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

88–284 PDF 2014

S. Hrg. 113–496 

THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

AGENCY’S BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2015 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, 

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 13, 2014 

Available via http://www.fdsys.gov 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Deputy Staff Director 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Minority Staff Director 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

LAUREN CORCORAN, Hearing Clerk 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, INTERGOVERNMENTAL 

RELATIONS, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

PAT MCQUILLAN, Staff Director 

BRANDON BOOKER, Minority Staff Director 

KELSEY STROUD, Chief Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

Senator Begich .................................................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2014 

Hon. W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ....................................................... 3 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Fugate, Hon. W. Craig: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

APPENDIX 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: 

Mr. Fugate ........................................................................................................ 25 

(1) 

THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S BUDGET 

SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2014 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT,

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS,

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:45 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Begich, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Begich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEGICH 

Senator BEGICH. I call the Subcommittee to order. Thank you for 

being patient as we had a vote on the floor. We may be interrupted 

again. The staff will keep me informed of some potential votes that 

will be coming up. 

But again, good afternoon. Welcome to the Subcommittee on 

Emergency Management, Intergovernmental Relations and the District of Columbia. 

We are here today to discuss the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 

2015 budget submission for the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA). We welcome Administrator Fugate. Thank you 

again for being patient while we got down here. I look forward to 

our discussion. 

The past few years have been very busy for FEMA. In 2013, the 

agency responded to 62 major disasters and made 28 Fire Assistance declarations. 

In addition to responding to last year’s events, the agency continued recovery and mitigation work following catastrophic disasters 

from the past years, including Hurricane Sandy. 

FEMA continued to do this work under pressure to cut costs as 

we were asking agencies across the government to do. We also are 

asking FEMA to do more to aid State and local governments that 

face increasingly unpredictable threats. 

While the number of declared disasters was down this year from 

the high water mark of 2011, severe storms and flooding were once 

again common. Flood ravaged parts of the United States, including 

communities along the Yukon River and the Kenai Peninsula in 

Alaska. 
2 

Overall the President has requested $14.7 billion in total discretionary funds for FEMA with almost half of that supporting the 

Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). 

DRF is vital in ensuring the Federal Government has the resources it needs to respond to disasters declared across the country, 

and I am pleased to see it fully funded under the responsible limits 

of the Budget Control Act. 

I am also happy to see that the budget would maintain funding 

for the emergency management performance grants and fire grants 

that fund critical operations for our Nation’s first responders. 

While FEMA is provided with the largest increase in appropriations among components of the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), there are some decreases that are troubling and could affect 

the key missions of the agency. 

State and local grants receive nearly a 15 percent cut which 

seems in direct conflict with the increased need for local resources 

we see across the country. The Administration has said the decrease is partly a result of efficiencies that can be found within the 

consolidated grants proposal in the budget. But concerns remain to 

what operational impacts these reductions might cause. 

The proposal for the National Preparedness Grant Program will 

require a change in the 9/11 Act to restructure the grants. This 

could shift the responsibility for setting priorities from the Federal 

to the State level. 

While I am encouraged that FEMA has listened to Congress’s request for more detailed and stakeholder outreach, responsibility for 

overseeing reform lies within the Committee. 

I look forward to working with FEMA as well as the State and 

local organizations across the country to determine if changes are 

needed. We must make sure the vital funding is distributed in a 

way that strengthens our security and preparedness while fulfilling 

our obligation to be good stewards of the public’s money. 

Last, I continue to be concerned with the decreases in the flood 

hazard mapping and risk analysis program. This program plays a 

critical role in the development and maintenance of the flood maps 

throughout the country. 

Even as recent flood insurance legislation has made the accuracy 

of maps more important, the Administration is reducing the resources available to help communities, homeowners, and businesses 

understand the risk they face and make smart choices. 

Coastal and riverine communities across Alaska face increasing 

flood risk, yet for many, their most recent flood map may be decades old and not taking into account the increased development or 

changes in geography. 

I recognize the limited resources FEMA has but continuing to 

only prioritize the areas with highest populations and highest 

home values ignore the needs of rural communities that have built 

their homes and businesses along the river’s edge dual or near the 

coast. 

Many of those affected are subsistence communities or native 

communities that may not be able to relocate but could benefit 

from the risk information that flood maps can provide. 
3 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Fugate appears in the Appendix on page 17. 

I appreciate the work that FEMA has done over the last year 

and I am sympathetic from the pressure that the agency has been 

under to implement the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act. 

I look forward to hearing more about the agency’s plans for the 

upcoming year and I appreciate your willingness, Mr. Fugate, to 

continue to open dialogue with this Subcommittee. 

I will let you go ahead and have your testimony. Then I have 

some questions. I will followup. If any Member attends additionally, we will allow them their time for opening as well as questions. 

Again, thank you for being here. Hopefully we will not be interrupted by a vote. 

Thank you very much. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. W. CRAIG FUGATE,1 ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. FUGATE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will go ahead and submit my written testimony for the record, if that will please you, 

and go to some very brief remarks. 

Any budget is always based upon your available resources with 

competing needs, and the needs have to be balanced across the entire Federal Government. 

We think this is a responsible budget. We think it addresses our 

key missions, and again it is based upon the priorities of an overall 

budget within certain parameters of maintaining budget controls. 

We do appreciate the fact what Congress has done for FEMA. 

Most probably, as you mentioned, the Disaster Relief Fund, part of 

the Budget Control Act that allowed that to be fully funded on an 

annualized basis versus only using supplemental processes to fund 

that. 

That has enabled us to respond this past year without having to 

shut down or reduce any level of response due to lack of funds. It 

allowed us to respond to Hurricane Sandy, one of the largest responses post-Katrina, again without having to shut down, reduce, 

or go into what we call immediate needs funding for any program. 

So, we are learning and I think what Congress is doing to fully 

fund that is a key part of our ability to continue to rebuild from 

these disasters but also be prepared for future catastrophic events. 

Other areas of the budget again are based upon the parameters 

of our targets. Again, it is a continuation of many times what we 

have been looking at in the past. 

I do want to highlight one thing, Mr. Chairman. In regard to the 

mitigation and understanding that the level of disaster response 

and the type of things we are facing in this Nation, we have been 

basically forced into responding to more and more events with 

higher population impacts. 

Yet we have not really been able to look at how do we make investment strategies to start buying down that risk. The President 

is recommending above-the-line budget requests of which, in the 

pre-disaster mitigation program, which we below the line have recommended zeroing out because of fitting in those priorities that if 

Congress would look at that to make some large-scale investments 
4 

over a recurring basis, the requests there for about $400 million in 

disaster mitigation to look specifically at how do we mitigate 

against climate disruption, particularly when we have too much 

water, not enough water. 

Drought, as we are seeing across the Southwest, and the increased flood risk both coastally and from riverine flooding due to 

extremes in weather are such that if we do not make investments 

and we are not willing to get ahead of this we will continue to see 

the drawdowns in the Disaster Relief Fund in outyears and disasters. 

So, the President is looking at this as part of the investment 

strategies of putting the funds in the pre-disaster mitigation, looking before disaster strikes at how do we address the issue of adapting to a changing world and buying down future risk. 

Other areas of the budget again are based upon the input of all 

of the process to get in the budget. You covered your areas of concern there and I am willing to take questions. 

The last piece I wanted to briefly address was, in the Hurricane 

Sandy supplemental, you also gave us a tremendous amount of 

work to do under the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act. And in 

that program, one of the key things, Senator, we much applaud 

was a provision within the Stafford Act to change the designation 

of who could request from the Presidential declarations. 

Previously tribal governments were identified in the Stafford Act 

as political subdivisions that could only request assistance through 

the Governors, notwithstanding their own sovereignty in this country and recognition as federally recognized tribes. You change that. 

Congress gave that authority. 

That is a very large undertaking for us. We are going from about, 

between the States and territories, about 54, 55 entities to over 500 

additional new entities that can request disaster declarations. 

Based upon that legislation, we made a decision not to wait until 

we had drafted any new rules. We were using existing rules. So, 

we were able to begin receiving and processing disaster declarations within weeks of the law being signed into law. 

Notwithstanding that, there is a lot of work and consultation to 

take place in developing the policies and procedures for declarations for tribal governments, recognizing that it is going to require 

additional tools than what we would normally have available just 

to the State declaration process and a consultation process that requires us to go meet with tribal governments. 

This is something that we feel strongly that we have to be able 

to sit down with folks at the tribal level to discuss this, to get their 

input and to build these policies. 

Our budget reflects that internally the additional resources required to do that but it is a commitment that we are not waiting 

until we have all the answers to implement it but we have a lot 

of work to do to be able to successfully provide the tools to tribal 

governments for disaster declarations and to be able to ensure that 

our consultation process is built around those needs. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I am open to questions. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. I appreciate all your 

work. 
5 

If I can start maybe with the tribal issues. As you know in Alaska with almost half the tribes in the Nation and also as a matter 

of fact this week we are having many of the tribes from my State 

and across the Nation here and Washington, D.C., for one of their 

conferences. 

Let us start with the ability for tribes to declare disasters. I hear 

what you are saying but help me understand your timetable because it has been a year since the authority was granted, and honestly I am nervous that the way this place works in Washington 

it takes time and usually time means it happens many years later. 

I need you to be more definitive on what you think, I guess there 

are a couple of parts to this question. When do you think you can 

move forward on these regulations in order to really clarify what 

the tribes can do, recognizing, that you are allowing some flexibility 

at the same time? 

But how and when will you get back into play? 

Second, I recognize from some discussions we had last night and 

this morning, our staff with yours, that there is some more effort 

going to be applied to the tribal consultation. 

So, in your regulation drafting and rules, what is the role you 

take and where are and how will you engage the tribes? I will be 

frank with you. Just doing it by phone calls and teleconference is 

great, but physically going out to some of these locations I think 

is very important. 

There are a lot of unique moments. For example, the National 

Indian Congress had met here this week, it would have been a 

great opportunity to have that engagement and discussion and 

work around or work session. The Alaska Federation of Natives 

has huge events off and on. 

Give me your thoughts on a timetable and how you will engage 

the tribes in a very meaningful discussion, not just check the box. 

I am not saying that you are doing that. But to be frank with you 

on some Federal agencies, they checked the box on travel consultation by making a call and then they say they are done. That is honestly not acceptable. 

Tell me your thoughts there. 

Mr. FUGATE. My experience tells me that, unless we go to where 

the tribes want us to go and we meet in person, we are not done 

in consultation. I fully agree with you that conference calls, emails, 

and other tools do not work. At least the initial consultations. 

But that required me to shift resources. Coming out of sequestration and the other difficulties, again we are very pleased to be back 

in normal order with a budget because that does allow me now to 

move resources to provide travel budgets so that we can get out in 

the field. 

We are basically looking at between our various tribal liaisons 

and other program areas about three quarters of a million dollars 

so far that we are identifying that we are going to require to support this that we have internally made available to start that process. 

So, the tribal consultation is, the policy, is in the first phase to 

be implemented; and from that, we are also building a draft policy 

guidance for tribal declarations. 
6 

We plan to implement that, Mr. Chairman, as a draft, not waiting until we have final rules. We will do it under our authorities 

under the pilot authorities you gave us in that. I will see that this 

year but we do not want to go too fast there because I do not want 

to get ahead of the consultation. 

When you are trying to make this fit for a variety of tribal governments, some that are in multiple States and have very large sophisticated governments down to villages that are incorporated, we 

want to make sure that we have that input. 

So, we are moving toward that for this year. We will do it as a 

draft pilot to begin the implementation not waiting for the rules to 

be finally published. We also want to build some flexibility in that 

as we are going for that process and go through actual tribal declarations. We can build that back into any final product that we 

would then submit for rules. 

Senator BEGICH. To narrow it down, it sounds like you are moving forward on this. The budget that we just did through the Appropriations Committee that I sit on, we have been able to give you 

your authority through 2014 and the money. 

You think about three quarters of a million, give or take, to start 

giving you the flexibility you need to get out into the field, and I 

think you are right. I mean, talking to Alaska tribes will be different than talking to Oklahoma tribes, Arizona tribes, or Washington State tribes. 

So, do you see that process that you are engaged in as going to 

happen throughout this year then or shorter than that? Help me 

understand that outreach part. 

And the reason I ask you this is I want to make sure that we 

do not miss these opportunities when these groups are meeting to 

connect, because this is very important. Some tribes will never take 

this authority, although depending on the State, because it requires match and other things. But some tribes really want to do 

this, and I know they have contacted your office already just in inquiry but also in action. 

So, help me understand the timeline we are trying to work 

through. 

Mr. FUGATE. The timeline is now, and again we had been attending the major conferences. This will give us some more flexibility 

to go to more of the regional conferences. 

But the other part of this, Mr. Chairman, is I want to make sure 

that I have the ability to go meet tribal leaders where they are. In 

some tribes, if we meet them at the associations and conferences, 

that has met that need. 

But we also are prepared to literally go to reservation land to sit 

down with tribal elders and elected leaders to talk and listen more 

than anything about this policy. 

So, this is starting an ongoing, I would see this throughout the 

year but we will not wait on the draft policy for a year. We are 

doing this kind currently. 

And so as soon as we feel we have enough of the feedback to 

have a good framework for the draft policy, we want to begin implementing that as pilots but to constantly continue to update that. 

Part of this we are going to learn through doing. But I have been 

very clear to staff that I do not consider consultation, by our defini-
7 

tion, successful because we said we consulted unless the tribal government said we consulted with them on their terms. 

Senator BEGICH. Got it. As you progress then, I am assuming you 

will keep us informed here in the Committee on the progress on 

that. 

Mr. FUGATE. Mr. Chairman, what I can do is have staff submit 

to your staff our current work plans—— 

Senator BEGICH. Excellent. 

Mr. FUGATE [continuing]. Our current tribal consultation policy, 

the direction we have, and the group that we have established 

within FEMA to manage this and give you progress updates on 

that and some timelines of when we expect products to be coming 

forward. 

Senator BEGICH. Fantastic. That would be great. Because another role that I have, I sit on the Indian Affairs Committee and 

I know this will come up potentially in some of the discussions. It 

is our way to get input in another venue, and I would want to 

make sure we are keeping on track. So, that would be great. 

Let me ask you about some of the efforts, two part. One, I know 

within some of the work you are doing the definition of local government is potentially being expanded a little bit including ports, 

potentially nonprofits, some other organizations. 

The overall concern is that we have a certain amount of money 

available, but now we are adding more definitions so the amount 

that may go to what we would call traditional defined local governments is going to potentially be diminished because now you are 

increasing capacity. 

Are you worried that, we are going to be giving less out to more 

and therefore not getting the bang for the dollar? 

And then on top of that, do you think there will be other groups 

now coming out of the woodwork and say, well, you included, the 

ports; you included the service nonprofits, what about and then fill 

in the blank. 

The next thing is we have a laundry list of the groups we are 

now having to deal with. Can you give me some thought on that 

definition? 

My second part to this will be a much broader sweep of dollars 

for your consolidation effort and some of that go to the States 

where local governments, as you can imagine as a former mayor, 

I hear plenty from mayors on a regular basis that State governments are notorious for not delivering those dollars all the way 

down to local governments. 

Now, there are some that are very good about that, that have a 

good working relationship. But that is not the case across the Nation. 

So, first question on definition; the second is on the delivery. 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. Definitions are coming out of the authorizing language that would be required to implement a national preparedness grant system because, under the definition of 9/11, we 

would not be able to fund the port authorities and some of the 

transit authorities which are not considered local governments. So, 

the definition there is to allow for that and the consolidation of the 

grants. 
8 

Again giving flexibility to the States often times runs the issue 

of dilution. But it is also the prerogative, I think, to give that flexibility where appropriate to look at other groups that would benefit 

from this. 

It does not preclude people coming already. When I was at the 

State of Florida, just about anybody who thought they had an 

nexus to terrorism funding were making their case that they 

should be funded out of the State homeland security grants. 

It did not mean they were eligible, and even if they were, did not 

mean they were going to get funded if they did not contribute to 

the mission. 

But the purpose in the national preparedness grant was to do no 

more than to provide for no exemptions against port authorities in 

the consolidation of the grant because under the current language, 

as I understand it, they would not be identified as a local government entity. 

That was not the intention of consolidating those grants, to shut 

out the port authorities. They again have been receiving funding so 

we would not see this as any more or less, just clarifying the language so that if we consolidate them, they would still be eligible. 

Senator BEGICH. What about this whole issue, and again I am 

very biased here and I recognize your history but also, I think our 

State does a pretty good job in working with local communities but 

that is not the case in most States. I should not say most States. 

In several States. 

How do we solve this problem and are we premature in moving 

this forward with a State kind of directive? I appreciate it is going 

from Federal down because the less the Federals touch, the more 

we can get it to the service levels we need. 

But when it comes to disaster relief, most time it is local communities that are dealing with it anyway on the first front. They are 

the first responders. They are the ones dealing with the outcome 

and they are usually the ones hanging it on. While the State leaves 

them after a year or two, they are still cleaning up the messes. 

So, how will you and your office manage this in order to ensure 

that the local governments in States that may not be as receptive 

to local governments are? 

I know that is a little tricky because we do not want to dictate 

how State sovereignty in the sense of these governments work but, 

let us assume for a second that we consolidate, we go through legislative action and it all happens, the first people we are going to 

hear from is not the State governments because they are going to 

get the money. It is going to be the local governments of those 

States that are not seeing the money. 

So help me in understanding your thought there and I want to 

underline this, I understand this will take legislation and a whole 

different process. But as part of your budget, you are recognizing 

this as a potential budget element in consolidation of some of these 

programs. 

Mr. FUGATE. Mr. Chairman, the issue between State and local 

governments, whether the money goes through the urban security 

areas and the State does not have the visibility to prioritize overall 

State issues, the money goes to the State and the urban areas feel 

they are not getting their fair share. 
9 

I have been a local. I have worked at the State. I built and 

worked under Governor Bush to build the first State homeland 

strategies before urban areas were created. 

I dealt with that after they were created, and I would have to 

say that again we recognize that there are certain priority grant 

programs. We are not recommending consolidation. We are not recommending the emergency management preparedness grant programs. That goes back to the Civil Defense Act. That is a standup program. It is not tied to this directly, the same with the fire 

grants. 

But when you talk about the homeland security grants whether 

they are port and transit, whether they are the urban security area 

initiatives, or they are the State homeland security grant programs. Those are prominently focused on the potential of either 

preventing a terrorist attack or in the event a terrorist attack occurs, the capability to respond. 

The challenge you have is, once it exceeds the local authority, the 

local official you as mayor remember, you go to the State. 

Senator BEGICH. That is right. 

Mr. FUGATE. If the State is not part of that process, we produce 

the potential disconnects. Now, as much as everybody says the 

problem of trust about the funds, the reality is the response structure and the authorities and the Constitution for this arise from 

these States’ constitutions and authorities and powers they 

present. 

And so, this is really bringing funding back and recognizing that 

those structures may be imperfect; but if we are moving away from 

that, we create disconnects. And the challenge in the legislation 

and the authorization language is to put enough guidance and tools 

in there to really build a better team of State and locals planning 

together versus—— 

Senator BEGICH. You just hit on what my next question was 

going to be, and that is, do you think that the tools can be applied 

in legislation like this? 

Obviously, you can never get down to the management of it because the goal here is to allow States and local governments to 

manage their affairs which is a great step, in a lot of ways. 

But do you think there can be enough tools in that legislation or 

the authorizing legislation to give a strong enough guidance, and 

also oversight from you as an agency, this is, as a Committee, that 

we could watch this process. 

So if we think or you think as an agency a year, 2 years, 3 years 

out there are problems, that we can create tools that can give flexibility to solve that problem rather than having to have all new 

kinds of legislation, because around this place, if you can pass a 

piece of legislation, you want to go. 

And if you have to tweak it later, do you think we can create 

tools in the legislation to allow some of that from your experience 

as an administrator? 

Mr. FUGATE. From my experience, if we have in the authorizing 

language clear outcomes and within that we have clearly identified 

who must be part of that process and the representation that it requires to have that consensus decision, recognizing that there 

needs to be a certain amount for the law enforcement community 
10 

that has to be addressed, so, Mr. Chairman when I got here this 

was all a bunch of different grants. 

We are down to basically three large pots and all we are really 

talking about is can we close that down into one stream to get better prioritization. 

But when I got here, we had funding just about broken into 

seven different categories. We are really talking right now the 

State homeland security grants, the urban security initiative 

grants, and then a competitive grant amount for port and transit. 

And again I realize every constituency wants to see the visibility 

and have those funds rather than such a way that they have minimum outside influence on that but I also recognize that by putting 

that money together, we have a better chance of building the cohesive team of forcing that interplay that, when disaster strikes, the 

funding is actually driving better collaboration versus separating 

out funding by issue or by level of government. 

It is not a popular opinion that I have and I have a lot of people 

that would tell me that after my fourth attempt I should be backing off of this. But also I have a duty, Mr. Chairman, to present 

to Congress what I recommend but I also have a duty to implement 

what you then appropriate and tell me to do. 

Senator BEGICH. Understood. Let me ask you about the $400 million and I want to make sure I connect with you on this. This is 

a pre-disaster mitigation. This is the initiative, the billion plus initiative, is that correct—— 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. 

Senator BEGICH [continuing]. Encompassed within that? And you see that $400 million as an opportunity to really look 

at what we talked about, in Alaska—— 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. 

Senator BEGICH [continuing]. Which was how to coordinate some 

of the efforts maybe between your agency, the Corps of Engineers, 

and others to look into the future rather than waiting for the action to occur or the natural disaster to occur, trying to say what 

can we do to lower future costs by mitigating some of these situations. 

Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. FUGATE. That is absolutely the intentions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. Is there a concern to have within your 

agency not necessarily a robust funding of this issue and sometimes defunding that this does not just become a one off and that 

we should think about a two-part equation here. 

For example, within FEMA that pre-disaster mitigation program 

to make sure that is robustly funded and recognizing this over here 

is potentially kind of juice it up for a period of time, I do not want 

to call it a stimulus because everyone around here freaks out when 

you call it names like that but basically it is to help move it and 

accelerate it. 

Is not our best bet to say, look, that is a good idea and I am all 

for it and I am one of those, despite the way the press likes to report things around this place, I am actually one of those from an 

oil and gas State that believe in climate change. 

It is happening. My State is the direct result more than any 

State in this country and we see the impacts. It may be in the Arc-
11 

tic or what you have seen in disasters that have occurred where 

FEMA is called in. 

I mean Galena is an example. People say, well, that it is just another disaster. Well, it is warmer in Anchorage today than it is 

here today here in Washington. I mean, I am leaving tomorrow to 

Anchorage to go get the warmer weather, to leave Washington, 

D.C. 

So, I mean, that is what is wrong with what is going on, and climate change is real. It is happening. We have action to take. 

So, is it not in our interest to figure out a sustainable funding 

level within your own program and then stimulate it, add to it, accelerate it with some additional, because if we do not do that and 

this money goes away after some period, then we are back to 

square one because mitigation does not disappear, right? 

I mean, we should be doing this on an ongoing basis because the 

needs are so great, I mean, help me understand. I do not want the 

Administration to keep defunding the program that is annual and 

replacing it with a one-time hit. 

Mr. FUGATE. Well, the challenge with—— 

Senator BEGICH. I know that puts you in an awkward position 

because any time you put more money into the program that—— 

Mr. FUGATE. The pre-disaster mitigation program was originally 

envisioned to fund ahead of disasters significant mitigation investments. Unfortunately, that never really happened and over the 

years that fund was cut lower and lower and lower to the point 

where it was essentially providing not much more than planning 

capability and we were not really seeing a lot of mitigation. 

There were some good examples but the funding levels just were 

not there. And so, in looking at when you have to make hard 

choices, we found that in many cases it may be unpopular but 

sometimes it is better to eliminate an entire program and not try 

to maintain any infrastructure if it is not really accomplishing its 

stated goals. 

Senator BEGICH. But are we not doing that with the $400 million, almost replicating? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. Well, what we are looking at now is because we are authorizing this as a spending program, there would 

not be any additional work to create the program. It already exists, 

and it would bring for the first time large, substantial funds to the 

pre-disaster mitigation program. 

But the pre-disaster mitigation program would be looking at all 

hazards. These would be more targeted and we want to look specifically at what are the drivers and the impacts for the future to 

climate disruption and make investment strategies through there. 

Senator BEGICH. So, it becomes more narrow focused, and you 

correct me if I say this wrong at all. 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. More narrow focused, a sizable lift on it. And 

then do you see the ability to have that money in that fund limited 

in time of use or is it a period of time you can use it? 

What can we do to make sure that fund does not—because if you 

are forced to do it all in one year, for example, it would be insane. 

You just never can do that. Your system would not allow it no mat-
12 

ter what you tell me here, and I think you will agree with me on 

that. 

So, how do we manage it so 2 years down the road, there is not 

a Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit and it says, you 

only spent ‘‘X’’ dollars and then we could come along and say well, 

let us just take that money and use it for something else. 

Help me. Walk through that with me. 

Mr. FUGATE. You are absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. This would 

have to be built into the whole timeframe of getting plans developed, submitted, approved, money awarded, and then construction. 

We would see everything from acquisition and buyouts to construction of projects would take years to do. 

Senator BEGICH. This is like 5-, 10-years easy, right? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes. So, the funding would have to be tied in such 

a way that we do not want to give them unlimited timeframes because the other thing I have learned is that if there are no timeframes, it never seems to get drawn down and the work is not 

done. 

Senator BEGICH. Well, you can build a road for a lifetime. 

Mr. FUGATE. But it used to be tied to performance and awards 

so that work is done over a period of time. It would have to be 

funded on a multiyear process to allow projects to be brought forward, construction, and the final payments made without running 

the risk of not being able to finish the projects. 

But again, I think, if we were able to see this move forward, to 

work on those timeframes, again when we are dealing with disaster 

relief fund mitigation dollars there, those are considered no yearend dollars but we try to move those projects through. This may 

require more definitively a timeframe but it has to account for, 

many of these would be construction type or acquisition projects. 

Senator BEGICH. For example, in Kotzebue was a great example 

where we built a road which also was a break and the net result 

was they had a huge storm just last year. If that was not there, 

the town would have been flooded. 

That is a project that someone might have said, well, that is just 

a road but actually, it was a road on the coast with a design built 

into it to protect the area. Literally, it saved FEMA, to be frank 

with you, probably millions of dollars. I mean, I was there and I 

saw the positive impact of that road. 

Is that how you envision that kind of resource? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I think President Best gave 

me this guidance when we were traveling in Hurricane Sandy and 

says there is still a lot of discussion about climate change. He says 

I am concerned. We need to be really focused on climate adaptation. 

So, it is how do we go forward with our built infrastructure and 

selectively make the improvements and the investments for the future risk that then, as you point out, saved the taxpayers the cost 

of responding to another disaster, that we have built mitigation, 

not just for what we have experienced in the past, but more importantly the types of impacts that we are seeing occur with unfortunately more frequency, with often times larger populations 

that—— 

Senator BEGICH. Yes, that are more severe. 
13 

Let me walk through a couple. I know they have called a vote. 

We probably have about 10 or 12 minutes on it so far. They will 

guide me here but a couple more. Again, I appreciate you being 

here. 

As I mentioned in my opening on the cuts and the flood map program, this is almost an ongoing issue and it seems like between, 

let me just say mapping in general. 

You guys do mapping. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) does mapping. Interior does mapping. The 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) does mapping. It almost seems like 

we should just, because we all have the same, I do not want to say 

the exact same purpose. But when you are mapping, for example, 

a coastline which now Hurricane Sandy for example, we are going 

to have to do re-mapping there. There is no question about that 

and there is some money that has been put aside for that. 

But also with flood maps and everything else, it seems like there 

is something here that should just be done in a more comprehensive way. 

Do you agree or disagree with that? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. It seems like everyone has resources. 

Mr. FUGATE. It is something that I had been very passionate 

about and working in the interagency is standardizing the digital 

elevation map collection data. If we have standardized, and we are 

getting good progress. When one agency is using LiDAR or other 

techniques to develop these, if they are doing it at a scale and resolution that other agencies use, then we do not have to re-map that. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. FUGATE. But again those digital elevation maps are key to 

a variety of programs. So, I think this really goes back into the 

world of the geospatial, that as we are collecting elevation data as 

much as we can collect at resolution for the best possible community use, then it avoids us having to go out and repeat studies. 

Senator BEGICH. Got you. 

Mr. FUGATE. Now, we will still have to do the maps for the flood 

risk, but the key part of that is, if we all have consistent high resolution digital elevation maps, whatever agency is producing it, then 

that in turn lowers the cost of the production of these products and 

then allows a variety of agencies, both the State and local and the 

private sector—— 

Senator BEGICH. To utilize them. 

Mr. FUGATE [continuing]. To utilize them for a variety of issues. 

Senator BEGICH. Let me ask you more specifically then on the 

flood map program. I know it is a pretty good size schedule. On the 

one hand we are about to, probably today we might do a UC on 

the flood insurance issue. How are we going to accomplish this as 

if we are going in the wrong direction? 

I know you had to make priorities. But what are we going to do 

here to make sure you have the resources? Now, I am sure we are 

going to pass a flood insurance bill which requires, as you know, 

some work in mapping and some other issues? 

Mr. FUGATE. Mapping is an annual event, and again as we had 

to make choices, this does not eliminate mapping. It slows it down. 

So again, the resources that we can bring to bear and the maps 
14 

that we can update are tied to the budget but this is an ongoing 

process. We have been funding mapping for a long time and we are 

going to be continuing to update maps as we go through the out 

years. 

Senator BEGICH. Do you think you have adequate funding and do 

you need more funding for mapping? 

Mr. FUGATE. Mr. Chairman, it really comes back to the speed at 

which you want maps updated. 

Senator BEGICH. If you had more money, could you expedite the 

process? 

Mr. FUGATE. It would not be so much expedite as we could do 

additional mapping. 

Senator BEGICH. In other words, more mapping, more capacity, 

more areas handled. OK. 

I knew you could not answer the questions of saying you want 

more money because then the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) will call you very quickly and say, and they might be out 

in the audience for all I know, so. 

But I want to make sure that if you had more resources—— 

Mr. FUGATE. No. 

Senator BEGICH [continuing]. Then you could expand more areas 

of the mapping. 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, this is two parts. This is how much can we actually manage through our contracts in working with local governments that are ready to go. 

Another part, though, is also to continue to look at the technology and the cost of maps and finding newer ways to get good 

resolution maps at a lower cost. As that continues to evolve, we 

will look at it. 

But this is really, as much as we talk about FEMA, we have to 

remember this is also local communities. It is their maps that they 

have to adopt. So, part of this is also the bandwidth for local communities who are working on maps. 

Senator BEGICH. I understand. We had a flood plain map, we had 

the wetlands map. We go through the whole process so I am 

very—— 

Mr. FUGATE. So, you are aware, Mr. Chairman, that is also going 

to be tied, even if we had more resources, the local communities 

have to be ready to go with that. 

Senator BEGICH. That is right. There is a whole process they 

have to go through even to accept those maps in the legislative 

process depending on the community they are in. 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. 

Senator BEGICH. Let me ask you this last question and then I 

will end here but I do appreciate your testimony, your written testimony too. I am going to look forward to having more conversations with you on the legislation issue on consolidation. I have 

some concerns there. 

But one, I hear where you are going and we will want to work 

with you to see how you are going to engage the local communities, 

maybe NACo, League of Cities, Mayors Conference, but let me put 

that aside here for a second. 
15 

I know one of the programs that you have to transfer responsibility, I think, is for the emergency food and shelter program to 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, sir. 

Senator BEGICH. So, are there other types of programs within 

your organization, I mean, you are gathering some efficiency there. 

I am assume that is what is happening there. That is why you are 

doing it. 

Are there others like that with other Federal agencies, you can 

see partnerships or transfers that make sense to create some better 

efficiencies or better utilization of your resources. 

Mr. FUGATE. This was one that was kind of an anomaly. I think 

when people talk about emergency food and shelter, this is not for 

disasters. This is for homeless and for feeding. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. FUGATE. These are more aligned with HUD’s mission. So, 

our recommendation is—— 

Senator BEGICH. It just aligns with their mission better. 

Mr. FUGATE. It is better aligned with their mission. This goes 

back to, let us focus our resources on things that we are charged 

by Congress. We do not think this is something that is not important but it more aligns with HUD’s missions. It would be a more 

appropriate fit for their program. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. I am going to end here. I will have 

a couple more questions probably just for the record but generally 

first thank you very much for your testimony. 

Again as I said, I want to look toward you and working with you 

with regard to how you move forward on the consolidation. I have 

some concerns. We can have those conversations. 

On the tribal land, again I know there were some conversations 

last night and this morning. We are going to be anxious. I will be 

following that very closely because I think that is a unique opportunity for tribes. I think it is a huge responsibility for tribes. 

I think there are some that may not realize what this all means 

yet. That is why the rulemaking you are doing is going to be critical to how you engage them. Not only through this Committee but 

through my office we will be happy to assist you in some of those 

groups to make sure they are not missed and engage in that as 

best we can. 

In regards to the consolidation, I am sure there are plenty of people who are watching this conversation they care about their specific, one of those 10 items or 12 items that are on the list. 

And as we go down this path, I can only ask you to come and 

I am not going to put words in your mouth, but I can assume that 

you will obviously be open to hearing from these groups to figure 

out what the right way, if at all, to do this. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. FUGATE. That is a fair statement, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. Thank you for your leadership. 

Thank you for your willingness to recognize Alaska is what I call 

every 2-week disaster that we seem to have because it seems like 

it never ends. 

Most recently oddly enough we are now concerned about how little snow that we have which is amazing when you think about 
16 

Alaska but it is now becoming a problem from a lot of aspects, even 

in some of our winter construction. 

I will be on the Arctic, North Slope on Saturday and because of 

some of the conditions, the ice roads they build, I will have to be 

on a snow machine and other types of equipment in order to get 

to where I need to get to because full loaded trucks will not necessarily be adequate. 

So, I appreciate FEMA’s interest in understanding climate 

change too. I think you all are starting to see and your interest in 

seeing mitigation as a part and a significant role of FEMA is a 

huge shift. I appreciate that and I think there will be more from 

us on that and more discussion I know. So, thank you very much. 

At this time, the record will be kept open for 2 weeks for additional comments from other Members and/or questions. 

At this time, we will adjourn the meeting. 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 3:27 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(17) 

A P P E N D I X 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 

Æ