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

82–819 PDF 2014

FEMA REAUTHORIZATION: 

RECOVERING QUICKER AND SMARTER 

(113–35) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas, Vice Chair 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

PANEL 1 

Joseph L. Nimmich, Associate Administrator, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency .................................................. 5 

Yolanda Cha ́vez, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs, Office of 

Community Planning and Development, U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development ............................................................................................. 5 

James Rivera, Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. 

Small Business Administration .......................................................................... 5 

PANEL 2 

Glenn M. Cannon, Esq., Director, Pennsylvania Emergency Management 

Agency, on behalf of the National Emergency Management Association ........ 24 

Gayland Kitch, Director of Emergency Management, City of Moore, Oklahoma, on behalf of the U.S. Council of the International Association of 

Emergency Managers .......................................................................................... 24 

Michael O. Finley, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation ........................................................................................................................ 24

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Joseph L. Nimmich .................................................................................................. 36 

Yolanda Cha ́vez ....................................................................................................... 64 

James Rivera ............................................................................................................ 70 

Glenn M. Cannon, Esq. ........................................................................................... 73 

Gayland Kitch .......................................................................................................... 84 

Michael O. Finley .................................................................................................... 93 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Lou Barletta, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, request to submit written statement from the BuildStrong Coalition . 15 

Joseph L. Nimmich, Associate Administrator, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, responses to questions for 

the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Lou Barletta, of Pennsylvania ................................................................ 47 

Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II, of West Virginia ....................................................... 59 

Hon. Dina Titus, of Nevada ............................................................................. 62 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 82819.001

illHt "!juat" 

<tqainmlu 

QJ:llmmittet un Wrlm!l;1l1l1:tatillu anilllllfragtructurl! 

m..~. limU3!! of i/Pl" .... ,.""·t,,til"'il 

lIIllI.ilinglllll. lOOl211515 

September 16. 2013 

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER 

Ni(k ill. lR.l!"lI. 11] 

!{auldlt1,j !llih:l.llher 

TO: Members, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and 

Emergency Management 

}<'ROM: Staff, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and 

Emergency Management 

SUB.mCT: Subcommittee Hearing on "FEMA Reauthorization: Recovering Quicker and 

PURPOSE 

The Subcommittce on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency 

Management will hold a hearing on Wednesday, September 18, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. in room 

2167 Rayburn House Ot1lee building to receive testimony from the Federal Emergency 

Management Agcncy (FEMA), the US. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD), Small Business Administration (SBA), and state and local emergency managers and 

tribal representatives involved in disaster recovery efforts in various jurisdictions. The purpose 

of the hearing is to review recovery effOlis to Hurricane Sandy, thc tornadoes in Oklahoma and 

other recent disasters to ensure cflcctive coordination among federal, state, tribal, and local 

agencies in helping communities to recover in a quicker and smarter way. The hearing will also 

focus on how reforms enacted in the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act 0[2013 arc helping to 

address red tape and streamline the recovery process lor recent disasters. 

BACKGROUND 

Hurricane Sandy 

On October 29, 2012, Hurricane Sandy made landfall at New Jersey as a "post-tropical 

cyclone" with hurricane-force winds of up to 80 mph, colliding with a nor'easter creating what 

has been called "Superstonn Sandy." The brought with it storm surges of more than 

11 feet, killing more than 100 peoplc, or damaging thousands of homes, and leaving 

more than 8 million people without power. The damage to transportation infrastructure 

immediately following Hurricane Sandy included approximately 600 million gallons ofwatcr 

that infiltrated the mass transit system and critical inter-city roads. States along the Eastern 

Seaboard were impacted fi·om Florida to Maine, with the most destruction occurring in New 
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 82819.002

Jersey and New York. Prior (0 land fait pre-storm emergency declarations were issued for 

Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusclts, New Hampshire, 

New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, and West Virginia to facilitate 

preparation. Following the storm, major disaster declarations were issued for Connecticut, New 

York, New Jersey tollowed by Rhode Island, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia, and 

New Hampshire. The Sandy SupplemcntaVDisaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 included a 

total of$50 billion tor Sandy to 19 federal agencies. As of August 19, $9.9 billion oftha! lotal 

was obligated and $5 billion outlayed by various agencies. 

A1oore, Oklahoma 

On May 20,2013, Moore, Oklahoma and surrounding areas were struck by an EF5 

tomado with winds up to 210 mph. The l.J-milc-wide tomado was on the ground for 39 minutes 

destroying 17 miles of 5 counties. The damages from the "mile-wide" tornado have been 

estimated at $2 billion; destroying 1200 homes, businesses, I hospital, 2 elementary schools, and 

killing 24 people, while leaving 377 injured. More than 6! ,SOO people were directly impacted by 

the tornado and were left with power outages. Following the tornado, a major disaster declaration 

was issued tor the State of Oklahoma. 

Twenty Oklahoma counties have been for all categories of work under FEMA's 

Public Assistance Program. For Individual Assistance (Ill.) $14,339,962 has been approved 

including $9,826,80 I for housing assistance and $4,513,160 lor other needs. There are more than 

15,000 households registered for assistance and 8,386 inspections completed. By September 9, 

local officials had cleared out 96 percent orthe debris, totaling 1,166,376 cubic yards. $11.5 

million ofFEMA's Public Assistance funds have been obligated as of September 9. As part of 

the rebuilding and recovery eftor!s, SBA has approved over $45 million in low-interest disaster 

loans for rcnters, homeowners and businesses. 

Federal Programs and Response to Hurricane S(lm!y 

On November 15, 2012, the President announced that he had tasked HOD Secretary 

Shaun Donovan to work with the impacted communities on identifying redevelopment plans, 

asserting that HUD's involvement would help streamline the process of rehuikling. While FEMA 

continued to lead the recovery pursuant to the Stafford Act, HUD wonld work with FEMA in 

accordance with the National Disaster Recovery Framework. 

HUD's Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) provides communities 

with resources to address a wide range of housing, infi'aslruelure, and economic development 

needs. CDBG provides annual grants on a ftn'mula hasis to more than 1,200 units of general local 

government and states. [n certain situations, Congress provides additional CDBG funding 

specifically for disaster recovery purposes (CDBG-DR). 

2 
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 82819.003

Recipients for Sandy Recovery purposes 

in at least two rounds_ 

and distressed by 

Congress appropriated $16 billion for HUD CDBG-DR purposes under the Sandy 

Supplemental/Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 20 [3, (Public Law 113-2, enacted January 29, 

2(13) «(he Act). The initial allocation 0[$5.4 billion meets the Act's requirement that no less 

than 33 percent of the appropriation be allocated to grantees within 60 days of the law's 

enactment. As ofJuly 31, $1.646 billion was obligated and $44 million out!ayed. 

Grantees may use CDBG-DR thnds for a variety of disaster recovery activities including: 

• Housing (includes rehabilitation, new construction, buyouts, mold remediation) 

• Economic development (includes grants or loans for small businesses for working 

capital, machinery and equipment, real property repair/improvement) 

• Infi'astructure (includes repair, reconstruction, new construction, acquisition) 

• Public Services (up to 15 percent of allocation includes activities such as job training, 

health services, housing counseling, day care); and 

• Administration (limited (0 5 percent by the Act). 

By supervising CDBG-DR funds, HUD and the .Hurricane Sandy Rebnilding Task Force, 

in coordination with Oftice of Management and Budget, are taking additional steps to ensure this 

money is used as intended. The Task Force has established a project management office to track 

spending and provide information to the relevant inspectors general. CDBG-DR grantees must 

usc llUD's Disaster Recovery Grant RepOliing System to establish the Action Plan activities, 

draw down thnds, and repOli outcomes and accomplishments. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FEA1A 's Disaster Assistance Programs 

When, at the request of a Governor, the President declares a major disaster or emergency, 

the official declaration triggers certain federal authorities and financial disaster 

assistance. In particular, when sneh a declaration made, the President is authorized to direct 

any federal agency, with or without reimbursement, to assist state, tribal, and local govemments 

and protect life and propeliy. FEMA is responsible for coordinating federal agency response and 

ensnring the necessary federal capabilities are deployed at the appropriate place and time. In 

3 
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 82819.004

addition, FEMA provides direct supp0l1 and financial assistance to states and local governments 

and individuals as authorized under the Stafford Act. 

FEMA's primary Stafford Act programs for disaster response and recovery in the 

afienllath of a major disaster are in the Public Assistance Program and the Individual Assistance 

Program. The Public Assistance Program, authorized primarily by sections 403,406, and 407 of 

the Stafford Act, reimburses state, tribal, and local emergency response costs and provides grants 

to state and local governments, as well as certain private non-proths to rebuild facilities. The 

Public Assistance Program generally docs no! provide direct services to citizens. 

The Individual Assistance Program, also known as the Individuals and Households 

Program, is primarily authorized by seetion408 of the Stanard Act. The program provides 

assistance to k1milies and individuals impacted by disasters, including housing assistance. 

Housing assistance includes money for repair, rental assistance, or "direct assistance," such as 

the provision of temporary hOllsing. 

Section 404 of the Stanard Act authorizes the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 

(HMGP). HMGP provides grants to state, tribal, and local to rebuild after a disaster 

in ways that are cost effective and reduce the risk of future hardship, and loss j]·Oln 

natural hazards. FEMA also provides grants under HMGP to assist families in reducing the risk 

to their homes j]·om future natural disasters, through such steps as elevating the home or 

purchasing the home to remove it ii·om the 1100dplain. 

Disaster Relief Fund 

The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) is the primary account used to Hmd many of the FEMA 

disaster assistance programs tt)r state, tribal, and local governments and certain nonprofits 

tollowing a declared disaster or emergency. In most cases, fimding from the DRF is released 

after the President has issued a disaster declaration. 

As of August 31, the following were the balances in thc DRF: 

FY 2013 CR Appropriation: 

FY 2013 Sandy Supplemental 

FY12 Carryover balance: 

FY 13 Recoveries to date: 

DRF as 01'8/31113 

Balance 

$7,008 million 

$[1,488 million 

$1,020 million 

$840 million' 

[52 million) 

I Part of the $961 million estimated total recoveries projected for all ofFY 2013 but not yet realized. 

, This balance does not reflect a .132% rescission or transfers to USAID. 

4 
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 82819.005

-;::-

Category 

Hurricane Sandy FY 2013 Actual!~~stimates 

As of August 31, 21)[3 

(In millions) 

Actual Estimated July (0 Fiscal year 2013 Totals 

Spent/Obligated September 

through June* 

Public Assistance 2,971 1,080 4,051 

Individual Assistance 1,872 31 1,903 

--"-~-

Mitigation 80 32 112 

"~--"--.-. 

"1' 404 (I) 403 

Administrative 698 30 728 

---_._---_._--_., Total* 6,025 1,172 7,197 

*Includes Sandy Ernet gencles 

U.S. Small Business AdmilligratiQ!1 (SBA) 

SBA is responsible for providing affordable, timely, and accessible financial assistance 

following a disaster to homeowners, renters, non-agricultural businesses of all sizes, and private 

nonprofit organizations for disaster recovery. This fmanciaJ assistance is available in the form of 

low-interest loans, and since the SBA's inception in ! 953, SEA has provided more than 1.9 

million loans tor more than $49 billion dollars. SBA is not the lirst responder, but is primarily 

focused on providing low-interest, long-term loans as part of the recovery effort in coordination 

with other government partners at the federal, state, and local levels. FEMA is the first point of 

contact for disaster victims seeking assistance in a presidential declaration. Once registered with 

FEMA, applicants that meet the minimum income requirements are refelTed to SBA. There are 

three types of disaster loans available: 

• Home disaster loans: Loans to homeowners or renters to repair or replace disaslerdamaged real estate or persona! propel1y owned by the victim. Renters are eligible 

fi)r their personal property losses, including automobiles. 

• Loans to businesses to repair or replace 

ISaSlC;[-{JarnaJ<t:u property owned the business, including real estate, 

inventories, supplies, machinery and equipment. Businesses of auy size are 

eligible. Private, non-profit organizations such as charities, churches, and private 

universities are also eligihle. 

• Eco®1llic InjunJ)j§.!!ster LO,lllS:, Working capital loans to help small husinesses, 

small agricultural cooperatives, small businesses engaged in aquaculture, and 

most private, non-profit organizations of all sizes meet their ordinary and 

necessary financial obligations that cannot be met as a direct result of the disaster. 

These loans arc intended to assist through the disaster recovery period. 

5 
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 82819.006

SBA loan terms are authorized by law up to a maximum of30 years. SBA sets the 

installment payment amount and corresponding maturity based upon each borrower's ability to 

repay. 

New Jersey New York 

$1.54B 

Total SBA loans approved for Oklahoma ii-om the May tornados is $45 million. 

Last Congress, Subcommittee Chairman Barletta introduced and the House of 

Representatives passed, the Disaster Loan Fairness Act 01'2012. Thc bill was intended to make 

SBA loans more affordable lor borrowers, including homeowners, t()llowing a disaster. 

Specifically, the bill would have lowered the interest rate for borrowers with no credit available 

elsewhere to one-half of the prevailing rate and cap the interest rate at four percent. For those 

who conld get eredit elsewhere, the bill would have lowered the interest rate to three-quarters of 

the prevailing rate and cap the maximum interest rate at tour percent. Chairman Barletta has 

reintroduced this legislation in the 1 13th Congress. 

Sandy Recovety Improvement Act o{2013 (SRIA) 

The intent of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Aet (SRlA), enacted January 29,2013, is 

to speed up and streamline HUlTieane Sandy recovery cHarts, reduce eosts, and improve the 

efIeetiveness of several disaster assistanee programs authorized by the StafIord Aet, mlmely the 

Publie Assistance Program, the Individual Assistance Program, and the Hazard Mitigation Grant 

Program. Key provisions of SRI A include: 

• Expedited debris removal and publie assistance alternative procedures: allows the nse of 

cost estimates and consolidated projects. 

• Federal assistance to Individuals and Households: allows FEMA to make limited repairs, 

instead oflease payments, for the purpose of providing housing when less expensive. 

• Hazard Mitigation: expedites hazard mitigation projeets by streamlining the 

environmental review, provides States with advanced hazard mitigation assistance, and 

provides tor State administration of hazard mitigation grants. 

• Dispute Resolution Pilot Program: establishes a limited dispute resolution pilot program 

to resolve disputes over assistance and drive projeets (0 closure and avoid eost overrnns. 

• Unified Federal environmental review: requires the President to establish an expedited 

review for environmental and historic requirements f(lr rebuilding damaged 

infi'astructnre. 

• individual assistance factors: requires FEMA to review and update taetors for individual 

assistance disaster declarations to make (hem less suhjective. 

3 CT, MD, NC, NJ, NY. PR, RI. VA, WV. 

6 
x 


Insert offset folio 7 here 82819.007

• Tribal requests lor major disaster declarations: 

governments. 

for disaster declarations for tribal 

WITNESSES 

M1'. Joseph L. Nimmieh 

Associate Administrator for Response and Recovery 

Federal Emergency Managemcnt Agency 

Ms. Yolanda Chavez 

Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs 

of Community Planning and Development 

U.S. Department ofHonsing and Urban Devclopment 

Mr. James Rivera 

Associate Administrator 

Office of Disaster Assistance 

U.S. Small Business Administration 

Mr. Glenn M. Cannon 

Director 

Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agcncy 

National Emergency Management Association 

Mr. Gayland Kitch 

Director Management 

City of Moore, Oklahoma 

U.S. Councillor the 

International Association Fllr1t"'""n"v Managers 

M1'. Michael Finley, Chairman 

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation 

7 
(1) 

FEMA REAUTHORIZATION: 

RECOVERING QUICKER AND SMARTER 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lou Barletta (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. BARLETTA. The committee will come to order. First I would 

like to welcome our new subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Carson. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I look forward to working closely with him on 

these important issues. And I also want to thank Ranking Member 

Norton for a decade of service as either ranking or chairman of this 

subcommittee. I know she will continue to be active, an active 

member of this subcommittee. I look forward to working with her 

on these issues. 

I also want to welcome Mr. Cannon, who will be on the second 

panel today. He is from my home State of Pennsylvania, and serves 

as director of the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency. I 

look forward to hearing from him today. 

Before we begin, I want to take a moment to send our prayers 

to the people of Colorado. Just this past weekend, a major disaster 

declaration was issued for the severe storms, flooding, landslides, 

and mudslides that began on September 11th. Thousands of homes 

have been damaged or destroyed, and the search and rescue operations are ongoing. Tragically, there have been deaths and many 

still unaccounted for. We know, even after the storms have passed 

and the rescue and response operations are completed, these communities will continue to face a devastating situation. 

They will be tasked to try and put their lives back together 

again, and rebuild their homes, businesses, and communities, a 

process that has been bogged down with red tape, creating a bureaucratic nightmare for communities already devastated by the 

loss of loved ones, and by the disaster itself. It is for this reason, 

earlier this year, we enacted the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act. 

That Act included key provisions to streamline the rebuilding process following disasters. 

The purpose of the hearing today is to review how those reforms 

are being applied and implemented, and how they can help commuVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:54 Feb 28, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\ED\9-18-1~1\82819.TXT JEAN
2 

nities like those in Colorado rebuild faster. We will examine how 

these reforms are currently being used in the recovery efforts to 

Hurricane Sandy, the tornadoes in Oklahoma, and other recent disasters. We will also examine how we ensure effective coordination 

among Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies, in helping communities recover quicker and smarter. 

Last October Hurricane Sandy made landfall and brought with 

it storm surges of more than 11 feet, killing more than 100 people, 

destroying or damaging thousands of homes, and leaving more 

than 8 million people without power. Communities and States all 

along the eastern seaboard were hit, including my home State of 

Pennsylvania. Just this May we saw Oklahoma hit by an F–5 tornado with winds up to 210 miles per hour and over a mile wide, 

devastating homes and businesses and leaving dozens dead, including children and infants. 

We know we will have natural disasters. We know we can expect 

hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, wildfires, and even earthquakes. 

We cannot stop them. But we can prepare, mitigate against, and 

plan for recovery to minimize their impact. 

There have been a lot of lessons learned from previous disasters. 

Following Hurricane Katrina, we saw and continue to see, years 

after that disaster, the rebuilding still ongoing. When communities 

are devastated by disasters, and people have lost loved ones, their 

homes, the businesses where they worked, and their communities, 

we must do better at helping those communities recover and rebuild and put their lives back together again. A lengthy rebuilding 

process riddled with red tape serves no one. It not only prolongs 

the harm to those communities, but it results in higher costs. The 

longer it takes to recover, the more it costs to rebuild, and the more 

of an impact there is on the local economies. 

While Congress enacted the Post-Katrina Act to reform preparedness and planning for disasters, recovery remained a slow, costly, 

and frustrating process. In January of this year, Congress enacted 

the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013. That Act incorporated many of the reforms this committee crafted to streamline 

and reduce costs in the recovery process. That bill included reforms 

to cut the red tape in debris removal and public assistance for public infrastructure and building projects by allowing States to choose 

to receive funding based on cost estimates and consolidate projects. 

The bill also required FEMA to finally clarify its criteria for the individual and household assistance, so that States can have a better 

idea when their constituents will qualify for aid. 

We also worked to encourage more advance funding for mitigation, so communities can rebuild smarter and better. These and 

other reforms in that legislation should help ensure communities 

can rebuild faster and in ways that make the most sense for them. 

But while FEMA is the lead agency in disasters, we know their 

Federal partners are critical. HUD, for example, through its community block grant program, is a key component to the rebuilding 

process. SBA is critical in ensuring business owners and homeowners can obtain affordable financing in their rebuilding process. 

I know how important these partners are. When my district was 

hit by Hurricane Irene and homes and businesses were flooded, I 

saw how important SBA loans were in the rebuilding process. I was 

3 

concerned and continue to be concerned about the affordability of 

SBA’s loans. 

When people have lost everything from a disaster, we must ensure we do what is possible to help them. That is why I introduced 

the Disaster Loan Fairness Act of 2013. That bill is intended to 

make SBA loans more affordable for borrowers, including homeowners, following a disaster. I hope to work with the SBA on solutions to this issue. 

And I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today who represent all levels of Government—Federal, State, tribal, and local— 

to hear how the recovery efforts are going in recent disasters, how 

the Sandy reforms are being implemented, and recommendations 

on any further improvements to the process. I thank all of the witnesses for being here today. 

I now call on the new ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. 

Carson, for a brief opening statement. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, and welcome 

to our distinguished panel of witnesses. I am very pleased to be 

here this morning for my first hearing as the ranking member of 

this subcommittee. 

Chairman Barletta, I look forward to working with you as we advance issues of importance to the subcommittee, and hope we can 

continue to work in a bipartisan manner in which you have worked 

with the legendary Madam Eleanor Holmes Norton. 

While new to this subcommittee, I am not new to emergency 

management. As a former law enforcement officer, I have experience as a first responder. I have also worked on homeland security 

issues, and I understand the need to prepare for disasters, as well 

as the challenges facing our emergency responders. 

No place, including my district, is immune from potential disasters and emergencies. In Indianapolis, we have experienced severe 

windstorms, tornadoes, and floods. We are located close enough to 

the New Madrid seismic zone that my district could potentially be 

impacted by earthquakes. Unfortunately, I understand that disasters can sometimes result in the loss of life. My thoughts and prayers go out to those families and communities still struggling to recover from recent disasters, including the ongoing efforts in Colorado. 

And I sympathize with our witnesses who are here today. Even 

as you are still mourning your friends and neighbors, after any disaster the recovery phase is a very important step, helping disaster 

survivors to heal and provide communities with an opportunity to 

implement long-term goals. 

This morning’s hearing on quicker and smarter recovery is essential to identifying any unnecessary delays during the recovery process. The challenges faced by one community may actually be faced 

by several communities. It is through hearings like this that we 

can identify problems, raise public awareness of the issues, and 

seek solutions to these problems. 

Earlier this year, Congress passed the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013, known as the Sandy Reform Act. The Sandy Reform Act included many reforms to address issues raised in prior 

oversight hearings, and is intended to expedite and streamline the 

recovery process. It included several tools to ensure that FEMA opVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:54 Feb 28, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\ED\9-18-1~1\82819.TXT JEAN
4 

erates in a more efficient and logistical manner—and logical manner, for that matter—such as expanding on FEMA’s cost-estimating 

authority, clarifying FEMA’s authority to delegate certain authorities to States, and requiring FEMA to update its regulations for determining when individual assistance will be provided. I look forward to an update from FEMA on the status of implementation of 

these and other Reform Act provisions. Finally, Congress appropriated over $60 billion for Sandy relief. 

And I am interested in hearing from different agencies about the 

status of these funds. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling today’s hearing, and I thank the witnesses for your testimony. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Ranking Member Carson. And now I 

would like to recognize Representative Mullin of Oklahoma to introduce Gayland Kitch, director of emergency management, city of 

Moore, Oklahoma, who will be on our second panel. Mr. Mullin? 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Chairman. And it’s an absolute honor 

to introduce Mr. Kitch this morning. The first time that we had an 

opportunity to meet was the day after the tornado that hit Moore. 

And, as you can probably expect, it was extremely hectic that day. 

And we had flown in, went to the command center, which was at 

a fire station. We walk in with the entire delegation, the Governor 

is there, and they introduce Mr. Kitch as the emergency management for Moore. 

He spoke a little bit and went to the side and I walked over there 

to him and I asked him how he was holding up. And he told me 

something that I will probably never forget. He says, ‘‘Unfortunately, I have been through this twice already,’’ because, see, 

Moore’s been hit by now three major tornadoes. And he says, ‘‘Unfortunately, I have been through this twice.’’ He says, ‘‘Fortunately, 

this is my third time to deal with this, and we know how to act.’’ 

And man, did they ever. 

Moore picked themselves up and was moving fast, the citizens of 

Moore, the emergency response of Moore was all moving, and it is 

because of the leadership that is absolutely irreplaceable when we 

have someone like Mr. Kitch in place. And it is an honor to have 

you here, it is an honor to have you here, it is an honor to hear 

what you have to say, and what you have learned, and from the 

mistakes that you learn. You know, we can all learn from our mistakes sometimes more than we can our successes. 

And so, thank you. It is an honor to introduce you. Thank you 

for taking this trip to be here. 

By the way, he said it is his first time to be to DC, too. So I hope 

you get to enjoy the time while you are here, sir. I yield back. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Representative Mullin. 

We have two panels of witnesses today. On our first panel we 

have Mr. Joseph L. Nimmich, Associate Administrator for the Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency. We have Ms. Yolanda Cha ́vez, Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Grant Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Mr. 

James Rivera, Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration. 

I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be 

included in the record. 

5 

[No response.] 

Mr. BARLETTA. Without objection, so ordered. Since your written 

testimony has been made a part of the record, the subcommittee 

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

Mr. Nimmich, you may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH L. NIMMICH, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF RESPONSE AND RECOVERY, FEDERAL 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; YOLANDA CHA ́ VEZ, 

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GRANT PROGRAMS, 

OFFICE OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; 

AND JAMES RIVERA, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE 

OF DISASTER ASSISTANCE, U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. NIMMICH. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Carson, members 

of the subcommittee, good morning. As you have indicated, I am 

Joe Nimmich, the Associate Administrator for the Office of Response and Recovery at FEMA. I am here today to discuss how 

FEMA is assisting communities affected by Hurricane Sandy, the 

tornadoes in Oklahoma, the numerous floods in the East, Midwest, 

Alaska, and now Colorado, and how the new authorities provided 

by Congress under the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 

allow us to better help disaster survivors and communities rebuild. 

I need to thank the subcommittee for its important role in providing the Agency with the additional authorities included in the 

Act. I was on the ground after the tornadoes hit in Oklahoma, and 

just returned from Colorado. I can report firsthand on FEMA’s support to survivors and communities. 

At FEMA, our entire team is committed to helping survivors get 

back on the road to recovery. And that guides our approach to everything we do, whether that be stabilizing an area in support of 

first responders, providing public or individual assistance, or supporting the rebuilding of long-term infrastructure in an affected 

area. 

We are also pleased that our efforts in support of survivors of 

Hurricane Sandy garnered the support of the DHS’s Office of Inspector General, which recently concluded in their report titled, 

‘‘FEMA’s Initial Response in New Jersey to Hurricane Sandy,’’ that 

FEMA had performed well in the response to Hurricane Sandy in 

the State of New Jersey. 

Outlined in the report—and I quote—‘‘FEMA normally requires 

several days to deploy and position staff to areas of—for disaster 

response. In this instance, FEMA had facilities and staff in New 

Jersey when Sandy made landfall. FEMA’s access to the resources 

allowed a fast and effective response. FEMA prepared well for the 

disaster, faced challenges with innovative solutions, quickly resolved shortfalls, made efficient disaster sourcing decisions, overcame obstacles, and coordinated its activities effectively with State 

and local officials. All disasters generate unexpected issues. But the 

FEMA disaster team was able to adjust and adapt to fulfill its mission efficiently and effectively.’’ 

FEMA’s success comes not only from the all-out deployment of 

critical staff, but from creative and innovative ways to support surVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:54 Feb 28, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\ED\9-18-1~1\82819.TXT JEAN
6 

vivors and communities. FEMA partnered with the National 

Geospatial Intelligence Agency to analyze satellite and aerial imagery to determine which areas were inaccessible, allowing immediate support to survivors. This partnership continues to grow, allowing FEMA to identify houses that were destroyed or had major 

damage, expediting individual housing support, not just in Sandy, 

but in Oklahoma and already in Colorado. 

FEMA has improved its processes to establish disaster recovery 

centers, helping inform and register survivors for quicker assistance. In addition to the DRC’s, FEMA now employs disaster survivor assistance teams who go door to door in many areas, helping 

residents who have lost power and Internet access sign up for the 

disaster relief that they need. 

At the same time we are supporting the communities impacted 

by Sandy, we are actively implementing the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, which authorizes several significant changes to the 

way FEMA delivers disaster assistance, making us more flexible 

and efficient. All elements of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act 

are being implemented on time: public assistance alternative procedures for permanent work; public assistance alternative procedures 

for debris removal; and dispute resolution/arbitration are most apparent in affecting communities. And you will hear from Moore, 

Oklahoma, how the public assistance alternative procedures for debris removal has helped their recovery. 

On one of the major provisions of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act gives federally recognized tribal governments the option 

of requesting an emergency or major disaster declaration through 

FEMA to the President, instead of going through their representative States. To date, four tribal disasters have already been declared by the President. 

Improvements in FEMA’s response capabilities and Sandy Recovery Act improvements have played out in both Oklahoma and Colorado. On the 20th of May, the State of Oklahoma received a major 

Presidential disaster declaration, and within 12 hours of touchdown we had FEMA employees in place, helping. Our enhanced incident management teams were deployed and working in Colorado 

within a day of the start of the disaster, and well before the flooding finished. 

Pursuant to the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, FEMA also 

implemented the debris pilot program in Oklahoma to expedite the 

removal of debris, which allows the community to rebuild and recover more quickly. The program has been successful. As of September 4th of this year, 96 percent of the debris has been removed; 

40 percent was removed within the first 30 days. 

And just like after Sandy, we are focusing on helping communities build stronger. Oklahoma is already receiving expedited 

funds to pay for approved mitigation projects; $3.6 million in 

HMGP funding is obligated to date. 

At FEMA we seek constant improvement to better support America’s disaster survivors, the citizens, and first responders, through 

constant improvement. And by the authority given to us by Congress under the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, we are confident that we can be more effective and efficient in each new 

event. Our ultimate goal, of course, is to support our fellow AmeriVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:54 Feb 28, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\ED\9-18-1~1\82819.TXT JEAN
7 

cans, providing survivors the assistance, flexibility, and incentives 

they need to start the recovery process. 

We look forward to continuing our work with Congress towards 

this common goal. Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Nimmich. 

Ms. Cha ́vez, you may proceed. 

Ms. CHA ́ VEZ. Good morning, Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member Carson, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify regarding the Department’s recovery efforts 

for Sandy and post-Sandy disasters. This morning I will address 

the following five areas: Federal agency coordination; the policies 

that HUD has implemented to ensure that community development 

block grant disaster recovery, or CDBGDR funds, do not duplicate 

assistance provided by other Federal agencies; as well as the policies we have implemented to prevent waste, fraud, and mismanagement. I will also touch upon the status of the allocations 

under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 and the areas 

in which we may improve recovery efforts. 

In the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, President Obama directed Secretary Donovan to lead the Federal response, and issued 

an Executive order creating the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task 

Force. The task force has developed a comprehensive regional rebuilding strategy which includes recommendations for enhanced 

Federal coordination. 

The Secretary and the Department also play a central role in the 

disaster—excuse me—in the national disaster recovery framework, 

or the NDRF. The NDRF is the coordinated governmentwide approach to recovery and rebuilding with HUD acting to implement 

the full range of Federal housing resources. Federal coordination is 

also at work in HUD’s implementation of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act. Eight days after the President signed the law, 

HUD announced an allocation of $5.4 billion to five States and the 

city of New York to begin the Sandy recovery effort. Less than 30 

days later, HUD published a Federal Register notice outlining the 

requirements for the use of these funds. 

The Department’s aggressive implementation of the Sandy appropriation would not have been possible without close coordination 

with our partner agencies. HUD relies on data and the financial assistance provided by FEMA and SBA to determine the unmet housing, economic development, and infrastructure needs that remain 

to be addressed through CDBGDR funds. 

However, as described in greater detail in my written testimony, 

HUD coordination with FEMA has extended beyond data sharing. 

Our work on Sandy has led to expedited historic preservation 

and—to an expedited historic preservation and environmental review process. 

With substantial Federal resources flowing to individual communities and entire regions, HUD has established policies to ensure 

that our funds are being used to supplement and not replace recovery funds from FEMA, SBA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and 

other sources. The Department has published guidance to guard 

against the duplication of benefits, and provided training and techVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:54 Feb 28, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\ED\9-18-1~1\82819.TXT JEAN
8 

nical assistance to help State and local governments comply with 

the law. 

In order to prevent waste, fraud, and mismanagement, the Department has reinforced its own internal controls with the new cradle-to-grave plan for these funds that has been submitted to OMB, 

the GAO, and House and Senate appropriators. 

Moreover, we have committed to an enhanced level of technical 

assistance and monitoring of Sandy grantees with biannual, on-site 

monitoring of each grantee. These efforts are only possible because 

of the $9.5 million in administrative funds provided by Congress 

under the Act. We also meet monthly with our Office of Inspector 

General to identify issues of concern, and work jointly on IG and 

HUD staff training. 

I must note that, prior to the approval of a grantee’s action plan, 

HUD must certify that the grantee has the policies in place to 

guard against duplication of benefits, and also certify to the adequacy of each grantee’s internal financial controls and procurement 

practices. 

The next allocation for Sandy grantees will be informed by 

FEMA data and focus on unmet infrastructure needs. We expect to 

announce that shortly. The Department has also allocated $514 

million to 21 State and local governments for 2011 and 2012 disasters. This includes about $47.2 million to Luzerne and Dauphin 

Counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for recovery needs 

from Hurricane Irene and Lee. 

We have also started to address 2013 disasters; $37 million was 

allocated to the city of Moore in the State of Oklahoma for recovery 

from this year’s tornadoes. And $28.8 million has been allocated to 

State of Illinois grantees to address damage caused by heavy flooding in the spring. 

Finally, providing increased flexibility to Federal agencies and 

improved data accessibility for both agencies and grantees will lead 

to a more timely Federal response. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Cha ́vez. 

Mr. Rivera, you may proceed. 

Mr. RIVERA. Good morning, Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member 

Carson, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank 

you for inviting me to discuss SBA’s role in Federal disaster response and recovery efforts. The SBA Office of Disaster Assistance 

is responsible for providing affordable, timely, accessible financial 

assistance to businesses of all sizes, homeowners and renters impacted by disasters. 

Many disaster survivors have insurance, which covers part or all 

of the physical property loss due to a disaster. For those losses not 

covered by insurance, the primary form of Federal financial assistance is a low-interest SBA loan. Since SBA’s inception in 1953, we 

have approved more than $53 billion in disaster loans to almost 2 

million families and businesses across the country. 

While SBA is not a traditional first responder agency, we are on 

the ground immediately following a disaster. We coordinate with 

Federal, State, and local partners to set up disaster and business 

recovery centers and deploy critical financial assistance. 

9 

In the aftermath of a disaster such as Superstorm Sandy and the 

devastating tornado in Moore, Oklahoma, SBA’s primary role is to 

provide families and businesses with low-interest, long-term loans. 

These disaster loans are a vital source of economic stimulus that 

enables survivors to get back on their feet. Under our disaster loan 

program, homeowners may borrow up to $200,000, and business 

and nonprofit organizations are eligible for loans up to $2 million. 

These funds can be used to assist with many uninsured and otherwise uncompensated physical losses sustained during a disaster to 

repair, replace damaged physical property. 

In addition to our disaster loan products, we also help small 

businesses recover through our Government contracting and business development programs. We aggressively seek to fill gaps in 

the market and provide survivors with access to capital, counseling, 

and contracting they need to rebuild their lives and their livelihoods. 

Throughout my career at SBA, I have seen firsthand the benefits 

of the disaster assistance program, perhaps most notably in the 

wake of Superstorm Sandy. Due to the immense—due to the 

storm’s immense footprint along the densely populated east coast, 

Sandy was one of the most destructive natural disasters in recent 

history. As such, I can assure you that SBA leveraged all of our 

resources to provide timely and effective assistance throughout the 

impacted States. 

Working closely with our response and recovery partners at 

FEMA and HUD, as well as with State and local agencies, we used 

every tool available to assist the maximum number of families and 

businesses affected by the storm. SBA deployed over 390 disaster 

specialists to the region, setting up 146 disaster recovery centers 

with FEMA, and 38 disaster loan operations centers. SBA also established 49 business recovery centers, where survivors could apply 

for a disaster business loan and receive additional business counseling from our local resource partners. 

Between our loan processing centers, call center, and on-theground staff, SBA had over 2,400 disaster employees dedicated to 

Superstorm Sandy. This is in addition to our local district office 

staff and extensive network of resource partners across the region. 

As a result of this increased presence, we were able to meet with 

over 130,000 survivors and respond to over 212,000 phone calls 

throughout the declaration period. We approved over $2.4 billion in 

loans to more than 36,000 homeowners, renters, and businesses, 

with an overall approval rate of 53 percent. 

While we are proud of our response efforts, we are always looking for ways to better support those communities impacted by disasters. In recent years, SBA has made a number of improvements 

that have allowed us to better respond to disaster survivors. 

For example, in order to create more transparent and userfriendly processes, we streamlined our loan application forms and 

implemented a redesigned electronic loan application. In fact, we 

successfully increased the use of the electronic loan application 

from 26 percent to 55 percent over the past two fiscal years. We 

also designated case managers for each approved application, so 

borrowers know their principal point of contact when they have a 

10 

question or need help through their loan closing disbursement process. 

These reforms played a key role in allowing SBA to effectively 

and efficiently respond to disasters—to Sandy and subsequent disasters like the massive tornado that struck Moore, Oklahoma, and 

recently, the flooding in Colorado. Whether on the ground in the 

affected areas or at regional centers, we keenly focus on meeting 

the needs of the families and businesses impacted by disasters. 

We know that recovery is a long-term process, and we are committed to ensuring that small business owners and their communities are able to emerge stronger than ever. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify this morning, and I 

look forward to answering any questions. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you for your testimony today, Mr. Rivera. 

I will now begin the first round of questions, limited to 5 minutes 

for each Member. If there are any additional questions following 

the first round, we will have additional rounds of questions, as 

needed. 

Mr. Nimmich, I understand that you have been on the ground in 

Colorado. If you can, give us what is the current situation there. 

And can you update the subcommittee on the response efforts occurring regarding the recent disaster in Colorado? 

Mr. NIMMICH. Mr. Chairman, the search-and-rescue events in 

Colorado continue today. There are still communities that are isolated, there is over 300 unaccounted for individuals. FEMA, as 

well, is supporting State and local responders with four urban 

search-and-rescue teams that are going to those communities door 

to door, to ensure that every survivor is located and then provided 

the necessary resources to start their lives over. 

To date, there are over 8,000 registrants already in the FEMA’s 

database, identifying themselves as potentially qualified for support, either from FEMA or Small Business Administration. And 

over 800 individuals have already been receiving support in terms 

of individual funding to take care of their immediate needs. 

There are over 16,000 houses that are likely destroyed, and that 

there are 20,000 additional houses that are endangered. This will 

be a long-term recovery. We don’t have a good handle yet on how 

much of the infrastructure is impacted. We do know that there are 

sewage and wastewater facilities that are likely destroyed at this 

point in time, sir. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Rivera, I understand SBA is already on the 

ground in Colorado. Where are you in your operations there? 

Mr. RIVERA. Yes, sir, Chairman. We were collocated with FEMA, 

and we joined them on the individual assistance side. We have deployed about 25 people so far. We are currently working with 

FEMA and the State to set up disaster recovery centers, and will 

also set up a couple of business recovery centers that include our 

small business development centers and our resource partners. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. Ms. Cha ́vez, has HUD begun its operations in Colorado? And, if so, can you update us on those? 

Ms. CHA ́ VEZ. Sure. So we have started to assess damage to HUD 

assets. We are also working to collect the data as it is coming in 

from FEMA and SBA, so we can be ready to make a disaster recovery allocation to Colorado when we are ready. Data usually takes 

11 

a month or two to come in, but we are starting very early to start 

to collect that. 

We are also ready to send TA providers to the State so they could 

start their recovery planning process, even before we make the allocation. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. Mr. Rivera, my bill, the Disaster 

Loan Fairness Act of 2013, it would allow for market-based interest 

rates for Small Business Administration disaster loans for homeowners, renters, and businesses. My question to you is, how do you 

think this interest rate change would impact the disaster loan volume that the Small Business Administration would be able to support? 

Mr. RIVERA. Chairman Barletta, we feel that the interest rates 

that are currently being provided are reasonable on the homeowner 

side and the business side. 

For example, there are two rates, as you know. There is a credit 

elsewhere rate and noncredit elsewhere rate. On the home side it 

is less than 2 and 4 percent. On the business side it is 4 percent 

and 6 percent. From a credit worthiness perspective, we would 

have to do an analysis with the proposed bill and determine, you 

know, the number—how many more loans we could make, based on 

the interest rate adjustment. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Do you believe the SBA would experience a significant amount of new activity with a market-based rate system? 

Mr. RIVERA. We would have to go back and do the analysis. It 

is just hard for me just to determine, based on that, and then the 

impact that it would have on the subsidy rate. But from, you know, 

having to safeguard taxpayer funds and stuff, there would probably 

be some sort of an adjustment to the subsidy model, which may result in an increase in subsidy. Current subsidy rate is about 11 

percent, and we haven’t run the numbers as far as what impact 

that would have to the subsidy model. 

Mr. BARLETTA. And what are you doing to ensure that the SBA 

loans are affordable? As I said, you know, when the floods hit 

Pennsylvania—I come from, as I told you, the coal region of Pennsylvania. And when people have lost everything that they have 

owned, it was pretty hard for me to go back there and tell them 

that I am from the Federal Government and, ‘‘I can get you a loan 

at 6-percent interest.’’ They would probably beat the daylights out 

of me at that point. 

So, what are we doing to make those loans more affordable? 

Mr. RIVERA. So I clearly understand, from—where you are coming from. I was a former banker, I have been with SBA for 23 years 

right now. We are the most aggressive lender in town. There is no 

doubt about it. We try to make every loan. The credit elsewhere 

rate, as you are citing, the 6-percent rate, does go to a smaller percentage of the borrowers that we have who do have credit elsewhere. A lion’s share of our loans are made at the 4-percent rate. 

And it is a fixed rate that we can make up to 30 years. 

So, as I have mentioned before, we feel it is reasonable, and we 

try to make as many loans as we possibly can. On average, we 

are—as in Sandy, we are in about the 53–55 percent approval rate 

percentage. 

12 

And when we don’t make those loans, what we do—as a result 

of Irene, when we had the discussion a couple of years ago—we do 

refer these declined business owners to small business development 

centers so they can help with repackaging their debt structure. And 

what we found, as a result of the SBDC connection, is that we do— 

we are able to provide more loans, because the SBDC’s can work 

successfully with their current bankers and their debt structure 

from that perspective. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. I would like to now recognize Ranking Member Carson for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rivera, please describe the SBA’s loan disaster program, such as the criteria used 

by the SBA to determine whether to grant an SBA loan, the debtto-income ratio used, the loan recovery rate over the years, and the 

process used in the event of a default—the loan default rate. 

Mr. RIVERA. OK. So, the process is we encouraged everybody in 

a Presidential declaration to start registering with FEMA. What we 

do is we provide FEMA with an income test table. And if they are 

below that income test table, those disaster survivors stay with 

FEMA and they go from—to the unmet needs program, where they 

get a grant immediately. If they are above that income threshold, 

they are referred to SBA. We encourage everybody to apply online 

with our electronic loan application. As I have mentioned, we have 

gone from 25 percent up to 55 percent. So it is a pretty seamless 

process, from that perspective. 

When we look at an application, when we receive an application, 

we do an analysis. We look at income and debt. We actually use 

what is reported on an individual’s Federal tax returns. We don’t 

ask for copies of their tax transcripts—I mean Federal tax returns. 

We ask for them to give us authorization to get a copy of their tax 

transcript. 

So, what is reported to the IRS is what we use, from an income 

perspective. We run credit bureau reports, and we also credit score 

those individuals. If somebody has a credit score that is in the 

lower 500s, what we end up doing is we decline them and refer 

them back toFEMA on the homeowner side. And, as I mentioned 

to Chairman Barletta, we refer the businesses to the small business development centers. 

On average, you know, we make about 50 percent of the loans 

that we—that are—of the applicants that apply to us. Once we 

fully process and once we fully disperse the loans, we have our 

own—we are basically a disaster bank. We will hand off the relationship from our office to the Office of Capital Access that service 

the loans. They are very lenient, from the perspective—from a collection perspective. But we do follow private-sector collection practices. On average, home loan default rate is about 10 percent, and 

the business loan default rate is about 15 percent. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you. Ms. Cha ́vez, what types of housing tools 

did HUD use in relationship to Sandy to provide housing to displaced residents, especially for low-income individuals? Did HUD 

have adequate authority to implement all the various housing options considered? 

Ms. CHA ́ VEZ. Yes, we do. In fact, the Act provides for HUD to approve the jurisdiction’s plan. So when State of New Jersey, New 

13 

York, New York City submitted their plans, they needed to ensure 

they were meeting the housing needs of low-income individuals, 

and also address damage to public housing units and include that 

as part of their plan. 

So, their housing programs really include the spectrum of assistance to low-income individuals, development for multifamily rental 

housing, as well as assistance to homeowners. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you. Mr. Nimmich, FEMA’s ability to use 

cost estimating was first authorized in the Disaster Mitigation Act 

of 2000, yet it was never implemented. That authority was expanded on in the Sandy Relief Act. What obstacles or challenges, 

in your mind, if any, have been identified that may impact implementation and use the cost of estimating authority? 

Mr. NIMMICH. I think the biggest challenge is the uncertainty of 

a new program. We have already started and have actually implemented a program with Vermont that was signed on the 29th of 

August of this year. We are working very closely with Oklahoma. 

But any time you go from a well-established process of actual cost 

to a new process of estimation, where the grantee is ultimately responsible for the final cost of the improvement, or the replacement, 

there is a certain degree of uncertainty. 

So, we are in an education program, sir, to make sure that they 

understand, and that we use very good cost estimates from both 

the grantee’s perspective, as well as FEMA’s perspective, to ensure 

that we have a capability of completing that project within the estimated cost. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Ranking Member Carson. I would like 

to recognize Mr. Walz for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Chairman. And I would like to thank each 

of you and the folks who work in your agencies for being there at 

some of the most difficult times for our constituents across the 

country. And my district is no different. A 2007 flood, each of your 

agencies were there, providing that assistance and trying to work 

through the individual issues. And they are always challenging. 

I have a specific question, Mr. Nimmich, to help me on this. We 

had an ice storm in April of this year. And, of course, those most 

often—the most devastating part is it pulls down our electric utilities. And my district, being rural Minnesota, just like a large part 

of the country, is served by rural electric cooperatives. And those 

cooperatives serve 12 percent of the population, but cover over 55 

percent of the geographic land. So they are nonprofits, it is very, 

very narrow. 

Well, in this ice storm, brought down lines, we applied to FEMA 

to try and get help. FEMA denied two of my cooperatives, Federated and Nobles, any help because of their determination that 

they did not have—I guess the word here is ‘‘appropriate board policy’’ on this. The problem we are having is the interagency fight. 

These cooperatives follow rural utilities, RUS, Department of Agriculture. The proposal is in there. 

Now, this is not a question of whether there was maintenance on 

the line. That is not in question. It was done right. It wasn’t in 

paper accordingly. Their confusion lies is their main funder is RUS 

loans. And they followed those procedures absolutely correctly, but 

14 

they are being denied the assistance that they were—they tried to 

appeal it, and the only thing we are hearing is a FEMA declaration 

that it wasn’t appropriate board policy. 

So, this creates great confusion amongst them. It created—again, 

cooperatives are so narrow, and their consumers are so narrow, 

their members, that one like this has a devastating impact on 

rates, 100-percent increases in some cases. 

And so, I guess my question is—and I am not putting—yes, I am 

putting you on the spot a bit—maybe more for your staff. We still 

don’t understand. Those rules were not given correctly. It was an 

interpretation after the fact. No one has ever questioned the service commitment or how these were done. And all documentation indicates the lines were completed within FEMA guidelines. In no instance was a conductor replacement done incorrectly. No one is disputing that. But it is like, ‘‘You didn’t have the right set of paperworks in the policy, and because of that we are denying you.’’ 

So, my question is, what is our course of action? This is devastating to these rural electrics, it is devastating economically. And 

they feel they followed exactly what they should, they saw the Department of Agriculture as the authority propagating the rules, not 

FEMA. So how do we go about that? 

Mr. NIMMICH. So, Mr. Walz, I don’t have the specifics of why the 

denial was put in place. But I will offer you that we will answer 

that question for the record. 

Mr. WALZ. I appreciate that. And again, I want to be very clear. 

I thank all of you. These are challenging. Every individual situation in every disaster is different in its own way. I am very appreciative of the chairman and the ranking member in this committee 

I think trying to streamline this and trying to understand that, and 

recognize each of your agencies are absolutely critical. But if we 

can do a better job at it, then we should continue to try and do a 

better job. So I thank you for that. 

Mr. NIMMICH. Yes, sir. I recognize the sense of frustration. And 

it does become more difficult, as we move from State and publicowned utilities to privately owned utilities, and it becomes a gray 

area. But we owe you a better answer, and we will provide one for 

the record. 

Mr. WALZ. I appreciate that. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Walz. I would ask unanimous 

consent to insert into the record a letter from the BuildStrong Coalition, thanking the committee for today’s hearing, and encouraging 

us to consider mitigation strategies for saving lives, reducing property damage and Federal disaster costs. The Coalition consists of 

a variety of fire service groups, property insurers, and code councils. 

[No response.] 

Mr. BARLETTA. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

15 


Insert offset folio 8 here 82819.008

BUllDSTRONG 

COALITION 

September 18, 20l} 

The Honorable Lou Barletta, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Economic Ikvei<DPrncrrt Publk Buildings and Erllcrgcncy Management 

Committee on Transportation & 

\I,S. House 

Dear Chairman Barletta: 

The Bui!dStrong Coalition would like to thank Member Carson and the Suhcommittee 

on Subcommittee on Economic I),'wl:"no,,',,' and Fmcrgency Management f()[ 

holding today's hearing on FEMA Re::luthor'izrrtion: RccIlVerin" Quicker and Smarter. 

BuiklStrong is a coalition of national business ano conSUlTI(:r organizations, companies, and 

rnanagcrncnt officials dedicated to stronger huilding codes to help communities 

major natural disasters \vhilc saving taxpayer money at the same time. 

Building: Codes Save Lives, rropcl'~' and Taxpayer l\rioney 

Overwhelming evidence exists to dem,mstrate that the adoption and enCi:)fCerncnt of statc\vidc 

huilding codes saves lives and greatly reduces and the need for federal assistance 

resulting from disasters. The f .ouisiana St:ltc Center estimated that stronger 

huilding codes would have reduced \-vind damage from I Iurricane Katrina by 80 percent, saving $8 

billion. 

In 2005. FEMA commissioned a study the National Institute Sciences' Multihazard 

Mitigation Council. The of the hased on the yvork of more than national experts, \vas to 

"assess the future 

on hazard 

henetits. 

to the every $1 dollar 

nation about $4 in 

A study done f(,r the Insurance Institute for Business & HOl11e Sarety (lBHS) i(rund that losses fro 111 

Hurricane Andrew. \vhich struck south Florida in 1992 and caused more than $20 hillion (in 

dollars) in insured damage. would hm'C heen reduced by 50 few residential and 40 

percent Cor commercial property- if those structures \-vere in accordance with 2004 

statewide huilding code. Another tniiS study I Iurrieanc Charley in 2004 t(lUnd that 

modern building codes reduced the sc\'cr!ty of property 

losses hy 60 percent. 

hy 42 pt.:'rccnt and the frequency of 

\\ \Y\y.hui Idstrongamerica.coll1 
16 


Insert offset folio 9 here 82819.009

More valuable research is currently being conuuctcu by the [BI is at their research lah in Richburg, 

South Cnrolina. This research already has demonstrated ho\\ the human and ilnancial costs of 

natural disasters can be stronger homes. \Vith relatively 

in construction such as to crcate a continuous load from the n)oL 

and into the foundation, roo(, decking, and textured, than smooth nails, test homes \ycrc 

huilt to withstand 1 ! 0 mile-pef-hour \vinds \:vith little fest homes vvith the same floor plan 

that \vere not upgraded, v,cere completely specds of only 95 mph to 100 mph. 

Taking steps to prepare in these \vays hcfixc a has a real e!Tect in limiting the recovery 

afterwards. 

Despite this correlation, most states have not enacted statc\,vicic codes and related inspection 

and enforcement measures. Sta1t:: standards fix construction. inspection, and enforcement 

\viddy across the country. \Vherc statewide codes exist. it is not uncommon to allow inuividua! 

imisdiicti,oos (e.g .. cities of a particular class, or counties) to deviate from the state standards, 

occasiona!ly resulting in a \vcakening oftbc model minimum standards. 

Model huilding codes govern all aspects of construction and 

the devastating effects of natural l fniform. 

moJel building codes by states 

the environment. and 

are 

to each state. 

construction experts and local building working 

state level to mitigate effects of natura! disaster perils 

The Safe Building Code Incentive Act 

supports fLR. 1878. The Safe Building Code Incentive Act, 

disaster relief funding if they enact modem building 

Codc Incentive Act would create financial inccntiyc I1x states to adopt and 

from 

codes. Under the Im:v, states that adopt and cni(}[cl.' nationally 

codes for and commercial :.<tructurcs would for an 

The program 

Several stales have learned the hard way - adopting and enforcing building codes after massive 

dcstmction that could have been prevented from naturRl disasters. As stated prior, this legislation 

v/ill not additional to FEMA it draws funds from the Disaster 

the nalurc incentive docs not mandate the adoption 

building codes on any states that \vish to maintain their current patc!1\vork structurc< 

mitigation benefits proves this incentive to he a tiscally rcsponsibk' method 

in natural disaster recovery \vhile working to future The 

Code lncentive Act is a that 

Wi\ \v.huiklstrongarncrica.com 
17 


Insert offset folio 10 here 82819.010

Conclusion 

natural disasters, 

save private 

the resiliency 

event. As a community bcgins the 

operation and citizens can return to their 

Furthcr. building codes contribute to 

COlnnll!n" LV to "bounce-hack" quicker from a hazard 

businesses can return to fidl 

recover and lessen the burden on assistance providers. 

businesses save lives. 

the local economy has to 

imlonrbmtiv stronger homes and 

BuildStrong would like to thank Chairman Barletta, 

Subc()mll11ittec on Economic Development. Puhlic Buildings and FnH'r"NWV Management f6r holding 

this important hearing. 

Sincerely. 

American S'ociefy 

Allstate Insurance 

American Insurance Association 

Institute 

Financial Service.v Roundtable 

Firemen~(, Association s,'tate nf:VeH' York 

Florida Association 

Florida /'J/'wrv(,/1f:V I'r,on/;,mlness /'iSS/Je/,;IIl(m 

Insurance Institute/hI' and Home 5'qfi:(v 

Independent Insurance Agenfs and Brokers 

International ('ode Council 

Afutuul Insurance 

National ('on neil 

,Valionnl 

/I/atimnritie Insurance 

l'rntessi,muJI/nSlirance .Agents 

Propen.-v ('as1/a/(1' insurer;,.' Assodation (~lAmerica 

Reinsurance As,'mcia/iof} (?lAmcrica 

S'lrong-Tie ('0 

'havde,.s 

,\/a/c Farm Insurance Companies 

lhe !lur{/iJrd 

(iSAA 

\V\V\v. bui !dstrnngamcrica. com 
18 

I would now like to recognize Ms. Edwards for 5 minutes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is great to see 

the leadership of this committee including our new ranking member, as well. And thank you all for—the witnesses today—for your 

testimony. 

I was just recently at a family reunion and one of my cousins is 

still displaced from Hurricane Sandy and was just incredibly frustrated by the process of trying to figure out getting assistance and 

rebuilding, moving from, you know, one temporary housing location 

to another temporary housing location. And I sympathized with 

her, but I don’t know what an answer is for a family like that. And 

you can imagine the challenges also still trying to maintain getting 

up and going to work every day, and trying to balance all of this. 

And it is true that across this country, whenever we have a disaster, we expect that our Government, whether it is our local and 

State government or our Federal Government, to be able to, you 

know, respond in a time of need. And I find it very, you know, 

amazing that, you know, for all of the beating up on Government 

that goes on around here, and I look at the work that your agencies 

do and that so many of your workers do, and when it comes to a 

disaster, the first thing that we call for is Government. 

And, thankfully, we have learned a lot over the last several 

years. I know your agencies have. I have seen on the ground— 

members of this committee actually went up to New York, New 

Jersey, to visit with some of the immediate responders and saw, on 

the ground, the coordination that goes on with FEMA, with various 

State and local partners and agencies. And we can see that there 

are problems, but there are also some things that are really working well. 

I, you know, witnessed, for example, the coordination that is taking place that allows flexibility for FEMA to make determinations 

about what kind of mitigation assistance to offer homeowners who 

may be able to stay in their home, even though their home doesn’t 

necessarily have water or electricity. That actually ends up saving 

us money, because you are able to engage in that kind of flexibility. 

So I really do appreciate the work that you do. 

And I know in Maryland, you know, we were fortunate, where 

other people were not. Our Eastern Shore was skirted by Hurricane Sandy. We received about $8 million in assistance. You know, 

any State or jurisdiction always wants to receive more. 

But my question just to you is, you know, when you think about 

the ability to pay and what is considered to calculate income and 

debt ratios, I am curious as to how you look at a business or a 

homeowner that has lost everything and still has, even with an insurance payment, still has a piece of a mortgage or a business loan 

to repay, and how you consider that in your determinations of income and ability to pay back a loan. 

And I am also curious as to what kind of pressure is brought to 

bear on banks and financial institutions to make loans that, even 

if guaranteed by the SBA, for example, that it doesn’t necessarily 

mean that the financial institution is going to make the loan. And 

so I wonder what you do in those circumstances to more strongly 

encourage those institutions to give up their capital to make these 

19 

loans that, in many cases, are like 100-percent guaranteed. Thank 

you. 

Mr. RIVERA. Thank you, Congresswoman Edwards. The disaster 

loan program is—the SBA disaster loan program is a direct loan 

program, contrary to the SBA’s 7(a) and 504 loan programs, which 

are—you know, it is a guarantee based on a percentage worked out 

with the bank. 

In situations where we are working to respond to individuals—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Is that 100 percent direct? 

Mr. RIVERA. Yes, the SBA disaster loan program is direct. And 

that is the 11-percent subsidy cost that the—for—it is 11 percent, 

or 11 cents on every dollar is what we get from the taxpayers. It 

is a subsidized program, from that perspective. 

The—we look at the 3 years prior to the disaster. So, in situations where somebody is completely wiped out or partially damaged, or whatever the uninsured loss is, what—we encourage them 

to apply with us, we will try to make the loan, and we can start 

the rebuilding process while they work with their insurance company to try to get, you know, back to where they were prior to the 

disaster, from that perspective. 

If they have an existing SBA-guaranteed loan on the 504 side, 

we actually reach out to the lender and ask that they provide some 

sort of deferment period so there is no payments made during that 

3-, 6-, 9-, 12-month period, where it goes from a recovery perspective. And also, we stage our first payment after the recovery has 

been completed. So, it takes them 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 

12 months to rebuild, we can go up to a couple of years if we need 

to, in order to make it as flexible as possible for the business. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And what about for homeowners? 

Mr. RIVERA. Homeowners, it is the same situation. Most insurance—I mean most homeowners’ mortgage companies are—they 

are pretty straightforward. If they don’t provide their monthly payment, they probably fall into foreclosure. In situations where there 

is walk-away states, we have discussions with the mortgage company and with the individual on what they plan to do and how they 

plan to proceed. But we follow the same—we request the same type 

of deferment process for individual homeowners that have existing 

mortgages, where they have lost their house. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Is that—I apologize, Mr. Chairman, but is that 

also true? Because one of the things that I have heard are frustrations is about homeowners who are also business owners and they 

have used their home to get a second mortgage to subsidize—to— 

you know, to help them with their business, and they fall into this 

kind of in-between category. 

Mr. RIVERA. So, you know, we treat them as—for example, there 

are a lot of home-based businesses. So, if you have a home-based 

business and you are damaged by a disaster, we will go ahead and 

make you a home loan on the physical side. And we can also make 

a physical business loan for any equipment that was lost, or anything regarding the home-based business, and then provide a working capital loan to help them with their—pay their fixed operating 

expenses during the disaster period while they recover. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Mullin 

for 5 minutes. 

20 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, sir. Appreciate once again to be here. 

Sorry I have to run in and run out. That is the juggling of, I guess, 

being elected now. 

My question is for Mr. Nimmich. Am I saying that right, sir? 

Mr. NIMMICH. Nimmich. 

Mr. MULLIN. Nimmich. OK, I am sorry. Can you explain how 

FEMA applies its policies to electric utility repair companies to applications for public assistance for electric cooperatives? How does 

FEMA manage the process so that regions that develop and apply 

standards that are outside FEMA’s own policy? What is FEMA 

doing to address inconsistency of rulings and decisions between its 

regions? 

Basically, what I am saying is that there has been a lot of inconsistency when FEMA has been needing to be called in for assistance with these co-ops. And when we are trying to get to a role 

that everybody is dealing with, we seem to have a lot of people injecting their own opinions on the role of FEMA. 

Mr. NIMMICH. As I indicated to Representative Walz, when it 

comes to electric co-ops, you start into that gray area between publicly owned and privately owned entities. 

I can’t give you the specific answer at the moment, but I will answer your question, Mr. Mullin, for the record. 

Mr. MULLIN. OK. The issue—let me address it—to be a little 

bit—bring it down to a different level. I am from Westville. I live 

right on the border. My back fence is literally Arkansas. Westville, 

Oklahoma-Arkansas back fence. When a ice storm came in, we 

were having issues with being able to bring in utility companies 

over the State line to help with repairs to our electric system because of an interpretation that we couldn’t find—saying that we 

couldn’t bring out-of-State contractors to help us in the repair if we 

were deemed to have the manpower to do it, no matter how long 

it was going to take. 

That was an issue. When you are on a border—I can understand 

that if maybe you live in Oklahoma City. But when you live in a 

border town like ours, that creates some pretty big problems. 

Mr. NIMMICH. Sir, so are you talking about the decision on 

whether we would fund the support or the resources from another 

State? Because the utilities usually have emergency management 

agreements, where they work with each other—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Right. 

Mr. NIMMICH [continuing]. To support it. So I presume you are 

getting to the point you were denied payment because the decision 

was made that the utility could have affected its own repairs, as 

opposed to using an EMAC-type of support. 

Mr. MULLIN. I don’t know the details to it. We were told that 

FEMA wasn’t going to pay for out-of-State contractors to come in 

and help us. 

Mr. NIMMICH. OK, so that is part of the Federal coordinating officer’s processes of determining what are equitable costs or not equitable costs. The question, I think, is that the cooperatives become 

a gray area. And I owe you an explanation of what is eligible and 

what is not eligible in costs for a cooperative, in terms of repairs 

to the electric system, and I will provide that for the record. 

Mr. MULLIN. OK. Appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

21 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Mullin. Mr. Nimmich, Pennsylvania was hit with severe weather and flooding during June and 

July. However, last month, Pennsylvania was denied a request for 

major disaster declaration based on FEMA’s assertion that these 

storms were not part of the same weather system. Now, this conclusion directly contradicted the conclusion of the National Weather Service that indicated the same weather system caused these 

storms. 

Now, disaster declarations have been issued for other States in 

which storms occurring over a period of time were a part of the 

same system. 

My question is, what are the clear criteria that FEMA uses to 

determine if—whether events are part of the same overall system? 

And then how are they applied in this particular case? 

Mr. NIMMICH. Chairman Barletta, we currently have the appeal 

from the State of Pennsylvania for that request for a major declaration, and it is in processing now. We work very closely with the National Weather Service in terms of identifying what are, in fact, 

complete cells or not cells. We have gone back to them for validation and make sure we have the right interpretation of that weather pattern at that time, and it will be reviewed as part of the process of the appeal. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. How do you anticipate the reforms in 

the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act may be used in the wake of 

the recent storms and flooding in Colorado? 

Mr. NIMMICH. Administrator Fugate has already had discussions 

with the Governor, and the Governor clearly is interested in the alternate public assistance procedures that would allow him to rebuild better and stronger, based on accurate assessments of what 

the damage is. We fully expect that both the debris and the alternate procedures, public assistance procedures, will be utilized by 

the State of Colorado, as the debris pilot was used in the State of 

Oklahoma for the Moore tornadoes. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Nimmich, as you know, we are in the process 

of drafting a FEMA reauthorization bill. In the Sandy rebuilding 

strategy report issued last month it recommends cutting red tape, 

but gives little guidance to Congress as to how to do so. Are there 

additional authorities or reforms you believe are needed to improve—to further improve recovery and rebuilding efforts following 

disasters? 

Mr. NIMMICH. Mr. Chairman, the authorities that this committee 

helped give us in the Sandy Recovery Act are a long way forward 

to being able to be more efficient, more flexible, and more capable 

of meeting States’ needs. We are just at the part of implementing 

those particular elements of the Recovery Act, and we do not, at 

this point in time, have additional requests of the committee. 

However, as we do work these procedures through, and identify 

areas where there may be additional capabilities, we will come 

back to the committee for that—or to provide that information. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Now, as you know, earlier this year we enacted 

reforms to the recovery process through the Sandy Recover Improvement Act. That Act was intended to cut through the red tape 

and speed up the rebuilding process. How many applicants have 

accepted the public assistance pilot program? 

22 

Mr. NIMMICH. Thus far, Mr. Chairman, the State of Vermont, not 

having started any of the construction work on their damage from 

Hurricane Irene, has moved forward and accepted the alternate 

procedures. 

The challenge we have is, as I have indicated, alternate procedures create a degree of uncertainty from what has been a standard process. So we are actively engaging with the State of New 

York, the State of New Jersey, Oklahoma, Colorado, Alaska, all of 

these States, to ensure they completely understand the new alternate procedures and are comfortable with them, so that we can 

move forward. That education process is taking some time. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Are there any regulatory or legislative hurdles 

preventing applicants from not wanting to use the program? 

Mr. NIMMICH. Not at this time. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Ms. Cha ́vez, FEMA mitigation projects meet a 

cost-benefit test in order to receive funding. HUD has billions of 

dollars for mitigation after Sandy. Does HUD require a cost benefit 

test? And, if not, how do you ensure taxpayer dollars go to the most 

beneficial projects? 

Ms. CHA ́ VEZ. So the next allocation of Sandy dollars will be focused on infrastructure and, of course, on mitigation. And I think 

that when we issue the notice, you will be happy to see the requirements that we are placing on grantees to ensure that they analyze 

the cost benefit of the project. 

But even in the regular projects, and what they are doing now 

with housing and small business, we do ensure that they are really 

addressing just the unmet need. So our grantees are required to 

look at all the financial assistance that has been provided, again, 

by FEMA, SBA insurance, any other sources, before they actually 

fund unmet need. 

So, our disaster recovery funding is focused on ensuring that 

they are really addressing the unmet need and not duplicating benefits. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ranking 

Member Carson. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Cha ́vez, when 

Congress enacted the Sandy supplemental appropriations bill earlier this year, we effectively required grantees to expend the funds 

within 24 months of the funds being obligated. In order to ensure 

that this process is transparent, please describe the process HUD 

uses to submit waiver requests to OMB, the type of data provided 

to OMB, and what information about the request, if any, that you 

share with the grantee. 

Ms. CHA ́ VEZ. Sure. So, first of all, you know, we ask grantees to 

obligate the funds that they are going to need immediately. So, 

again, if they have a 2-year expenditure deadline on all allocations. 

So, although we may allocate a large portion of their grant, they 

only have to obligate with us, in terms of a grant agreement, the 

funds they are going to use immediately. Because as soon as they 

obligate, that is when the 2-year clock starts. 

But in terms of the—to OMB, we have submitted our proposal 

on how we will be approving waivers as grantees request them 

from HUD. And we are clear that some activities take much longer, 

and will take much longer than 24 months. You know, housing 

23 

rehab is usually very fast. Of course, infrastructure can take years. 

So what we are asking grantees to do, as they start to request 

waivers—and, of course, that has not started yet—but when they 

do, is to outline the type of activity they are requesting the waiver, 

and the reasons why. So we have a whole system that—but the 

waivers will come through to HUD, and HUD will then review 

them and provide the approval. 

Mr. CARSON. Recently there have been complaints by Sandy-impacted residents about mold growth in their homes. Does HUD 

have any program to help address these mold issues? 

Ms. CHA ́ VEZ. CDBGDR, the recovery funds, can be used for mold 

remediation. And we have made that clear to grantees and provided a lot of guidance on that issue. And we are also going to reinforce it in the next notice, so the grantees are clear on that—— 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you. 

Ms. CHA ́ VEZ [continuing]. Activity. 

Mr. CARSON. Mr. Nimmich, FEMA has adopted wildfire mitigation policies for hazard mitigation grant programs and the pre-disaster mitigation programs. Has FEMA examined the debris removal program in forested areas, and evaluated how the debris removal program can be also used to mitigate wildfires? 

Mr. NIMMICH. The debris removal program is associated with a 

disaster. There are wildfires that qualify, and then there are some 

that are not. We have not had a request, nor have we reviewed 

how the debris removal program may remove what is normally a 

Forest Service requirement to take out the undergrowth or the 

challenges of the fuel for the fire. 

Again, debris has to be associated with the disaster. So it would 

be removing the burnt debris out, rather than a pre—the debris 

program would not take out the fuels that exist pre-fire. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. I expect there will be additional questions that will be submitted for the record. And I welcome Ranking 

Member Carson to submit any that he has, as well. 

I would like to thank you all for your testimony. Your comments 

have been very helpful to today’s discussion. I will now call on our 

second panel. 

I thank you. On our second panel we have Mr. Glenn M. Cannon, 

director of Pennsylvania’s Emergency Management Agency, National Emergency Management Association; Mr. Gayland Kitch, director of emergency management, city of Moore, Oklahoma, U.S. 

Council of the International Association of Emergency Managers; 

and Mr. Michael Finley, chairman, Confederated Tribes of the 

Colville Reservation. 

I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be 

included in the record. 

[No response.] 

Mr. BARLETTA. Without objection, so ordered. Since your written 

testimony has been made a part of the record, the subcommittee 

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

Mr. Cannon, you may proceed. 

24 

TESTIMONY OF GLENN M. CANNON, ESQ., DIRECTOR, PENNSYLVANIA EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, ON BEHALF 

OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION; GAYLAND KITCH, DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, CITY OF MOORE, OKLAHOMA, ON BEHALF OF THE 

U.S. COUNCIL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

EMERGENCY MANAGERS; AND MICHAEL O. FINLEY, CHAIRMAN, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Chairman Barletta and Ranking Member Carson, for the opportunity to represent the National Emergency Management Association this morning, along with my home 

State of Pennsylvania, at this important hearing today. 

Sandy was a unique storm in that, since it was so widespread, 

it gave us the opportunity, as a Nation, to reflect back on what 

happened: improvements that can be made, how to implement 

those improvements, and an evaluation of the final products. I will 

cover these aspects today of Sandy and her aftermath. 

As Sandy moved towards the east coast, Pennsylvania closely 

monitored the storm and its projected tracks. The U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers continually generated models utilizing the National 

Hurricane Center storm track predictions to project the storm’s 

path and the anticipated catastrophic damages. We quickly deployed swift water rescue teams and other rescue assets, sought a 

Stafford Act declaration from the President, and prepared for the 

worst. 

Sandy’s actual landfall occurred north and east of those projections. But flooding, widespread wind damage, infrastructure damages, extensive power outages, and transportation interruptions occurred throughout our State. 

The damage we experienced and subsequent Presidential disaster declaration was significant for us, but nothing near what our 

neighbors in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut experienced. 

We are all well aware of the scale and scope of the damage to New 

Jersey. But the true story of success there is in the tremendous response and recovery they mounted. I worked with my counterpart 

there to help put together this testimony today, and he gave me 

some thoughts which he would like me to share with you. 

In the month following the storm, New Jersey quickly began focusing on long-term recovery challenges. The Governor’s Office of 

Recovery and Rebuilding directed all stakeholders in State government to consider strategic approaches to rebuild a safer, stronger, 

and more resilient State. Now, 11 months after the disaster, New 

Jersey is still working to meet unmet needs. But by continuing to 

work with HUD, utilizing community development block grant 

funding, working with their new reconstruction, rehabilitation, elevation, and mitigation program, and traditional FEMA programs, 

I am confident that they will prevail. And, as you recognize, they 

recently had a set-back with a fire on their boardwalk, which undid 

much of their work. 

So far in New Jersey, FEMA’s assistance has amounted to $1.1 

billion in Federal allocations, $388 million approved for housing 

and other needs assistance, $650.6 million in Federal share obliVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:54 Feb 28, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\ED\9-18-1~1\82819.TXT JEAN
25 

gated for public assistance, and $35 million in Federal share for 

hazard mitigation. 

After the storm, however, is when the real change started to 

come about. Your committee and partners in Congress swiftly 

moved to pass critical disaster aid, as well as the Sandy Recovery 

Improvement Act. Once NEMA had adequate time to address all 

these sweeping changes, the association has enthusiastically come 

to support this legislation. We dedicated more than 7 hours of discussion time on the agenda at our mid-year forum, just 3 weeks 

after its passage. We also submitted comments to FEMA on the 

new individual assistance program and the strategy of reducing 

costs of future disasters. These comments on the strategy have 

been submitted, along with my statement, for the record. 

But perhaps nowhere have we seen firsthand the success of your 

legislation than in Oklahoma. After the massive sweep of tornadoes 

in Oklahoma back in May, they were able to act as the first test 

bed for the alternate procedures pilot program for debris removal. 

With that, they were able to utilize the sliding scale for accelerated 

debris removal, take advantage of recycling revenues from that debris, reimburse straight time for labor costs, and allow an increased Federal reimbursement share for two communities that 

had in place debris removal plans before the event. These reforms 

are working and demonstrating how Government can work smarter 

in disaster recovery. 

So far, we applaud FEMA for their efforts and look forward to 

continuing our work with them and you to ensure the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act is implemented smartly. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I will look 

forward to any questions you might have. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Cannon. 

And, Mr. Kitch, you may proceed. 

Mr. KITCH. Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member Carson, and 

distinguished members of the subcommittee, good morning to you. 

My name is Gayland Kitch, and I am representing the United 

States Council of the International Association of Emergency Managers. It is an honor to provide testimony today concerning recovering quicker and smarter from disaster. 

During my 22 years as the director of emergency management 

for the city of Moore, Oklahoma, I have seen violent tornadoes 

damage parts of my city on several occasions. I suspect many of 

you watched our large, violent tornado live on television on the 

afternoon of Monday, May 20th, of this year. Winds in this storm 

are estimated to have been over 200 miles per hour. The damage 

from this storm has been rated by the National Weather Service 

as EF5. 

The tornado began near New Castle, Oklahoma, and moved 

northeast into Oklahoma City. It entered my city at our west city 

limits and tore a path of destruction one-half-mile wide as it continued to track completely through Moore. Some 14 miles from its 

beginnings, the tornado finally dissipated east of my city. In its 

wake, the storm left 24 fatalities and hundreds of injuries. It destroyed more than 1,300 homes within my city, 2 elementary 

schools, our hospital, post office, some 50 businesses, and several 

beautiful parks. 

26 

Unfortunately, my city has a history with tornadoes, with 6 separate events in the past 15 years. This history includes another F– 

5 tornado, which occurred on May 3, 1999. The highest winds ever 

recorded, 316 miles an hour, were measured in that storm. More 

than 800 homes and numerous businesses were rebuilt then, after 

that. 

We deeply appreciate the continuing support that this subcommittee has provided to the emergency management community, 

particularly your strong support in strengthening FEMA and in 

streamlining disaster assistance. This has contributed greatly to 

our city’s preparedness and ability to respond and recovery from 

events, such as our recent tornadoes. 

For instance, emergency management performance grant funding 

received by the city of Moore allows us to emphasize mitigation and 

preparedness activities. Many of these activities have promoted 

awareness of hazards and disasters within our community, and 

raised the level of preparedness of both our residents and responders alike. 

In 2009, the city of Moore and the Moore public schools sent a 

dozen responders and school administrators to FEMA’s Emergency 

Management Institute. There we learned about the various hazards at our schools, and were trained on how to plan for emergencies occurring at our educational campuses. Many of the lessons 

we learned at EMI were put into action during this last disaster 

and in previous emergencies. 

Our city strongly endorses the hazard mitigation grant program. 

After the 1999 and 2003 tornadoes, HMGP funding assisted many 

of our residents in constructing safe rooms in their homes. As a result of this, safe rooms are now a widely accepted preventative 

measure for severe winds in our city and, indeed, throughout Oklahoma. Nearly 15 percent of the homes in our city now have safe 

rooms. And nearly a quarter of those had funding assistance 

through HMGP. There is no doubt that these safe rooms saved 

many lives on May 20th. 

HMGP funding has also allowed us to expand our outdoor warning siren system as our community has grown, and we know that 

these sirens were a key component in alerting our residents and 

guests of impending danger during our recent storms. 

As others have noted earlier today, our city has benefitted greatly from participation in FEMA’s alternate procedures pilot program 

for debris removal that was part of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act. This program afforded us the opportunity for reimbursement on a sliding scale, emphasizing expedient removal of some 

nearly 12,000 truckloads of tornado debris. From experience with 

previous events, we already knew the value of quickly cleaning our 

city, which promotes our swift rebuilding. However, this pilot program will result in an overall savings to our city conservatively approaching $1 million. We do have some suggestions for improvement to the pilot program, and we are passing those along. 

As I conclude, let me recognize not only FEMA and their programs, which have been so well supported by this subcommittee, 

but also the efforts of the thousands of volunteers from all over the 

Nation which have helped our community to pick up and dust ourselves off, as well as the many generous, heartfelt donations that 

27 

we have received. Added to the Federal and State assistance and 

our own native Oklahoma resilience, we will soon return stronger 

and better. And our new motto is, ‘‘We are more strong.’’ 

Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions you might 

have. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Kitch. 

Chairman Finley, you may proceed. 

Mr. FINLEY. Thank you, Chairman. And good morning to you, 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Carson. It is a pleasure and 

honor to be before you today to offer this testimony on behalf of the 

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. I presently serve 

as chairman. And this is now my fourth year as chairman for our 

tribes. We are located in northeast Washington State, have a land 

base of approximately 1.4 million acres, which is slightly larger 

than the State of Delaware. About 800,000 of those acres is forest 

timber property, which—historically, we have been a huge timber 

tribe, and that has been our main source of income for a number 

of years. 

Before I begin I would like to express my appreciation on behalf 

of the tribes for the subcommittee and the full committee’s work on 

implementing the amendments to the Stafford Act, and—that— 

which allows tribes to make declarations directly to the President, 

rather than going through States. I am going to speak about an incident that occurred on Colville prior to those amendments being 

made. But I just wanted to recognize that at the outset, that we 

are extremely appreciative. It is something that the tribes have 

been looking for for a number of years. I personally have been 

working on that. And we are just now grateful that the committee 

was able to recognize those concerns and bring them forward into 

law. So we are greatly appreciative for that. 

In July of 2012 we suffered a pretty devastating disaster on 

Colville in the form of a wind storm and flash flooding that took 

place on several hundred thousand acres of our lands, but the primary focus, or at least the devastation, was more apparent in the 

center part of our reservation in our community of Keller. In some 

areas, the winds exceeded 100 miles an hour, which—in our area 

that is pretty extreme, given the large stands of timber that we 

have. They were unaware to sustain those winds, and so, consequently, a lot of our prime timber property in that area either 

broke in half or fell completely down. It was scattered all over that 

entire area. 

As you might imagine, we do have a lot of community members 

that live in that area. They experienced extensive damage. You 

know, some houses were destroyed by fallen trees, outbuildings 

were destroyed by fallen trees. And a lot of the infrastructure— 

power lines, et cetera—fell victim to that storm, as well. And so it 

took us a while to gather the pieces, so to speak. And, as I stated, 

this was prior to the amendments being made. So, luckily, we had 

a good relationship with the State of Washington, and we were able 

to work with them on having them include those portions of our 

reservation in the declaration that ultimately was approved. 

But in doing the work on the ground, our technical people had 

a lot of difficulty working with FEMA. There were a lot of laws, 

there were a lot of policies that really didn’t apply to tribal lands, 

28 

and especially with the incident that we were dealing with on the 

ground. It occurred at a—in a area—in areas where a lot of our 

tribal members would gather traditional foods. A lot of our members are subsistence gatherers still. And so a lot of those trees 

crossed roadways and pathways that took our members to these 

areas. And so, because of that, they were unable to get to those 

areas. And some of the areas today they are still unable to get to, 

because the FEMA debris removal that you mentioned, Mr. Ranking Member Carson, didn’t apply, and it still doesn’t. 

And so, not only did that create a problem for our people there, 

it creates a problem for fire hazards. We try to do our best to protect our forests and make them a sustainable—and to create a 

safer environment that was more like the historic levels that we 

once experienced. But, unfortunately, with those areas not applying 

to the Federal trust lands that we have on Colville Reservation, we 

are unable to clean up a lot of that, and a lot of it remains on the 

ground today, even drier than what they were before. 

Another problem we had was getting an emergency preparedness 

plan in place. And we were unable to access any Federal dollars 

for that. We ultimately use our own tribal dollars to get the preliminary draft out for that, and that is the draft we used when this 

disaster struck. 

And so, we are still at a disadvantage. We need the training and 

we need the resources to better equip our emergency management 

personnel. And I think that it isn’t something that we need, the 

FEMA sponsored or supported training. We just—which is the current FEMA model. We need resources to do it ourselves. And we 

strongly believe we can do it ourselves. And we did a tremendous 

job, given the limited resources we had at the time. 

We also need to improve the coordination with other Federal 

agencies. During the course of cleanup and response, we ran into 

a situation to where some of the equipment we needed was readily 

available through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but there wasn’t an 

appropriate mechanism in place that allowed us to use those. And 

so, instead of using the warehouse that was full of the generators 

and all the back-up stuff that we needed, we had to seek outside 

sources to get those. 

So, I think moving in the future, if this committee could work on 

implementing MOUs or what have you through the Department of 

the Interior with BIA to have more access to those resources in the 

immediate nature, I think that would benefit not just Colville, but 

a lot of other tribes around the country. 

Same with the National Interagency Fire Center. Again, they 

had radio repeaters, generators, and stuff that they had on their 

shelves that, you know, we were willing to pay at cost out of our 

pocket. But there wasn’t a mechanism within DOI that allowed for 

that accounting to take place. 

And so, I think there are just small changes that could be made 

that can help not just our tribe, but other tribes nationwide, as 

they face similar disasters on their homelands. 

So, earlier, when Mr. Walz mentioned that due to technicalities 

they were unable to access certain funding streams to help to clean 

up the mess or to pay for some of the costs that were incurred as 

a result of the disaster, you know, we faced a number of those on 

29 

many different levels. And a lot of those are explained in my original testimony that I had submitted to you. So I encourage you to 

please look over those and take those into consideration as you implement changes to the FEMA, moving forward. 

And lastly, I just want to mention this because it was a great 

burden to me, as a tribal leader, and to many of us working on the 

ground, that if FEMA’s public assistance team, when they arrived, 

just the mere fact that they are named ‘‘Public Assistance’’ gave 

the false hope to our people that they are there to provide some of 

the most basic needs, such as drinking water, supplies, and tangible relief. But that was not the case. They were there for the Government to assess the damages to decide whether or not they met 

the threshold. 

Ms. Edwards had mentioned earlier that she had a family member that was experiencing problems getting housing. We have the 

same problem at Colville with some of the lands that were—that 

sustained damage on Federal properties. The individual assistance 

program does not cover those damages on trust lands, incurred on 

trust structures on our reservation. So many of our tribal members 

live on our trust lands: 1.2 of the 1.4 million acres is in trust on 

Colville. So you can imagine that a lot of those properties that did 

sustain the damage, they were unable to access those programs. 

And so, again, here—we would highly encourage you to look at 

those changes and consider them as you make amendments. 

With that, that concludes my oral testimony at this time. I would 

be happy to answer any questions. I appreciate your time. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Finley. I will 

now begin the first round of questions limited to 5 minutes for each 

Member. If there are any additional questions following the first 

round, we will have additional rounds of questions, as needed. 

Mr. Cannon, I saw firsthand how devastating Hurricane Irene 

was and how our State was impacted by that and Hurricane 

Sandy. Can you tell us where you are in the rebuilding process for 

both of those disasters? 

Mr. CANNON. We suffered significant housing loss in Irene and 

Lee, and then exacerbated with Sandy. So we have been moving 

forward with temporary housing, sheltering, and then into the 

mitigation program. And we are in the process now of conducting 

the buy-outs for the areas that are flood-prone and have repetitive 

flooding. That process is extremely bureaucratic and time-consuming. The environmental and historic reviews consume significant time. 

And, additionally, in northeastern Pennsylvania, there are a lot 

of mineral rights that were transferred to someone 100 years ago 

that is no longer in existence. And under FEMA’s policy, when you 

buy out a property nothing can be on the surface of that ground 

again. And so, the fear that someone from 100 years ago might 

show up and put some structure to remove the coal prevents that 

house from being able to be purchased. So we have been doing a 

lot of work trying to deal with the mineral rights issues as it delays 

the mitigation process. 

You are probably aware that in Sandy, you know, we had extremely difficulty with that declaration and that process. I tried to 

get people to understand that there is a river called the Delaware 

30 

River that is between New Jersey and Pennsylvania. On the New 

Jersey side of the river they were declared; on the Pennsylvania 

side of the river they were not declared. And there certainly is no 

wall that goes down the middle of the river that stopped the storm. 

So, to go back to the public and try to explain that is extremely 

difficult. 

One of the most amazing issues was the denial of emergency protective measures for the communities that prepared for Sandy as 

a historic event. You know, never heard of before, unprecedented. 

We took great steps to prepare for that storm. Pennsylvania is a 

Commonwealth with 2,600 local municipal governments. People 

preparing for that event spent their public works overtime money, 

their salt budgets for the winter, all getting ready, and then we are 

not reimbursed for that. So, the next time I approach them in the 

next major event, they will say, ‘‘I am sorry, but I can’t do as much 

as I did the last time, because we just can’t afford it.’’ 

And so, it was an amazing adventure to see a denial of a declaration not based in law and not based on the CFR, but on a new 

standard of review that evaluated how you prepared based on the 

threat by the impact you had after the event. No one knows what 

the impact is going to be when you have the storm of the century 

that you are preparing for. 

So it has been difficult, and we continue to file appeals, and we 

will attempt to take every option available. Because at the end of 

it, of that process, are the people who suffer from these storms and 

these events. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Cannon. As a former mayor, I 

certainly understand what is involved in being prepared for a 

storm and the costs that are incurred, especially when so many 

communities are cash-strapped and do what they can to try to prevent lives from being lost and property lost, which—I certainly understand what you are saying. 

From your perspective, how well has Federal coordination with 

State and local governments worked in the recovery process? 

Mr. CANNON. That has been outstanding. Once we have gotten 

past our disagreements on things, the actual work itself has been 

outstanding. And I think key to the successful major disaster operations is the position called the Federal coordinating officer. And 

the FCO cadre, being highly skilled, highly trained, highly experienced, you know, they tend to try as much as possible to eliminate 

bureaucratic obstacles and to get the actual resources on the 

ground that people need to do it. 

And so, we have had a great working relationship. And together, 

between State resources and Federal resources, I think we have 

done a real good job on that recovery, working through those 

issues. But overall, it has been very good. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Ranking Member Carson for his questions. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Finley, in your testimony you suggest the need for tribes to hire and train as emergency managers. Has your tribe sent staff to FEMA’s Emergency 

Management Institute for training, or do you have any suggestions 

on how FEMA can improve outreach about the availability of such 

training programs? 

31 

Mr. FINLEY. I don’t have the exact answer for that, other than 

I know I have talked with some of our emergency response individuals, and they had expressed concern over some of that training. 

And I didn’t get into the exact details, but if you are interested in 

having that information I can certainly get that for you and make 

that available to you as soon as I possibly can. 

Mr. CARSON. It would be helpful. Thank you. 

Mr. FINLEY. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. CARSON. Mr. Kitch, do you have data or an estimate of how 

many of the private homes that are being built, or rebuilt, are incorporating mitigation activities such as safe rooms or different 

roofing techniques into the rebuilding of their homes? And what is 

the city doing to encourage residents to incorporate mitigation activities in their effort to rebuild? 

Mr. KITCH. Ranking Member Carson, thank you for the question. 

The—we are seeing a lot of the homes that are being rebuilt incorporating some sort of safe room or shelter within them. 

Mr. CARSON. Good. 

Mr. KITCH. We will be encouraging that. Some of the long-term 

recovery money that we are just now starting to receive we will be 

earmarking for assistance with safe rooms. And I know that several of the homes that we have already seen go up already have 

those in them. So—— 

Mr. CARSON. OK. 

Mr. KITCH. So there is quite a bit of activity with that. And I can 

tell you there is a lot of interest in my community for that, even 

from folks who weren’t. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you. Mr. Cannon, based on your description, 

it sounds as though the State of Pennsylvania engaged in extensive 

preparedness for Hurricane Sandy’s landfall. How have the extensive preparedness activities affected the State’s recovery effort? 

Mr. CANNON. Well, certainly, where it really makes a difference 

is in the response to the event immediately. Because when you lean 

forward and prepare those resources, you can minimize loss of life 

and suffering. 

But on top of that, making sure that we prepare in terms of each 

county and each local government’s preparedness reduces the impact, as well. So, when you can get people to evacuate ahead of 

time, rather than in the middle of the night, when your shelter system is open and in place, when you have done hazard mitigation 

planning on the front end, all of that helps reduce the impact to 

these bad events. It is when nothing has been done, and people just 

are lost, that it makes the situation much, much worse. 

Mr. CARSON. Well, given the number of storms experienced in 

Oklahoma, I found it quite interesting in your testimony that you 

stated that most of the Oklahoma communities do not have debris 

management plans. Do you think that this is commonplace? And, 

if so, what is the reason? 

Mr. CANNON. I believe it is. 

Mr. CARSON. OK. 

Mr. CANNON. And it is within the Improvement Act that the new 

pilot program will incentivize the local government to have a debris 

removal plan. So, while that hasn’t been the case in the past, I beVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:54 Feb 28, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\ED\9-18-1~1\82819.TXT JEAN
32 

lieve we will see significant numbers of communities with those 

plans in the future. 

Mr. CARSON. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my 

time. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Ranking Member Carson. And the 

Chair recognizes Mr. Mullin for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question will be to 

Mr. Kitch. You know, the idea that you have recently had to go 

through this horrific event and more, I would be curious to know, 

like I said when I had the opportunity to introduce you, the mistakes that you made that you got to correct with your second time 

and your third time going through this. 

On the first time I know you had to make mistakes. Not that 

they were detrimental mistakes, but they were mistakes. So could 

you share with this committee maybe some lessons that you 

learned, some things that you did different that maybe we could all 

take away and maybe apply them to different areas of the country 

if this ever happens again? 

Mr. KITCH. Thank you, Representative Mullin. Some of the challenges that I think that we have identified out of this round of tornadoes, number one, is our sheltering. As we spoke about a moment ago, we are working more on individual safe rooms for the 

residents of our city. 

For those who may not be from Oklahoma, we don’t build basements there to a great degree, because the soils just don’t allow 

that sort of thing to be done and—without the concrete cracking 

and them filling up with water. 

We also have recognized that we have a significant issue in sheltering in some of our public buildings such as our schools. And we 

have an initiative right now in our State legislature. We have several State legislators who are attempting to gather interest in a 

large bond from the State that would require and allow funding for 

the building of shelters in each one of our schools for the children 

and the staff that work there. 

The other challenge that we have definitely identified is that we 

are a little bit weak in our management of donations. We have received—you just cannot understand the amount of heartfelt donations that we have received from all over the country, and actually, 

from all over the world, that have come in by the truckloads. And 

the challenge there is that not all of the donations are necessarily 

appropriate for the type of event that we had, or the population of 

our city. And then the issue that goes along with, well, where do 

we put all of the stuff, how do we sort it, how do we make it available to those who do have needs, and what do we do with the rest 

of it. 

So, there is some significant challenges. And I don’t know that 

we have necessarily had mistakes as such, but the—there is definitely a lot of work to be done in front of us. 

Mr. MULLIN. Did you by any chance come up with a solution? I 

mean did you donate some of material back to other shelters? 

Mr. KITCH. The materials that we received—and are still receiving, I should add—were finally warehoused by the State. And my 

understanding is that they have, I think, taken care of most of 

that. And I am sure that a lot of that—— 

33 

Mr. MULLIN. OK. 

Mr. KITCH [continuing]. Went elsewhere to other disasters. I can 

tell you all of these shelters in Oklahoma were completely full of 

items. And even our nonprofits—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Right. 

Mr. KITCH. We received, you know, truckloads of diapers. 

Mr. MULLIN. Let me ask you one more question. Seeing that you 

have just gone through this disaster again, what kind of hurdles 

did you face with the coordinating between Federal and local situations that maybe could have helped speed up the situation to get 

help in areas of need? 

Mr. KITCH. We have actually been very pleased with this round, 

with the response from FEMA and their Federal partners. Having 

done this before, it hasn’t always been that way. But I can tell you 

that during this round of tornadoes, FEMA’s—some of their 

streamlined programs have certainly helped. 

And they have also streamlined some of their own procedures internally. I can tell you that within a day or two, that I had a— 

FEMA’s single point of contact that was—he almost lived in my office with me for a while. And when he wasn’t in my office, he was 

in our city manager’s office. And he was our go-between for everything FEMA. And if we had a question, it didn’t matter which part 

of FEMA we needed to deal with, he was our contact. And he—in 

addition to being just an outstanding gentleman to begin with, he 

completely streamlined that process for us. And I can tell you that 

my city management is so appreciative of that. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Mullin. Mr. Kitch, in your testimony you account what happened leading up to the tornadoes in 

May. One aspect in particular you highlight was the importance of 

alerting the public in as many ways as possible. 

Our committee has a long history of overseeing the development 

of FEMA’s integrated public alert and warning system, IPAWS, 

and we are exploring authorizing legislation as part of the FEMA 

reauthorization. Can you talk about how effective public alerts 

were, and did you utilize FEMA’s alerting system? 

Mr. KITCH. Mr. Chairman, the IPAWS system, or the alerting 

system, is just starting to come online in Oklahoma right now. My 

understanding was that there was some limited alerting through 

that on May 20th. My particular device did not receive that. I have 

an older device, and it is not quite there yet. 

But I do know that there was some very limited use of that. So 

at this time it is probably not quite ready. At least—it is probably 

ready today. If we were to have the same event today, we would 

probably have a lot more to say about that. But it just wasn’t quite 

deployed at the time of our tornado. 

Mr. BARLETTA. You also mentioned in your testimony how critical emergency management preparedness grants are in preparing 

the city of Moore for disasters. Can you explain how these funds 

helped prepare your city? 

Mr. KITCH. Absolutely. We have been a recipient of the emergency management performance grant for some many years, probably about 15 years, the entire time that we have had an emergency management full-time program. And without those funds, 

34 

first of all, we probably wouldn’t have an emergency management 

program and an emergency manager. We would probably still be in 

the days of having a volunteer emergency manager that worked either at some other job or may not even have been an employee of 

our city. 

The funds allow us to have the office, allow us to have the person, which then allows us to be more proactive in our city to write 

the plans that are necessary, to work with our citizens, to make 

trips to our senior citizens center, to work with the seniors on their 

preparedness activities. It is so critical to us. 

And I can tell you, as a person that is very active in Oklahoma 

emergency management throughout the State, that we literally 

would not have nearly the number of emergency managers in our 

State that we do now without these funds. They are absolutely critical, particularly in our smaller jurisdictions. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Cannon, the Sandy Recovery Improvement 

Act included an arbitration program to ensure there is a neutral 

process for resolving eligibility disputes between FEMA and the 

States. What do you think the benefits of these arbitration processes are, from a State’s perspective? 

Mr. CANNON. It is one of the things in the Act that we really appreciate and look forward to it being successful. One of the greatest 

weaknesses in the relationship between FEMA and States is the 

ability to, one, have transparency of the process, but, two, to have 

a forum in which to appeal those decisions. 

When you file for a declaration and it is denied, your appeal goes 

back to the very person who denied you. And when you appeal that 

appeal, it goes back to that same person again. So you never have 

a chance to have a hearing on the issues. 

Now, after Katrina there was also an arbitration procedure temporarily in the Post-Katrina Reform Act for Katrina and Rita. That 

since had expired. You included one in this Act that is for Sandy. 

I think what we really need to is get some kind of a dispute resolution process that is permanent and ongoing in these relationships, so that we have a chance to understand why we were denied, 

but also to provide the argument on the merits that maybe something had been misinterpreted. There is no forum to do that. So I 

was—and most of my colleagues, as State directors, were very glad 

to see this arbitration section within the Sandy Improvement Act. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Finley, are there additional reforms or clarifications in the law that are needed to further streamline the rebuilding process? And, if so, what would they be? 

Mr. FINLEY. Yes. For tribal lands I think maybe needs—there 

need to be some explicit language that distinguishes beyond urban 

parks, trees, debris that cover areas, access to those urban park 

areas, access to fishing areas, that would include more of an inclusive understanding and appreciation of the tribal perspective, that 

there are many tribes in this country that still rely on subsistence 

gathering activities, and that those roadways and pathways that 

obstruct those areas should be viewed in the same context as those 

others who are explicitly considered within the laws that exist 

today. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Kitch, how can we further streamline the rebuilding process? 

35 

Mr. KITCH. The—one of the areas that I think that needs just a 

little bit of work is in the hazard mitigation planning process. We 

are finding that very cumbersome. I know that my jurisdiction, 

along with our county and another jurisdiction in our county, have 

been working on our plan for nearly 2 years now. And it seems to 

be being bounced back and forth between our vendor and our 

FEMA folks and our emergency managers. So that would certainly 

be one way. 

And the other way would simply to be continuing the support of 

the programs that we have now. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Cannon, what would further—streamlining 

can we do for the rebuilding process? 

Mr. CANNON. I think these are some good steps that you have already included. I think now—and I think Mr. Nimmich referred to 

it—the problem is right now it is just at the beginning. So they 

really haven’t been tested and evaluated and implemented from 

real use. 

And so, right now, everything is projecting that it is going to be 

better. But there is no doubt that when you are trying to provide 

assistance to people, the process just slows it down greatly. So we 

have to eliminate as much bureaucracy as we can from the decisionmaking process and the implementation process. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. Ranking Member, a question? 

[No response.] 

Mr. BARLETTA. I would like to thank all of you for your testimony. Your comments have been helpful to today’s discussion. I 

would also like to thank Ranking Member Carson on his first day. 

His experience in law enforcement will be a great addition—— 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BARLETTA [continuing]. To this committee. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I would ask unanimous consent that the record 

of today’s hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses 

have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to 

them in writing, and unanimous consent that the record remain 

open for 15 days for any additional comments and information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today’s hearing. 

[No response.] 

Mr. BARLETTA. Without objection, so ordered. I would like to 

thank our witnesses again for their testimony today. If no other 

Members have anything to add, this subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

36 


Insert offset folio 11 here 82819.011

STATEMENT 

OF 

JOSEPH L. NIMMICH 

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR 

OFFICE OF RESPONSE AND RECOVERY 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BEFORE 

THE 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTA TlVES 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

"j<'EMA REAUTHORIZATION: RECOVERING QUICKER AND SMARTER" 

Submitted 

By 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

500 C Street, S.W. 

Washington. D.C. 20472 

SEPTEMBER \8, 20B 
37 


Insert offset folio 12 here 82819.012

Introduction 

Chairman Barletta. Ranking Member Carson and Members of the Subcommittee: Good moming. 

I am Joseph Nimmich, the Associate Administrator for the Office of Response and Recovery for 

the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DBS) Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA). 

I am here today to discuss how FEMA is continuing to assist communities affected by Hurricane 

Sandy, the tomadoes in Oklahoma and the numerous floods in the Midwest and Alaska. as well 

as how we are using the new authorities provided by the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 

2013 (SRIA). At FEMA. we are committed to helping survivors and that guides our approach to 

everything we do - whether that be stabilizing an area in support of first responders, providing 

public or individual assistance or snpporting long term infrastmcture rebuilding in an area that 

has been damaged. Wherever disaster may strike. FEMA is committed to help our fellow citizens 

heal their communities and move forward on the road to recovery. 

Response and Recovery for Hurricane Sandy 

On the evening of October 29,2012, Hurricane Sandy made landfall in southem New Jersey. 

with impacts felt across 24 states. The storm battered the East Coast particularly the denselypopulated New York and New Jersey coasts with heavy rain. strong winds and record storm 

surges. 

In Sandy's immediate aftermath, more than 23,000 people sought refuge in temporary shelters, 

and more than 8.5 million customers lost power. The storm flooded numerous roads and tunnels, 

blocked transportation cOlTidors and deposited extensive debris along the coastline. 

At the direction of President Ohama, FEMA coordinated the federal govemment's response and 

support for the critical emergency needs of affected stales. 

Hurricane Sandy led to 13 major presidential disaster declarations, and was the catalyst for one 

of the largest personnel deployments in FEMA's history. These declarations provided direct 

federal assistance to many communities through FEMA's Individual Assistance (lA), Public 

Assistance (PA) and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). 

FEMA coordinated with its interagency partners to provide federal resources to the response 

effort and to develop innovative programs to address power restoration, transportation, fuel 

distribution, and housing needs. 

In the immediate aftermath, FEMA established the Energy Restoration Task Force at the 

President's direction to bettcr coordinate federal, state. tribal, local and privatc sector efforts to 

restore power to the impacted areas as quickly as possible. The Task Force assisted in 

supplementing a massive private power restoration effort. Electric utilities from across the nation 
38 


Insert offset folio 13 here 82819.013

executed mutual aid agreements to deploy more than 70,000 workers to the impacted areas the 

largest ever dispatch of utility workers. 

Today, FEMA works hand in hand with the Department of Energy, institutionalizing these 

lessons leamed in emergency management from Hurricane Sandy and ensuring key energy issues 

are addressed quickly. 

Additionally, the President authorized a temporary 100 percent federal cost share for emergency 

power restoration and emergency public transportation assistance, including emergency 

protective measures to secure public transportation infrastructure. FEMA also issued an interim 

final rule authorizing, for a limited time, the reimbursement of straight or regular time salaries 

and benefits of employees of Public Assistance applicants who performed disaster-related debris 

removal work. 

To address the high cost of living in thc region, FEMA increased the amount of rental assistance 

available to survivors in New York and New Jersey to 125 perccnt of the published Fair Market 

Rent rate. The necessary increase made an additional 3,000 rental resources available to 

survivors across New York and New Jersey. 

On November 6, FEMA convened a HlllTicane Sandy Catastrophic Disaster Housing Task Force 

to support the state-led task forces' eff0l1s to plan for survivors' temporary and long-term 

housing needs. 

FEMA also tapped into its Innovation Team to discover ways to deliver the services more 

efficiently and those ideas were put to use. Following the storm, FEMA analyzed satellite and 

aerial imagery to determine what arcas were inaccessible and expedited short-term rental 

assistance to residents that needed it most. In addition, FEMA employees - supplemented by 

DHS surge capacity force volunteers and FEMA Corps members. went door-to-door in some 

areas using tablet computers to help residents sign lip for disaster relief without leaving their 

homes, even if they had lost power and intemet access. 

In the aftermath of the st0I111, FEMA provided 20 million liters of water, 16 million meals, nearly 

two million blankets and roughly 80,000 cots for survivors. 

To meet survivor needs, FEMA deployed more than 1,700 Community Relations personnel to 

explain available programs and assist survivors registering for federal aid. FEMA personnel 

established a large presence of Disaster Recovery Centers (DRCs), including 37 centers in New 

York and 35 in New Jersey. FEMA cal! centers supported these field elements and survivors, 

while registering more than half a million survivors for federal assistance. All told, more than 

17,000 federal personnel, including 7,500 FEMA staff were deployed to support response and 

recoveryeHorts. 
39 


Insert offset folio 14 here 82819.014

The Individuals and Households Program (!HP) provides financial assistance and direct services 

to survivors to address their critical needs. As of September 5,2013, FEMA has approved more 

than $1.4 billion in IHP assistance for Hurricane Sandy survivors, 

Thc PA program awards grants to assist state, local, and tribal governments, as well as certain 

private nonprofits, with response and recovery efforts. As of Septemher 5,2013, FEMA has 

obligated nearly $2.8 billion in Hurricane Sandy PA grants, 

FEMA is working closely with its partners to formulate project worksheet (PWl and process 

subgrants to address damage caused by Sandy. One of the ways in which FEMA is able to 

provide financial reimbursement to local governments is through Expedited Payments, which 

help local communities recover more quickly. These are commonly referred to as Expedited 

PWs, FEMA obligates a portion of the federal share of the estimated cost of work under 

Category A (Debris Removal) and Category B (Emergency Protective Measures), as estimated 

during the preliminary damage assessment. FEMA is also aggressively applying the Sandy 

Recovery Improvement Act programs, which I will discuss shortly, 

Additionally, FEMA is supporting local governments whose budgets became strained as a result 

of the storm, offering Community Disaster Loan Program (COL) funding for affected 

communities. The COL program provides federallouns to local governments that arc having 

difficulty providing government services because of a loss in tax or other revenue following a 

disaster. Thus far FEMA has provided 60 loans totaling $174 million to communities impacted 

by Hurricane Sandy. 

The HMGP assists state, local, and tribal governments with implementing long-term hazard 

mitigation measures. In New York and New Jersey, FEMA mitigation staff continues to work 

closely with State Hazard Mitigation Officers to discuss the states' Hazard Mitigation Plans, 

types of projects available and how best to proceed with long-term hazard mitigation. 

The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act (SRIA) 

In January 20l 3, President Obama signed SRIA into law, authorizing several significant changes 

to the way FEMA delivers disaster assistance. SRIA is Olle of the lJlost significant pieces of 

legislation impacting disaster response and recovery since the Post-Katrina Emergency 

Management Reform Act of 2006 and builds upon the Robert T. Stafford Emergency Relief and 

Disaster Assistance Act, 

SRIA's various provisions are all intended to improve the efficacy and availability of FEMA 

disaster assistance and make the most cost-effcct.ive use dollars. FEMA is currently 

implementing the provisions of SRIA and the accompanying Disaster Relief Appropriations Act 

0[2013, 
40 


Insert offset folio 15 here 82819.015

The agency has begun this work in earnest and has implemented or is nearing implementation for 

the following provisions ti'om SR!A: 

.. Public Assistance Alternative Procedures for Permanent Work is a statutorily-authorized 

pilot program that provides substantially greater l1exibility in project formulation and 

execution for applicants. Applicants accept grants based on fixed, capped 

estimates. Through this pilot, FEMA may accept project cost estimates that have been 

verified by licensed engineers, and the agency can fund an entire project based on the 

estimate rather than actual costs. Applicants may combine projects or pursue altemate 

projects without penalty. The alternative procedures are designed to expedite assistance, 

increase l1exibility, lower administrative costs and speed recovery. 

.. Public Assistance Alternative Procedures for Debris Removal is a package of incentives 

to speed debris removal and encourage pre-disaster debris planning, including sliding 

scale cost share adjustments for rapid debris removal; a one-time, two percent additional 

cost sbare adjustment if an acceptable debris management plan is in place before the 

disaster; reimbursement for force accoLlnt labor used in conducting debris removal; and 

provides for the applicant to retain proceeds from recycling debris. FEMA first 

implemented these procedures following the devastating tornadoes in Oklahoma in May 

20l3, and the statutorily-authorized pilot was implemented nationwide OIl June 28, 2013. 

The debris pilot will last for one year, with the option to extend the pilot if operations 

warrant. The pilot program will serve as a bridging strategy and data collection effort to 

inform the development of federal regulations promulgated pursuant to the 

Administrative Procedure Act, which affords interested members of the public an 

opportunity to participate in the rulemaking and submit comments. In determining 

whether to extend the pilot each year, FEMA will consult with DHS, the National 

Security Staff (NSS), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) not less than 90 

days before the end of the one year pilot period. 

.. SRIA amended the statutory provision for HMGP to enable FEMA to: I) set up a pilot 

program to enable stales to administer certain aspects of the program if specific 

conditions arc met; (2) provide not more than 25 percent of the amount of the estimated 

cost of hazard mitigation measures before eligible costs are inculTed; and (3) streamline 

environmental and historic preservation review processes. FEMA issued guidance [or all 

of these procedures in the spring of 20l3. 

.. SRIA has given federally-recognized tribal governments the option of requesting un 

emergency or major disaster declaration to the President, through the FEMA Regional 

Administrator, instead of through a slate. Thus far. FEMA has processed and the 

President has approved "major" disaster declaration requests from four tribes: the Eastem 

Band of Cherokee Indians, the Navajo Nation, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North 
41 


Insert offset folio 16 here 82819.016

and South Dakota, and the Kamk Tribe, With these declarations, Public Assistance and 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding is being provided to the tribes, 

• Dispute Resolution/Arbitration is a statutorily,mandated pilot program for Public 

Assistance disputcs, A final rule implementing the program was published in the Federal 

Register on August 16,2013, This program will be available for disputes of at least 

$),000,000, where the applicant bears a non, federal cost share, arising from disasters 

declared after October 30, 2012, and the applicant has completed a first appeal with 

FEMA Requests for arbitration may be made until December 31,2015, 

FEMA is currently developing specific implemcntation procedures for each new authority and 

will continue implementation through a combination of a grantee engagement potential 

rulemaking and/or the development of policy or other guidance documents, 

Lessons Learned from Hurricane Sandy and .FEMA's After Action Report 

FEMA is also taking steps outside of the legislative process to improve its response to disasters, 

recently developing a Hunicane Sandy After,Action Report that reviewed all aspects of the 

Agency's preparations for, immediate response to and initial recovery from the October 2012 

SI01111. 

Administrator Fugate established the Sandy Analysis Team to develop the Agency's after,action 

report. The team compiled an event chronology, analyzed more than 40 FEMA component 

submissions on lessons learned from the storm, and interviewed more than 200 personnel from 

FEMA and other federal departments, as well as state and local governments. 

The Hurricane Sandy After,Action Report identifies the Agency's strengths and more 

importantly provides recommendations to improve FEMA's response and recovery efforts. The 

report identifies four central themes for improvement: 

• Ensuring unity of effort across the federal response: The severity of the storm 

underscored several areas for improvement related to FEMA's ability to coordinate 

federal operations, including integrating senior leader communications into response and 

recovery operations; coordinating resources through the Emergency and Recovery 

Support Functions (ESF and RSF respectively): refining the mission assignment process; 

and using analysis to drive operational decision-making. 

Next steps include developing appropriate training, exercises, and outreach programs to 

foster greater coordination <Ind communication among ESFs and RSFs, making the 

mission assignment process as efficient and transparent as possible, and improving 

efficiencies in the way FEMA provides support to largc'scalc events. Additional 

recommendations address implementation of the Agency's Lessons Lcarned/Continnotls 

Improvement Program (LL/CIP), 
42 


Insert offset folio 17 here 82819.017

In SUppOit of this effort, FEMA/National Exercise Division recently supported the 

National Security Staff in their conduct of a Principals' Level Exercise (PLE) for Cabinet 

members to review their roles, responsibilities, and authorities within the National 

Response Framework (NRF), the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF), and 

the National Continuity Policy (NCP). Conducted prior to the start of the 2013 hurricane 

season, the exercise examined issues identified during previous incidents including 

interagency coordination during the 2012 hurricane season and, in particular, HUlTicane 

Sandy, The discnssion-based exercise focused on two central issues: the actions and 

mechanisms requircd to ensure a coordinated and rapid delivery of Federal support prior 

to and following a major storm the U.S. mainland and the actions and 

requirements necessary to ensure continuation of the National Essential Functions (NEFs) 

and Primary Mission Essential Functions (PMEFs) in each department and agency. 

.. Being survivor-centric: Leadership at FEMA adopted a "cut the redlape" posture to 

better serve survivors and communities, but remain, meeting 

survivors' needs during initial interactions with FEMA; ensuring all survivors have equal 

access to services; and reducing the complexity of the public assistance program. 

" Fostering unity of effort across the whole community: Sandy highlighted the need for 

FEMA to improve coordination with tribal governments and clarify how the agency 

interacts with local governments in disasters affecting large urban areas. 

Recommendations include anticipating cities' resource requirements and understanding 

their capabilities, coordinating directly with local jurisdictions when it supports a 

forward-leaning response, promoting better integration between states and large urban 

governments, including encouraging local and tribal participation in the Unified 

Coordination Group where appropriate, and preparing response teams to handle incidents 

where state, local and tribal juri,dictions require clarification of the roles and 

responsibilities or have differing priorities during an incident. 

.. Developing an professional, emergency management workforce: In response to 

Sandy, FEMA completed one of the largest personnel deployments in its history. FEMA 

is committed to supporting disaster survivors and their communities through the most 

effective and efficient means In support of this commitment, FEMA has 

to expand, improve and diversify its disaster workforce. One example of a successful 

improvement is the DHS Surge Capacity Force (SCF), which is comprised of volunteer 

employees from various DBS components thalllre activated during catastrophic or 

scale events when required. Currently the SCF has 3,901 volunteers, all of whom receive 

basic FEMA disaster assistance training prior to deployment. Sandy marked the historic 
43 


Insert offset folio 18 here 82819.018

inaugural activation of the SCF, with more than!, I 00 SCF volunteers deploying in 

support of response and recovery effOlts. The contributions of the SCF volunteers and 

other FEMA personnel in the areas of Community Relations and IA resulted in more than 

182,000 survivors receiving more than $1.42 billion in assistance as of September 5, 

2013. 

Further, beginning in /\priI2013, FEMA undertook a one-year pilot project to restructure 

its Incident Management Assistance Teams (lMATs) to provide incrcased capability by 

representing more FEMA programs and interagency representatives and by leveraging 

the hiring flexibilities provided by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act. These three pilot teams will have 32 full-time. excepted service FEMA 

employees. These teams completed a rigorous 12 week training program and are prepared 

to deploy now. These teams will represent 13 different FEMA offices with the potential 

for including up to nine representatives from ESFs and interagency partners. ESF 

partners have hegun assigning personnel to these teams. This broad range of program 

representation at the field level will provide FEMA and its Federal partners with 

increased capahility to support its state and local partners in helping disaster survivors. At 

the completion of the one year pilot period. FEMA will review the pilot IMA T team 

performance in consultation with DHS. the National Security Staff (NSS), and the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) and determine whether the program should be 

revised or expanded. 

FEMA is continuing implementation of the FEMA Qualification System. improving 

plans and processes to support the logistical and administrative needs of a large deployed 

workforce, and improving continuity of operations and devolution plans to account for 

large-scale deployments. 

FEMA has established a senior-level Continllous Improvement Working Group to track 

implementation of the recommendations and next steps included in the report. Over thirty 

percent oftbe report.'s recommendations have been implemented already, with 90 percent 

expected to be completed by year's end. 

Response and Recovery from the Oklahoma Tornadoes 

From May 18-20.2013, a band of severe weather including several tornadoes impacted 

Oklahoma. with an EF-5 twister touching down near the cities of Moore, Oklahoma City and 

Newcastle. These storms had wind speeds of over 200 miles per hour, leaving massive 

destruction. 

On May 20. the state of Oklahoma requested and received a major presidential disaster 

declaration. The declaration, and subsequent amendments. authorized PA for twenty connties 

8 
44 


Insert offset folio 19 here 82819.019

and IA for one county. Eight counties received both IA and PA. The declaration also included 

the HMGP statewide. 

Within 24 hours of the declaration, FEMA opened two Mobile Registration Intake Centers 

(MRICs) in the affected cities of Shawnee and Moore. 

Less than two weeks after the initial band of storms hit, another EF-3 tornado struck, this time in 

the city of EI Reno. It was reported by the National Weather Service as having a record-breaking 

width of 2.6 miles. 

FEMA was there after both events, providing assistance and helping survivors on their long road 

to recovery. 

In addition to the MR1Cs. FEMA deployed its newly formed Disaster Survivor Assistance Teams 

(DSATs) to go door to door to register survivors in the field. DSA Ts provide on-site registration, 

applicant status checks, expedited delivery of disaster assistance, on-the-spot needs assessment; 

and provide access to Federal. slate, tribal, local and non-government entities offering survivor 

services as needed. 

Geospatial mapping and imagery was also used to provide information to first responders and 

emergency managers about damaged areas, making FEMA's assistance to survivors quicker and 

more effective. 

The state has received 138 requests for public assistance and 136 have been approved. 

Pursuant to SRIA, FEMA also implemented a debris pilot program in Oklahoma to expedite the 

removal of debris. As of September 4, approximately 1,191,328 cubic yards of an estimated of 

1,24! ,880 cubic yards of debris had been removed with more than 40 percent of debris 

removed within the first 30 days and 96 percent of the debris removed in 90 days. This has 

aBowed the community to start rebuilding homes sooner and the community to recover more 

quickly. 

Under the pilot, communities also have financial incentives to remove debris in a t imcly manner 

after an incident and to have a pre-incident debris management plan. Twenty-two applicants 

have requested pmticipatiol1 in the debris pilot program. Three of those applicants already had 

dehris management plans in place, which allows for an increased federal cost-share. 

FEMA continues to coordinate the ongoing recovery efforts to help survivors rehuild their 

communities and give residents the assistance they need to move forward. 

Response and Recovery from the Flooding in Illinois 

Federal assistance continues to now to l1!inois as the state recovers from stonns and flooding 

that oeeun'cd there from April 16 to May 5. Abont $1.5 million has now been obligated to help 

state, local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations recover. 

9 
45 


Insert offset folio 20 here 82819.020

This federal assistance is available for debris removal, and materials - including gravel and 

sandbags - equipment, and overtime used in responding to the spring's severe weather event 

Thus far, more than 600 requests for Public Assistance have been submitted, with 40 counties 

eligible. 

To date, $155 million has been disbursed to individuals and families for their recovery. 

Response and Recovery from the Flooding in Alaska 

FEMA is using the authority provided by Congress to authorities to implement innovative 

solutions to address unique challcnges in Alaska and help eommunities recover and rebuild 

stronger in Galena and Eagle, where the promise of wintcr dcmands swift action. 

When an ice jam caused flooding in Eagle 2009, the President declared a major national disaster 

and FEMA got to work, helping the community rebuild even stronger than before. 

Shortly after the flood and with FE1VIA's assistance, the Village of Eagle moved from the water's 

cdge in an effort to stop the repetitive losses from annual spring flooding. As a result, when 

another flood struck this year, therc was no loss of life, injuries or damage to personal property. 

FEMA works hard to meet the unique needs of survivors on the ground in Alaska. which offers 

many challenges to rebuilding affected communities. 

For example, FEMA provided grants for communities whose fish wheels were damaged during 

flooding. Fish wheels are devices that Alaskans use to catch fish, a life-sustaining necessity for 

subsistence cultures in remote parls of the State. 

After f100ding in Galena this May, many of the town's buildings wcre swamped by as much as 

seven feet of water. Following a major disaster declm'ution, FEMA began to offer assistance, 

working with partners at the state, local, tribal and federallevcl including the Alaska Division of 

Homeland Security and Emergency Management, the National Weather Service, the U.S. Coast 

Guard and the U.S. Department of Defense to provide aid. That aid is available to state, tribal 

and eligible local govemments for emergency work, debris removal and the repair and or 

replacement of facilities damaged by the flooding. 

A major priority at the moment is to rebuild as much as possible before hard winter sets in. In 

addition to limitations brought on by colder weather, rebuilding is more challenging in Alaska 

than in other places ill the U.S. because of the vast distances and limited road system, so 

materials must be brought in llsing plancs or barges. 

FEMA is also working with the Salvation Army and the Red Cross to prepare meals for those in 

need. 

10 
46 


Insert offset folio 21 here 82819.021

FEMA also coordinated with the stale to setup a Disaster Recovery Center (DRC) in Fairbanks. 

which is staffed by disaster recovery specialists who provide information and answer questions 

for local residents. 

To ensure it captures the local perspective that is so critical in Alaska, FEMA is also currently 

looking for local hires, including positions for applicant service program specialists, writing and 

resource specialists and administrative assistants. 

Conclusion 

At FEMA. we seek constant improvement to bctter support America's disaster survivors, 

citizens, first responders, and communities. We cannot make survivors whole after a disaster but 

by implementing lessons learned and by the authority givcn to us by Congress under SRIA, we 

are confidcnt that more effective and efficient FEMA programs will provide survivors with the 

assistance, flexibility and incentives they need to speed recovery and become more resilient. 

We look forward to continuing to work with Congress toward this common goa!. Thank you. 

11 
47 


Insert offset folio 22 here 82819.022

Organization: 

Question: Concerns have been raised recently about the process for 

applications for the Fire Management Assistance Grant program. 

regulations set out both cost thresholds f()f individual fires and cumulative state cost 

thresholds. However, it also seems that various FEMA are using an arbitrary 

standard of 50, 100 or over 250 houses threatened as an inordinately influence in 

deciding if a FMAG will be This standard is not stated in any 

federal guidance documents and may affect suburban and rural areas' 

applications. 

What is the standard for an FMAG appllc2ltIOJ!f! 

Response: In order to approve an FMAG, the Administrator must determine 

that the fire or fire complex threatens such destruction as would constitute a m,~jor 

disaster. The following tour criteria from 44 CFR part 204.21 are used to evaluate the 

threat of a fire or fire 'AIlHIJ'''A. 

(1) Threat to lives and propcrty, threats to critical 

facilities/infrastructure, and critical watershed areas; 

(2) Availability of State and local resources; 

(3) High fire danger conditions, as indicated by nationally accepted indices such as 

the National Fire Danger System; and 

(4) Potential major economic impact 

In analyzing these criteria with respect to fires or complexes, Regional 

Administrators typically focus on threat to populated areas, in particular the number of 

residences and total population threatened, as well as the threat to public and p11vate 

infrastructure. The Regional Administrators also examine the amount of firefighting 

resources expended on the fire at the time ofthe request, and also estimate the resources 

likely necded to control the tire. with respect to economic impact, in addition to 

population, homes, and infrastructure threatened, the Regional Administrator will also 

look at other potential effects on the area's economy, including impacts to local 

businesses and tourism. 
48 


Insert offset folio 23 here 82819.023

Question: What steps is FEMA to make sure that FMAG are 

considered equitably around the nation? 

Response: FEMA holds 

Administrators to ensure 

among the FEMA Regions. 

scheduled conference calls with the FEMA Regional 

coordination and in the FMAG program 
49 


Insert offset folio 24 here 82819.024

Question: The current FMAG Program Guide was last in 20ll and listed on the 

FEMA website as being in "Draft" form. Does FEMA intend to review and update this 

document? When will it be released as a "final" document? 

Response: The final draft of the FMAG Guide is in eoneunence for the Administrator's 

approval to publish. We expect it to be and published the end of the year. 
50 


Insert offset folio 25 here 82819.025

ve,getan'Clll, which increases the risk 

rainstonns. the Hazard Mitigation 

Assistance grant program does not funding to affected jurisdictions quickly 

enough for them to take the necessary steps to the increased danger of flash 

flooding after wildland fires. Such activities are not eligible under the FMAG 

program. What assistance can FEMA provide to help local communities, such as those in 

California or Colorado, to the of flash after a wildland 

fires? 

Response: The Hazard Grant Program funding after a 

Presidential major disaster declaration for activities that a beneficial impact to the 

disaster area. The HMGP may after a disaster and is a 

potential mechanism tor of flash flooding. FEMA 

recommends that states encourage local communities to identify potential in 

accordance with their local hazard so that they can quickly develop aud 

submit applications to the state once a disaster occurs. States ultimately set their 

timetables fur prioritizing and submitting HMGP applications to FEMA. Some 

States take as as 18-months to submit their HMGP There are also 

instances where States have submitted after a disaster and 

FEMA has acted quickly. For Hurricanes Irene and Tropical Stonn Lee, 

FEMA was able to obligate $47 dollars to the State ofNJ within six months of 

the disaster (of which $28 million dollars was within to complete 237 

acquisitions and 71 elevations. In two safe room projects were approved 

FEMA within 2-weeks of the disaster declaration. FEMA implemented several HMGP 

initiatives after the President the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of2013 

(SRIA) into Law on January 29,2013. These initiatives are meant to reduce applicant 

burden and expedite HMGP review. FEMA has made advance assistance, 

one of the SRIA HMGP initiatives, available to states after a declaration. Thesc flmds, 

when requested, can be used States and local communities to collect data and devclop 

projects, and facilitate the application process. 

HMGP projects must meet all Federal, State and local laws and Also, 

Grantees must ensure that no Duplication Of Benefits exists between the HMGP 

award and nmding available for the same as required by Section 312 of the 

Stafford Act. HMGP funds cannot duplicate received by or available to Applicants 

or subapplicants from other sources for the same purpose. 
51 


Insert offset folio 26 here 82819.026

Funding is only available for HMOP project that are cost effective and 

technically feasible. Cost effectiveness is detennined by using a benefit cost 

proccss, which relies on the of future to specific 

structures. FEMA's benefit cost analysis for wildland fire projects is 

forward and easy to perfonn. The key for FEMA HMOP grant to be available is 

contingent upon how quickly the state can submit the grant apt)l!c;atl0n. 

For flooding that occurs as a result snowmelt or icemelt, or hunicanes, 

these probabilities can be calculated based on the flood events, and 

their associated activities are structure elevation or property 

acquisition for open space. The same activities would be to 

minimize risk to structures that are to flash as a result of wildfire. 

FEMA has tools that can map out the of burn rccurrence intervals, however, it 

is extremely difficult to detennine the probability for flash floods that would occur as a 

result of a wildland fire. 
52 


Insert offset folio 27 here 82819.027

Question: A recent IG report to Tulane Univcrsity citcs 

(PNP) hospitals and institutions of higher education should be 

Administrative provisions (ex. For Hurrieane Sandy, has 2 CFR 

vs. 44 CFR become an issue for these Should these types of applicants bc 

f()llowing 2 CFR or 44 CFR? 

Response: FEMA has not encountcrcd with nonprofit 'm:"'rli7"ti()n~ 

requesting assistance as a result of Hurricane related to the appropriate nllll1mc,tv 

which govems the administration and 'wnMl~l"n of disastcr grants. 

Applicants need to reference both 44 CFR and 2 CFR. Title 2 CFR contains Office of 

Managemcnt and Budget to obtain and in 

federal agencies' administration and agreements. Tille 44 CFR is the rcgulatory 

guidance for the disaster assistance grants declared under the authority ofthe Robert T. 

Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistancc Act, 42 U.S.C. 512 J ct scq. 44 CFR 

§ 13.22 references thc cost applicable to incurring the costs. 

These cost principles are in OMB Circulars, which have been incorporated into 

2 CFR. As an OMB Circular A-IIO is located in 2 CFR Part 215 Unifonn 

Administrative tor Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher 

Education, Hospitals, and other NOl1proilt v"5'''-'H,c"",,,,o. 
53 


Insert offset folio 28 here 82819.028

Question: FEMA's Direct Administrative Cost for "l'l~l1\~aH.\' admlinistering 

disasters has been confusion on national level and in response to Hurricane 

Sandy, FEMA has failed to pay costs associated with the refIl111'en1cn,t, 

outlined in the memorandum issued 8, 2009 

What do applicants nced to follow in order to get reimbursed for these direct costs? 

Response: Eligible direct administrative costs (DAC) are costs that can be tracked, 

charged, and accounted for to a such as staff time to complete 

field inspection and of a project worksheet (PW), DAC must be in 

compliance with 44 CFR § 13.22, and, extension, OMB Circular A-87, and the costs 

must be reasonable and documented in order to qualify for reimbursement. 

Such costs cannot be assumed if the costs are not tracked and documented in a 

manner that enables FEMA to determine are reasonable, necessary, and 

appropriate. Applicants need to document their costs (labor, equipment and material) and 

activities pelformed to the costs claimed. used contractor support, 

they need to include their procurement process, a copy of the contract, and submit the 

request to the State and FEMA for review. 

In order for FEMA staff to be able to evaluate DAC, grantees and need to 

provide infom1ation about each in sufficient detail of 

administrative task perfonned, Le. site identification, kick immediate needs, 

preliminary cost estimate, data collection & dissemination, travel expenses, etc.) to be 

able to properly assess the skill level of each person the activities, the 

suitability of that skill level to the in and the level of effort required to 

complete the activity. 

Question: Can you provide this Committee with the amount of Direct Administrative 

Cost funding has been to applicants and since this policy was put 

into effect in 2009'1 

Response: A total 01'$258,762,443 has been 

put into effect. 

to "PlO""""'0 since the policy was 
54 


Insert offset folio 29 here 82819.029

Question: Please address the role that in the for eommunities, 

families and businesses to recover or Also, what are some 

fonns of mitigation that you have seen work well around the country? How do building 

codes help recover quicker and smarter? 

Response: Mitigation role in the 

businesses to recover or withstand disasters 

future damage, hardship, loss, or in any area 

Fonns of mitigation that have worked well across the country for rPflllc,.tin>n 

such hazards as flooding, hunicanes and tornados include elevation, 

retrofitting buildings, sate room construction, and property acquisition with structure 

demolition or relocation, To reduce risk from wildfires, creation of defensible space (i.e., 

removing or reducing the volume of flammable ignition-resistant 

construction, and hazardous filels reduction have proven effective mitigation measures. 

The adoption and cnforcement codes has had a impact in helping 

communities reduce physical t100d losses and other hazard losses, that may have resulted 

from tornados or earthquakes. This in tum affects the land usc and 

regulatory climate. Current model codes, such as the I-codes, have Hood 

provisions that are consistent with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) 

requirements for buildings and structures, and the model codes are effective in 

reducing flood-related building because design requirements, 

primarily the minimum elevation requirements and, in some cases, the inclusion of 

additional elevation (freeboard) and t(lUndation improvements. 

Benefits of building code adoption and enforcement arc abundant, and include: generally 

increased property values, reduced losses during flood and other hazard events which 

reduce insurance rates over a 5- to I O-year peliod, and a more actuarially sound NFIP and 

insurance industry. Insurance losses are reduced for the properties required to comply 

with building codes because those properties sustain less damage. 
55 


Insert offset folio 30 here 82819.030

Question: The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act directed the President to and 

streamline the historic and environmental rcview process used for rebuilding a 

disaster. Can you talk about how a streamlined process has been used in recovery eHbrts 

following Hunicane Sandy and how does it work? 

Response: FEMA utilizcs a tools to expedite its Federal 

environmental and historic fbr disaster recovery 

In the aftennath of Hurricane FEMA concentratcd its efforts on 

ensuring that these tools were SYIICll.fOlllZIDcl with the of other Federal 

agencics providing extensivc assistance, in 

and Urban Development (HUD) f(JI its {''''''rmn,i'', Devellonmt:nl 

program. To that end, FEMA and 

counterparts at HUD to establish coordinated Federal reviews for FEMA and 

HUD funded projects in New and New York. For FEMA leveraged the 

documentation produced HUD and its entities in the two states for the 

purposes of complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), while HUD 

utilized FEMA's programmatic agreements for historic preservation review as mandated 

by Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act Establishment ofthis 

"one stop shopping" for FEMAIHUD environmental and historic preservation review 

resulted in significant time savings for applicants FEMA and HUD CDBG 

funding as well as for FEMA and HUD responsible staff: and their Federal, state, 

local, tribal, and territorial resource agency counterparts. 

These successful coordination efforts are informing the dcveloPJment 

Review for disaster recovery projects, as directed by the Improvement 

Act. This effort is being overseen by a Steering Group consisting ()fthe Council on 

Environmental Quality, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the 

Department of Homeland Security/FEMA, supporting the Steering Group is a work b'fOUP 

which consists of representatives from over a dozen Federal who perfol111 

disaster recovery functions. As in the this process will be 

established by July 2014. 
56 


Insert offset folio 31 here 82819.031

Question: While there may be on its FEMA has clear thresholds on 

when a State may qualify for Public Assistance to rebuild. On the other hand, the criteria 

for Individual Assistance to impacted a disaster have not been as clear. The 

Sandy Recovery Improvement Act required FEMA to its threshold for Individual 

Assistance. Where are you in that proccss? 

Response: Duc to the enactment of the Recovery Improvement Act (SRIA), 

FEMA is required to review, update, and revise the factors 

considered when evaluating the need for the Assistance Program in a major 

disaster. The stated intent ofthe is to the declaration process and 

more criteria in the need for Individual Assistance. 

Through the fulemaking proccss, FEMA will seek input from numerous stakeholders, as 

well as the The process is uu;"v,u"" 
57 


Insert offset folio 32 here 82819.032

TRANSPORTATION (HOUSE) 

Question: The Hazard Grant Program (HMGP) at local and 

state levels for the implementation of measures that will prevent further loss from futurc 

natural disastcrs. In 2012, FEMA rcleased for Pennsylvania property buyouts 

after HUlTicane Irene and Storm Lce which indicated that any property with 

leased subsurface mineral was for under HMGP. Due to the 

extensive number of properties with leased mineral 

Virginia, and other states, many residents would have no for the property 

acquisition under the probrram thc of the State and property owners to 

effectively mitigate against future What has FEMA done to resolve this issue? 

Are any changcs to this 

Response: Under HMGP, FEMA hazard 

acquire property for open space to reduce the risk of harm to 

flooding. 

assistance for applicants to 

and property from 

In Pennsylvania, as in other parts of the country, FEMA is committed to the HMGP 

of assisting in acquiring as many eligible as to the risk from 

flooding. FEMA makes every effort to find ways to detemline a propeliy is eligible for 

acquisition consistent with the and HMGP Gnidance. 

may be for if certain criteria are 

met. By statute and of land where an encumbrance exists that is 

incompatible with conserving the natural, benet1cial tlmctions of the 

floodplain is not eligible under HMGP. Section Stafford Act, 42 U.S.c. § 

5170c(b); 44 C.F.R. §§ 80.17(b); 19(a). Any incompatible easements or other 

encumbrances to the propeliy must be extinguished before acquisition. 44 C.F.R. § 

80.17(b). FEMA has determined that an encumbrance that provides a right for surface 

access to the subsurface resource is incompatible with open space requirements. Hazard 

Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance (2013), Addendum, A.9, p. 14. Applicants may 

extinguish provisions in leases that allow for surface access to the subsurface resource 

which may enable a to mcet eligibility rf',!1111Cpnl"l1;t, 

FEMA recognizes that there are cases where a dormant lease may exist that allow 

action incompatible with open space. If evidence the review process indicates 

long-dormant subsurface (usually in exccss of fifty years or beyond the reach of a 

standard title search) and of the subsurface owner is unknown or is otherwise 

not reasonably ascertainable, FEMA is to approve the acquisition 
58 


Insert offset folio 33 here 82819.033

notwithstanding the risk of future claims. It is also to note that in such 

circumstances the Commonwealth must accept risk as well because as grantee for a 

particular HMGP buyout, it agrees to be for .. the deed restrictions 

to ensure that the property remains in open space use in "44 C.F.R. § 

80.5(b )(7). 
59 


Insert offset folio 34 here 82819.034

Question: I am encouraged that FEMA is continuing to work with the 

West Virginia, on the that it submitted in response to DR-406J under the 

Hazard Mitigation Grant for five residential structures on Pine Street. The 

failure and subsequent closure of the road 

hazard for residents who have been 

2012. I hope that FEMA will be !H'R'reS',lve 

citizens as quickly as Please 

of Logan, West DR-4061 Hazard for five 

residential structures on Pine Street? 

Response: From March 15 to 31, 2012, severe stonl1S, 

caused severe in County, West Virginia. This to Pine 

Street in the City of Logan. Under the Public Assistance Grant pro!:,'ram, FEMA prepared 

Project Worksheet (PW) 42 for the of the roadway, the eroded 

embankment. In lieu oflhe restoration ofthe the 

August 23, 2013, to the State for an alternate to utilize the funding to acquire and 

demolish five residential located on Pine Street, and the State forwarded the 

request to FEMA on August 28,2013. 

After the request, FEMA waived Seetion VII.N.S. ofFEMA Policy 9525.13 

Alternate Projects, for the City's request for an alternate for PW 42 to use the 

fimding for the acquisition of the five residential on Pine Street in lieu of 

restoring the roadway, to agreement the State and the City in the PW that the 

roadway will be abandoned and will not be eligible for Public Assistance funding in any 

future major disaster or emergency declarations. FEMA has also approved the use of 

altemate project funds to pave seven City-owned streets. 
60 


Insert offset folio 35 here 82819.035

Question: On October 1, West 

that their flood insurance 

households and businesses will receive notice 

Many residents cannot afford the 

premium increases, or the cost of flood and to their 

properties. FUliher, the flood used to the basis for thesc rate increases are 

outdated and do not What can FEMA do aarml1llstlratlVely 

to addrcss the affordability of these rate increascs? 

Response: The Flood Insurance Retlmn Act of2012 reauthorized and 

reformed the National Flood Insurance Program. Included among the 0'C,U"Uv'~H 

programmatic by the are revisions to the premium rate 

stmcture designed to the National Flood Insurance Program more actuarially sound 

by phasing out certain subsidies and rates over time. Although the 

legislation does not authorize FEMA to take any action to address atfordability of 

insurance, it calls on FEMA to work with the Nationa! of Sciences to cornolete 

a study on affordability. The initial of the study is but it will take some 

time to complete. FEMA that one ofthe eonsequences of the legislation is 

that some populations with high risk may be particularly 

low to moderate income but FEMA lacks the statutory to 

implement an affordability program. 

FEMA regularly reviews flood maps to detennine whcther require updating. When 

the Agency detennines that it is to update a map, it coordinates closely with 

affected communities to maps that show communities and citizens their true risk 

of flooding. The flood maps are developed by well-rcspected and credentialed 

engineering companics on behalf of the communities, with community 

over the course of the process. The RiskMAP system enables communities to provide 

scientific data and information as part of the development ofthe map, and the National 

Flood Insurance Act provides for appeals if a community or affected individuals disagree 

with a proposed map. In addition, through the Letter Revision (LOMR) and 

Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) process, communities and individuals are able to 

provide FEMA with additional inf(lnl1ation after a map is final, and ifthe infi.l1mation 

demonstrates a change in the flood risk, FEMA will the map accordingly. OUf 

goal is to build sound maps that help drive resilient communities. 
61 


Insert offset folio 36 here 82819.036

Question: The Colville Tribe submitted testimony the lack that the 

tribc rcceived from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) response to their June 2012 

emergency, including that the RIA had and on hand that were needcd 

first responders and survivors in the response and immediate recovery effort yet the 

tribe was unable to access the itcms. What, can FEMA do in its lead role 

under the National Response Framework or other authority to help enSLlre that a situation 

like this does not occur 

Response: Stafford Act assistance is available if the President determines that an event is 

of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency or major disaster 

declaration. In the case of a Stanard Act declaration, FEMA may coordinate the 

allocation of disaster response resources. As such, the complete range of Federal 

resources and capabilities will be made available to assist in dealing with the emergency 

or major disaster and FEMA may use its mechanisms to aid the distribution of 

requested goods and services. Requests are the National Response 

Coordination Center and are delivered the most member of the 

interagency able to the 

Further, FEMA will reach out to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to discuss the particulars of 

why they were unable to the assistance and follow up with Rep. 

Rahal1' s statl 
62 


Insert offset folio 37 here 82819.037

Question: Administrator Nimmich, one of the challenges we face when it comes to 

preparing and responding to disasters is the tact 68% of American households, 

included, are pet owners. 

Onen times, pet owners with limited 

leaving them behind when 

to evacuate with their pets are fearful of 

m;mrmTllrV evacuations are called by officials; 

a public situation. 

Understanding that FEMA entered into an a!;"Teement with the Humane Society in 2010 to 

promote household pet when it comes to disasters, what are you seeing in 

practice that ensures that families with pets have access to emergeney shelters and other 

resourees so they will not consider in an unsafe situation? 

As we look to the next authorization t,)f FEMA, are there 

disasters and pets that we as a committee should consider? 

to federal 

Response: FEMA continues to engage with broad range the 

Humane Society of the United States, the National Animal Rescue and Shelter Coalition 

[NARSC] and the National Alliance of State Animal and Emergency 

programs [NASAAEPj, to increase individual and related to the 

rescue, carc and of household pets and service animals. One area 

further examination is, options available to household pet owners 

disaster-related evacuation to ensure there are resources to aid in evacuation of 

people and their pets when they cannot do so without assistance. for evacuation 

planning support could include researching methods to ensure of more 

equipment and/or vehicles to aid in transport of household pcts (whether purpose built or 

modifications to existing transport resources), or suppOli to enhance evacuation plans. 

We will be working with our partners to where the gaps in this process may exist, 

cxplore potential solutions, and look to cnhance coordination of search and rescue with 

regard to people and their pets. 

In the aftermath of Hurricanes Isaac and Sandy and the recent in Colorado, 

FEMA has observed improved communication and coordination between 

Federal, State and local partners working with local and national humane and animal 

welfare organizations to meet the needs of owners and their household pets the 

Response phase of disasters. In the days following Hurricane Sandy, FEMA, State and 

local authorities, with NARSC and NASAAEP, coordinated the and 
63 


Insert offset folio 38 here 82819.038

food Imd other pets '''fJf'''''O'. 

developing planning distribution supplies, to aid 

jurisdictions in or their emergency distribution of supplies plans 

part ofthis effort includes outreach to the animal response to build on the 

sueeesses ofreeent and work with the emergeney managers aeross the nation 

to ensure integrated to make available to with pets 

disasters. 

FEMA will continue to SUppOlt the whole in ways to and 

strengthen the for and their pets. FEMA will eontinue to engage with 

our partners to evaluate the and proeesses in an dctemline how we 

can ensure that their household pets and service animals have access to the resources 

needed to save and sustain their lives from the initial response and their recovery 

from major disaster and emlefj~enIClC:S. 
64 


Insert offset folio 39 here 82819.039

C.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOCSI1\jG URBAl'i DEVELOPMENT 

DC 2041(1 

Written Testimony of Yolanda Chavez 

Assistant Office of Comlllumty 

lind (Jrball 

before the House Subt'ommittee on Economic Uevelopm<:nt. Public 

Bu:ildinl!s and I(rnler~'ell'?Y Mlan:agemel1t 

FEl\'l4. Reauthorization: RC'Cln!criilll' Quicker and Smarter 

Subcommittee, 

Assistant Secretary Grant Programs in 

at the Department of Housing and 

responsible for overseeing programs that promote affordable 

lam 

and 

community the Community Block Grant 

(eDBG) program and CDBG-Disaster Recovery 

critical role in 

disasters like Superstorm 

made pursuant to the 

which federal recovery 

coordination on 

minimize 

4) the status of allocations 

5) areas in 

President Obama 

Federal action 

BUD Secretary Donovan to lead coordination of the 

and issued an 

Executive Order on December 7, 

Task Force. 
65 


Insert offset folio 40 here 82819.040

disaster recovery in his capacity as HUD Secretary under the National Disaster 

Recovery Framework 

The NDRF addresses 

managing disaster-related 

Territories, tribes and 

that enable 

with these 

Under the NDRF, HUD 

like 

The ~ 

were carried out in coordination with 

with FEMA and 

CDBG-DR Allocations 

, Since these funds appropria[<;;d 

reduced the amount of CDBCi-DR funds 

reduction. 

of 

role in recovery from disasters 

Federal recovery support 

Federal efforts support 

Task Force 

best 

and more 

communities 

Task Force 

we're subjcd to sequestration. has 

under the to billion. 5 percell1 
66 


Insert offset folio 41 here 82819.041

On 6, 2013 - the President's signature - the 

Department announced the first billion of funds under the Act, to 

Nevv York to support their efforts recover from the 

By 5, the 

the use of these funds, 

The 

as well as 

recovery 

Coordination 

This 

part enhanced coordination with other 

of both the NDRF Task 

J0l1lgs1:andlrlg partners, and 

Act HUD relies on data and the financial assistance 

FEMA and SBA to determine the unmet economic revitalization and 

infrastructure needs that remain to be addressed CDBG·DR funds. As I will 

discuss later this collahoration among federal 

critical role the full range resources needed 

short- and a disaster. 

BUD and FEMA coordination. "",,,,,"w'c 

instance. worked New Jersey and New 

We have, for 

short-tenn 
67 


Insert offset folio 42 here 82819.042

process to 

funds. Similar 

review tenns for both 

With substantial federal resources 

HUD has established and 

sources. 

requirements 

that usc only CDBO-DR 

the same 

U"jf'w~n""u and confusion in 

to both communities and entire regions, 

of benefits, in 

will 

set forth in their CDBG-DR action the 

ensure HUD to "fill the 

disaster assjstance have been Grantees are 

also maintain sufficient documentation individual program files to 

substantiate determinations that CDEG-DR funds do not constitute of 

benefits 

In March, 2013, HUD also rm,mmA,r1 

ensure are 

address unmet needs that have not been addressed other sources of 
68 


Insert offset folio 43 here 82819.043

In response to the Disaster Relief 

efforts to minimize waste, 

issued 

HUD has also redouhled its 

of CDBG-DR funds. The Act and 

Management and 

with respective offices 

own Office of the 

this front. 

from OIG have attended, as both 

HUD disaster recovery training for grantees. 

served as presenters at training sessions convened 

agents and auditors who are focused on 

conference calls and more informal interactions, are with our OIG to 

issues areas concern both the program office and the 

IG can address. 

The Disaster Relief the to 

fraud and abuse 

internal control 

will from 

Here again, the Act's requirement that grantees evidence their own 

internal controls and procurement processes, and that the Department to 

the of those prior to approving has also 

introduced an important nevI' tool 

abuse. The 

The initial $5.4 billion 

grantees in response to 

two areas of recovery. 

infrastructure 

allocations of funds for 

and will be 

In addition to $5.4 billion 

to assist 

Luzerne 

continue to address recovery needs from 

5 

to 
69 


Insert offset folio 44 here 82819.044

and Lee. 

from previous disasters. 

requirements for 

In the wake of a disaster, the 

of their action 

for recovery 

the spring of this year. 

Notice 

federal agencies with increased also an important element in 

response. The Disaster Relief Act, 

to an environmental review, 

federal agency as a means of HUD's own 

under the National Environmental Protection Act 

, HUD,FEMA and the 

reviews for the same 

requirements the 

I would be to answer 

6 
70 


Insert offset folio 45 here 82819.045

U.S SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20416 

Testimony of Mr. James Rivera 

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance 

U.S. Small Business Administration 

September 18, 21H3 

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on 

Economic Development, Public Buildings, and 

Subcommittee 

<",,,·f·,,ti;o" and Infrastructure 

Management 

Good morning. Chairman Barletta, 

Subcommittee, thank you for 

(SBA) in the federal government's 

Member Carson, and 

the role of the U.S. 

members of the 

The SBA Office of Disaster Assistance is responsible for providing affordable, timely, and accessible 

financial assistance to businesses of all sizes, homeowners, and renters impacted by disasters. Many 

disaster survivors have insurance, which covers part or all of the physical property losses due to a 

natural disaster. For those losses not covered by insurance, the primary form of federal financial 

assistance is a low-interest SBA loan. Since SBA's inception in 1953, we have more than 

$53.1 billion in disaster loans to almost 2 million tinnilics and bnsiness owners across 

SBA's Role in Rcsponding to a Disaster 

SBA is not a "!irst responder" we do not fire, safety, or 

emergency medical services. we are on the ground immediately a disaster, 

coordinating with federal, state, and local partners to set up Disaster and Business Recovery Centers and 

deploy critical financial assistance. In the allel111ath of a disaster, such as Sandy and the 

devastating tornado in Moore, Oklahoma, SBA,s role is to provide and businesses with 

low-interest, long-term loans. "Vo also help businesses recover through our government 

contracting and business development programs. 

Disaster loans arc a vital source of economic stimulus in the affected areas following a disaster. 

of an overall effOlt to help survivors get back on their feet, SBA's disaster home loans of up to 

enable bmilies to rebuild their homes and their lives. Moreover, businesses of all sizes and non-profit 

organizations are eligible lor loans of up to $2 million. These funds can be used to assist with any 

uninsured and otherwise uncompensated physical losses sustaincd during a disaster to repair or replace 

damaged physical property. 

Additionally, SBA offers Economic h~ury Disaster Loans (FIDL) to smal! businesses, small agrieultnral 

cooperatives, and most non-profit organizations that have suffered economic il~ury caused by a 

disaster. If a small or organization is unahle to meet obligations and pay its ordinary and 

necessary operating expenses, these loans can help it aHoat until nonnal operations 

resume. The maximum EIDL loan amount million for physical economic injuries comhined. 
71 


Insert offset folio 46 here 82819.046

SBA's Response to Superstorm Sandy 

I have seen firsthand the tremendous damage caused throughout the northeast by SuperstOim Sandy, and 

as you kuow, the destruction was immense. This was one of the disasters our country has 

confronted since HnlTicane Katrina the Gulf Coast more than years Nonetheless, I 

can assure you that SBA leveraged of our resources to provide timely aud assistance 

tlu'oughout the afTected states. Working with our response and recovery partners at the Federal 

Emergency Management (eEMA) the of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD), as well as with state local agencies, we every tool available to assist the maximum 

number of families and business owners impacted by Sandy. 

In the immediate aftermath of lhe slO1m, many disaster victims did not have easy access to television, 

radio or the internet To address the lack of traditional channels of commlmication, SBA established a 

telephone hotline through our Disaster Customer Service Center. From November 2012 through May 

2013, the call center, which also provides language translation services, responded 10 over 212,000 

phone calls with an average wail time of less than 18 seconds. 

Bnt we did not stop there. Leveraging resources, SBA deployed over 390 disaster 

specialists to the region. Following the Disaster Declarations in New York, New Jersey, 

Connecticut, and Rhode Island, Superstonn Sandy victims were able to apply for home and business 

disaster loans online or in person at any of the 146 Disaster Recovery Centers (DRCs) and 38 Disaster 

Loan Outreach Centers (DLOCs). with otber disasters, SBA and FEMA were eo-located in each of 

these DRCs. SBA also established 49 Business Recovery Centers (BRCs) where victims could apply for 

business disaster loans and receive additional business counseling and assistance from onr local Small 

Business Development Center, SCORE. and Women's Business Center pminers. Moreover, while 

North Carolina and Virginia were not declared Presidential Disasters, the two states received an SBA 

Administrative Disaster Declaration, making affected homeowners, renters, and businesses eligible lor 

SBA disaster assistance. 

Between our loan processing centers, call center, and on-the-ground staft~ SBA bad over 2,400 disaster 

employees dedicated to Superstorm Sandy. This is in addition to our local SBA district omce staff and 

extensive resource partner network throughout the region. As a result of this increased SBA 

staff were able to pcrsonally meet with over 130,000 Sandy survivors. We over 

36,493 homeowners, renters and businesses (32,433 home loans for $1.9 4,060 business loans 

f,))' $474.2 million), with an overall approval rate of 53 percent 

While we are proud of our response en')]'ts, we are always looking for ways to better support those 

communities impacted by disasters. In recent years, SBA has made a nnmber of improvements that 

have allowed us to better respond to disaster victims. For example, we have streamlined application 

fonns and implemented a redesigned electrotlic loan application, which has led to a more transparent 

and efficient application process. We successfully increased use of the electronic loan application from 

26 percent in Fiscal Year 2011 to 36 percent in Fisca! Year 2012, and 55 percent in Fiscal Year 2013. 

We have also designated case managers lor each application so borrowers know their principal 

point of contact when they have a the and disbursement 

These refonl1s played a key role and respond to 

subsequent disasters, like the massive that struck Moore, Oklahoma. 

Whether on the ground in the aHected areas or at ollr 

meeting the needs of th," t,nnilies and business owners 

centers, we are always 

by disasters. It is our 
72 


Insert offset folio 47 here 82819.047

victims rebuild their lives and livelihoods, As part of our ongoing efforts in Sandy afTc'Cted states, SBA 

and the HUITicane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force recently co-hosted an event to educate and connect 

small businesses to commercial buyers from the private sector and federal, state, and local govemments, 

Through this event, SBA facilitated close to 500 business matchmaking sessions with several 

dozen federal and commereial buyers, But this one piece of the recovery effort We know this 

is a long-tel111 proeess and we are committed to doing the hard work necessary to ensure that these small 

business owners and their communities are able to emerge stronger than eveL 

Thank you again for inviting me to 

Committee on SBA's disaster recovery 

have enabled us to be prepared to efficiently and ~1t0r.1!lv"lv 

survivors, I look forward to answering any questions, 

Thank you, 

"I'IJlC'ClatC the opportunity to update the 

that the reforms we have instituted 
73 


Insert offset folio 48 here 82819.048

Glenn M. Cannon, Esq. 

Director, Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency 

Submitted to the Honse Committee on & Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public and Emergency Management 

United States House of Representatives 

FEMA Reauthorization: Recovering Quicker and Smarter 

September 18,2013 

National Emergency Management Association 

444 N Capitol Street, NW, Suite 401 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

202·624·5459 
74 


Insert offset folio 49 here 82819.049

Introduction 

Thank you Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member Carson, and members of tile Subcommittee for holding 

this hearing today. I am Glenn Cannon, Director of the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency 

(PEMA). I am pleased to represent the National Management Association (NEMA) a~ we 

discuss ways to recover quicker and smalter as well as Sandy NEMA 

represents the state emergency management directors of the 50 states, 

Columbia. 

Today I will cover the impacts of Hurricane Sandy and the ongoing response in states most affected. 

will also discnss how NEMA worked with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to 

implement the changes to the Stafford Act mandated the Recovery Improvement Act (SRIA) 

and how the State of Oklahoma utilized provisions in the response to the devastating 

tornadoes of earlier this year. 

Managing Hurricaue Sandy Respouse & Recovery; Perspectives from Two States 

Pennsylvania 

As Hurricane Sandy moved towards the East Coast, Pennsylvania monitored the stonn and its 

projected tracks. The United States Army Corps of Engineers provided computer generated 

models projecting the expected impact of Hurricane Sandy. The Army Corps' models continually 

projected the mid-Atlantic region, including and New Jersey, would be in the direct path of 

Sandy's landfall. The state expected catastrophic 

In response to the extensive warnings provided, Governor Corbett proclaimed a state of emergency in 

Pennsylvania. Under the leadership, state and local agencies in extensive discussions 

identifying the status resources and Pennsylvania and agencies 

undertook significant pre-landfall activities in the areas of commodities, debris 

management, transportation, evacuation, mass care sheltering, search and rescue, communications, 

and energy and utilities. The governor activated and deployed the state's swift water rescue teams and led 

the state's support of local governments to ensure no needs went unmet. During this time, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Administrator Craig Fugate encouraged states 10 

undertake these significant preparation activities prior to landfall and FEMA 's support. The 

ultimate goal of the state's pre-landfall measures was saving lives and protecting 

property; the mantra of FEMA was to "go hig, go and go strong." 

Preparing for a storm the size while the state was still from Hurricane [rene and 

Tropical Storm Lee, eventually the capabilities of the state and local governments. The 

governor sought an emergency declaration under the Stafford Act from the President prior to Sandy's 

landfall so Pennsylvania could receive assistance with its protective measures. Pennsylvania received an 

Emergency Declaration, but was limited to direct federal assistance. Such a limitation provided the state 

with the ability to obtain sopplies though FEMA, but did not assistance for other emergency 

protective measures. Though hampered by this limitation, Corbett and dedicated individuals at 

all levels of government in Pennsylvania exhausted every possihlc resource in preparing for Hurricane 

Sandy's impact. 

Hurricane Sandy's landfall occurred north and east ofille pre-landfall projections and Pennsylvania was 

spared the direct hit which had been expected. Although Sandy made landfall on an altered trajectory, the 

storm did not fail to inflict major damage to Pennsylvania. Flooding, widespread wind damage, 

infrastructure damages, extensive power outages, and transportation interruptions occurred throughout the 

:2 
75 


Insert offset folio 50 here 82819.050

state. The response to Hurricane Sandy was extensive and it immediately became clear the damages 

inflicted were of such severity and magnitude that the state would require federal assistance. Governor 

Corbett requested that the president use his authority to declare a major disaster under the Stafl"ord Act for 

Pennsylvania. The president with the governor's request and Pennsylvania received the 

declaration, thereby providing assistance to the state and its local governments. Under the 

leadership of Governor Corbett, through the dedication of state and local public servants, and with the 

strength and resiliency of our citizens, Pennsylvania continues the recovery from Hurricane Sandy while 

preparing for the next emergency. 

Pennsylvania suffered significant impacts from Hun'icane Sandy, but our neighbors in New York and 

New Jersey experienced more severe and widespread damage from this powerful storm. In preparation 

for the storm, the states and the federal government worked closely together ensuring our citizens 

received adequate protection from the storm's impacts. In the aftermath of the storm, the federal 

government assisted states with response and recovery efforts. While there is always room for 

improvement, steps such as SRIA a positive indication continues encouraging FEMA 

to support the efl"orts of state and governments. As we always in the emergency management 

community, Pennsylvania looks forward to opportunities sucb as this hearing to reflect back, highlight 

best practices, identify lessons learned, and ensure we stand better prepared for the next disaster. 

New Jersey 

On October 29,2012, Hurricane Sandy hit New Jersey's coastline causing extensive flooding and a 

devastating tidal surge. In addition to widespread structural to homes and businesses, Hurricane 

Sandy caused significant power outages and threatened use of critical infrastructure. The 

disaster resulted in over 2.7 million ratepayer electrical outages across the state 68 percent of New 

Jersey's electric utility customers without power. In addition, telephone, cable. and 

communications experienced Delays also occurred at two oil refineries, eleven petroleum 

terminals, and two petroleum 

In anticipation of the stonTl, Governor Christie declared a State throughout New Jersey 

authorizing the New Jersey Office of Emergency to mobilize and deploy 

resources immediately to manage storm conditions. the storm, and in the immediate 

aftermath, the state took signiticant measures to ensure the safety of its citizens including coordinating 

evacuations, setting up shelters, and protecting critical infrastructure. 

In the months following the storm, New and address critical short-term needs, 

while at the same time charting a thoughtful path torward. As part of the response, 

the state provided temporary housing assistance to families, removed millions of cubic yards of debris, 

and assisted communities facing increased financial strain as a result of the storm. 

New Jersey ultimately shifted from emergency response to iong-tenn recovery. Under Governor 

Cbristie's leadership, the Governor's Office of Recovery and Rebuilding directed all stakeholders in state 

government to consider strategic approaches to rebuild a sater, stronger, and more resilient New 

The state engaged individuals, local business leaders, and other stakeholders to inform 

best possible decision-making. The administration began aligning the state's recoveJY and 

rebuilding goals with available disaster recovery resources. 

Nine months after the declaration Oflhis disaster, New Jersey continues to swiftly and effectively identifY 

and address unmet needs related to the recovery. New Jersey submitted its action plan to the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), outlining the state's intended usc for the initial 

$1.8 billion allocation of Community Development Block Grant Disaster Relief (CDBG-DR) funds. The 

3 
76 


Insert offset folio 51 here 82819.051

state continues utilizing state and federal resources to develop programs aimed at helping New Jersey 

recover and rebuild from the storm. 

New Jersey's Department of Community Affairs developed the Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, Elevation 

and Mitigation (RREM) program which provides grants of up to $150,000 to homeowners seeking 10 

rebuild their damaged homes. The New Jersey Economic Development Authority (EDA) seeks to restore 

New Jersey businesses through the Stronger NJ Business Grant Program, which provides grants of up to 

$SO,OOO dollars to small businesses which sustained at least $S,OOO in related physical damage, The EDA 

created the Stronger NJ Business Loan Program providing up to $5 million direct, low-cost loans to help 

businesses and non-profits which suffered physical damage or are looking to expand within stOfffiimpacted communities, Other state departments continue developing programs addressing public health, 

human services, transportation, and infrastructure, The state is currently seeking additional federal funds 

through the next aUocation ofCDBG-DR funds to advance additional recovery priorities including 

infrastructure initiatives, 

New Jersey continues efforts promoting efficiency, transparency, and accountability in managing the 

recovery, Specifically, the state leveraged both existing and new technologies to meet the demands ofa 

high-volume federal reimbursement program by joining a community of disaster-prone states which have 

implemented the standard, national web-based disaster management tooL New Jersey further 

enhanced the capabilities of this tool hy integrating it New Jersey's existing grant management 

platform allowing NJOEM to fully automate the grant reimbursement process, 

In an effort to detect and prevent any waste, fraud, or misuse of federal funding, New Jersey enacted 

legislation providing additional of federally funded projects and programs. This 

process uses a risk assessment which projects or an applicant requiring additional 

oversight which ensures New Jersey maximizes the benefits of the federal awarded [0 the state, 

Such quality control and quality assurance efforts assure will strictly to the rules and 

regulations ofthe various federal programs underway or eliminate the potential deobligation of federal awards, 

The recovery from Hurricane Sandy continues to embody the strength and resilience of New Jersey. As 

of July 1,2013, FEMA's assistance to New Jersey amounted to: 

$1.1 billion in federal allocations; 

• $388 million approved for Housing and Other Needs Assistance; 

• $650.6 million in federal share obligated for Public Assistance; and, 

$35 million in federal share obligated for Hazard Mitigation. 

This assistance, paired with the indomitable spirit and resiliency of the people of New Jersey, allows the 

State to mount a comprehensive and swift recovery in thc face of seemingly insum10untable odds. The 

value of SRI A and conrdination and assistance by FEMA stands as an example of entities working 

together to facilitate a strong response and recovery, 

Understanding the Sandy Recovery Improveme11t Act 

In response to the needs of the state and local governments, your committee once again immediately took 

action to make serious improvements to the Staflord Act through SRIA. This legislation not only helped 

facilitate a smooth recovery in the Sandy-impacted area, but also forever changes FEMA programs and 

policies, Some of the provisions of SRI A, such as the dehris removal pilot have been supported 

by NEMA for many years, After a careful and thoughtfbl review oftlle our membership finds 

4 
77 


Insert offset folio 52 here 82819.052

the SRIA improvements benel1cial to the entire emergency management community and applauds your 

quick action on ensuring passage. 

Fortunately, NEMA held our Mid-Year Forum in D.C. just three weeks after passage of 

SRIA which afforded us the 0ppOllunity to adequately the legislation and begin a dialogue with 

FEMA about implementation of the Act. NEMA found this legislation so important, we dedicated more 

than seven hours of discussion on our agenda therehy facilitating ample opportunities for FEMA omcials 

to engage with state emergency management directors while considering the necessary changes to 

policies and rules. NEMA focused comments on two major aspects of SRI A: changes to the Individual 

Assistance Program and comments on the National Strategy for Reducing Future Disaster Costs. 

State Comments on the Individual Assistance Program 

At the request ofFEMA, NEMA requested states submit comments on recommended changes to the 

Individual Assistance (lA) Program pursuant to new authorities granted through the SRIA. The majority 

of states responding most commonly identified the need to: 

Declare contiguous counties within state and across state lines 

Administration (SBA) counties declaration 

contiguous couuties to be automatic while 

prerogative to request such a declaration. 

• Provide a better assessment of overall disaster impact by co1nsi,ierim' 

economic impact to a community beyond physical 

with cumulative effects on a community, non-declared 

the Small Business 

Some states wish the 

as well as other considerations, Other thresholds could be 1I11'cmnioV1Tleni 

displaced during an event such as nnclear disaster. 

• Ensure all categories of damages should be considered such as minor/affected and 

major/destroyed property in a small or rural A large numher of houses with minor 

damages could devastate such a community, but no! necessarily quality t()r assistance. 

• Consider available housing resources in determining assistance. 

• Provide a "menu" with the ability to activate only specific 

This could include and Households Program, SBA, Crisis UIl!!l:'C":H~, 

Services, Disaster Case Management, Disaster Assistance, and other programs. 

Such a program could reduce both administrative program costs. 

• Provide incentives for state-sponsored lA programs and eliminate disincentives to such programs. 

• Consider an IA declaration for events not involving physical damage such as a cybcr-attack, 

pandemic, or radiological incident. 

Recei ve the consent of Governors to consider Public Assistance (PA) and lA declarations. 

For example, consider an automatic IA declaration a PA declaration since a major disaster 

resulting in a PA decla.ratioll will limit a community and state's ability to assist residents with 

local recovery efforts. 

• Bettcr synchronize the American Red Cross and FEMA damage assessment criteria to allow tor 

more timely and accurate infonnation that can be used in FEMA Joint Preliminary Damage 

Assessments. 

The fA program stands as one of the most personal interactions FEMA maintains with disaster victims. 

The process to improvc this program must be thoughtful, thorough, and not allowed to become overly 

bureaucratic. Only then will state emergency managers become empowered to offer the full range of 

disaster assistance. 

5 
78 


Insert offset folio 53 here 82819.053

National Strategy for Reducing Future Disaster Costs 

In beginning work on comments for the National Strategy for Reducing Future Disaster Costs, NEMA 

initially outlined four value statements guiding our recommendations: 

1, Build, enhance, and sustain capabilities, self-reliance, and resilience of our communities and 

nation while eocouraging innovation. 

2. Reflect the fiscal realities and limitations of the present and the future. This nation deserves 

safety and security, but it also deserves solvency. 

3. Recognize the complex interdependencies and vulnerabilities of our national systems, particularly 

the movement of goods, services, and people. 

4. Mitigation and long-term are societal investments -not a cost These endeavors must 

build on non-traditional to communicate that efforts are worth the investments. 

The full version ofNEMA recommendations this statement tor the record, but NEMA 

members understood the importance of clearly initial steps in developing an informed and 

effective national strategy for reducing future disaster costs including planning assumptions. NEMA also 

recognizes varying levels and types of activities to consider lor redncing future disaster costs including 

those in the near-term, long-term, administrative/programmatic/operational, and strategic. 

From Concept to Implementation (SRIA) 

So far, NEMA remains pleased with the implementation ofSRIA. While we would always appreciate 

having the opportunity to provide input into new policies and regulations, NEMA understands the 

constraints of operating within a large bureaucracy. Despite any limitations in forward progress, 

however, NEMA continues with FEMA on SRIA, but no stakeholder understands the 

implementation of these new better than the Slate where they continue seeing the 

effects first-hand. 

In May of this year, a series of severe weather events impacted numerous communities in Oklahoma, 

including an EF-S tornado, an EF-4 tornado and an EF-3 rated an EF-S) tornado. All were 

killer tornadoes which developed in the Oklahoma City area and occurred within twelve 

days of each other. In some cases, the same areas were impacted three times; lirst on May 19 when the 

EF-4 hit the city of Norman and the Shawnee area, second. on May 20 when the EF-5 tomado hit the city 

of Moore and third 011 May 31 when the EF-3tornado (tonnerly rated an EF-5) hit the city ofEI Reno 

before leaving a record-breaking 2.6 mile-wide damage path in its wake. 

The EF-5 is the most damaging tornado with wind speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour. Since 1950, 

the EF-5 and its predecessor the F5 tornado have been documented only sixty times in the United States. 

Therefore, the May events in Oklahoma should be as extremely rare in our nation's severe 

weather history. Due to the timing ofthe disaster, could not implement all changes provided 

through SRIA, bot initiated the following elements of the Alternate Procedures Pilot Program for Debris 

Removal: 

• Accelerated Dcbris Removal"- Increased Federal Cost Share The sliding scale 

allowed Oklahoma applicants to take advantage of 85 percent reimbursement for eligible 

debris removal for the first 30 days and 80 percent reimbursement for the following 60 days. 

While the additional federal percentage remains important, the most beneficial element in this 

procedure represents the change in philosophy by the federal government. We !lOW realize the 

quicker we remove debris the quicker local can make the decisions necessary for 

long-tenn recovery. Beyond state and savings from the additional federal share, the state is 

6 
79 


Insert offset folio 54 here 82819.054

confident it has, and will realize additional through the amount of time saved in 

administering the debris removal mission. To for the new procedures, Govemor 

Fallin allowed the state to continue to otTer the full percent state share over the first 90 

Therefore, the applicants actually maintained the ability to contribute 2.5 percent over the first 

days and 7.5 percent in the next 60 days. 

• Recycling Revenues: Oklahoma realized additional successes in allowing applicants to retain 

recycling revenue and apply those proceeds to cost share or practices designed for improving 

future debris operations. In tbis disaster, scrap metal and copper accounted for the majority of 

debris eligible for recycling. This procedure also led to enhanced eflorts in preventing looting as 

not only the property owner but the applicant stood to lose revenue. 

• Straight Time Force Account Labor: reimbursement for employees' straight time force 

account labor when performing debris represents an invaluable improvement. 

This dramatic change for the better expedites the removal process. In the initial days 

following an event, local govemment calls on their public works staff to clear streets for 

emergency services access. Deducting their regular hours rarely made sense, and SRIA belped 

rectify the disparity. 

• Debris Management Plans: If the applicant had a debris management plan in place prior to the 

disaster, they could add another 2 percent to the federal reimbursement share. Unfortunately, 

most applicants in Oklahoma found it difficul1 to take advantage of this opportunity. Officials do 

not believe this will be the case in future disasters. 

SRIA represents a perfect example ofh()w government can work smarter in disaster recovery. The faster 

we implement assistance provided through the Stafford Act. the more expeditiously local governments 

can make critical decisions in ensuring their future. Oklahoma applicants remain ecstatic with 

using the term '·the new FEMA." 

Conclusion 

The road to recovery in the af'ternmth of a major disaster presents many challenges which must be 

overcome. We appreciate the continued support of this committee to the emergency management 

community as we work together in tonning new policies and procedures aimed at making these disasters 

less impactful. Should you once look into a full reauthorization of FEMA, our association stands 

ready to assist in any way you may As evidenced in this testimony, the SRIA reforms 

continue improving opportunities to protect and through a strong response and transition to 

recovery. Only through an effective response and recovery can we work toward building 

more resilient communities, reducing the overall costs to states and the federal govemment, 

and ultimately save more lives and property from damage. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today and welcome any questions YOll may have for me. 

7 
80 


Insert offset folio 55 here 82819.055

NEMA 

NEMA Comments on a National Strategy for Reducing Future Disaster Costs 

April 22, 2013 

Value Statements: 

Build, enhance, and sustain capabilities, self-reliance, and resilience of our communities and nation while 

encouraging innovation. 

Reflect the fiscal realities and limitations of the present and the future. This nation deserves safety and 

security, but it also deserves solvency. 

Recognize the complex interdependencies and vulnerabilities of our notional systems, particularly the 

movement of goods, services, and people. 

Mitigation and long-term recovery are societal investments - not a cost. These endeavors must build on 

non-traditional partnerships to communicate that efforts are worth the investments. 

Initial steps to developing an informed and effective national strategy for reducing future disaster 

costs: 

1. Clearly define the scope of the problem to be solved so that it's understood by all stakeholders. 

2. Apply science-based analysis regarding the cost of disasters and cost-drivers. This will help to 

eliminate false or misleading assumptions from the conversation and allow for data driven 

decision-making. 

3. Utilize data to compare alternative costs such as those for hardening infrastructure prior to a 

disaster versus repair and restoration. 

4. Compare other sOcietal investments with those for disaster preparedness, mitigation, response 

and recovery. This will lead to a more balanced and objective analysis of what's the appropriate 

investment for the nation. 

Planning Assumptions: 

When disasters strike someone always pays; therefore, the problem isn't solved by simply 

reducing costs to the federal government or shifting costs to state, tribal and local governments. 

• Reducing the costs of future disasters is a shared responsibility between the public and private 

sector, and citizens. The conversation must extend beyond government. 
81 


Insert offset folio 56 here 82819.056

• Reducing disaster costs might not be associated with what government is doing but what it is 

"overdoing". 

• Leaders should recognize and accept there may be a need to invest additional resources now in 

order to reduce costs, loss of life and injuries in the long-term. 

• The national strategy must have the ability to swiftly adjust to new and changing challenges and 

opportunities. 

• Development of the national strategy should include representation from state, local, tribal 

government, the insurance industry, other sectors of private business, nan-governmental 

organizations and related associations/consortia. 

Recommendations: 

NEMA recognizes that there are varying levels and types of activities to consider for reducing future 

disaster costs including those that are near term, long term, administrative/programmatic/operational, 

and strategic. 

Strategic Issues 

Recognize the impact of climate change on severe weather events and address actions, 

policies, and strategies that will be necessary to mitigate, respond to, and recover from its 

consequences. 

Recognize changing demographics - geographic location, age, ethnicity, education level, 

nationality, employment status, residency status, and language are all examples of 

demographics that are constantly in a state of change both domestically and across the 

world. While change is constant, the implications ofthese changes to health, safety, and 

security can significantly affect both policy and operations. For example, shifts in population 

concentrations from rural to urban, or inland to coastal, can cause requirements for 

dramatic adjustments in resource needs, hazard preparedness levels, land use policies, and 

local public health and safety policy. 

Consider the responsibility of government for disaster recovery versus community 

recovery/redevelopment. 

Strateglze ways in which communities can take advantage of post-disaster opportunities to 

improve overall resilience for the future, including addressing vulnerabilities that may not 

have been impacted by a specific disaster event. This doesn't necessarily have to be 

accomplished with federal funding. The goal is to reduce vulnerabilities and increase 

resilience for the future using all available resources while political and public support is at 

its peak 

As part of the analysis on the return an investment for building resilience consider other 

models. 

Example: Highway safety and the fact that deaths per mile have decreased over time. 

This is due to investments in better roads, better cars are being built, safety features are 

standard in cars because consumers demand it, and driver education has increased. 

2 
82 


Insert offset folio 57 here 82819.057

Investments over time have resulted in drivers traveling safely at higher speeds with 

better gas mileage and fewer deaths per mile. To achieve this outcome required 

investment and engagement by government, citizens, and industry. 

Example: Automobile or home insurance. Individuals determine their own level of risk 

and select a policy. Variables include higher premium versus deductible based on the 

level of risk the person is willing to accept. Discounts can be applied by the insurance 

provider i.e. good student, clean driving record, car safety features, etc. The same 

model could be applied to incentives for communities to be disaster resilient. FEMA 

could use a sliding scale to provide disaster assistance to communities that choose to 

mitigate loss i.e. adoption of building codes, good land use planning and zoning, etc. 

longer Term issues 

Consider using an insurance model for providing disaster assistance. 

Example: An incident happens, the insurance agent approves the claim, writes a check 

to the homeowner for the total amount of the claim, and walks away. Unlike the 

federal government, the insurance agent doesn't return repeatedly to check on progress 

from start to completion. While accountability with the use of taxpayer dollars is 

required, there are more efficient ways to administer assistance. 

Provide incentives for businesses and homeowners to be resilient. The insurance industry 

must be a engaged partner. 

o Individuals have trouble quantifying risk They understand the need for car insurance 

but events that impact homes/businesses are more infrequent and therefore it's 

difficult to project the possibilities of damage or loss. We need to do a better job of 

helping individuals understand risk and the long-term cost benefits of mitigation versus 

loss. 

Provide incentives to organizations, governments, and private sector companies that 

manage recovery operations cost effectively. 

Much of the legal authority for planning, building codes and land use decisions resides at the 

local level. Incentives should be provided to local governments to do the right thing along 

with praise and support for the politicalleadersnip who makes those difficult decisions. 

Implement disincentives for jurisdictions that choose not to take actions to reduce future 

disaster loss and be more resilient. 

Near Term Issues 

Employ tools that effectively identify and evaluate risk and invest resources to "buy down" 

risk. 

Identify tools and processes to provide greater predictability for the annual cost of disasters 

so each level of government can build capacity to the appropriate level and budget for it. 

Embrace technology and promote information-sharing with the insurance industry and 

other key entities in order to expedite disaster recovery. 

3 
83 


Insert offset folio 58 here 82819.058

Fully embrace and promote post-disaster mitigation and smarter rebuilding efforts. 

Administrative/Programmatic/Operational Issues 

Mutual aid, coupled with strategic pre-existing private sector support contracts, should be 

an integral component to building national capacity with ever-shrinking resources. Cross 

border partnerships should be recognized in the national strategy when it provides for 

greater efficiencies and effectiveness in disaster preparedness, mitigation, response and 

recovery. 

Review and revise federal regulations that impede resilience. 

The types of disaster-related damages and losses eligible for assistance have expanded over 

the past 10-15 years. Review eligibility to determine what remains an appropriate 

government expense versus that which is best supported by other entities. 

Review how federal disaster assistance programs are managed and identify areas where 

greater efficiencies and cost-effectiveness can be gained. For example, JFO staffing patterns 

are oftentimes too large and could be scaled back. Review individual positions to determine 

whether they are actually needed and whether they could function remotely. When 

appropriate, utilize virtual JFOs. 

Cap federal administrative costs to the Disaster Relief Fund. 

Provide incentives for states to establish and maintain their own disaster assistance 

programs. 

Support states that have the capacity and wish to manage disaster assistance programs 

rather than having the federal government manage them at a potentially higher cost. Cut 

the federal red tape to allow states to function effectively and manage costs. 

Create innovative recovery programs that allow for states to take more control of their 

recovery efforts with reduced federal control and oversight (incentive based recovery 

management). If subgrantees manage projects well and under budget, give them a 

percentage of what's left over and allow them to use that funding as they see fit. 

FEMA should adhere to the 30, 60, 90 day timeframes for appeals. It should not take years, 

in some situations, for conflicts to be resolved. Time is money. 

4 
84 


Insert offset folio 59 here 82819.059

Testimony of Gaylaml Kitch 

Director of Emergency Management 

City of Moore, Oklahoma 

And Member 

U.S. Council of the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM-USA) 

Before the 

Subcommittee 011 Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Represcntalives 

September 18,2013 

011 

FEMA Reauthorization: Recovering Quicker and Smarter 

Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member Carson. and distinguisbed members of the Subcommittee. 

I would like to thank yon t<)r allowing me the opportunity to provide testimony on this important 

topic concerning recovering quicker and smarter 11-<)111 disaster. 

I am Gayland Kitch, Director of Emergency Management tbr the of Moore. Oklahoma. I 

have served my City for nearly 30 years, and in this position lor 22 years. I am also a member of 

the U.S. Council oftlle International Association of Emergency Managers (lAEM-USA) and am 

providing this statement on their behalf: 

IAEM-USA is our nation's largest association of emergency management professionals, with 

5,000 members including emergency managers at the state and local government levels, tribal 

nations, the military, colleges and universities. private business and the nonprofit sector. Most of 

our members are U.S. city and county emergency managers who perform the crucial function of 

coordinating and integrating the elTorts at the local level to prepare for, mitigate the effects of, 

respond to, and recover from all types of disasters including terrorist attacks. 
85 


Insert offset folio 60 here 82819.060

We deeply appreciate the continuing support this Subcommittee bas provided to the emergency 

management community, patiicularly your strong support for the Emergency lvlanagement 

Performance Grant Program (EMPG), the Emergency Management Institute (EMI), for 

strengthening FEMA, and streamlining disaster assistance. 

My community of Moore has approximately 56,000 residents within our 25 square miles in 

central Oklahoma. We're sUlTounded by Oklahoma City on three sides and the City of Norman 

to our south. Within the past 15 years we have experienced four major tornado events and six 

severe winter storms. We are now fonr months past our last major tornado that occnlTed on May 

20'h, 20]3, and are well down the road to recovery. 

As noted above, my community has a history with tornadoes. After a bmsh with an F-2 in 

October 1998, an F-5 tore a path of destruction through the nOl1hwest part of our City seven 

months later on May 3, 1999. The highest winds ever recorded 316 miles per hour - were 

measured with this stO!1n. After rebuilding more than 800 homes and numerous businesses, we 

were struck by an F-4 on May 8, 2003, again causing hundreds of homes and businesses to be 

damaged or destroyed. An EF-4 tornado formed over our City three years ago on May 10'\ 

2010; fortunately most of the damage in Moore was to rooftops, fences, and trees. Andjust 

eleven days after our devastating (o111ado this year, we were again struck by waves of severe 

winds and small tomadoes during rush hour on the evening of Friday, May 31 $t. 

The Events of Monday, May 20, 2013 

The potential for severe weather in our area was forecast well in advance. In fact, the Norman 

Ol1ice of the National Weather Service began discussing the possibility for severe weather as 

early as Friday, May 17th. On Satnrday, the weather elements began to converge and on Sunday 

there was severe weather in our area, including a tornado that struck eastern N0TI11an and western 

Shawnee, Oklahoma. Two persons lost their lives this storm passed over their home near 

Shawnee. 

As we began our day on Monday the 20'h, you could tell there was a hint of storms ill the air as 

well as in our ol1icial weather forecast. We suspected the severe weather would develop just to 

our west, and that convective initiation would begin earlier in the day than is usual for our area. 

As soon as the work day started, we were making sure that our key leaders were informed of the 

situation, inspecting our various alerting and response systems, and checking in with key 

partners. 

At 10:00 a.m. the National Weather Service Forecast Office in Norman, Oklahoma conducted a 

by Internet for public safety officials within their county warning area. During tbe 
86 


Insert offset folio 61 here 82819.061

briefing, the forecasters discussed the likelihood and potential timing of severe weather. After 

tbe briefing, the Nonnan office of the NWS distributed further information about the impending 

severe weather by varions means the Internet, Twitter®, and Facebook®. In turn, my office 

used similar electronic means to further distribute this information to the pUblic. In addition, ! 

specifically made snre that our local school district was aware of the potential for severe weather 

as well as the possible timing of the event prior to the regular release of school for the day. At 

I: II p.m., our Superintendent of Schools issued information to the district statI cancelling all 

evening activities, but indicating that the school would stand by its regular time for dismissal. 

Her final comment in that memo was, " ... keep calm and carryon." 

A tomado watch for our area was issued by the National Storm Prediction Center at I: 10 p.m. on 

Monday. Shortly thereafter and as building stO!1llS were just beginning to show 011 the radar we 

activated our local volunteer storm spotters and sent them into the field to observe the impending 

weather. At 2: 12 p.m., the first weather warning was issued for a severe thunderstorm. Finally, 

a tornado warning was issued at 2:40 p.m. that included nO!thern Cleveland County and the City 

of Moore. 

Following actions outlined in our City's Emergency Operations Plan and our Severe Weather 

Operations Guide, we at that time activated all of our 36 outdoor warning devices (tornado 

sirens) to wam the public at large. We also distributed the warning by electronic and social 

networking means. In addition, the waming was broadcast by NOAA's All-Hazards Radio and 

our Oklahoma City area radio and television stations. Our severe weather planning is reviewed 

annually prior to the start of stom1 seaSOll, and the respOllse executed generally six to ten times 

per year. 

The tornado waming was reissued by the National Weather Service at 3:01 p.m. with the 

heightened wording of, "tornado emergency." 

The situational awareness in our small Emergency Operations Center included watching the 

tornado live on feeds from all three of our television statiolJs. Our localmcdia had helicopters, 

experienced storms chasers and news crews out following the storm, and from their live "wall-towall" coverage and the reports of our own spotters we could literally track the progress of the 

tornado. 

At 3: J 7 p.m., telemetry from several of our outdoor warning devices showed that they had lost 

commercial electrical power, giving llS an indication that the tornado had actllally entered onr 

city limits at that time. Since roughly two-thirds of our waming devices operate from hattery 

power, we were still able to continue alerting those within our City. 

We eonld see visually that the tomado was both large and violent as it ruthlessly approached. 

The National Weather Service latcr determined the tornado was approximately 'Ii mile wide on 

3 
87 


Insert offset folio 62 here 82819.062

tbe ground and causing EF-5 damage beginning almost literally at my city limits. The tornado 

destroyed Briarwood Elementary School to our immediate west, and then Plaza Towers 

Elementary School- the site where 7 young students tragically lost their lives. Other persons 

were killed or injured in homes near the school. The tornado continued in an east-northeast 

direction across the southem end of our city's largest cemetery, and crossed throngh the heart of 

Little River Park. It returned into residential neighborhoods and neared Interstate 35 in the 

center of our commnnity. As it approached the highway, it destroyed several businesses, 

including a convenience store where 3 more people lost their lives. 

The tom ado struck and destroyed the Moore Medical Center - our local hospital - but due largely 

to advance planning, exercising and warning no one was injured or killed. Nearby, our United 

States Post Office was struck, as well as a credit union where employees took shelter in the vault 

and survived. It nan'owly missed a large movie theatre complex and then moved east into 

additional residential areas. 

Before the tornado completed its path of destruction damaged one of our city's clear well water 

storage and pumping stations, taking it off-line until emergency repairs could be made the next 

day. This became a key challenge when the tomado later severed power to Oklahoma City's 

Lake Draper water plant These two facilities provide much of the water for Moore, and our 

water situation was critical for the first day or two after the tornado. 

The Moore Public Schools is the third largest school district in the State of Oklahoma, with 32 

educational campuses in Moore and south Oklahoma City serving over 21 ,000 students. As the 

tornado moved through the cast side of Moore, it struck Highland East Junior High School, 

damaging the main school building and destroying the gymnasium/choir building. In total, our 

school district had two elementary schools and the district information technology ccnter 

destroyed, and one junior high school and the district administration huilding heavily damaged. 

Two of our 36 outdoor waming devices werc destroyed outright by the tornado, with two more 

damaged beyond repair. Several otber sirens received damage to their electrical components due 

tn the power issues caused by this storm and another that followed on Friday, May J I st. 

By current count, 1,323 homes within Moore sustained major damage or were destroyed in the 

May 20th tornado. An additional 445 homes received minor damage and 369 were affected. 

About 39 commercial structures housing 50 businesses were destroyed. Major losses included 

our hospital, Post Office, and the two elementary schools. 

Search and rescue operations started immediately. Our newly constructed Fire Administration 

building and Fire Station # 1 is located just south of the path of the tomado, and indeed our 

firemen watched from their driveway as the tornado approached ri'om thc west. Station #1 

personnel cbose to move their fire apparatus out ofthe 5101111'S path rather than taking shelter in 

their station's tOl1lado safe room. This allowed both the preservation of their much needed 

rescue equipment as well as a quick deployment into the damage area after the wind passed. 

4 
88 


Insert offset folio 63 here 82819.063

Moore police personnel also immediately responded and assisted in rescuing many survivors. 

By evening there were hundreds of rescuers fi'om all parts of Oklahoma on site, including OUf 

State's Incident Management Team, Oklahoma Urbau Search and Rescue Task Force 1, and 

many assets of our Regional Response System. The Incident Command Post for the event was 

established in the truck bays at Fire Station #1. Incident Command remained in place through 

the visit of the President of the United States that occurred on Sunday, May 26'h. 

FEMA Programs Which Have Assisted Our Preparedness aud Response 

My City has ample experience in working with FEMA, particularly in the aftemlath of the many 

disasters noted above. I am pleased to note that our most recent partnership with FEMA has for 

the most part been very positive. 

Before recounting information about our disaster response and recovery efforts, however, please 

allow me to note tbat we participate in FEMA programs during non-disaster times. In fact, the 

Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) funding received by the City of I'vloore and 

my office has contributed greatly to our preparedness for events like our most reccnt 

tornado. The City of Moore has been a recipient ofEMPG funding for the past 15 years. Our 

participation in EMPG has allowed ns over time to increase the capabilities of our overall 

program of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Being actively involved with 

emergency management issues statewide in Oklahoma, I can assure you that EMPG tl.l11ding is 

vital for many of our local jurisdictions and many towns and connties with highly strapped 

budgets wonld not have an emergency management program at all were it not for EMPG. 

EMPG is fundamentally different li·om the suite of post September 11,2001 homeland security 

grants. EMPG has a history stretching back to the 1950's when it was recognized that there was a 

Federal interest in building emergency management capacity at the state and local 

levels. EMPG requires both a SO-50 match from state and local governments and 

various perfol1l1ancc measures. IAEM-USA recognizes that all disasters start and end at the 

local level which emphasizes the importance ofbuilding and sustaining this capacity at the local 

govel1lmentallevel-~-and EMPG funding should not be invested exclusively in anyone specific 

level of govcmmellt. We are grateful that this Committee has recognized the importance and 

uniqueness ofEMPG by supporting that it be maintained separate account within FEMA. It 

is important to have a grant focused on building emergency management capability for those 

entities at the local government level statutorily charged with the responsibilities of coordinating 

mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. 

The City of Moore strongly snpports the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). This 

program provided invaluable assistance in our community after the 1999 and 2003 tomadoes. 

Citizens in our area were enconraged to construct safe rooms in their private residences at their 

expense and then receive a rebate through this program to defray a part of their construction 

costs. As a result of this very popular program, engineered safe rooms have hecome a norm for 

5 
89 


Insert offset folio 64 here 82819.064

mitigating the effects of tomadoes and severe winds, both in Moore and thronghout Oklahoma. 

There arc !lOW over 4,000 homes in ollr City that have safe rooms; nearly one-quarter of those 

safe rooms were installed with HMGP funding assistance. 

HMGP funding has also assisted us with expanding our outdoor warning siren system as the 

community has grown. Sirens were added at the new Oakridge Elementary School, Apple 

Valley Park, and in the Belmar housing addition in 2009; these are all just south of the track of 

the May 20'h tornado and we know that our overall siren system was a key component in alerting 

our residents and guests of impending danger during our recent storms. 

Emergency Management Institnte 

In 2009, the City of Moore and Moore Public Schools took a group to the National Emergency 

Management Institute in Emmitsburg, Maryland to attend the Multi-Hazard Emergency Planning 

for Schools train-the-trainer course. Our multi-disciplinary group included a police sergeant, fire 

inspector, emergency manager, elementary school assistant principal, junior high school 

principal, high school assistant principal, district assistant superintendent, and district assistant 

transportation director. In addition, our county emergency manager, two sheriff's officers who 

are resource offIcers at our vocational technical school, as well as a representative from our 

county health department were part of the team. While at EM I, we learned about the various 

hazards that could affect our schools, our school personnel learned the basics of the National 

Incident Management System (NIMS) and the Incident Command System, and we all gained 

valuable knowledge in planning fi:lr emergencies occurring on our educational campuses. Many 

of the lessons leamed at EMl put into action during our recent tornado as well as in 

previous emergencies. 

Debris 

Since we have had experience with tomadocs, many of our residents already knew to move their 

debris to the curb and began doiog so almost immediately. This helped us to expedite the debris 

removaL We had approximately 85% of the debris picked up within two mouths, and finished 

our debris removal efforts a few weeks ago. As of September 4'\ our City has picked up and 

removed over 172,000 tons (or over 11 ,600 truckloads) of debris. 

In addition to our experience, OIle of the reasons we were ahle to react so quickly is our 

participation in FEMA's Alternate Procedures Pilot Program for Debris that was part of the 

Sandy Recovery Improvement Act. This afTords us the opportunity for reimbursement on a 

sliding scale emphasizing expedient rell10val of our tornado debris, This program increases the 

federal cost share lor debris removed within 30 days to 85 percent federal (with the remaining 

15% shared by state and locaLin Oklahoma, it will be 12.5% state and 2.5% local). For the next 

sixty days, the federal share is reduced to gO percent; after 90 days it becomes 75 percent. 

Although we already knew the value of quickly removing our debris which promotes the swift 

6 
90 


Insert offset folio 65 here 82819.065

rebuilding of our community we anticipate that this increased federal share will result in a cost 

savings to the City of Moore conservatively estimated at $470,000 for the first thirty days, and an 

additional $350,000 afterwards. 

One suggestion to the process, however, concerns the beginning date of the sliding scale period. 

It currently begins with the first day of the declared incident period. In our case the 30 day 

period actually began before our city was struck by the lomado. Add in a few days of immediatc 

search and rescue/emergency road clearing/securing the area t,)1' life safety, and a week or two to 

allow our residents the opportunity to visit their homes and attempt to salvage critical or 

treasured items tlnallcial statements, pictures, etc., - and you can see that even under the 

quickest expediting that we wonld Hot want to hegin debris removal for 15-20 days from the day 

of the event. 

Overall our experience with the pilot program has been very positive. 

The FEMA Pnblic Assistance pilot program was not offered to us as the rnles for the rollout had 

not yet been finalized at the time of our declaration. 

Voluntcerism 

Thousands upon thousands of volunteers from throughout the nation have helped our 

community. For instance, our largest cemetery was impacted by the tornado. There was great 

amount of debris in the cemetery on the Monday before Memorial Day. On Wednesday, we 

marshaled over 2,500 emergent volunteers and they cleaned the cemetery within 4 hours. An 

amazing feat of commnnity spiriti It also helped because our local Boy Scouts were able to 

safely post American l1ags in the cemetery allowing us the opportunity to still honor our 

veterallS. 

Through the organization of ServeMoore a local grassroots coalition of community memhers 

and faith-based groups that organized in the hours after our event more than 35,000 volunteers 

have spent over 230,000 hours in assisting our residents. These volunteers have been just 

absolutely amazing. 

In addition, our City and our schools have received thousands of heartfelt monetary donations 

that will also assist us ill quickly rctuming to normal. 

Returnillg to Normal 

We already have one private home rebuilt and occupied by its owner, with several others nearing 

completion and many more started. As of last Friday, September , our Community 

Development dcpaJimcnt has issued 207 building permits for reconstruction of destroyed homes 

and over 370 additional permits for remodels of damaged homes within the affected areas. This 

is additional testimony to the concept of expedient debris removal and the great assistance to us 

from FEMA. 

7 
91 


Insert offset folio 66 here 82819.066

As noted earlier, two of our elementary schools were totally destroyed and one junior high 

school was heavily damaged. School began Oil normal schedule in August in the remodeled 

junior high school; the two elementary schools have been demolished and classes are ongoing in 

temporary facilities for this school year while their permanent facilities are reconstmcted. 

We have met frequently with local officials ii'om the Department ofI-lousing and Urban 

Development (HUD). HUD has provided technical assistance with our current Community 

Development Block Grant (CDBG) and is preparing us to receive an earmarked $263 million in 

CDBG disaster recovery funds to be used for housing, economic development and hazard 

mitigation. We are in the process of gathering our infomlation from pre-existing plans and 

other infol111atiol1 as to what we would like the City of Moore to look like as we recover. Our 

partnership with BUD will certainly move into the forefront as we continue fi1rther into long 

term recovery. 

Our community also has a long term recovery committee in operation to help guide this process. 

We are excited that several of our social service agencies including the American Red Cross, 

Salvation Al1llY, Catholic Charities, United Methodist Committee on Relief, and the Society of 

St Vincent de Paul have banded together and will be working in one location under one 

administrative stmcture to fill the long-telm needs of our community. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, the City of Moore has taken it on the chin several times over the past 15 years. 

However, I want people to know that we still here, we'll be back hetter than ever. We 

are a resilient community located in a resilient state. People began talking about the "Oklahoma 

Standard" in the aftermath of the bombing ofllle Alfred P. lVhmah Federal Building in 

Oklahoma City in 1995, referring to the we respond to and recover from disasters and 

emergencies and the way we trcat folks who come to hclp us. I would like to think that in the 

aftermath of May 20th that the tem} bas changed to the "Moore, Oklahoma standard" in response 

to disasters and emergencies. 

We have benefitted from a number of different federal programs including EMPG as mentioned 

earlier. The capabilities created and maintained, the plans created and maintained, and the 

equipment acquired with these funds have helped us to be ready to respond to disasters and 

emergencies. \Ve have leamed from our exercises and respouses to actual disasters and 

emergencies over the last decade and a half Together, these things have created resilience tbat is 

unique to Moore. We are "Moore Strong". 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony, and I stand ready to answer any questions 

you may have. 

8 
92 


Insert offset folio 67 here 82819.067

Contact infom1ation: IAEM, 20 I Park Court, Falls Church, VA. 22046. 

Witness: Gayland Kitch, ~==="-"..L=c..=~=~,,-,-,-, 

IAEM-USA Govemmcnt Affairs Chair: Randy Duncan, ~~.'."-"Il..lli:!:8.S~~~~!Y 

IAEM-USA Policy Advisor: Martha 

9 
93 


Insert offset folio 68 here 82819.068

The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL O. FINLEY, CII.·\IRMAN 

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF TilE COLVILLE RESERVATION 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATlOl'i AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

SUBCOMMITTEE Ol'i ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PU!!lLlC BlIILllIl'iGS 

Al'iD EMERGENCY MANAGE~mNT 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON "FEMA REAUTHORIZATION: RECOVERING QUICKER AND 

SMARTER" 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 

Member Carson, and members oflhe Subcommittee. 

Colville Rcservation Tribes" or the 

today. My 

witllFEMA a 'v'leather-related 

disaster on the Reservation last summel', as well rc(,ornmendat:iO!" for the 

Subcommittee and FEMA to consider going flmvard. 

Before I begin, I would first like to exprcss the Colville Tribes' a~plt'L"U11Hl 

Subcommittee for its work in the Stafford Act to allow 

it in the 

BACKGROlJND ON THE COLVILLE TRIBES 

Although now considered a single Indian tribe, the Conlederated Tribes ofihe Colville 

Reservation is, as the name states, confederation o[twelve tribes and bands fh)m 

across the plateau of the Northwest and extending into The present-day Colville 

Reservation is 1.4 million acres and area in north central 

Washington State that is larger than the State reservation includes 

portions ofbo(h Okanogan counties. The Colville Tribes has more than 9,500 enrolled 

members, it one of the Indian tribes in the Pacific Northwest. About half of the 

CCT's members on or ncar Colville Reservation, which has more than 800.000 acres of 

forest land. Forestry and wood products have been (he CCT's traditional sources of revenue. 

'I'm: JVLY 2012 DISASTER IN KELLER 

In July 2012, the Colville Indian Reservation suffered a disaster in the form of a major wind 

stoml and flash that toppled trees, lines and tribal infrastructure, and 

over an area thousand acres, In some areas, winds 
94 


Insert offset folio 69 here 82819.069

exceeded 100 miles hour. Although damage occurred reservation-wide, the community of 

Keller was most affected by the storm. Homes were lost or damaged, and residents with 

lmdamaged homes were left without power for an extended period and lost most or all of their 

refrigerated and frozen foods. Tbe community water infrastructure was damaged by uprooted 

trees, and rural residents oUlside of the Keller community were without power for even longer. 

The CCT government responded to the emergency and provided food, water, and shelter to the 

affected people until normal services were restored. The CCT also supported ranchers whose 

livestock water were intenupted by the extended power outage. This disaster gave us a 

tl'esh view of the inability, as the case may be···ofboth FEMA and the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA), an agency within fhe Department of the Interior, to respond to and assist 

tribal governments in meeting the emergency needs of their people. 

Long in advance of the Keller disaster, the CCT financial assistance for the necessary 

FEMA-compliant The Tribes, like many other governments, has 

never been able to afford emergency management staff to deal with and 

from either FEMA or the BIA The CCT 

contracted and paid, ont of its OW11 resources, for the development of an emergency 

management plan. The CCT adhered to this draft plan during the Keller disaster even though not 

all components of it were yet completed. 

When the Keller disaster struck, the CCT r(>,,,,p·d,·rl eme:r0'<~nc:v assistance in the first instance 

from the BlA The only assistance we emergency was under control, 

came from regional BlA forestry staff to assess ,vith timber damage. Although the BIA had a 

well-qualified regional emergeney he controlled neither frmding nor staff 

and was unable to provide any assistance moral support. 

The FEMA rules and regulations to qualify for federal disaster assistance and to detcru1ine what 

disaster costs are reimbursable when a PDD is issued are complex and, in some cases, 

contradictory. Accordingly, the CCT also requested that FEMA Region X provide technical 

assistance to help us navigate the complex FEMA regulatory scheme. The personnel that FEMA 

provided, while well-meaning, had little experience working with Indian tribes and were not in a 

position to provide us with prompt answers to our questions. 

In contrast, the State Emergency Management Division provided outstanding 

support. They helped us by refrigerator trucks to store food, a portable shower unit, even 

a p0l1able laundry unit for residents who had no clean The CCT had to pay for those 

units, but having someone find and dispatch them for us at a when we were busy beyond 

belief was a significant help. The State also provided-·-vvithout cost to the Tribes·--the technical 

assistance we requested but never received from FEMA. We received accurate answers to our 

questions, help to track both the danlage and our expenses in a form acceptable to FEMA, and 

both timely and accurate advice about complex debris management and emergency assistance 

issues. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CONFEDE ... tzAfED TRlBES OF THE COL V1LLE RESERVATION 
95 


Insert offset folio 70 here 82819.070

Because the Keller disaster occurred before the tri bal amendments to the Stafford Act became 

law, the CCT worked with the State of Washington to ensure that the state included damage to 

the Colville Reservation as part of its request for a PDD. The State submitted its request on 

September 7, 2012, and the PDD was issued on September 25, 2012. As issued, the PDD 

included the Colville Reservation. 

Following issuance of the PDD, tribal employees returned to their nonnal jobs. Unfortnnately, 

FEMA documentation imposed a significant workload on the CCT. Immediately after the 

disaster, the full-time efTorts oftlu-ce employees were required to assemble the records and 

requests for reimbursement. Even now, one year after the event, FEMA imposes a 

burden on our staff to submit the periodic reports and to respond to FEMA's requests 

financial data. 

OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE KELLER DISASTER 

The CeT offers the foJlowing observations and accompanying recommendations for the 

Subcommittee to consider as it works with FEMA to the tribal amendments to the 

Stafford Act and prepares for a general reauthorization 

year. 

programs during the coming 

Since Tribes cannot rely solely on either FEMA or the BlA to assist them ill times of emergency, 

the solution is to help Tribes themselves adequately prepare for disasters. Tribes need to grow 

their own emergency management expertise. It is not enough to send tribal members to FEMAsponsored and snpported training, which is the current FEMA model. Those people return to 

their normal jobs as soon as the immediate needs of a disaster response are over. 

Instead, Tribes need the funding to hire and train as Emergency Managers. We need 

trained and in emergency can learn the FEMA rules and 

regulations apply during disasters, and remain in that role We need staff 

whose full-time job is to plan for, operate during, and handle the follow-up work 

required for managing the tribal to disasters. The CCT encourages the Subcommittee 

to explore this issue in future of FEMA programs. 

(2) Improve Coordination with Other Federal Agencies 

During the Keller disaster, the BlA had a nrc management base tilled with useful 

few miles away. BrA policy does not allow supplies and equipment 

management program, or employees by that program, to assist disaster response. 

Tribal emergency responders were by a government warehouse complex that contained 

the very ice chests, portable generators, fuel, and other snpplies that were sorely needed, but 

which BIA employees were forbidden by policy from dispensing. 

3 

PREPARED ST A Th'MENT OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COL VILLE RESERV A nON 
96 


Insert offset folio 71 here 82819.071

Similarly, the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), the national \vildlire coordinating entity 

at the Department of the Interior, is eqnipped and ready to ship, on a moment's notice, many of 

The supplies we needed. However, the of the Interior has never set up an accounting 

system to allow tribal govcl1lments to even at tribal expense, the portable radios, 

tprnnrmmrradio repeaters, generators, and other materials they keep in stock. We desperately 

a temporary radio system of the type that NIFC keeps on the shelf, but we were unable to 

get one for the Keller disaster. 

The CCT recommends that existing memoranda of understanding or other protocols that may bc 

in effect between FEMA and the of the Interior be reviewed to ensure that they are 

being implemented effectively. If protocols or agreements are currently in place, we 

encourage FEMA to begin working with the Department of the Interior to ensure that these onthe-ground issues that the CCT experienced are not repeated during the next disaster on tribal 

lands. 

FEMNs debris management rules are good example of its confusing rules. The debris 

management rules appear to have been written with floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes in mind. 

They do not take into account the realities of rural communities or tribal communities, 

specifically the need to clear timber debris to avoid wildfire. The Keller disaster may have left 

more than six million board feet of timber on the ground within the Colville Reservation alone, 

and more on nearby private lands. Those trees added thousands of tons to the fuel already drying 

out on the ground, ready to burn. Further, there were many trees that simply snapped off well 

above the ground. The dead trees remained standing, but the tops of the trees blew away. Much 

of this and other tlanlmable debris ended up in or Ilcar housing areas. 

Similarly, many tribal members depend upon hunting, and for a significant 

portion of their tood supply. Extended families traditionally camp the same area every year, 

berries and hunting. Downed trees blocking access to traditional gathering areas 

treated by FEMA the same as downed trees blocking access roads and canlping areas 

at urban parks. Disaster-caused fuel loads in a traditional camping and gathering area could 

make a fire burn so hot that it would sterilize the ground and end its use for years to come. Such 

areas should be treated the same when downed restrict the use of an urban public park or 

fishing access area. 

We understand that FEMA cannot pay for removal of downed timber across hundreds of 

thousands of acres of forest. However, FElv1A's rules should flexibility to recognize that 

large I1nmbers of dO\vned trees and the accumulation torest debris ncar homes 

constitute an immediate hazard to hoth life and The Keller disaster happened at the 

start of fire season. A year later, much of that load is even dryer and is still on the ground, 

waiting for a spark. 

4 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COL V1LLE RESERVATION 
97 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 72 here 82819.072

In the CCT's much more can be done to cnsnre that the needs of tribal 

communities arc inc;orporal:ed into FEMA disaster recovery efforts on lands. In addition to 

debris management, arc other cultural considerations that should be rellected in FEMA 

rules. For example, tribal members use traditional foods that are not available. 

Disaster-caused outages caused trihal memhers to lose traditional foods, 

modern era are rather than traditionally dried, and those losses cannot he 

these individual losses hom disasters, the hundreds to 

freezers with in'eplaccablc traditional foods were not inc:lw:!a[)le, 

As FEMA works to implement the tribal StaJl(lrd Act amendments, the CCT believes that it 

should take whatever steps are necessary to provide Oexibility in applying these and other FEMA 

rules to the unique needs of tribal and rural communities. 

(4) lake Stcptl()J~1ini!l1i0.eJ&!l11lsj()n O'L(!r..f.liM..~sJndjvjd.lJ..al ami Public Assjstance 

l.'mgrams for Disasters orrl.pdiarLh'm<is 

As the Subcommittee is aware, FEMA administers both individual-assistance and publicassistance programs. To our damage to homes and personal on Indian Trust 

Jand does not for Assistance Even if the owned, 

the fact that it located on untaxed Indian Trust resident ii'om 

any possibility 

Further, when FEMA's public assistance team arrived in Ferry Couuty to assess the damage, thc 

very name "public assistance" Icd people both on and off the reservation to assume that they 

were there to provide water, supplies, or other tangible reliet~ which was not the case. 

In implementing the tribal Act amendments, FEMA must make a concerted effort to 

ensure that tribal communities and surrounding communities understand the differences between 

the "Public Assistance" and "Individual Assistance" This will make their role much 

clearer and will help eliminate both confusion and among the affected populations. 

CONCLUSION 

This concludes my testimony. At this time I would be happy to answer any questions that the 

Subcommittee may have. 

5 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF TIJE COLVILLE RESERVATION