U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

67–385 PDF 2012

FEMA REAUTHORIZATION AND CUTTING 

THE RED TAPE IN RECOVERY 

(112–46) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 14, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas, 

Vice Chair 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

BOB FILNER, California 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

PANEL ONE

Fugate, Hon. Craig, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Department of Homeland Security ..................................................................... 5 

PANEL TWO

Berginnis, Chad, CFM, Associate Director, Association of State Floodplain 

Managers .............................................................................................................. 22 

Griggs, Cline, District 4 Council Member, White Mountain Apache Tribe ........ 22 

Hatfield, Jerome, Deputy Superintendent of Homeland Security, New Jersey 

State Police, National Emergency Management Association ........................... 22 

Little, Phyllis, Director, Cullman County, Alabama, Emergency Management 

Agency, and Member, U.S. Council of the International Association of 

Emergency Managers .......................................................................................... 22 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hanna, Hon. Richard L., of New York ................................................................... 33 

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia ................................. 34 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Berginnis, Chad, CFM ............................................................................................. 36 

Fugate, Hon. Craig .................................................................................................. 51 

Griggs, Cline ............................................................................................................ 69 

Hatfield, Jerome ...................................................................................................... 81 

Little, Phyllis ........................................................................................................... 86 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Fugate, Hon. Craig, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Department of Homeland Security, responses to questions from the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency 

Management ......................................................................................................... 61 

ADDITIONS FOR THE RECORD 

BuildStrong Coalition, written statement ............................................................. 96 

U.S. Travel Association, written statement ........................................................... 102 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 67385.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 67385.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 67385.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 67385.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 67385.005
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 67385.006
(1) 

FEMA REAUTHORIZATION AND CUTTING 

THE RED TAPE IN RECOVERY 

THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in room 

2253, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Denham (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. DENHAM. The subcommittee will come to order. First, let me 

welcome FEMA Administrator Fugate and all of our distinguished 

witnesses and thank them for testifying this morning at today’s 

hearing on FEMA reauthorization and examining how we can cut 

the red tape in helping communities rebuild and recover following 

a disaster. 

At our hearing in March, we focused on how prepared we are to 

respond to a catastrophic disaster in the wake of the earthquake 

and tsunami in Japan. Today we will look at what happens next. 

After the initial response, how do we help communities pick up the 

pieces and recover quickly? So far this year, we have had 48 major 

disaster declarations, from tornadoes hitting communities in States 

like Missouri, Alabama, and Tennessee, to flooding in Vermont and 

Mississippi and wildfires in Texas. Thirty-two States so far this 

year have had major disaster declarations, 9 States have had emergency declarations, and 12 States had a total of 79 fire management assistance declarations. And this is without any major hurricanes yet this hurricane season. 

After the initial response, communities are left with homes destroyed, businesses and stores damaged and closed, roads blocked, 

and lives lost. Cleaning up, rebuilding, and recovering quickly from 

disasters is critical. We know from experience the longer the rebuilding and recovery takes, the higher the cost to the taxpayer, 

the longer people are without jobs and schools for their children, 

and the more local governments lose in revenue. A long recovery 

hurts everyone, not least of which are the people who have lost everything. 

Our subcommittee has held hearing after hearing to learn the 

lessons from Hurricane Katrina and find ways to speed up the recovery process. Many of FEMA’s regulations and policies have created so many hurdles and so much red tape that communities devastated by disasters have often found it frustrating to navigate the 

process. For example, in 2000 Congress enacted the Disaster MitiVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:16 Jan 31, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\7-14-1~1\67385.TXT JEAN
2 

gation Act and included provisions requiring FEMA to implement 

cost estimating to help communities rebuild faster. By all accounts, 

this one change could help streamline one of FEMA’s key disaster 

assistance programs. However, it is now 11 years later, and FEMA 

has yet to implement those provisions. 

I understand FEMA now is engaged in a Bottom Up Review of 

its public assistance program, is in the process of finalizing a national disaster recovery framework and is testing a new debris removal pilot program. While I am pleased to see these steps are 

being taken, I am worried these actions have taken just too long. 

With high unemployment, budget deficits, and everyone having to 

tighten their belts, we just simply cannot afford to have these recoveries drag on. 

I hope today we can hear from our witnesses on how the recovery 

process can be streamlined and improved. I also hope we can receive input on FEMA’s reauthorization and what changes may need 

to be made as we consider legislation. 

FEMA was originally created in 1979 by Executive order and operated for nearly 30 years without explicit authorization and statute. FEMA was authorized in statute in 2006 through the PostKatrina Act, and that authorization expired last year. While FEMA 

can continue to operate without explicit authorization, authorizing 

FEMA in the law helps to provide congressional guidance in the operations of the Agency. I look forward to working with Administrator Fugate, members of this committee, and other stakeholders 

on the reauthorization of FEMA. 

I, again, thank the witnesses for being here today to address 

these important issues. 

I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Norton from the 

District of Columbia for 5 minutes to make any opening statement 

she may have. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I very 

much appreciate your calling this hearing. I apologize to you and 

to Mr. Fugate that I will be running back and forth, after this 

statement I must run to a hearing where a vote is soon to be 

called, but this is a very important hearing to me and to the American people. We are pleased to welcome all of our witnesses today 

to discuss the need to improve and expedite recovery efforts from 

disasters as well as to reauthorize FEMA. During the 110th and 

111th Congresses, our subcommittee held hearing after hearing to 

ensure that FEMA would not repeat its failures on the Gulf Coast. 

Now nearly 6 years after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck our 

Nation, recovery efforts finally have progressed, in part, because 

FEMA, pressed by our subcommittee, has addressed some of the 

problems that impeded recovery. However, there remain other 

areas for improvement to ensure quicker recovery from disasters. 

The recent tornadoes, floods, and wildfires that have caused 

great losses in human life and property should push all of us, once 

and for all, to improve the recovery process and to ensure that we 

are not still talking about rebuilding efforts in places such as Joplin and Minot 6 years from now. 

FEMA’s recent initiation of a Bottom Up Review of its public assistance program, FEMA’s primary program for rebuilding infrastructure and public facilities following disasters, reveals that 

3 

FEMA understands what it can do and knows that it must do it 

better. Not only does lengthy recovery prolong suffering, but delays 

also drive up costs and impact jobs. Particularly now as our Nation 

climbs out of the great recession, we must avoid the experience following Hurricane Katrina, when billions of dollars in recovery 

funds went unspent for years, waiting to be used on construction 

of vital infrastructure that would have helped restore jobs and economic prosperity to the Gulf Coast, finally this subcommittee had 

to move with a new process in order to assure that so much in 

funds was not left on the table. 

Although there has been progress in other areas, FEMA continues to show some troubling signs. On September 22nd of last 

year, this subcommittee held a hearing on lessons learned from 

Hurricane Katrina. At that hearing I asked FEMA to move to a 

system that pays State and local governments for repair and reconstruction projects on the basis of cost estimates, as is done in the 

insurance industry, and as mandated by the Disaster Mitigation 

Act of 2000. 

We must learn today why nearly 11 years after President Clinton 

signed that bill into law, FEMA still has not implemented a rule 

to institute a cost-estimating system which would surely avoid the 

lengthy delays in recovery that have characterized past disasters. 

I am pleased to be working with Chairman Denham on his bill 

to reauthorize FEMA’s management and administration account, 

along with two crucial programs administered by FEMA, the 

Urban Search and Rescue System, and the Emergency Management Assistance Compacts, or EMAC, which FEMA originally created in 1979. EMAC helped to centralize the Federal Government’s 

emergency response mechanisms and coordinate the Government’s 

response to disasters. In 2006, after Hurricane Katrina exposed 

many of FEMA’s weaknesses, Congress passed the Post-Katrina 

Emergency Management Reform Act to authorize FEMA for the 

first time and to strengthen FEMA by providing the Agency with 

additional authority to accelerate Federal assistance in the absence 

of a State request to expedite payments for debris removals and to 

use local contractors, among other reforms. The urban search and 

rescue, first established by FEMA in 1989, created a system of task 

forces, now numbering 28 in 19 States, which respond to structural 

collapses resulting from any type of disaster. We have been very 

proud of the work of these Urban Search and Rescue teams. For 

example, teams from California, Virginia, New York, and Florida 

responded to the Haiti earthquake of 2010 that shook many of 

Port-au-Prince’s buildings to the ground. The American teams 

alone are credited with rescuing 46 people from the rubble. 

In addition to the Urban Search and Rescue, EMAC plays an important role in disaster response by offering a method for States to 

quickly and efficiently provide aid when disaster strikes, when 

States do not have the needed personnel or resources. Just this 

month, the California Emergency Management Agency responded 

to an EMAC request from the State of Montana for technical advice 

and assistance in responding to the oil spill on the Yellowstone 

River. California personnel are currently on the scene. I hope our 

subcommittee can act now and reauthorize these important programs. 

4 

Again, I thank the witnesses for appearing today and look forward to their testimony. 

Mr. DENHAM. I now call on the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Rahall, for a brief opening statement. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Chairman Denham, and thank you, 

Ranking Member Norton, for conducting these hearings today. 

They are very important, and I know there are a number of people 

in attendance that have been personally affected and witnessed 

much devastation during this year, and they certainly welcome 

FEMA’s help. 

Mr. Administrator, we appreciate your being with us as well. I 

know the hearing will be important to making the necessary corrections and refinements that are necessary to deliver help to our 

people. 

I do want to also say a special welcome to the Honorable Cline 

Griggs, who is a District 4 Tribal Council member of the White 

Mountain Apache Tribe. This is an important occasion because it 

is possibly, Mr. Chairman, the first time ever that a Native leader 

has testified before this subcommittee on emergency management 

issues. 

Today’s hearing is on the reauthorization of FEMA and expediting disaster recovery. I would assert that no discussion about 

emergency management, whatever the focus, is complete without 

Indian tribes at the table. Tribal governments provide emergency 

response services such as law enforcement, firefighting, and health 

care to their citizens and to their neighbors in the same manner 

as any other governments. Like the rest of us, Indian citizens in 

their lands experience disasters. In fact, over the last several years, 

Native America has suffered damages from Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita to winter ice storms in South Dakota last year that cut 

off heat, water, and electricity for several days in below-zero temperatures to the recent flooding of the Yellowstone River in Montana. Many tribal lands are also vulnerable to forest fires. 

Unfortunately, the White Mountain Apache Tribe knows this 

firsthand. Not only did the tribe suffer devastating losses from a 

2002 wildfire but tribal forests were also damaged last month when 

the Wallow Fire, which burned its way across Arizona, crossed on 

to reservation lands. So whatever the disaster, Native America 

rises to the challenge to help themselves and to help others respond and recover from the disaster at hand, yet despite the courage, strength, and resilience shown by Native Americans in their 

response efforts, Federal law does not fully recognize tribes for 

their recovery efforts. Under the Stafford Act, Indian tribes are 

treated as local governments of the State and must rely upon State 

Governors to request a disaster declaration on their behalf when 

they are overwhelmed. 

While this may work in some disaster situations, it does not 

work in all situations. In those situations where it does not work, 

Indian tribes may be left to bear the cost on their own. So that is 

why I have introduced H.R. 1953, a bill that, first and foremost, 

recognizes tribal sovereignty. By doing so, the bill would allow Indian tribes to directly request the President to declare a disaster 

for tribal lands. I believe that is a first step in addressing some of 

the emergency management challenges faced by Indian country. 

5 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for the opportunity 

of making an opening statement, and thank those witnesses that 

are with us today. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. I would like to welcome our witnesses 

here today. On our first panel we have the Honorable Craig 

Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. I 

ask unanimous consent that our witness’s full statement be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Since your written testimony has been made a part of the record, 

the subcommittee would request that you limit your oral testimony 

to 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG FUGATE, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT 

OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. FUGATE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Norton. When it comes to tribal issues, you are exactly right, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM. Can you scoot the microphone a little bit closer. 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes. When it comes to tribal issues you are absolutely right. 

Mr. DENHAM. And turn it on. 

Mr. FUGATE. It is on. Is that better? 

Mr. DENHAM. There we go. Thank you. 

Mr. FUGATE. When it comes to tribal government, the sovereignty of those governments is not recognized in the Stafford Act, 

as you pointed out. The one thing we have been able to do is do 

a rule change that recognizes that once a declaration is issued, 

tribal governments do have the option to be the grantee, which has 

been another huge issue for the sovereignty of tribes when they 

have to either serve as a subgrantee of the State. Our understanding is that we are working to provide technical assistance on 

this issue, but I think the key thing for me with tribal governments 

is self-determination and recognizing the sovereignty of them when 

it comes to our Federal programs, and I am in full concurrence 

with you on that, sir. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you. 

Mr. FUGATE. Mr. Chairman, getting back to FEMA, the red tape 

in disaster recovery, there is always a challenge to balance speed 

and efficiency and operations with maintaining control over fraud 

and waste. From this committee is one example, in individual assistance programs, our error rate in the Katrina-Rita storms was 

running about 10 percent of payments made inappropriately or to 

people who were not eligible. Last year obviously not the same 

numbers we were dealing with, that error rate is now down to 

about 0.3 percent and below. 

But that requires us to make sure we do due diligence that when 

people register for assistance that we assure that, A, they are actually residents in the area impacted, that they had losses tied to the 

disaster, that we are not duplicating benefits, verify if they have 

insurance coverage for their losses. FEMA will also verify whether 

applicants may qualify for low-interest disaster loans before providing grants for essential personal property. SBA loans can also 

provide home repair and replacement funds above the current 

$30,200 maximum grant. But in the recent disasters, that process 

6 

has only been taking about 2 days from the time somebody calls 

and registers until we get a housing inspector out to their homes 

until we are able to get them a determination on assistance, and 

in many cases, if they did qualify for the FEMA grant dollars, literally direct account deposits occurring within days of their registration. 

So we do have a lot of red tape, but I think part of it is to make 

it so that it is achieving the goal of containing fraud and waste, but 

not necessarily delaying the assistance to the survivors and local 

governments. That becomes particularly challenging when you talk 

about public assistance because in these types of disasters, the nonduplication of other Federal programs, the requirement to ensure 

that if insurance was available and was enforced that we see what 

the insurance covered and then look at the uninsured losses. It 

means that we still have to do our due diligence in determining 

what is actually eligible under our programs and are we making 

an appropriate determination on the assistance being provided? 

Probably the first area that most local governments deal with in 

any disaster is the emergency protective measures and the extraordinary costs sometimes of responding to these types of disasters as 

well as debris, and I think one of the things that you brought up 

from the ranking member is the emergency management assistance 

compact in mutual aid. In the most recent tornadoes, floods, and 

impacts in the southeast across these various disasters, the primary response was actually local government, supported by instate 

mutual aid, supported by assistance from other States through the 

emergency management assistance compact. I don’t know if that 

would have been possible prior to September 11th of 2001, but 

given the investment this Nation has made in building the capabilities, I think we need to really recognize that what we have built 

is a national system that leverages the resources at the State and 

local level through their mutual aid agreements with the Federal 

Government, oftentimes supporting recovery because the response 

was managed with State and local government. 

One of the things we have tried to do with debris, and this was, 

again, something I think you will hear from some of the folks that 

have dealt with this. This is a brand new program. When we generally dealt with debris in most disasters, because it is on private 

property, we have oftentimes said we need to move it to the rightof-way before we can pick it up. The problem is when you have a 

tornado strike and literally leave a trail of devastation where you 

don’t know whose debris is on whose property, and property lines 

are not even visible, moving debris to the right-of-way would definitely slow down response, so we implemented a pilot program in 

Mississippi, Alabama, and in Missouri looking at how we quickly 

go in to private property, residential, noncommercial to remove debris from that property to get the community back on its feet faster 

and really focus on housing, which becomes the next big issue 

when you have all that destruction. 

The Governor of Alabama basically stated that we have moved 

more debris in about 3 months, a little less than 3 months than 

we moved in 6 months in Hurricane Ivan, so we are moving it faster, but it is still a program that does require us to do due diligence 

to make sure that we are accounting for that, and because it was 

7 

new, there were still a lot of steep learning curves, so we are taking those lessons and working with our State and local partners to 

look at how we improve it. 

As one example of how we are trying to speed up the process to 

get communities back on their feet quicker by getting debris picked 

up so we can get housing going. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will 

turn it back over for questions. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Fugate. First of all, as you know, 

since post-Katrina, we now do reauthorization, we are preparing 

that reauthorization now. What do you believe are the key issues 

that should be addressed as FEMA is reauthorized? 

Mr. FUGATE. I think, again, it was pointed out that for so long, 

FEMA had been a creation of Executive orders and authorization 

for spending. The Post-Katrina Reform Act was really the first time 

in legislation that we had a defined mission statement. It described 

our structures and our roles and responsibilities. Again, I think 

FEMA will be working with the committee to provide technical assistance, but I think it, again, is important that Congress defines 

what is the expectations for FEMA, and that as we adjust to our 

changing environment that you continue to provide what it is that 

you expect from the Federal Government to provide in disaster response, and so in drafting the reauthorization, we are more than 

willing to provide technical assistance, but I think it still comes 

back to the intent of Congress when we talk about these disaster 

programs, our assistance we provide, and the level of response that 

you feel the Federal taxpayer should be responsible for and what 

we see as a shared responsibility with State and local government 

in dealing with disaster threats. 

Mr. DENHAM. And there have already been 48 major disasters 

declared this year, and we still have another half a year to go. Do 

you believe there is sufficient funds in the disaster relief fund to 

cover the expected costs of these disasters and any future disasters? 

Mr. FUGATE. Mr. Chairman, let me be factual. I cannot foretell 

the future, so I don’t know if I am going to have a hurricane or 

a catastrophic event in the near future. Right now the disaster relief fund is at $1.38 billion. That is actually a little bit higher than 

it was last month, which is counterintuitive given all the disasters, 

but we are also dealing with a large number of open disasters that 

we are working to close out and deobligate funding from projects 

that are already completed and return funds back into the DRF, 

and so that has been successful this year as we continue to work 

with our State partners as the mission is done, the project has 

been done, but we have perhaps written the project worksheet for 

$200 million is the initial estimate, the work was only $150 million 

is to return that $50 million back in. 

Based upon that, we project with the current workload perhaps 

getting to about a billion dollars to $800 million sometimes the end 

of July, first of August, which would prompt us to look at do we 

need to reduce funding for any nonmission critical, particularly lifesaving or protective measures and human services, still projecting 

at the end of the fiscal year some balance in that, but there is a 

lot of variables, particularly the Missouri River flooding that is still 

ongoing as well as do we have any additional disasters. 

8 

Mr. DENHAM. So you start off, I just want to make sure I understand the process that you go through in funding all the disasters. 

You start off more of a full funding projection at the beginning of 

the year depending on the disaster. Assuming we have another 

Katrina or some huge unforeseen disaster, you could obviously utilize the entire pot of money on that one disaster? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir, and that is why when we get down to about a billion, $800 million, we look at where we are at in our fiscal year and when we would expect to have the next appropriations 

in the Stafford Act, and what we try to do is not go below a limit 

that would preclude us from responding to the next catastrophic 

disaster. So we try to maintain a level of funding and balance there 

that we would be reluctant to go below unless we knew our appropriation was right behind that. That is why we look at about the 

end of July, first of August as we start approaching about a billion 

dollars to $800 million. Do we need to slow down or stop some work 

that is not tied to protective measures, debris or individual assistance until our next appropriation? 

Mr. DENHAM. You said that you cannot plan for—let me first ask, 

is this a typical year that we are seeing right now? Would you consider this an average year, below average year? 

Mr. FUGATE. It has been a very active year. What is interesting 

is, as devastating as these have been to the local communities, they 

are not the widespread type impacts we see in hurricanes and 

earthquakes. Although the loss of life has been extreme, none of 

these have really reached the point of what we consider catastrophic disasters from the standpoint of a financial of over $500 

million. 

As one example, individual assistance since the tornadoes struck 

in North Carolina, which was a couple weeks before the tornado 

outbreak in the southeast, all the way through this process, including the ongoing flooding up in North Dakota, individual assistance 

payments for both housing and other programs has been about 

$170 million. So, again, as we look at this, even though this is very 

localized and very devastating, it does not quite reach the type of 

response cost you see in a widespread disaster, so those costs are 

still—again, you would think with all this activity, the DRF would 

be steadily going down, but as we are recouping dollars from older 

disasters, our fund balance actually went up a little bit. 

So we are maintaining this. This is part of what we had planned 

for is the level of activity is generally higher than what we have 

seen, but, again, because we have had a lot of older disasters we 

are closing out, we are almost—I would not say we are staying 

even, but we are not seeing it go down rapidly like you would see 

with a big hurricane or big earthquake where we had large geographical areas that were impacted. 

Mr. DENHAM. Finally, I just wanted to follow up on one piece. 

The thing I am going to be looking at very critically as we go 

through this reauthorization is I am concerned, as we are seeing 

this year with the $1.38 billion, 48 major disasters, I am concerned 

that we are going to, especially in a tough budget year, one that 

we are looking for cuts everywhere, I am concerned that we are 

going to spend the large, the bulk share of that money early in the 

year without any new monies being appropriated, and I would disVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:16 Jan 31, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\7-14-1~1\67385.TXT JEAN
9 

agree. I do think that there are some areas that we can plan for 

disasters. I would assume that we have got to have a greater 

amount of planning when we see that our levees are getting old 

and starting to fall apart, that we can anticipate that if States or 

the Federal Government is not stepping in and fixing those levees, 

we are going to have floods. If we are having a huge wet year, a 

huge snow pack but we don’t have the water storage, we can anticipate floods. 

I think most critically in a State like California when we haven’t 

managed our forests, when we have not fully utilized the timber 

harvesting plan, we have so much fuel on those grounds that at 

some point we are going to see more fire damage. 

So my concern is, as we are looking at this budget, that fire season is late in the year, at the end of the budget cycle, so a State 

like California ends up having a natural disaster, no funds left to 

expend, and as you have said, nonmission critical, you are spending 

heavy on the beginning of the year which is appropriate, but in a 

tough budget year, we could have a huge shortfall in some of those 

other areas. If you care to have a quick response. 

Mr. FUGATE. Again, Mr. Chairman, the variable is you take all 

these different factors and project out. Our only real tool basically 

is hindcasting what we have seen our activity on average to be over 

5-year periods, and look at the outliers of large scale catastrophic 

disasters is not fitting that process. I think that is part of the reason why there is a lot of concern about what is the balance of the 

DRF, particularly as we go in the more active part of hurricane 

season, and again, to be upfront, if we have a large scale Katrinasize hurricane, we have an earthquake of some magnitude, it will 

require additional funds to provide the response cost. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And before we move forward, I would 

ask for unanimous consent that Mr. Long of Missouri, who is a 

member of the Transportation Infrastructure Committee, be permitted to participate in today’s subcommittee hearing. I would remind everybody that Mr. Long has Joplin in his district, and obviously we have certainly seen the devastation that has been caused 

there. Without objection, so ordered. I now turn to Ranking Member Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fugate, the President, in his wisdom, appointed a professional. We acknowledge 

your long experience in Florida. I think bringing that experience 

from the field has helped you in your efforts to change and reform 

FEMA. 

I want to ask you some questions from my experience when we 

were most concerned about FEMA. I don’t believe that the way to 

avoid problems is to have no regulations. I strongly object to the 

kinds of regulations that willy-nilly come down from Federal agencies. That is what makes people hate Government. So I am a 

strong advocate of streamlining. When I headed a Federal agency, 

I spent a lot of my time doing just that. 

Now, I mentioned in my opening statement a notion that is now 

in statute from 11 years ago and that is the kind of state-of-theart from private business bringing into Government that is proven 

and that has not been, so far as I know, implemented by FEMA, 

and that is the use of cost estimates for repair and construction 

10 

projects, even though that was mandated long before you came actually 11 years ago. 

What is the concern? Why hasn’t that time-saving efficient notion 

been implemented? Is it related to what you said in your opening 

statement, that you are always looking for fraud and abuse? What 

is the problem with using cost estimates? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, I think it is a question about writing it into 

a rule basis. I know that we do cost—— 

Ms. NORTON. Did you use them in Florida? 

Mr. FUGATE. We wrote project worksheets, which was basically 

we would try to get the most accurate figure for what we estimated 

costs, and then we would go through the project worksheet, and 

then if we required an adjustment on that when we got true costs, 

we would adjust the worksheet. In Florida, I did not really run into 

this issue. Probably the area, though, probably the more tricky one 

is doing the cost estimates on debris, which would, again, be the 

ability to write a project for the debris, and do it on the upfront 

based upon cost and estimates, and that is one that is more technically, you know, tricky as to how do you do that in such a way 

that we ensure that we are not way off mark. 

But I would like to raise one issue you talked about, our rulemaking ability. When I got to FEMA, I had zero attorneys dedicated to rulemaking. I don’t have a shop that does rules, yet I am 

an Agency that has tremendous regulatory and rulemaking authority, and I have a backlog of regulatory issues that we should have 

addressed already. So one of the things we did was we did not 

come back to Congress and ask for more positions and more money. 

We found our savings in our budget. We are for fiscal year 2012 

authorizing eight new positions. 

Ms. NORTON. But Mr. Fugate, you could use cost estimates not 

only in debris, even if you did not use them in debris, the statute 

said that these lawyers that you have hired could be doing a rule 

that allowed cost estimates to be used as an insurance for repair 

and construction projects. Why are they not being used in those 

projects? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, again, as I was trying to point out, we are 

working towards establishing a rule shop, bringing in the attorney 

and the economist that we would have—— 

Ms. NORTON. Are you intending to use cost estimates? 

Mr. FUGATE. I have no opposition to it. As it goes through rulemaking, it is on the backlog. 

Ms. NORTON. When is it—since you have got a whole set of disasters that you have had to deal with all at one time virtually, 

wouldn’t cost estimates have helped you in that process, and cannot this be brought to the forefront if we are 11 years after the 

statute mandated it? 

Mr. FUGATE. In some States, no. In some States they will not—— 

Ms. NORTON. Let us talk about States where it can be done. Let 

us talk about doing a pilot project. Let’s talk about implementing 

the statute. Can this rule be brought to have priority? 

Mr. FUGATE. We can do it as our practices allow us to do now, 

which is to a certain degree do it in the project worksheet process, 

which we estimate what the costs are, and then we allow for adjustments when true costs come in. 

11 

Ms. NORTON. So are you doing cost estimates now? Is that what 

you are telling me? 

Mr. FUGATE. We are not doing them in debris. We are doing 

them when we write a project worksheet, it is a cost estimate of 

what we think the costs are. 

Ms. NORTON. So you think you are in compliance with the statute? 

Mr. FUGATE. Do we have a rule in place? No, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. I am asking you when a rule will be in place, Mr. 

Fugate, for cost estimates. 

Mr. FUGATE. With many things with rules, there is a rulemaking 

process that will take time, and my understanding is that this is 

on one of the backlogs of our rules that we are working on. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, Mr. Fugate, I would ask you, to within 30 

days, submit to the chairman where cost estimates—understand 

that this one is not a suggestion of the committee. This is a matter 

of statute. Where it appears in your list of regulatory priorities 

within 30 days to the chairman, and I would ask the chairman to 

share that with me, and I would move on. 

Another inefficiency we found was truly astonishing, Mr. Fugate, 

and that was what I will call dual consultants. The taxpayers 

would be amazed to know that they pay for a consultant from 

FEMA, and a consultant from the State for estimates, and of 

course, everyone goes out to get their best consultant to provide an 

expert opinion on costs. This sets up an adversarial court-like process, not mandated by the statute, never conceived by the statute, 

costly because you have got to pay for the State’s consultant. I 

asked you and I have to ask you now, what steps have been taken 

to move to a system where appropriate which would allow the parties to get together and decide to use a single consultant, saving 

the taxpayers money? 

Mr. FUGATE. I would not agree to any consultant, but what we 

have agreed to and out of the arbitration hearings the judge directed us to, if we have a PE engineer, a licensed engineer of a 

State who is willing to sign on the record a loss or finding, we will 

accept that without putting in a second review. 

Ms. NORTON. Excuse me, does that mean that the State does not 

have to—that the State has to abide by that choice as well? 

Mr. FUGATE. It would be their engineer. But I will give you an 

example. Let us say we have a hospital that is a heavily damaged 

building. The question is, do we replace, repair or is it destroyed? 

If they have a licensed engineer saying the building is not repairable, we are going to take that. If the engineer signs off on that 

that it is not repairable, we will look at replacement versus trying 

to repair the structure versus bringing in a second team to look at 

that. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I take that to be that the testimony 

here has been that they now operate with one consultant if it is 

a licensed expert. If that is the case, then that right there cuts in 

half what the taxpayers have been paying. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Meehan for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fugate, thank you 

for not only your time testifying here today but your long service 

12 

in the first responder community. I think America has taken a new 

awareness of the significance and importance, and I think, of 

course, we all had our eyes opened on September 11th. There is so 

many aspects of that, but to me, one of the things having served 

in the aftermath as a Federal prosecutor, and as many observed, 

it was the remarkable difficulty of communications in the aftermath of that incident. Naturally, the unanticipated impact of what 

would happen once the interoperability of our traditional systems 

and the communications from towers to transmission lines went 

down. So I think we as a Nation went back to the bucket brigades. 

In effect, at that point in time, it was ham operators, radio operators that were establishing central communications for our system. 

The frustration is that a few years later we saw the same thing 

duplicated in Katrina in which, once again, although there was a 

suggestion that we had interoperability and we would be better 

prepared, there was physical damage done to towers and in the immediate aftermath the inability to communicate. 

What have we done in that time so that if we have a similar kind 

of incident which we can anticipate the infrastructure is going to 

be significantly damaged we can have real-time communications 

capacity that is better than the bucket brigades of the ham operators? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, sir, as it goes to the question of what is different, several things have improved and changed. I think one of 

the things is we are responsible as part of Homeland Security for 

doing disaster emergency communications. If the area of impact 

has lost their infrastructure and needs to have equipment brought 

in, we have the capability to bring in and set up communications 

and work across a wide range of systems to get initial interoperability back up, but that means it has to get to the area, so there 

is a delay from the initial impact. 

Mr. MEEHAN. What kind of delay would that be and how significant is the communications capacity once it comes in? 

Mr. FUGATE. It is not more—it really comes back to drive time 

to physically get in or do we fly the kits in? So it is just the transport time, and these are resources scattered across the country to 

get them in. Probably more important is the investment that has 

been made in interoperability, as an example in Congressman 

Long’s State we had participated in a national level exercise which 

was an earthquake a week before the tornadoes hit, and at that 

time, the Governor was demonstrating their statewide radio system 

which had used Federal dollars to develop interoperability, and we 

did not know a week later, not even a week later they would be 

using that very system in Joplin when that city got hit to provide 

backup communications to responders because of the impacts there. 

Mr. MEEHAN. But are they still built again on existing infrastructure like cell towers and other kinds of transmission lines that roll 

through? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, again, when you look at the public safety, 

those are generally Government-owned systems, and so we bring 

the systems to augment that. We also work very closely with the 

private sector through the national communications system to get 

those systems back up. Sometimes it is damaged infrastructure. A 

lot of times it is not only infrastructure, it is bandwidth to provide 

13 

communication. So in the initial hours, our first focus will always 

be on the public safety responders, getting them back up, but one 

of the other things we have learned that is also important is getting the public back up, and that is where the private sector really 

has, I think, made improvements in their ability to bring in mobile 

units, get communications up, and add capacity for cellular communication, wireless communications in areas. 

Mr. MEEHAN. That is critical. That is one of the things. I am asking these questions for a variety of reasons, but not least of which 

I have had the opportunity to visit within my own district a group 

called the Ragant Corporation, who has been at the cutting edge 

of communications for the military. They have had the ability, of 

course, into areas in which there is armed conflict, to quickly be 

able to enable there to be communications. It is a system called 

Bread Crumbs. The concern, as I asked them about, if they have 

had communications with FEMA. They did. They talked to FEMA 

6 weeks before Katrina and were told we have all the communications we need, and then obviously we found out the inability to do 

that. 

So how do we keep certain that we are accessing the latest technology and capacity that is available so that we know that we can 

find communications capacity in that critical window, not the 48 

hours that it is going to take to drive or fly it in, but in those 2 

or 3 hours where people may be at peril? 

Mr. FUGATE. I think, again, one of the issues the Post-Katrina 

Emergency Management Reform Act established was, we had to do 

more than just talk about interoperability and provide grant funding, we need to have States devise their plans, we need to have 

deployable capability which was assigned to FEMA for the disaster 

emergency communications, and we continue to look at how do you 

start using things that, again, we still face the fact that most 

smartphones have more capability than a lot of our public safety 

radios. 

So as we continue to transition to bringing that into the public 

safety world, how do we continue to enhance wireless networking, 

both for the public safety as well as the public? 

Mr. MEEHAN. But we know—and I will close out, Mr. Chairman, 

in a second. But that was the great frustration was simply in New 

York the wireless network being overloaded with family members 

trying to contact other family members, and so, you know, we have 

got a very, very precarious network in the immediate aftermath. 

Well, thank you, Mr. Fugate, for all of your work, hard work in 

putting that together. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. Long? 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would first like to 

thank you, Chairman Denham, for letting me sit in on this hearing 

today and appreciate you, even though I am not on this subcommittee. And I am from Springfield, Missouri, which is 70 miles 

from Joplin, Missouri, as you know, Mr. Fugate. Branson, Missouri 

is also in my district. Two or three weeks before the Joplin situation we had had terrible flooding in Branson, and FEMA had started to set up shop down there, and I got a call from your people a 

week or 10 days before Joplin saying that they understood I was 

not happy with FEMA in the Branson situation, and I said, well, 

14 

it is not that I am not happy with FEMA. I am not happy that the 

Governor waited a full week in an obvious situation where people 

have 41⁄2 to 8 feet of water in their homes to have declared it a disaster area, and so when Joplin then hit, I was kind of on FEMA’s 

radar, I think they wanted to make sure if I was happy. I stayed 

happy, and the morning of the morning after the tornado that hit 

on a Sunday, I was in Joplin at the light of day, walked in the firehouse down there. 

There was 400 to 500 first responders standing around waiting 

to go to work. Unfortunately, we had weather move in that morning, hail storm, 60 mile-an-hour winds, so they had to kind of wait 

out a couple of hours while we knew there were people that we 

could go out and rescue that morning. Shortly thereafter, I got a 

call from the White House liaison for FEMA, and they explained 

that FEMA would be on the ground shortly in Joplin, and I said 

no they are not. 

And they said, what do you mean? I said, well, they are already 

here, they got here about 10 minutes ago. So you all from that 

point on have been excellent in the Joplin situation. Mr. Serino 

came in, I think, a day or two before you came in, the President 

has been there, and it is truly, truly indescribable, it is something 

that you cannot describe. 

Representative Akin came down a week ago, and after everything 

that has been on TV and the situation in Joplin and everything, 

he still looked at me a couple days ago and he said, when I went 

to Joplin it was 10 times worse than anything I could imagine. And 

it is a town of 50,000 people. The devastation is three-quarters of 

a mile wide by 6 miles in depth, and it is clear cut. It is absolutely 

clear cut. Eight thousand homes, one hundred fifty-nine people lost 

their lives in a town of 50,000 people, 8,000 homes, 159 lives lost, 

not to mention the ones who are still in hospital and have various 

problems, 500 businesses destroyed, 54 percent of the school capacity. They are going to start school here in a few weeks. Fifty-four 

percent of the school capacity gone, and, but I just, in those dire 

circumstances, I do want to thank you. 

I was down there 2 weeks ago with the Army Corps of Engineers 

which is in charge, of course, of the debris removal, and they made 

a comment as I was driving around that they have never seen 

HUD, FEMA, Army Corps, economic development, all the different 

Government agencies that are getting along. I think a lot of that 

has to do with the attitude of the people in Joplin and southwest 

Missouri pitching in and helping themselves, but I just cannot say 

enough. One of the city leaders, city fathers of Joplin told me a couple days ago, you need to tell FEMA, because I told them we are 

having this hearing this morning, they said you need to tell FEMA 

they are damaging their reputation here. So you are doing better 

than you are supposed to be doing. 

I do have one question for you. There has been—the city leaders 

in Joplin are trying to find out on this 90/10 split with the Federal 

Government, they have asked for 100 percent, and I do not know, 

I am sure they want the 100, but the question is, they would kind 

of like to know, and they have been trying to get an answer on 

that. Do you have any idea when they may have a yes-or-no answer on that? 

15 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, there is two parts. The first part is in the 

areas we are doing debris, that is at 90 percent for the first 75 

days, but for the rest of the cost, under the CFR, that is actually 

based upon a per capita impact to the State of $127, which I think 

for Missouri is over $700 million. Another part of that is we look 

at the existing disasters that have occurred in the past 12 months 

as additional factors, and as I talked to Senator Blunt about this 

yesterday, I talked to our Federal coordinating officer, and she 

thinks probably in about the next 60 to 90 days, we will have 

enough of the project worksheets written to have some idea what 

the total cost of the Joplin impacts as well as some of the other disasters, and that would give us an indicator whether we would be 

in the point to make the recommendation of 90/10, but in our rules 

within the CFR, we would only make the recommendation for all 

categories of public assistance at 90 percent based upon a statewide per capita of $127 statewide. 

Mr. LONG. OK, OK. Well, I appreciate. Again, I just want to 

thank you and thank everyone that has come to see the Joplin situation because to a person, when they see it, my chief of staff included, which came down a couple of weeks ago, even though I had 

been ballyhooing it ever since the day it hit and telling how devastating it is, I do not know how many F5s have hit this country, 

but the number is very small, and the ones that have stayed on the 

ground over a quarter mile F5s are extremely rare, and this F5 

stayed on the ground for 6 miles, and I also went out to with the 

Army Corps a couple weeks ago to the vegetation, whatever they 

call it, but it is where you take the big 100-, 150-year-old trees that 

are no longer there, the huge, huge stumps, you see trucks going 

down the road with huge stumps on them, huge big massive trees. 

They have chips, chipper shredders set up, they have 20-, 30-foot 

high piles of shreddings from all those trees lost over a tremendous 

area. 

Again, I just want to reiterate how much we do appreciate your 

efforts and your help and the fact that you came there and saw for 

yourself. I know when Secretary Napolitano came in, her comment 

was the same thing. She has seen a lot of disasters, and she had 

never seen anything to equal Joplin, Missouri. I appreciate it. 

Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for letting me sit in. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Long. Mr. Fugate, we understand 

the new temporary housing units that meet FEMA’s new standards 

will cost between $44,000 and $46,000, somewhat higher than the 

costs for housing units used in earlier disasters. Under what circumstances would FEMA provide temporary housing units as opposed to some other less costly housing units? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have done about 400 so far, 

and I expect some more in more recent disasters. Our first goal is, 

again, providing renters assistance if there is available housing in 

the area. If you go back to last year’s floods in Tennessee which 

impacted several thousand homes, we were rather successful in 

that event of just doing renters assistance. We did not have to do 

temporary housing. But with these tornadoes, particularly in smaller or rural communities there may not be available housing. Again, 

the preference of the State is not to have people move long distances away from their communities, so we will do that. Again, in 

16 

the tornadoes across the southeast, there were so many housing 

units destroyed, there just was not enough rental hotels and motels 

to provide a solution until homes could be rebuilt. So we do this 

as a tiered approach, always looking at the quickest way to help 

people is with renters assistance if there is someplace to stay. In 

the absence of that, we will look at providing relocation for people, 

and then our third option would be looking at temporary housing 

units. 

Mr. DENHAM. And how about as far as somebody whose home is 

inhabitable, just doing the patch work to get it habitable for a 

short period of time before the—— 

Mr. FUGATE. That is a program that we worked with the Corps 

of Engineers. Previously we had a program called Blue Roofs which 

was a rather expensive program to put a tarp on a roof, but that 

would not always dry out a home and get people in, there may be 

busted windows, a door may have been damaged, and we realized 

that for the cost of doing that, we could incrementally increase 

some additional funds and get people back in their homes if we do 

some expedient repairs. So we have a program with the Corps 

where we will do expedient repairs, this is not permanent work, 

but it provides enough repairs, if possible, to get people back in 

their home, to get power back on until permanent repairs are 

made. So we do have that program. But as Congressman Long will 

tell you, there were not a whole lot of homes in Joplin that were 

only partially damaged. It was pretty much either destroyed or not 

heavily impacted, but we think this would be a more viable option, 

particularly in hurricanes where we do see widespread damages 

that if we could do these expedient repairs it would reduce the cost 

to the taxpayer as well as get people back in their homes quicker. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. When do you believe the Bottom Up 

Review for the public assistance program will be completed? 

Mr. FUGATE. The short answer is I do not think we will ever be 

done. I think it is going to be a continuous process. What we have 

run into as we started this process, and we asked our subject matter experts, they were not quite grasping what I was looking for, 

and they began incrementally looking at pieces of this. So we reset 

it to go back and again ask the fundamental questions. What does 

the Stafford Act say? What does the CFR say? And then what do 

our rules and policies that conflict or do not make sense or add layers? We have already eliminated or have actually deleted a lot of 

policy guidance that we felt was duplicative, not clear or not relevant, so part of this was going through just the policy pieces and 

looking at what things should be eliminated. 

Then as we go through that, it is to look at some fundamental 

structures such as cost estimates. Or the other question is, right 

now we do debris literally in a manner that is very costly to monitor, but it is done because it is not a very easy thing to do cost 

estimates on, but is there a better way to do debris as a lump sum 

versus doing it as a reimbursement for the work being done? 

Mr. DENHAM. Does the Bottom Up Review also include an examination of the Stafford Act? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, it does. Again, I have been pretty consistent 

with this, Mr. Chairman, and it sounds like a broken record, but 

the Stafford Act has a lot of inherent flexibility that it is our own 

17 

policies that prevent us from doing things. An example is going on 

private property removing debris is permitted under the Stafford 

Act, but generally in our policies and regulations we have precluded that, and we do not normally provide that as a way of doing 

it. That is why when we looked at the damage in some of these recent storms, we said, you know, the Stafford Act says we can do 

this, we think there is a compelling case to do this, we think it is 

the thing that needs to be done to get on private property to get 

the debris removed, so we authorized it. So we start out with what 

does our policies and our rules and our oftentimes practices do that 

we can adjust first before we look at the Stafford Act? 

Mr. DENHAM. As you go through the Stafford Act, do you also develop recommendations for legislation that is needed? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir, but again, I am finding less that is specific 

to the Stafford Act that is more specific to our internal, our rules, 

and to the CFR, and again in many cases, there is inherent flexibility in the Stafford Act that has been precluded because of practice or by policy or rules. So we start there before we look at the 

Stafford Act. We are still working through a lot of that, and again 

part of this has been is to build a rulemaking shop to actually get 

up a team that can make an effective calendar of the things we 

need to change, get rid of the stuff—we actually have some of our 

policies that date back from the 1970s and 1980s that have not 

been updated and reviewed because we don’t have a central shop 

doing nothing but rulemaking, and so that is one of the things that 

we are going to build in fiscal year 2012 out of our fund base to 

have a rulemaking capability that gets us through a process that 

has not been—quite honestly in many cases, it has been an ad hoc 

process spread out through the Agency with no central point of coordination. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. Long? 

Mr. LONG. I don’t have anything. 

Mr. DENHAM. Another question, mitigation obviously can save 

lives and money. By mitigating against disasters, there are less 

casualties and less damage to people’s homes and businesses, however post-disaster mitigation funding often becomes available well 

into or after the rebuilding process. What steps have you taken to 

ensure mitigation is a meaningful part of the recovery following a 

disaster? 

Mr. FUGATE. Mr. Chairman, I will talk about some sections that 

your staff probably know very well. But when we have a public assistance disaster declaration and we are in the rebuilding process, 

there is a section of the Stafford Act, Section 406, that provides 

that not only can we replace—let us talk about fire stations. There 

were several stations in Joplin that were impacted, one which was 

heavily damaged. The way that we would normally go in there is 

if that was not an insured building, we would provide a replacement cost and it would have to be built to code. One of the things 

we can do is while we are rebuilding it, we can actually mitigate 

with cost-benefit analysis and upgrade the building beyond code. So 

one of the things that we are really focused on is life safety in a 

lot of these public infrastructures is making sure that as we rebuild schools, we rebuild critical infrastructure, we rebuild the safe 

rooms and other things to harden these buildings as we are reVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:16 Jan 31, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\7-14-1~1\67385.TXT JEAN
18 

building them so that the other section, which is 404, which is the 

mitigation dollars the State gets on top of their repair and replacement costs, can go to other activities. But as much as we have 

damaged infrastructure, we want to aggressively make sure that as 

we rebuild them where the opportunities are and where it makes 

sense and it makes—the cost-benefit analysis makes sense and we 

are not spending a million dollars to save a dollar but where it 

makes sense or particularly in critical infrastructures like fire stations, that we don’t just look at merely replacement or building it 

back to code. We look at how do we harden that building and use 

those mitigation dollars under Section 406 to harden the building. 

Mr. DENHAM. As you know, the Emergency Management Assistance Compact that facilitates mutual aid among States is up for reauthorization. EMAC has been funded up to $2 million annually. 

How critical do you believe EMAC is in our response and recovery system? 

Mr. FUGATE. Mr. Chairman, in these tornados, again if this was 

2001, I think we would probably end up deploying about a third of 

our national Urban Search and Rescue teams, which is another 

part of what you looked at in reauthorization. Because we had such 

strong intrastate and interstate, which is the EMAC component 

where they are able to move resources across State lines, we were 

not required to deploy any of the national teams. Meaning that if 

there had been another disaster the day after Joplin, 27 of those 

teams would have been available to respond. The one team that 

wouldn’t was Missouri 1, which was activated under the Governor’s 

authority. But they also brought teams in from the neighboring 

States that allowed them to respond quickly to that disaster. Those 

500 responders that Congressman Long talks about came from the 

area and it was all done through mutual aid. 

Again, this is why we look at these teams as national assets, why 

we look at our local and State responders and our county and city 

emergency managers as national assets. The Emergency Management Assistance Compact gives us the ability to leverage resources 

across the Nation, not just those that are specific to the Federal 

Government. And that meant that in these tornados, as bad as 

they were, the initial response and search and rescue took place in 

hours in the first couple of days. We were able to focus almost immediately upon going into recovery and supporting that. And I 

think this is the strength of looking at our State and local governments as part of national assets and using tools such as the Emergency Management Assistance Compact to share these resources by 

Governors across State lines, independent of a Federal response 

where oftentimes they are quicker, faster and the cost is actually 

lower to the taxpayer and it is money we have invested in our 

homeland security grant dollars to build this capability. 

Mr. DENHAM. And how about for preparedness grants? Which 

preparedness grants leverage the most local funds and provide the 

most capability for the least amount of Federal funds? 

Mr. FUGATE. That would be the emergency management preparedness grants, which are the dollars that are provided to the 

States and often times fund local emergency management programs. This is a program that is a 50/50 cost share. So there is a 

lot of local and State investment in these programs. And to be 

19 

quite honest with you, Mr. Chairman, without these funds, I think 

we would have a less robust capability at a local and State level. 

I think our response to these most recent disasters would have 

been slower because we wouldn’t have had the base of the expertise 

at the local level managing these responses. And it would ultimately cost us more in loss of lives and the impacts of the recovery 

because we would have to bring everything from the outside to 

begin the response versus building upon the local expertise, the 

local community, adding to that and speeding up that response and 

recovery. 

Mr. DENHAM. And lastly, last Congress, members of this subcommittee introduced the Integrated Public Alert and Warning 

System Modernization Act, and we are working to refine that legislation and reintroducing it again this year. In the hearings last 

Congress, concerns were raised as to whether FEMA was effectively developing this system with input from experts and other 

stakeholders. You talk about what FEMA is doing to ensure 

IPAWS not only stays on track, but also how key stakeholders are 

involved in its development. 

Mr. FUGATE. Mr. Chairman, there is two key parts to IPAWS 

this year. The first one is we are doing our first national activation 

of the emergency alert system. This has never been done in all the 

history of the program, which is a key cornerstone of IPAWS. Because we are using the common alerting protocol to do these activations, we have now, working with our partners at the FCC, but 

more importantly working with the wireless community, are moving towards the ability to now provide notifications to cell phones 

that are based upon their location without them having to 

preregister or sign up. 

This program is being kicked off in New York. We are also working in DC. And ultimately we want to expand it out so that cell 

phones, as part of the emergency alert system, which is part of 

IPAWS, would be able to receive alerts in areas based upon your 

location. You do have the ability to opt out of it. It doesn’t track 

your location. We don’t know where you are at. But it does provide 

the ability to broadcast a warning to the phones in the area and 

alert people of things such as the tornados and floods we have seen 

this spring. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. Carnahan, do you have questions? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 

the witness for being here and for what your Agency does. A couple 

of things I wanted to cover. First starting out with the disaster in 

Joplin, Missouri. I am glad to be joined here by my colleague from 

Missouri, Congressman Long. And I appreciate all the work he has 

done in this regard as well. But also the more recent flooding emergencies up and down the Mississippi River. I wanted to ask kind 

of a broader question to start with, in terms of the lessons learned 

by FEMA in these recent disasters and how can we incorporate 

those into this reauthorization effort we are going through here in 

Congress. Again, to learn from those lessons, you know, what went 

well, what didn’t and how we can improve. 

Mr. FUGATE. I think—and again, some very broad observations 

is, what worked well was not building a Federal centric response 

but building response based upon local and State with Federal supVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:16 Jan 31, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\7-14-1~1\67385.TXT JEAN
20 

port and working as a team. I think that in many of these responses the reason we—as devastating as they were, we did not see 

issues that had been raised elsewhere is a tremendous response not 

only from Government, but also recognizing the value of the volunteer and NGO organizations of the private sector. And that is one 

area since I have been at FEMA we have been working on, is to 

expand a team and not just look at what Government can do, but 

also incorporate and give a seat at the table. We are not abandoning our responsibilities as FEMA to do our job. We also recognize that there are many members of the community that have key 

roles they can play. And it is important that we provide at the Federal level a place to integrate those responses as we see being done 

at our local and State level every day. 

Another one that I think is important—and this is a mitigation 

issue—is reenforcing in those areas that have significant risks to 

the tornados, the importance of safe rooms. As was pointed out 

with the National Weather Service and as you see the devastation, 

even with warnings, we had a large loss of life, which points out 

the challenge. Even with warnings, if people don’t have somewhere 

safe to go, to get there quickly, we may not always be able to reduce the loss of life. So particularly in facilities such as schools and 

critical public safety buildings, I think it is important that we look 

at how do we harden those buildings and then also provide to 

homeowners who rebuild their homes opportunities either through 

Small Business Administration mitigation loans or mitigation dollars the States have to provide safe rooms in residential structures. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. And to follow on that, we have had a lot of discussion in the aftermath of these disasters in terms of preparedness. The difference in cost in terms of—I have seen several figures 

out there. I think maybe 7 to 1, the difference in cost. If we can 

address some of these issues on the front end in the preparedness 

area versus having to do things more expensively afterward. Again, 

talk to me about some of those strategies and how we can do better 

on the front end of disasters. 

Mr. FUGATE. I think what it goes back to is what we look at in 

our mitigation funding, I think the numbers that I—that generally 

we use at FEMA is about a 4 to 1 return on the investment for 

mitigating the effects of disasters. And again it is—the challenge 

is if you always knew where the disasters would be, it would be 

real easy to fund. This means it has to be a more systemic approach. And I think it has got to be a combination of not only our 

Federal dollars investing in mitigation practices, but also recognizing that State and local governments through land use and 

building codes can also significantly reduce the impacts of disasters. 

My home State of Florida, when we adopted more stringent wind 

codes, we saw the difference in the 2004 hurricanes. Homes side by 

side, same neighborhoods, literally built to a stronger wind code 

had roofs; those that didn’t, were heavily damaged and not occupiable. And that drove the cost up for everybody’s response. And 

again—so we know that things like building code, land use planning can reduce the cost of disaster as well as strategically targeting our limited Federal dollars to mitigate known hazards. 

21 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I have got one more if we have got time, Mr. 

Chairman. The last issue I wanted to talk about was the Urban 

Search and Rescue task forces that are throughout the country. I 

understand we currently have 28 comprised of firefighters, engineers, medical professionals with special training in search and 

rescue. Obviously these folks are coordinating with State and local 

resources. 

How can we best improve that coordination? Are we identifying 

best practices on how to do that? And you talk about how we can— 

the status of that and are there steps that we can do to even improve that? 

Mr. FUGATE. I think again we saw some unique opportunities in 

the past year, both the response to Haiti. And we sent teams to 

Haiti as part of support, USAID, as well as the teams that went 

to Japan and bringing those lessons back. But the other thing I 

think that the Urban Search and Rescue community that we have 

been working in—although again the funds are—it is a finite resource—is to continue to work with that. Because as you point out, 

the teams themselves are local and State responders. They are not 

Federal employees until we activate the teams. What we provide 

is the equipment and training. So we look at some of the unique 

issues they have raised, particularly in dealing in WMD environments where we may have toxic chemicals and other things. We 

don’t currently equip the USAR teams with that type of equipment. 

But we have another program, the Preposition Equipment Program, that does have that equipment. 

So one of the things we worked out with the USAR teams is the 

ability to deploy those preposition equipment caches with the 

USAR teams if they need additional protective equipment. So we 

are utilizing resources we are already having, that have already 

been funded to meet some of those requirements. But we do do an 

active lessons learned program with the USAR teams, not only for 

the 28 that are federally recognized, but also the vast number of 

teams that are out there at the State and local level that are also 

USAR capable, and provide those lessons back to that community 

from our lessons, particularly in Haiti, some of the things we saw 

there. 

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

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. One final question before we go to the 

second panel. Not long ago, FEMA signed an agreement with the 

Red Cross to have the Red Cross to take the lead in providing 

emergency shelters and other care. How is that going? 

Mr. FUGATE. I went to a shelter in Joplin that the Red Cross was 

operating that was taking care of people that had medical needs. 

They had a co-located pet shelter that they had worked out with 

the local humane society to staff. They had the Adventists and the 

Southern Baptists in there providing programs for infants and children. And again, I think under the leadership of the Red Cross, 

they have recognized that to be successful they have to bring in 

more team members. So we are seeing—and again are working 

with our Red Cross partners and others that provide shelter services to continue to do that. But probably again, this is always based 

upon people’s willingness to give and volunteer to the volunteer orVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:16 Jan 31, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\7-14-1~1\67385.TXT JEAN
22 

ganizations. So we also recognize that we have to work hand in 

hand, whether it be supplies or the ability to support them with 

resources. 

But in the recent disasters, our Red Cross partners and other 

volunteer agencies not only have been sheltering, but they have 

been feeding and providing mass care. And it is actually—Mr. 

Chairman, you kind of just have to go see it. When you have got 

folks like the Southern Baptists with a big cook truck cooking, putting meals into Red Cross containers and having those Red Cross 

vehicles then take it out to a Salvation Army canteen to feed people or to a church or other community group, you get some sense 

of the capabilities the volunteer community brings to the team and 

why we need to leverage those resources and not duplicate, but be 

ready to support and fill gaps if needed. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And at some point, I would like to travel with you and see firsthand through the same eyes on some of 

the challenges that you are facing. Thank you for your testimony 

today. 

Now we will have the second panel. 

Mr. FUGATE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

I now call our second panel of witnesses: Mr. Jerome Hatfield, 

Deputy Superintendent for Homeland Security, New Jersey State 

Police; Cline Griggs, Tribal Council member of White Mountain 

Apache Tribe; Ms. Phyllis Little, Director of Cullman County, Alabama, Emergency Management Agency; and Mr. Chad Berginnis, 

Associate Director, Association of State Floodplain Managers. 

I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be 

included in the record. Without objection, so ordered. Since your 

testimony has been made part of the record, the subcommittee 

would request that you would limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes or less. 

Mr. Hatfield, as your seat becomes available, I would ask you to 

begin your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF JEROME HATFIELD, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, NEW JERSEY STATE 

POLICE, NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION; CLINE GRIGGS, DISTRICT 4 COUNCIL MEMBER, WHITE 

MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE; PHYLLIS LITTLE, DIRECTOR, 

CULLMAN COUNTY, ALABAMA, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

AGENCY, AND MEMBER, U.S. COUNCIL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EMERGENCY MANAGERS; AND 

CHAD BERGINNIS, CFM, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS 

Mr. HATFIELD. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chairman Denham, 

distinguished members of the committee, for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the National Emergency Management Association, better known as NEMA. 

NEMA represents the emergency management directors of all 50 

States, Territories and the District of Columbia. Members of 

NEMA are responsible to the Governors for many responsibilities, 

including emergency preparedness, homeland security, mitigation, 

23 

response, recovery activities for natural, human-caused or terrorism-related disasters. 

The issues specifically surrounding recovery from large-scale disasters are not easy to tackle, but we remain encouraged on how the 

committee has continued to demonstrate support to FEMA’s programs. In terms of FEMA reauthorization issues, the most pressing 

issue for NEMA at this time is the much needed reauthorization 

of the Emergency Management Assistance Compact. Since 1996, 

EMAC has helped States coordinate mutual aid efforts and the 

compact has only grown in size and grown in impacts. 

For example, 2009 spring flooding in North Dakota and Minnesota resulted in States deploying equipment, sandbags, over 

1,000 personnel to North Dakota. In all, 700 plus National Guard 

personnel, over 300 civilians were sent to assist via the compact. 

Recently, over 600 personnel have been deployed in response to 

floods and tornados in Missouri, North Dakota, Nebraska, South 

Dakota, Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee. The investment in 

EMAC stands as a relatively minimal one for maintaining a proven 

national emergency response capacity. All members of EMAC rely 

on the compact as an asset in the response and recovery arsenal. 

The tools available to emergency management directors, however, extend far beyond mutual aid. After the response phase 

comes recovery. And over the years, recovery has proven to be elusive and difficult to manage. While FEMA provides a great deal of 

assistance as we make the transition from response to recovery, 

there are still some issues which need to be addressed. 

NEMA remains optimistic in FEMA’s Bottom Up Review of the 

Public Assistance Program. After an original review, FEMA restarted the process. According to the administration, the goal is to 

reduce the administrative burden and overall costs of the Public 

Assistance Program. To date, NEMA has provided informal comments to FEMA which were discussed through the National Advisory Council process. We believe FEMA is currently conducting a 

Phase II review of this process. The Public Assistance Program remains a vital tool to emergency management, and we remain encouraged by FEMA’s commitment to this process. 

A recently evolving challenge is in regard to the functional needs, 

support services decisions made by the Justice Department. Issued 

in November of 2010, the functional needs, support services guidance laid out how general population shelters must accommodate 

those with functional needs. NEMA and States were concerned the 

requirements could involve costly changes to general population 

shelters, which could ultimately reduce the number of shelters 

available. In today’s economic climate, most State and local governments simply cannot afford major and costly alterations to existing 

shelters. 

FEMA and the Department of Justice briefed NEMA members of 

the status of the initiative at our annual conference, but the agencies provided conflicting information. NEMA has requested clarification and has been told FEMA General Counsel and Department 

of Justice Disability Section continues working towards a solution. 

All the programs mentioned above are key components to a viable effective recovery structure within FEMA, but integration in 

the diversity of these programs and long-term recovery planning is 

24 

difficult. While FEMA has begun to address this by putting together a Long-Term Disaster Recovery Working Group, which facilitated the development of the National Disaster Recovery Framework, there remains much unfinished work. 

As demonstrated during the recent storms throughout the southern United States, recovery begins immediately and support from 

the Federal Government must easily fit into the plans and processes on the State and local level to ensure effectiveness. 

Some of the programs outlined throughout this testimony need 

reauthorization, while some simply require inquiries from Congress. Hearings such as this represent vital steps towards building 

a more effective recovery system. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward 

any questions that you may have. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Hatfield. 

Mr. Griggs. 

Mr. GRIGGS. Good morning. My name is Cline Griggs, Chairman, 

subcommittee members and guests. I am a member of the White 

Mountain Apache Tribe. I live on the reservation. Due to the limited time in gathering information for today’s hearing, some of the 

testimony I am providing today will follow up with additional information. 

The Fort Apache Indian Reservation is home to the White Mountain Apache Tribe. A federally recognized Indian tribe, the tribe’s 

total enrollment is 15,500 with approximately 93 percent of enrolled tribal members. The majority of the population lives in and 

around White River with the seat of our tribal government, with 

others residing in other eight communities. 

Responding to emergencies is a total tribal effect. The emergency 

response coordinator, under the provision of the tribe’s emergency 

response plan, mobilizes agencies and organizations and communicates with external agencies. The White Mountain Apache Tribe 

has its own tribal law enforcement, tribal fire department, with forest fire response, capable with firefighters, which is known as the 

what hotshot team who recently joined State and national efforts 

in fighting the Wallow Fire. The White Mountain Apache Tribe 

also has its own emergency medical response and hospital. The 

emergency requires a widespread response. Typical are the result 

of wildfires, flooding and snow storms. Wildfires, such as the recent 

Wallow Fire and the adjacent national forest, destroyed vegetation 

and by denuding the land increased runoff and flooding from summer monsoon rain. 

The reservation, with the heavy snowstorm during the winter, 

during the near record snowfall of January 2010, the community 

of Cibecue, population of approximately 3,500, which is 60 miles 

away from White River, was affected very drastically due to no 

electricity which were without water, electricity for a whole week. 

The Locust Fire, which was involved, troubled forestry and the fire 

department and instructive protection efforts. Eventually the snowstorm was declared a State and national disaster. FEMA to date 

and has notified the tribe that all claims were settled—has provided $146,000 to reimburse the tribe for expense and damage to 

property that occurred. The last payment was at the end of April 

2011. This was 15 months after the costs were incurred. The LoVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:16 Jan 31, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\7-14-1~1\67385.TXT JEAN
25 

cust Fire was never declared a disaster, so all costs of the fire was 

tribal. 

The White Mountain Apache Tribe comments and recommendation of FEMA’s long-term recovery, individual assistance and public 

assistance are included in the written testimony and will not be detailed here. Additional information needed for these sections will be 

forthcoming. 

Lessons learned from these two disaster events are important. 

The time required for the State to mobilize for assessing the extent 

of the damage following by the delays of the coordination between 

the State and Federal Government and declaring a snow caused 

disaster are contributing factors in the lengthy time between the 

disaster in January 2010 and FEMA’s payment received at the end 

of April 2011. 

The Locust Fire was a result in a closer working relationship between the tribe and Navajo County. Quick and total response is required to save lives and alleviate distress. Delays in the current 

system are in direct conflict with the need to move quickly and enforce. 

H.R. 1953 is strongly supported by the White Mountain Apache 

Tribe and other American Indian tribes in Arizona. The bill would 

amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and the Emergency 

Assistance Act to authorize Indian tribes to directly request the 

President for a major disaster or emergency declaration. It has 

been a priority of Indian Country for over a decade and upon enactment to treat Indian tribes as the sovereign government that they 

are. In Arizona, a lot of the FEMA Region 9 office, this new 2010 

tribal policy seems to be misguided in its implementation. States 

do not have jurisdictional authority on tribal lands, but are encouraged to be the entity to deliver grants, training and support as authorization to the Federal agency that has the trust and responsibility to American Indian nations. FEMA grant funding shall be directly to tribes as a sovereign government, not to the State. 

The White Mountain Apache Tribe has become dependent on 

grant funding as they struggle to recover from the effects of the recent recession. When the recession hit America, the reservation’s 

unemployment went from 33 percent to an estimated 65 percent, 

leaving a bothersome 51 percent of the reservation’s population living below the poverty line. But the responsibility of the emergency 

response to disasters, direct funding from FEMA and other Federal 

agencies become impossible when faced with the staggering cost of 

disaster relief and cost sharing requirements. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Ms. Little. 

Ms. LITTLE. Chairman Denham and distinguished members of 

the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to 

provide testimony on this important topic. I am Phyllis Little, Director of Emergency Management for Cullman County, Alabama. I 

am a member of the International Association of Emergency Managers and am providing this statement on their behalf. 

We appreciate the support this subcommittee has provided for 

the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, the 

Emergency Management Institute, and for strengthening FEMA. 

Cullman County has a population of 80,406 residents. The county 

26 

is located in central north Alabama. Primary businesses in the area 

are agriculture based. The tornado outbreak on April 27th impacted the entire county. 

The cities of Hanceville and Cullman were hardest hit. The National Weather Service mapped five tornado touchdowns across the 

county, two being rated as EF–4s, with wind speeds up to 200 

miles per hour. Approximately 500 homes and 100 businesses were 

damaged or destroyed. Electrical power was lost to most of north 

Alabama for 5 to 7 days. We were fortunate to have only two lives 

lost. School buses would have been on their routes when the tornados hit had school officials not postponed the opening of schools. 

Collectively planning, training and exercising together benefited us 

greatly when the event occurred. 

We owe a great deal of credit for our ability to respond to the 

funding received from the Emergency Management Performance 

Grant. Our EMPG allocation, which is cost shared 50/50, provides 

funds to staff our office with two people, as well as assistance to 

maintain half of our outdoor warning sirens. 

Our two greatest challenges have been debris removal and unexpected financial outlays. Debris removal is a life safety, health and 

economic recovery issue. FEMA initiated a pilot program called Operation Clean Sweep in Alabama. The program has enabled affected property owners to apply for assistance to remove debris 

from private property in an effort to jump-start recovery. Given the 

extensive amount of debris, it is much needed but it has not been 

without its problems. 

These problems can be attributed to inconsistent and inaccurate 

information provided early in the program. Better coordination, 

along with clearly defined policies and definitions of debris and 

areas of operation provided upfront would be extremely beneficial. 

The actual program to assist residents with debris removal did 

not begin in Cullman County until approximately 10 days ago. We 

still do not have a complete list of eligible properties. The cost 

share changed as of midnight July 12th from 90/10 to 75/25. The 

State’s request for an extension was denied July 12th. We urge reconsideration of this cost-share extension. 

Cullman County chose the Corps of Engineers to handle debris 

removal primarily because of the magnitude of damages. Getting a 

unit cost for debris removal from the Corps has been extremely difficult. This has proven problematic to local officials attempting to 

manage finances in these tough economic times. Given the uncertain financial obligations, Cullman County made the decision on 

Tuesday to terminate the Corps work in their jurisdiction as of 

July 29th and terminate participation in Operation Clean Sweep. 

This is strictly a financial decision. 

FEMA individual assistance has been delayed due to confusion 

over the meaning of denial letters directing applicants to complete 

SBA loan applications. Many did not complete the process. The 

SBA deadline is July 17th. I received the information late yesterday that FEMA has recognized the problem and is sending community relation teams door to door to assist applicants through the 

process. We applaud FEMA for assigning a liaison to each county. 

Locating the joint field office closer to the disaster and the creation 

of division offices in the affected areas has aided in recovery efforts. 

27 

Local officials will be meeting with FEMA to discuss available options, including possible assistance under the Community Disaster 

Loan Program. Given the loss of tax base and financial difficulties, 

this assistance could be vital to recovery. 

In conclusion, we appreciate the improvements made by FEMA. 

We urge the extension of the cost share on Operation Clean Sweep 

since it had a slow start. We urge expediting funding and decisions 

under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to allow safe rooms 

to be integrated into rebuilding projects. We urge adequate funding 

for the Community Disaster Loan Program for our hardest hit communities. We urge better communication on individual assistance 

eligibility. We urge consideration of providing advanced funding to 

communities based on the estimated costs of a declared disaster. 

And we urge recognition that local officials are reluctant to incur 

financial obligations of unknown amounts. 

I will be happy now to answer any questions. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. Berginnis. 

Mr. BERGINNIS. It is hard to imagine a more appropriate time for 

this hearing when we are debating what services the Federal Government should fund while at the same time experiencing an unprecedented number of disasters. 

Mr. Chairman, you noted in your opening remarks the large 

number of events that the United States has had in the first 6 

months of 2011. In fact, those events have resulted in $27 billion 

in losses, which is double the 10-year average. 

Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Norton, and members of 

the subcommittee, I am Chad Berginnis and before you today on 

behalf of the Association of State Floodplain Managers, an organization of 14,000 individuals and 31 State chapters that work to reduce flood losses and preserve the natural functions of floodplains. 

As a former local official who administered a mitigation project in 

a community devastated by flooding and as a former State official 

overseeing hazard mitigation programs in Ohio, I am particularly 

honored to be here to explain how hazard mitigation programs that 

cut across the Federal Government work to reduce disaster losses, 

result in better economic vitality, and increase community resiliency. 

What is hazard mitigation? The simple definition is that it is any 

sustained action to reduce long-term risks from hazards. It can be 

a number of things from the standpoint of flooding during a disaster recovery. Hazard mitigation measures could include such 

things as elevating buildings in place, retrofitting them to protect 

against a certain level of flooding, removing them from hazard 

areas either by relocation, acquisition or demolition. It also includes enforcement of building and land-use codes, recovery and 

mitigation planning, natural restoration of flood storage areas, critical facility protection and planning construction of flood attenuation structures. 

Let me make three statements of fact that will frame my remarks. First, investments in hazard mitigation will always reduce 

the cost and misery in the long term to individuals, communities 

and the taxpayer. The widely cited 2005 study by the National Institute of Building Sciences concluded the projects funded by FEMA 

mitigation programs yielded $4 in benefits for every dollar of inVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:16 Jan 31, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\7-14-1~1\67385.TXT JEAN
28 

vestment. Now, there are now instances where disasters are no 

longer declared in a community after an event because of mitigation. 

Second, mitigation is complicated, and in most situations there 

is not one solution to fix hazard issues in a community, and technical expertise is needed to understand the risk in mitigation options. 

Third, the window of opportunity to do the most mitigation, the 

time that people are most receptive is after a disaster. 

The two most common observations by our members about mitigation during recovery are, one, that not enough funding is generally available, the program is being oversubscribed; and two, the 

development, review and approval of a project takes far too long. 

To address these, ASFPM has the following recommendations 

which are detailed in our written testimony to result in more efficient recovery programs. 

First, FEMA must develop a framework for delegating the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to capable States. Much like other 

provisions of the Stafford Act, this authority has existed now for 11 

years, was part of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. HMGP 

projects in a disaster recovery environment are developed by a community, reviewed by the State and sent to FEMA for review and 

approval. We could eliminate one entire step with true program 

delegation where FEMA’s role is oversight, training and auditing. 

Second, State capability must be able to handle catastrophic and 

multiple back-to-back events. This is not just a FEMA responsibility. States also must have skin in the game. From the FEMA 

standpoint, though, one way this can be incented is to develop an 

ongoing funding mechanism similar to the Community Assistance 

Program under the National Flood Insurance Program. 

Third, the Federal Government under FEMA’s leadership must 

have the ability to supplement State program capability with robust and timely technical assistance in a post-disaster environment. This expertise can help State staff develop public assistance 

and mitigation project applications, assist home and business owners on how to apply mitigation techniques, and perform needed 

analyses to understand the hazards and develop data so that appropriate mitigation techniques are used. Of specific importance to 

this process is to allow for extra code inspectors and permit officials 

to be reimbursed under the Public Assistance Program. Also, a 

mitigation review under Section 406 should be mandatory for every 

project worksheet. In fact, our members report and I have experienced that this is not consistently nor robustly done in every disaster. 

Fourth, there must be incentives and requirements to use and 

adopt best available data for reconstruction. One of the real tragedies in the recovery process of Katrina is that on the Gulf Coast 

today you can see rebuilt structures that with almost near certainty will be destroyed in future hurricanes. We can and must do 

better. 

Fifth, there must be better Federal interagency coordination before and during the recovery. Valuable time and resources are 

wasted when agencies are not on the same page. One promising 

29 

program in this regard is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s Silver 

Jackets Program. 

Finally, all Federal recovery programs should incorporate hazard 

mitigation to the greatest extent possible. There are an array of 

programs in operation after a disaster and all of them should have 

a mitigation element. Again, investment in mitigation means reduced investment in future disaster recovery funding and savings 

to the taxpayer. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. We are going to have one round of 

questioning here. First of all, Mr. Hatfield. We are doing the reauthorization legislation. 

What do you think the key issues to be addressed in the FEMA 

reauthorization should be? 

Mr. HATFIELD. We are going to reinforce the fact that the Emergency Management Assistance Compact is critical and it is essential. I think years ago, it was mentioned that the Nation is best 

prepared when neighborhoods are prepared. And as such, EMAC 

allows for intra- as well as interstate activities so that emergencies 

are actually something that is taken care of locally and not nationally. And so we would encourage that as the national mutual lead 

initiative, EMAC be reauthorized so we can continue to work in 

neighborhoods throughout the United States. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And we talked earlier with Secretary 

Fugate about the Bottom Up Review. From your experience, what 

are some of the key areas FEMA should be looking closer at to help 

expedite the recovery process following a disaster? 

Mr. HATFIELD. The one thing I would like to say is that we are 

working very closely with FEMA. FEMA has developed working 

groups and focus groups to go and entertain some of the changes 

that are necessary in the Public Assistance Program. There is a 

benefit-cost analysis, if you will, that is done in the Public Assistance Program in that we do preliminary damage assessment reporting, which gives us cost figures to take a look at the potential 

overall impacts to a disaster. 

With that said, I think previously FEMA had put together a pilot 

program and it was a pilot program that focused on estimates. And 

with that, we are actually going to work very closely with them 

to—in hopes that they would actually re-engage that program. 

But front and foremost, I do believe that the payments that have 

come out for public assistance have been improved. Can they be 

streamlined? Absolutely. But I think a part of the achievement at 

this point is actually working very closely with all partners, to include nongovernmental organizations and the public sector across 

the board. 

I think the true achievement of the Public Assistance Program 

and the revamping of that program is something that FEMA has 

also embraced quite some time ago and it is called the Whole of the 

Community. I think that with the potential impacts to the Public 

Assistance Program across the spectrum, if we are bringing all 

those stakeholders in to talk about necessary changes with the program, if those changes are delayed, I think it will be acceptable 

knowing that we are going to maximize the greatest opportunity of 

efficiency by factoring in all stakeholders that are available. 

30 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And, Mr. Griggs, will you talk about 

the unique challenges tribes have faced following a disaster and 

how you believe that those can be addressed? 

Mr. GRIGGS. Some of the problems that we are facing not only 

the White Mountain Apache Tribe but other Indian tribes throughout the United States is the government-to-government relationships that we see not being strongly honored. When the RodeoChediski Fire happened on our reservation, it wasn’t until it 

crossed the reservation borderline that other agencies started to 

help with fighting the fire. When Hurricane Katrina happened, the 

United Houma Nation in southern Louisiana did not get the proper 

help that they would have to receive. When the Wintco blizzard 

happened in North and South Dakota, the Lakota Tribes did not 

receive generators and they were without electricity. 

Even our own community of Cibecue that I had mentioned, they 

were without power for a week. While communities off reservation 

when the same snowstorm hit, their powers were restored within 

a day or so. But due to the lack of cooperation, the lack of communication, and not having the assistance there, it is my belief that 

the American Indians are still not receiving the adequate resources 

that are entitled to them or that are there available. 

Once again, the community of Cibecue and McNary, when the 

snow fell, it was our tribal elders who survived that week without 

electricity. When they were growing up, they didn’t have electricity 

as they were growing up. Running waters were not a part of their 

daily lives. It was through the teaching of our tribal elders that 

brought our troubled youth through that disaster that had happened. So we are a strong people. But when our young ones are in 

need of help, it is through the strength of our elders and through 

the knowledge of what we hold today that can help us. 

We do need H.R. 1953 to be passed not only for the White Mountain Apache Tribe but other American Indian tribes throughout the 

Nation. The government-to-government relation needs to be established through FEMA so that it is the President who will call upon 

or the tribal leaders to call upon the President of the United States 

to declare their nation an emergency area where as of now it is the 

power of the State Governors to do that. So this is very strongly 

supported. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Griggs. I am out of time. Ranking 

Member Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Griggs, 

I understand precisely what you are talking about, where the philosophy here is supposed to be that those closest to the people are 

the ones who are best able to move in. Indeed FEMA testifies that 

much that happened in the recent disasters were first remedied by 

those closest. So I hear you. Tribes are treated as sovereign when 

people want them to be and often not when it is most important 

to tribes. I think we should look closely at that. 

Ms. Little, I was interested in reading your testimony and what 

you had to say about the Emergency Management Performance 

Grants because you gave them so much credit for building—for allowing your county, Cullman County, to build a strong emergency 

management system. That system apparently was instrumental in 

helping to save lives. I would like you to elaborate on how this 

31 

grant, the emergency management grant, helped you to rebuild 

that system when it occurred and how you think the grant itself 

was instrumental. 

Ms. LITTLE. Well, the grant for Cullman County amounts to 

about 24 percent of my annual budget. So we receive actually 

around $49,000 a year through the EMPG grant. Without this 

grant, I would be a one-person office. And as a one-person office, 

it would be nearly impossible for me to complete the plans that 

have to be done for disasters and to provide the training to emergency responders under the incident command system to elected officials about their role and responsibilities in disasters and to provide the exercising and training that we do as all agencies across 

our county. So I do give the EMPG program a lot of credit for providing those resources for us. 

In addition, Cullman County has 42 sirens or outdoor warning 

sirens on our system. My maintenance budget would be rather low 

if it weren’t for this funding. So as being responsible for more than 

half of the sirens on that system and their upkeep and maintenance, I can attribute a lot of that assistance to the EMPG. 

Ms. NORTON. So if that funding was reduced—— 

Ms. LITTLE. If that funding was reduced, I see that I would be 

a one-person shop quite likely and the funding just would not be 

there for the training and the exercising and the other things that 

we do with the planning. I also see that we would have to make 

choices and tough choices, do we provide this training for our first 

responders or do we repair the sirens as they go down. And those 

are quite expensive when you start repairs. 

Ms. NORTON. I must say I congratulate you on your efficiency. 

One person doing what you are doing and facing the kind of disaster you faced, the grant allowed you to be far more prepared 

than otherwise would have been the case. 

Mr. Hatfield, I would like to ask you about the Urban Search and 

Rescue Grants. As I indicated my admiration of them—we always 

read about them in the newspapers. We are amazed—we have one 

not in my own jurisdiction. There is one in Fairfax County. And we 

read that these people go to every part of our country and perform 

what seems to us to be miracles, this kind of mutual aid that goes 

on. So I don’t want—my view comes from having called some of 

them before us after specific disasters. But I would like your view 

as a State official on the reauthorizing of the Urban Search and 

Rescue Grants as a national resource. I don’t know if you had one 

in New Jersey. 

Mr. HATFIELD. We do. First, I would like to say it is an incredible 

capability that provides support to communities throughout the entire Nation. NEMA fully supports the reauthorization of dollars 

that will allow for the continuation of efforts for Urban Search and 

Rescue teams throughout—— 

Ms. NORTON. Instead of having each jurisdiction try to somehow 

get the necessary ability to handle these disasters by themselves, 

as I understand it these teams, regionally located, form the expertise and the equipment. And they go and—so that a local jurisdiction doesn’t have to worry that because it doesn’t have the money, 

because it may be a small community like Ms. Little’s, that there 

won’t be anybody there for them. 

32 

Mr. HATFIELD. I think that we have seen a lot of the Urban 

Search and Rescue teams travel not only within their State but 

outside the State. And very recently we have seen them travel 

overseas. It is an incredible capability, but what it does is it really 

serves the interests of public safety in the best way possible. We 

are looking at multiple disciplines that actually member incredible 

capabilities that are served in our Urban Search and Rescue, 

whether it is swift water rescue, building collapse, what have you. 

The training, the requirements for equipment are very strong. And 

as a result of that, the 28 Federal teams that support the Nation’s 

interests are robust. There are local teams and there are other 

teams that are not federally supported, and they too have capabilities that provide support to communities locally and regionally as 

well. 

Absent the urban search and rescue capability, I couldn’t imagine taking a look at a catastrophe, cataclysmic events absent that 

specialty, that expertise, and come through that with the glowing 

colors that we have seen with the challenges that they have been 

able to mitigate in responding to efforts not only in Haiti but also 

throughout the United States. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, but I do want 

to say this is an example of Government efficiency writ large that 

instead of duplicating these capabilities throughout the country, we 

see that so often one State does the same thing another State does 

or one agency does the same thing another agency does. Here Government has done something really right and I just want to go on 

record as indicating my strong support for that part of the reauthorization. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Our time has expired for this committee hearing, but we do have several other questions that we 

want to get your responses on the record for this hearing. Especially Mr. Berginnis. Still several more questions for you as well. 

So we will submit those to you. 

At this time, I would like to thank each of you for your testimony. Your comments have been very insightful and helpful to today’s discussion. I would ask unanimous consent that the record of 

today’s hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have 

provided answers to any questions that have been submitted to 

them in writing and unanimous consent that the record remain 

open for 15 days for any additional comments and information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today’s hearing. Without objection, so ordered. 

I would like to thank our witnesses again for their testimony 

today. If no other Members have anything to add, this subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

33 


Insert offset folio 7 here 67385.007
34 


Insert offset folio 8 here 67385.008
35 


Insert offset folio 9 here 67385.009
36 


Insert offset folio 10 here 67385.010
37 


Insert offset folio 11 here 67385.011
38 


Insert offset folio 12 here 67385.012
39 


Insert offset folio 13 here 67385.013
40 


Insert offset folio 14 here 67385.014
41 


Insert offset folio 15 here 67385.015
42 


Insert offset folio 16 here 67385.016
43 


Insert offset folio 17 here 67385.017
44 


Insert offset folio 18 here 67385.018
45 


Insert offset folio 19 here 67385.019
46 


Insert offset folio 20 here 67385.020
47 


Insert offset folio 21 here 67385.021
48 


Insert offset folio 22 here 67385.022
49 


Insert offset folio 23 here 67385.023
50 


Insert offset folio 24 here 67385.024
51 


Insert offset folio 25 here 67385.025
52 


Insert offset folio 26 here 67385.026
53 


Insert offset folio 27 here 67385.027
54 


Insert offset folio 28 here 67385.028
55 


Insert offset folio 29 here 67385.029
56 


Insert offset folio 30 here 67385.030
57 


Insert offset folio 31 here 67385.031
58 


Insert offset folio 32 here 67385.032
59 


Insert offset folio 33 here 67385.033
60 


Insert offset folio 34 here 67385.034
61 


Insert offset folio 35 here 67385.035
62 


Insert offset folio 36 here 67385.036
63 


Insert offset folio 37 here 67385.037
64 


Insert offset folio 38 here 67385.038
65 


Insert offset folio 39 here 67385.039
66 


Insert offset folio 40 here 67385.040
67 


Insert offset folio 41 here 67385.041
68 


Insert offset folio 42 here 67385.042
69 


Insert offset folio 43 here 67385.043
70 


Insert offset folio 44 here 67385.044
71 


Insert offset folio 45 here 67385.045
72 


Insert offset folio 46 here 67385.046
73 


Insert offset folio 47 here 67385.047
74 


Insert offset folio 48 here 67385.048
75 


Insert offset folio 49 here 67385.049
76 


Insert offset folio 50 here 67385.050
77 


Insert offset folio 51 here 67385.051
78 


Insert offset folio 52 here 67385.052
79 


Insert offset folio 53 here 67385.053
80 


Insert offset folio 54 here 67385.054
81 


Insert offset folio 55 here 67385.055
82 


Insert offset folio 56 here 67385.056
83 


Insert offset folio 57 here 67385.057
84 


Insert offset folio 58 here 67385.058
85 


Insert offset folio 59 here 67385.059
86 


Insert offset folio 60 here 67385.060
87 


Insert offset folio 61 here 67385.061
88 


Insert offset folio 62 here 67385.062
89 


Insert offset folio 63 here 67385.063
90 


Insert offset folio 64 here 67385.064
91 


Insert offset folio 65 here 67385.065
92 


Insert offset folio 66 here 67385.066
93 


Insert offset folio 67 here 67385.067
94 


Insert offset folio 68 here 67385.068
95 


Insert offset folio 69 here 67385.069
96 


Insert offset folio 70 here 67385.070
97 


Insert offset folio 71 here 67385.071
98 


Insert offset folio 72 here 67385.072
99 


Insert offset folio 73 here 67385.073
100 


Insert offset folio 74 here 67385.074
101 


Insert offset folio 75 here 67385.075
102 


Insert offset folio 76 here 67385.076
103 


Insert offset folio 77 here 67385.077
104 


Insert offset folio 78 here 67385.078
105 


Insert offset folio 79 here 67385.079
106 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 80 here 67385.080