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

42–745 PDF 2010

S. Hrg. 110–1021 

THE NEW FEMA: IS THE AGENCY BETTER 

PREPARED FOR A CATASTROPHE NOW 

THAN IT WAS IN 2005? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 3, 2008 

Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

MARY BETH SCHULTZ, Counsel 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ASHA A. MATHEW, Minority Senior Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

PATRICIA R. HOGAN, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Hearing Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 1 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 3 

Senator Coleman .............................................................................................. 16 

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 18 

Senator Landrieu .............................................................................................. 21 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 23 

Senator Pryor .................................................................................................... 26 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 29 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008 

Hon. Richard L. Skinner, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security ................................................................................................................. 6 

Hon. R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security .............................................. 8 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Paulison, Hon. R. David: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Skinner, Hon. Richard L. 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

APPENDIX 

Chart entitled ‘‘Scorecard for Selected FEMA Preparedness Areas,’’ submitted 

by Mr. Skinner ..................................................................................................... 59 

FEMA Response to the Draft Report, March 14, 2008 ......................................... 81 

Charts submitted by Senator Landrieu ................................................................. 98 

Get-back information from Mr. Paulison to Senator Voinovich ........................... 100 

Get-back information from Mr. Paulison to Senator McCaskill with attachments ..................................................................................................................... 101 

Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record from: 

Mr. Skinner ....................................................................................................... 106 

Mr. Paulison ...................................................................................................... 112 

DHS OIG Report, ‘‘FEMA’s Preparedness for the Next Catastrophic Disaster,’’ 

March 2008 ........................................................................................................... 144 

(1) 

THE NEW FEMA: IS THE AGENCY BETTER 

PREPARED FOR A CATASTROPHE NOW 

THAN IT WAS IN 2005? 

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Lieberman, Carper, Pryor, Landrieu, McCaskill, Collins, Voinovich, and Coleman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good morning and welcome to this hearing. I appreciate the presence of the witnesses particularly. 

The question before us today is at the core of our Committee’s 

homeland security responsibilities, and it is: Is the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) better prepared for a catastrophe now than it was in 2005? 

The answer that is given by the testimony that we will hear 

today seems to be yes. It may be a qualified yes, but it is a yes, 

according to a report that will be presented to us by the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General (DHS IG), Rick Skinner. The report finds progress in eight of the nine areas reviewed, 

and I think that is something to note with appreciation: Moderate 

progress in five areas, modest progress in three, and little or no 

progress in one. 

While this progress has been made, obviously there is still more 

that remains to be done before FEMA, and our country, are prepared for the next catastrophe. And I know that Chief Paulison 

agrees with that as well. 

We only need remember those searing images that were beamed 

live into our homes of a drowning New Orleans—its people trapped 

on rooftops or sweltering in the Superdome—to focus our attention 

and rivet our efforts on getting FEMA as close to perfect as we can. 

We only need recall the needless deaths caused by the failure to 

adequately evacuate the poorest, most vulnerable residents and the 

ongoing challenges that remain trying to help a devastated region 

get back on its feet. The failed response to Hurricane Katrina 

shook the American people’s confidence more broadly in our government, and that trust, I believe, will only be fully restored by the 

2 

kind of steadily improving performance in FEMA that the IG report recognizes. 

To adequately understand where FEMA is today, I think we have 

to remember the state of FEMA when Hurricane Katrina made 

landfall in 2005. Following the Hurricane Katrina disaster, this 

Committee conducted an extensive investigation into what went 

wrong. The record is full of the documentation of what we felt went 

wrong, but suffice it to say here that the list of failures and inadequacies that our investigation uncovered in FEMA at that time 

was long and deeply troubling. 

That is why the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform 

Act, drawn up in this Committee following those hearings, aimed 

to create a new FEMA—a stronger, proactive disaster response 

agency that would be equipped to prepare for and, for the first 

time, respond to a catastrophe like Hurricane Katrina—in other 

words, to do both—or a terrorist attack even worse than September 

11, 2001, which we must contemplate happening in the age in 

which we live. 

Knowing that the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform 

Act was only signed into law in October 2006, I am heartened to 

see that this IG report concludes there has been real progress 

across so many fronts in the past year and a half. 

I am also pleased by the way FEMA is working hard to implement these directives, as noted in the report, and if I may say so, 

I appreciate FEMA’s new attitude, which under Chief Paulison is: 

If it is legal and it will help somebody, do it! 

One thing this report makes clear is that Congress must continue to invest in FEMA if the agency is to realize its full potential. 

FEMA received a much needed funding increase in the fiscal year 

2008 appropriations bill that was an essential first step in the long 

process of building the new FEMA, but the actual dollars were only 

received by the agency a few months ago. 

An important point running through this DHS IG report is that 

additional substantial funding increases for FEMA are still necessary. That is very important to note. In almost every category reviewed—Planning, Coordination and Support, Interoperable Communications, Logistics, Evacuations, Housing, Disaster Workforce, 

Mission Assignments, and Acquisition Management—one of the 

reasons continually cited for lack of more substantial progress was 

a shortage of staff, a shortage of financial resources, or a shortage 

of both. So we are not going to have the first-rate, totally ready 

FEMA unless we invest in it. 

In many cases, the lack of adequate communications in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina’s landfall meant that first responders 

and other key officials lacked the situational awareness needed to 

respond effectively. 

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour told the Committee, as my 

colleagues will remember, that the head of the National Guard of 

Mississippi might as well have been a ‘‘Civil War general’’ for the 

first 2 or 3 days because the only way he could find out what was 

going on was by actually ‘‘sending somebody’’ to find out and to report back to him. 

In the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, Congress created the Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) to 

3 

lead and coordinate interoperability efforts at the Department. The 

OEC, I am pleased to say, is up and running today but remains 

significantly understaffed, as this IG report points out. And I wanted to point that out myself because it remains such a priority for 

me, Senator Collins, and this whole Committee. 

Last year, in the second chapter of the 9/11 Commission legislation, Congress created a new grant program solely dedicated to improving interoperable communications. In the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, we made FEMA responsible for 

implementing all of the homeland security grants, including almost 

$2 billion in Urban Area Security Initiative and State Homeland 

Security Grant funds, so that they can be more appropriately targeted to strengthen critical systems, including communications, 

needed to respond to all hazards. 

So, bottom line, this is an encouraging report, but we on this side 

of the table, along with you on that side of the table, are committed 

to continuing to improve FEMA, to be ready not just for the natural disasters that it has proven itself increasingly capable to deal 

with, but also for catastrophic events, such as Hurricane Katrina 

and, God forbid, a terrorist attack against the United States. 

I look forward to hearing our witnesses outline for us what has 

gone right and how we can improve on it and what has not gone 

right and how we can together fix it. 

Senator Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We are approaching the third hurricane season since Hurricane 

Katrina and, later this year, the second anniversary of the PostKatrina Emergency Management Reform Act that the Chairman 

and I, and Senator Coleman and others, worked so hard to enact. 

Today’s hearing gives us an opportunity to evaluate how well 

FEMA has drawn on the lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina 

and acted on congressional mandates to prepare for a new catastrophe—a challenge that we know is inevitable, and yet hope will 

never come. 

As I reviewed the report of the DHS Inspector General, I read 

comments that mirrored my own observations. The IG found that 

FEMA has made progress in all of the areas reviewed, but that in 

some important ways, the progress has been limited or modest. 

I do not believe that we should underestimate just how difficult 

it is to completely revamp procedures, processes, and people while 

continuing to cope with many natural disasters. I know that FEMA 

has improved and is working hard on its deficiencies. Last year, I 

saw firsthand the agency’s effective response to the devastating Patriots’ Day storm in my State. I also observed a training exercise 

in Massachusetts and Rhode Island that was impressive in its coordination and scope. The regional approach that the Chairman 

and I advocated is clearly producing results. 

Nevertheless, the effective implementation of all of the comprehensive reforms is essential if FEMA is to learn the lessons of 

Hurricane Katrina and to prepare for even worse disasters, such as 

biological, chemical, or even nuclear attacks. 

4 

Of the nine key areas of readiness reviewed by the IG, four 

showed only ‘‘modest progress’’ and one was judged to show ‘‘limited progress.’’ 

The weakest area concerned mission assignments—the system 

for issuing and coordinating task orders among Federal agencies. 

Our investigation of the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe identified 

fundamental flaws in the mission assignment process, particularly 

between FEMA and the Defense Department. These were a major 

roadblock to a quick and effective response, and I am concerned 

that we have not made as much progress in that key area. 

The IG report also notes that obstacles like staffing shortages, inadequate funding, lack of coordination, incomplete strategic plans, 

lack of accountability, and resistance to change from both internal 

and external stakeholders continued to be problems. 

There are some overarching issues as well. The IG observes that 

FEMA is working on plans for catastrophic preparedness and response on the Gulf Coast, in the New Madrid Fault seismic zone, 

and in major cities. But the IG adds that the plans are ‘‘very geocentric’’ and that disaster officials regard them as not readily 

transferable. I want, however, to discuss this further with the IG 

since a regional approach focusing on the most likely scenario for 

that area strikes me as making good sense and it is consistent with 

the reform act. 

Moreover, the Department has devoted considerable resources to 

national planning. For example, FEMA and the Operations Directorate of the Department—in concert with other Federal departments and agencies—have been drafting strategic plans for each of 

the 15 national planning scenarios. 

Just a few months ago, FEMA issued its National Response 

Framework, which articulates the national doctrines, principles, 

and architecture for our Nation’s preparedness for any emergency, 

whether manmade or natural. It is important to note, however, 

that plans are only as effective as the people implementing them 

and as the adequacy of resources backing them. And that is why 

the budget issues that the Chairman mentioned are still critical as 

is getting the right people into the right positions—something that 

I know that David Paulison has worked very hard to do. It is also 

precisely why FEMA’s efforts to establish robust regional offices— 

as required by the reform act—is so vital. 

One of the changes that I think is making a real difference is 

having a Department of Defense coordinating official actually sitting in the regional FEMA offices. I have heard that has made a 

big difference and is improving coordination enormously. Since we 

came up with that proposal, I always like to highlight it as one of 

the successes. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. That is OK with me. [Laughter.] 

Senator COLLINS. The regional offices are also working much 

more closely than ever before with State and local emergency managers and with first responders on the entire preparedness cycle, 

including training, exercises, equipment, education, and homeland 

security grants, in addition to planning. 

The drive for a stronger and more effective FEMA also requires 

that we maintain the agency’s location within the Department of 

Homeland Security, and I bring that issue up because we continue 

5 

to hear some Members who pursue the idea of taking FEMA out 

of the Department of Homeland Security. That would require a 

huge duplication of effort. FEMA has made real progress, but as 

the GAO warned us last year, ‘‘successful transformations of large 

organizations, even those faced with less strenuous reorganizations 

than DHS, can take from 5 to 7 years to achieve.’’ Another reorganization at this time would simply introduce distractions and disruptions that would undermine the progress that we are making 

without addressing any of the issues that have constrained that 

progress. 

I look forward to hearing from both of our distinguished witnesses today. We have worked very closely with them. We are 

eager to help you sustain FEMA’s progress and catch up in areas 

where improvements have lagged. We want to fully realize the 

promise of the ‘‘New FEMA’’ envisioned in our 2006 reforms. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Collins, for that very 

thoughtful statement. It struck me as you were talking about the 

regional offices, what we know on the Committee, and the gentlemen at the table know, that there has been an enormous amount 

done in our government post-Hurricane Katrina and, of course, 

post-September 11, 2001, to be better prepared. Most of it is not 

seen—and, of course, in that sense not appreciated—by the general 

public. The test, which we hope does not come, will come in a crisis, of course, in terms of how we prepare. But I think we feel on 

this Committee, in terms of what we have seen, that we have come 

a long way. Senator Collins talked about there being a representative of the Pentagon in each of the regional offices. That is critically 

important. We had testimony a while ago from the Northern Command about the extraordinary work that they are doing within that 

command focused on homeland protection responsibilities of the 

Department of Defense, now standing up over the next few years 

three units of almost 4,000 soldiers who are uniquely prepared to 

come in to help in catastrophic cases, including the worst nightmare cases of biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological attacks. 

So it creates some satisfaction, and I want to express appreciation to both of you who are here and those who are not for what 

has happened, and though there is always a lot of controversy in 

this town, this would not have happened, we would not have made 

this progress without cooperation between the Executive Branch 

and those of us in Congress. So that is something to note with appreciation. 

On a point of personal privilege, I do want to note in the room, 

Wayne Sanford, who is the Deputy Director of the Connecticut Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security. 

Chief Paulison, you will be happy to hear that he is in town for 

the Congressional Fire Services meetings this week, and he has 

with him a dozen University of New Haven fire sciences students. 

We have a great program up at the University of New Haven in 

fire science. Why don’t you all stand up and just let us say hello 

to you. Thanks for your interest in public service. 

Thanks also to Senator Coleman and Senator Voinovich for being 

here. As you know, they bring not only their distinguished service 

6 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Skinner appears in the Appendix on page 39. 

as Members of the Senate, but past experience respectively as a 

mayor and a governor. 

General Skinner—I enjoy using that title—please go forward 

with your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. RICHARD L. SKINNER,1 INSPECTOR 

GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. SKINNER. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the Committee. It 

is my pleasure to be here today, and I am particularly pleased to 

be able to testify side-by-side with Chief Paulison. Together, I am 

confident that we can paint a clearer picture of the challenges facing FEMA in the efforts underway to build a stronger, more robust 

organization capable of responding to a catastrophic disaster. 

Today, as you know, I published a report summarizing the results of a review my office just completed on the progress FEMA 

has made over the past 2-plus years to prepare itself better for the 

next catastrophic disaster. Today I would like to discuss the observations we made in that report. But first I would like to point out 

that our report is not a comprehensive assessment of all the initiatives that FEMA now has underway relating to catastrophic disaster preparedness; nor is it an in-depth, in-the-weeds analysis of 

FEMA’s disaster preparedness activities; nor is it a scorecard of 

FEMA’s catastrophic response capability. Rather, it is a snapshot 

or an overview of the progress FEMA has made in certain critical 

areas that, in our opinion, are essential to effective and efficient 

disaster preparedness. 

Also, our assessment was not intended to gauge FEMA’s ability 

to respond to disasters or emergencies that are less than catastrophic in nature, such as the California wildfires or the Midwest 

floods which we are currently witnessing. FEMA has and continues 

to perform reasonably well responding to non-catastrophic or traditional types of disasters. Instead, we focused on the progress FEMA 

has made to prepare for a catastrophic event such as Hurricane 

Katrina and its aftermath. 

The title of this hearing asks: Is FEMA better prepared for a catastrophe now than it was in 2005? And I believe the short answer 

to that question is yes. The work we have conducted shows that 

FEMA is making some progress in key preparedness areas and is 

in various stages of implementing the requirements of the PostKatrina Emergency Management Reform Act. However, since much 

of the work has not been completed, one can only conclude that 

overall progress is somewhat limited. 

We identified nine key areas where progress needs to take place 

in order for FEMA to be better prepared for the next catastrophe. 

Overall, FEMA has made moderate progress in five of those areas, 

and those are: Overall planning, coordination and support, interoperable communications, logistics, and acquisition management. 

This means that FEMA has taken a number of actions to address 

problems, but much work remains before FEMA can say all of its 

problems in these areas have been resolved. 

7 

It has made modest progress in three areas: Evacuations, housing, and disaster workforce. This means that FEMA identified 

many corrective actions that need to be taken and has taken some 

fundamental steps to address them, but few have been accomplished or fully implemented. And, finally, it made limited progress 

in one area: Mission assignments. This means that FEMA is aware 

of critical issues that need to be addressed, but few corrective actions have been taken or initiated. 

FEMA officials said that budget shortfalls, reorganizations, inadequate IT systems, and confusing or limited authorities have negatively impacted progress. We agree that these factors may have impeded FEMA progress, but we also believe FEMA needs to do a 

better job of documenting and communicating its overall strategy 

for improving its catastrophic disaster preparedness capabilities. 

Although FEMA may have developed some operating plans to address problems on a function-by-function or project-by-project basis, 

it does not have a comprehensive, integrated operating plan or 

strategic plan with explicit goals and objectives and the strategies 

that it will use to achieve them or its catastrophic disaster preparedness program. This would include performance metrics with 

timelines to measure progress; a summary of the resources, systems, and processes that are critical to achieving the preparedness 

goals; external factors that could affect achievement of its goals, 

such as budget shortfalls; and a team dedicated to the achievement 

of the goals and objectives. 

FEMA is spending millions of dollars on new initiatives and enhancements in its disaster management systems. These initiatives 

are critical to enhancing its ability to better respond to disasters, 

but it is not apparent that they are well planned or integrated. It 

does not appear that FEMA’s top management is effectively communicating its visions and plans for these initiatives to staff and 

other stakeholders or that there is assigned responsibility and accountability for each initiative. FEMA would benefit from better 

knowledge management; that is, greater sharing of information between and among its various stakeholders, both inside and outside 

the organization. 

Furthermore, as FEMA is planning to meet the demands of a 

successful all-hazards mission, its programs and approach to business are evolving. FEMA’s 2009 budget request, for example, targets processes and technology initiatives that will advance the 

agency’s preparedness capabilities. However, these types of initiatives could take years to accomplish. That is why it is important 

that FEMA develop a performance plan that will not only aid in 

setting a strategic direction, but it would also link resource needs 

to performance goals, ensure resource requirements target the 

highest priorities, and promote greater involvement of the emergency management community at all levels—Federal, State, and 

local. In doing so, FEMA would need to examine whether it will 

need additional funds and staff as well as additional statutory authorities. 

We are recommending that FEMA conduct a comprehensive 

needs analysis to determine where it is now and where it needs to 

be as an agency in terms of preparedness for a catastrophic disaster. This could serve as a baseline for the development of a comVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:49 Apr 08, 2010 Jkt 042745 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42745.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
8 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Paulison appears in the Appendix on page 60. 

prehensive, integrated, strategic, and operational plan. Also, to 

help FEMA measure performance, we are recommending it develop 

or acquire the tools needed to track the progress of programs, initiatives, and enhancements, both planned and underway. 

Last, to further enhance accountability and transparency and to 

bolster the ability of key stakeholders to assist FEMA in achieving 

its mission, we are recommending that FEMA provide regular updates regarding progress on all major preparedness initiatives and 

projects. 

We recognize that FEMA sometimes views oversight as excessive 

and burdensome. Nevertheless, we believe FEMA’s catastrophic 

disaster preparedness efforts will require special attention during 

the upcoming year as the Department prepares to transition to a 

new Administration. Regular reporting—and I am sure Congress 

will agree—can be an invaluable oversight tool for improving program management, enhancing accountability, ensuring transparency, and providing a basis for making informed policy decisions. 

In closing, I would like to say that FEMA is making a good-faith 

effort to address the many challenges associated with the development and execution of initiatives to better prepare itself for the 

next Hurricane Katrina-like disaster. However, the ability of 

FEMA to sustain these efforts is fragile at this point in time because of the early stage they are in and the disruptions that may 

accompany the transition of a new Administration in less than a 

year. It is imperative that FEMA formulate a comprehensive performance plan with unambiguous milestones and metrics to gauge 

or measure performance and progress, ensure transparency and accountability, and help guide program execution. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I will be happy to answer any questions that you or the Committee may have. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much. That gets us off to 

a good start. 

I want to put an exclamation point after the distinction you 

made and I tried to make in my opening statement, which is that 

this evaluation of FEMA is with regard to its ability to deal with 

a catastrophic incident. And although it seems that when you say 

something is a disaster, it is hard to distinguish between a disaster 

and a catastrophe, but there is a distinction. And maybe at some 

point in the questioning I will ask you about how you think they 

are doing in their ability to respond to disasters. But we are talking about the mega events, like Hurricane Katrina. Thanks very 

much. 

Chief Paulison, thanks for being here, and we look forward now 

to your response to the IG report. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. R. DAVID PAULISON,1 ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. PAULISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the Committee. I am really pleased to be here 

9 

today to talk about some of the reforms past, present, and future 

that we are implementing at FEMA. 

I also want to start off by saying, since we have a lot of press 

here, that I am not leaving, despite what you have read in the papers. I think the Miami Herald did not understand when I was 

talking about how we are going to transition to the next Administration. But my intent is to stay here throughout the term of the 

Administration and to help whoever the new FEMA administrator 

is into this new system. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I am glad I did not read the Miami Herald, but I am also encouraged that we will have you to kick around 

for a year more. [Laughter.] 

Mr. PAULISON. My wife keeps saying, and you are thinking, 

‘‘Why?’’ 

The FEMA of 2008 is not the FEMA of 2005. We have learned 

from the past and are dramatically improving our capabilities. The 

results were evidenced in our response to recent floods and tornadoes as well as our larger responses to last year’s California 

wildfires, how we responded to Hurricane Dean and Tropical Storm 

Erin potentially making landfall in Texas, and the more than 400 

disasters that we have responded to since Hurricane Katrina. 

I spoke just yesterday at the National Hurricane Conference on 

some of the reforms and improvements at FEMA. To start, we have 

placed additional resources and focus on planning and preparedness before a disaster strikes. FEMA has brought in operational 

planners, both at the national and the regional level. We are using 

a gap analysis tool in conjunction with the States to determine 

what Federal resources will most be needed to plan and where to 

meet those needs. 

FEMA has initiated a proactive, forward-leaning, geospecific catastrophic disaster planning initiative designed to ensure that 

FEMA and its partners plan and prepare for an appropriate, timely, and efficient response to a truly catastrophic disaster. As part 

of this initiative, we are partnering with the State of Florida to address a Category 5 hurricane that could potentially place most of 

the Southern portion of the State in harm’s way and impact as 

many as 7 million people. And I want to personally thank Craig 

Fugate, the State emergency manager, and the governor for the 

work they have done on this catastrophic planning. But I do believe 

also that this catastrophic planning we are doing is transferable to 

other areas. In addition to the Florida project, there are planning 

projects for earthquakes along the New Madrid Seismic Zone and 

also earthquakes in California. 

All of this is in conjunction with our National Response Framework, which was issued earlier this year, as Senator Collins pointed out. This system is easier to use and easier to understand than 

it was in the past and will help our planning and our response efforts in the future. 

FEMA’s operational capabilities have been greatly expanded. To 

coordinate with our Federal partners, we have 233 pre-scripted 

mission assignments in place today, and that is up from 44 last 

year, with over 31 Federal agencies. We will have incident management assistance teams operational this year with the core professionals ready to deploy to a disaster site in hours to coordinate the 

10 

Federal response. We have a new logistics system online that is 

better able to track and coordinate key materials as needed. In 

fact, FEMA’s Logistics Management Directorate now has contracts 

and interagency agreements that will improve our capabilities in 

providing supplies and services, base camp support, evacuations, 

and transportation needs for our States. 

FEMA is better prepared to help communities get back on their 

feet once a disaster has struck. FEMA now has 60 mobile disaster 

recovery centers that can be deployed on-site in a disaster to help 

people get the support they need. FEMA continues to work with 

Federal, State, and voluntary partners to build robust systems for 

evacuations, shelter, and housing, including our collaboration with 

the American Red Cross to implement a national shelter system. 

We have established a national emergency family registry and locator system and a national emergency child locator center to help 

those displaced to find their loved ones—one of the major lessons 

learned in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. We also have a new 

policy to help those with pets. We are now focused on streamlining 

and improving the housing and individual assistance programs 

also. 

It is worth highlighting that since March 2003, FEMA has provided direct material and financial assistance to well over 3.5 million individuals across this Nation. Today, we are continuing with 

these planned reforms, and I detail those in my written testimony. 

But I would like to take a moment to say that these changes and 

improvements would not have been possible without the hard work 

of the FEMA staff that has been supporting me. FEMA has made 

it a major priority to hire seasoned professionals, whether in the 

field of logistics, in IT, in acquisitions, as operational planners, or 

as experts able to deliver assistance to those in need. Our disaster 

assistance employees are now a cadre of experts ready to help in 

an emergency. The President and the Secretary have allowed me 

to select senior leaders with experience in the fields of emergency 

management and preparedness. 

All of these have essential roles to play. I hope that the Congress 

will help us by confirming my Acting Deputy Administrator Harvey 

Johnson, retired Vice Admiral from the U.S. Coast Guard. Admiral 

Johnson has been my right hand in making these changes and improvements. He is a man of integrity with more than 30 years of 

on-the-ground experience in emergency management. These people 

working for me who pour their hearts and souls into FEMA make 

it really what it is today and will make the agency that I have described in my vision. 

I am happy today to be joined by our Inspector General’s office 

to discuss the recent findings. We do review this report as a validation of our efforts and as additional learning opportunities as we 

continue our progress. A copy of FEMA’s response to the draft of 

the IG report is attached with my formal statement. 

FEMA appreciates the IG’s assessment of improvements that 

have been made since 2005. We also understand, as he reported, 

that the IG had relatively little time to conduct its research and, 

as a result, we feel did not have the opportunity to conduct an indepth assessment. With this in mind, we believe there are aspects 

that could have benefited from a more detailed examination. Let 

11 

me highlight just two of those that are illustrative of how FEMA 

is not only using this report as an additional learning opportunity, 

but also an example of how FEMA in many ways is already ahead 

of the curve. 

The IG recommends we assess where we are and where we need 

to be in terms of preparedness for a catastrophic disaster, and we 

have been doing this since I joined FEMA more than 2 years ago. 

Last year, we asked independent experts to conduct assessments in 

17 key areas and then use the results to develop our new strategic 

plan and our vision statement on preparedness. 

In addition, FEMA has been the subject of dozens of engagements, studies, and reports by outside entities, including the IG, 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and Congress. The 

Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act specified more 

than 250 actions for FEMA. There are more than 100 open recommendations from the GAO and more than 600 from the IG, and 

many of these, quite frankly, overlap. The sheer workload associated with responding to more than 700 recommendations is really 

starting to impact our efforts to actually implement them. Instead, 

FEMA should be given the opportunity to implement our plans and 

continue to take action on the remaining Post-Katrina Emergency 

Management Reform Act requirements, as well as these GAO and 

IG recommendations. 

Another IG recommendation which has been previously addressed is that we provide regular updates regarding progress on 

all major preparedness initiatives and projects. FEMA is already 

actively providing these updates and is working on a comprehensive reporting effort that will be completed in April 2008. 

While there are still many areas with a need for improvement, 

we have had our share of successes, and they are worth remembering as we demonstrate our improvements and how they are impacting our constituents today. In the past year alone, FEMA has 

responded to 63 major disasters and 13 emergency presidential declarations and has also issued over 60 Fire Management Assistance 

Grants. From Greensburg, Kansas, to the fires in California, to the 

current flooding along the Mississippi, we have seen improved and 

effective response from FEMA. I have visited these disaster scenes 

firsthand and seen the difference. As your own colleague, Senator 

Boxer, said after the California fires, ‘‘The important difference between FEMA during Hurricane Katrina and now is that they have 

actually learned to bring people together as a team.’’ And that is 

a key—teamwork. 

Our focus on engaged partnership, our stronger ties with our 

Federal partners; the tribal, State, and local governments; the private sector; and nonprofit community is building a stronger network and team that responds to disasters. From the relatively 

small to catastrophic, we are doing it, but we are doing it together. 

The National Response Framework strengthens this coordinated 

activity. Our reforms and resources are all aimed at getting the 

right tools to the right people at the right time. 

In this past year, FEMA has responded rapidly and effectively to 

the disasters we have encountered. We are more nimble and responsive than in the past. We will continue to move forward with 

many of the recommendations that come to us from all sources. We 

12 

will never be perfect, but we can be the Nation’s premium emergency management agency and preparedness group and a member 

of the team of which all Americans should and can be proud. 

I want to thank you and this Committee for your support and 

this opportunity. I want to thank the IG’s office for their support. 

And like General Skinner said, I will be happy to answer questions 

also. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Chief. I appreciate 

your testimony and your work. 

Mr. Skinner, let me pick up on what I said after you spoke. I 

know it is not exactly what we asked you to focus on in this report, 

which is focused on catastrophic incidents. But since so many of 

these functions of FEMA would obviously also be in play in what 

we would term a disaster as opposed to a catastrophe, can we assume that the level of progress made would be higher if you were 

reaching that judgment? Or is the progress what it is and it would 

be true for a natural disaster like a tornado or a normal hurricane 

as opposed to the catastrophic hurricane that Hurricane Katrina 

was? 

Mr. SKINNER. I think it is important to understand that FEMA 

was never, ever prepared to address a catastrophic disaster such as 

Hurricane Katrina. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes. That is very important to say. 

Mr. SKINNER. FEMA has, prior to Hurricane Katrina and subsequent to Hurricane Katrina, the ability to respond to and help citizens recover from—I hate to use the term ‘‘garden variety disasters’’ as that implies that people have not suffered as a result of 

the event—normal disasters such as these we are seeing in the 

Midwest floods. These are contained events. They are predictable. 

And FEMA has, I believe, the resources and the wherewithal to address those type of disasters. What we are addressing here is: Do 

we have the capability to deal with a ‘‘catastrophic’’ event? 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Mr. SKINNER. And therein lies the problem, I believe. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. All right. I hear you, because you are 

right. We asked you a comparative question, which is: Is the agency better prepared for a catastrophe today than it was in 2005 

when Hurricane Katrina struck? And that is why you are measuring progress here. And as I said at the beginning, though obviously we would like to see substantial progress in every category, 

nonetheless it has been a year and half, so we understand that it 

is difficult to turn these things around quickly. And, overall, we see 

progress. But I also hear you now saying that in your judgment the 

agency, FEMA, is prepared, in some sense always has been, but 

hopefully is even better prepared today as a result of post-Hurricane Katrina action, to respond to a natural disaster as opposed to 

a catastrophe. 

Mr. SKINNER. That is correct. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. OK. I appreciate that. 

Chief Paulison, one of the areas here where you have given a 

higher mark, as it were, for moderate progress is logistics. The 

logistical failures in response to Hurricane Katrina were really 

some of the most infuriating and embarrassing, including, of 

course, the ice that found its way for some reason to Senator ColVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:49 Apr 08, 2010 Jkt 042745 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42745.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
13 

lins’ State as opposed to the Gulf Coast. Talk a little bit more 

about what you have done to avoid a waste and embarrassment 

such as the misdirected ice and everything else that happened 

around Hurricane Katrina. 

Mr. PAULISON. It was, Senator, a combination of things that we 

had to do to fix what happened in Hurricane Katrina. And you are 

right, it was a major failure across the board. It was not just logistics pieces, although that was a big part of it also. Not having the 

ability to track supplies, not having the ability to get them to the 

right places, not having the ability to make sure that there was an 

end-to-end supply chain set-up from the time of ordering until the 

time of delivery, we’ve worked very hard to correct that. We 

brought in experts from UPS. We have a loaned executive from 

UPS working with us. We hired one of the top experts from the Defense Logistics Agency to revamp our system. Also, I took logistics 

out of operations and made a division which reports directly to me 

to give them more visibility and more strength and power to do the 

things it needed to do. 

But one of the more important issues that we had to fix was a 

lack of communication, the breakdown between the local and the 

State and then the State and the Federal Government, making 

sure that we all understood who was responsible for what and that 

supplies were there on time. 

And then the third piece of that was changing the culture of the 

organization. FEMA, based on the way the Stafford Act was written, was designed to be a reactive organization. We saw in Hurricane Katrina that does not work. FEMA has to be a proactive organization. And I want to use an example because I do disagree with 

the IG—and we disagree professionally—on our ability to respond 

to a catastrophic event. 

What happened in Hurricane Katrina was FEMA waited until 

the storm hit before it decided to start moving buses and looking 

for transportation. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. In some cases, even to acquire what was 

necessary. 

Mr. PAULISON. That is correct. The other issue was contracting. 

I will not even get into that. I am trying to keep my answers as 

short as I can. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Sure. 

Mr. PAULISON. What we did in Hurricane Dean, which was a 

Category 5 moving into the Brownsville, Texas, area, with an extremely vulnerable population of people who live in really substandard housing, some 400,000 along that Texas coast—— 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. What was the date of that, just for the 

record? 

Mr. PAULISON. Just last year. I don’t remember the exact date 

of Hurricane Dean. We worked with the State of Texas prior to the 

storm landing, we amassed hundreds of buses with drivers, hundreds of ambulances with drivers. We had the Department of Defense set up to do air transportation of the most vulnerable population that cannot take care of themselves, those in nursing homes, 

those who were invalid, to transfer those people to safe harbor. I 

put six Urban Search and Rescue Teams on the ground, we put 

14 

communications equipment on the ground—all prior to the storm 

making landfall. 

Had that happened in Hurricane Katrina, we would not have 

had the fatalities that we had. We would have had a better evacuation plan in place. People would have been bused out of the areas 

instead of being stuck where they were. So we have learned a lot 

of lessons from Hurricane Katrina. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Well, that is great. I take it by the reference to UPS—I am not here to do an advertisement for UPS, but 

I can tell you that my wife and I just happened to buy something 

here that we wanted to ship up to our home in Connecticut, and 

she got so many notices from UPS as to where the shipment was 

at that moment that she began to complain to me. So it is easy to 

do, and I take it, therefore, that you now have a system that will 

tell you when you are moving materials to a disaster or a catastrophe area exactly where they are and how soon they are going 

to reach the destination. 

Mr. PAULISON. We do that, and it is available across the country, 

and we can tell a governor very clearly where those trucks are. My 

goal really is to move that equipment into the State even before 

they have to ask for it, like we did with the snowstorms in Oklahoma. We moved generators and equipment into the State before 

they got a declaration. And so when the governor asked for the 

generators, they were already there. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much. Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Chief Paulison, as part of the FEMA Reform Act, we also directed FEMA to enter into pre-disaster contracts as much as possible so that we did not see once again the problems in the wake 

of Hurricane Katrina where these enormous sole-source contracts 

were awarded and far more money was spent than if the contracts 

had been negotiated in advance and then could just be pulled off 

the shelf when disaster struck. 

I am also pleased to see that with the additional funding that we 

have provided, FEMA has increased its contracting staff. As I recall, there were only 35 during Hurricane Katrina, and today you 

have 162 contracting positions. So that allows you to do far better 

planning and avoid an excessive or unnecessary reliance on noncompetitive contracts. 

However, the IG’s report still expresses a concern about FEMA’s 

ability to monitor a contract after it has been awarded, and the 

GAO last November also was critical about FEMA’s management 

of a contract for managing and maintaining group manufactured 

housing sites in Mississippi and reported more than $30 million in 

questionable payments. These payments occurred, according to 

GAO, for the period between June 2006 and February of last year, 

so it is not in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. 

What is FEMA doing going forward to ensure better contract 

management after the award of the contract? It seems to me you 

have made a lot of progress on the front end, but there are still 

problems on the back end. 

Mr. PAULISON. One of the big issues is having enough people to 

do that, and with the number of positions that this Congress has 

given us, we are in the process of hiring people to do that. Like you 

15 

say, we have over 100 contract people now, but that also includes 

our contract specialists who monitor those contracts. We are putting more and more of those people on the ground. We do not have 

enough yet, but with the 2009 budget, if the 2009 budget is approved as submitted, FEMA would have gone from 2,100 full-time 

employees to 4,300 in just 2 years. So we would have almost doubled the size of this organization. That gives us the resources that 

you are talking about that we need to fulfill those. The IG and the 

GAO both reported to us that we need to do a better job of monitoring the contracts. 

Senator COLLINS. Well, just this week a general complained to 

me that all of the good DOD contract officials are now going to 

FEMA, so apparently you are making some progress. That actually 

is a serious problem throughout the Federal Government. The procurement workforce is very strained. Many of them are eligible for 

retirement, and as part of the contracting reform bill that this 

Committee has reported and the Senate has passed, we take direct 

aim at bolstering the contracting workforce, which I know is a 

problem throughout the Federal Government. 

Mr. Skinner, shortly after Hurricane Katrina, you testified to 

this Committee or before this Committee about the work of the 

Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force because, unfortunately, at 

that time FEMA did not have the common-sense safeguards in 

place to prevent fraud in the individual assistance program, and we 

held hearings which revealed widespread fraud in that program, 

truly outrageous examples of prisoners, for example, receiving 

housing assistance. 

What is the status of the work of that task force? 

Mr. SKINNER. It is still working. It is going very strong. We are 

located now in Baton Rouge. We are working collectively with over 

a dozen IGs and other law enforcement agencies—the FBI, Secret 

Service, and Postal Inspectors. We are continuing to receive allegations. Approximately, I believe, we are getting right now in Louisiana alone about 100 allegations a week. In Mississippi, where 

there are less, we are receiving approximately 30 to 40 allegations 

a month on various corruption schemes. Just in the past quarter, 

we have had over 30 arrests and 20-some indictments. We have approximately 200 to 300 open cases in Louisiana alone. We are 

working about 50 cases with other IGs. 

We have committed to that task force, and we intend to stay 

there for the long haul, not only in Baton Rouge to cover the Louisiana storms, but also in Texas for Hurricane Rita, as well as offices that we have set up in Biloxi and Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

So it is going strong, and we have invested the resources there, 

and we intend to keep them there as long as they are needed. 

Senator COLLINS. Do you think that FEMA has implemented sufficient safeguards in its process for awarding individual assistance 

to prevent the kind of fraud that you found through your investigations? For example, I remember that one of the deficiencies was 

that if you applied online, there were certain checks that were done 

to ensure the identity and location of the individual, but that if you 

called, you were able to get assistance without those kinds of 

checks, or maybe it was the other way around. But do you believe 

16 

FEMA has put in place the kinds of safeguards to prevent that 

kind of blatant fraud? 

Mr. SKINNER. I believe FEMA always had those safeguards. After 

Hurricane Katrina, they were waived, and that opened a window 

of opportunity for those that wanted to take advantage of the system, and that is what they did. 

I think FEMA needs to invest in its systems. I think they are archaic. I think they can improve in their abilities to process applications so they do not have to waive requirements in a catastrophic 

environment. That is something that FEMA is looking at, and I understand that, in their 2009 budget, it is something that they want 

to begin to invest heavily in, that is, the enhancement of their IT 

systems. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Collins. We 

will go to Senator Coleman next. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I do want to start first by thanking you and the 

Ranking Member for your continued leadership in this area, both 

right after Hurricane Katrina and the incredibly extensive hearings and review that we did, and then following up right now. I do 

not think there is any question that this is a different FEMA than 

what we all saw and experienced in 2005. On the non-catastrophic 

level, the disaster level—and I have to presume from many of my 

colleagues who have had the same experience, we have seen FEMA 

in operation in southeastern Minnesota. We had a series of very 

devastating floods, and Director Paulison was there on the ground. 

And even long after he left, I had a chance to interact on many occasions with FEMA personnel, and there is a more positive spirit, 

a greater sense of pride in working in an organization. And I think 

that is critical. Leadership makes a difference, and we see that. 

Nevertheless, this is a race without a finish line, and we need to 

continue to improve on a constant basis. 

During the oversight hearing, in fact, the Inspector General had 

made the comment that we had food and everything was in the 

pipeline, but we could not track it. And the Chairman has raised 

the question about logistics using technology. In fact, my comment 

was, ‘‘Why didn’t you call FedEx or UPS? They have systems.’’ 

General Skinner’s report does, on logistics, indicate that there is 

an improved Total Asset Visibility (TAV) system, but then the report does indicate that FEMA personnel said there are many gaps 

in the system. And so I would just like to explore that a little more 

fully. 

Director Paulison, you indicated your confidence that we contract 

things, but the report talks about gaps, talks about in particular 

overcoming TAV user resistance from the field. I want to get a little better understanding. Are the gaps we talk about here gaps in 

the ability to track the logistics? And if so, what are we doing to 

overcome them? 

Mr. SKINNER. What we were referring to is that FEMA now has 

the capability to track commodities which are in its possession. 

What it is not capable of doing is tracking commodities that are orVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:49 Apr 08, 2010 Jkt 042745 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42745.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
17 

dered at the local level or at the regional level in response to a disaster, or track those commodities that are provided by other Federal agencies or by the private sector. And therein lies one of the 

issues, I think FEMA still needs to continue to study and to work 

on this issue. 

Senator COLEMAN. And certainly in a world in which on the private side, wherever we get something, people simply expect that we 

have the technological capability, no matter who provides it, to 

track it. Director Paulison, tell me what we are doing to fix that 

gap. 

Mr. PAULISON. What we want FEMA logistically to be is more in 

control of logistics than just those of FEMA, and that is what the 

IG was talking about. We want to be able to track all of the Federal assets, regardless of where they come from, including the local 

governments. One of the examples that I will use is just recently 

we had floods—I think it was in Nevada—and we had tons of water 

in Moffett Field in California. Instead of shipping it from Moffett 

Field, we just went to the local Wal-Mart, talked to them; they took 

care of the process. They used their drivers, their trucks, their 

water, and delivered it for us. So we are looking more at using the 

third-party logistics, using more of the private sector, getting them 

involved with us. There is no reason for us to reinvent the wheel. 

But what we are trying to do—and we are not quite there yet— 

is to have a total visibility of all the assets across this country, 

whether it is with the Red Cross, whether it is with another Federal agency, or whether it is with the private sector. And that is 

where we are heading with this, and we do have money in the 2009 

budget to help us with that process that General Skinner talked 

about. 

Senator COLEMAN. Can you also talk a little bit about openness 

to technology? Again, that was my concern post-Hurricane Katrina 

that there was tracking technology and we were not going to use 

it. I was looking at something the other day, a device to create 

water out of air, an Israeli process. Folks said that, yes, we have 

talked to FEMA. I often get—and, again, there are a million great 

ideas out there, but there is always this question about whether 

the bureaucracy in the system is open to things that come from 

outside the system. 

Talk to me a little bit about working with the new technology, 

innovation, and how ready the agency is to kind of adapt tech into 

that. I do not know, Inspector General Skinner, whether you looked 

at that, but I am interested in how do we make sure that we are 

tapping into the 21st Century technology that is available. 

Mr. PAULISON. I agree, we do not want to reinvent the wheel if 

it is already out there. We have a couple of those units that we 

purchased in the aftermath of Hurricane Wilma. But the bottled 

water still serves us the best right now. We do have those units 

and supply it if we brought them up. But they cannot produce 

water as fast as we can take a tractor-load of bottled water and deliver it to somebody. And it just produces the water. We still have 

to bottle it and package it somehow, and it is just not quite where 

we want to be. And even the units we have purchased, there are 

others out there from other companies that, quite frankly, will do 

a better job than what we have. 

18 

But right now, the bottled water works well for us. It is easy to 

move. It is readily accessible anywhere around the country. And 

like I said, we can go to a Wal-Mart, K-Mart, or any other place 

and get it if we do not even have it in our own stocks somewhere 

close. That is really what is serving us best right now. 

Senator COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, are we going to have another 

round? 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. We will. 

Senator COLEMAN. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Coleman. Senator Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I would like to say that my experience with your 

agency has been terrific. We had floods in Hancock County and 

Huron County in Ohio. I had a roundtable there, and the reaction 

from the community in terms of cooperation and coordination between the Federal and State Government was great. So you should 

feel real good about that. 

Second, I want to thank you for sticking around. I am concerned 

that people in responsible positions like yours are leaving the Administration. One of the things that I am concerned about is that 

Inspector General Skinner said in his report that FEMA has yet 

to complete many of the workforce-related actions required by the 

Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act. I have several 

questions: 

Why the delay? 

What percentage of FEMA’s Senior Executive Service is eligible 

to retire? 

Do you have the authorities you need to recruit, retain, and reward folks, which are extremely important? 

Mr. PAULISON. That is a handful. Let me talk about the transition to the new Administration first because that is an important 

issue for us. 

All of our career senior positions are filled, so when the politicals 

leave, there are people there who will transition to the next group. 

I have asked Nancy Ward, our career Region IX administrator, to 

be that transition lead. If, come January 20, the new Administration has not appointed a FEMA administrator or FEMA team, she 

will be there to carry on across into the next Administration to 

make sure that is in place. 

The political appointees will leave. I mean, they are going to 

leave between now and January 20. Hopefully they will not leave 

until then. But I have been given the authority to fill those slots. 

In one example, our Region VIII director out of Denver left and 

took a job at a State, and we have already filled that slot—well, 

not quite filled yet, but we picked a person to do that, and he is 

in the process and should be coming aboard within a few weeks. 

And that is a political position. We were still able to go out and 

recruit a person with 30 years of experience in emergency management to come, and even though there is only 9 months left, or 8 

months now, to come in and do that. So I am comfortable that we 

are able to track good people. I have worked very hard to put this 

19 

organization on track, and I do not want to lose it because we are 

changing the Administration. So I am working very hard to make 

sure that does not happen. 

There are a lot of pieces of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act that we have not quite done yet, and we are 

working hard to make those happen. There are a lot of them. There 

are too many to get done and still manage the organization. We 

have been able to hire a lot of people, and that is really going to 

help us to do more of that. 

One of the issues is the Housing Plan. We have been working 

with Senator Landrieu, and my deputy promised we would have 

that done by April 1. We have the draft done, and I believe you 

are going to be briefed on it here shortly, in the next couple days. 

But that has to be circulated among our stakeholders, and I want 

to do that so that they have a piece of that. And also, according 

to the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, we have 

to make sure that the National Advisory Council that was created 

reviews that and has input into that also. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Will your Human Capital Plan be completed 

before you leave? 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir. The Human Capital Plan should be done. 

We are working on it very hard. A lot of this stuff is in progress. 

It is just not quite done yet. My most important thing was rebuilding the organization; that we have done. The National Response 

Framework had to come first before the Housing Plan fell in place. 

So there are several things that are falling in place, and I am going 

to make sure that we get as many of them done as we can before 

we transition. And there will be a plan in place for the next group. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Skinner, how do you feel about what 

Chief Paulison has just talked about, the transition and succession 

planning? 

Mr. SKINNER. First, I must say that the Secretary as well as 

FEMA and other components within the Department have given a 

lot of attention to transition planning, recognizing that the Department of Homeland Security’s mission is much too important just to 

be put on hold for—— 

Senator VOINOVICH. I want to say this publicly, that I am very 

impressed with the plan that they are putting together. 

Mr. SKINNER. Yes. 

Senator VOINOVICH. My concern is that the plan that they put 

together is implemented. [Laughter.] 

Senator VOINOVICH. But it is good to have a plan. 

Mr. SKINNER. Yes. Planning is everything. Plans are meaningless 

if they are not implemented. 

The concerns that we would have here—and I am focusing on 

FEMA right now—is that they are putting people in place, they are 

filling critical positions, but the people that they are putting in, although they are experienced, they are not experienced in doing 

business with FEMA. They do not understand the culture of 

FEMA. They have to learn how the Stafford Act works. They have 

to learn how Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the 

regulations that implement their programs, work. You do not do 

that overnight. FEMA’s programs are complex, and it takes time 

to learn those programs. And that is our major concern right now. 

20 

1The response to Senator Voinovich’s request from Mr. Paulison appears in the Appendix on 

page 100. 

They have a lot of turnover at the very highest levels within 

FEMA, over the last 6 months. Yes, they are bringing people in, 

but warm bodies in itself is not always the answer. They need to 

be trained. They need to acclimate themselves to the culture and 

have a complete and thorough understanding on how those programs are supposed to work. And those are the issues that we have 

to deal with over the next 9 months. 

Senator VOINOVICH. If you could provide me with your estimate 

of the turnover of your Senior Executive Service, I would appreciate it.1

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, sir, we can do that. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And you might even point out why you think 

some of them are deciding to leave. 

Mr. PAULISON. Well, all of our senior positions are filled. And we 

have had some people retire. They have 30 years of service in the 

Federal Government and made decisions to move. A lot of the people that are brought back in were former FEMA employees. Like 

when Deidre Lee left, I brought Al Sligh back in to fill that slot. 

So we are filling them. 

Mr. Skinner and I have a little bit of a disagreement. I do not 

necessarily want people to come in that understand the culture of 

FEMA. We are trying to develop a new culture, and this turnover 

that we had and bringing new people in has allowed me to get 

much further along than we would have if that had not happened. 

So it is a good thing and a bad thing. It is a bad thing because 

we have a lot of hiring to do, but the good thing is we have a lot 

of new people on board who are really on board with this new 

FEMA philosophy of leaning further forward. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Voinovich. 

I know everyone in this room knows, but one of the problems we 

have found with FEMA in response to Hurricane Katrina was that 

it was way down in terms of positions being filled. I have forgotten 

the number. Do you remember? Was it 80 percent? 

Mr. PAULISON. It was lower than that when I took over. I think 

we were around 70 percent of authorized strength. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes, and now you have essentially filled 

all the positions. 

Mr. PAULISON. We were at 97 percent until you gave us new 

funding for new positions, and now we are down probably around 

75 percent. But we have proven—— 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. But you are in the process of filling those. 

Mr. PAULISON [continuing]. That we can hire, and we are going 

to continue to do that. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Excellent. Senator Landrieu, and then 

Senator McCaskill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANDRIEU 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking Member as well, for your continued focus on an area that still 

needs a great deal of focus and support. 

21 

As my colleagues know, I am normally a person that sees a glass 

half-full as opposed to half-empty. But I have to say today that I 

still remain concerned, Chief Paulison, about the lack of progress 

in substantial areas. I recognize that we have made moderate 

progress, but I still continue to be frustrated by the lack of apparent urgency on the part of several officials—not necessarily you, 

Chief, but others—that do not quite seem to understand how important it is to get those Stafford Act changes in place before another catastrophic disaster hits. 

Even Secretary Chertoff, who has been, in my view, not very 

forthcoming about the need to approach these things differently, in 

his Valentine’s Day testimony before this Committee, said, ‘‘Senator, I will tell you what, I think that—and I have said this publicly before—the dimension of the challenge and what is being requested in connection with the Gulf Coast is an order of magnitude 

that is vastly different from the normal disaster mechanisms for 

which the Stafford Act applies. I think,’’ he says, ‘‘we should take 

a more general look at whether the way we approach reconstruction efforts of this magnitude that you are talking about should be 

taken out of the normal model rather than making the normal 

model fit into it.’’ 

What are the five changes that you are recommending to the 

Stafford Act that need to be done in order to deal with a catastrophic disaster? And I would like to ask the IG the same question. 

Mr. PAULISON. I do not know if I can rattle off five. I can tell you 

that my plans are—before I leave—to make sure that we provide 

this Committee with what I feel are detailed changes, but let me 

give you some right now. 

One, you need to give the FEMA director more flexibility to respond to disasters like you are talking about. 

Two, I agree with the Secretary that maybe we want to look at 

a different model for those truly catastrophic events—and I do not 

know what the answer is, but I think we do need to put a group 

together to decide what that is—and maybe there is something else 

we need to do when these things are truly catastrophic. 

Three, there needs to be more latitude for the FEMA Administrator to put things in place prior to a disaster declaration so we 

can move things and be able to spend money out of the disaster relief fund even if there is not a declaration. 

So those are three that I can give you off the top of my head. 

There are others that you and I can talk about, or if you want to 

put a group together with this Committee, I would be glad to do 

that, to sit down and brainstorm. 

The Stafford Act was a great document when it was put together, 

but it does not work, as you clearly know, in an event like Hurricane Katrina. It is too restrictive, and you cannot do some of the 

innovative things you really want to do to do that. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And would the IG answer, please? 

Mr. SKINNER. That is a very tough question, and it is something 

that I think requires a lot of thought. 

When we talk about the Stafford Act, I think we have to look beyond just FEMA. I think what we have to do, when we start talking about catastrophic type events, is look at what the Federal 

22 

Government’s overall responsibilities are for rebuilding a community. I think you have to start looking at economic development, 

long-term housing, things of that nature, things for which, I think, 

FEMA historically does not have responsibility and I do not want 

to suggest that they should have responsibility. But I think the 

Stafford Act needs to be amended to be able to address those type 

of issues. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, I thank you for that testimony, but I 

would remind the Committee of the urgency that there is another 

hurricane season that starts June 1, and none of this has been, to 

my knowledge, put in place yet. And if we are hit by another catastrophic hurricane that causes similar flooding or displacement of 

a million people, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure we are actually any 

better off today than we were 21⁄2 years ago when Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita struck. 

Let me raise one other issue. My Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery has held eight hearings. We have identified many problems. 

One of them is the tangled public assistance program. I have specifically said that I will continue the hold on the nomination of 

your Deputy Administrator until a third party is set up to arbitrate 

the ongoing, never-ending battles between local governments and 

the Federal Government about what is owed to each to build a 

school, a post office, etc. So if that is done, I will release my hold. 

If it is not, it will not get released. 

But on the subject of trailers, just yesterday we were contacted, 

Mr. Chairman, by Jennifer Donaldsonville from Pass Christian, 

Mississippi. It is a very tragic report. She had been housed in a 

trailer during her first trimester of her pregnancy. She moved out 

of the trailer because the fumes were bothering her. Just yesterday, we got a call from her and her doctor, toxicologist Jack 

Thrasher. The baby had stopped breathing at 6 months old. The 

baby was brain dead for 20 minutes. The baby was revived but now 

has brain damage. There is no conclusive evidence yet that it was 

related to the fact that she lived in a trailer, but that is going on 

right now. 

As to the thousands of people that are still living in trailers laced 

with formaldehyde, the report that was due in July 2007 was extended to April 2008. It is still not in; April 1 was a few days ago. 

When are we going to get something from this Administration on 

what we are going to do with people to house them in something 

other than trailers laced with formaldehyde? 

Mr. PAULISON. Well, first of all, in my tenure, we are never going 

to use travel trailers again, regardless of the formaldehyde. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. 

Mr. PAULISON. Second, the Housing Plan that you have asked for 

was given to me April 1. It is a draft. We are going to brief you 

on it. I think it is either tomorrow or next week, whatever your 

schedule is, to show you what we have. We are going to give it to 

our National Advisory Council as required to be law and get input 

from our stakeholders. It will be in place before June 1. I know we 

did not meet the April deadline, but it will be a good policy. There 

is a planning aspect to it. There is a realignment. We have to look 

at the realignment of who is responsible for what. That got mixed 

up after Hurricane Katrina. 

23 

Senator LANDRIEU. And I agree that it is not FEMA’s complete 

responsibility to prevent, respond, recover, and rebuild. And somebody in this government has to realize that the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has to step up. The Department of Commerce has to step up. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

has to step up. And we have to get that organized pretty quickly. 

If another Category 5 hurricane slams into Galveston, God help the 

people of Galveston. 

But one more thing—and then I am going to let you go—aside 

from housing. The question of the staffing is very important. You 

are testifying that you are fully staffed, but the question is: Have 

you asked for more funding from the Administration? Not from 

Congress. I think this Committee has been quite generous and so 

have your appropriators. But what have you asked of your Administration, either verbally or in writing? And say what they have 

given you or what you are disappointed they have not approved in 

your budget request. Could you be specific? And that will be my 

last question. 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes, we have asked for more people and funding 

for that, and we have been given that. FEMA has the largest budget that it has ever received in its history in the 2008 budget. We 

have asked for more people in 2009 and the—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. Was there anything you asked for that the 

Administration denied you? 

Mr. PAULISON. No, they did not. Everything we have asked for 

we have received. 

Senator LANDRIEU. OK. 

Mr. PAULISON. And that is a significant issue considering the 

budget constraints that we are having. I asked for more people in 

2009. The President is recommending those to Congress. And I appreciate the support from the Secretary and the President because 

they recognize we have to have more people if we are going to do 

the things you are asking us to do. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. 

Mr. PAULISON. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Landrieu. Senator 

McCaskill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me start with all the sweetness and sugar. I know you are 

on the ground in Missouri subsequent to the flooding. Unfortunately, we have precipitation reports that are not good. We have 

incredibly saturated ground. We have, as you know, reservoirs that 

are filled to the brink at the current time. But I must compliment 

you and FEMA for the quick response and for the help that is on 

the ground. There have been several heart-warming stories of people who were at wits’ end and walked in and got answers, got them 

quickly, and are getting help. 

So before I begin any of the critical stuff, let me tell you that I 

think you have done a very good job in terms of Missouri. I know 

you are still on the ground, and I think you are going to be there 

for a while because I have a bad feeling about rain through the 

24 

weekend and what it might mean, particularly for the Meramec 

and some of the reservoirs down south. 

Let me first ask about the flood mapping. Senator Pryor and I 

sent a letter about Zone X warnings on flood maps to which we 

have not gotten a response. Usually I am all about GAO and the 

reports, and they are anxious for you to expand the base and get 

more money into the program. But, frankly, that is unrealistic that 

we can expand the base to absorb the incredible rock that the 

snake swallowed related to Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. 

I was up on a bluff in southeast Missouri and with levees that 

have never been a problem in the area, and the guys on this bluff 

tell me that they are going to get mapped in. And, of course, there 

are consequences when they get mapped in because that means no 

bank is going to loan money without flood insurance. This is an expensive proposition for people who have no risk. 

Now, I understand that FEMA says, well, you can individually 

appeal. But telling an individual they can appeal to the Federal 

Government is worse than saying you are going to have a bad day. 

That is a formidable task to tell an individual you just need to 

tackle that Federal Government. 

What can you tell me about this mapping and the fact that Senator Pryor and I have not received an answer to our letter concerning this issue? 

Mr. PAULISON. Well, first of all, I will find out about the letter. 

We try to respond to those very quickly, particularly with the flood 

issues, because those are important issues for all of us. 

Two, we are not expanding the base to collect more money. What 

is happening across the country as we are doing—we are remapping the entire country, and we are going to have almost all of it 

completed here just in a couple years. And part of the issue also 

is the certification of levees. If the Army Corps of Engineers cannot 

tell us that a levee is certified, then we have to take away that protection of that levee. We have to act as if it is not there. And it 

is not the individual that has to appeal. The State or the community can appeal. I have dealt with several just recently and have 

made some changes in some of the flood maps because they 

brought us new information. 

I will be happy—and not only happy, thrilled—to sit down with 

anyone you want us to, to go over if we have made a mistake with 

the flooding mapping or if they feel like we are in error. And we 

are doing that across the country. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK, good. 

Mr. PAULISON. We are giving our best based on what we see are 

the potential hazards—we are just trying to protect people. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I get that. 

Mr. PAULISON. Really, we are. But we do not want to make a 

mistake and cause somebody to—I mean, if I lived on a bluff, I 

would have flood insurance anyway. What we just saw in your 

State and what we just say in our—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. I do not think if you lived on this bluff you 

would. 

Mr. PAULISON. Well, maybe not. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Trust me. I mean, we have got some serious 

common sense in Missouri—— 

25 

Mr. PAULISON. But in Arkansas—— 

Senator MCCASKILL [continuing]. And I have a feeling your common sense would prevail and say, no, there is not going to be a 

flood here. 

Mr. PAULISON. But we saw thousands and thousands of people 

in Arkansas and Missouri who got flooded who did not have flood 

insurance. Now, they are going to get up to $28,000 from FEMA, 

but that is not near enough to repair their homes. So that is why 

we are pushing people to get flood insurance. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And there is a balancing test, and I know 

that, and I appreciate that. 

Mr. Inspector General, as you may or may not know, I am trying 

to be the best friend of the IGs, if I possibly can, in Congress, and 

there are others here that have done a lot of work. The Ranking 

Member and the Chairman have done an awful lot of work with 

IGs, and obviously Senator Grassley and many others who have 

come before me, and I stand on their shoulders. But when I read 

in a report that you had difficulty getting access to something, all 

my bells and whistles and sirens go off. 

Would you please tell me what the problem was, and particularly 

what you had trouble getting here—which was pre-disaster contracts. Well, obviously the contracts that are in place that have 

been entered into are very important in terms of the accountability 

measures that are in those. Tell me what happened with your inability—while Mr. Paulison is here, tell me why—what you could 

not get, and then I can make him tell me why you could not get 

it. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SKINNER. Well, first of all, Senator, I am well aware of the 

support you have given the IG community, and I and the IG community, in fact, are very appreciative of your support. 

The issues that we are dealing with here with the contracts—and 

these are issues that go back almost 12 months, and as a result 

of allegations that we had received with regards to some improprieties, with regards to certain contracts, we asked for those contracts and related files. We did not receive those. 

I cannot give you an explanation of why we did not receive those 

files, but we waited and we waited and we waited, until eventually 

the U.S. Attorney or the Assistant U.S. Attorney opted to subpoena 

FEMA for those files. 

I have since met with Chief Paulison, Deputy Administrator Harvey Johnson, and others in FEMA to discuss our concerns about 

getting access to files, getting access to people, and to facilitate better and increased cooperation. 

Since then, we have seen improved cooperation with FEMA. 

FEMA’s staff both at headquarters and in the field have been more 

responsive to our requests for documentation of—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Have you seen the documents yet? 

Mr. SKINNER. Yes, we have. 

Senator MCCASKILL. You have seen them now. 

Mr. SKINNER. Yes. We now have all those documents. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. And, Secretary Paulison, why did they 

have to resort to a subpoena to get documents that common sense 

would tell you they should have access to and it should happen immediately without having to resort to a subpoena? 

26 

1The response to Senator McCaskill’s request from Mr. Paulison with attachments appears 

in the Appendix on page 101. 

Mr. PAULISON. They did not have to. If they had come to me, I 

would have made sure they got them. We had people who for some 

reason or another were not giving the documents they were asked 

to give. We met with General Skinner and Matt Jadacki. They explained they were having difficulties. I made it extremely, extremely clear to my staff that any documents they are asked for by 

the IG’s office or by the GAO, they are to give them. And since 

then, that has happened. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Have you identified who it was that had a 

bad attitude? 

Mr. PAULISON. I do not know if that person is still with us or not, 

but—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, I would like to know if they are. 

Mr. PAULISON. We will. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And if they are still with you, I would like 

to know if they were reprimanded in writing, if there were any actions taken against that employee that inappropriately denied access to the IG to important contracts that they had the right to. 

Have you informed your staff in writing about—— 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL [continuing]. Access of the IG? 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And could I get a copy of that? 

Mr. PAULISON. Yes.1

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. Good, 

brisk interchange, exchange there. Thank you. General Pryor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, General Lieberman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. We have General Skinner here today, too. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator PRYOR. I noticed that. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. We are two previous Attorneys General 

who really miss that title, so that is why we like to use it when 

we can. 

Senator PRYOR. That is exactly right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will be brief this morning, and let me first thank Administrator 

Paulison for coming to Arkansas twice in the last 2 months—first 

for tornadoes and second for floods—and, really, I am getting very 

positive feedback from the State and local entities in Arkansas for 

the work that FEMA has done, so we appreciate your promptness 

very much. As you and I have talked about there in Little Rock 

earlier this week, you want to change FEMA from a reactive agency into a proactive agency, and I think that is actually a good 

thing. I am not asking for your opinion on this today, but my personal view is that FEMA should be a Cabinet-level position where, 

when a crisis happens, FEMA has the resources of all the Federal 

Government there. But we can talk about that further. 

27 

But I would like to follow up with a question that Senator Landrieu asked a few moments ago about the Stafford Act. She asked 

you for your thoughts on, say, five changes you might make to the 

Stafford Act if you could. But let’s talk about that just for a moment in more general terms. 

In a general sense, what do you think and why do you think we 

need to change the Stafford Act? 

Mr. PAULISON. What I saw in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and 

even to a certain extent in Hurricane Wilma, is the lack of the 

flexibility that the FEMA Administrator has in doing some things 

because of restrictions in the Stafford Act. I am probably speaking 

out of turn for the Administration, but I feel that there should be 

much more flexibility to have access to the disaster relief fund 

prior to a declaration being signed by the President. There are 

things that we see that should be happening much faster sometimes, although I have to tell you, the new process we put in place 

for declarations has changed things from happening from weeks 

into hours, just like you saw what we did in your State and also 

in Missouri, where we have turned those around in a couple hours. 

Obviously, there was significant damage there. 

But if you are looking for general terms, that is what I am looking for, a little more flexibility for the next FEMA Administrator. 

Senator PRYOR. Well, that is good, and I think that it is important if a FEMA Administrator comes in and says, hey, we feel that 

the primary statute we work under needs to be changed a little bit, 

I think certainly we need to sit down with you and talk about those 

changes in a more detailed fashion. And I would be glad to do that, 

and I look forward to doing that with you as soon as we can. 

Mr. PAULISON. And if I can interupt one more time, sorry, we 

also have our National Advisory Council. I have asked them to look 

at the Stafford Act, and they have already set aside a subcommittee to look at those changes that they would recommend 

from their views, and these are primarily the users out there. 

Senator PRYOR. Great. That is good. 

Let me change gears, if I may. I heard the question a few moments ago about FEMA trailers and mobile homes, and I do think 

that is one of the legacy issues you have inherited from the previous two administrators, especially from Administrator Brown, 

which is what to do with these mobile homes and trailers that you 

have in the system right now. 

I filed a bill several months ago, S. 2382, that I would encourage 

your staff to examine. We call it the FEMA Accountability Act— 

which I know is a very creative title, but we call it the FEMA Accountability Act, and basically what we ask you to do is to report 

back to us and tell us how many temporary housing units you 

need, whatever combination that may be, and then go through a 

process over a period of a year to get to that number, and to keep 

us posted as we go through that process. 

I think it is a very common-sense approach. I think probably you 

might consider adopting that as policy instead of us passing it. But 

regardless of that, I would encourage you to take a look at it. 

28 

1The chart submitted by Mr. Skinner appears in the Appendix on page 59. 

Let me ask, if I may, one question about the scorecard that is 

posted here.1 In the mission assignment, you are in the ‘‘limited to 

no progress.’’ I want to ask about that in a moment, but before I 

do, let me just ask generally about the scorecard that the IG did. 

Do you agree with the conclusions and the findings of the IG? 

Mr. PAULISON. No. [Laughter.] 

Senator PRYOR. OK. 

Mr. PAULISON. We do agree with most of it. We agree that they 

have shown that we have made substantial progress in a lot of 

areas. I don’t feel that they had the time to really get in-depth with 

some of the things that we have really tried to accomplish. But at 

the same time, this is a great learning tool for us. 

Under the mission assignment, that is the one I really do not 

agree with because I feel like that has been one of our success stories. When I took over FEMA, we only had 14 pre-scripted mission 

assignments. We now have over 230 pre-scripted mission assignments with over 30 Federal agencies. So I feel like that is a success 

story. 

I think where the IG was coming from is the implementation of 

those, he feels like there are not enough controls over them, and 

I think there are. But at the same time, I have to go back and look 

at that. If he has seen something I have not seen, then we need 

to look at that very carefully. 

We are having a very good relationship with the IG’s office of 

working together with them and using them to help us rebuild this 

organization, particularly in regard to fraud. I mean, that is really 

sending a signal out to people that we are serious about this. So 

it is a good relationship, and when we disagree on issues, we have 

a very professional conversation about it. 

Senator PRYOR. Mr. Skinner, on the mission assignments, tell us 

why you feel there has been little or no progress. 

Mr. SKINNER. Keep in mind this was a snapshot in time. And, 

yes, there has been substantial progress as far as identifying what 

mission assignments there are. But with that comes additional responsibilities, and that is managing those mission assignments. 

And we saw no progress whatsoever—or essentially no progress 

whatsoever in FEMA’s ability to manage those projects. 

If you ask FEMA today how many mission assignments have 

they made, what funds have been obligated, what is the status of 

those funds, and what is the outcome—what service has been provided, they cannot give you that answer. They could not give us 

that answer, so, therefore, that is why we said there was very limited progress. 

Senator PRYOR. Mr. Skinner, is it a matter of resources from 

your viewpoint? Is it a matter of resources within—— 

Mr. SKINNER. Absolutely. There are three things here that are 

pervasive across the board: And they are resources, processes, and 

technology. They do not have the systems right now to be able to 

track the status of their mission assignments. They do not have the 

resources to manage those mission assignments. And they do not 

have the processes of identifying what mission assignments are 

necessary and who they should be passed on to. 

29 

This is pervasive across FEMA. Their management support functions are something that have been ignored for years, not just in 

the last 8 years, but since it has been created back in 1978. Their 

financial management systems are archaic. Their IT systems are 

stovepiped and archaic, and not integrated and not secured. Their 

HR systems are in poor shape. In terms of their property management system, which gets back to their logistics and is one of the 

reasons they got a poor grade there, they cannot give you an accurate accountability as to where their property is. It is the management support functions. They need to invest in those systems and 

in those processes and hire the people needed to support their operational mission. 

Senator PRYOR. Good. 

Mr. Chairman, just in closing, I might say that we talked about 

the flood maps, and I know we have already had a question about 

that, and we have met with you and your team about the flood 

maps. That is an important issue not just in Arkansas but around 

the country as this unfolds nationwide. If you look at February, 

there are areas of Arkansas and Missouri that got 16 inches of 

rain. There are lots of areas that got 12 inches of rain or 10 inches 

of rain, but there was a band of area that got 16 inches of rain. 

That is also true in Tennessee and, I believe, in Kentucky. They 

got an area band there of 16 inches of rain. 

But if you look at the flooding in Arkansas, none of it is on the 

Mississippi River system. It is on the other systems, but the Mississippi River flood control system is just different. And so that is 

one of the reasons why we have been asking FEMA to look at the 

differences in the various levee systems, not just in the State but 

around the country, and treat those accordingly. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Pryor. Thanks very 

much. 

Before I call on Senator Carper, I did want to note for the record 

that at this hour there is a ceremony going on in the Capitol to 

note and commemorate the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther 

King, which occurred, I believe, on April 4. And I had thought to 

terminate the hearing, but if one can imagine this, I thought if I 

could ask Dr. King, he would direct us to continue this hearing to 

fix FEMA. And so that is my judgment, but I do it with respect for 

the ceremony going on. 

Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is it General Skinner? 

Mr. SKINNER. Mr. Skinner would be fine. I feel like I have to be 

wearing a uniform when you say general. 

Senator CARPER. Well, certainly a lot of generals around here do 

not wear uniforms. [Laughter.] 

As an old Navy captain, I feel I am outranked, but I am still 

happy to be here. In the military, we used to be accused of—and 

still are, I guess, in some ways—always training and preparing to 

fight the last war as if it is going to be the next war. And with respect to FEMA, we are certainly interested, I know my colleague 

30 

Senator Landrieu is interested, and others from the Gulf Coast, to 

make sure that FEMA is prepared to fight the last war if we ever 

have a hurricane incident like Hurricane Katrina again. 

Hopefully, we are not going to see that kind of situation again 

in the Gulf Coast, but some other wars we might be called on to 

fight and to face. And let me just ask, when you think about the 

areas outside of the Gulf Coast, outside of Louisiana and Mississippi and all, how do you feel about your preparedness for those 

battles? 

Mr. PAULISON. I think we are doing well. Obviously, the hurricane States from Texas to Maine are obvious targets for a hurricane, but we have the rest of the country to worry about also. We 

are doing catastrophic planning for an earthquake in the New Madrid Fault. We are doing catastrophic earthquake planning in California. 

Last year, we did a gap analysis of all the States from Texas to 

Maine for hurricanes. That was so successful and gave us such 

good information that we are transporting that across the rest of 

the country this year to do all the other States. And the other 

States are actually asking for it. It covers areas like evacuations, 

sheltering, commodity distribution, fuel on evacuation routes, a 

whole series of things that this gap analysis does for us. And it 

helps the States recognize what they need to work on, and it helps 

us gear our response to a particular State, because they are not all 

the same. 

So I am comfortable that we are doing much better, primarily because Hurricane Katrina was a wake-up call for the emergency 

management system around the country. And I see a lot more planning going in place. I see a lot more exercises in place. And I think 

this country as a whole is much better off than it was just a few 

years ago. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

General Skinner, how long have you been in your current position as IG? 

Mr. SKINNER. Since July, I believe, 2005. 

Senator CARPER. I was interested in reading and heard Senator 

Pryor talking about the IG report where you focused on areas 

where you have seen progress, modest progress, greater progress, 

and where you have seen no progress or inadequate progress. And 

he asked Mr. Paulison to comment on whether or not there are any 

areas where he disagreed, and we just had a little discussion about 

one area where he thought that you did not give him enough credit. 

Are there any, Mr. Paulison, where you think they gave you the 

benefit of the doubt or maybe graded you too high as opposed to 

too low? 

Mr. PAULISON. I do not think he scored us too high anywhere. 

[Laughter.] 

This is actually a very good document for us because it causes 

us to go back and look at ourselves again; and where we and the 

IG office may disagree on a particular level, it forces us to look at 

it and make sure that we are where we think we are. And so it 

is a good—there is no dog fight over this. Yes, we may disagree on 

how they rated us in a certain area, but it is a great document for 

us. 

31 

1The chart submitted by Mr. Skinner appears in the Appendix on page 59. 

Senator CARPER. Senator McCaskill may have gotten to this earlier. I describe myself as a recovering governor. She is a recovering 

State auditor. But in State government in Delaware we would have 

the State auditor’s office come in and audit the various State agencies throughout the course of the year. We would also have exit 

meetings where we would go over what went well, what did not go 

well. 

I am sure that there is a back-and-forth, I presume, while the 

IG is doing their work, coming to conclusions about the work, and 

maybe submitting their report and recommendations and findings. 

Just describe that back-and-forth, the communication that occurs 

between, in this case, you, Mr. Paulison, and the IG. And do you 

find it constructive or not? How could it be more constructive? 

Mr. PAULISON. I think every conversation we have had with them 

is very constructive. They are looking at us from a different perspective than we are looking at ourselves. We have done some internal introspective stuff also. We did assessments on 17 of our 

business practices. We did that ourselves. We have found fraud 

issues also that we have turned over to the IG and asked him to 

investigate for us. 

So we have a good relationship. It is not a cozy relationship, and 

it should not be a cozy relationship. But it is a professional relationship. They have a great staff. They have people on their staff 

who used to work at FEMA, so they know the inner workings and 

that helps us. So when we try to explain things, they already get 

it. So I think the back-and-forth is very positive for both of us. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

General Skinner, do you want to comment? 

Mr. SKINNER. Yes. During the course of any review, the dialogue 

is continuous, I mean, from the day of the entrance conference to 

the day of the issuance of the report. And we are constantly trying 

to assimilate all the information that various people and various officers at headquarters, in the region, as well as other stakeholders, 

are providing to us. 

Now, I understand that in this review, one of the things we have 

to recognize is we did not go into the weeds here. We did not try 

to do a comprehensive assessment, because if we did, it would take 

us months and months and a lot more resources than we have 

available right now to dedicate to this particular job. So we tried 

to do a 30,000-foot snapshot of progress being made, and we relied 

on information from a variety of sources, not just FEMA’s top management. 

So where there are disagreements, those are essentially based on 

input that we are getting from other sources, that is, other stakeholders as well as staff people with the boots on the ground who 

are out there. And that helped us formulate our opinion in this 

scorecard.1

Senator CARPER. Good. Well, we are pleased to hear that some 

progress is being made, and I think a lot depends on the rank-andfile in an agency or in a military unit or whatever to make 

progress. But we also value highly the leadership, and I commend 

you, Mr. Paulison, for your leadership. 

32 

As you know, we have firefighters who are gathering in our Nation’s capital from all over the country, and a bunch of them are 

coming from Delaware, and you have a lot of friends in the First 

State. And I heard Senator Pryor say in his questions, he mentioned that you had been down to Arkansas a couple times in the 

last several months. Fortunately, we have not had any calamities 

of that nature in the First State so we have not had to call on you 

to come, but we know if we did that you would, and we appreciate 

that. Thank you both very much for your service and for being here 

today. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Carper. 

Just a couple more questions from me, gentlemen. Chief 

Paulison, let me ask you to go back to the most searing images that 

remain in our mind from Hurricane Katrina, which is the failure 

to evacuate. And I know you talked earlier about how you have 

been proactive in the Texas hurricane, lining up buses, etc. I want 

you to talk a little bit more about what we have changed now to 

make sure that would not happen. 

But then the second part, because I presume there may be catastrophes that will strike so quickly that you will not be able to do 

that advance preparation, how do we avoid the human calamity 

and really inhuman conditions that people in New Orleans had to 

go through in the Superdome? 

Mr. PAULISON. The no-notice events are the toughest to deal 

with, like you mentioned. There are hurricanes coming in. We cannot preposition equipment, people, supplies, buses, ambulances, 

aircraft, all of those types of things, and that is what we are going 

to do. The no-notice events are much more difficult. That is where 

we fall back on the premise that all disasters are local. And so we 

have to do a better job of making sure the local community is prepared, the State is prepared, and we are prepared to respond much 

more quickly. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. That is a really good point. So how do you 

do that? In other words, in the other metropolitan areas of the 

country, do you try to get the local officials or State officials prepared for a facility that can accommodate a large number of people 

in a catastrophe? 

Mr. PAULISON. There are a couple things. One, we have worked 

with the Red Cross to put together a shelter registry that we never 

had before, so we have a pretty good handle on where the shelters 

are. 

Second, when they are identified, the Red Cross does a survey to 

see if they meet certain standards for wind loads and things like 

that. We are working with Florida right now. They want to go back 

and retrofit schools, and so we are working with them on that wind 

load factor to make sure those schools will be a safe place to house 

people should they call for an evacuation. 

Also, in the emergency management performance grants, this 

year we have mandated that the States set aside at least 25 percent of those dollars for planning. One of the things we saw in our 

gap analysis is we saw a lack of planning, and as we are going 

across the rest of the country, we want to make sure that every 

State and every community has the best plans possible. That was 

not very popular. We got a lot of pushback from it. But I am stickVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:49 Apr 08, 2010 Jkt 042745 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42745.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
33 

ing by that because I think it is important that they spend those 

dollars to have some very robust planning capabilities at the State 

and local level across the country. That will resolve a lot of the 

issues that you are talking about because it forces them to really 

look at their disaster plan and assess adequacy. Are the shelters 

in place? Do they have good evacuation plans in place? What are 

they going to do with people? How are they going to house them 

for the short term until the State and the Federal Government can 

move in? 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. OK. That is reassuring. How about the 

ice? I do not know if there is a direct answer except to say that 

it was so ridiculous that it can never happen again. But how are 

you going to make sure it does not? 

Mr. PAULISON. We are not going to—we are not in the ice business anymore. I made that statement yesterday at the hurricane 

conference yesterday in Orlando. That is not a life-saving commodity for most people. We will provide it for people who have a 

medical need, but we are not going to be handing out bags of ice 

along the route. 

I know you did not ask this question, but one of the big issues 

that we have to do in this country is get back to taking on personal 

preparedness and personal responsibility for taking care of ourselves and our families for the first 3 or 4 days. Some people cannot. Those are the ones government should be taking care of. But 

most of us around this country can prepare our homes and our 

families for a catastrophic event, having food, water, and ice. 

At my home, we take gallon water jugs and put them in the 

freezer June 1, and we have that ice. If the power goes out, at least 

we have the ice for a few days, and then we can drink the water 

when it melts. 

Those are the types of things we are asking people to do, and the 

State emergency managers and local emergency managers are picking up on that, and they are pushing that also in their own communities. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Are there public education programs that 

are encouraging people to do that? Post-September 11, 2001, we 

have a big container in our basement of a lot of stuff that we would 

need. 

Mr. PAULISON. We do. We have Ready.gov, and I was actually in 

Arkansas, and we got off the plane and saw a big banner for 

Ready.gov, make sure, is your family ready? 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Mr. PAULISON. So we do have literature and also website access 

to that type of stuff. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. In your review of Hurricane Katrina, did 

you make any other decisions, like the one about ice when you said 

we should not be in the business, that there were certain things 

that FEMA did then that really were not appropriate Federal responsibilities? 

Mr. PAULISON. I do not know. Housing is a big issue. It is a Federal responsibility. That long-term housing really belongs to HUD, 

and we now have an agreement with them for the Disaster Housing Assistance Program (DHAP) to take over that longer-term 

housing. But there were so many lessons learned in Hurricane 

34 

1The chart submitted by Senator Landrieu appears in the Appendix on page 98. 

2The chart submitted by Senator Landrieu appears in the Appendix on page 99. 

Katrina that went wrong that we have been working on them to 

make sure they do not happen again. I do not know that we have 

captured all of them, but we have sure gone a long ways. 

The horrific thing that people in Louisiana went through, and 

Mississippi and Alabama—particularly Louisiana, though—should 

not happen again in this country, and I am going to make sure on 

my watch it does not. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Amen. Thank you. Senator Landrieu. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. A picture speaks a thousand 

words. I was not sure we would have this chart.1 Mr. Chairman, 

if you do not mind, I brought my own. It is just a different way 

of saying that while we have made progress, you can see the column to the right is without a mark because there has been no substantial progress made; little, modest, moderate, but nothing substantial. 

In addition, another way—if our staff would put up the second 

chart—to bring again the point of urgency, is that we have made 

zero substantial progress.2 And while I am happy to hear the testimony today that additional resources have been requested from the 

Administration, I am particularly pleased to hear that everything 

you have asked for, they have provided because that has not been 

my experience with this Administration. But I am pleased to hear 

that. But I still have a few questions. 

First, I accept the testimony today that both of you agree that 

the Stafford Act has got to be rewritten to deal with a catastrophic 

disaster. I agree with it. But I do not agree that we have to wait 

to make any changes until that is done. So I want to say for the 

record that there have been examples of very modest suggestions 

that our offices and others have made. 

For instance, we have asked FEMA to help with the housing 

thing by letting landlords use their money to repair rental units. 

FEMA have said no, they do not have the authority to do that; the 

only thing they can use is trailers. Yet when we requested legislative authority to do it, FEMA and HUD have opposed that request. 

When we asked if Louisiana does not have the authority to allow 

us to use Hazard Mitigation funds to elevate flooded homes, which 

was part of our plan, we asked, yet FEMA and Homeland Security 

have said no, no, no, until finally, begrudgingly yes, but it is still 

held up on the floor of the Senate by a Senator who does not agree. 

Now, that is not your fault, but it took you all 21⁄2 years to basically start saying, well, maybe. 

Then we asked FEMA to offer case management retroactively. 

You said it is against the law. We have tried to change the law. 

You all object. 

So my point is since we all agree that the law does not work, can 

we all agree today to start fixing the law? And I do not think, Mr. 

Chairman, we have to wait until every study is done, every paragraph is written, everything is vetted, looked at, reviewed, and 

passed at one time. My suggestion is when it is clear that there is 

something that could be and should be changed, that we do it, Mr. 

Chairman, as soon as possible. And this is what I want to ask. Will 

35 

we begin to change things as it comes apparent to us that it should 

be fixed? Or are you testifying today that you are going to wait 

until it can all be done at once? 

Mr. PAULISON. No, I do not think that is necessary. I do agree 

that if we see things that are appropriate that we can work with 

you to help change, then we will work with you to do that. We really want the best response we can give out of this organization, and 

I am talking about—it should not be just this organization. It 

should be across the board at the local, State, and the entire Federal Government to do that. 

I know we have disagreed on some of the issues, but I think both 

of our goals are to provide the best service we can to the people 

out there, and that is what we are trying to do. We have been 

working with the State and with the parishes lately. I have sent 

my deputy director down there twice now. He is going down every 

3 weeks, meeting with the governor’s staff, meeting with the parish 

presidents, to see how we can better spur this thing along to come 

up with some of—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. And I thank you because those—— 

Mr. PAULISON [continuing]. Those innovative ideas. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I thank you, and not to cut you off, I thank 

you because those meetings have been very effective, and the feedback that I am getting from our local officials, finally there is somebody with power and authority that is listening and helping us 

work through this morass. 

But I want to ask you, Mr. Skinner, is it your opinion that when 

we identify, whether it is this Committee, the House Committee on 

Homeland Security, FEMA, or HUD, some things that could be 

changed given that everyone now seems to agree that the Stafford 

Act is not in itself adequate, would you suggest that we try to modify it? Or is your suggestion that we wait until we can do it all at 

once? 

Mr. SKINNER. No, we most certainly should not wait and do it all 

at once. There are a couple things here at play. One is the interpretation of the Stafford Act. I think if you take a very close look, that 

maybe we are overinterpreting the requirements or the mandates 

of the Stafford Act. For example, prepositioning supplies, we always said you cannot do that under the Stafford Act. Well, after 

Hurricane Andrew, we started doing it. 

Now, Chief Paulison is asking maybe we need—it would be helpful to have legislative language that will legitimize that, but we 

have interpreted the law to say that we are in a position to preposition and use disaster relief funds when we think there is an imminent danger or an imminent disaster about to strike our country. 

We did not need to change the Stafford Act. What we might want 

to do is go back and start thinking how we can reinterpret what 

our requirements are and how we can best utilize the Stafford Act. 

Now, there are areas, and I think a good example would be—and 

I know this is an issue that has come up very often in New Orleans 

and in Louisiana—cost reimbursement. We are saying you must 

first spend your funds before we can reimburse you. I question that 

interpretation. I think what we can say is that we can advance you 

funds so that you can get the work started and submit to us reports, and then we will—— 

36 

Senator LANDRIEU. OK. And, Mr. Chairman, let me just finalize 

on this point—— 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Go right ahead. 

Senator LANDRIEU [continuing]. If I could, so that you could hear 

me say this. This point gets to the heart of this issue. Let’s just 

not take New Orleans, but let’s take St. Bernard Parish, 67,000 

people. Every home was destroyed in St. Bernard Parish. The entire parish went underwater. The place where the local officials— 

the sheriff, the parish president—were gathered—everyone had 

evacuated. They had almost a 100-percent evacuation out of St. 

Bernard. It was not 100 percent but it was close—95 percent out 

of St. Bernard. Some people had to stay back, the officials, and 

they almost drowned in their building. The sheriff had to swim out 

of the second floor of his building and saved his deputies. So get 

a clear picture of this. 

The Federal response to this particular parish under the law that 

we are operating under now was this; after the water went down 

and the sun came up and everything was destroyed, like Sodom 

and Gomorrah, this was the Federal Government’s response: When 

you can get your plan together, of course, finding your city planners and your architects that have been scattered all over, and you 

all can get a plan together, tell us exactly how you want this parish 

rebuilt, then submit 15 copies of well-typed-out forms that can document everything you lost, from pencils to screwdrivers to hammers, then after that go find some money to rebuild it, and we will 

reimburse you. 

That is what we are operating under today. So when I hear people criticize my people in St. Bernard, I do not think my people in 

St. Bernard could do anything wrong that would overshadow the 

idiocrasy, the stupidity of that system. 

So when I see the chart at zero, all that says to me is that the 

67,000 people that lost their homes in St. Bernard—67,000 still, 

Mr. Chairman, do not have—21⁄2 years later—any real plan that 

makes sense to them. And let me be clear. I am not going to stop 

talking about this until it is fixed or until I am not sitting in this 

chair any longer. So we will just keep on going. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Landrieu. 

Look, the IG report shows that progress is being made in 

FEMA’s ability to deal with catastrophic events like Hurricane 

Katrina. But as the emotion and truth with which Senator Landrieu speaks, we are still living with the painful consequences; that 

is, the people of the Gulf Coast, more particularly New Orleans, are 

still living with the painful consequences of the catastrophe that 

was Hurricane Katrina, and the inability of the Federal, State, and 

local governments to respond adequately at that time. So Senator 

Landrieu speaks passionately and eloquently for her people because they are suffering still, and it is our responsibility to listen 

to her and try to do what we can both do, as rapidly as possible, 

to alleviate that suffering, but also to continue the progress to 

make sure the next time that catastrophe strikes, we are a lot better prepared than we were in Hurricane Katrina. And from the 

IG’s report, I take encouragement that will be the case. 

But the journey goes on, and I know, Chief Paulison, you feel 

that with a special sense of urgency. So we look forward to working 

37 

with you in the months ahead. Thank you, General Skinner, for an 

excellent report, and we obviously look forward to working with 

you. 

We are going to leave the record of this hearing open for 15 days. 

There are some other Members of the Committee that want to submit some questions to you in writing, and, of course, that gives you 

the opportunity for 15 days to submit additional comments as well. 

With that, I thank you. The hearing is adjourned. 

Mr. PAULISON. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(39) 

A P P E N D I X 


42745.001
40 


42745.002
41 


42745.003
42 


42745.004
43 


42745.005
44 


42745.006
45 


42745.007
46 


42745.008
47 


42745.009
48 


42745.010
49 


42745.011
50 


42745.012
51 


42745.013
52 


42745.014
53 


42745.015
54 


42745.016
55 


42745.017
56 


42745.018
57 


42745.019
58 


42745.020
59 


42745.061
60 


42745.021
61 


42745.022
62 


42745.023
63 


42745.024
64 


42745.025
65 


42745.026
66 


42745.027
67 


42745.028
68 


42745.029
69 


42745.030
70 


42745.031
71 


42745.032
72 


42745.033
73 


42745.034
74 


42745.035
75 


42745.036
76 


42745.037
77 


42745.038
78 


42745.039
79 


42745.040
80 


42745.041
81 


42745.044
82 


42745.045
83 


42745.046
84 


42745.047
85 


42745.048
86 


42745.049
87 


42745.050
88 


42745.051
89 


42745.052
90 


42745.053
91 


42745.054
92 


42745.055
93 


42745.056
94 


42745.057
95 


42745.058
96 


42745.059
97 


42745.060
98 


42745.042
99 


42745.043
100 


42745.062
101 


42745.063
102 


42745.064
103 


42745.065
104 


42745.066
105 


42745.067
106 


42745.068
107 


42745.069
108 


42745.070
109 


42745.071
110 


42745.072
111 


42745.073
112 


42745.074
113 


42745.075
114 


42745.076
115 


42745.077
116 


42745.078
117 


42745.079
118 


42745.080
119 


42745.081
120 


42745.082
121 


42745.083
122 


42745.084
123 


42745.085
124 


42745.086
125 


42745.087
126 


42745.088
127 


42745.089
128 


42745.090
129 


42745.091
130 


42745.092
131 


42745.093
132 


42745.094
133 


42745.095
134 


42745.096
135 


42745.097
136 


42745.098
137 


42745.099
138 


42745.100
139 


42745.101
140 


42745.102
141 


42745.103
142 


42745.104
143 


42745.105
144 


42745.106
145 


42745.107
146 


42745.108
147 


42745.109
148 


42745.110
149 


42745.111
150 


42745.112
151 


42745.113
152 


42745.114
153 


42745.115
154 


42745.116
155 


42745.117
156 


42745.118
157 


42745.119
158 


42745.120
159 


42745.121
160 


42745.122
161 


42745.123
162 


42745.124
163 


42745.125
164 


42745.126
165 


42745.127
166 


42745.128
167 


42745.129
168 


42745.130
169 


42745.131
170 


42745.132
171 


42745.133
172 


42745.134
173 


42745.135
174 


42745.136
175 


42745.137
176 


42745.138
177 


42745.139
178 


42745.140
179 


42745.141
180 


42745.142
181 


42745.143
182 


42745.144
183 


42745.145
184 


42745.146
185 


42745.147
186 


42745.148
187 


42745.149
188 


42745.150
189 


42745.151
190 


42745.152
191 


42745.153
192 


42745.154
193 


42745.155
194 


42745.156
195 


42745.157
196 


42745.158
197 


42745.159
198 


42745.160
199 


42745.161
200 


42745.162
201 


42745.163
202 


42745.164
203 


42745.165
204 


42745.166
205 


42745.167
206 


42745.168
207 


42745.169
208 


42745.170
209 


42745.171
210 


42745.172
211 


42745.173
212 


42745.174
213 


42745.175
214 


42745.176
215 


42745.177
216 


42745.178
217 


42745.179
218 


42745.180
219 


42745.181
220 


42745.182
221 


42745.183
222 


42745.184
223 


42745.185
224 


42745.186
225 


42745.187
226 


42745.188
227 

Æ 


42745.189