U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

42–913 CC WASHINGTON : 1997

S. HRG. 105–132

NOMINATION OF MICHAEL J. ARMSTRONG

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

THE NOMINATION OF MICHAEL J. ARMSTRONG TO BE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF MITIGATION OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA)

JUNE 4, 1997

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

(

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington DC 20402
(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

HARRY REID, Nevada

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

BARBARA BOXER, California

STEVEN J. SHIMBERG, Staff Director

J. THOMAS SLITER, Minority Staff Director

(II)
(iii)

CONTENTS

Page

JUNE 4, 1997

OPENING STATEMENTS

Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado ............................ 2

Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ................. 1

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 4

Kempthorne, Hon. Dirk, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ........................... 15

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama ............................. 5

WITNESSES

Armstrong, Michael, nominated to be Associate Director of Mitigation, Federal Emergency Management Agency ................................................................ 9

Committee questionnaire ................................................................................. 22

Letters, Office of Ethics ................................................................................... 32

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18

Responses to questions from Senator Wyden ................................................. 34

Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado ....... 3

Conrad, Hon. Kent, U.S. Senator from the State of North Dakota ..................... 5

Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from the State of North Dakota .............. 6

Pomeroy, Hon. Earl, U.S. Representative from the State of North Dakota ....... 8

Skaggs, Hon. David, U.S. Representative from the State of Colorado ................ 7

(III)
(1)

NOMINATION OF MICHAEL J. ARMSTRONG

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1997

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 406,

Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John H. Chafee (chairman of the

committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Chafee, Kempthorne, Inhofe, Allard, Sessions,

and Baucus.

Also present: Senators Campbell, Conrad and Dorgan, and Representatives Skaggs and Pomeroy.

OPENING STATEMENT OF JOHN H. CHAFEE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Senator CHAFEE. Good morning, I want to welcome everyone

here today.

This is a hearing to consider the nomination of Michael Armstrong to be Associate Director of Mitigation for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. The President nominated Mr.

Armstrong to this position on April 28, and it is my intention that

the committee act expeditiously on his nomination.

In fact, the full committee is scheduled to consider Mr. Armstrong’s nomination during tomorrow morning’s business meeting.

I would like to welcome everyone, especially Mr. Armstrong. I

understand you are joined by your parents, Mr. Armstrong.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. That is correct.

Senator CHAFEE. Could they rise so that we can get a chance to

welcome them?

We’re very glad to see you and appreciate your coming.

Before we proceed there are several members here who would

like to make an introductory statement on behalf of Mr. Armstrong, and I turn to my colleague on the committee, the distinguished Senator from Colorado, Senator Allard.

[The prepared statement of Senator Chafee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Good morning. The purpose of today’s hearing is to consider the nomination of Michael Armstrong to be Associate Director of Mitigation for the Federal Emergency

Management Agency. The President nominated Mr. Armstrong for this position on

April 28, and it is my intention that the Committee act expeditiously on his nomination.

I would like to welcome everyone, especially Mr. Armstrong, who is joined by his

parents Dermond Armstrong and Joan Armstrong.
2

I am pleased to report that Michael Armstrong has an impressive background

that suits him well to the position before him. For the past three and a half years,

he has served as the Director of FEMA Region 8, which includes the States of Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.

As you can tell by the laudatory introductions you just heard, Mr. Armstrong has

done an excellent job as Region 8 Director. He has assumed tremendous leadership

during major disasters, such as the recent floods in North Dakota. Moreover, Mr.

Armstrong has done a great deal to encourage public outreach and coordination between Federal, State, and local response resources.

FEMA is the central agency within the Federal Government responsible for emergency planning, preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery. The position for

which Mr. Armstrong has been nominated, Associate Director of Mitigation, carries

out the policies and programs to eliminate or reduce risks to life and property from

natural hazards such as flood, hurricanes and earthquakes.

Federal emergency management has always focused primarily on how to respond

to a disaster, after it strikes. We in Congress are no different; almost every year,

we pass supplemental emergency appropriations legislation to pay for the additional, unanticipated costs of timely disasters.

FEMA is beginning to place greater emphasis on the mitigation or prevention of

long-term risks before the disaster strikes. The purpose of this shift in focus is hopefully to reduce liabilities and ultimately to reduce the cost of disaster response. This

appears to be a smart move, and I am eager to learn more about how FEMA will

carry out this initiative.

If confirmed, Mr. Armstrong will lead FEMA’s efforts in mitigating the risks of

natural disasters. This task is not an easy one, but I am confident in Mr. Armstrong’s ability to face the challenge ahead. I look forward to hearing what Mr. Armstrong has to say about his experience and what he hopes to accomplish in the position before him. Thank you.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to introduce Mr. Michael Armstrong to be the Associate Director for Mitigation at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I hope that we act quickly on his nomination, not

only because I believe he is well qualified, but we don’t want to

give him any chance to change his mind, understanding the nature

of that job.

Although I don’t know him personally, I have relied on what people have told me. People have told me about his performance, and

I think I’ve got a pretty good feeling of what he will do as Associate

Director.

We have talked to many local officials and those who have

worked with him in times of great need and stress have all complimented him on his ability to work with them. As Director of

FEMA’s Region VIII, he worked diligently to ensure that when

FEMA services were needed, they were prepared. This has been

demonstrated by Region VIII’s effort to assist flood victims in

North and South Dakota.

Also, Mr. Armstrong has shown a strong ability to work with

local communities and locally elected officials. Under his watch Region VIII has been cited as a center of excellence for developing national policy for community relations and outreach. The ability to

work well with local communities and officials is no doubt due to

Mr. Armstrong’s long service as assistant city attorney in Aurora,

CO. Working in this capacity it is obvious he learned that communication between all levels of government is important to achieving

an optimal result.

After meeting with Mr. Armstrong I am certain that he wants

FEMA to move in a common sense direction. As Associate Director
3

of Mitigation at FEMA, I am certain that he will continue to work

on breaking the disaster/recovery/disaster cycle.

Furthermore, I believe he has some ideas on how individuals and

local governments can become less reliant on the Federal Government through mitigation. He also understands the complex nature

of how natural resources and economic concerns interplay in the

west and throughout the Nation as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, I’m no expert on emergency response efforts for

mitigation as it applies to FEMA’s mission. However, I do know

that we need experts with Mr. Armstrong’s proven record and willingness to listen.

Finally, I hope that today’s confirmation doesn’t end our involvement with FEMA. Oversight of the work of this important agency

would be very valuable, as would a discussion on how the Federal

Government budgets, or doesn’t budget, for disasters.

Welcome, Mr. Armstrong.

Senator CHAFEE. Well, thank you very much, Senator.

We have Senator Campbell, also from Colorado, and, Senator, we

welcome you. Go to it.

STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Senator CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of

the committee.

I’m honored to join my colleague, Senator Allard, and Congressman Skaggs from the State of Colorado to introduce to you Mr.

Mike Armstrong, who has been nominated for the position of Associate Director of FEMA for Mitigation.

I have personally known Mike for a good number of years. As

Senator Allard mentioned, he currently serves as the Regional Director of FEMA’s Region VIII and has done so since January 1994.

This region encompasses not only my home State of Colorado,

but Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming,

as well. In these times—I’m sure, our colleague at the end of the

table here will tell you how important this new position is to his

State in these disastrous times of floods in our northern States,

particularly the Dakotas.

In his current position as regional director, Mike has coordinated

mitigation preparedness and disaster response and recovery activities in these six States, as Senator Allard has already mentioned.

Mike’s region has been cited, as Senator Allard again mentioned—we must have had the same note writer—as the center of

excellence in developing national policy for community relations

and outreach. Mike has also served in the State and local government for more than a decade, and I know for a fact that he has

had a terrific relationship with local and delegation-elected officials

in our State of Colorado.

Prior to joining FEMA, he held the position of deputy director for

the Colorado Governor’s Office of Energy and Conservation. He also

served 10 years as an assistant city attorney in Aurora, CO, where

he specialized in land use issues. Mike’s public service over the

years and his work at FEMA have prepared him very well for the

position of Associate Director of Mitigation for which he has been

nominated.
4

He is a person of personal integrity and a personal friend of mine

too.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be

here, and I look forward to a favorable consideration of this committee’s remarks and vote for confirmation of Mike Armstrong.

Thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you very much, Senator.

Now we have been joined by a colleague on our full committee,

Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma.

Senator do you have a statement?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Senator INHOFE. Just a brief comment.

I am the chairman of the committee that oversees this agency so

I have more than just a passive interest in this. I had a chance to

talk to Michael Armstrong, and one of the first things I look at

when we get into a program like the mitigation program is, is this

another big brother program?

I think that Michael brings to this nomination process a background in local government, and I think that’s important as a

former mayor. I am much more concerned about what the local

community’s role is going to be in having an understanding. All too

often here in Washington we don’t have an understanding of what

the local community’s needs are.

I know that seeing James Lee Witt back there that he does, and

he has done such a great job. I think it is quite a compliment that

of all those he could have chosen he chose Michael Armstrong, and

I’m looking forward to working with him.

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding today’s nomination hearing. As the Subcommittee Chairman with jurisdiction over the Federal Emergency Management

Agency, I am very interested in the Mitigation Office.

I think it is very important for FEMA to work closely with local communities and

the States to develop mitigation strategies. I am concerned about the costs of our

emergency response programs. I think it is important that we try to reduce the financial burden these programs place on our Federal budget. The efforts FEMA is

making to reduce or eliminate long-term risk from natural disasters through the

mitigation program is important. However, we must be careful that the Federal

Government works with our local governments and that the mitigation program

does not become another example of big brother telling local zoning boards and

planning commissions what to do.

However, based on his record, I think Mr. Armstrong is a very good candidate for

this position. I am particularly encouraged by his experience in local government

service. Too often bureaucrats in Washington have no idea how local governments

operate, but I trust Mr. Armstrong’s experience will aid him in this challenging position. I look forward to working with Mr. Armstrong and his associates at FEMA,

but I hope we will be working together here in Washington and not because of something that happens in Oklahoma.

Senator CHAFEE. We’ve been joined by Senator Sessions.

Senator do you have any statement that you would like to make?
5

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Senator SESSIONS. Just briefly that, Mr. Armstrong, the FEMA

people in Alabama speak well of you. They think that you will be

responsive, and we have a number of issues that will be coming

forth—as we always do, hurricanes and floods in the State—and we

have a pretty active and, I think, a good group. My impression is,

from what I hear so far, that you will be the kind of responsive

leader and innovative leader that we’ve got to have. There is a lot

of money involved in these programs.

As a Federal prosecutor for 12 years, I had the ability to observe

the expenditures of a lot of money for a lot of disaster relief. Sometimes it’s not well spent. Of course, the best way to save money is

to mitigate it in advance, and that will be your challenge. I think

we can do a lot more in that as the years go by, and I think we’ve

got to.

I’m going to look at it, Mr. Chairman, the amount of money year

after year we are spending on disasters. I know to some degree our

population increases but not that much, and I think disaster funding has gone up much more than that. I think it’s incumbent on

us to do what we can to mitigate the ever-growing expenditures for

disaster relief.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you, Senator.

And now we’ve been joined by the distinguished Senator from

North Dakota, Senator Conrad.

STATEMENT OF HON. KENT CONRAD, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Senator CONRAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It’s really an honor to be here today to say a word about Michael

Armstrong. Let me just say that as Region VIII Director for FEMA,

we now consider Mike to be an honorary North Dakotan because

he has been involved in six major Presidential disaster declarations

in the State of North Dakota since 1993, two this year.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, we

have experienced the most extraordinary weather pattern in our

history—first of all, the worst winter ever, 10 feet of snow, followed

in the first week of April by the most powerful winter storm in 50

years that wiped out the electrical grid of 80,000 people—they did

not have power for an entire week—followed by flooding on the Red

River that was the 500 year flood that devastated a city of 50,000—

98 percent of the city of 50,000 was evacuated. Many of those people are not back in their homes yet, and in the midst of all that

we had a fire break out in downtown Grand Forks that burned

three blocks of downtown, most of the business district destroyed.

This is an extraordinary set of disasters, and I can say to you

that Michael Armstrong has been superb. Not only has he dealt

with those disasters but we also have another disaster in North

Dakota—we have Devil’s Lake, one of only two major lakes in the

United States that is a completely closed basin, no inlet and no

outlet, and the lake has been rising dramatically. It has tripled in

volume and doubled in size in just the last 3 years. You’ve never
6

seen anything quite like this, and this is a huge lake, more than

20 miles long, and it is rising inexorably.

Michael has been in charge of the Federal task force to deal with

this disaster, and he has done an absolutely outstanding job.

I think all of us know that James Lee Witt has really transformed FEMA. Many have said to me that the single best appointment that Bill Clinton made was James Lee Witt. One of the reasons James Lee Witt has been successful in changing that agency—

and I think all of us remember the days when after a disaster, if

FEMA came, the joke was that that was the next disaster because,

frankly, FEMA did not respond well. That has not been the case

under James Lee Witt and one of the reasons is he surrounded

himself with people of the quality of Mike Armstrong.

So I am very pleased to be here to recommend him to you, and

to wish him the best.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CHAFEE. Mr. Witt is here, and we’re delighted to see you,

sir.

Senator Dorgan, we welcome you and look forward to your comments.

STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Senator DORGAN. Senator Chafee, thank you very much.

I am delighted to be here to support Mike Armstrong. I will not

repeat what Senator Conrad has just described to you. I would be

depressed if I repeated again that recitation of disasters in North

Dakota.

We have suffered terribly through a series of natural disasters,

but we have, fortunately, had the help of a lot of wonderful people,

and I would echo the sentiments of Senator Conrad, and I think

others, that James Lee Witt has turned FEMA into a first-class operation. When FEMA is on the way, people feel good because they

know something is going to get done.

I went into a FEMA operations center in Grand Forks a week

ago today, and over 100 people are working there. I can tell you

that I left there feeling really confident that we have great people

doing wonderful things for people who had suffered from these disasters.

Mike Armstrong has been involved in Region VIII, and I have

gotten to know him as he has worked in Region VIII, and I’ll tell

you, he is one of these unusual people in government who comes

in and really asks two questions: all right, what do we need to do

here, No. 1; and, No. 2, how do we get it done?

It is not a case of someone in government trying to figure out

where are the barriers—what are the problems going to be as I try

to deal with this. It is someone who has a mindset to try to solve

problems and solve problems the right way. When I heard that Mr.

Armstrong was being nominated for this position, I reflected once

again on how good it is for this country that people of Mr. Armstrong’s quality are willing to commit themselves to more public

service. He is exactly the kind of people we need in public service.

He gives people confidence, he solves problems and I am very

proud to be here today to say that if we decide to act favorably on
7

the President’s nomination, we will have done something good for

this country by advancing Michael J. Armstrong to this post at

FEMA.

Senator CHAFEE. Well, Mr. Armstrong, you’ve had 6 percent of

the Senate testify in support of you.

[Laughter.]

Senator CHAFEE. It’s pretty hard to go above that.

Now, we’re going to hear from members of the House of Representatives.

Representative Skaggs, we appreciate your taking the trouble to

come here.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID SKAGGS, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Your observation echoes or precedes what was going to be mine,

and, in addition to Mike’s many talents—and I have known him

personally for over 20 years—he is, obviously, a very able political

organizer in the very best sense of the word, of knowing how to

marshal human resources on behalf of getting a job done, and the

fact that we are all here witnessing for him is a testament to those

skills, as well.

Talking about an Associate Director of Mitigation, I wish there

were some way to create a parallel position in the Congress—perhaps, we could have some assistance in eliminating some of our

own natural hazards—but, Mike, in his spare time, maybe you can

come over and give us some help on the Hill as well.

I have, I think, among those who are here to speak on his behalf,

the unique experience and privilege of really knowing Mike personally for a long, long time; of having watched his passion for public

service come into its full maturity and competence. This is a man

who is absolutely selfless, absolutely committed to helping people.

He will not go Washington on us. I am absolutely confident that

he will be out in the field maintaining the kind of hands-on, immediate connection with the issues that he is trying to deal with, but

will be here to be accountable whenever that is appropriate, as

well.

As with others, I think the success of Mr. Witt in his management of this agency is due not only to his own enormous talents,

but attracting people like Mike Armstrong to, first, the Region VIII

job he has done magnificently, and now to help us with this major

national responsibility. I recommend him to the committee and am

glad that he will get your quick consideration.

Senator CHAFEE. Well, thank you.

I notice that we have the talents of Mr. Armstrong—I notice in

this bio here he was executive director of the Colorado Democratic

Party, and we’ve had both Republican Senators here in support of

him. So either they want him to move on because he represents a

threat, or he is one of these people that successfully bridges gaps

across the parties.

[Laughter.]

Senator CHAFEE. Representative Pomeroy, we welcome you here,

and, thank you, Representative Skaggs, for coming.
8

STATEMENT OF HON. EARL POMEROY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It’s good to see my former colleagues, Senator Inhofe and Senator

Allard again.

I know that when you come last on the panel, brevity is perhaps

the best thing that you’ve got going for you, and I’m going to be

very brief.

I want to talk a moment about Mike’s skills as uniquely linked

to the Associate Director of Mitigation position.

You know, for too long we’ve tried to overrule Mother Nature,

we’ve tried to manage with levees that ultimately don’t hold, we’ve

tried to underwrite the risk of Mother Nature by insurance plans

that ultimately can’t be sustained. What we need to do in dealing

with natural hazards is figure out a way to permanently mitigate

development risks in conjunction with inevitable natural hazard.

Having represented a city of 50,000 that may have sustained a $1

billion flood damage, I can speak to this really from the depths of

my heart.

That is tricky business because when development butts up

against—a prime development opportunity butts up against some

high risk area, you’ve got to have extraordinary skills to negotiate

your way through that one. Mike Armstrong has those extraordinary skills. I have watched him lead an interagency task force

dealing with this very unique problem of a lake, a closed basin

lake, that was described by Senator Conrad. Over the last 21⁄2

years Mike has put himself to that task and done so really in an

exemplary fashion. We’ve all watched Members of Congress, or, for

that matter, members of the executive branch, mediate and arbitrate and try and coordinate activity.

I’ve never seen anyone more skillful than Mike Armstrong in

dealing with the terrible problem, a lot of interests and doing it

with that level of skill. I think that those skills will be so well

matched with this hazard and mitigation position that’s it’s going

to be a real credit to the agency and to the entire country.

I look forward to what he will be able to achieve in this position,

should he be confirmed by you all, a step I would heartily recommend.

Thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you very much for coming.

Now, Mr. Armstrong, you’ve heard some very, very fine thing

said about you, particularly based on the job that you did as Region

VIII Director, and you’ve assumed leadership there, as the two

Senators from North Dakota pointed out and the two Senators

from Colorado. You’ve had public outreach and coordination between the Federal, and the local and the State resources.

I’m very interested in this post that you’re going into, and I concentrate—although you’re responsible for emergency planning, preparedness, response and recovery, you’re also responsible for mitigation. As Representative Pomeroy said, it seems to me we get into

a very difficult spot here.

Let’s take flood plains—when houses around flood plains are

swept away in a flood, unhesitatingly we vote for appropriations to

cover losses. We’re all concerned about—for those who lost their
9

homes, everything they had. Yet, once that’s over with and the

flood plain is there, it’s very, very hard to get any money at all to

try and buy up that flood plain and make sure that what took place

does not take a second, or third or fourth time. That’s what it

seems to me mitigation is all about.

I suppose there are mitigation steps that can be taken in connection with hurricanes. I suppose that gets into strengthening the

houses, the design of the houses, there must be different building

techniques that perhaps can withstand hurricanes better than others—it’s an area that I’m not totally familiar with by a long shot.

But, as I said, I think it is very important that in FEMA we

spend more time, and, again, it’s very hard to get the money for

mitigation or prevention; whereas, we’re fairly lavish when it

comes to covering things when a disaster has occurred.

So I am anxious to hear your thoughts on that. We’re prepared

now—you’re at bat and if you would like to make a statement,

please do so.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL ARMSTRONG, NOMINATED TO BE

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF MITIGATION, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Well, thank you very much, and I want to

thank the Senators and Representatives for their kind words this

morning. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I am deeply honored to come before your committee today and to be given the opportunity to discuss serving my country and this Administration in

this manner.

I want to acknowledge my friends in the Congress. Again, my

home State Senators, Senator Allard and Campbell, the North Dakota delegation of Senators Dorgan and Conrad, and Representative Pomeroy, and my own Congressman, Representative Skaggs, of

Colorado’s second district, for their ongoing support and their attendance here today.

I especially want to recognize FEMA Director James Lee Witt,

who has shown such leadership for America and such confidence in

my work. He’s been a true motivator and an inspiration to me.

Most important, I would like to thank my parents for being here,

Dermond and Joan Armstrong, who came out from Colorado to be

with me today.

Senator CHAFEE. Well, that’s very nice, and we’re certainly delighted that you took the trouble to come. You have good reason to

be proud of your son.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. The work of this committee, Senator, with respect to FEMA and its new mitigation mission has been truly historic. It has expanded the scope of the Stafford Act to create increased mitigation opportunities after disasters occur, and it has

encouraged efforts to promote pre-disaster mitigation. In confirming the agency’s first Associate Director for Mitigation, this committee has ratified the efforts of FEMA to spotlight mitigation as

a key component of its mission. We have learned that whatever

form it takes, mitigation requires many partners, much patience,

and a sensitivity to local needs.

As a FEMA appointee since 1994, I have seen that partnerships,

patience, and listening to local needs have created successful miti-
10

gation projects throughout the country. Some successes have been

dramatic, such as the relocation of an entire town. Some have been

more subtle, such as the public, private, and non-profit partnership

that we engineered in my region when FEMA brochures on wildlife

preparedness were underwritten by corporate funds from Janus

Funds and distributed by local rotary club members and written by

FEMA personnel in the foothill communities west of Denver.

Most mitigation initiatives must be viewed in the long-term as

investments for future generations, and to have a realistic chance

of success they must involve a mixture of Federal, State, and local

stakeholders. Mitigation can manifest itself in many different

forms. It can be something as delicate as passage of tough local

regulations, as complicated as retrofitting structures to withstand

natural hazards, or as insightful as effective public education programs involving specialists, families, and school children.

As a former local and State government official, I bring a definite

bias toward local government to this job. My tenure as a FEMA Regional Director has reinforced the belief that unless State, county,

and local governments believe that a concept, an initiative or a program has local relevancy and is understandable, it will stand little

chance of true lasting success.

While the Federal Government can be a catalyst for innovation,

real progress can only be realized when State and local officials feel

that they are part of the process.

The creation of a Mitigation Directorate has provided better customer service to our partners by bringing together like-minded programs and staff who have helped create a more functional organization. I am proud of my association with the hard working staff

of FEMA, both at the regional and headquarters levels. We can

point to project after project which will protect lives and property,

and, as a result, also lessen the drain of disasters on the Federal

Treasury. And we can indicate the numerous partnerships which

have been created with business, non-profit and academic communities to promote mitigation. Now we must move forward.

I am before you today because, if confirmed, I want to serve in

a leadership capacity in what James Lee Witt has called the cornerstone for emergency management in the 21st Century. If confirmed, I want to enlist you in the effort to support and educate

communities in their efforts to become disaster resistant. I believe

that, if confirmed, I can take my experience as a public servant

serving at the field implementation level, and bring practical

knowledge to the policy developers regarding how to move this program ahead.

A thought came to me regarding this confirmation process as I

was attending my last church service in my hometown of Arvada,

CO. It occurred to me that perhaps the most dramatic example of

mitigation efforts we have is that of Noah in the Old Testament.

Here was an individual who believed in selecting the right structure to withstand a predicted hazard, even as others scoffed at his

efforts as being a waste of time and money. In fact, you could even

say that this was one of the first known successful relocation efforts, done before a disaster and by an individual rather than by

a government.
11

We do have modern-day Noahs who have heeded warnings about

potential disasters. One in California comes to mind—the gentleman who built his home to withstand fire hazards in the Laguna

Beach area. He made national news with the photograph of the

only home standing undamaged in an otherwise charred environment. This was because he took the time to understand the environment in which he was building and built accordingly. This is

mitigation in its purest form, where individual citizens take it upon

themselves to think smartly when they build or occupy structures

and learn how to adapt to hazards in their own community.

But not every individual has the opportunity to control his or her

living environment. Therefore, we must work with our partners in

State and local government to put into place the kind of approaches

which will one day equip our Nation with the tools and the talents

to create communities which are more resistant to disasters. The

best that all of us can do in our professional and personal capacities is to create a national environment which encourages such responsible behavior. You have my personal commitment to pursue

this goal.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity, and I look forward

to your questions.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you very much. I don’t think you will

find anybody on this panel arguing with you about Noah.

I am interested in what about mitigation—of course, I cited earlier the example of the flood plain, and then you cited the example

of the man in California who designed his house with—I suppose,

he cut the brush around it; I’m not sure what he did. I hope that

you will go out there and do everything you can in the mitigation

area; it is true that we go back time and time again to recover from

disasters. I referred to the flood plains example, but I suppose

there are others. In my own State, I’ve seen hurricane damage on

the beach. Before you know it, however, everybody has built houses

again on the beach, and they have forgotten what took place in

1938 and 1958. Then comes another hurricane and they seek assistance from the Federal Government.

What can be done, just briefly? Take, for example, this man in

Laguna Beach. What did he do?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Senator, a good example of one of the easiest

forms of mitigation is public education. There is plenty of information out there right now for home builders and individual citizens,

business people, local government leaders, on how communities

and structures within communities should be built—what kind of

material should be used. It’s my understanding in reading about

him, that this gentleman had studied the area that he was going

to live in. He knew that based upon the climate, the topography

and the vegetation that fire hazards were of a concern. He carefully

chose the materials he built his house of. What comes to mind immediately is the example of the Three Little Pigs—he built his

house of strong materials that he knew would withstand the hazard—without government assistance and without government mandate. It was because public education was available to him.

I think that is something that FEMA does well, but we can do

more in partnership with the private sector, with volunteer groups,

to educate people. If they’re going to live in certain areas of the
12

country that have high hazards, there are ways to prevent property

damage and property loss, and, more importantly, loss of life.

Senator CHAFEE. What about hurricanes?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Well, the same applies——

Senator CHAFEE. The same applies?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Well, the same can apply, sir, to any area of the

country depending on the hazard. If you want to talk about flood

plains, we can talk about participation in the community assistance

program and local regulations that are adopted by communities to

enforce strict construction codes within flood plains. In higher hurricane areas public education can apply to how to build buildings

after a disaster has occurred in repetitive hazard areas. There are

ways to retrofit structures, there are stronger building materials

that can be employed, and all of that can be done through public

education and through assistance, both on the Federal and State

level.

Senator CHAFEE. Well, thank you.

Senator Baucus.

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Armstrong, I want to begin by just complimenting your

agency under James Lee Witt—I see he is in the audience behind

you. I have nothing but the highest praise for FEMA. The few

times that I have dealt directly with FEMA I have found the agency to be professional, first-rate, and very dedicated to public service. I commend the Director more than anyone else for that phenomenon. People in our country sometimes complain about government—too much of it; it doesn’t do the right things; or it wastes

money—but I take my hat off to FEMA. I think you’ve done a terrific job. James Lee Witt’s presence here today also, I think, is a

testament to the dedication that he has to the agency. It is not

often that someone here for a confirmation hearing has his boss sitting in the audience, and that’s very good.

I, as you know, have particular interest in mitigation. You and

I spoke about this yesterday when you were in my office, and I just

want to follow up on the conversation that you had with the chairman. There are all forms of mitigation. We talked a bit about educating the public. In fact, I did a public service announcement not

too long ago encouraging people in Montana to buy flood insurance—I’m trying to do my part because we’ve had a good number

of floods. However, I urge you to find other ways in addition to

public education to encourage meaningful mitigation—whether it is

the use of buy-outs, relocation, building code changes or whatever

necessary, in addition to public education, because in the long run

we’re going to save a lot of dollars if we spend more on mitigation.

Flood plains are called flood plains for a reason. It doesn’t make

a lot of sense to build something where there is going to be a flood.

You will find tremendous reception here on the Hill if you and the

Administration can come up with ideas to deal with this in a more

aggressive way than has been done in the past. It’s very much

needed.

I note also that you have been highly recommended by the Governor of Montana, Marc Racicot. That speaks very well for you. He

is a very popular Governor, does a good job in our State. I wish you
13

well and look forward to hearing your proposals and what we can

do to get even more meaningful mitigation.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Thank you, Senator.

I would note in thinking about our conversation yesterday that

I would be remiss if I didn’t recognize the many successful projects

that we’ve had in other parts of the country, especially in the midwest, with relocation of property. We have more and more communities joining the Community Assistance Program and adopting

tougher local regulations, so I think we’re on the way.

Senator BAUCUS. Good, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you.

Senator Allard.

Senator ALLARD. We’ve talked a lot about local governments and

how we’re going to work with them. Do you have any thoughts in

mind about what you can do to work with local governments that

is not now being done in FEMA, as far as mitigation?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Well, I think that I bring somewhat of a unique

background to this job. As an assistant city attorney, I was the

legal advisor to the chief building official. I staffed planning commissions and local zoning boards of adjustment. I prosecuted code

enforcement cases. I think I have a good and keen understanding

of how local government functions, the pressures that occur on a

mayor or city council, how to work with homeowners groups, understanding the limited pots of money that they have, and also the

relationship with them and their State legislatures, having worked

in State government.

So I think being able to go into a situation where I can tell people around the table that I’ve been there, I’ve walked in their shoes

and I understand their issues, I think that will come as somewhat

of a surprise and maybe a refreshing difference to them that it’s

not just another Federal bureaucrat coming in, but it’s somebody

who knows and understands local government. And perhaps that

credibility and that experience will help FEMA move things on at

a quicker pace and bring some insights into the process.

Senator ALLARD. What do we do about these flood plains that

was referred to by my colleague from Montana. How do you handle

that? What kind of a recommendation do you provide?

I’ve been a part of a community that has had a flood problem—

in fact, we had a disastrous problem with a flood in Thompson

Canyon where more than 100 people were killed in that flash flood.

But here you are with—you have disadvantaged families, and all

of a sudden as a consequence of a flood they’ve lost their home,

lost, in some cases, their business, and then you tell them that they

can’t build back in that area. In other words, you tend to heap a

catastrophe on top of a catastrophe, and that is a tough issue.

Do you have any ideas?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Well, one thing we have recently done—the

Congress has allowed FEMA to spend some money in equipping

each State with a State Hazard Mitigation Officer, and this is a

relatively new program that will allow State officials now to meet

with their county and municipal counterparts on a regular basis to

give them some more education and ability and technical assistance to interpret flood plain maps, to make them better equipped,
14

to make building decisions at the outset before the construction begins. Also it will, hopefully, encourage more participation in the

community assistance program so that local governments will not

allow construction to begin within those flood plain areas so that

they won’t be displacing anyone. They will be prohibiting construction to start out with.

Senator ALLARD. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you.

Senator Inhofe.

Senator Inhofe is the chairman of the subcommittee that deals

with FEMA, so we’re glad you’re here.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, let me make a request and see if it is consistent

with your rules for running this since James Lee Witt is here.

Would it be all right if he joined the table up there so that I can

ask him a couple of questions?

Senator CHAFEE. Sure, sure, he’s there. Step right up, Mr. Witt.

[Mr. Witt joined the witness at the table.]

Senator INHOFE. James, just briefly, so that we would have an

idea—I would like to ask you two questions. First of all, so that we

can get an understanding of how Michael is going to fit in with the

rest of your operation here—I understand you have five deputies.

I would like to have you just tell us how this works out and where

he would fit in; and then, second, you chose him from one of, what,

10 regions? I would like to ask you why you chose him, singled him

out.

Mr. WITT. Mike, if confirmed, Senator, will be the Associate Director of Mitigation over the entire Mitigation Directorate, as well

as working with all 10 regions, and also working with the States

in implementation of the National Mitigation Strategy that we put

together. It is a very big responsibility because there is so much

that we have to do in cutting costs of disasters, looking to the future and better building, better building codes, helping the States

and local governments to work through those issues. He has a tremendous responsibility, and with the initiative of prevention that

we’re trying to push to cut disaster costs, this is so critical.

Mike was chosen because he has the experience. He has the

background from local government to State government, as well as

regional director, and he has dealt with these issues with State and

local governments, as well as individuals. Mike was tasked to chair

the Federal Task Force on Devil’s Lake by the President to lead the

Federal, State, and local task force in developing a long-range recovery plan for Devil’s Lake, and he has done a great job.

We are public servants. We have customers out there that we

serve, as well as customers on the Hill, and customers internally

to FEMA—our employees—and we need a manager who can help

all these people work together. Mike has demonstrated those qualities.

Senator INHOFE. Let me take this opportunity, this forum, to

again compliment you, as I have before on the very fine work that

you did after our disaster in the Federal office building in Oklahoma.
15

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Witt was there right after it happened, and

he was getting dirty with everybody else. He did a remarkable job,

and I compliment him on that.

Michael, we’ve talked, I think, mostly about natural disasters,

and of course I’m very sensitive to man-made disasters after—how

does mitigation work in that type of prevention?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Well, mitigation ideally is to make sure that

people and structures are placed in a reduced risk status. My region is preparing right now for the Summit of VIII to occur at the

end of the month in Denver, and so I was intimately involved up

until I came out here several weeks ago with the Department of

Justice and the Department of Defense to make sure that the

Nunn-Lugar legislation dollars that are coming into Colorado are

being expended in a way that maximizes the opportunity to train

local officials, to educate public officials and to make sure that

when it is anticipated, what can be done to respond quickly should

such an event occur.

There is a lot of blending at that point when you talk about manmade disasters with preparedness, as well as mitigation, and it

blends into areas like hazardous materials, and not only awareness

of terrorism threat, but other chemical issues, as well.

So the best thing we can do in terms of mitigation is be supportive of training and exercises that occur, and make sure that knowledge is out there on how to work together so that the Federal, and

State and local officials can work seamlessly should an event occur.

Senator INHOFE. Of course, right now with this particular timing,

we are all very sensitive to the costs of these disasters. After our

interview, I look at your position as one that is going to end up

being not just cost-effective but saving money.

Would you agree with that?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, absolutely. We believe that it is the ounce

of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Senator INHOFE. The last thing I would ask is that with your

background at the local level to be looking at these programs in

terms of sensitivity to unfunded mandates. I hope you work with

the communities, as opposed to sending down mandates that otherwise we’re going to have to sometime come up with the money to

pay for.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. You can count on it, Senator.

Senator INHOFE. Good, thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Kempthorne, do you have any questions?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIRK KEMPTHORNE, U.S.

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Mr. Chairman, no, I do not have any

questions. I’m just here to demonstrate my support for Michael. I

had worked with him when he was in the Denver office, and so I

look forward to certainly supporting this nomination. I think it’s a

good nomination.

James Lee Witt, I must say, you and your team—and I see the

team is here—I can’t say anything but high praise for all that you

do. It has been tremendous, and many Idahoans sing the praises

of you, Mr. Director, and your team. I known that we have actually
16

sat in the back seat all scrunched in going from meeting to meeting, town meetings, etc., in some very tough situations.

So, Mr. Chairman, I’m here to support the nomination, but also

to just say what an advocate I am for how FEMA is being administered and the help that you deliver in a timely, efficient, effective

fashion, and keep up the great work.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. WITT. Thank you, Senator.

Senator CHAFEE. A couple of obligatory questions, Mr. Armstrong.

Are you willing at the request of any duly constituted committee

of the Congress to appear in front of it as a witness?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, sir.

Senator CHAFEE. Do you know of any matters which you may or

may not have thus far disclosed which might place you in any conflict of interest if you are confirmed in this position?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. No, sir.

Senator CHAFEE. Now, it is my understanding that the Adminis- tration has requested $50 million in the new budget for pre-disaster hazardous mitigation programs. I’m not sure, one, how you arrived—of course, this was before your watch; you were not even

there. But it’s my understanding—and maybe we’ll have to ask

these questions of Mr. Witt—it is my understanding that the Stafford Act has to be amended for this program to exist, and do you

know when the Administration will submit the legislation to do

that? Do you have any idea on that?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Well, Senator, you are correct. Much of this

work had been done before I came on board, and I know that Senator Bond has requested that by the Fourth of July FEMA submit

some proposals, and I know that Director Witt and others are

working on those now. The program you specifically referred to

most of that money is designed to showcase communities across the

country that we think would demonstrate a healthy climate for

mitigation because of good public-private partnerships, because of

a will to work in mitigation by the locally elected officials, and we

hope by having these communities spotlighted that we can set a

tone and show an example to other local governments across the

country on how mitigation can work and is working.

Senator CHAFEE. All right, well, when you get into your job—I

might ask Mr. Witt about the Stafford Act and a program that—

apparently, he is required to change that.

I just would like to make a couple of observations, if I can. Let’s

just take an example from my section of the country. A snowfall

comes along and it’s really not that bad, but any self-respecting

Governor wants the area declared a disaster area because there is

going to be some free money showing up, and so why not get in on

it. I probably participated in a little of that myself when I was Governor, but I think that these really aren’t disasters. FEMA has to

be tough, and I know that it is easy for me to say that being on

the other side asking for the aid—‘‘Oh, yes, you want some aid.

There’s a terrible situation here. We’ve got two feet of snow so we

better ask for disaster relief and get some of these low-cost loans

to fix up the property,’’ and before you know it FEMA is paying to

clean up the place.
17

Now, I don’t want Mr. Witt to make a note to turn down all requests from Rhode Island—that’s not the purpose of what I’m saying here.

[Laughter.]

Senator CHAFEE. The second point I would like to make is it

seems to me that as you see some of these terrible disasters from

hurricanes or tornadoes, more so, they often seem to happen in

trailer parks, and you can see that these trailers are light-weight.

I just wonder if—and there must be a way of predicting the paths

with some degree of accuracy, of habitable paths of tornadoes and

trailer parks.

Is there anything that can be done about that to help these poor

souls who are low-income individuals in many instances and these

that represent their total home?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Well, Senator, being a Coloradan, I can’t talk

to you too much yet about hurricanes. I can talk to you about snow,

and I can reference your first point, which is we have had a longstanding policy that State and local governments’ budget for snow

removal every year, and that snow removal per se is totally within

the purview of State and local government.

There are on rare occasions instances where emergency services

are imperiled by snow storms, where despite the best efforts of

State and local government, and despite the treasuries at the State

and local level, roads cannot be kept clear so that ambulances, law

enforcement vehicles, public utility vehicles to restore power can

traverse public roadways.

On those rare occasions it has been appropriate for Governors to

request assistance, and most recently in North and South Dakota

this past winter we had that very situation in my own region.

Regarding the issue of trailer parks, I can only say that sometimes we wonder if there is something magnetic in trailer parks in

terms of their relationship to disasters. The fact is, unfortunately,

that low-income housing seems to locate itself in less desirable

parts of communities in terms of the topography and that frequently if it is in a flood plain, you will find a trailer park.

This gets back to my earlier comments about local governments

joining the Community Assistance Program, effectively enforcing

flood plain regulations and prohibiting construction in those areas

and communities.

Senator CHAFEE. All right, well, I think it would be interesting

to see how much the country has spent in the past 15 years, year

by year, for disaster relief and then say how much have we spent

for mitigation? I bet it’s practically zero, and, therefore, there

should be an argument that, all right, X percent of that—whatever

it is—we ought to request for mitigation so there won’t be building

in flood plains, so there won’t be trailer parks in the paths of tornadoes. We could probably plot that, as I said, with some degree of

accuracy, and there is where you get your ounce of prevention, but

the trouble is, I suspect, Congress has been very, very reluctant to

do anything about prevention.

Senator Baucus.

Senator BAUCUS. You’ve covered it all, Mr. Chairman. Thank

you.

Senator CHAFEE. Senator Allard.
18

Senator ALLARD. I don’t have anything further, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

Senator CHAFEE. All right, Mr. Armstrong, thank you very much

for appearing, and, as I mentioned, we are going to try to move this

along swiftly. You’ve certainly had an impressive array of witnesses in your support.

Thank you, and I thank everyone.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, committee

members.

Senator CHAFEE. That concludes the hearing.

[Whereupon, at 10:26 a.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the chair.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. ARMSTRONG

Mr. Chairman, I am deeply honored to come before this Committee today, and to

be given the opportunity to discuss serving my country, and this Administration, in

this manner. I want to acknowledge my friends in the Congress, starting with my

home State Senators Campbell and Allard, the North Dakota delegation of Senators

Dorgan and Conrad, and Representative Pomeroy, and my own Congressman, Representative Skaggs of Colorado’s Second District, for their support and their attendance today. I especially want to recognize FEMA Director James Lee Will, who has

shown such leadership for America and such confidence in my work. He has been

a true motivator and inspiration to me. Most importantly, I would like to introduce

the Committee to my parents, Dermond and Joan Armstrong, who came out from

Colorado to be with me today.

The work of this Committee with respect to FEMA and its new mitigation mission

has been truly historic. It has expanded the scope of the Stafford Act to create increased mitigation opportunities after disasters occur, and it has encouraged efforts

to promote more pre-disaster mitigation. In confirming the agency’s first Associate

Director for Mitigation, this committee ratified the efforts of FEMA to spotlight

mitigation as a key component of its mission.

We have learned that whatever form it takes, mitigation requires many partners,

much patience, and a sensitivity to local needs. As a FEMA appointee since 1994,

I have seen that partnerships, patience and listening to local needs have created

successful mitigation projects throughout the country. Some successes have been

dramatic, such as the relocation of an entire town. Some have been more subtle,

such as the public/private/non-profit partnership in my region, when FEMA brochures on wildfire preparedness were underwritten by Janus Funds and distributed

by local Rotary Club members in the foothill communities west of Denver. Most

mitigation initiatives must be viewed in the long term, as investments for future

generations. And, to have a realistic chance of success, they must involve a mixture

of Federal, State and local stakeholders. Mitigation can manifest itself in many different forms: something as delicate as passage of tougher local regulations, as complicated as retrofitting structures to withstand natural hazards, or as insightful as

effective public education programs involving specialists, families and schoolchildren.

As a former local and State government official, I bring a definite bias toward

local government to this job. My tenure as a FEMA Regional Director reinforced the

belief that unless State, county and local governments believe that a concept, initiative or program has local relevancy and is understandable, it will stand little chance

of true, lasting success. While the Federal Government can be a catalyst for innovation, real progress can only be realized when State and local officials feel they are

part of the process.

The creation of a Mitigation Directorate has provided better customer service to

our partners by bringing together like-minded programs and staff who have helped

create a more functional organization. I am proud of my association with the hard

working staff of FEMA, at both the regional and headquarters levels. We can point

to project after project which will protect lives and property, and as a result also

lessen the drain of disasters on the Federal treasury. We can indicate the numerous

partnerships which have been created with business, non-profit, and academic communities to promote mitigation. Now we must move forward.

I am before you today because, if confirmed, I want to serve in a leadership capacity in what James Lee Witt has called the cornerstone for emergency management
19

in the 21st century. If confirmed, I want to enlist you in the effort to support and

educate communities in their efforts to become disaster resistant. I believe that, if

confirmed, I can take my experience as a public servant serving at the field implementation level, and bring practical knowledge to the policy developers regarding

how to move this program ahead.

A thought came to me regarding this confirmation process as I was attending my

last church service in my hometown of Arvada, Colorado. It occurred to me that perhaps the most dramatic example of mitigation efforts we have is that of Noah in

the Old Testament. Here was an individual who believed in selecting the right

structure to withstand a predicted hazard, even as others scoffed at his efforts as

being a waste of time and money. In fact, you could even say that this was the one

of the first known successful relocation efforts, done before a disaster and by an individual rather than a government. We have modern day Noahs, who have heeded

warnings about potential disasters. One in California comes to mind: the gentleman

who built his home to withstand fire hazards in the Laguna Beach area, and made

national news with the photograph of the only home standing undamaged in an otherwise charred environment, because he took the time to understand the environment in which he was building, and built accordingly. This is mitigation in its

purest form: where individual citizens take it upon themselves to think smartly

when they build or occupy structures, and learn how to adapt to hazards in their

own community. But not every individual has the opportunity to control his or her

living environment. Therefore, we must work with our partners in State and local

government to put into place the kind of approaches which will, one day, equip our

nation with the tools and talents to create communities which are more resistant

to disasters. The best all of us can do, in our professional and personal capacities,

is create a national environment which encourages such responsible behavior. You

have my personal commitment to pursue this goal.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity and look forward to your questions.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR MITIGATION

The term Mitigation describes actions which help to reduce or eliminate long-term

risk from natural disasters, such as floods, earthquakes, hurricanes or dam failures.

The goal of mitigation is to create opportunities for State and local governments to

enable citizens to construct and locate structures appropriately to reduce loss of

lives and property damage. Examples of mitigation projects include the elevation or

floodproofing of structures to comply with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

standards; the relocation of owners of flood-damaged structures to new, safe and

sanitary housing outside of a floodplain; or the construction of buildings to better

resist hurricane forces.

The Associate Director for Mitigation oversees all of FEMA’s mitigation programs.

He or she is responsible for the development, coordination and implementation of

all policies, plans and programs within the Directorate, including the development

and implementation of a National Mitigation Strategy and the provision of grants

and technical assistance to State and local jurisdictions to build their capabilities

to reduce the risks of natural hazards. The Associate Director manages a headquarters staff of approximately 90 and a Fiscal Year 1997 operating budget (estimated) of $118.9 million.

Major programs within the Mitigation Directorate include the Hazard Mitigation

Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Activities, the National Hurricane Program,

the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, the Floodplain Management

Program, the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Program (including floodplain mapping) and the National Dam Safety Program.

RESPONSES BY MICHAEL ARMSTRONG TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. Recently, officials from flood-damaged counties in Oregon met with

FEMA officials to discuss providing more flexibility and efficiency for disaster relief

projects and funding. Their specific concerns are multiple reporting requirements for

road repair. Different kinds of roads fall under different Federal agencies for road

repair dollars, and those repair projects are subject to different rules. why do disaster areas have to deal with two different agencies, FEMA and the Federal Highway

Administration, two different accounting and contracting systems and two different

funding sources in order to get their roads repaired? Isn’t it possible to consolidate

and streamline the system?

Response. This issue does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Mitigation Directorate, but instead applies to our response and recovery function and the activities

being managed by the Federal Coordinating Officer at the Disaster Field Office in

Oregon. I can tell you that from my experience as a Regional Director, the issue

of accessing highway funds has been a source of questions in States in my region

as well. It is my understanding that the Congress has determined the process by

which some funds come from the Federal Highway Administration, because such

roads are funded and maintained with Federal dollars, and other funds for non-Federal aid roads would therefore come from FEMA. In fact, the Stafford Act specifically limits FEMA’s assistance to non-Federal aid roads. However, consolidation and

streamlining are important ongoing goals of this Administration, and this issue deserves a closer look.

Question 2. Several of the counties in Oregon that have been most adversely impacted by recent floods are also the least affluent areas in the State. These counties

cannot afford the 25 percent local match requirements for FEMA assistance. Are

there ways for FEMA to provide flexibility in this matching requirement for these

less affluent areas?

Response. Again, this is an area which falls under the jurisdiction of response and

recovery functions and the Federal Coordinating Officer in Oregon, rather than mitigation. However, I am personally aware of the impact of the most recent flooding

in Oregon, as my region was assigned to staff the disaster response on behalf of Region X. Many of my staff were deployed to the Salem Disaster Field Office, including

Sherryl Zahn from my mitigation staff, who served as the first Federal Coordinating

Officer for the recent events. More specifically, I do know that it has been important

for FEMA to consistently apply the Stafford Act in all situations. It is important

to note that many States assist local government with the 25 percent match. In addition, the State has the option to apply for a FEMA cost share loan to assist State

and local governments with meeting their responsibilities.

Question 3. You testified that FEMA should encourage efforts to promote more

pre-disaster mitigation and that we need to support communities in their efforts to

become disaster resistance. One of the goals of Oregon’s statewide land use system

is to steer development away from areas vulnerable to natural disasters and other
35

hazards. The idea is to have local communities first identify areas prone to flooding,

landslides, earthquakes and other natural hazards. Then the local communities develop land use plans and regulations to avoid sitting homes or businesses in these

hazardous areas as a way to minimize damage in the event of a disaster. What do

you see as the Federal role in supporting these types of State and community efforts? How can FEMA recognize and promote this type of local initiative?

Response. The President’s budget request for FY98 for FEMA includes a request

for an appropriation of $50 million for pre-disaster mitigation. If this appropriation

is approved, FEMA will be able to commence a program spotlighting and assisting

communities which have specific efforts underway to create disaster-resistant environments. We are particularly interested in those communities which have achieved

the support and-participation of the private sector, and have demonstrated the political will to adopt progressive regulations and public education efforts which promote

construction and occupation of structures which place their occupants out of harm’s

way. Our flood insurance program also supports State and community efforts to

adopt strong local ordinances by awarding communities with special status which

makes flood insurance more affordable. If confirmed, I intend to use my experience

in State and local government to promote mitigation initiatives with key stakeholders in the public and private sectors.

Æ