by the way, the city council now is looking at a num-
ber of requirements to improve homes in the event of another
earthquake. There is a delicate balance between the cost of doing
this and the public safety involved and I think common sense an-
swers have to be found.

I will give you one little anecdote. I was a director of Kauffman
and Broad, a big homeowner, and we sent people back to Miami
after Hurricane Andrew to see why, like, 90 roofs were blown away
and we determined that almost all of these roofs could have been
saved by putting 25 cent little blocks of wood in the joints at the
roof. So I think there are a lot of commonsensical ideas like this
that can be, I think, promulgated by FEMA to the rest of the coun-
try.

With respect to the SBA, loan guidelines, as I mentioned, should
be revised and carefully looked at. I think, also, that if it is not al-
ready the case, that the Comptroller of the Currency should be part
of an ongoing Federal task force.

Because fortunately I had a lot of investment banking experience
in my prior life and it occurred to me about 2 or 3 days after the
earthquake that we were going to have trouble, because of FDIC,
Thrift and Loan and other regulations, getting private lenders to
make loans, because if you restructure loans, the FDIC will still
consider that a problem loan for reserve purposes.

Fortunately, with the help of Henry Cisneros and ultimately
Gene Ludwig we were able to bypass a lot of those problems.

Next, and next to last, is, | would suggest that a book be written,
prepared, by everybody involved, not just in this earthquake, on a
readable level, not a detailed level, but a readable level, to show
what kind of plans helped in this case, in the Northridge earth-
quake, provide anecdotes such as the one I gave you with Rod
Slater and Dean Dumphy and myself, maybe even my one about
Congressman Sonny Bono. I think that this would have helped me
a lot and I think it can help others. I think you could also have
ideas in the book about providing merit pay to get things done
quickly and less expensively.

Another just little side note is, what we did, we talked to the
mayor of Miami the morning of the earthquake and he suggested,
and. we did it immediately, that we put together a task force of top
business leaders in the L.A. area who had influence on Washing-
ton, and Lew Wasserman of MCA chaired that task force, and that
was very valuable.

So let me just close by reading what I have. It is one paragraph.
The strong recovery of Los Angeles would not have been possible
without the assistance of the Federal Government and the State
Government which acted in a quick and thorough manner to aid
our city following the biggest natural disaster in the history of our
country. The city of Los Angeles is grateful for this assistance and


120

ter, constitute essential reimbursable relief services so as to reduce
the need for time-consuming local interpretation when an emer-
gency strikes.

Mr. Chairman, it’s been fairly noted by more than one com-
mentator that Los Angeles functions best as a community in genu-
ine crisis situations.

In the interests of time I have not spoken about the considerable
efforts made by private funders, the United Way, local government,
other non-profits to coordinate our response and our planning to
meet future emergencies. That activity has been enhanced by our
greater understanding of how State and Federal disaster response
works and by relationships we have developed with key agency
leadership over the course of multiple calamities.

We hope that this experience, which we really wouldn’t have cho-
sen to acquire, will be valuable in helping to realize the potential
and address the limitations of our disaster response mechanisms,
particularly as they involve or they rely upon the non-profit com-
munity.

I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Once
again, thank you for the opportunity to be heard.

{The prepared statement of Ms. Jones follows:]


19

In an effort to provide immediate assistance to affected governmental and certain private non-
profit applicants, FEMA advanced $305 million to the State and local governments to fund
immediate needs such as emergency shoring and debris clearance. Unfortunately, we are
now learning how difficult a task recoupment and accounting of these funds really is. We
are fine tuning this concept for future implementation rather than abandoning it because the
advanced funding played a major role in keeping several applicants afloat during their
response and recovery phase of activity. I think this example illustrates one of the tensions
in disaster response. The American people, local and state officials, and the U.S. Congress
have expressed their desire for us to be expedient, flexible and compassionate in our
administering disaster relief. But in doing so, we must find solutions which uphold our
responsibilities to be prudent stewards of the Nation's resources. Consequently we find
ourselves in cycles of problem solving, trying new approaches, evaluating and modifying.

Both FEMA and California’s Office of Emergency Services are aware that we need to speed
up the delivery of our Hazard Mitigation Program so that it becomes a more integral part of
the recovery efforts. In the interim, FEMA and California have signed a Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program Memorandum of Understanding which will ensure the delivery of the
program much more quickly in future disasters and which vests greater authority in the hands
of the State.

As the long-term recovery effort for the Northridge earthquake focusses on the future, our
programmatic thrusts will reflect the new direction of FEMA. At a time of financial belt

tightening in Washington, and throughout the country, it is imperative that we continue to

minimize the costs of disaster assistance, yet continue to meet the needs of the victims.

Over the last few years, the people of California have been tested by man-made and navural
disasters, I am proud that FEMA has worked diligently to respond swiftly and effectively to
each event. However, the state of California, and the nation, cannot afford the cost of
back-to-back disasters. Mitigation is the only way we can reduce the drain on the U.S.
Treasury posed by future hazards.

New disasters, without increased mitigation programs, can potentially drain the federal
budget and restrict our ability to control escalating disaster costs. Mitigation is the future of
emergency management and mitigation is a priority at FEMA. Rebuilding following a
disaster is one opportunity to build communities safer and more able to withstand the next
disaster.

‘There are a few more mitigation initiatives that | would like to share with you and that I
believe demonstrate the direction FEMA will take in order to diminish the impact of natural
hazard events in America.

One is an exciting initiative to rebuild hospitals damaged in the Northridge earthquake to a

level of mitigation that goes beyond the life-safety standard. This discretionary mitigation
proposal will ensure, for the first time, that hospitals in earthquake zones will be designed to

7


14

Testimony of James Lee Witt
Director
Federal Emergency Management Agency

Thank you Chairman Horn, members of the Subcommittee, and members of the Los Angeles
delegation for inviting me to address this distinguished panel on FEMA's response to the
Northridge Earthquake.

I must first applaud your leadership in acknowledging the two-year anniversary of this
catastrophic disaster by coordinating this forum to assess what our response has been to date,
and what we plan to do in the future. These hearings give me the opportunity to reaffirm the
Administration's continuing commitment to the long-term recovery needs of Southern
California.

I is hard to believe that it has been two years since a 6.7-magnitude earthquake produced the
largest disaster ever inflicted on an urban area in the United States. The Northridge
earthquake claimed the lives of at least 57 people, injured more than 11,000, damaged
approximately 114,000 residential and commercial structures, and caused $20 to $25 billion
in estimated property damage and economic losses. In less than 30 seconds of shaking. the
Northridge earthquake surpassed Hurricane Andrew as the nation’s costliest disaster in terms
of federal expenditures

The human toll of this disaster is reflected by the more than 681,000 applications FEMA
received for assistance from people whose homes were damaged or destroyed. The number
of people seeking state and federal disaster assistance was more than double any previous
single U.S. disaster.

Minutes after the earthquake hit, the federal response to the disaster was taking shape
President Clinton directed all federal agencies to devote their resources to response and
recovery efforts. Within an hour, FEMA’s Regional Operations Center was activated and we
joined forces with the Governor's Office of Emergency Services and other Federal agencies
to mobilize emergency shelter for disaster victims; provide food, water and emergency
supplies; dispatch emergency medical and urban search and rescue teams: clear debris from
damaged roadways and bridges: and begin the repair of impacted bridges and highways

By the end of the first day, J. as well as Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry
Cisneros, Department of Transportation Secretary Federico Pena, then SBA Administrator
Erskine Bowles, and Federal Highway Administrator Rodney Slater, were on-scene to direct
a wide-ranging response effort. With our state and local partners, we forged a monumental
recovery effort for disaster victims in Los Angeles, Ventura, and Orange Counties.

Through the cooperative efforts of 27 agencies, and the American Red Cross, the federal
disaster response met the benchmark that President Clinton set for recovery operations -- that
it be collaborative, fiscally responsible, fleaible, efficient, compassionate and fast

FEMA has spent over $3.4 billion thus far in its disaster relief and recovery efforts


3

Mr. Dixon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I don’t really
have an opening statement. I will be very, very brief. First of all,
I would like to thank you and the committee members for paying
attention to our region of the country that has been impacted over

riod of time with an extraordinary number of disasters.

think that in a bipartisan and cooperative way, when the earth-
quake hit us, you saw our California delegation in its entirety
working together to rapidly bring funds to those here in southern
California. Obviously, disaster relief and mitigation issues are
going to be examined in the coming Congresses for, as a member
of the Appropriations Committee, I think that we all know and un-
derstand that whereas Members of Congress are sympathetic,
sometimes they are exacerbated by the fact that there is a continu-
ing flow of money coming to California to bail out situations that
occur from Mother Nature. It certainly occurs in other areas of the
country, but we have had a great deal of dialog in the Appropria-
tions Committee as it relates to funding for disasters in California.

Finally, I would like to say that, as we talk about the overview
of how FEMA performed in the last disaster, the earthquake, I am
very pleased to say that from my observation, their performance
was excellent. Was it perfect, no. Are institutions of Government
ever perfect, absolutely not. But I have found that Director Witt
has been not only on the scene, but very cooperative with the Cali-
fornia delegation.

I also recognize that from time to time that agencies of goodwill
will have differences and I think the testimony here today will re-
flect some of those differences. Nevertheless, whether it is the city
of Los Angeles, or the State of California or FEMA, our Federal
representative, I think in the last disaster, the earthquake, that
they responded in good faith, had a high degree of cooperation and
I think our task is to make sure that in the future that degree of
cogperation and success continue.

ank you very much.

Mr. Horn. Thank you.

I now yield to the vice chairman of the subcommittee, Represent-
ative Flanagan of Illinois.

Mr. FLANAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am inundated with bits of paper here, because ] am from the
land of flatness and the land where we don’t have earthquakes. I
would like to echo what Mr. Dixon had said so eloquently, as he
always is, in that, the general perception is California is the natu-
ral disaster theme park and that we are constantly pouring money
into it. That is why hearings like this are so important, to bring
Members from Illinois and Virginia and other places, other than
the California Delegation who are so well acquainted with the inti-
mate problems, to take that information not just back to Washing-
ton, but to points in the Nation and explain that when an earth-
quake causes billions of dollars in damage, destroying institutions
of higher learning and homes and businesses and other areas is not
to be taken lightly and certainly the Federal Government has a
role.

We are here for oversight reasons. We are here to make sure
that the money that is appropriated is well spent. In an effort to
make sure that it is well spent, that we acquaint ourselves with


132

1994 Earthquake Response Funding

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

National Council of Jewish Women, Los Angeles
$23,700 toward the direct costs of providing information, referral, and counseling
services in seven languages, and emergency financial aid and household goods,
to earthquake victims, through Women Helping Women Services; as well as to
help offset revenue losses due to the destruction of the Canoga Park Thrift Shop.

North Valley Family Counseling Center, San Fernando
$10,000 to meet requests for additional trauma counseling services.

Northeast Valley Health Corporation, San Fernando
$15,000 toward nonreimbursable expenses incurred providing medical services to
the community in the aftermath of the earthquake.

Organization for the Needs of the Elderly, Van Nuys

$7,000 for additional staff to conduct in-take services for the homebound frail
elderly who need assistance with paperwork, translation, and information and
referral at home.

PAWSILA, West Hollywood
$1,000 to cover the costs of pet food and emergency, quake-related vet and animal
boarding expenses.

San Fernando Valley Child Day Care Resource Center, North Hollywood
$5,115 for additional mailing costs for outreach into the community of
disaster/emergency related information to families and day care providers.

San Fernando Valley Interfaith Council, Chatsworth
$5,000 to help cover the costs of a major post-quake caseload increase in program
services to seniors.

Santa Clarita Valley YMCA, Valencia

$15,000 for balance of costs of extending child care hours at 12 sites to
accommodate the increased commuting times of parents, and toward uninsured
repairs to the sites.

Valley Community Clinic, North Hollywood
$15,000 toward the costs of providing primary medical care to additional
individuals and families suffering economic hardship as a result of the earthquake.

Venice Family Clinic, Venice
$20,000 to support lab costs and x-ray fees for the remainder of the fiscal year
(until St. John’s Hospital is able to resume full service for the clinic.)

Venice Family Clinic, Venice
$7,000 to assist with increased demand for medical services in the aftermath of
the quake. (This grant is a designated contribution from Doctors Without Borders.)


0

Donald W. Jones
Vice President, Disaster Services
American Red Cross

Washington, D.C.

MISTER CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE. 1 AM DON JONES, VICE PRESIDENT OF
DISASTER SERVICES FOR THE AMURICAN RED CROSS. MISTER GENE DYSON, ACTING PRESIDENT OF THE
AMERICAN RED CROSS, ASKED ME TO COMMEND YOU FOR CONVENING THIS IMPORTANT HEARING AND TO
‘THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY FOR RED CROSS TO PARTICIPATE.

ON THIS SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF THE NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE, THE RED CROSS AGAIN
EXPRESSES HEARTFELT SYMPATHY TO THOSE AFFECTED BY THE DISASTER AND EXPRESSES THE HOPE THAT
ALL WHO COULD BE AFFECTED BY ANY FUTURE DISASTER, HEED THE LESSONS LEARNED FROM THIS AND
OTHER DISASTERS.

THE RED CROSS IS VERY PROUD OF ITS RESPONSE DURING THE NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE AND THE
ROLE IT PLAYED IN ASSISTING THOSE AFFECTED BY THIS DEVASTATING DISASTER. JOINING ME TODAY IS
MR. JAMES T. HAIGWOOD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF OUR LOS ANGELES CHAPTER WHICH IS ALSO THE
COORDINATING CHAPTER AND THE LEAD CHAPTER FOR DISASTER SERVICES OF THE RED CROSS IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. IN THIS DUAL ROLE, MR. HAIGWOOD COORDINATES ALL RED CROSS ACTIVITIES FOR
DISASTER PLANNING, PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE WITHIN THE STATE,

I WILL BEGIN MY REMARKS BY GIVING AN OVERVIEW OF THE AMERICAN RED CROSS, ITS SOURCE OF
AUTHORITY, RESPONSIBILITIES ASSIGNED BY THE FEDERAL RESPONSE PLAN, HOW IT IS FUNDED, AND
ACTION IT TOOK TO ASSIST THOSE AFFECTED BY THE NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE. I WILL THEN MAKE
SOME SPECIFIC REMARKS CONCERNING THE EFFECTIVENESS AND TIMELINESS OF OUR EFFORTS, AS WELL AS
RELATIONSHIPS WITH FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AND OTHER CHARITABLE
ORGANIZATIONS.

THE AMERICAN RED CROSS WAS CHARTERED BY CONGRESS (N 1905. IN THAT CHARTER, WE WERE
GIVEN TWO SPECIFIC MISSIONS. THE FIRST MISSION IS TO ESTABLISH AND CARRY ON A SYSTEM OF
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RELIEF IN TIME OF PEACE AND ArPLY THE SAME IN MITIGATING THE
SUFFERING CAUSED BY PESTILENCE, FAMINE, FIRE, FLOODS AND OTHER GREAT CALAMITIES, AND TO
DEVISE AND CARRY ON MEASURES FOR PREVENTING THE SAME ‘THE SECOND MISSION IN OUR CHARTER IS
TO PROVIDE A MEDIUM OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND THE ARMED FORCES, ALL OF OUR OTHER PROGRAMS SUCH AS BLOOD-TISSUE, HEALTH AND SAFETY
SERVICES, HIV/AIDS EDUCATION, AND AQUATICS HAVE BEEN ADDED SINCE RECEIVING THIS CHARTER,

‘THE AMERICAN RED CROSS IS A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION. FUNDS FOR OUR PROGRAMS COME
FROM DONATIONS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AS WELL AS CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE CORPORATE
COMMUNITY. WE ARE VERY PROUD OF THE FACT THAT 92 CENTS OF EVERY DONATED DOLLAR GOES TO
SERVICE DELIVERY. WE ARE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THIS EXCEPTIONAL STANDARD, IN LARGE PART, BECAUSE
OF THE FACT THAT 85 PERCENT OF OUR DISASTER RESPONDERS ARE VOLUNTEERS.

‘THE AMERICAN RED CROSS IS A SIGNATORY TO THE FEDERAL RESPONSE PLAN. _ OF THE 28
AGENCIES THAT ARE SIGNATORY MEMBERS, THE AMERICAN RED CROSS IS THE ONLY NON-GOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATION. WE ARE NOT REIMBURSED FOR OUR PROGRAM SUPPORT AS ARE THE OTHER 27 AGENCIES
WE CAN, HOWEVER, RECEIVE REIMBURSEMENT FOR PERFORMING FUNCTIONS OUTSIDE OF OUR NORMAL
DISASTER PROTOCOLS UNDER THE FEDERAL RESPONSE PLAN. THE AMERICAN RED CROSS IS ASSIGNED THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMERGENCY SUPPORT FUNCTION #6, MASS CARE, UNDER THIS TASKING, WE
COORDINATE THE PROVISION OF FOOD, SHELTER, EMERGENCY FIRST AID, THE DISTRIBUTION OF BULK
EMERGENCY RELIEF SUPPLIES. AND DISASTER WELFARE INFORMATION--CHECKING ON THE WELFARE OF
FAMILY MEMBERS IN THE AREA AFFECTED BY DISASTER. WE ALSO WORK WITH OTHER CHARITABLE
ORGANIZATIONS AND SOMETIMES ARE ASKED TO COORDINATE THEIR ACTIVITIES. WE GENERALLY DO THIS
THROUGH A GROUP CALLED THE VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS ACTIVE IN DISASTER (VOADs) AND OTHER
AGENCIES WITH WHICH RED CROSS HAS STATEMENTS OF UNDERSTANDING. THE VOADs ARE ESTABLISHED.
BOTH AT THE LOCAL AND STATE LEVELS.

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE, THE AMERICAN RED CROSS OPENED 47
SHELTERS AND HOUSED MORE THAN 22 THOUSAND PEOPLE, SOME CLIENTS STAYED IN THESE SHELTERS
FOR UP TO SIX WEEKS. WE PROVIDED MORE THAN | ? MILLION MEALS fOR THOSE AFFECTED BY THE


69

California's local and state emergency management systems performed effectively at the
time of the Northridge Earthquake. Nevertheless the seismic risk in this state is such that we need
to continue to aggressively pursue preparedness and risk reduction initiatives. The federal
government is an essential partner in this effort. While we share FEMA's desire to limit disaster
recovery costs, it is important to remember that future earthquakes, perhaps much more severe than
what we saw the morning of January 17, 1994 are inevitable.

‘The federal government has provided valuable, timely support to local and state efforts, and
the flexibility and problem-solving approach of the current FEMA leadership represents an
important step forward, Nonetheless, we are concemed when FEMA tries to micro-m.an3;
aspects of design and construction best left to the experts at the state and focal level and engases in
what we see as arbitrary policy reversals that have serious fiscal implications for state and local

agencies.

We stand at a critical juncture in the recovery effort. lam convinced that we can overcome
the hurdles and resolve our problems with FEMA. Again, let me emphasize that overai! 22
cooperative effort between FEMA and the state has been outstanding. James Lee Witt and his siait
have eamed our thanks and gratitude for the accomplishments to date.

And again, my thanks on behalf of California for the concern and commitment expressed
by Congress through the allocation of funding and federal resources.

I would be happy to answer any questions from members of the Committee.

Page 9


24

only do mitigation work with the State and local community when
we have a Presidentially declared disaster.

Then we can really make a difference, just like it is going to do
in California, just like it is doing in the Midwest floods, because we
will not spend disaster dollars because houses are living in flood
prone areas, because we have moved them out. The suspended ceil-
ings in these schools, fixing then back better, they won’t fall again
in another earthquake. It won’t cost us those dollars again.

What I would like to see, and I know the light is on, but I would
like to see, working with the States and local communities and
working with Members of Congress and the administration, a pre-
disaster mitigation trust fund for this country. Each State would
prioritize mitigation projects that would make a difference in fu-
ture disasters and we could support them in prioritizing certain
mitigation projects, projects that would cut costs in future disas-
ters. Then we would really make a difference in the cost and peo-
ple’s lives.

Mr. Horn. I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Califor-
nia, Mr. Dreier.

Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks, Mr. Director, for your very helpful testimony. I would
just like to raise a couple of issues which I think are specifically
related to the Northridge quake and figure out ways, as I said,
from the Whittier Narrows quake and the Loma Prieta quake that
we can learn.

We know that one of the things that became very hotly debated
here in California was the assistance checks that were provided to
people who were not qualified. There was a great deal of attention
focused on that. I would like to have some sort of update from you
first as to how you are doing at recovering those funds, No. 1.

No. 2, what steps can be taken to ensure that that problem does
not exist in the future? So that we are able to take the very scarce
resources and ensure that they get to those victims of the quake
who are truly in need.

Mr. Wirt. In Northridge we had the issue to come up with who
is eligible and who was not eligible based on whether they were
here illegally or legally a resident.

Mr. DREIER. Really?

Mr. Wirt. Which Congress passed an amendment to make sure
that when they did register for assistance that they would sign
that they were here legally. We are still following that in all of our
disasters.

The other is the means test. We do not have a means test on the
eligibility criteria for people that receive temporary housing assist-
ance in the Stafford Act. If we had to do a means test on the in-
come of individuals in a disaster, then I think we would be putting
ourselves in a situation—which we may have to go ahead and do
that, but I think we would put ourselves in a situation of not being
able to get those critical dollars to individuals as fast as we need
to. That would be my concern about that.

Mr. DREtIER. As we look at the second anniversary we know that
just this month we have seen finally a resolution to the dispute
that existed between the Los Angeles Unified School District and


143

Mr. Jones. As far as I can speak primarily to what it cost us,
our overhead cost normally runs between 14 and I have seen it go
as high as 40 percent. It will depend on the nature of the disaster.

For example, if you had—we just recently responded to floods in
Alabama that covered 57 counties. It took a lot of people to get out
and do damage assessment and deliver services, versus where you
had a large cluster, so you can’t say that—I don’t think that from
one disaster you can set any specific figure.

I am not familiar with the discussions that went on this morning
between FEMA and the State, but I think your recommendations
that you have a standard procedure in place is the way to deal with
that and then don’t have to deal with the variations prior to the
event occurring, but we do vary in it and I have seen it go as high
as 14, I have seen it go as far as 50 percent.

Mr. Horn. My experience in other incarnations—I was once a
dean of research and graduate studies for a year and then presi-
dent of the university for 18 years. What you run into in a univer-
sity, Federal Government overhead is the whole range, from zero
to the Department of Education historically at about 8 percent—
take it or leave it—and then of course to the National Science
Foundation’s set rate, which would be anywhere from 40 percent
for a public university to almost 100 percent for some private uni-
versities.

Cynically I could feel that the private universities were gouging
the Federal Government, but if you are private university presi-
dent you don’t feel that way, and the fact is people have a choice
of whether they take the overhead or not when they apply for these
grants, so maybe that isn’t a fair analogy, but you and I both know
that overhead covers a whole multitude of items.

Mr. JONES. Absolutely.

Mr. Horn. Some inclusive, some not——

Mr. JONES. Yes.

Mr. Horn. In the case of a university, you take a percent of the
executive office, the library, you name it, toss it in the bin, and see
if it will stand an audit, so I am just curious what you feel the
standard ought to be, or is that just flexible based on the resources
you used in the disaster?

Mr. JONES. Yes, I think so, and we even take it one step further
and get into a dialog on what is administrative and what is support
cost. The cost of my salary when I go to disasters is an administra-
tive cost. If I was out there driving a vehicle, it would be support
costs, so it really gets a little cloudy when you start doing it.

The reason that we are able to return so high a percent of our
donated dollars back to the victims is no salaries follow all of those
volunteers, and our costs would increase significantly if we did not
have the kind of donated—you know, the commitment from those
volunteers.

Mr. Haicwoop. But the overhead or administrative costs do vary
depending on the type of disaster. A highly concentrated disaster
is much more efficient for us to respond to, where we have a small-
er number spread over a much larger geographic area, it drives up
the cost, so we do have a great deal of flexibility and from our per-
spective if flexibility was there, it would be beneficial to us, but


10

It was, of course, the largest disaster that we have ever had that
would hit an urban area. We had taken over 681,000 applications
from individuals. And the total losses, as the chairman said earlier,
$25 to $30 billion in losses. FEMA to this date has provided $3.4
billion in the recovery efforts on public assistance and individual
assistance, plus billions more dollars from other Federal agencies.

The administration’s comment and the President’s comment was,
on that first day, do whatever we have to do to help California re-
cover. What he meant, and what he intended, and what he wanted,
was that we utilize every available Federal resource to make sure
that we supported the State and local efforts in the recovery and
response that we had to do.”

Also there was a commitment by not only you, the Members of
Congress, but also from the President and all of us that we would
be here as long as it took to help make sure that that recovery ef-
fort was completed in long-term.

The scope and the magnitude of this earthquake required FEMA
and other Federal agencies to really come together and foster a
partnership. I remember several nights that Secretary Riley, Sec-
retary Pena, Rodney Slater, the Federal Highway Administrator,
Secretary Henry Cisneros, and all of us would meet late in the
night together to make sure that that effort was united. That has
made a big difference in how we respond, by doing it together and
maximizing that Federal dollar to its limit in disasters.

We formed partnerships with Mayor Riordan, Blenda_ Wilson,
here, other subgrantees, Dick Andrews and the State OES, Gov-
ernor Wilson’s office. What was really interesting was the partner-
ship that we had formed with you, Members of Congress and your
staff. We had Members of Congress and their staff working with
us on outreach teams in the communities, going out and coming
back and saying, you know, we have got a problem over here, what
can we do about this. It was a tremendous effort and it helped us
a great deal.

We had a tremendous effort by all of the communities in support-
ing what we were doing in outreach and community leaders. The
community-based organizations here in California just did a fantas-
tic job in outreach and helping us to get information out to those
individuals. They passed out information in churches on Sunday
morning church services at night, which really made a big dif-
ference.

The people of Los Angeles themselves, the strength that they had
to endure this and to overcome those odds was incredible. You saw
neighbors helping neighbors and supporting each other in this cri-
sis.

We did create a lot of new innovations. We did fast track hous-
ing. Of course there was mistakes, but any time you make those
changes and try to do it better and more effective and more effi-
cient and with that mass of people that needed assistance, and
Dick Andrews and I talked about this, is there a way that we can
get that assistance out faster.

So we used the State’s modeling system and overlaid it with zip
code maps to help get that money out to those individuals to get
their lives back faster. And yes there were some that did not de-
serve to get that money, but it was over 85 percent accurate on


141

United Way Testimony
January 19, 1996
Page Two

Asa result of that regulation, United Way, in conjunction with the Los Angeles Emergency Food
and Shelter Program Local Board (EFSP), immediately moved to assist the nonprofit sector
severely impacted by the 1994 earthquake by facilitating the filing of their disaster
reimbursement claims. The more than 90 organization claims that were ultimately bundled into
the United Way claim totals approximately $30 million.

The ability of nonprofit organizations to obtain federal reimbursement in order to provide
governmental related essential services during a disaster is vital to the community's ability to
recover from such a catastrophic event. Nonprofit agencies have a unique role during a disaster
for, with their direct link and knowledge of the community they serve, they are, in many
instances, the first ones on the scene and the best situated in providing food and shelter to those
in need. At the same time, however, these nonprofit agencies are undergoing their own
difficulties with organizational and structure damage as a result of the disaster.

I, therefore, can not stress enough the value of providing disaster reimbursement to nonprofits so
that they can effectively serve the community in the time of a disaster. However, I would like to
share my thoughts and recommendations for increasing the effectiveness of the program.

Recommendations

© Two years afier the earthquake, a number of nonprofit agencies are still awaiting receipt of
their reimbursement. This delay has caused tremendous hardships among the agencies.
Recognizing the unique role the nonprofit community has to play in the community, I
recommend in future disasters that these claims be processed in a more timely manner.

© Throughout the filing and determination process, United Way consistently encountered
difficulties in coordinating the claims through both state and federal agencies, Continual
effort to strengthen and improve the coordination between these agencies is greatly needed.
‘One specific action that could be taken to improve such efforts is to develop a standard
memorandum of understanding between the state, the federal government and designated
nonprofit representatives before a disaster occurs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify before your committee. I will be happy
to answer any questions you have. We look forward to working with you to enhance future
disaster response.


29

is eligible and what is not eligible as you are spending dollars for
the rest of the year during that first week.

It is very difficult. And if we can clarify those eligibility require-
ments, what is really needed to support that State and local gov-
ernment.

In short, that is some way that I think will make a difference
and the timeframe of getting those dollars out there so they know
they will have them in place to respond. That will make a big dif-
ference.

Mr. McKEoNn. Thank you very much.

I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. Horn. Now I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Vir-
ginia, Mr. Davis.

Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Witt, to help citizens and communities recover from the ef-
fects of disastrous events, such as earthquakes, FEMA, I under-
stand, provides financial and other assistance to individuals and
families and financial assistance to States, local governments and
certain private non-profit organizations for the repair, restoration
and the reconstruction of infrastructure.

Now, for approved infrastructure projects FEMA typically grants
money to the State which then distributes the funds to local gov-
ernments or non-profit groups, as I understand it. Recognizing that
recovery from an earthquake is typically lengthy and complicated,
would you say that recovery from Northridge is taking longer than
expected and if so, why?

If you had the opportunity, what would you do differently to ac-
celerate recovery? What are the lessons learned?

Mr. Wirt. I think some of the statements that were made earlier
about improving in what we do working with the States, State and
locals in eligibility, that was a tremendous problem and still is. If
we can improve in how we handle mitigations, by doing mitigation
and including it in our inspections, when we do our inspections of
that damaged facility, we will hopefully expedite that by working
with the State and making sure. Dick has done this very well, and
prioritizing mitigation, that made a difference.

I think one of the biggest factors that we had, that individuals
themselves, when we have a Presidential disaster declaration, they
think the Federal Government is going to make them whole again.
Making them aware that we are not making them whole, that is
not the kind of programs we have, will help a great deal. We have
to do that in conjunction with the State through public awareness.

Mr. Davis. That is just managing the expectations.

Mr. WirT. Yes, absolutely. That can make a big difference. That
expectation is there in public assistance as well.

Mr. Davis. That is a problem throughout Government.

Mr. WITT. Yes.

Mr. Davis. Of course, an earthquake presents special challenges
because the infrastructure damage it causes is often hidden and re-
pairs are complex. To obtain assessments for this type of damage,
FEMA may require architectural engineer studies, which include
structural evaluations, preliminary cost estimates that are re-
viewed by FEMA inspectors.


166

after a strong seismic event. It must, therefore, remain intact and
be completely functional, since it will be used as the emergency
management center after a major earthquake.

In view of the pivotal importance of the Public Safety Building
to the city of Long Beach, the city proposes to carry out the nec-
essary modifications to ensure that police and fire protection are
not disrupted in the event of an earthquake, but an integral part
of this project is establishing a monitoring capability to ensure the
adequacy of these modifications. This includes comprehensive in-
strumentation installed and operated for continuous monitoring
and assessment, state-of-the-art sensors embedded in the building
at critical locations, as well as surface mounted instruments will be
used to measure the structural performance characteristics, dy-
namic response and other characteristics.

The proposed program involves computer modelling and simula-
tion, nike fe cycle cost/benefit analysis, placement of sensors prior to
retrofit, structural bracing of the building, instrumentation of the
building following retrofit, and data collection and analysis for a
period of 3 years to determine the effectiveness of the modifica-
tions.

This project and others of this type demonstrate the effectiveness
of employing existing technologies to reduce earthquake damage to
critical facilities. Based on our experience here in Northridge, it is
imperative that we learn how to prevent this kind of damage from
reoccurring in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]


3408

$360 HOUONHLSHOO ENAMION! SINNOHY USO TTy SLNASDcE 3USH CALSN SLNNCHY 3HL LOUSY TRY JHL YOs NBLLIUM USO AV BAYH ORISITYSO3TY TH

alSN Si 8S NOWINALSHOD 3A

de ONY HALTOM N33 2M WSO NOLOMULSNOD Y ONV USO BIY AV HCA,

ston

TaARISSOE |

Be Teaasal

TSB SOWEI|

HAST SORE

EASE GOVE

Tana

EL Seal EGS ALD TET

TED NICO BTGHALIO Wa |

Pa SOMES

FBeawraarer0 Gaon asren ALO TA |

Tha SOAS WALT]

“RIT STH oR]

Bogle ti

TRALSTMLS Evinva Sonos THIGH

ane

TEAR Sowa HUNG Ta ADS Croke OW |

TOTS}

TDNGnIST

anus}

RES SSE

FON ORG)

TA HOLEETIOO TAL)

rad

Deo RRD VORA Tg

E [3] 3} 3) 3/313

ae)

sms

aor

3909 [30

300)

isuonrowg|

PuLiosrowd

Slu0da4 33V


140

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD

Submitted to United way
Committee On Government Reform and Oversight

Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology

by

John F. Suggs, Director, Public Policy & Government Affairs
United Way of Greater Los Angeles

January 19, 1996

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 1 am John Suggs, the Director of Public Policy &
Government Affairs for United Way of Greater Los Angeles. Thank you for inviting me here
today to speak on behalf of United Way of Greater Los Angeles’ (United Way) and the nonprofit
community's recovery efforts following the January 1994 earthquake.

To respond to the devastating earthquake, United Way worked closely with our network of over
250 member nonprofit agencies and partners, thousands of corporate supporters and other United
Ways across the nation. Both short- and long-term projects were put in place by United Way to
provide relief to the agencies and residents of the affected communities.

Relief projects implemented by United Way included the establishment of an Earthquake Relief
Fund which raised and distributed more than $1.7 million to 71 nonprofit agencies which had
earthquake-related damage and those which provided relief services. This included more than
$450,000 distributed to the American Red Cross and $40,000 to the Salvation Army's relief
programs. In addition United Way linked volunteers in relief programs with community services
agencies in need of assistance and sponsored the Interfaith Hunger Coalition's publication and
distribution of 200,000 English and Spanish guides “How to Get Food, Disaster Assistance and
Money” to Disaster Assistance Centers (DACS), Red Cross Shelters, churches, service providers,
hospitals, legal advocates. and schools. The guide provided essential information to quake
victims on how to obiain food, income, housing, health care and legal services.

Today, however, in light of this committee’s charge, I would like to discuss in greater detail
United Way's experience afier the 1994 earthquake with filing an umbrella Disaster Claim with
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Governor's Office of Emergency
Services (OES) on behalf of more than 90 nonprofit community organizations.

It is not well known that certain nonprofit organizations qualify for public assistance
reimbursement of disaster related services. However, 44 CFR 206.221 stipulates that private
nonprofit organizations which provided qualified food, shelter and/or similar immediate disaster
telief as well as those agencies with building and equipment damage qualify for public assistance
reimbursement if the services provided are open to the general public and are of an essential
nature otherwise provided by the government. Homeless shelters, community centers, senior
citizen centers, rehabilitation agencies and food pantries are among those services that qualify.

United Way of Greater Loy Angeles + 323 West Sisth Street + Los Angeles, CA 90014 + 213/630-2100



91

MISSION REQUEST PROCESS

‘The National Guard receives emergency missions directly from the Governor's Office
‘of Emergency Services. Requests for assistance from local government officials are processed through
‘county or regional offices of emergency services to the state for approval Missions appropriate for
military support are referred to the California National Guard for action.



11

what we did. There has been a tremendous effort and some people
that didn’t need the money sent the checks back and other people’s
has been collected since then.

The IG’s office, very early I asked the IG to come out here. I
asked our general counsel to come out here to be part of our team.
And very early Dick and myself, and the IG, and all of us decided
that we were not going to tolerate fraud and that we were going
to have the press conferences and we were going to advertise this.
We would not tolerate fraud, because the people that needed this
money, it was important that they get it. And that worked very
well,

We had an Ace Computer Compact which we used for the first
time, where it would actually estimate the damages when the in-
spectors went out. It cut the time down considerably in getting
checks back to individuals and that was the first time we have ever
used it.

The recovery channel, between the State OES and FEMA, we es-
tablished a recovery channel for the first time, by satellite, that
would link up 100 different cable television stations could pull this
recovery channel down with vital information to those individuals
and businesses and elected officials and it worked extremely well.
Service centers, we set up 11 service centers where all State agen-
cies, Federal agencies would be in a service center where people
could just come in and inquire or had problems and we would try
to follow through and take care of those problems.

The language barriers that we had were just incredible and it
was a task in itself to make sure that we had the people in service
centers, on our hotline, that could answer their questions in several
different languages. I think the outreach teams that we had here
with the State and FEMA and the local constituents and commu-
nity based organizations made a tremendous difference. For the
first time, California OES and FEMA had an outreach team that
worked individually with those local elected officials, saying this is
what you are going to have to do, this is what we need.

We signed an MOU with the State of California on mitigation.
Has it made a difference? Maybe it is fixing to really start making
a difference by putting more of the responsibility and the authority
in the State’s hands to approve or disapproved mitigation projects,
with FEMA following through, providing technical assistance or
whatever we need to do.

We are working on a national MOU now with NEMA and Dick
is the president of NEMA now. Where we can sign an MOU with
every State in advance of a declaration or a catastrophic disaster
or whatever it may be, where it could be in the forefront and then
already have it planned and in place and ready to go. Lessons
learned? Absolutely, centralization of application process and func-
tions work. It actually works and it speeds up the process.

FEMA and the Nation need to develop better ways of coordinat-
ing damage assessments, particularly in earthquakes. We learned
a lot from that in California. The new contract we have with con-
tractors on inspections, we put it in their contract that these in-
spectors had to be trained. The need for pre-identified teams of
highly specialized responders, very early, first week, it was very


Architectural and Engineering Studies Awaiting Approval:

Beverly Glen Tank Permanent Repairs
Coldwater Canyon Tank Permanent Repairs
Granada Trunk Line Relocation

Mulholland Drive Pipe Replacement

San Femando Valley Generating Plant Building

Projects Awaiting Approval:

+ Terminal Hill (Hazard Mitigation Project)
+ Retrofit DWP Drinking Water Storage Tank
(Hazard Mitigation Project)

Depertment of Water and Power - Power System: DSRs at an esiirated repair
cost of $160.7 million (no change since July 1996 report) have been submitted to FEMA and OES.
Funding in the amount of $105.1 million has been approved to datz (an increase of $1.5 million since
the July 1996 report), Cash payments in the amount of $69.1 have been made to the Power System.

‘Major Projeci Status:

Project Estimated Completion Schedale
+ Sylmar Converter Siation 69
+ Power Distribution Div. Project 291
+ Rinaldi Receiving Station 6/98
+ Receiving Station E 9198
+ Receiving Station U 10/97
+ Receiving Station D 11/97
+ Receivisg Station J 4/98
+ Olive Switching Station 497
«Anthony Office Building (phase !) Completed 5/96
+ Anthony Office Building (phase I!) 997
Recommendation

Note and file

Ficcal lmpact Statement

No General Fund fiscal impact. Northridge Earthquake repair cosis will be funded with
federal and state disaster grant funds.

KC:-MHB;j
Attachments
2979114


102

ful, generous, loving, giving ple, and we don’t like to see anyone
in pain, and we work very hard to make sure no one is, but if it
is a repetitive loss, as you have termed it, again and again, you
have built a house where there are floods and mud slides and your
house keeps falling down and the Federal taxpayer grows weary in
a hurry of putting your house back up, particularly where you have
not provided for your own insurance or take measures to protect
yourself,

That is very insightful. I am glad to see that the State govern-
ment has a similar attitude.

I have nothing further. Mr. Davis.

Mr. Davis. Thank you. Let me try to get a question for each of

ou.
» General Brandt, it’s a pleasure to see you here. I was in the
Guard for 8 years. The closest I usually got to the officer was on
Saturday afternoon. We used to cut the grass at the officers’ quar-
ters.

As you pointed out in your testimony, the California National
Guard has felt the effects of the downsizing of the U.S. military.
Further downsizing and restructuring appears likely and if the
40th Infantry Division were disestablished, for example, this would
result in much of the Guard’s support capabilities, and if that were
to occur, what organization or organizations are there that could
perform the missions that have been performed in the past by
Guard and your Division?

Major General BRANDT. There are active Army and the active
military, you know. There are other reserve components. There are
civilian agencies that might be able to help, but primarily that has
been our role throughout history.

Mr. Davis. Let me ask a question if I can, Dr. Andrews. The
GAO report in June, I think it was of 1994, that the California Of-
fice of Emergency Services stated that FEMA’s requirement to
issue fixed price contracts wasn’t always appropriate because at
times the scope of the work was so broad and the cost determina-
tion so difficult that contractors were reluctant to bid on a fixed
price contract. They didn’t know what they might get stuck with.

Do you know if FEMA is continuing that or are they showing
greater flexibility of these prices or not?

Mr. ANDREWS. I am not familiar, but will get back to you with
an answer on that specific question.

Mr. Davis. OK. I meant to ask the FEMA representative on that.

Following that, and I will ask both of you, Ms. Perett and Dr.
Andrews, it seems to me that FEMA has developed a criteria for
providing assistance in most disasters, but following mega-disas-
ters like the Northridge earthquake, wouldn’t a different criteria,
perhaps a waiver of some of the other criterias, be more practical
when you get into a mega-disaster?

Mr. ANDREWS. I think clearly large scale catastrophic disasters,
if you will, do place special requirements on local, State as well as
on the Federal Government.

I think the fundamental problem that we have faced is just the
inherent technical complexity that results from earthquake disas-
ters. You know, fire, floods, other kinds of disasters, it is fairly easy
to determine the damage, but there is a great deal of latitude and


118

what we can call direct and indirect impacts of a disaster and the
relief efforts on the non-profits themselves.

To summarize some key points, starting with the case load is-
sues, community clinics and counseling agencies needed help to de-
liver primary medical and mental health services prior to the exe-
cution of Federal reimbursement contracts with the county, maybe
rather than execution, a better word would be activation of those
contracts, and the county’s corresponding execution of service
agreements with those agencies.

Clinics and other agencies that have suffered damage themselves
needed high priority emergency assistance within the first few
hours of the earthquake to affect running repairs and return to
operational status. Others saw short-term increases in client load
because they were the most accessible service providers. People
couldn’t get to the local emergency room—that kind of thing.

Those clinics in some cases found themselves scrambling for
basic supplies to meet the volume of clients.

Problems were predictably worse and at a much longer duration
in neighborhoods with high percentages of uninsured residents.

Very high demands were placed on any agency whose primary
clients were older adults—and I might add, people with disabil-
ities—who tended to suffer higher degrees of disorientation, isola-
tion, frustration with bureaucratic processes, and transportation
and mobility problems. Those agencies, rather hard-hit, were
among those who came to us asking for private assistance to help
them meet their client needs.

Child care services were both critically needed and significantly
disrupted in a couple of significantly different ways. Extended day
services were essential, especially in communities like the Santa
Clarita Valley where transportation systems and commuting pat-
terns were disrupted, and agencies had to extend hours signifi-
cantly longer than they would otherwise be providing care.

Also, there was a dearth of service available in neighborhoods
where damage to housing stock displaced significant numbers of
home-based child care workers. This last group was particularly
isolated and in need of assistance, often even more than the fami-
lies that relied upon them for child care because they had really
been hit twice. Their homes were damaged and their way of earn-
ing a living was also disrupted.

Those people, I would note, are a little harder to reach through
non-profit mechanisms than many of the other disaster relief vic-
tims we dealt with.

Regional food banks found themselves in the delivery business to
an unprecedented degree. Transportation system disruptions meant
that client agencies were often unable, at least in the first weeks
after the quake, to follow their normal pattern, which was to go to
the food banks to pick up food that they could then distribute in
neighborhoods and communities, so the food banks needed assist-
ance with transportation.

Similar patterns were seen in agencies where clients, often devel-
opmentally disabled folk or children with special needs or accus-
tomed to being delivered to them for full-day services—those deliv-
ery patterns were disrupted as well.


65

Intergovernmental Liaison Council and other special task forces with affected local governments
that included cabinet level officials from the Clinton Administration.

Seventy-two hours after the earthquake, the first 11 Disaster Application Centers (DACs)
opened for business throughout the disaster area. Eventually 21 DACs served the earthquake
victims. Mobile DACs traveled to 80 different locations to serve special populations, some of
which were in isolated communities. This effort was coupled with an aggressive outreach program
that included over 150 staff speaking 16 different languages to help guide people through the
assistance process. Two years following the earthquake, more than 680,000 people have applied
for disaster assistance, more than double the number in any previous single US disaster.

The scale and pace in providing assistance to individuals affected by the Northridge
earthquake was unprecedented. More people received assistance in the first six weeks after
Northridge than in the first six months after Hurricane Andrew. Twice as many people registered
for assistance as in any previous disaster in this country

At FEMA's request California was involved in every phase of this effort. FEMA used our
earthquake modeling capability to identify areas that could receive the initial aid checks, getting
assistance into the hands of disaster victims in recotd time, The administrative costs of these
efforts were substantial. It has been particularly discouraging that, over a year after the disaster,
FEMA reversed policy and approval of funds to the state by "deobligating” over $13 millicr in
administrative costs that the state incurred in supporting the operations in the disaster application
and earthquake service centers that were the focal points of this historic effort.

To help people displaced when more than 6,000 mobile homes were jolted off their
foundations, OES designed and FEMA authorized the repair and replacement of mobile uni
seismucally braced support systems as part of an innovative adaptation of the FEMA Minirz:)
Housing Repair Program. The final phase of this successful, innovative program will end “his

month.
Complex Recovery Issues
Because of the inherent technical complexities of seismic damage, the Northridge
earthquake has highlighted limitations in the current structure of federal disaster assistance

regulations and policies . [believe that federal disaster assistance policies, particularly as they
apply to damaged public structures, need to be reformed. Quite simply, current programs are too

Page 5


7

cially. I mean, I didn’t hear the Governor run around saying we
don’t have any money and in 2 or 3 weeks we are going to get some
money from the city of Los Angeles.

So, you know, I have great respect for you, but for you to include
those kinds of comments makes it very volatile. We can, in the fu-
ture, work out these things. But I mean, it seems rather small to
come here and make those kind of comments, when things have
been going along relatively well, 1 mean as far as negotiating these
things out. Everybody has been trying.

Mr. ANDREWS. I would agree. I would agree, Congressman. Let
me just try to clarify my remarks.

First of all, the costs to the State of California from this disaster
have been and will be substantial. The loan from the city of Los
Angeles was, in fact, a strategy that was sort of suggested, ini-
tially, by President Clinton as a way to meet concerns and it is for
short-term cash-flow issues. The State of California is in the proc-
ess of repaying both that loan and another loan to cover individual
assistance and we are doing it in, basically, record time.

Mr. Dixon. Now, just let me, and I may be wrong on this, I un-
derstand that the executive branch did suggest it, but it wasn’t a
gratuitous statement. It was, well, we don’t have the 10 percent.
It wasn’t, well, why don’t we give you the 90 percent and, hey, it
is a great idea for the State to get this money from Los Angeles.
It was, well, even if you come up with 90 percent, we don’t have
the 10. Well, let’s see what we can do, L.A. has got some credits
here. So when you say that, well, President Clinton suggested it.

Mr. ANDREWS. And we appreciated the suggestion and we appre-
ciated the assistance that has been provided and, again, the costs
to the State of California are, and will be, substantial. Our esti-
mate is that the current costs to date are approximately $280 to
$300 million and those costs are rising substantially.

Mr. Dixon. Right.

Mr. ANDREWS. The State agreed to undertake the balance of the
10 percent obligation. Again, that is not something that we nec-
essarily had to do, but we agreed to do. The precedent for the 90/
10 cost share was not something unique to the State of California.
It was previously applied for Florida in the aftermath of Hurricane
Andrew.

So, certainly, the intent is not at all in any way to diminish or
denigrate the contributions or to suggest that there has been a bat-
tle or should be a battle or will be a battle for TV time. It is simply
to suggest, with regard to emergency response, that the way to
achieve, I believe, the objective of the Congress, which is to reduce
Federal costs for disasters, is to emphasize local and State support.

It was very important in 1994 for FEMA to demonstrate, as they
have in dramatic fashion, when James Lee Witt left California
after being here for almost 7 weeks in a row, after the disaster, I
said in a press conference with him that FEMA had exorcised the
ghost of Hurricane Andrew quite effectively as a result of their per-
formance in the Northridge earthquake.

It is simply important that we do these things, and particularly
in the first hours and days, in response to legitimate requests, not
simply to demonstrate a capability. Again, it was no more than
that.


16

The amount of federal assistance provided for this disaster is only one part of the Northridge
earthquake recovery. As I indicated before, President Clinton directed that this recovery
effort be collaborative, fiscally responsible, flexible, efficient, compassionate and fast. From
January 17, 1994 to January 19, 1996, FEMA has continued to develop innovative strategies
to provide service more quickly and efficiently than ever before. Eliminating time-
consuming bureaucratic procedures, making use of the latest technological advances available
to the federal family, and developing strong partnerships helped to produce new ways of
delivering relief to the victims of this disaster.

Expediting assistance was the number one goal of the federal government following the
earthquake. The President's immediate disaster declaration enabled the government to
mobilize its resources on-the-spot. When senior administration officials arrived in Los
Angeles, they were able to offer disaster funding immediately to ensure that victims received
the help they needed. Federal programs were adapted to meet the unique needs of
earthquake victims, and disaster assistance applications were simplified to make it easier and
faster to apply

The enormity of this disaster demanded that we find creative way’s to deliver assistance on a
massive scale, An immediate infusion of 5,000 federal disaster workers enabled the agency
to quickly set up a comprehensive disaster assistance network that covered more than 2,100
sguare miles severely impacted by the earthquake

Three days into the disaster, 11 Disaster Application Centers were strategically located
throughout the disaster area to bring assistance to the thousands of victims seeking assistance
Eventually 21 centers were opened and mobile application centers were established in 80
locations to reach individuals who otherwise could not register for assistance. One month into
the disaster, FEMA opened and operated 1] long-term Earthquake Service Centers, which
enabled disaster victims to meet with representatives from all disaster assistance providers.
More than 150,000 people applied for Federal disaster assistance at these centers. In the one
year period of April 1994 to April 1995. 430.000 persons visited the Service Centers for a
wide variety of Federal. State and local help available

For the first time in any disaster, FEMA implemented a Fast Track Disaster Housing
Assistance Program To get money rapidly into the hands of victims. FEMA provided
expedited assistance using a zip code map in conjunction with a seismic map of the area
hardest hit by the earthquake. The overlay of the maps identified where the most damaged
homes were likely to be. Housing checks were immediately sent to all individuals from
those areas that had applied for aid. prior to completing inspections. An inspection team was
later sent to verify losses and a collection process was put in place so that only those who
needed the funds ulimately received them.

In responding to the needs of disaster victims, we have to be vigilant in our responsibilities

to the taxpayers. In doing so, | am fortunate to have a solid management team that includes
my Inspector General (IG) and Chief Financial Officer. Disaster response is the

4


160

such centers as this. We are very interested at Cal State, Long
Beach, in being a part of this process.

We believe that this is something that, through relatively small
expenditures compared to what we spend taking care of the devas-
tation of natural disasters, that we can prevent some of this devas-
tation.

So this is the testimony that we want to give to you and your
committee; and we want to talk to the part about where we go,
what did we learn from this and what can we do. I was interested
in hearing the people that preceded us from the volunteer organiza-
tions, talking about where they have to house themselves and say-
ing that we desperately need to protect the volunteers. And this is
exactly what we are talking about with these centers. It is to use
the technology that we have and use the education that we have
to try to mitigate against the devastation of these natural disas-
ters.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Maxson follows:]


99

Mr. Davis. I’ve got the question for everybody, sir. But let me
ask you just another question on it. What about summer camp
counting toward leave and all of that being State versus Federal-
ized, in terms of retirement.

Is there a difference?

Major General BRANDT. In State active duty there is no pay or
retirement earned for Federal retirement.

Mr. Davis. You don’t get any credit?

Major General BRANDT. No.

Mr, Davis. It’s not paid but you don’t get the credit when you
are called up at the State level?

Major General BRANDT. No.

Mr. Davis. Do you get to replace the summer camp and maybe
do away with that, which is, I think, Federal?

Major General BRANDT. No. We try to keep them separate and
one thing I want to make perfectly clear is that we—in the Califor-
nia National Guard—our policy is we lean forward and we work
with Dr. Andrews and his people very, very closely, so when we get
word that there has been an earthquake or some problem is devel-
oping, we activate our key personnel immediately and we are ready
to expand beyond that as necessary.

If we receive no tasking from the Office of Emergency Services,
then we very quickly just crank that down and in some cases we
have had brought soldiers in on a drill status, a Federal drill sta-
tus, and they will conduct their drill but they are ready to respond.

Mr. Davis. Thank you.

Mr. Horn. I didn’t mean to interrupt you if you had more to say
in your formal remarks.

Major General BRANDT. No, I——

Mr. Horn. Did you want to conclude or had you already con-
cluded?

Major General BRANDT. The only other thing I would like to say
in my formal remarks is that the real problem we have now is the
downsizing of the military, which is having a tremendous impact
on the California National Guard in particular and the entire Cali-
fornia delegation has been working very hard to mitigate the
downsizing to a certain degree but what this means is that basi-
cally our training funds for the California National Guard, Army
National Guard, have been cut just shy of 78 percent this year.

So between the maintenance cuts of dollars for maintenance of
about 19 percent, what that all equates to is in losses of equipment
and the threatened loss of the 40th Infantry Division in California
means that in the future the California National Guard, even
though we may have the equipment and may have the soldiers,
they won't be trained to the standard that they should be and the
equipment will not be—we will not be meeting the operational
readiness standards because we simply don’t have the money.

I would like to add on that that—this is an advertisement while
I have got the chance—the National Guard of the United States,
Army National Guard, is 5 percent of the Army’s budget and one
active, Army Division can pay for eight Divisions in the National

ruard.

The thing that has saved California time and time again, and
this Nation because the 40th Infantry Division fought in World


21

Mr. Horn. Thank you very much for that very thorough over-
view.

T now yield the first 5 minutes to the vice chairman of the sub-
committee, Mr Flanagan of Illinois.

Mr. FLANAGAN. Good morning, Mr. Witt.

Mr. Witt. Good morning:

Mr. FLANAGAN. I compliment you a a very fine and thorough
statement. They need to hear me, too, OK.

The scope of the earthquake was, I guess, apocalyptic really isn’t
too bad of a term to use, considering the tens of billions involved
in the losses and the loss of life. What impediments did you endure
on your way to recovery, which we are still going through?

I am not talking about the larger picture ones that you were
talking of mitigation and other things where we can cure those. I
am talking about a far more technical level, things that we can cor-
rect immediately.

What along the way was in your way to get things done? How
can we fix it? How can we make it better, get it out of your way
so we can streamline this and what wasn’t in your way, perhaps,
that you thought was that we can key into and make sure that that
mistake doesn’t happen again, if there was one?

Mr. Witt. There was a lot of mistakes and a lot of lessons
learned. There is no doubt about that. I think that one of the most
important lessons that I have learned, since being with FEMA and
particularly brought to my attention in Northridge, was the fact
that a lot of the staff at FEMA, they work very, very hard and are
very dedicated and they really want to make a difference, but what
has happened over the years is that they have been involved in so
many disasters that, they have basically taken those disasters and
have said, well, this is the way we did it the last time.

So what is important, from what I learned here in California,
was a lot of the decisions that were made and have been made in
previous disasters were based on what they had done before with-
out having policy established. So what we are doing now, we are
going back and developing that policy to have a policy book where
we can share that book with our Federal coordinating officers like
Leland Wilson, like the State director, Dick Andrews, and like our
disaster field offices. They can open the book and there is that pol-
icy and that was not there. Some policies are, yes, but not the poli-
cies that we need in place to address mitigation, to address public
assistance, individual assistance and temporary housing and all of
those vital programs in the disaster.

Mr. FLANAGAN. Perhaps on a more specific level, could you tell
us, anecdotally perhaps, you are talking to someone who has never
been in an earthquake, not even a small one——

Mr. Horw. Stick around.

Mr. FLaNnaGAN. Yes, stick around, thank you. [Laughter.]

I am going to take you back to Chicago with me and introduce
you to the concept of snow.

My question is really, can you tell us about—we just received
some testimony a few minutes ago that we will hear later from the
California Community Foundation, where there were grants dis-
tributed to lawyers to help people make grants. Maybe this is a
good thing, maybe it is not. We will hear about it later.


50

tate recession in Los Angeles, let’s say that house was worth $1
million a moment before the earthquake and after the earthquake
with the damage, let’s say it has $300,000 of damage, there should
be efficient ways to, in effect, restructure that loan, down to
$700,000 and then in return for that the SBA would lend the
$300,000 or the other lender would.

In a lot of cases the lender would lend the money to bring it back
up. I think it is very complicated. This would be the subject of a
1 or 2-day conference as to how it makes it happen, but the Federal
Reserve in the past said, if you have that $1 million loan and it
went down to $700,000 that you would have to write off, against
your reserves, $1 million. And then the worst part was, if you went
in and, in fact, lowered the loan to $700,000 and lent another
$300,000, you would still have to reduce your reserve, which I
think multiplies, what is it, by 15 times your ability to make other
loans,

So I think that we need a lot more flexibility and I don’t under-
stand all the ramifications of it, but I know it is something that
is very well worth delving into.

Mr. Dixon. I am glad to hear you say that, because I do think
people get caught and fall between the cracks in that situation,
wealthy as well as poor people.

Mr. RIORDAN. I will give you one other example, and I have men-
tioned this several times to Gene Ludwig and others. A lot of these
mortgage companies package mortgages and then sell them to the
public through Merrill Lynch or others, they will put $1 billion of
mortgages and in the trust indentures they are given the power to
forestall interest for a certain time, but they are not generally
given the power to restructure the loan at a lower rate. So that was
a major problem. So you might think of Federal legislation in that
area.

Mr. Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Mr. Horn. Thank you

Now, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Flana-
gan.

Mr. FLANAGAN. Mayor, thank you for your testimony. It was very
good.

Mr. RIORDAN. Thank you.

Mr. FLANAGAN. It is always important to not only see a local per-
spective, but an urban local perspective and I am from the city of
Chicago and being in the Republican party makes me a true minor-
ity, because the party is not well represented in large cities in Con-
gress. It takes a long time to have the majority understand many
of the problems that you are talking about.

If I may pursue your regulatory questions that you took up so
ably with Mr. Horn and Mr. Dixon with some unfunded mandates
and the difficulties.

Mr. RIORDAN. My favorite topic.

Mr. FLANAGAN. Yes, you have identified articulately many regu-
latory difficulties that you have, the FDIC, the banking institu-
tions, the SBA and other things where Federal regulations make
it difficult for you to accomplish immediate need issues on some-
thing that you need done in an extraordinary way because of the
extraordinariness of the circumstances.


95

OM Ge, 368 (a. 80) CITY OF LOS ANGELES

INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPO!
NOENGE 1000-00042.0000

Date: Kepot Bb be Wcbased, (2-W-Ff,
To: ‘The Ad Hoc Commitice on Earthquake Recovery
From: Keith Comrie, City Administrative Officer

Subject!  NOATHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT AND
INFORMATION UPDATE

FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT

Estimated City Government costs for the Northridge Earthquake response and recovery
now iotal approximately $1.05 billion.

To date the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Governor's
Office of Emergency Services (OES} have approved $897.4 million in disaster assistance grants for
the City of Los Angeles. FEMA records show an additional $13.8 million in process and pending
approval. As of November 25, 1996 the City has received cash payments of approximately $439
million in combined FEMA and OES funds.

STATUS OF CITY FACILITIES REPAIR PROJECTS

City Hall: All federal approvals for the $140 million earthquake repair and seismic
rehsbilitation grant for City Hall have been received. The FEMA share is $126 mi
percent OES match amounts to $14 million. The Engineer is now involved in obt
Tequired historic review clearances and FEMA/OES review of construction documents.

Bridges: Construction on the four FEMA-<ligible bridge projects has been completed.

Street Projects: Construction is complete on 19 of the 20 FEMA-funded street
projects. The last FEMA-funded project, involving crack sealing, will be going to bid shorily.

Sewers: The Bureau of Engineering estimates that about 300 projects (1,834 Damage
Survey Reports (DSRs)) will be FEMA-<ligible, at a total reconstruction cost exceeding $260 million,
‘To date, FEMA has approved $192 million in funding for sewer repairs. Construction is complete on
91 projects; 22 projects are in progress.

‘Tilman Water Reclamation Plant: Construction on the plantwide repair project
is now 100-percent complete. The Bureau of Contract Administration is preparing the Acceptance
Report


33

might have prevented them from a disaster and I wonder what
your thinking is in this, as to whether we should have, say, a na-
tional Federal minimum standard in certain emergency areas?

Should we leave it to the States? Should we work for more uni-
form State codes? What is your thinking on it?

Mr. Wirt. I would hate for us to be mandating building codes
that the State and locals need to be in charge of and take care of,
but I think it is important that that State or local community un-
derstands and has an incentive to make sure that they do adopt
good building codes and have good building practices.

For example, the flood insurance program. If a community is in
a flood prone area and they join the flood program, then that com-
munity has adopted better building standards for that community
because they are in the program. That makes a difference.

I think we can work with the States and give them incentives to
be better prepared in building codes and building standards and
support them in that effort, but I think that is their call at the
local level. But they need to know that if they don’t have good
building codes and standards that that Federal dollar for that dis-
aster might not be there.

Just like in the 1994 flood bill where you wisely put in that flood
bill, if you don’t have flood insurance, you get hit one time, you
don’t buy it again, you will not get Federal assistance. That makes
a difference. It will cut disaster costs.

Tw Horn. I now yield to the gentleman from California, Mr.

‘orres.

Mr. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.

I mentioned in my previous questions to you or statements Loma
Prieta, that earthquake there, and the Los Angeles riots. I would
like to ask you, has the Federal Government fulfilled its relief obli-
gations to these two areas, or perhaps a larger question might be,
what are our outstanding commitments in the State in general?

Mr. Witt. We have a lot of commitments, not only from
Northridge, but we have from the floods that hit California, and
even the fires we are still working with. I think most of the Loma
Prieta issues now are resolved. I was astounded to find City Hall,
Stanford University, Watsonville Hospital, and Moss Landing, and
all of those issues still there 5 years later after the earthquake,
and I think we have got most of those major ones resolved.

We may have one or two left to be resolved, but I do not want
Northridge to turn into a Loma Prieta 5 years from now. I want
to try to have it resolved. So we are trying to make sure we speed
all that process up and get it out of the way so people can rebuild
and get on with what they are doing in the communities.

I don’t think there are a lot of outstanding issues left now, but
we are addressing each one of them trying to get them out of the
way.

Mr. Torres. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Horn. Mr. Director, after the Loma Prieta earthquake, as I
understand it, California’s Office of Emergency Services stated that
FEMA’s formula for determining reimbursement for subgrantee’s
administrative costs was not adequate.


instrumentation network installed and operated for continuous
monitoring and condition assessment. Stote-ofthe-an sensors,
‘imbedded in the building at critical locations, as well as
surfgce-mounted instruments, will be used 10 measure the
structural performance charact such as strain in critical
columns (using conventional and fiber-optic sirain gaves),
‘dynamic response at critical locations (using strong motion
accelerometers), structural deflections across the seismic gaps
(wing LVDTUS, and ground sextement (ng entive
tiltmeters). Sensitive seismic instruments will also be used for
‘monitoring the ground shaking at different locations in the
vicinity of the Public Safety Building,

‘The proposed program involves (1) computer modeling and
simulation ofthe dynamic response of the building, and
experimental modeling using a scale modet ofthe building, to
determine optimum retrofit strategies and sensor placement,
Q)a life-cycle cost-benefit analysis ofthe project, (3)
placement of sensors in carefully selected locations riot to
‘strytotal retrofit to determine a baseline, (4) siroctural bracing
‘of the building and other modifications as required to protect
the building, oecupants, and critical equipment in an
‘earthquake, (5) thorough instrumentation ofthe building
folowing evo, and (6) daa cellection and aralisis fora
petiod of thee years following retrofit to determine the
effectiveness ofthe modifications tothe building. This project
will demonstrate the effectiveness of deploying existing
technologies to reduce earthquake damage to critical facittes,

“The cost ofthis project has been determined to be at least SO%
Tower than the cost of demolishing the building and

constructing a new building with equivalent seismic

hardening

“Tis project would be carried out by the City of Long Besch in
partnership with the Centers for Protection Against Natural
Disasters (CPAND), CPAND is a not-for-profit corporation
formed by the Califomia State University, Long Beach,
several other major universities, and a lage private non-profit
technology vansfer firm with extensive experienc inthe
pplication ofthe relevant technologies. CPAND is dedicated
10 ensuring the rapid and widespread deployment of
established and new techaologies that wil significantly reduce
the damage caused by natural disasters and therefoe greatly
reduce mitigation costs inured by the federal government,
states, local communities, private sector insurance companies,
and uninsured or inadequately inured individuals and small
businesses

Representatives of CPAND have had several discussions with
‘executives at FEMA in regard to the urgency of widespread
deployment of established and new technologies that will,
icantly reduce the damage caused by natutal disasters,
FEMA has indicated that this is anecessary, but presently
inadequate, component of its mitigation program. Executives
at FEMA have indicated that the seismie upgrading ofthe
Long Beach Public Safety Building would be an encellent

168

‘opportunity for CPAND to demonstrate the ability to achieve a
large reduction in the damage caused by earthquakes utilizing
‘enistng, cost-effective technologies. This isthe type of pilot
Project that FEMA is presently interested in pursuing

‘This pilot project will demonstrate that impediments to
deployment of existing natura disaster protection technologies
can be overcome. It wll also demonstrate that a Iarge
reduction inthe damage caused by a major earthquake can be
achieved by implementing cost-effective technologies that will
lead to damage reduction. Suitable cost-effective technologies
will be identified and utilized for this plot project. The project
‘will help to fulfill the urgent need to reduce the damaging
consequences of natural disasters in order to protect the
citizens ofthe United States, their homes and businesses, and
‘the nation’s infrastructure and industrial facilities. A great deal
of technology exist that can dramatically reduce both the loss
of life and damage to property caused by major natural
disasters. However, the deployment and implementation of
this available technology has been delayed for a variety of
reasons, including the following

+ Lack of widespread knowledge of available natural disaster
damage prevention/reduction technologies

Lack of information on the costeffectiveness of damage
prevention/reduction technologies

Lack of strategies to effectively and efficiently deploy
damage prevention/reduetion technologies

Inappropriate regulations that prevent or discourage the use
‘of damage prevention/reduction technologies,

Lack of incentives for implementing damage
preventon/reduction tecinolg

‘The proposed project to protect this buiiding against
‘earthquakes represents a major opportunity for earthquake
hazard mitigation in California as welt s an opportunity 10
demonstrate the use of moder, existing technologies to ensure
that the modifications are done inthe most cost-effective
manner and the benefits ofthe modifications are carefully
‘measured and analyzed

CPAND has been included for funding in the Natural Disaster
Protection Partnership Act of 195 as introduced in the House
nd jn the Natural Disaster Protection and Insurance Act of
1995 as introduced in the Senate. These bills have more than
250 co-sponsors in Congress and ace expected to pass this
yea,

respectively request thatthe Government Reform and
Oversight Committee urge the California Office of Emergency
Services to select tis project and recommend that the Federal
Emergency Management Agency folly fund it as a
demonstration project


183

1994 Earthquake Response Funding

Agency: Wilmington Community Free Clinic, Wilmington

Grant: ‘$20,000 to help offset the unreimbursed costs of providing primary medical care,
counseling, and social service referrals to “overflow” patients referred from quake-
damaged clinics in the South Bay area.

Agency: WISE Senior Services, Santa Monica

Grant: ‘$25,000 toward elderly client relocation costs, staff redeployment and extended
hours, hiring of additional staff, and office relocation costs.

Agency: Women’s Care Cottage, North Hollywood

Grant: $5,000 for temporary staffing, to replace volunteers dealing with personal losses
from the earthquake.

Agency: - Youth Development Fund, Antelope Valley

Grant: $2,200 for additional food purchased for the overflow of children using the
Pacoima site, and radios and emergency flashlights for five sites.

Agency: Youth News Services, Los Angeles

Grant: $16,000 to replace two computers, cover increased distribution costs, and staffing
expenses connected with working with students from damaged public schools,
where activities were halted or curtailed.

Subtotal - Services Affected by the Earthquake (44 grants) ........ eee eee + $580,085


17

responsibility of all of FEMA. Immediately following the earthquake the IG investigators
were on the scene and organized a multi-agency task force to address fraud against FEMA
and other disaster assistance agencies. They were given high visibility in press conferences
and included fraud awareness as part of our employee training. The results have been very
positive and 1 am convinced that the high profile of our efforts discouraged others from
engaging in fraudulent activities.

For some time, FEMA has been looking to the use of advanced technology to support our
operations. For instance we use a toll-free registration number to accept registrations from
disaster victims over the telephone. Following the earthquake, over 530,000 people took
advantage of this convenient service, which saved the government money and disaster
assistance applicants valuable time.

FEMA housing inspectors used the newly developed Automated Construction Estimates
(ACE) system. The ACE system, a hand-held computer, allowed inspectors to record
disaster damage evaluations in the field and transmit them to a central computer for
processing. This innovation saved taxpayers an estimated $36 million in administrative and
processing costs and significantly hastened the delivery of disaster assistance by removing
travel time of inspectors to the central office.

Disseminating disaster information to the public is one of the most important efforts this
agency undertakes in times of crisis. Immediately following the earthquake, we established
the Recovery Channel, a 24-hour disaster information network that was broadcast on 125
cable television outlets in English, Spanish, and various Asian languages and dialects. The
Recovery Channel provided up-to-date disaster assistance information to millions of impacted
residents. In addition, the "Recovery Times", a FEMA newspaper, provided written
information to victims in the various languages and dialects present throughout the disaster
area.

As a matter of pride, allow me to point out that FEMA has just won two technology
leadership awards for our innovative use of technology in disaster; one for the use of the
ACE system to collect and process residential damage and reconstruction costs, and the other
for our information dissemination efforts via the Recovery channel. Using technology is one
of the ways we have improved our response, and we will continue to look for opportunities
to do so in the furure.

Under our broader interests in promoting disaster awareness and preparedness with the
public, FEMA has a long history of sponsoring and encouraging the development of public
safety materials. Contributing to earthquake awareness, FEMA sponsored the publication of
two reference materials which examined the seismic characteristics of the Northridge
earthquake, and its impact upon the structural integrity of buildings; "Putting Down Roots in
Earthquake Country," and "Northridge Earthquake: Turning Loss to Gain”. Both of these
efforts were collaborative, involving other Federal and State Agencies and other seismic
experts.


61

» Testimony Before the Congressional Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight,
‘Subcommittee on Government Management, Information & Technology
by
RICHARD ANDREWS.
DIRECTOR

GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

California State University, Northridge
January 19, 1996

‘Thank you for the invitation to testify today and share our perspectives on the Norcividge
earthquake response and recovery effort. As Director of Emergency Services for Governor Pete
Wilson, Ihave served as State Coordinating Officer in overseeing the response and recovery
activities from the unprecedented series of emergencies that have occurred in California since 1991

Because of our many risks and history, California takes emergency management very
seriously. We're proud of the fact that we're considered international leaders in seismic safety
policy and practice. Virtually all of the nation's modem experience in earthquake risk management
results from events that have occurred in this state.

But let me assure you that we're not just recipients of disaster aid; in April of last yx
over 350 Californians, including four of our urban search and rescue teams, were part «
response to the tragic bombing in Oklahoma City. We're proud of the fact that the conc:
urban search & rescue teams was first developed here in California and then adopted by FEMA as
a national model.

On behalf of Governor Pete Wilson, and all the residents of California, I want to than
members of Congress, especially the California congressional delegation, for your rapid,
unprecedented response to the needs created by the Northridge earthquake. The $8.9 billion
obligated by federal agencies thus far has been essential in expediting the rebuilding from what

Page |


130

1994 Earthquake Response Funding

Agency:
Gran:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Computer Access Center, Santa Monica
$6,300 to replace income from membership fees lost during closure of this
adaptive technology center for people with disabilities.

Educational Resources and Services Center, Inc., Culver City
$10,000 in extended staff time for day programs for children in the San Feando
Valley.

EI Centro de Amistad, Canoga Park
{$20,000 toward costs of an outreach project to deliver trauma counseling services
to low-income Spanish speakers in seven San Fernando Valley communities.

EI Nido Family Centers, Pacoima
$2,000 to replace baby blankets and diapers provided to displaced families
immediately following the earthquake. (Depleted supplies were reserved for the
pregnant teen and teen family life parenting programs.)

EI Rescate, Pico Union
$4,500 for social service delivery and food allocations to more than 200 families,
plus some equipment and supplies expenses.

Foodbank of Southern California, Long Beach
$10,000 to assist with costs of supplying food to outlets in the San Fernando and
Santa Clarita valleys.

Friends of the Family, Van Nuys
$2,700 to cover staff overtime expenses, caused by a 60% increase in client load
related to earthquake stress.

Hollywood Sunset Free Clinic, Hollywood
$4,000 to hire a bilingual mental health professional to provide counseling to
Patients affected by the earthquake,

Humane Animal Rescue Team, San Fernando Valley
‘$7,500 to help cover three months of boarding expenses, pound rescues, vet bills,
transporaation and telephone costs. This agency provides services to low-income
and elderly San Fernando Valley pet owners displaced by the quake.

Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles
$12,500 for taxi coupons for needy seniors for travel to earthquake relief centers
and other related social service offices; and for added 3/4 time social worker.


114

areas where people were staying to visit with them and even to
identify where they lived and to go with them, with the building
inspector, with mental health workers, with others, and look at
their specific place of residence and encourage them to go back,
which did help decrease our shelter population over time.

One of the problems that I think all of us face in earthquakes
is the difficulty of damage assessment. Because of the nature of the
disaster and magnitude of the disaster, we had a problem that is
different than we might experience in other types of disasters. We
do work closely with all Governmental agencies and shared infor-
mation as we were identifying it on damage, as did the State, local
and Federal agencies as they were identifying damage information.
This sharing was very helpful to us in developing our plan to pro-
vide disaster relief.

The State plan that I addressed earlier worked extremely well
for us. We had a tremendous number of disaster staff, both volun-
teer and paid, responding throughout the State of California to the
southern California area.

Most of those responded within the first 12 hours of the oper-
ation, and so we were able to have several hundreds of Red Cross
staff on scene within the first 12 hours. Those individuals were
supplemented over the days and weeks to come with, as Don point-
ed out, 14,000 volunteers and a thousand staff from other parts of
the country.

We learned many lessons after the disaster. Those lessons have
been put into place in the form of revisions to our training, revi-
sions to our planning, and we are in the process of developing new
procedures based on the lessons from the Northridge earthquake of
1994 and expect that we will be in even a better position to re-
spond to future disasters, not only here in California but nation-

ally.
ithe prepared statement of Mr. Haigwood follows:]


116

@ A ehelter was opened and operated in response to victim needs
in Las Vegas, about one tank-full of gas away from Los

Angeles.
Shelter populations (and the need for shelters) changed as

apartments were red-tagged by inspectors creating an immediate
need for shelter for yet another group of victims.

°

¢ Typical Red Cross damage assessment activities weren't
possible based on scopa of the damage. This event focused
attention on the need for agencies to exchange basic
information in a timely manner so that all responding agancies
have the best information regarding specific damage.

As Don Jones pointed out, 18 service center were opened to
provide Red Cross assistance. In what I consider to be a very
remarkable organizational effort, those service centers opened
in a variety of locations including several in large tent:
(Tents became a necessity when no buildings could be located
in those areas most heavily damaged by the quake to hou:
service center activities.)

°

Red Cross is comprised of a network of Chapters that can
provide mutual-aid to affected areas. Response by trained and
experienced Red Cross relief workers from California to assist
in Northridge was indeed extraordinary. A majority of
California workers in the Red Cross system responded at some
time during the relief operation.

.

Planning and preparedness efforts continue in the wake of
Northridge. Planning efforts to mount large scale operations
continue on a state-wide basis; efforts center our need to
feed and house tens of thousands of individuals made homeless

by such a disaster.

.


4

the operations of FEMA and other relevant authorities. So I con-
gratulate the chairman for having these hearings, for bringing
Members from outside of the near area and with that I yield back.

Mr. Horn. Thank you very much.

I now yield to Mr. Dreier, the gentleman from California and
east Los Angeles.

Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Leave it to Steve Horn, a former university president, to bring
us to a university campus. It is very nice to be here and I will say
that it is amazing for me to see the devastation that still exists
here, just as we were driving in. I would like to say that it is an
honor to be with my friend and colleague, Buck McKeon, who was
on the front line 2 years ago dealing with this situation here.

Also Mike Flanagan, I got a call at 6 this morning from my sister
who is almost, not quite, a constituent of his telling me about the
snow and the weather in Chicago. So I will say that I know that
it was a real sacrifice for Mr. Flanagan to come to southern Califor-
nia.

Mr. FLANAGAN. A shattering one.

Mr. DREIeER. Yes, but I will say, to respond slightly to Michael’s
remark, earthquakes are not simply a California phenomenon.
There are 39 States of the 50 that have a high propensity, not as
high as California’s in many instances, but do have a propensity
for earthquakes. We all know that the most serious earthquake in
the history of this country did not take place here in California or
Alaska, but on the Madrid fault line, right in the center of the
United States. It seems to me that the presence of Mike Flanagan
and Tom Davis and others from around the country will help us
demonstrate that this is not simply a regional issue and it is one
that needs to be addressed nationally.

I will never forget on October 1, 1987, it was late morning and
I was on the floor of Congress and my very good friend and col-
league, who I guess is going to be here later, Esteban Torres, came
up to me on the House floor and said, “David, did you hear about
the California earthquake this morning?”

I naturally felt helpless, and I found that that earthquake was
5.9 in magnitude, it took place in what is known as the Whittier
Narrows area, which at that time I was privileged to represent.

In the wake of that we had not only the tragedy of the earth-
quake, but, quite frankly, a very tragic experience dealing with the
Federal Emergency Management Agency and other Federal agen-
cies. And my office was there for literally days as the only Federal
entity on the spot in the wake of the Whittier Narrows earthquake.

So I took it upon myself, working with a number of my col-
leagues, at that point to ensure that we improve the coordination
between the State and the Federal Government. I am pleased to
see Dick Andrews here. I should say it is great to see James Lee
Witt and Dick Andrews and others of you in what is other than a
disaster situation. I mean, every time I look at you all we are deal-
ing with a real tragedy. So it is nice to see you.

But we were able, following the 1987 earthquake, I believe, to
take some very major steps in preparation for another earthquake.

We all know what happened 2 years later on October 17th. I was,
at that point—we all remember where we were during these earth-


93

Mr. Horn. Who restricted you simply to cover Federal property?

Major General BRANDT. Under Federal law and as members of
the active Army we could not protect personal private property in
the same way we can in under State status.

Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, can I just ask a followup on that?

Mr. Horn. Sure.

Mr. Davis. Talk about pay during that time. You had 2,600 per-
sonnel called up. If the State calls them up, does the State pay?

Major General BRANDT. Well, we—it depends.

Mr. Davis. I was an 8-year member of the Virginia National
Guard and I never knew who paid me. I just —

Major General BRANDT. Well, that was a serious problem for our
soldiers during the L.A. riot, because we went on State active duty.
When we were Federalized we had to go into a different pay sys-
tem and it did create problems.

Additionally, our enlisted personnel below the Privates, Cor-
porals, the bulk of our Army basically, under State pay we pay
them a minimum of Sergeant E-5 pay.

Mr. Horn. Even E-3s and E-4s?

Major General BRANDT. Right—to help defray the cost of their
not being at their normal jobs.

Mr. Horn. Right.

Major General BRANDT. Once we were Federalized, in essence
they had a pay cut when they went back there.

Mr. Davis. 1 see. Then they are paid their regular U.'S——

Major General BRANDT. That’s right.

Mr. Davis. But who pays? The Federal Government pays if it is
Federalized, the State government finds money otherwise?

Major General BRANDT. Yes. We routinely conduct emergency op-
erations throughout the year that are conducted in State active
duty status and it’s State pay.

Mr. Davis. Let me just ask—this is kind of an aside.

Mr. Horn. Get this in the record at this point. That’s an excel-
lent question. Could you file for the record the differentiation on
pay between those two situations, as to what did the State of Cali-
fornia put up and what did the Federal Government put up?

Since you are such an expert on this, I am going to step out a
minute and let you get hold of the question.

[The information referred to follows:]


38

course, James Lee Witt, who was a constant help throughout the
earthquake recovery. Henry Cisneros was here a number of times.

I should also just say, the State with Dick Andrews, whom you
are going to talk to, and the Secretary of Transportation, Dean
Dumphy, and of course Governor Wilson, were a major resource to
us.

I remember one other anecdote which I will share with you. The
morning after the earthquake Rod Slater, who is the Highway Ad-
ministrator for the United States, and myself asked for a meeting
of everybody involved in transportation on the different levels of
Government and we had it over in the State office building.

Rod and myself and Dean Dumphy had, I think, a very historical
meeting in a closet there, off the main conference room, where we
had just listened to a lot of bureaucratic bull and we, in effect,
pledged that we were going to end the bureaucracy, we were going
to get engineers, architects out there that day to look at the dam-
aged bridges and other roads. Also we talked about what I will talk
about in a minute is about having merit pay for accomplishment
and things like that. So that broke the bureaucratic logjam in that
area and I think you saw the results.

I am going to skip around, because I have cut a lot of my re-
marks out. What happened after the earthquake, of course, is we
had a lot of, what we call, ghost towns, which were areas, particu-
larly retail areas, where buildings were so far damaged they were
not habitable and these buildings attracted squatters, drug dealers
and prostitution rings. A main emphasis by FEMA, SBA and others
repairing these ghost towns which virtually all are back and viable.

Another area were the earthquake building permits. I mean, one
of the main decisions we had to make is that if anybody wanted
to repair something is to make it quick, don’t have the usual city
bureaucracy. We had tremendous help from FEMA and HUD on
this.

We had also, by the way, help from other venues in southern
California who sent experts down from their building and safety
departments to help us get permits out virtually over the counter
so that the repair could start very quickly.

Another thing that we had, with the help particularly of HUD,
were business assistance centers, or what I call, one-stop shopping
for businesses, homeowners and apartment owners who needed fi-
nancing and other help quickly. This worked, I think, extremely
well.

The results were, as of October 1995, we had over 2,990 loans
approved and provided technical assistance to over 1,000 busi-
nesses, we had over 81 seminars or workshops with business.

Another area was emergency temporary housing. Immediately
there were over 20,000 people who were rendered homeless. In
some cases it was just fear, where they could literally go back, but
they were afraid to go back to their apartments. We put together
various task forces and teams and we had regular meetings at 7
every morning in my office of people on that team as to how we
accommodate people. We were expecting rain any day, how to get
tents out into the parks where people were.

One of the first things I found, I was out there the first night
in one of the parks, was that they didn’t have enough water. So I


158

art. We are, of course. eager to receive the balance of the funding needed to complete
the repairs to our major butidings and to restore the kind of academic environment

chat our students and faculty deserve.

in closing, I'd like to leave with the subcommittee two videos which capture the
accomplishments which were made possible by the partnership between FEMA, OES
and the CSU. The first is a short 3-minute account of the early days immediately
‘ollowing the earthquake, when we were definitely in an “Urgency” mode, The
second is a lengthier. 46-minute depiction of the quake’s long-term effects at CSUN
and is intended to help other Cal State campuses prepare for similar disasters. It
‘vas produced by Sue Ellen Hirschfeld. Professor of Geological Sciences at Cal State
Hayward, with a grant of $100.00 from FEMA and OES. Entitled “Academic
Aftershocks,” the video includes important steps for all campuses to take in
developing or updating emergency plans. training all employees in their disaster
response roles, holding regular campus-wide exercises, and reducing potential

structural and nonstructural hazards.

{ hope these videos and my comments will be of some benefit to you in supporting the
extraordinary men and women of FEMA whose personal sacrifice enabled us to
repair buildings and lives after this extraordinary disaster. Thank you very much for
giving me the opportunity to address vou this afternoon.


A. Grants fc
Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:
Agency:
Grant:
Agency:

Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

Agency:
Grant:

125

ATTACHMENT A

EARTHQUAKE GRANTS AND LOANS

ft i R and Relocation Exj

Almansor Center, South Pasadena
$275 to replace television used in educational center.

Actor’s Alley Theatre, North Hollywood
$12,000 for first and last month's rent on a temporary location.

Al Wooten Jr. Heritage Center, Los Angeles
$4,500 to repair damaged walls and replace two computers that were broken
beyond repair.

Aman Folk Ensemble, Los Angeles
{$3,000 for first and last month’s rent on a new space.

Assistance League of Santa Monica
$10,670 for repairs, equipment replacement, and clean up costs at the preschool,
which serves low-income families.

Boys and Girls Club of the Santa Clarita Valley, Newhall
$8,000 toward unreimbursed repair costs, and to help replace equipment lost at
any of the four club sites.

Boys and Girls Club of the San Fernando Valley, Pacoima
$20,000 toward repairs to the roof, gymnasium, lighting fixtures, and interior walls
Of the building, which were damaged in the quake.

California Council for Veterans’ Affairs, Los Angeles
$6,800 to relocate South Central Los Angeles office to a new site in the area
because of structural damage due to the earthquake.

Camp Fire, Glendale-Crescenta-Canada Council
$400 to relocate children’s sport programs from facilities that were damaged in
the earthquake.

Community Corporation of Santa Monica, Santa Monica

$20,000 for emergency repairs and overtime salaries for maintenance workers at
a number of the low-cost apartment buildings owned and managed by the
organization.

‘Community Counseling Services, Hollywood
$12,500 to repair roof and other structural damage at residential home for severely
mentally ill in Hollywood.


100

War I, World War II, and Korea, and on the streets of L.A.—it’s
been there time and time again, and the thing that has allowed
them to do that is the fact that we have the support, the equip-
ment, and the organization to meet the needs of California. Thank
you.

Mr. FLANAGAN [presiding]. A crisis has developed. Your vice
chairman is in charge. Be afraid. Be very afraid. [Laughter.]

I have two questions for Mr. Andrews.

I have read your testimony and it was very interesting in and
of itself, but if I could ask you to expound further, it is my under-
standing that $600 million were allocated by the Federal Govern-
ment to the State of California; $100 million have been imple-
mented.

Can you give us some idea of when the additional funds will be
forthcoming or how they are allocated?

Mr. ANDREWS. This is for the hazard mitigation grant program?

Mr. FLANAGAN. Yes.

Mr. ANDREWS. The total amount of Federal money that is in the
pool is basically 15 percent of the amount of other Federal funds
that are provided for the disaster assistance, so the current esti-
mate of FEMA is about $650 million.

We anticipate—we received approximately 550 applications from
school districts, local governments, State agencies, hospitals for
various projects, totally about $1.8 billion. It is a competitive grant
program process. We would anticipate that within the next 5%
months all of the grants according to the current estimate will be
awarded against a 75-25 cost share arrangement.

Mr. FLANAGAN. There is a timeliness question which I am sure
you are very sensitive to, but these are questions that need to be
asked because there are folks in need waiting——

Mr. ANDREWS. Exactly.

Mr. FLANAGAN [continuing]. For the disbursements.

Mr. ANDREWS. Right.

Mr. FLANAGAN. Two other questions of a near-perfunctory fash-
ion, but such are the nature of hearings. You indicated that one of
the keys to California’s successful response to the earthquake was
that Governor Wilson waived many of the State regulations.

In your opinion, and please be as frank and candid as you please,
are States, California particularly, hindered by Federal regulations
during times of emergencies?

We explored some of these questions with Mayor Riordan, but is
it possible to—one hesitates to use the term martial law, but to al-
leviate many of the regulatory difficulties outside of a police nature
or a military nature, to have a better and more adequate response
in the very close and defined confines of an emergency?

Mr. ANDREWS. I think the one area that we have encountered the
most conflict with some of the initial emergency response demands
and some of the initial public safety demands and the regulatory
environments has been in the area of environmental regulations.

In some cases, and this has not just been in earthquakes. It’s
been in some of the flooding situations and in some of the wildfires
that we have encountered where the objective of the regulatory re-
quirements seemed to conflict with the needs of public safety—
whether this is over protection of endangered species in the wild


41

we hope our experiences will be helpful in improving Federal relief
for other future disasters, none of which I hope are in Los Angeles.

As we move further from the crisis and urgency of the
Northridge earthquake we must be careful not to let the bureau-
cratic nature of government stifle progress and recovery. This is a
challenge that we face at all levels of government.

I thank you for letting me appear here today and I also thank
you for having been a very key part of our recovery.

you very much.
(The prepared statement of Mr. Riordan follows:]